This is a ridiculous statement. US had come through an ever increasing toll as they approached Japan. They had payed a bloody toll and there was mounting evidence that the death toll would increase both in military and civvy casualties. Iwo Jima, Okinawa.
Japan had lost the war after midway (tbh they lost it at Pearl Harbour), didn’t stop them from fighting did it.
To say the US didn’t want to expose their troops to combat…at the end of WW2…is just completely wrong.
Steel not flesh etc, but there is nothing wrong with that.
On the topic of isolating, there is every likelihood that it would led to even greater suffering and civilian casualties.
Okinawa - almost 50,000 casualties of which around 12,000 were KIA
Iwo Jima - almost 26,000 casualties of which around 6,800 were KIA
Philipinnes Campaign 1944-45 - over 75,000 casualties of which almost 21,000 were KIA
So you’re Truman and the boffins come and tell you about this incredible weapon that can potentially stop the war with virtually no further US losses.
And I’m accused of espousing revisionist history !
My father was in New Guinea in WWII, spending some time behind enemy lines. He had utter contempt for most of the Septic soldiers he came across. They were careless, loudmouthed and by their constant noise put everyone around them in danger. They generally behaved like a downmarket version of Macarthur.
The tradition continued into Vietnam, where the Septics iwith their loud trannies were no better.
Americans just need to do a secession of the plebeians. 2 week holiday, go silent on the internet.
Trump and Musk twiddling their thumbs waiting to ■■■■ post on someone besides themselves.
I’m struggling to see how this has a single thing to do with the validity of US using an atomic weapon on Japan in the context of the greatest war in human history.
Whilst I can understand your father’s feelings towards those he came across (and which I have read about in quite a few historical accounts), it is ridiculous to extrapolate what happened in New Guinea with what the Americans did in the North Pacific.
One reason the Septics didn’t want to risk their troops fighting the Japanese was because they weren’t as well trained as they should have been. Also they didn’t want the people at home reading long lists of casualties in a war of attrition that would have lasted for a whole year more. Better to nuke a couple of Japanese cities, kill a few million innocent civilians, with the threat that more would follow, including Tokyo and Kyoto, if they didn’t surrender.
Exploding those bombs was a completely immoral act, which was “justified” as a response to the actions of the Japanese armed forces across SE Asia.
They have been so roundly condemned for those two nukilar exposions that I doubt they would risk a repeat today, especially not against a non-nuclear small power like Australia.
There is zero evidence to support this. Some variation in quality is inevitable when you have millions of men in multiple armies and multiple branches serving in multiple theatres, however the increasing and repeated success of US soldiers and marines through the pacific is testament to their quality. The application of overwhelming firepower against an enemy is not evidence of poor quality soldiers.
Also, yes the US decided, rightly imo, that it was better to hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki than risk an even greater amount of casualties via the alternatives. In the context of a war that cost about 50 million deaths it is very convenient to sit in judgement now.
Worth noting that Tokyo had already been devastated (perhaps to a greater extent) and that had not led to any surrender.
Denialism of troop quality across allied nations (including US) towards the end of the war, even throughout, is a trope that gets trotted out a bit, but has no semblance in fact.
Yes, the nukes were about saving Allied soldiers lives. They (rightly) surmised that an attack on the Japanese homeland would result in massive attrition of allied lives. They had they weapon and judged it was better them than us (don’t forget there were Aussies involved).
And then actually did come back, but bombed the arse out of Manila at a safe distance, civilians and all. The snuck around to Leyte, Tacloban I think, waded ashore safe as houses and delared, I told you I would be back.
A right prick no natter what his choice of vessel was.
My grandfather fought in Darwin, New Guinea , Bougaineville , New Britain and a few isolated / associated theatres. He also served briefly in the post war occupation forces in Japan. He had a fairly low opinion of US military command in particular, and some US service units in general. He had no problem with the use of the two atomic weapons.
