Were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary to end the war without an invasion of the Japanese mainland?

Were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary to end the war without an invasion of the Japanese mainland?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That wasn't what Americans were concerned about. Americans didn't want Japan split between Soviets and Americans, so the Americans quickly dropped the bombs to monopolize control of Japan.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's really crazy how well the atomic bombs worked out for Japan. Saved by nuclear fire.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Beyond moronic tankie, the Soviets had zero cabability for a crossing into mainland Japan without an American invasion distracting the Japs, no invasion means the Soviets cant cross. And no those irrelevant islands in the north that can be reached with paddle boats dont count

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not a tankie, schizo.
        >The Soviet declaration of war also changed the calculation of how much time was left for maneuver. Japanese intelligence was predicting that U.S. forces might not invade for months. Soviet forces, on the other hand, could be in Japan proper in as little as 10 days. The Soviet invasion made a decision on ending the war extremely time sensitive.
        https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Not a tankie, schizo.
          Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party of America?!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Am not, have not been

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's just what a Commie would say!

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Japanese intelligence was predicting that
          Black person do you even read your own cope?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Japan was anticipating a mainland invasion, and their goal was to create a fight so brutal and deadly that the Allies would have preferred signing a peace treaty that would have given some concessions to Japan

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do you examine ANYTHING you are told?

      Next you are going to tell me George Washington never lied and Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves.

      Go read a fricking book for fricks sake

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So it wasn't Abraham Lincoln who put through the Emancipation Proclamation? Interesting. Who did?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The Emancipation Proclamation, ordered in 1863, did not free any slaves in the slave-holding states north of the Mason Dixon line. It was issued well into the war at a point when everyone expected emancipation but did not know how exactly it would play out.

          The actual work of freeing the slaves was carried out by Union Army elements in the latter stages of the war and the (miserably pithy) organization of schools, financial institutions and land allotments undertaken during Reconstruction and then abandoned entitely into Jim Crow, where southern blacks continued to live exactly as they did when slaves, hand-yo-mouth and politically/socially disendranchhised as sharecroppers.

          Some slaves were not truly freed until the voting registration drives in the Civil Rights era.

          Lincoln's goal was "Preservation of the Union at all costs." The Emancipation Proclamation was an order to that end. Lincoln wanted to begin raising black regiments and to clarify the confusion on the front lines, where runaways showed up in ever greater numbers and where Union officers struggled to design a policy. The EP did not free a single slave even in a nominal, legalistic sense until a couple years after its passage, and Lincoln completely dodged freeing slaves in the territories he actually controlled.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No. The Japanese had already offered a conditional surrender, and the only ethical thing to do in the circumstances would be to take it. Not I will not debate this.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Probably not since the japs were more than willing to surrender to the Americans after the soviets brought the hammer down in manchuria.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No. We should've blockaded them and starved them into submission.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >starved
      Japan enacted a 1000% tariff on rice voluntarily, they couldn't be starved

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They could be if, hypothetically, withdrawing millions of men from the labor force to serve in the army combined with other policies (and population growth) caused a decrease in home islands rice production. And if before and during the war that shortfall was made up for by imports from Korea, Manchuria, and China. And if the ships carrying those imports were progressively sunk, and the harbors and shipping canals heavily mined as part of Operation Starvation. Then combine that with the destruction of Japan's overland transport capability (who knew so much of the coal that powered their rail system came from Hokkaido via barge?) and they'd be in for a tanoshii winter.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if nukes didn't exist it plays out exactly the same since the japs were holding out hope that russia and the west would go to war, once russia declared war and that was no longer a possibility, it was all over. Destruction of their cities wasn't a motivating factor.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yes, no, maybe?
      largely it is commonly accepted that the shortening of the war the bombs made was negligible at best in the grand scheme of things, and that japan largely accepted its fate around the time of the soviet invasion of manchuria. i would argue. however, that the necessity of the bombs in a larger historical context belongs to the fact they would prove evidence of the bomb's destructive capabilities. a world without hiroshima and nagisaki is a world without iconic photographs of mushroom clouds rising high above the clouds, the flattened cities, the faded shadows of the japanese burnt into concrete. that frame of reference would not exist, and instead of the nuclear bomb being the end-all-be-all of humanity's killing technology, it might just have ended up viewed as any other weapon in a general's arsenal.

      source: my ass

      The Japanese were convinced that they could negotiate a peace with the Soviets behind the US's back. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria ended this delusion and led to them surrendering unconditionally.

      Also, the US ended up protecting the status of the Emperor, which was the main thing the Japanese were stuck on in not surrendering unconditionally.

      >it was all over
      >japan largely accepted its fate
      And yet the deadlock in the War Council was broken only by literal divine intervention. And they still had to coup-proof the government by using the Imperial Family for everything, and still faced coup attempts, rogue kamikazes, rogue armies, and the obligatory suicides.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Short answer: Yes.

    Less short answer: Yes, and it probably caused fewer deaths than would have been necessary for any other way to end the war with Japan.

