BuckinghamshireBoy

Agree completely.

scrubbedexpat099

Germany first so reverse racism?

Southernboy123

I believe that the projected allied casualty/death figures of a mainland invasion of Japan were so high and so wholly unacceptable to the political and military planners given how the closer they got to the home islands the more ferocious the defence became it was an option they couldn’t and didn’t ignore. As I understand it the Japanese powers were warned about this terrible new weapon and asked to surrender before the first bomb was dropped, they chose to ignore. Only after the second bomb was dropped did they consider the ‘unthinkable’ and surrender. Controversial over the years maybe but at the time after years of war and an enemy that showed no sign of surrendering I believe it was right to drop the bombs.

civilservant

You're assuming 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' with that statement, and it isn't really true. As has been discussed previously, it was the Soviet Declaration of war and the invasion of Manchuria (which occurred 2 days after Nagasaki was bombed) that was the straw that broke the camels back.

I think it's a fallacy to think that the Japanese leadership would care about the destruction of their people when it was their intention to resist to the last man anyway.

The only thing they cared about was the survival of Hirohito with all his powers intact.

civilservant

True, it's all opinion.

scrubbedexpat099

Here is some more opinion with some numbers of the possible consequences of an invasion.