The argument is that a land invasion would have resulted in far more than the 129,000 people killed by the two bombs.
The argument is that a land invasion would have resulted in far more than the 129,000 people killed by the two bombs.
Later it emerged that it was actually the Soviet delcaration of war on the 8th August that was the deciding factor for surrender; the Japanese had stocked around 10,000 aircraft in Manchuria which were now under threat and they couldn't fight a two-front war.
Yes, the two bombs ultimately saved untold thousands lives but that was more accidental than deliberate.
Japanese leadership assumed they could negotiate with the Russians, and therefore still had an out. When this avenue was closed, the Japanese were forced to face the fact that they had lost.
It's somewhat ironic that the Russian army put forth the vast majority of effort and lives that defeated the Germans, yet it was America that reached Berlin first, resulting in Nazi surrender. This was reciprocated in the Pacific theater by the Americans expending the lions share of the effort and lives, yet it was the Russians that forced Japanese surrender.
Although, this is all theory by historians. It still stands to reason that in the moment, the Americans speculated that the use of nuclear weapons would end the war. After all, Truman issued an ultimatim that essentially spelled out what would and did happen if the Japanese did not surrender.
Um, no.
Emperor of Japan directly cited "a new powerful weapon" in a surrender address.
> the Japanese had stocked around 10,000 aircraft in Manchuria
Sources? Why Japan had to stock that number of aircraft so far away from the planned invasion points?