Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I was replying to our freind who claimed that the Japanese did surrender. They certainly did after the second bomb was dropped. If we had not dropped the second one and allowed them to continue with the idea that the first bomb that we dropped on them was the only one then they may have continued even if it meant has ding in forests and using raids to keep the war going.Who cares?Um, except they did.
After the second bomb was dropped. Then you are forgetting those that stayed hidden on islands for years. A few for twenty or more years.
Had nothing to do with victory
You called me out on my post, I told you why.Thank you for confirming, that had we attacked the mainland of Japan The Japanese were not going to surrender.One person does not make a war
Proving your post is ridiculous
It would of been a bitter terrible fight, for months. Millions dead.
I’ve already said......
We had a bomb, an invasion was no longer necessary
The decision was not....Invade or drop the bomb
The decision was, what is the best way to use our new power?
Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it, Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, to the death.
The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives. It was the most fully justified military decision in human history. A pox on anyone claiming otherwise. You make me want to puke.
If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
Our choice was how to use the bomb
The Jew hater is right. America could not afford for the Soviets to conquer Japan and divide it like what happened in Germany so they used the nuclear option and garnered surrender that way. Great History channels documentaries on it.
Um, no. Your reading comprehension is a little confused.
The bombs didn't make the Japanese Surrender.
They surrendered because the USSR entered the war and we promised to not hang Hirohito, even though the cocksucker deserved it.
I am not ignoring it, I am completely denying the need for an invasion once we had successfully tested the bombAgain you show your ignorance.....we were running out of time.We don’t know that because we never gave Japan a chance. We gave them two days to decide then sent 70,000 to their deaths at Nagasaki.Again you show your ignorance on the subject.It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not
Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?
A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness. "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
AFTER the war. After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people? Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option? No, it wasn’t.
We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
All of this was taken into account and it was decided that dropping the bomb on an isolated island wouldn't scare anyone.
I hate to think of the death and destruction that dropping one in a heavily populated area causes, but the Japanese were spread all over Asia causing death and destruction everywhere they went. The war crimes they had committed were horrific. We can't blame most of the population for this, but this wasn't some Western society where everyone wanted peace and tranquility. Japan was a feudal society where violence and death unfortunately was as common as taking a shit. Dropping those bombs saved the Japanese people from the oppression of their own military establishment as much as anything else.
We had the bomb...the war was over
A less lethal demo had no downside
Worst case, Japan ignores it and we go to Plan B which is escalate the bombing.
Japan loses either way
Weather was a consideration......as was a movement in Washington to try to delay or prevent the next bombing....waiting a week would prolong the war. Waiting even longer would have possibly made the second bombing much more difficult because of weather and the possibility that that air defenses would have been improved making it outright impossible. We were only able to drop those bombs because of the element of surprise. One aircraft wasn't considered a threat. Now everything would be considered a threat. Waiting would have made the next bombing mission next to impossible.
How many lives were saved is something you totally want to ignore because you're bent demonizing America.
Prevent what?Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it, Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, to the death.
The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives. It was the most fully justified military decision in human history. A pox on anyone claiming otherwise. You make me want to puke.
If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
Our choice was how to use the bomb
And then prolong the war???
I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
You are, however, an expert on losing.
peers so.I am not ignoring it, I am completely denying the need for an invasion once we had successfully tested the bombAgain you show your ignorance.....we were running out of time.We don’t know that because we never gave Japan a chance. We gave them two days to decide then sent 70,000 to their deaths at Nagasaki.Again you show your ignorance on the subject.A non-lethal demonstration would have indicated weakness. "See, the Americans are reluctant to shed blood, we can hold out for better terms."
I don't think there was really as much hand-wringing going on at the time. Americans hated Japan with a passion after Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and a litany of horrors.
AFTER the war. After we were facing down the threat of nuclear annihilation, we did a lot of reflection.
But consider another thing. What if both sides had developed these weapons without them ever having been used on people? Imagine trying to resolve Korea or Vietnam or the Suez Crisis because you had no idea what these things actually did.
WWII ended on July 16, 1945
That was the day we knew we had a working bomb. Japan didn’t know it, but we had a working bomb. At that point, an invasion of Japan was off the table.
The trade off has never been.....
Drop the bomb or lose a million people to an invasion
The real trade off was......How should we use our bomb?
Was killing 100,000 civilians in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki our only option? No, it wasn’t.
We could have chosen a lightly populated island that had military value. We could have filmed the island before the bomb, filmed the bomb and then filmed the island after the bomb. We then show the film to the world. Say...We are a badass...we have a freaking bomb
Give Japan one month to assess their situation, not two days
If they do not capitulate, then Hiroshima is the next target
All of this was taken into account and it was decided that dropping the bomb on an isolated island wouldn't scare anyone.
