Show of Hands

Or we could have made peace.

Nagasaki only killed 80,000, and if we made peace Japan would have grown back like Germany did from World War II.

Was that a bad thing? West Germany bolstered Europe's economy in the post WWII era.

Also, I believe Truman made the correct decision. The bombings ultimately saved lives, both American and Japanese.

I know I had a typo which I admitted a few comments down.

Or we could have made peace and not had any further bloodshed

Hey shady, did you make a new profile or did you manage to rescue your current one? I was wondering about that because of the funny symbol you used before.

Tony said his database couldn't support symbols like the one I had. When I finally signed on it was gone.

Much of Japan's industrial resources were in and around cities. The most destructive single bombing of Japan was not by nuclear weapon, but by conventional means when 100k (very conservative estimate) died in the firebombing of Tokyo in one night.

That's not relevant to the conversation

The real takeaway from the nuking of hiroshima and Nagasaki should be thank goodness it had enough impact to stop the war. If it hadn't many more, possibly millions, would have died.

Skinner, the only reason that is not relevant to you is because, almost 70 years after the event, you have decided that YOU KNOW they were going to surrender anyway, something which is not close to being proved.

To anyone else looking back, where the prospect of surrender is decidedly less definite, the cost of continuing the war by conventional means is very relevant indeed.

Yes it's proved, the US declassified it.

That's a single piece of evidence. See my reply to your other comments below.

It's derived from other pieces of proof. And that one piece is a very reputable source, find a website that says it is false.

Not disputing whether it's true or not. I'm disputing whether it mattered or not. I could give you deeds to disneyland, but they're not going to be worth the paper they're printed on. The military wasn't under suzuki's control.

It's actually 80,000 sorry

To crush Japan

And shock the Soviets

Agreed

Which number is wrong? Please cite.

Oh, yeah, my bad. It's actually 80,000

See my comment below

It's actually a multiple choice question
A.) Kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese by nuclear reactions
B.) Kill hundreds of thousands of people by invasion
C.) Make peace and avoid bloodshed

The USA was going to use those atom bombs like it or not. It was also a scare tactic to nations like the USSR.

They didn't necessarily have to use an atom bomb. The Soviet point is valid but it's not an excuse to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents.

They didn't necessarily have to use an atom bomb. The Soviet point is valid but it's not an excuse to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents.

I think the problem with your choices there is option C didn't really exist. Furthermore, on top of massive allied casualties, it's quite likely that far more Japanese would have died in continued conventional bombing alongside invasion casualties.

It's quite possible that the nukes actually killed far less Japanese than continuing the war conventionally. Again, I don't think C was a real option at that point.

Correct fredd. The Japanese had no intention of surrendering. We needed to force them to an unconditional surrender. If we agreed to peace, but let them keep their leadership and military, they might try to revive their empire later on down the road.

Fred: yes facts assert that option C did in fact exist. Why despite the facts I just provided do you deny the validity of option C.
Eagle: Um we let them keep their leadership in real life guess who kept being emperor until his death?

I don't ignore it skinner, I view it in light of a wider viewpoint.

You have plucked a single thread of evidence from history and hung your whole argument from it.

Instead, why are you ignoring the fact that the military tried to assassinate the Japanese leader who proposed this peace treaty? A leader who's true motivation seems insincere in the first place?

I haven't seen a link confirming that. Assuming its true, what's the worst he could do, the treaty provided that Japan would be occupied by the Allies led by the US, that weapons production would be halted, and that the US could try any war criminals

I don't see them pulling some kind of a surprise rebellion with those conditions

lmgtfy.com/?q=Suzuki+kantaro+peace+assassination

1. Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
2. Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.

3. Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.

4. Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
5. Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
6. Surrender of designated war criminals.

Would love to see where you got this info

Not doubting it, just never seen it not can google pull up anything with my search criteria

www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html