“Truman therefore had two choices: another year of war, with the lost of 100,000 Americans and many more than 100,000 Japanese; or an immediate stop to the war, with no more American casualties and at least 100,000 Japanese casualties. Put that way, the choice was a no-brainer. “
If it was such a no-brainer, why did both Eisenhower and MacArthur OPPOSE it?
“MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur’s reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: “...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.” “
William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.
“Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, “MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed.” He continues, “When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” “
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
If you put a choice in simple, no-brainer, black and white terms, omitting any facts that would complicate the conclusion, then, surprise surprise, ANY choice will be a no-brainer.
I’m not trying to argue the decision to drop the atomic bomb, but history does not have a lot of “no-brainers” and you will mislead yourself and others if you suggest that it does.
Lastly, and ironically, the facts you omitted (specifically MacArthur’s view on the survival of the emperor) would support the rest of your article better than the “no-brainer” situation you describe.
Which only shows that while history can be looked upon as simply a collection of stories, the stories are not always simple. It IS the small details that make the difference.