    Best answer: We should have gone all in with the 1950's image of nuclear war.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Short answer: No.
    Long answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3pTh6AMpvs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Oppenheimer was a cheating, Commie, homosexual - and a weepy little crybaby b***h.
      >AHHH!!
      >NOOOOO!
      >I created a bomb to kill a bunch of people, and it killed a bunch of people!
      >I am become le heckin deatherino!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        why do you speak like a child?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          nta obviously, but technically scientifically speaking, being angry is a high T phenomenon and is why low soilent gays are happy to lower their heads when opposed just as Oppenheimer did when told to shut the frick up by the President

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            scientifically speaking, you're describing roid rage, which is something teenage boys do when they don't yet know how to control their emotions with testosterone in their body.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why do you idolise a crybaby Communist?

          scientifically speaking, you're describing roid rage, which is something teenage boys do when they don't yet know how to control their emotions with testosterone in their body.

          How's your HRT going?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How's your HRT going?
            pretty good actually. 3 months in :3

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    yes, no, maybe?
    largely it is commonly accepted that the shortening of the war the bombs made was negligible at best in the grand scheme of things, and that japan largely accepted its fate around the time of the soviet invasion of manchuria. i would argue. however, that the necessity of the bombs in a larger historical context belongs to the fact they would prove evidence of the bomb's destructive capabilities. a world without hiroshima and nagisaki is a world without iconic photographs of mushroom clouds rising high above the clouds, the flattened cities, the faded shadows of the japanese burnt into concrete. that frame of reference would not exist, and instead of the nuclear bomb being the end-all-be-all of humanity's killing technology, it might just have ended up viewed as any other weapon in a general's arsenal.

    source: my ass

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. They were no more warcrimes than any other strategic bombing of the war (Dresden, Tokyo, etc.) the fossil-fuel industry and their puppets the Green movement supported a revisionist history that made the nukes a singularly horrible and useless event in order to tarnish the image of nuclear power in the public consciousness. Thus they can by no means be admitted to have had any effect on the Japanese surrender, as that would detract from the Nuclear=Bad narrative.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, but it doesn't matter, because America didn't drop the bombs and then rule them or fricked off. America funded rebuilding the world. Any guilt or shame that the USA would/should have, was removed through post-war efforts.
    It's like how Britain/France/Dutch/America are absolved of their guilt or shame for having slaves, by doing so much to end the trans-atlantic slave trade.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What else could have been done to convince the Japanese to surrender unconditionally? They already lost Tokyo, including the imperial palace, to the fire bombing campaigns. The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than both atom bombs put together, it also caused far worse destruction and displaced millions of people, putting them into the most extreme sort of hardship. This is Japan's national capital, it's largest, most prosperous city, reduced to ashes and rubble, its people scattered and bereft of shelter or succor at a time when nobody had much to spare due to wartime rationing. If this didn't break the Japanese spirit, what else besides the sheer terror of the atomic bombs could?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The tankies who push the narrative that the nukings were evil either push the idea that America should have just agreed to all Japanese demands and leave them with their entire war cabinet and Korea, or they argue for a long blockade that would have killed millions extra and cause a few extra hundred thousand dead Americans via unending kamikaze attacks

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Japanese were convinced that they could negotiate a peace with the Soviets behind the US's back. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria ended this delusion and led to them surrendering unconditionally.

      Also, the US ended up protecting the status of the Emperor, which was the main thing the Japanese were stuck on in not surrendering unconditionally.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >main thing the Japanese were stuck on
        Very nice way of wording that they were not willing to surrender unconditionally and proving false the cope of only wanting the Emperor to remain in power which is 100% not true

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >could negotiate a peace with the Soviets behind the US's back
        Black person literally any source on this bull shit btw??? The Soviets just barely entered the war on command of the Anglo's, Japan was losing hard before them anyways, what would a peace with the Soviets where they surrendered Manchuria, Korea, and all islands north of Hokkaido (Realistic minimal Soviet demands) accomplish them besides make their position weaker?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I am instructed by the Soviet Government to bring to the attention of the United States Government the following confidential information.

          A few days ago the Japanese Government through its Ambassador, Mr. Sato, has put before the Soviet Government the question regarding the sending to Moscow a special Japanese Mission from Tokio. The Japanese Government motivated its proposal by its desire to exchange opinions with the Soviet Government on the questions of Soviet-Japanese relations.

          The Soviet Government, being briefly aware that the mission in question has as its aim not as much the question about the relations between Japan and the U.S.S.R. as ascertaining the possibility of concluding a separate peace between Germany and the U. S. S. R.,—has rejected the proposal of the Japanese Government.

          https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1944v04/d906

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >September 23, 1944
            >A year before the Soviets opened its Manchurian front
            >Also its about a peace between GERMANY and the USSR
            Are you even trying?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This smells like Tankie cope. The soviets had literally no naval forces or air forces with which to threaten the Japanese homeland. It would have been at least a year before the Russians could even begin to mount an assault on Japan, by which point the matter would've been long decided one way or another.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He replied with a new report about the Soviets telling the japs to frick off about... a peace between Germany and the USSR as proof for his point. He knows frick all and is just repeating old tankie talking points that are not meant to try and logically paint the US as evil to prospective people on the fence, but make people with their mind already decided feel justified for their hate of capitalism and the USA

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *