Excellent, well-balanced and informative presentation. As a retired Ph.D. historian and former university professor who has taught many courses on the Cold War, I think that Dr. Walker makes a valuable contribution here.
Ever hear about the guy working at the Mitsubishi in Hiroshima and lived with burns. He made his way home and two days later decided to go to work at the Mitsubishi plant in Nagasaki. Yep, he lived a long life and had 2 daughter. One of 6 people that lived thru both.
At 28:45 he asks how few casualties Truman may have accepted as reason NOT to use the bomb. And I think personally, it was zero. The time had come to use it, and the sum total of death and destruction experienced by Americans to that date was sufficient to justify in Trumans mind that use of as many atomic weapons as it took to force the surrender was warranted.
Yes. People in the United States we're growing tired of their young men coming home in boxes. Japan lost the war on December 7, 1941. If they didn't know then they should have known after Midway. The Empire of Japan is 100% responsible for the destruction of their country.
Listen to Victor Davis Hanson discuss his book The Seond World Wars. He discusses the massive conventional bombing was being pursued and the increase to come and the tole it would have had on Japan. Very eye opening.
Trueman as VP knew nothing of the Atomic Bomb or indeed the British code-breaking efforts until he unexpectedly became President, he carried out what Churchill persuaded him to do.
What about babies , children , women who were dead innocently in this bombonic bomb without having any relationship with the war of Japan , what about children who were just dead this way because just a war ? And if you're son died or your wife or your mother or your father tragically and massively in a bomb or a crash of airplane and you heard that government is the cause of that and you asked why , they tell well because between your father and mother or son or anyone there was a criminal and robber so we wanted to kill him , the simple answer you'll say : But what's the relationship between my lovely ones and this criminal or this robber , and they answer you : well we wanted to get rid of him and the target came to your father and mother and we are sorry , our goal was that and your father and mother died in that goal died , so what we can do for you ?
@@othmanibnaffan6178 The whole Japanese society at that time had been completely militarized. The first thought of their officer corp was that the whole country should commit suicide rather than surrender, this is what the Americans were dealing with. Describing them as "criminal and robber" is completely and utterly insufficient.
@@othmanibnaffan6178 --- What about babies , children , women who were dead innocently in this bombonic bomb without having any relationship with the war of Japan , what about children who were just dead this way because just a war ? Wayne Patterson --- The members of a sovereign state are required to maintain allegiance and obedience to their state sovereign. The sovereign of the state is obligated to provide for the welfare and security of the members of the state. In the case of Japan during WW2 the sovereign authority of Japan engaged in a long series of acts which were prohibeted under international law and engaged in many acts of genocide and murder. Furthermore, noncombatants (civilians)and hostages cannot be used to shield military targets against lawful military attacks by a hostile belligerent. Centuries of past customs and the Laws of War have provided laws requiring a besieger and besieged of a city to comply with requirements for an ultimatum before the bombardment of a city with the presence of noncombatant civilians. The besieged have the option of surrendering the city to the besieger before the commencement of the bombardment of the city; the besieged may negotiate a declaration of an open city which allows the besieged combatants to depart from the city to safety with or without their armaments while leaving the noncombatants in the city; the besieged may evacuate the noncombatants (civilians) from the city to safety as refugees before the battle resumes and the city undergoes bombardment by the besieger; etc. Before WWII Japan and Germany rejected international proposals to extend such laws about artillery and naval bombardment of cities to the use of air bombardments as well. Consequently, air bombardments of cities during WWII were not subject to the same legal restrictions as already existed for artillery and naval gun bombardments of cities. Nevertheless, the United States did provide similar ultimatums and warnings of imminent air bombardments of Japanese cities as contemplated by the laws concerning bombardments of cities under siege. It was the Japanese Government who made the choices about which noncombatants of the cities would be and would not be subjected the risks of injury and death due to enemy air bombardments of the Japanese cities. About one-third of the noncombatants in Hiroshima heeded the enemy warnings and evacuated Hiroshima to safe areas in the rural areas around Hiroshima. These people who complied with the international Laws of War were unharmed by the detonation of the Little Boy atomic bomb which destoryed the Imperial Japanese Army's Second Army Headquarters and 5th Division Headquarters responsible for the defense of Kyushu. Those noncombatants who chose to remain in Hiroshima despite the enemy warnings of imminent air bombardment assumed personal responsibility for the risk of their potential injuries and deaths as a consequence of remaining in the military target area of the air bombardment. Their protecting sovereign, the Emperor of Japan and his Government of Japan, assumed responsibility for the safety and welfare of the noncombatants they allowed to remain present in the military target areas previously warned in an ultimatum by the enemy to be in imminent danger of air bombardments. Noncombatants who do not comply with the laws of war are lawfully and morally subject to injuries and death.