I hate to think of the death and destruction that dropping one in a heavily populated area causes, but the Japanese were spread all over Asia causing death and destruction everywhere they went. The war crimes they had committed were horrific. We can't blame most of the population for this, but this wasn't some Western society where everyone wanted peace and tranquility. Japan was a feudal society where violence and death unfortunately was as common as taking a shit. Dropping those bombs saved the Japanese people from the oppression of their own military establishment as much as anything else.
We had the bomb...the war was over
A less lethal demo had no downside
Worst case, Japan ignores it and we go to Plan B which is escalate the bombing.
Japan loses either way
Weather was a consideration......as was a movement in Washington to try to delay or prevent the next bombing....waiting a week would prolong the war. Waiting even longer would have possibly made the second bombing much more difficult because of weather and the possibility that that air defenses would have been improved making it outright impossible. We were only able to drop those bombs because of the element of surprise. One aircraft wasn't considered a threat. Now everything would be considered a threat. Waiting would have made the next bombing mission next to impossible.
How many lives were saved is something you totally want to ignore because you're bent demonizing America.
Weather, Japanese anti air defense, we would eventually get through
Japan had no chance, once we got the bomb
We can rationalize that we saved millions of lives. But once we were the worlds sole nuclear power.....we had won
The question is.....Did we have to kill 150,000 people in order to show how strong we were
You are serious dumbass.Prevent what?Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it, Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, to the death.
The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives. It was the most fully justified military decision in human history. A pox on anyone claiming otherwise. You make me want to puke.
If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
Our choice was how to use the bomb
And then prolong the war???
I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
You are, however, an expert on losing.
They didn’t know our target and we had overwhelming air superiority.
We should have given Japan a reasonable chance to respond to the first devastating attack
Killing an additional 70,000 civilians was not a necessity that soon
Today, we visit a monument in DC of 60,000 of our dead and reflect on the tragedy. We killed that many in a few seconds on a whim
America was conducting huge air raids on Japanese cities and military targets. Aircraft were not being lost from lack of fuel. Aircraft damaged from AA headed toward Okinawa and the US Navy positioned scores of ships along the route for retrieving pilots who had to ditch. Supplies of long-range B-29's was not an issue.You are serious dumbass.Prevent what?Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it, Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, to the death.
The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives. It was the most fully justified military decision in human history. A pox on anyone claiming otherwise. You make me want to puke.
If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
Our choice was how to use the bomb
And then prolong the war???
I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
You are, however, an expert on losing.
They didn’t know our target and we had overwhelming air superiority.
We should have given Japan a reasonable chance to respond to the first devastating attack
Killing an additional 70,000 civilians was not a necessity that soon
Today, we visit a monument in DC of 60,000 of our dead and reflect on the tragedy. We killed that many in a few seconds on a whim
How can you have air superiority when most of the pilots would have to ditch their aircraft in the ocean because of running out of fuel????
We had almost unchallenged air superiority. Japan had run out of pilots, planes and fuelYou are serious dumbass.Prevent what?Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it, Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, to the death.
The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives. It was the most fully justified military decision in human history. A pox on anyone claiming otherwise. You make me want to puke.
If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
Our choice was how to use the bomb
And then prolong the war???
I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
You are, however, an expert on losing.
They didn’t know our target and we had overwhelming air superiority.
We should have given Japan a reasonable chance to respond to the first devastating attack
Killing an additional 70,000 civilians was not a necessity that soon
Today, we visit a monument in DC of 60,000 of our dead and reflect on the tragedy. We killed that many in a few seconds on a whim
How can you have air superiority when most of the pilots would have to ditch their aircraft in the ocean because of running out of fuel????
1. Bloodiest battle was the tiny island of Okinawa at the end of the war.Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
They had run out of trained pilots, but after the surrender occupation forces found large numbers of aircraft hidden away in reserve for use by quickly trained pilots for kamikaze attacks on ships during the expected American invasion. Very little training or fuel was needed for kamikaze missions.We had almost unchallenged air superiority. Japan had run out of pilots, planes and fuelYou are serious dumbass.Prevent what?Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it, Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.It is such a joy reading the inane, sophomoric essays of those who are ignorant of history, criticizing the critical decisions that were made in real time.
The justification for both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was written throughout the entire Pacific Rim by the conduct of the Japanese themselves.
Starting with the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, the horrific treatment of POW's, the grotesque behavior of Japanese soldiers and guards in Occupied territories, the maniacal behavior of Japanese soldiers throughout the war and beyond, the horrific policy decisions of Japanese commanders, to the rhetoric of Japanese political leaders in Japan, preparing for the inevitable land invasion, where women and children were being prepared to fight with - literally - sticks and stones, to the death.
