• Murvel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    So much conjecture, but if you have any good sources, feel free to share.

    • alterforlett @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      For Truman, news of the successful Trinity test set up a momentous choice: whether or not to deploy the world’s first weapon of mass destruction. But it also came as a relief, as it meant the United States wouldn’t have to rely on the increasingly adversarial Soviet Union to enter World War II against Japan.

      From https://www.history.com/news/hiroshima-nagasaki-bombing-wwii-cold-war

      By the morning of August 9, 1945, Soviet troops had invaded Manchuria and Sakhalin Island, but there was still no word from the Japanese government regarding surrender.

      From https://www.britannica.com/event/atomic-bombings-of-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki/The-bombing-of-Nagasaki

      Moreover, regular incendiary bombing raids were destroying huge portions of one city after another, food and fuel were in short supply, and millions of civilians were homeless. General Curtis LeMay, the commander of American air forces in the Pacific, estimated that by the end of September he would have destroyed every target in Japan worth hitting. The argument that Japan would have collapsed by early fall is speculative but powerful.

      From https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trumans-decision-to-use-the-bomb-712569

      I don’t know what Truman thought, but I do think saving US soldiers and avoiding The Soviet Union must have weighed in on the decision to nuke cities.

      I know history.com isn’t that great of a source, but I have to go back to work.

      • Murvel@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Of course the bombing campaign was purposed to pressure the Japanese government to surrender, but that it was, as you claim, so that the US didn’t have to carve up Japan with the Soviets is a claim that lacks support, and I couldn’t find that claim in your sources neither.