@@lieshtmeiser5542 Japan was pretty much done for by this time. Carriers all fucked, no planes, barely any fuel or oil in the entire country. Major industry and power and supply chains destroyed. We could've just gone home, there was no possible way for them to continue.
@@whatdoiput807 "We could've just gone home, there was no possible way for them to continue." Go home and let them just build up again, tell themselves stories of how they were cheated. Or what if Stalin took advantage and invaded Japan and turned it into another peoples republic like China and North Korea? It happened the correct way in my view.
The opening premise of the presentation is just bad history. There is no evidence that Japan was going to surrender without an invasion. A blockade would have resulted in far more horror than the atomic bomb, and it would have ended the war only if civil war broke out in the populace due to famine. It was already a risk in 1945, and had not changed thinking. It is also idiotic to suggest that no one, including Truman, had any idea about expected casualties should there be an invasion. Leadership was acutely aware of the unbelievable ferocity of Japanese resistance and its suicidal character. All that you had to do was scale up Iwo Jima or Okinowa to make an estimate about the casualties for an invasion, which they did at the time. No one knew with any precision what it would be, except that it was a certainty to be horrific. The idea that Truman was just empty headed about the expected casualties for invasion, and therefore did not consider that factor when authorizing use of the bomb, makes zero sense. He does make the crucial points that the Japanese were not ready to surrender in 1945, and that an offer that they could keep the Emperor would not have ended the war. The Japanese had already stripped down defenses in Manchuria in order to reinforce the home islands. They also knew that the Russians had prematurely terminated the non-aggression Pact, and that the Russians wanted to re-acquire territory lost to Japan in 1905. They were aware of the likelihood of Soviet attack, and that had not increased any willingness to surrender. There was no reason to believe that a Soviet attack would change anything.
That is incorrect, there is evidence: first being the logs of the Japanese War Council, and second being the communications between the Japanese ambassador to Moscow, Naotake Sato, and the Japanese minister of foreign affairs. In the months before the deployment of the bombs, Sato was continuously asked by the foreign minister to investigate whether they could ask the Soviet government to mediate an agreeable peace accord between the U.S. and Japan; the ambassador knew the Soviets wouldn't and repeatedly told them to just surrender already because he suspected the Soviets were going to invade. The minister told him essentially to shut up and just do what he was asked to do, which I think shows pretty well how insistent Japan was on ending the war on the condition if they were going to retain the Emperor. While Japan had indeed not decided at the moment that they were going to surrender, the option was definitely on the table so long as they knew that the Emperor was going to be left alone. If the U.S. made it clear to Japan that the Emperor was going to surrender, this would have likely at least accelerated their surrender. The indecisiveness of the war council was a result of a lack of proper information onto the next actions and peace conditions of their opponents, not just their determination to bleed American forces (which was not an option supported by the moderates, who were open to a surrender so long as the Emperor was left in charge). It was ultimately the chance that the U.S. would leave the Emperor alone (As the U.S. did not mention the Emperor needing to be punished or removed from position of power in their ultimatum), as well as the dashing of the hopes of a Soviet mediation due to their declaration of war, that finally convinced the Emperor to intervene and overrule the council to agree to the terms of the Potsdam declaration. The nuclear bombs played a similar effect to the firebombings of other Japanese cities, which was pretty much negligible at this point. It's only after the war that their true damage was really understood by the Japanese leadership, which led to the whole "we were facing a wonder weapon that we could not hope to counter" excuse.
@@MalevolentSpirit234false the emperor stated that it was the atomic bombs and the Soviets lacked the logistical means to invade Japan effectively, the idea that the bombs had little effect is idiotic, the emperor broke the tie citing the atomic bombs.
One correction - the War Department and Truman’s own cabinet estimated up to 1M U.S. lives and up to 4M Japanese lives would be lost in a full invasion scenario.
If an invasion was necessary it would have costs 100s of thousands of lives. That’s obvious. Also, the Soviets would have had control of Japan proper or parts of it. It’s has been a huge benefit, for the Japanese and Asia, that a democracy be established. That wouldn’t have happened had the Soviet Union and the US invaded. It would have been like Berlin. Where part of japan was under Soviet control, part under U.S. Control. Attacking the decision like this is shameful. This decision was made with a heavy heart. Looking back with a Sober mind betrays the reality of 1945. It seems the upset is the use of bomb. Apparently it would be ok if the Japanese and allied soldiers died other ways…gunshot, bombs, knives, etc.
