[RexBeach]

I believe President Truman thought he would have been impeached had he not dropped the bombs on Japan. But he also thought it was the right thing to do.

But Mr. Bartlett errs, I think, when he opines that Truman probably did not have to drop the nukes on Japan. There was just no way American intelligence could have known how Japan would have reacted to an invasion of the home islands. Most estimates of casualties that I have read over the years put American losses at more than a million men.

Dropping the bombs also kept the Soviet Union out of Japan.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "But Mr. Bartlett errs, I think, when he opines that Truman probably did not have to drop the nukes on Japan."

Mr. Bartlett errs throughout the article, but it's this point I find him completely devoid of context.

My Stepfather was a Chief Petty Officer on the USS Belleau Wood, a light carrier, when it was on its way with the rest of the fleet to assault the mainland of Japan. Dad said when news of the bombs dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were announced, one could hear a universal sigh of relief coming from the fleet--and he wasn't speaking figuratively, either--as thousands of men discovered the assault would not take place. A few broke into tears.

Conventional invasion of Japan would have meant, at a minimum, a million American casualties. A million.

Truman made the right decision. And another thing, too: Bartlett's low evaluation of Roosevelt and Wilson are way off the mark. For one thing, Roosevelt's superb performance as Commander-in-Chief during WWII far outweighs any damage done by the New Deal, and for another, Wilson was forced by the Germans into WWI--the last thing Wilson wanted was European entanglement. Unrestricted submarine warfare, the contents of the Zimmerman Telegram and more were provocations no President could ignore and remain President for long.

Seems to me Bartlett's allowing his biases to color his judgments, the very thing he accuses liberal historians of doing.

[LS]

See "Downfall" by Richard B. Frank. He uses Japanese archival material to show that the invasion of JUST the southern island would have been far bloodier than we predicted because they had moved two additional divisions that we didn't know about there. Overall, calculations I've seen were 1 million U.S. dead, minimum, to take Japan. Frank also shows there was NO---zip, zero, nada---consideration whatsoever of surrender by the Japanese prior to Aug. 6.

[presidio9]

I believe President Truman thought he would have been impeached had he not dropped the bombs on Japan. But he also thought it was the right thing to do.

The idea that Truman had any alternative to dropping the atomic bombs is a revisionist myth. Casualties were higher in several conventional bombings throughout the war, and one only needs to review the horrific casualties at places like Iwo Jima to realize how catastrophic a full-scale invasion would have been for both sides. Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably ended up SAVING millions of lives.

[ChurtleDawg]

I might agree on Hiroshima, but I think the Nagasaki bomb was just over kill.

[Paulus Invictus]

The Japanese were ready for the invasion and the result would have been similar or worse than that in Okinawa--a complete fight to the death. Both the military and civilians were being prepared for the final battles and it would have been devastating for all. The bombs were needed and ended the war. That's the only thing Truman did to get my vote. His handling of the Korean war, however, was awful. It was the first of the RAT start-but-never-win wars. Now the MSM and the RATs are determined for us to lose yet another war. It's so depressing.

[steve-b]

Dropping the second bomb so soon after the first was a bluff -- we were OUT OF NUKES at that point, and wouldn't be able to build any more until (according to the estimates at the time) November 1945.

Fortunately, it worked.

[cpdiii]

And Harry Truman probably didn't need to drop atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The man is a fool. Our casualties from an invasion of the Home Islands of Japans would have been horrific. However, the atomic bomb saved more Japanese lives than American. We had total domination of the sky. We would have bombed Japan for months. Every major city would have been fire bombed with casualties that would have made Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like an afternoon tea party. The Japanese fought on Okinawa to the last man. They would do the same on the home islands. They would give no quarter nor would we. It would be a battle of extermination. Japan should be grateful that we dropped the bomb on them and thus give them a "face saving" way to surrender.

[jpl]

I believe President Truman thought he would have been impeached had he not dropped the bombs on Japan. But he also thought it was the right thing to do.

This idea being pushed by some people today that Japan had really given up before the bombs were dropped is nothing but revisionist history being pushed by people who seem to have an unnecessary guilt complex.

[jy1979]

Also, if defense of IWO JIMA was any indication of what the Japanese would do to defend their homeland, then Truman was right to drop the Atomic Bombs. Plus we had to make Japan think we had a whole arsenal of them. If they knew we only had two, they probably would not have surrendered.