Was dropping the bomb the best/only solution to end ww2?

>The Japanese were the most competent army of the 3 axis powers

>The Japanese were the most competent army of the 3 axis powers

I can't believe people are actually deluded enough to think the bomb was used to save lives.

That's unforgivable.

>the most competent army of the 3 axis powers

...

>lose to poo in loos
>1:5 k/d ratio
>most competent

>The Japanese were the most competent army of the 3 axis powers

what the actual fuck

the japanese army was led by blowhard retards

>knowing this little about the pacific theater

The Germans suffered far more decisive defeats and moments of stupidity (especially on the eastern front) than the Japanese ever did on their side of the war.

So yes, they were the most competent out of the Axis powers since Italy was next to useless.

>take 6 months to defeat 1 "american" division and a bunch of flip militia without food or ammo
>most competent

> The Germans suffered far more decisive defeats and moments of stupidity (especially on the eastern front) than the Japanese ever did on their side of the war
Give some examples

They were prepared for a land invasion anyway. They had no guarantee Japan would surrender.

The idea that the bomb was a calculated decision to save lives is wrong.

The people who try and make linear comparisons across different militaries, different theaters, and different strategies for victory are rarely worth listening to.

I can count the number of astonishing japanese victories on one hand, and they all occured in the first 6 months of the pacific war.

The number of total wipeouts caused by the germans to the french, brits, polish, soviets, americans and balkans are innumerable and continued on late to the war.

The reason why the germans lost more is because they also contributed more. They were fighting everyone and everything, all over the place.

You are right it's all relative, Japanese army wasn't horrible and Germany would surely have suffered 1:10 k/d ratio against green American troops if they had to fight in the Pacific because muh island magic.

It should have been dropped on Berlin, where it was designed for, tbqh.

I would have let the Japanese colonize. They were doing what the white countries were already doing a century before. They just had a lot of ground to cover in short time.

>IMO the Germans had better technology but made many tactical errors while the Japanese rarely did

they attacked people with swords and committed sudoku just what the fuck are you smoking

Im not really sure how soldier lives are worth less than civilian.

It saved Japan from invasion and occupation by the USSR. There is no way the Americans would have sacrificed a million men to beat the Russians to Tokyo, those nukes did more good than harm in the long run.

USSR didn't have the shipping to invade Japan.

Doesn't take long to assemble some rafts when you have air supremacy, and the Soviets had much shorter supply lines than the Americans thanks to the Transiberian railroad. The Americans would have fallen back on firebombing and hope to pummel the Japs into surrendering, they're far too loss-averse to take on an invasion, given the estimates of a million+ American losses and ten times that many Japs.

>rafts
You aren't very bright, are you?

This

No, there were bloodier ways that America frankly no longer had the patience for.

>he doesn't know about the purple hearts

a lot of factors went into using the bomb.

1. Projected deaths from Operation Downfall would be in the millions, there was no avoiding it unless Japan surrendered before it started. American causalities alone were projected to be between 700,000-1,000,000, more than twice the number of men they've lost in the entire war to this point. Germany and the Soviet Union could afford to take millions of casualties, but in the US, PR and support would plummet if the death rate suddenly skyrocketed for American troops.

2. It was "the easy button", by 1945, the world was fucking sick and tired of fighting, everyone has seen hell and most people just wanted it to stop as soon as possible. dropping the bomb was just one quick "I WIN" button without having to drag the shitshow on to 1947.

3. It was a clear message to Stalin and the Soviets. Stalin knew about the weapon's development since the Yalta conference at least, but showcasing its power to warn the USSR about what it means to directly challenge the US was hopefully a means to get them to back down, but this backfired and resulted in the Soviets making their own nukes 4 years later, starting the arms race.

Japan very well could have surrendered to more firebombings like what was already happening, but the atom bomb was the ultimate show of force to convince Japan that nothing was left except death.

those civilians would be turned into soldiers anyway if there was a invasion

/thread

I can't believe that so many people gasp at the thought of an atomic bomb being detonated in Japan when prior bombing campaigns had had so much more Japanese die.

The only reason was to show the Russians not to fuck with the West and contain themselves.

This was actually done more out of fear than anything else, the USSR had grabbed eastern Europe and while stretched from total war, still vastly out numbered the allies on the continent by a significant factor.

Japan was a country completely ruined from war by the time the allies neared. There will not be millions of dead US troops, there werent millions dead invading Germany and the Germans were much better prepared.

Dropping the bomb was not just end the WW2.
Was to show the power that U.S.A have.
And yes was the best.
The japs were not going surrender so easy.

Kursk.

/thread

>The US literally smoked them because they firstly wanted an unconditional surrender
This was completely morally justified. Why should they allow Japan to remain a militaristic dictatorship?

My grandfather was in the group of soldiers that would have invaded Japan, so yes.

How much weight would deterrence carry without a living example of the capacity of the bomb?
The great powers were inevitably going to end up with them, better they learn early on the consequences of their use.