Wait, we had 50,000 casualties taking Okinawa alone… and someone had to spell out to Truman that taking Japan would entail hundreds of thousands of dead on the US side and five-ten fold that on the other? This whole question of the bomb is repugnant to me… if Americans were then anything like they are now, and I suspect some thread weaves thru time, then I must trust the best decisions were made with the facts they had at hand.
invading a nation is going to cost lives you do not need documentation to know the president would know it would cost many lives. American AND Japanese civilians
I was tasked with landing in Tokyo on a commercial fight to kidnap all the generals and force their surrender. I was called off the mission 2 hours before they surrendered.
Here's what is not talked about - Harry Truman had been briefed about Union of Soviet Socialist Republics traveling through Eastern Europe and Eastern Germany. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares war on Japan and begin moving troops East to Islands Russia retained after Russo/Japanese War to take part in the party of an Invasion of Japan. Based on loses on Okinawa an estimated 1,000,000 Americans killed and possibly 1,000,000 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Soldiers killed. And how many Japanese civilians killed. Two Bombs = 200,000 Japanese Dead and a President who had seen Combat. You do the math.
Use of the bomb is irrelevant. The bombs existence is what’s important. In fact, the use of the bomb declared to the world its mighty power. Reality instead of an abstract concept. Humans always assume the road NOT traveled is the better one. That if the bomb hadn’t been used, the world would be peaceful and nuclear war wouldn’t exist. That is such foolishness. This presenter is an embarrassment to history, logic and to our vets. Roosevelt would have used the bomb. Roosevelt is the deity of the left. Someone this presenter adores. It was Roosevelt who authorized the creation of the bomb. Why is the bombs creation undiscussed but its use dammed? Once man knows what is possible, the genie is out of the bottle. Some nation would have discovered it. Thank God It was the US and it’s Allie’s who sought no hegemony.
If we really believe Truman’s logic is sound, then all future wars should avoid costly combat, and we should just vaporize civilian populations. It’s the moral thing to do.
The dirty little secret is that Japan was desperately trying to surrender. But, nope, they "wanted" to use those bombs because without them there would have been no cold war. And, THAT they simply would not allow.
@@roachtheflorist9492 behind your response is a valid point: this author along with Barton J Bernstein have attempted to find a new way through the very divisive debate between two sides on this discussion; the earlier comments fail to say anything beyond unsupported opinion.
@@jerryg53125Exactly. Truman knew it would cost hundreds of thousands of American and millions of Japanese lives to invade, continue the aerial bombing, and blockade ports. He made the only feasible decision.
If an invasion was necessary it would have costs 100s of thousands of lives. That’s obvious. Also, the Soviets would have had control of Japan proper or parts of it. It’s has been a huge benefit, for the Japanese and Asia, that a democracy be established. That wouldn’t have happened had the Soviet Union and the US invaded. It would have been like Berlin. Where part of japan was under Soviet control, part under U.S. Control. Attacking the decision like this is shameful. This decision was made with a heavy heart. Looking back with a Sober mind betrays the reality of 1945. It seems the upset is the use of bomb. Apparently it would be ok if the Japanese and allied soldiers died other ways…gunshot, bombs, knives, etc.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent, well-balanced and informative presentation. As a retired Ph.D. historian and former university professor who has taught many courses on the Cold War, I think that Dr. Walker makes a valuable contribution here.
you were on C-span!
By far the best account I've heard to date. Thank you!
Ever hear about the guy working at the Mitsubishi in Hiroshima and lived with burns. He made his way home and two days later decided to go to work at the Mitsubishi plant in Nagasaki. Yep, he lived a long life and had 2 daughter. One of 6 people that lived thru both.
Such a fascinating topic from so many angles.. well done. Peace be with you
31:00 Truman knew the A-Bomb was a very terrible weapon AFTER it was dropped; who knows what he knew or thought before using the weapon
It’s first use was not on the cities in Japan. They ran many test, many of which Truman had access to the data.
At 28:45 he asks how few casualties Truman may have accepted as reason NOT to use the bomb. And I think personally, it was zero. The time had come to use it, and the sum total of death and destruction experienced by Americans to that date was sufficient to justify in Trumans mind that use of as many atomic weapons as it took to force the surrender was warranted.
