Question

>Doing an invasion is better than bombing

Pol, everybody.

Why does everybody always ignore the obvious solution? Just blockade the Japanese islands and wait it out. No need to invade or drop bombs.

This might be the most autistic thing I've read all day.

The japs wouldn't just sit back and take a blockade. You still run the risk of them trying to kamikaze ships. They could also try to get some torpedoes in the water if they were crafty enough. There's no telling how long it would take to blockade the japs into submission and this would require an extensive amount of time and resources.

From where Truman was sitting, every day that went by where the war was still going on was the possibility for more dead Americans. If it was known that he could've ended the war sooner by dropping a couple of bombs the public would be furious.

Also consider that at that time nobody had ever dropped a nuclear bomb before. Both sides had firebombed cities and burned them to the ground at one point or another during the war. Morally speaking the only difference between this weapon and the weapons used throughout the war is that you needed less to kill more people.

There was really no other way it could have happened.

You're retarded

Not an argument.

they dropped pamphlets urging the japanese to surrender and warned them what was to come should they not

>Japan Dindu Nuffin

Were they in Japanese? Probably a stupid question but I just think its funny imagining a plane dropping a ton of pamphlets in English and none of the Japanese understand what the fuck its saying

It's kinda hard to argue with a moron who pulls lies out of his ass. Hirohito only intervened and ordered the military government to surrender on August 10th - after the dropping of the two bombs. Or did the Jews make this one up too?

no idea, i wasnt there. probably. it probably said it in several languages.

It was the USSR joining in that decided the outcome of the war. The nukes were just the US wanting to get in on war crimes before they went out of style.

>The japs wouldn't just sit back and take a blockade

Japan's navy was already defeated. They had no means to resist a blockade.

>You still run the risk of them trying to kamikaze ships.

I mean, they could try, but they'd just be wasting more planes and pilots trying to do it.

>They could also try to get some torpedoes in the water if they were crafty enough

Literally how?

>Both sides had firebombed cities and burned them to the ground at one point or another during the war.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

>There was really no other way it could have happened.

The blockade would have worked.

...

>Were they in Japanese?

Yes. This is the message that was sent. The reserve side contains the names of Japanese cities to be bombed. The message reads as follows:

>Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.

A Japanese land invasion would have been horrible

That's downright false.

Yeah just let millions of people starve.

>muh blockade
Not him, but you're retarded. WW2 wasn't a fucking game. The Soviets were carving up Germany and holding multiple countries in Eastern Europe. Millions had already been killed on both the allied and axis sides. Dragging out some blockade that could potentially last years (See: Holdout troops on various islands) would only complicate the situation and result in more deaths. The fact that the Japanese didn't surrender after Nagasaki was bombed is proof that they would have dragged things out for as long as humanly possible in the event of a blockade.

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1texlf/what_were_the_casualties_expected_in_an_invasion/ce79t9n/

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14rw7n/was_dropping_the_bomb_on_japan_really_necessary/c7fvnnq/

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3zuffw/some_historians_say_that_the_argument_that_the/cyp9rz8/

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2c1qzy/why_was_an_invasion_of_japan_or_the_dropping_of/cje9i84/

Check more sources.

Hey Howard Zinn.

>the USSR was going to invade with no navy
I guess they were going to make a human bridge like a bunch of ants, right?

Not him, and I'm not really a fan of the "Soviet invasion prompted surrender" theory, but in its defense:

1) The Japanese were hoping that they could play the Soviets against the Americans in surrender talks, their surrender feelers were even sent through the Soviet embassy. With the Soviets entering the war, even in a completely ineffective way, which they weren't by a long shot, those hopes were dashed.
2) The main holdout against surrender was the Army, in part because they still had substantial forces that had not been defeated in places like China and Malaya, and did not seem in imminent danger of doing so, even as the threat of invasion of the home islands mounted. While the Soviets aren't getting to Japan itself anytime soon, they swallowed up Manchuria in a couple of weeks, and had the war continued, could have easily overrun Korea and poured into China proper. Even moreso than a threat against the Japanese islands, this posed a threat to the Army as an institution, which would lose both face and a lot of power if millions of their solders got crushed under Soviet boots.

youtube.com/watch?v=BmIBbcxseXM

Man...we're the best. Here's anime girl general Patton.

Wow, I wanna see her getting gangbanged by Japanese troops

USSR invaded those northern islands that Japan is always bitching about these days.

After the Phillipean battle in 1944, Japan had no navy worth mentioning so the soviets could have invaded with wooden canoes and still been successful.

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-alternatives-to-the-atomic-bombings/

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-a-consensus-view/

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/08/08/kyoto-misconception/

TLDR: The historical community relevant here accepts that there were other options but that they were less acceptable, Japan didn't actually surrender before the bombings and there was debate among Imperial Japan's govenrment over what to do pre-bombings then-post bombing, and lastly that both the bombings and the Soviet Union's actions significantly impacted Japanese policy towards how to end the war.

Yeah I know that propaganda channel really well, wasn't a video where they tried to justify american invasion of iraq? The second time I mean, the really retarded one

A blockade takes a long time. I don't disagree that the blockade would have worked. The japs likely would have eventually surrendered. I'm not really sure how starving an entire nation for months on end is supposed to be more humane than dropping a couple of bombs, ending the war, and getting things back to some sense of normalcy as quickly as possible.

The objective in any war is to end it as quickly as possible and that's exactly what the nukes did.

>japan was a good country she dindu nuffin

Well, even though history proved otherwise, I can't exactly blame the Japanese for not taking the text seriously.
>the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs
At the time, this level of destruction was not believed to be possible. It was indeed the first time when a single bomb was proved to be able to destroy almost an entire city.
>America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people
That's what they always say. It never works. The people living under a dictatorship have been brainwashed to believe that the West is and will always be their enemy, and that the dictator is the only thing protecting them. Ironically, when such countries are invaded by Western forces, there will be atrocities committed by the Westerners (as well as the local dictator) that other dictators will use in their propaganda for years to come.

I wonder if there's a connection between saying Japan dindu nuffin and saying the Holocaust didn't happen.