The idea that the Japanese were anywhere close to surrender is preposterous to anyone familiar with the facts on the ground. The bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives as well as tens of thousands of American lives. It was the most fully justified military decision in human history. A pox on anyone claiming otherwise. You make me want to puke.
If you had written these pathetic self-righteous bullshit essays in the '50's when WWII vets were still around, you would have been thrashed to within an inch of your miserable, ignorant lives.
It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
Our choice was how to use the bomb
And then prolong the war???
I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
You are, however, an expert on losing.
They didn’t know our target and we had overwhelming air superiority.
We should have given Japan a reasonable chance to respond to the first devastating attack
Killing an additional 70,000 civilians was not a necessity that soon
Today, we visit a monument in DC of 60,000 of our dead and reflect on the tragedy. We killed that many in a few seconds on a whim
How can you have air superiority when most of the pilots would have to ditch their aircraft in the ocean because of running out of fuel????
But the question was planes attacking our bombersThey had run out of trained pilots, but after the surrender occupation forces found large numbers of aircraft hidden away in reserve for use by quickly trained pilots for kamikaze attacks on ships during the expected American invasion. Very little training or fuel was needed for kamikaze missions.We had almost unchallenged air superiority. Japan had run out of pilots, planes and fuelYou are serious dumbass.Prevent what?Yet you're claiming we should have waited on the second bombing....to do what....give them a chance to prevent it?That is the historical justification for dropping the bomb. Japan deserved it, Pearl Harbor, our only choice was bomb two major cities or invade killing millions.
It wasn’t our choice. We had the bomb....we had already won
Our choice was how to use the bomb
And then prolong the war???
I sure hope you aren't prior military.......because you suck at military tactics.
You are, however, an expert on losing.
They didn’t know our target and we had overwhelming air superiority.
We should have given Japan a reasonable chance to respond to the first devastating attack
Killing an additional 70,000 civilians was not a necessity that soon
Today, we visit a monument in DC of 60,000 of our dead and reflect on the tragedy. We killed that many in a few seconds on a whim
How can you have air superiority when most of the pilots would have to ditch their aircraft in the ocean because of running out of fuel????
...Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
The fire bombings were not any better than a nuke.Everyone remembers the Big Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the 120,000 people that died. That is a fraction of the total number of civilians who died during saturation bombings of Japanese cities before the atom bombs dropped. Could we have achieved the surrender of Japan with a different bombing strategy? Probably but there were also captured American pilots who were being murdered by the Japanese which was incredibly stupid and certainly provoked American military leadership to a no mercy bombing campaign. It's always easy to say we should have done this or that but like most things, it's complicated. >>>>>>>>
"From January 1944 until August 1945, the U.S. dropped 157,000 tons of bombs on Japanese cities, according to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. It estimated that 333,000 people were killed, including the 80,000 killed in the Aug. 6 Hiroshima atomic bomb attack and 40,000 in Nagasaki three days later."
I know guys who in the Pacific getting ready to die in the coming invasion of the mainland. Then they heard the news about the bomb and suddenly they couldn’t get their men to fight. Nobody wants to be the last man to die in a war....Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.
Bullshit. Marines couldn't get their Marines to fight? If you are going to lie about Marines being unwilling to fight during WWII you should have some evidence for backing up your lie beside "I know some guys...".I know guys who in the Pacific getting ready to die in the coming invasion of the mainland. Then they heard the news about the bomb and suddenly they couldn’t get their men to fight. Nobody wants to be the last man to die in a war....Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.
Direct testimony from three Marines.Bullshit. Marines couldn't get their Marines to fight? If you are going to lie about Marines being unwilling to fight during WWII you should have some evidence for backing up your lie beside "I know some guys...".I know guys who in the Pacific getting ready to die in the coming invasion of the mainland. Then they heard the news about the bomb and suddenly they couldn’t get their men to fight. Nobody wants to be the last man to die in a war....Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
Not at all. Not if it saved the life of even one single American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. Sometimes people have to be kicked in the nuts twice to get the pain to reach their head. Thankfully they didn’t force us to use a third such device when one became available.
Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
True, because FDR should not have provoked Japan to attack us. In the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese tried repeatedly to get FDR to lift the crippling sanctions he had imposed on Japan. They offered enormous concessions, including ignoring the Tripartite Treaty. But, FDR, who was ever willing to excuse Soviet atrocities and tyranny, refused to show even half as much flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. Instead of making Japan our ally and letting the Japanese carry out their plan to invade the Soviet Union, FDR, desperate to save the Soviet experiment, provoked Japan to war.
