the number of American deaths prevented by the two bombs would almost certainly not have exceeded 20,000 and would probably have been much lower, perhaps even zero,”
I like and respect Japan today. In some ways, I even respect it more than the US, at least when comparing the modern state of both nations. I think it's too bad that many Japanese civilians died, both in the atomic bombs and in the more conventional bombing campaigns. But, that is a war. One that Japan started. In a war, a leader's first duty is not to the civilians of the enemy nation, nor are those lives even equal to the lives of his own people. If the bombs saved even 20,000 American lives then, as the American president with a duty to protect Americans, Truman was right to drop them. As for the statement that it may have saved zero American lives, I assume that's predicated on the idea that Japan could have been brought to the negotiating table to end the war at essentially any moment if we hasn't demanded surrender terms that were quite so steep. That's an idea I've heard before, and I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not well developed in this article. In fact, it's a claim so drastic and also so unsupported that it makes me suspect the quality of the entire rest of the reasoning presented.
Indiana farmers from a 12 sibling family all living within 10 miles of each other. I'd spend summers there learning about how easy it is to maul yourself with farm equipment. Most of the men were missing at least a finger, some a hand. That's when I decided to be anything other than a farmer. That's a no shitter.
I had a number of relatives who were pretty much subsistence farmers from Arkansas join the Navy because they thought it was exciting and had never seen an ocean. They all served in the Pacific. Amazingly, they all made it back home. They didn't talk about it much but they did say the Japs were "pretty serious" when it came to a fight.
The claim of "perhaps even zero" makes mockery of everything, that line in itself is enough to deem the opinion of the author invalid and insipid.
There were already deaths. The battle was ongoing, WHILE THE PLANES WERE IN THE AIR. More deaths occurred between the bombs dropping and the surrender! That alone automatically makes their claim a lie. To claim that NOT stopping your enemy from murdering your people will magically prevent all deaths is insane.
And I guess the author was a big fan of the abductions and Raping of Nanking, huge fans of rape and kidnapping that author. Like, Japan was a cartoon villain in that war, because their morality was such a different perspective from ours.
Well, we did make them remake much of their governmental system and forcibly introduced some things that are probably a precursor to modern wokeness in certain ways. We established a military base that is still disproportionately responsible for rapes in Okinawa. But at the same time, once we get that far afield we're playing some big what-ifs. What if we hadn't made them make certain concessions, and then they rearmed, or allied to the USSR? What if we hadn't made them make certain concessions and then their economic recovery goes differently and they're actually worse off than they are today? What if reduced US presence makes the Korean War go worse? Or Vietnam? (Yes, that one already went pretty bad, but is there a different reality where Communism spreads to Thailand or Japan or elsewhere in the region)? So on and so forth.
Is there an ideal world where everything goes better than it did here? Yeah, almost certainly, but we don't really know what that world looks like or how it could have been reached, or how close to ideal we got. In general, I agree with you that the Japanese didn't get fucked over too badly or anything all things considered.
I was thinking the same thing about subtly conquering them, but that cultural exchange happens whether Japan wins or loses. The Japanese Empire overextended, and the US beat them only back to their original borders. And then figured out "we are more naturally friends" and switched sides in the eternal conflict with China.
I like and respect Japan today. In some ways, I even respect it more than the US, at least when comparing the modern state of both nations. I think it's too bad that many Japanese civilians died, both in the atomic bombs and in the more conventional bombing campaigns. But, that is a war. One that Japan started. In a war, a leader's first duty is not to the civilians of the enemy nation, nor are those lives even equal to the lives of his own people. If the bombs saved even 20,000 American lives then, as the American president with a duty to protect Americans, Truman was right to drop them. As for the statement that it may have saved zero American lives, I assume that's predicated on the idea that Japan could have been brought to the negotiating table to end the war at essentially any moment if we hasn't demanded surrender terms that were quite so steep. That's an idea I've heard before, and I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not well developed in this article. In fact, it's a claim so drastic and also so unsupported that it makes me suspect the quality of the entire rest of the reasoning presented.
I had a bunch of relatives that were in the Pacific Theater who were very concerned about surviving the invasion of Japan.
They were white men, did they actually matter? /s
Indiana farmers from a 12 sibling family all living within 10 miles of each other. I'd spend summers there learning about how easy it is to maul yourself with farm equipment. Most of the men were missing at least a finger, some a hand. That's when I decided to be anything other than a farmer. That's a no shitter.
Edit: grammar.
I had a number of relatives who were pretty much subsistence farmers from Arkansas join the Navy because they thought it was exciting and had never seen an ocean. They all served in the Pacific. Amazingly, they all made it back home. They didn't talk about it much but they did say the Japs were "pretty serious" when it came to a fight.
The claim of "perhaps even zero" makes mockery of everything, that line in itself is enough to deem the opinion of the author invalid and insipid.
There were already deaths. The battle was ongoing, WHILE THE PLANES WERE IN THE AIR. More deaths occurred between the bombs dropping and the surrender! That alone automatically makes their claim a lie. To claim that NOT stopping your enemy from murdering your people will magically prevent all deaths is insane.
And I guess the author was a big fan of the abductions and Raping of Nanking, huge fans of rape and kidnapping that author. Like, Japan was a cartoon villain in that war, because their morality was such a different perspective from ours.
They were not too steep. Japanese still have most of Japan.
Well, we did make them remake much of their governmental system and forcibly introduced some things that are probably a precursor to modern wokeness in certain ways. We established a military base that is still disproportionately responsible for rapes in Okinawa. But at the same time, once we get that far afield we're playing some big what-ifs. What if we hadn't made them make certain concessions, and then they rearmed, or allied to the USSR? What if we hadn't made them make certain concessions and then their economic recovery goes differently and they're actually worse off than they are today? What if reduced US presence makes the Korean War go worse? Or Vietnam? (Yes, that one already went pretty bad, but is there a different reality where Communism spreads to Thailand or Japan or elsewhere in the region)? So on and so forth.
Is there an ideal world where everything goes better than it did here? Yeah, almost certainly, but we don't really know what that world looks like or how it could have been reached, or how close to ideal we got. In general, I agree with you that the Japanese didn't get fucked over too badly or anything all things considered.
I was thinking the same thing about subtly conquering them, but that cultural exchange happens whether Japan wins or loses. The Japanese Empire overextended, and the US beat them only back to their original borders. And then figured out "we are more naturally friends" and switched sides in the eternal conflict with China.