Posted on 08/11/2025 3:22:25 AM PDT by texas booster
In 1945, Truman’s decision to drop two atomic bombs was grim—but it ended a war that could have cost millions more lives on both sides and unleashed even greater horrors.
Disinformation and the Dropping of the Atomic Bombs
Legitimate disagreement about the wisdom of dropping two bombs on Japan to end World War II in 1945 persists even 80 years later, as reflected in discussions this past week.
But recently, there has often been no real effort even to present the facts, much less to consider the lose-lose choices involved in using such destructive weapons. In an age of revisionist history—when Churchill is deemed a “terrorist,” Germany did not really mean to starve millions of Jews and Ukrainians in summer and fall 1941, the British forced Hitler to continue the war, and World War II was not worth the cost—so too are Hiroshima and Nagasaki judged as either war crimes or colossal and unnecessary follies.
For today’s generation, it seems so easy to declare one’s 21st-century moral superiority over our ancestors. So we damn them as war criminals, given that they supposedly dropped the bombs without legitimate cause or reason.
What follows are some of the most common critiques of President Truman’s decision to use two nuclear weapons against wartime Japan, with an explanation of why his decision to use the bombs proved, at the time and in hindsight, the correct one.
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
2) But why did the Americans need to drop any bombs?
3) Weren’t the two bombing missions fairly easy?
4. Why did we target the Japanese and not the Germans?
5. Did the bombs just cause more wars and killing—or save lives?
Dropping the atomic bombs may have been a terrible decision, but the alternatives were even worse.
So the two bombs 1) stopped the massive daily Japanese killing of mostly civilians in the Pacific, Asian, and Chinese theaters; 2) ended the fire raids that had proven far more deadly than Hiroshima and Nagasaki; 3) prevented a nightmarish invasion of Japan; and 4) in terrible irony, prompted an emerging doctrine of nuclear deterrence, which, as a result, may help explain why the world has neither seen another global war nor another use of nuclear weapons since 1945.
Yep, it's that time of year again. Hiroshima Day. How many Americans would not be here if we didn't drop the bombs?
FR Index of his articles: Victor Davis Hanson on FR
Town Hall: Victor Davis Hanson on Town Hall
American Greatness: Victor Davis Hanson on American Greatness
His website: Victor Davis Hanson The Sword of Perseus
One of his sponsors' website: The Daily Signal
Please let me know if you want on or off this new VDH ping list.
As a reminder, Professor Hanson has asked that we do not post the full article of his writings. Thank you for following the link to finish his article.
Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience.
He has an emotional stake in this discussion; take his opinion here with a grain of salt.
Actually, After the bombs were dropped the Japanese High Command voted to continue the War. It was not until Russia invaded Manchuria that the Japanese decided to negotiate for Peace.
Then, the Emperor finally stood up and commanded that the War be ended.
1) Because we were interested in ending the war. Japanese army militarists tried to stop Hirohito from ending the war even *after* Nagasaki. An explosion to no end was not going to have the political effect in Japan needed to end the war.
2) Japanese honor culture and fight to the death required it. Go read 3-4 of the top monographs on the battle for Okinawa to get an idea of what invading Japan would have looked like.
3) In what sense? Developing and fielding the B-29 was more expensive than the Manhattan Project.
4) Really? The Germans had surrendered before Trinity. Are you proposing we should have bombed the subjugated Germans?
5) Saved lives, and not just American ones. It probably saved 1-3 million Japanese lives that would have been lost to starvation and death in the ultimate U.S. invasion. Additionally, the Japanese were killing around 200,000 a month in Asia, mostly Chinese. That ended.
Another great analysis by VDH!
Trying to debate something that happened 80 years ago is futile. It’s like armchair quarterbacking from a fictional time machine.
I love the way the revisionists like to pretend as if nothing else were going on at the time.....as if about 10,000 people were not dying EVERY DAY throughout the Asia/Pacific theater of war and as if it weren’t going to get even worse in the next year if the war had continued.....as if Japan’s offer of peace in exchange for not changing their system, occupying Japan, trying war criminals etc would ever be considered acceptable by anyone.
Another one I’ve heard is why not drop one somewhere uninhabited as a demonstration (uhhh because we only had 2) and why drop a second one just 3 days after the first one (because the military junta was claiming we only had one and couldn’t possibly hit them with another.....We were giving them the - what we now know to be false - impression that we had plenty and would be hitting them with fresh nukes regularly unless they surrendered).
By the way, the nukes were not even the deadliest air raids. Operation Meeting House ie the firebombing of Tokyo killed more than were killed in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It was a brutal nasty total war....one the Axis started. And the Axis were the first ones to indiscriminately bomb Allied cities like Warsaw, Rotterdam, Nanking, Shanghai, etc. They got it dealt back to them in spades. Cry me a river.
Remember Pearl Harbor!!
“”””He has an emotional stake in this discussion; take his opinion here with a grain of salt.””””
I believe he is writing as an historian, about a historical event.
And... there’s even more disinformation in the comments section!
Yes, and a very wise historian at that.
He has an emotional stake in this discussion; take his opinion here with a grain of salt.
So having your father fight for America is only worthy of a grain of salt? Victor is one of the fairest historians during our lifetime. He not only provides actual facts but will also detail why the facts are true and relevant.
So easy for you to completely disregard the sacrifices of our WW2 heroes.
Very informative compilation of justifiable reasons for the dropping, yet lacking any source references.
My father was scheduled to land in Kobe Japan in the fall of 1945. With the dropping of the bombs and the Japanese surrender, he was part of the occupation force instead of fighting it out (and probably getting killed).
I for one and very grateful for the bombs being used.
Victor does an excellent job of explaining the circumstances that led up to the bombing and the rising death tolls as the island hopping got closer and closer to Japan. Listen to his August 9th 2025 podcast for a truly educated lesson in what and why the both bombs were dropped.
I take your opinion with a 5 pound bag of salt
And I am thankful that I did not have to make that call.
That's easy...
Because the Russians and the Allies beat the German Army to a bloody pulp, and destroyed every major German city with conventional bombs and incendiaries.
Re: "Why did the Americans not drop a trial bomb in Tokyo Bay to warn the Japanese to surrender or face the real thing?"
The Japanese War Cabinet refused to surrender after TWO cities were massively damaged by USA atomic bombs.
Only the direct intervention of the Emperor resulted in unconditional surrender.
My study of WWII history pointed to horrible atrocities committed by the Japanese during the war. Emperor Hirohito was the cause of so many lost lives, the US did not start that horrible war but we did end it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.