Obama On Islamic State: “Ideologies Are Not Defeated With Guns, They Are Defeated With Better Ideas”… Tell that to the Nazis.

[Dexter]

(source ihr.org)

I'm pretty sure the belief that guns have never won a war was expressed by Obama, not the website I linked. Will you address the opinions of the well known historian you are mocking?

[musiclady]

It was fortunate that the Japs didn't know we didn't have material for any more nukes.  The nukes were the ONLY thing that caused the hawks to surrender. They were prepared to fight till the last Jap.
They of course were delusional but they still had plenty left.
American casualties would have been enormous on the mainland.  Truman knew that.  Good move Harry.

And God bless Harry for making that move.

Not only did he save thousands of American lives, but he saved many Japanese as well, who would have died attempting to save their homeland.

The War in the Pacific was brutal beyond words, and it ended because of Truman's decision.

[Bigun]

And God bless Harry for making that move.

Not only did he save thousands of American lives, but he saved many Japanese as well, who would have died attempting to save their homeland.

The War in the Pacific was brutal beyond words, and it ended because of Truman's decision.

   and 

[musiclady]

He's right.

It took two....'low grade' (compared to today's weapons) atomic bombs.

It brought "Unconditional Surrender" and today, is a steady American ally.  Who sell us lots of excellent cars and electronics.

It's remarkable that Japan, who suffered greatly from the bombs, and yet is now a steady, strong American ally and peaceful and prosperous because we ended the war, understands the necessity of what was done more than American peaceniks do.

[evadR]

Quote from: evadR² on Today at 08:53:32 AM
Much of what the writer states is probably correct, except his conclusion.

What is important are not just facts but the interpretation of facts that justifies a conclusion.

Would you break down why you believe his conclusion is wrong?

Sure, be happy to.

As I read it, the basic conclusion of the author is that the nukes were not necessary.  I guess the basic question we have to ask ourselves is "not necessary for what?"
If the author simply means that the nukes weren't necessary for the US to ultimately win the war, then I would agree with him.
But I don't think that's what he means.
If he means that the US could have won the war without untold additional casualties, then he is mistaken.  Estimates of the mainland invasion alone run as much as 10 time the destruction at Normandy.  Then there is the war to secure the mainland with all the pockets of resistance even AFTER we had decimated every military Jap on the planet.
The hawks were in charge, even with all the pre-nuke period and were counting on the war weary Americans to "come to terms" with them as casualties stacked higher and higher.  Even after the first nuke, they attempted a coup to continue the fighting.

This was a fanatical bunch, eager to inflict as much carnage as possible at whatever cost.

Incidentally, I'm presently reading Unbroken which tells the story of what a bunch of merciless, brutal murders the Japs were.

Harry Truman knew this.  Thank you Harry for doing what had to be done.