The Pros And Cons Of US Invasion Tactics

756 Words4 Pages

WWII was the bloodiest conflict in human history, but some would say that the U.S invasion tactics were too far or just necessary. In my opinion I feel that you have to show dominance to others for them to see that you mean business, but I don’t agree with the pulverizing innocent civilians to their deaths. Although the necessity of a US invasion was debated within the US military (US Army was for, US Navy was against) the general consensus judging by the Battle of Iwo Jima and Battle of Okinawa is that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would be costly. With a deterrent to the USSR, the Soviets invaded Manchuria on August 9, 1945 only 3 days after the Hiroshima bombing and 9 hours before the Nagasaki bombing. The US were aware that the USSR would enter the Pacific War on 9 August because at the Yalta Conference …show more content…

The Allies could've made clear that the Japanese imperial family could retain power in post-war. The Japanese military fought on despite the hopeless situation for the honor of defending the emperor. Even after the atomic bombings, Emperor Hirohito told Prince Asaka that he was determined to continue the war if the sovereignty of the Japanese imperial family could not be preserved. Wouldn't it have been better to discuss the imperial family's post-war immunity before using nukes. The main argument for using nukes at the time was to bring complete unconditional surrender. Was this achieved when Japan requested the imperial family be retained? MacArthur granted the request and protected the imperial family from all post-war prosecution. Although Japan's surrender was presented to be unconditional, it was technically a conditional surrender. Couldn't a Japanese conditional surrender been achieved without the use of nukes? After all, Japan was willing to end the war but unwilling to accept unconditional

Open Document