If the Japanese weren’t cooked in 1945, with their war on China, and the rest of East and Southeast Asia, uh the Soviets were there to extinguish Imperial Japanese forces in Manchukuo and Korea, joining the war shortly after wrapping the European front.
It’s worth noting that the USian narrative in defense of its bombings does not give a single shit about China or Chinese lives. The US was not trying to save China from Japanese imperialism and it has been trying to undermine communist China since the communists gained power. The US took over for Japan in brutalizing Korea and certainly would have done the same in China if they could have.
It can be said, that as much as the Japanese were the target, U.S used the nuclear bomb to set an example to terrorize potential and contemporary rivals and allies alike, into submission, if not surrender. I think this includes the USSR, who was quickly gaining ground near or on Imperial Japan, albeit on a stretched scale.
Good points. Reminds me, I’m not sure to what extent it’s been solidified as a historical argument, but I know there’s a possibility the US did the nuclear bombings primarily as a means to ensure that Japan would surrender to the US on the US’s terms, rather than Japan losing more directly to the USSR. In other words, it may have been less about “ending the war” and more about solidifying US regional power over Japan. IIRC, the argument goes something like that the USSR’s invasion of Manchuria was imminent and the US knew this, so rather than risk that event resulting in Japan surrendering to the USSR, they dropped the bombs to end things as fast as possible on US terms.
And that’s not getting into the Soviet factor
If the Japanese weren’t cooked in 1945, with their war on China, and the rest of East and Southeast Asia, uh the Soviets were there to extinguish Imperial Japanese forces in Manchukuo and Korea, joining the war shortly after wrapping the European front.
It can be said, that as much as the Japanese were the target, U.S used the nuclear bomb to set an example to terrorize potential and contemporary rivals and allies alike, into submission, if not surrender. I think this includes the USSR, who was quickly gaining ground near or on Imperial Japan, albeit on a stretched scale.
Good points. Reminds me, I’m not sure to what extent it’s been solidified as a historical argument, but I know there’s a possibility the US did the nuclear bombings primarily as a means to ensure that Japan would surrender to the US on the US’s terms, rather than Japan losing more directly to the USSR. In other words, it may have been less about “ending the war” and more about solidifying US regional power over Japan. IIRC, the argument goes something like that the USSR’s invasion of Manchuria was imminent and the US knew this, so rather than risk that event resulting in Japan surrendering to the USSR, they dropped the bombs to end things as fast as possible on US terms.