No doubt that an extended invasion would have cost more lives, BUT that wasn't going to happen; we absolutely had the Japanese on their heels from merciless firebombing and they were within days of surrendering. Churchill was an awesome wartime leader but he was full of **** and not afraid to embellish to get results. England was our staunchest ally in WWII and he was absolutely going to back us dropping the bomb, because Stalin was on the verge of steamrolling Europe and Churchill backed the idea of using the US as a counterbalance.
FYI, I'm not a war buff either, BUT, I think that had we not had the A-Bomb at our disposal, victory would've been less certain. I want to believe that we would've won with or without the A-Bomb, but I definitely won't state it as a fact. Not disagreeing with your opinion, just giving you mine. Yes, I also believe that Churchill was going to back us up no matter what. ....... ....... .......
IIRC Truman said as much. Truman wanted to avoid landing and taking Japan by force, mile by mile. in my mind, Japan's military was defeated at that point. The end was inevitable. The question was how many Japanese civilian and US military casualties would there be.
And, that number is statistically insignificant against the totals killed by the Japanese. Japanese war crimes R. J. Rummel estimates the civilian victims of Japanese democide at 5,424,000. Detailed by country: China 3,695,000; Indochina 457,000; Korea 378,000; Indonesia 375,000; Malaya-Singapore 283,000; Philippines 119,000, Burma 60,000 and Pacific Islands 57,000. Rummel estimates POW deaths in Japanese custody at 539,000 Detailed by country: China 400,000; French Indochina 30,000; Philippines 27,300; Netherlands 25,000; France 14,000; Britain 13,000; British Colonies 11,000; US 10,700; Australia 8,000.[12][232] Werner Gruhl estimates the civilian deaths at 20,365,000. Detailed by country: China 12,392,000; Indochina 1,500,000; Korea 500,000; Dutch East Indies 3,000,000; Malaya and Singapore 100,000; Philippines 500,000; Burma 170,000; Forced laborers in Southeast Asia 70,000, 30,000 interned non-Asian civilians; Timor 60,000; Thailand and Pacific Islands 60,000.[233 ] Gruhl estimates POW deaths in Japanese captivity at 331,584. Detailed by country: China 270,000; Netherlands 8,500; Britain 12,433; Canada 273; Philippines 20,000; Australia 7,412; New Zealand 31; and the United States 12,935.[233] Out of 60,000 Indian Army POWs taken at the Fall of Singapore, 11,000 died in captivity.[234] There were 14,657 deaths among the total 130,895 western civilians interned by the Japanese due to famine and disease.[235][236] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Japanese_war_crimes or the estimated deaths required to finish the war conventionally: The Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 men, including 109,000 killed. Including Coronet, it was estimated that America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267,000 deaths. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/ The Japanese defense relied heavily on kamikaze planes. In addition to fighters and bombers, they reassigned almost all of their trainers for the mission. Their army and navy had more than 10,000 aircraft ready for use in July (and would have had somewhat more by October) and were planning to use almost all that could reach the invasion fleets. Ugaki also oversaw the building of hundreds of small suicide boats to attack any Allied ships that came near the shores of Kyūshū. Fewer than 2,000 kamikaze planes launched attacks during the Battle of Okinawa, achieving approximately one hit per nine attacks. At Kyūshū, because of the more favorable circumstances (such as terrain that would reduce the Allies' radar advantage), they hoped to raise that to one for six by overwhelming the US defenses with large numbers of kamikaze attacks within a period of hours. The Japanese estimated that the planes would sink more than 400 ships; since they were training the pilots to target transports rather than carriers and destroyers, the casualties would be disproportionately greater than at Okinawa. One staff study estimated that the kamikazes could destroy a third to half of the invasion force before its landings......... A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall So I'd say you know nothing about the context of the decision or it's appropriateness but have some kind of bone to pick about it.
btw: 250k casualties is the upper limit of all statistics that I've seen. The numbers are 129-249k, with no exact number. Plus, 20,000 killed at Hiroshima were soldiers. So, for you to say "over 250k" civilians is a clear indication that you exaggerate history. If you are going to make this argument, which in my experience is an argument only high school and young college kids make to piss off their parents, then at least don't exaggerate.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V8lT1o0sDwI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
My father was at home on leave when the Japanese surrendered. He was only home because his unit...the 17th Airborne...was on its way to the Pacific Theater to participate in Operation Olympic/Coronet scheduled for November 1945 and March of 1946. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall As you can see from the above study, an invasion would have been much more costly in loss of life than the dropping of the Atom Bombs. It might seem hard to believe but the dropping of the bombs saved millions of American and Japanese lives and the generations that followed...including possibly my own father (and thus myself as well). Second guessing of the dropping of the Atomic bombs will always (rightfully) occur. But given the hindsight of the above numbers, I can only state my opinion that it was the right call in a time when no decision was a "good" one. p.s. For anyone thinking the Japanese were on the verge of surrender anyways... As late as July 21, Foreign Minister Togo repeated his advice to Japan's ambassador in Moscow that unconditional surrender (the firm demand of the Allies' July 26 Potsdam Declaration) was unacceptable. After the Potsdam Declaration text was leafletted into Japan, Prime Minister Suzuki publicly announced that Japan rejected its terms.
Repped. A lot of people fail to remember the war crimes Japan did to other Asian countries prior to the US's decision to dropping the A-bomb. It was the right thing to do to end everything. Thanks for bringing this up.
