I won’t swear this was true. It was something I read. I haven’t seen the supposed intelligence reports.
But I would say that this wouldn’t be the first case of people believing something was true because it was the thing they wanted to be true.
It says a lot about the overwhelming sense of safety and security that modern Americans have that their understanding of what “total war” was like has completed evaporated over time.
Morality is a slippery concept; I would say that no two people in the world agree on the morality of every happening in history or what should happen in the present or future. And that morality is much easier to define at a distance, whether time or mileage.
Over my lifetime, the debate over the morality of the use of atomic bombs in Japan has shifted greatly. When I was younger the threat of current use of the bomb drove the issue, with those who saw Communism as an existential threat approving and those who saw our government as a militaristic state - as well as those who opposed everything nuclear - disapproving.
As I read this thread I see those factors have largely disappeared, replaced by a different appraisal of morality, that of the least overall harm. By that standard the atomic bombing - which nobody deems anything less than horrendous - was epically moral. The reaction to the instant and lasting devastation has prevented the use of the bomb for 80 years, something that virtually nobody in the 1950s would have bet a penny on even if they could find a taker. That’s possibly the most amazing achievement in human history.
Tomorrow that may change. Too many bombs, too many decision makers, too little cause. The world is not engaged in total war. But if the fragile peace holds, it will be because of 1945 and nothing else.
My GF found this recent article from The New Yorker. It suggests Truman had some anguish about the bombs. Take it FWIW (sorry there is a paywall…I cannot get past it…going with what GF said).
Thank You. 
Eh, America hasn’t had a major war on its soil since the Civil War; it long predates WWII. And while soldiers may have experienced it most people were never soldiers and their worst experience of total war was some rationing. A far cry from the experience of civilian populations overseas who lived in cities bombed and burned to rubble.
No, they experienced their loved ones and friends grieving over their lost children and spouses be killed fighting for our way of life. They sacrificed much more than just food and loss of material things, so this was not their worst experiance.
They were also very aware of the horrible war crimes being committed around the world. They did not live in a vacuum and fully understood the slaughter that was going on. In that war we actually did fight them “over there” so they could not do the same here, and people were very aware of the fact that we would be next if we just sat on the sidelines.
That is a bit reassuring because he sure came off as a callous asshole in the Oppenheimer film.
Tactically: The Japanese were ferocious fighters. Look at the insane resistance they put up on Iwo Jima, which was little more than a pile of rocks. Imagine how they would have fought to save their homeland. The battle for the mainland would have cost many American lives as opposed to the the atom bomb attacks that caused zero American lives. It’s a no-brainer as far as I’m concerned.
Morally: I am convinced that, compared to the death toll from the two atom bombs, many more Japanese would have died during a prolonged traditional attack on their homeland. Also, people are underestimating the horrific death toll from “standard bombing” that hundreds of unopposed bombers would have caused. I’m not going to take the time to statistically compare the two, but my knowledge of history tells me that the carpet bombing attacks on Germany by hundreds of bombers caused fire storms that incinerated cities and killed many.
Though how much did the soviets know about the upcoming use of the atomic bombs? Through spies like Klaus Fuchs they had a lot of the details of the manufacturer of the bombs, did they know anything at all about the upcoming use of them? (which the scientists at Los Alamos knew nothing about). Did they have any spies that could give them even the vaguest details about how and when the bombs were to be used? (Not that it would be hard to guess the vague details given what they knew about the bomb itself)
Hell, think of Saipan and Okinawa, where a total of somewhere between 48,000 and 160,000 civilians died. Either at their own hands, by being drafted to take up arms, as a consequence of being forced to gather supplies for their military, or by Allied artillery.
The Truman Library has a study guide on Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb. Posters may want to go to page 11. It’s a note from Truman to his friend and confidant Sen. Richard Russell. Truman says that while the Japan is a “terribly cruel and uncivilized nation” in warfare, and its leaders are pigheaded, he regrets the necessity of mass attacks and expresses “a humane feeling” for women and children.”
Interestingly, his comment about the War coming to an end once the Russians are involved suggests to me he wasn’t convinced simply dropping bombs wouldn’t be enough to make Japan surrender.
This seems like a fairly obvious fact. Given the situation in Summer of 1945 and all that was known about the Japanese regime (which was quite a lot if you were POTUS, due to the signals intelligence from the highest levels of the Japanese government, as mentioned above), it was absolutely not a given that Japan would surrender after the bombs were dropped.
So in terms of the moral calculus of the decision it wasn’t drop the bombs and have them definitely surrender (and avoid operation Downfall) vs don’t drop the bombs and have them maybe surrender. The facts available to the US leadership in 1945 simply don’t support that set of outcomes (they don’t really support them in 2025 TBH)
It was drop the bombs, and have a chance to have them surrender and avoid Operation Downfall, vs don’t drop them and definitely have to launch Operation Downfall, killing millions of Japanese people and 100s thousands of Americans.
As someone who finds it utterly justified, I’m now curious to hear just what you think, OP.
But remember, Stalin had promised at Yalta to declare war on Japan within 90 days after Germany surrendered. Sure enough, he did that on August 8, exactly 90 days - and coincidentally after Hiroshima. I think Truman’s reasoning was more like ”drop the bombs and have the Russians attack and avoid Operation Downfall.”
And I strongly suspect that despite his misgivings, Truman would have dropped the third bomb had it been ready and the Japanese still hadn’t surrendered
Absolutely.
If Truman had had more atomic bombs he would have kept dropping them until either the supply ran out or the Japanese surrendered.
Fortunately, the supply was small and the Japanese did surrender.
Perhaps – no plan survives contact with the enemy and all that – but the estimates for Allied casualties were quite high. The plans for Downfall were pretty well set, Olympic (the invasion of Kyushu) being scheduled for November 1, 1945 and Coronet (Honshu) more tentatively on March 1, 1946. Records found after the war found that unlike the Germans and Normandy, Japanese had accurately predicted where both invasions would land so they would be waiting with whatever they could gather to hand.
Purple Heart medals were manufactured for the expected casualties which were then sent to storage after Japan surrendered. 2022 was when the stored medals ran out and more ordered.
Good point and good cite.
Look at all them Nazis they killed off at Stalingrad and they still didn’t give up.
I think you are correct.
We know the nuking would continue, because the conventional bombing continued.
The Japanese were still making unrealistic demands after Nagasaki, so the conventional strikes were resumed 5 days later. The largest bomber strike of a very bomb-full war was on August 14. Over 800 B-29s participated.
Hirohito ordered all Japanese forces to stand down the next day.
To be completely honest, reading all of these responses has been very illuminating and has definitely lead me towards the justified perspective. I have always understood the tactical validity of the dropping of the bomb, but i always struggled with the morals of specifically targeting a civilian population hub for such destruction. It never quite sat write with me that the destruction of cities was used as a message to the Japanese, but ultimately it resulted in the best case scenario where so so many deaths were avoided. I think it’s just one of those historical events that is so hard to rationalise as a regular joe, but as many have pointed out, total war is always a time where such heavy and morally taxing decisions must be made for the greater good.