“The alternative US landings on the Japanese home islands...”
This is how we shamelessly justify our behavior and self appointed role of World Police, going so far as to insist it is “exceptional”. Actually it is exceptional because no other country has ever done such a thing.
From the article I linked, and from just plain common sense.
“Within days of the Hiroshima bombing, David Lawrence, the editor of what is now “U.S. News & World Report,” wrote that Japanese surrender had appeared inevitable weeks before the bomb’s use. The claim of “military necessity,” he argued, rang hollow. Official justifications would “never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations . . . did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children.””
Ah, so that explains why it took so long for the Japs to surrender after the first bomb was dropped ... or after the second bomb was dropped ... or why there was an attempted coup by the Japanese military to keep the Emperor from announcing a surrender ...
There was absolutely NOTHING to indicate that the Japanese were preparing to surrender any time soon ....
“Japanese surrender had appeared inevitable weeks before the bomb’s use.”
If this were true, then why didn’t the Japs surrender after one atom bomb was dropped on August 6th? Hmm? August 7th, no surrender. August 8th no surrender. Why did they not surrender, please explain.
It took a second bomb three days later to force them to surrender.
And ... what? Am I supposed to have some respect for that person's opinion?
Gosh... THE MEDIA said using a military weapon was wrong??? Well, I guess that settles it. We know THE MEDIA would never be against the USA.
And yet, with a full realization of the destruction of just one bomb, Japan did not surrender, and it took a second bomb three days later. And formal surrender wasn't announced by the emperor until nearly a week after that.
Well, David Lawrence has his opinion, but it’s not a fact.
The deciding factor was what the leadership thought at the time. The Japanese military was a formidable opponent, and the leadership knew and appreciated this fact.
That they were ready to give up is more apparent AFTER the war and the surrender, but not on the face of things AT THE TIME. It was certainly debatable at the time... Truman made the decision based on what he thought would be the most likely outcome.
I disagree about your belief of us “shamelessly justify(ing) our behavior and self appointed role of World Police.”
This was not the case right after the war was over, at least in 1945/46. Up until December 7th 1941, there was a considerable part of the American politic that was isolationist. We could easily have returned to that if the Soviet Union had not started national communist movements and governments in Europe and Asia. Some people (politicians looking to win, as always), said our isolation “caused” Hitler, because appeasement led him to become bolder. They used that to try to prove the Isolationists were wrong and foolish.
I can’t say I blame the Soviets after what happened to them at the hands of the Nazi’s, and we could have advocated for a more peaceful world. Some say this was Roosevelt’s goal considering how much he “gave” Stalin at Yalta, but he died and a totally new and less experience American president had other ideas.
In any case it takes two to tango as they say. For every action there is a reaction. Things could have gone totally differently than what they did. The world we look back on is not familiar to those who go through things in the present.
You’re an idiot
Nonsense.
Enjoy.
The biggest mistake was not using a third bomb on Tokyo...
Neither of the bombs used killed as many as the firestorm raids on German cities... Not even close...