>Only solution
No

>Best solution
Maybe,

>implying America is averse to propping up military dictatorships

>Waaahhhh my grandpas live is more valuable than the innocent civilians who were victims of the nuclear bombs

what?

no, but it was the only way to kill millions of fucking xineeses and getting away with it fuck em they are very proud of their lolis but what are they going to fap to if they have no hands haha

jk I know they are japaneses

It is commonly thought many more would have died without using the Bomb. It's simple math. Sure you can put a moral/humanistic spin on it, and yes it is obviously deplorable that the deaths were overwhelmingly civilian, but facts are still facts.

Well if my grandfather died I wouldn't be around, so yeah, it's more valuable to me personally.

>waaaaahhh why are people bombing my aggressive nation? All we did was slaughter millions and declare war on all of south east Asia

Unless you count Midway, or the Marianas.

Other than that, it was basically impossible to inflict decisive defeats in the Pacific. Because battles consisted of a few isolated divisions scattered across thousands of miles.

>takes six months
>have superior supplies
>against 1 American division and heaps of poorly trained Filipinos
>have the advantage of surprise

wow, literally unstoppable.

So the number of deaths is what makes it bad? In that case firebombing Tokyo is worse than the nukes. And the Japanese killed far more than the nukes did in their war of aggression in China and the South Pacific.

>1. Projected deaths from Operation Downfall would be in the millions, there was no avoiding it unless Japan surrendered before it started.
Or you know, the Projection that the entirely of Japan is like Okinawa was false. You know, the Island the IJA spent months fortifying every inch of, and sent their best troops and equipment to defend. Important to note that the Japanese focuses so much on making Okinawa impregnable, they didn't even start thinking about fortifying Japan until afterwards.

It's important to look at the Japanese estimates for American casualties. Not even half a million, IF, they can destroy half the U.S. fleet before it sets ashore.

That's right, the Japanese themselves thought that the only way they could offer meaningful resistance was to win a stunning blow in the naval and air battle beforehand.

>Most competent.
>Near-decade stalemate in fucking divided, destabilized China.
Yes, all those victories in Southeast Asia versus busy/surprised enemies were stunning.

Also what everyone has said of the Philippine Campaign.

>the Germans had better technology but made many tactical errors while the Japanese rarely did

Kind of difficult to fuck up tactically if all you're doing is island hoping from one impoverished shithole to the next. Who were they up against? China? They were fucked from colonialism. British Empire? All that was left was a skeleton token force that didn't even want to fight (see Singapore). Then what was there? Only place to put up a fight was the Philippines.

...

Yes, yes it is.

>It was a warning to the Soviets!
1. The Soviets already knew about the bomb through espionage. Stalin knew before Truman did.
2. The Western Allies pressured the Soviets into declaring war on Japan.

Actually US supply lines were 'shorter' as it is much easier to transport metric fucktons of supplies on large cargo ships than across a continent on a rickety railroad. There's a reason the Soviets took a lot of American equipment in their invasion of Manchuria as it was harder for them to transport all their own stuff thousands of miles overland.

Not him but I'd think a good picture of how the invasion would be the Soviet attack on Manchuria. However, it would be even more lopsided (if that's even possible) with the ludicrous amount of American airpower.

Agreed. Another factor people forget is that there were a LOT of Civilians in Manchuria and North Korea. If we look at them, there's basically nothing of the mass suicide we're told to expect, even though they faced a far worse fate then they would have with the Americans.

The reality is that for mass civilian resistance, you need to trust your population with arms, and practical military education. The Japanese would never trust their populace with the first, and didn't even trust their soldiers with the second. They were constantly aware of the danger of civil unrest, and with good reason.

The other factor, though one impossible to know in 1945, is that the two battle plans were hillariously lopsided in the Americans favor. As mentioned the Japanese plan called for sinking the invasion fleet in an all out suicide attack with their remaining air and naval units.

The Americans plan was to fake an invasion, in order to bring out the Japanese naval air units, then pull back at let their fuckhueg fleet fight it out. There's more such "the Japanese were going to fall into a trap so hard" moments, but I'll take some time to look them up.

But yeah, biggest impediment to the American advance through Japan is going to be physical goegraphy and ports.

Japan started it with Pearl Harbor, allying with Hitler, and generally being complete asshats.

the war in europe was over anyway. Japan was losing the pacific war anyway. If the war continued the european nations would have turned on japan anyway

None of the Europeans would have bothered with Japan. They were tired of fighting and Japan was primarily America's problem anyway.

Wanna know how I know you're samefagging?

>WHOA I DISCOVERED YOUR SECRET YOU POSTED MORE THAN ONCE IN A THREAD

...

>They were tired of fighting and Japan was primarily America's problem anyway.
>take British and Dutch colonies
>threaten India
>primarily America's problem

The best solution would have been:
>Everybody surrender.
>USA disarm their military power, and creates the North American Self-Defense Forces.
>All the other countries join hands and live in peace.