Surrender was on the table; there was no need for either nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki or for any such invasion.
Surrender was being discussed; however, Japan was unwilling to part with their emporer. This was their main reservation for accepting the terms of the treaty.
Then there was also the fact that the allies had to weigh the cost of taking Japan by military force. Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated that a 120-day campaign to invade and occupy only the island of Kyushu would result in 395,000 casualties (including allies, axis, and civilians).
Kyushi is the southermost island in the chain. There are many islands in this chain, which means the estimated casulaties on the side of the allies alone would be astronomical.
The allied commanders knew they didn't have the man power to take the islands one at a time. Another solution was required. Japan had to know that the allies were NOT going to be stopped. A show of force was required.
President Truman was left with little choice. It occurrs to me that the allies didn't want the Russians to seize control of Japan like they did in Germany after Berlin fell. The Russians were our allies but we, the allies, knew that Stalin was an unstable lunatic.
Whether it was the casulty estimates or a need to keep Russia from controlling Japan or possibly both will never be known. It will continue to be a topic of debate.
The atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings.
Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II.
These bombings were seen by the Truman Administration as the lesser of two evils.
Should the allies invade and watch as countless thousands die on both sides or should the allies, specifically the United States bomb two kep cities in Japan, and kill thousands?
In war there are no easy options and there is no such thing as "the right choice"; however, a decision was required and Truman undoubtedly opted for the choice that would cost the fewest lives.
In any event, to say that the attack was uneccesary is not factually correct. There was a war going on and there was more at stake than two cities.
The allies were not in the war to kill civilians. The United States wasn't even in the war until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It was not the allies who ran concentration camps and conducted experiments on living beings. We were not using slave labor to build bombs and load shells.
Germany did all of those things.
Japan stuck to the scientific portion and used innocent civilians to conduct biological warfare experiments on; often infecting them with small pox, and various other diseases.
Japan was out of control and had to be stopped. The allies had to make certain that Japan was never capable of casuing trouble on a global scale ever again.
While I recognize the loss of civilian lives in World War II was horrible; I also realize that bad things happen in war. War is hell.
Japan was guilty of serious war crimes and had to be stopped. For further details on this read about Japanase atrocities in Manchuria.
Your contempt for innocent civilians is pretty disgusting.
Your contempt for the United States and her Allies is pretty disgusting.
Please try to control your bias.