Would Trump press the button?

[Moleskin]

And let''s not forget Truman only dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki all those years ago because he could see no other way to bring WW2 to its end without causing still more loss of life.

This bit is not true.

[Tactful Cactus]

It is scary – we’re on the cusp of Trump resetting world history. Even if Kim strikes first, its still US’ fault for goading him rather than the passive aggression of the past 50 years!

[Tactful Cactus]

This bit is not true.

Well, we're getting into Jimboic realms of fantasy and conjecture here. The theory being that the nuke was dropped to scare Russia rather than swiftly stop the war. Is that what you mean?

[...]

And let''s not forget Truman only dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki all those years ago because he could see no other way to bring WW2 to its end without causing still more loss of life.

This bit is not true.

Didn't say there was no other way, I said HT couldn't see any other way.

Agree it's a highly debatable point though; one deserving of another thread that should've been started a couple of days ago on the anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima.

[Moleskin]

Well, we're getting into Jimboic realms of fantasy and conjecture here. The theory being that the nuke was dropped to scare Russia rather than swiftly stop the war. Is that what you mean?

This doesn't deserve an answer, but here you go.

University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.

Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.

[Samoan]

This doesn't deserve an answer,

[Insouciant Western People]

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled.

The grasp of history in this seems very shaky.

The USSR did attack Japan's forces, though it was on the 9th. The USSR declared war on Japan just before midnight on 8th August 1945, and the following day the Red Army commenced offensive action against the Japanese army in Manchuria.

The Americans had a plan to invade Japan itself, Operation Olympic, which was presented to President Truman as scheduled to go ahead in November 1945. However the Joint Chiefs of Staff were deeply divided on its merits and the risks involved. The appalling casualties suffered by the US armed forces during the very recent Battle of Okinawa were fresh in the minds of naval and army commanders. A majority of Ultra decrypts strongly indicated that the Japanese high command and government were not yet ready to surrender. From April 1945 onwards there was a massive build up of Japanese military strength in the Kyushu region, which the Japanese strongly suspected was where the Americans were planning to invade.


Richard B. Frank, author of Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire wrote in 2005:

"The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood - as one analytical piece in the "Magic" Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts - that "until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies." This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945."

[Moleskin]

.

[Goat Boy]

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945.

How is this a ‘fact’? How can it be a ‘fact’? So not all historians recognise this so clearly some, possibly even a majority disagree presumably or, at least, are willing to debate the issue.

[Insouciant Western People]

Because you know so much better than University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz.

Nice of you to misattribute the quote by the way.

Sorry, I didn't do it on purpose.

I'm just pointing out that the way he phrased it makes it sound like he's not aware that a Soviet invasion of Japanese Manchuria did actually happen on the 9th of August.

The way he phrased it also leaves it open for readers to infer that the Red Army was imminently going to invade Japan itself, which also wasn't the case.

One final thought. If we do accept his premise that the Americans acted in order to forestall Red Army action directly against Japan, shouldn't we go on to conclude that by dropping the bombs, they saved (potentially) many thousands of Russian soldiers' lives?

[Moleskin]

Perhaps he also knew that if the manhattan project had failed the intention was to carpet bomb Japan with chemical weapons?

[Moleskin]

One final thought. If we do accept his premise that the Americans acted in order to forestall Red Army action directly against Japan, shouldn't we go on to conclude that by dropping the bombs, they saved (potentially) many thousands of Russian soldiers' lives?

Japanese civilians are people too.

[Goat Boy]

One final thought. If we do accept his premise that the Americans acted in order to forestall Red Army action directly against Japan, shouldn't we go on to conclude that by dropping the bombs, they saved (potentially) many thousands of Russian soldiers' lives?

Japanese civilians are people too.

GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE

[Belle Lettre]

Well, where the Soviets might have proceeded to after Manchuria will now never be known, so any and all possibilities can be argued.

[Goat Boy]

Well, where the Soviets might have proceeded to after Manchuria will now never be known, so any and all possibilities can be argued.

Possibilities? Scenarios? Pros and cons? Conjecture? Debate?

Steady on. Didn't you get the memo:

This doesn't deserve an answer

[Dr Markus]

How is this a ‘fact’? How can it be a ‘fact’? So not all historians recognise this so clearly some, possibly even a majority disagree presumably or, at least, are willing to debate the issue.

New BCB members in the making.

[Moleskin]

Well, where the Soviets might have proceeded to after Manchuria will now never be known, so any and all possibilities can be argued.

Possibilities? Scenarios? Pros and cons? Conjecture? Debate?

Steady on. Didn't you get the memo:

This doesn't deserve an answer

There was a specific reason for that statement. It doesn't apply to you.

[Goat Boy]

Now I'm feeling left out

[Tactful Cactus]

I think it applied to me and I don't know what you meant by it.
But its all good, benefit of the doubt etc...

[The Modernist]

Makes sense that the US would want to use their bomb and send out a message, and not want Russian influence or even occupation in Japan.
Cant see that anything Moleskin has posted is especially contentious.