Opinion of Harry Truman

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Super-FF for saving the lives of thousands of American soliders and thousands more Japanese civilians.  He had the courage to finally end the war that was begun by Japanese aggression.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Super-FF for saving the lives of thousands of American soliders and thousands more Japanese civilians.  He had the courage to finally end the war that was begun by Japanese aggression.

Oh, he had to burn the village down to save it? Makes sense.

He had to shoot the aggressor in the arms to avoid shooting him in the heart.  Even with the destruction wrought by the nuclear bombs many Jap leaders wanted to stay in the battle and fight.

As difficult as it is for me to say this about a Democrat, Harry Truman may be one of our greatest Presidents for making such a difficult decision that saved so many lives.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Actually, I remember hearing that Japan was trying to get negotiations when they dropped the bomb.

Japanese response to the Potsdam Conference resolution:

"I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war." - Prime Minister Suzuki, courtesy of Wikipedia. 

This was the statement from the government on July 27, the bomb was dropped on August 6 and the Japanese government's position had not changed in the intervening period.

Even after the bomb was dropped, the Cabinet met on August 9 and still a majority of cabinet members would not recommend a surrender.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

I said realistic.  Japan was never going to surrender. 

Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.

But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.

So... using your flawed logic, should we have accepted surrender of Germany if they were allowed to keep Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Again, there were three choices.  Maybe four.

1.  Use the bomb.
2.  Invade with massive US forces and probably another half million non-US allied soldiers as follow-on forces.  Casualties for all belligerents and civillians would like be between one and two million.  About two thirds of those would be Japanese civillians.
3.  Blockade the islands and starve the Japanese into submission.  They would die by the millions and American citizens at home would demand an end to both the starvation and the deployment of forces.
4.  Declare victory and leave the theater, allowing Japan to rearm.  And reinforce its armies in China.  This would leave the British, Australians and Chinese holding the bag.  And it would be an open invitation to the Soviet Union to do what the U.S. could or would not do -- finish it.  A Soviet-occupied Japan would certainly have been interesting.

So which alternative do you prefer?  I sincerely respect your rejection of false choices.  I detest false choices.  But I can't think of any other realistic option, giving the nature of Japanese militarism at the time.

5. Accept Japanese surrender

I said realistic.  Japan was never going to surrender. 

Uh yeah, they openly tried to surrender. Their only condition was that they be allowed to keep their emperor. And it was the emperor himself who was most sympathetic to surrendering.

But the arrogant asshole who led the U.S., i.e. Harry Truman, refused anything less than totally unconditional surrender.

So... using your flawed logic, should we have accepted surrender of Germany if they were allowed to keep Adolph Hitler as their Chancellor?

I believe preventing mass murder, death and destruction outweighs presidential prestige and wartime grandstanding, but that's just me.

If only we had developed the bombs sooner, we might have stopped Hitler before he could massacre seven million Jews, Homosexuals, and other enemies of his evil regime.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Um, the Emperor barely had any control over Japan. Hitler was absolute ruler of Germany.

Analogy fails.

One was a King who gave his cabinet some authority and the other was a Dictator who listened to his close advisors - the ones he didn't kill anyway.  You say tomato, I say to-mato.

The Emperor was still the leader of Japan and his assent - despite personally being a pacifist - allowed it to start and to continue.

Allowing an enemy regime to stay in power is usually a bad idea.  Unconditional surrender is the only option.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Um, the Emperor barely had any control over Japan. Hitler was absolute ruler of Germany.

Analogy fails.

One was a King who gave his cabinet some authority and the other was a Dictator who listened to his close advisors - the ones he didn't kill anyway.  You say tomato, I say to-mato.

The Emperor was still the leader of Japan and his assent - despite personally being a pacifist - allowed it to start and to continue.

Allowing an enemy regime to stay in power is usually a bad idea.  Unconditional surrender is the only option.

Constitutional monarchy means not pissing all over your governments decisions. For example, I bet the Royal Family of the UK haven't agreed with alot of what has been passed over the last 50 years.

The UK is an example of a functional Republic that happens to dish out a lot of money to preserve an ancient royal tradition.  Its not a real Constitutional monarchy -- not that there are many real ones out there these days.