would there be other good ways rather then dropping the atomic bombs on japan to stop WWII?

Answer 1

Trying to analyze what could have been alternate futures for wars may be interesting, but is really an exercise in futility. In retrospect it may seem that “calming down” would be a logical path to take, but such is rarely realistic.

Japan wanted to expand their empire to control the Pacific basin and knew that to do so would require minimizing the potential power of the United States. With such a goal they also knew that the pacific fleet of the United States would have to be destroyed and that meant doing two things. Conquering the Philippians and defeating the United States pacific fleet based in Pearl Harbor.

Japan also lived under a warrior code which made it nearly impossible to surrender or even negotiate. The United States was facing having to invade the Japanese home land which would have caused the lives and estimated hundred thousand Americans and injured another million. In addition it would have killed a million or more Japanese. The two nuclear bombs made Japan face the absolute and total destruction if they continued to fight. With that understanding they could surrender with honor.

The reality of the world is that not everything can be solved by negotiation. Anthony Eden tried that with Germany and it contributed to World War II. If he and others had demanded that Hitler stand down or be attacked, World War II might have been avoided. There are many such examples.

Sometimes the only path is war.

As an after thought:

It is estimated that as many as 140,000 had died in Hiroshima by the bomb and its associated effects, with the estimate for Nagasaki roughly 74,000

On the other hand, in December of 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city. These were individuals intentionally selected and killed one by one.

Any death is tragic, but I can’t help but wonder that those who over estimate the numbers of dead due to the American A-Bombs to end a war, would ever understand the Japanese intent to kill civilians by the hundreds of thousands to conquer and continue the war.

Answer 2

well, we could have surrendered...You speak of people who were so fanatic in their fighting that they would commit suicide rather than give up.

there was no other way, save invading japan itself, which would have ended up with many many more casualties on both sides. President Truman made a decision to save not just American lives (which was his responsibility), but also to save Japanese lives -- the warfare as waged by the Japanese soldiers made clear that invading the home islands would have been a carnage that would have made Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Tarawa, and Guadalcanal seem like a birthday party.

Remember, even after the first a-bomb was dropped, the Japanese government and military remained defiant. In fact, even after the second bomb was dropped, there were many who still wanted to keep fighting. There was no pleasant way to stop that war.

There is no pleasant way to stop any war -- war is an unpleasant business, but if one has inhuman enemies -- people who would rape innocents, cut off heads of opponents, bomb civilians, commit suicide to kill their opponents -- then the only way to defeat them is to kill them first.

Thank G-d that the twin Hanoi Johns (Kerry and Murtha) were not around then. Surrender is not an option. Asking a Tojo or an I'mInAJihad to be nice will not gain you respect or peace. It is sad that a political party that had men like Truman and (Jack) Kennedy turned into the bunch of Quislings like Chappaquiddick Ted and Harry "bend over" Reid.

Answer 3

One necessary little bit of training that would desire to attain you bonus factors: The Soviet Union declared warfare on Japan on 9 August, 1945 and invaded Manchuria. This replace into element of an contract made between Soviet chief Josef Stalin and ex-US president Franklin D. Roosevelt on the Yalta convention in February 1945, the place it replace into agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the Pacific warfare against Japan no later than ninety days after Germany had surrendered. Germany surrendered on 8 would, 1945 and the Soviets for this reason stored their promise via affirming warfare on Japan ninety days later on 9 August, 1945. The Soviet Union's front into the Pacific warfare got here approximately appropriate in between the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it replace into this journey as antagonistic to the atomic bombs that replace into decisive in instigating Japan's renounce.

Answer 4

No. It was believed by the Americans that there would be more deaths for both the Japanese and the Americans if the Americans invaded Japan. The Americans knew that the Japanese would often fight for the death and Japan was getting prepared for an invasion by the Yanks and many Historians believe that more Americans and Japanese would have been killed and the war would have went on for a much longer period of time.

Answer 5

Yes, invading the home islands.
Operations Coronet and Olympic were planned.
Estimated casualties:
Japan: 1 -2 Million
US/Allied: 500,000- 700,000
The Japanese had begun drilling and arming ALL civilians, and had contingency plans to bring back the Army from China. Also, hangars were being constructed in the mountains to base kamikaze strikes on the Allied forces.
What folks don't seem to realize is that resistance continued even AFTER the armistice. It took the personal broadcast of the Emperor -even then several groups of troops refused to give up.
Oh BTW, the butchery of civilians in China, and torture of Allied POWs would've continued for at least another year. Allied planners fully expected to fight until late 1946.
Of course, folks like you never seem to consider the outright atrocity of Imperial Japan.

Answer 6

I'm going to answer this as an outsider, the way foreigners see your government actions for so long. You see it as the only way of saving "the world" from repression, and dictatorial governments, and it might be true, but the actions that the U.S. government take, at the end only benefits your people and other countries usually have to suffer all the consequences specially "third world countries", now don't get me wrong I have nothing against your country, I'm just trying to make you have another perspective of the fact that the millions of people that died in Japan and the thousands in Pearl Harbor where and are priceless, I think that the U.S. people never stops to think that around the world people agrees with them but just because we're afraid not because we think that it will save us from all the things we suffer.

Answer 7

i don't know, we were so far into the war that there was no way to calm down and figure out the reason why japan got pearl harbor in the first place. I STILL THINK WARS ARE STUPID!!!
it's like fighting with your 4 year old sister

Answer 8

Not sure what your angle is on this question, peacenik

You are probably just a kid.

Truman was a Liberal Democrat.