"Harry Truman’s Atomic Bomb Decision: After 70 Years..." Topic

… We Need to Get Beyond the Myths.

"President Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan in 1945 is arguably the most contentious issue in all of American history. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have generated an acrimonious debate that has raged with exceptional intensity for five decades. The spectrum of differing views ranges from unequivocal assertions that the atomic attacks were militarily and morally justified to claims that they were unconscionable war crimes. The highly polarized nature of the controversy has obscured the reasons Truman authorized the dropping of the bomb and the historical context in which he acted.

The dispute over the atomic bomb has focused on competing myths that have received wide currency but are seriously flawed. The central question is, "was the bomb necessary to end the war as quickly as possible on terms that were acceptable to the United States and its allies?"

The "traditional" view answers the question with a resounding "Yes." It maintains that Truman either had to use the bomb or order an invasion of Japan that would have cost hundreds of thousands of American lives, and that he made the only reasonable choice. This interpretation prevailed with little dissent among scholars and the public for the first two decades after the end of World War II. It still wins the support of a majority of Americans. A Pew Research Center poll published in April 2015 showed that 56% of those surveyed, including 70% aged 65 and over, agreed that "using the atomic bomb on Japanese cities in 1945 was justified," while 34% thought it was unjustified…"
Full review here
link

Amicalement
Armand

YouTube link

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

"The war would almost certainly have ended before the scheduled invasion. – See more at: historynewsnetwork.org/article/159959#sthash.VprAzbtg.dpuf

Unsupportable contention by the author. The "War Faction" in Japan still had the upper hand until both Atom Bombs had been dropped, and even then there was a coup attempt in the palace to prevent the Emperor from surrendering. Funny that while trying to straddle the "traditional" and "revisionist" views the author falls fairly closely into the revisionist camp.

I have had the honour of speaking to WW2 veterans who were in training for the invasion of the home islands, one of whom was a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament activist. Both were in no doubt they owed their lives to those atomic bombs.

My Father was in the Royal Navy part of the invasion fleet – two million men. He said that they weren't told about Hiroshima at the time. He said the whole fleet cheered when they were told about Nagasaki. He recollected that his ship (tropical-equipped destroyer) was going through the Straits of Molucca at the time.

Previously he'd been beach master and shore bombardment liaison (shore Naval team) at Salerno and commanded naval bombardment at Juno. On the invasion fleet he was gunnery controller.

Whilst watching World at War he told me that they'd budgeted on 50 percent casualties in the invasion of Japan.

I heard a story about how they (the American military) had just recently started minting new purple heart medals as their stocks of on hand had been depleted. They hadn't had to mint new medals since the end of WWII. So about 70 years of medals were just lying around in storage. Where did they come from? They were minted in anticipation of the invasion of Japan. Let that sink in, 70 yrs worth of medals for just one invasion.

On the other hand, a blockade would have seen millions of Japanese dying over the winter. The waters were mined and the trains were attacked all the time, so no food was moving, no heating fuel was moving and everyone was already on starvation rations. So which was worst?

We forget one thing, Japan's militarists acted in ways that would be utterly laughable if they hadn't cost the lives of so many innocent people.

Japan's militarists started to believe a delusional fantasy full of magical thinking. Those in charge and who should have known better were blinded by opportunities and early success. When things went completely wrong they were afraid to change course for fear that the "middle party" composed of fanatical true believers would put them before the firing squad for treason …

Even they remained blind to the fact that the allies had fully committed themselves to a total unambiguous victory, they wouldn't settle for anything less, lest it come back and bite them in the butt as it did after 1918.

The militarists dropped the ball in thinking they could still salvage a favourable deal, some even still believed that the allies were so war weary they would allow Japan to keep all their pre-1942 gains 1941.

If anything the Allies were doing everything to precipitate the fall of Japan. They turned to firebombing as the default tactic, in the hope a concentrated air campaign might break Japan's back before an invasion became inevitable. The atom bombs fitted into that category, The bombs wasn't a dramatic step up as some suggested, Japan was already being hammered on a Biblical scale, firebombings and the resulting famines and disruptions killed hundreds of thousands and displaced tens of millions, some cities had 99% destruction rates.

By then the military had finally lost all credibility. The navy was all but gone, their air force spent and the army was being beaten on all fronts. They could not do anything to stop the Allies from destroying Japan simply through massive aerial bombardment.

The opposition, including the old Japanese aristocracy had had enough. They had been pushed aside by the violent military dictatorship, but now they had the backing of the emperor who wasn't a believer in the apocalyptic final stand scenario.

I think we have to see this beyond the scope of "atom bombs preventing a costly invasion". It's the aftermath of many years of brutal warfare across the globe. A massive effort to defeat nazi Germany that took years to achieve and cost millions of lives. It's the many years of fighting in the Far East and Pacific. It's the incredible brutality of the Japanese in their occupied territories. The largely unknown war in China rivals the struggle between the USSR and Germany. The end goal was not pre-empting the invasion, it was the total defeat of Japan.

The firebombing and atom bombs shattered the last illusions that the Japanese could force their enemies to fight for every last inch of Japan and the last defenders would go down in a glorious last stand and prove they were superior to the end. There was no glory in being bombed to pieces even the fanatics realized this soon enough.

While the atom bombs were costly, I have no doubt that they also saved millions of Japanese lives.

If they hadn't surrendered, many Japanese would have fought and died, or killed themselves, as demonstrated by the many suicides on some of the outlying islands that we captured.

Yes that's also a good point Mako.