Yes. People in the United States we're growing tired of their young men coming home in boxes. Japan lost the war on December 7, 1941. If they didn't know then they should have known after Midway. The Empire of Japan is 100% responsible for the destruction of their country.
Listen to Victor Davis Hanson discuss his book The Seond World Wars. He discusses the massive conventional bombing was being pursued and the increase to come and the tole it would have had on Japan. Very eye opening.
Trueman as VP knew nothing of the Atomic Bomb or indeed the British code-breaking efforts until he unexpectedly became President, he carried out what Churchill persuaded him to do.
Very good analysis. Thank you.
I'm a conservative Republican, but old Harry Truman got it exactly right. Thank God FDR chose him as his VP.
What about babies , children , women who were dead innocently in this bombonic bomb without having any relationship with the war of Japan , what about children who were just dead this way because just a war ? And if you're son died or your wife or your mother or your father tragically and massively in a bomb or a crash of airplane and you heard that government is the cause of that and you asked why , they tell well because between your father and mother or son or anyone there was a criminal and robber so we wanted to kill him , the simple answer you'll say : But what's the relationship between my lovely ones and this criminal or this robber , and they answer you : well we wanted to get rid of him and the target came to your father and mother and we are sorry , our goal was that and your father and mother died in that goal died , so what we can do for you ?
@@othmanibnaffan6178 The whole Japanese society at that time had been completely militarized. The first thought of their officer corp was that the whole country should commit suicide rather than surrender, this is what the Americans were dealing with. Describing them as "criminal and robber" is completely and utterly insufficient.
@@othmanibnaffan6178 --- What about babies , children , women who were dead innocently in this bombonic bomb without having any relationship with the war of Japan , what about children who were just dead this way because just a war ?
Wayne Patterson --- The members of a sovereign state are required to maintain allegiance and obedience to their state sovereign. The sovereign of the state is obligated to provide for the welfare and security of the members of the state. In the case of Japan during WW2 the sovereign authority of Japan engaged in a long series of acts which were prohibeted under international law and engaged in many acts of genocide and murder. Furthermore, noncombatants (civilians)and hostages cannot be used to shield military targets against lawful military attacks by a hostile belligerent. Centuries of past customs and the Laws of War have provided laws requiring a besieger and besieged of a city to comply with requirements for an ultimatum before the bombardment of a city with the presence of noncombatant civilians. The besieged have the option of surrendering the city to the besieger before the commencement of the bombardment of the city; the besieged may negotiate a declaration of an open city which allows the besieged combatants to depart from the city to safety with or without their armaments while leaving the noncombatants in the city; the besieged may evacuate the noncombatants (civilians) from the city to safety as refugees before the battle resumes and the city undergoes bombardment by the besieger; etc. Before WWII Japan and Germany rejected international proposals to extend such laws about artillery and naval bombardment of cities to the use of air bombardments as well. Consequently, air bombardments of cities during WWII were not subject to the same legal restrictions as already existed for artillery and naval gun bombardments of cities. Nevertheless, the United States did provide similar ultimatums and warnings of imminent air bombardments of Japanese cities as contemplated by the laws concerning bombardments of cities under siege. It was the Japanese Government who made the choices about which noncombatants of the cities would be and would not be subjected the risks of injury and death due to enemy air bombardments of the Japanese cities. About one-third of the noncombatants in Hiroshima heeded the enemy warnings and evacuated Hiroshima to safe areas in the rural areas around Hiroshima. These people who complied with the international Laws of War were unharmed by the detonation of the Little Boy atomic bomb which destoryed the Imperial Japanese Army's Second Army Headquarters and 5th Division Headquarters responsible for the defense of Kyushu. Those noncombatants who chose to remain in Hiroshima despite the enemy warnings of imminent air bombardment assumed personal responsibility for the risk of their potential injuries and deaths as a consequence of remaining in the military target area of the air bombardment. Their protecting sovereign, the Emperor of Japan and his Government of Japan, assumed responsibility for the safety and welfare of the noncombatants they allowed to remain present in the military target areas previously warned in an ultimatum by the enemy to be in imminent danger of air bombardments. Noncombatants who do not comply with the laws of war are lawfully and morally subject to injuries and death.
@@lieshtmeiser5542 Japan was pretty much done for by this time. Carriers all fucked, no planes, barely any fuel or oil in the entire country. Major industry and power and supply chains destroyed. We could've just gone home, there was no possible way for them to continue.
@@whatdoiput807 "We could've just gone home, there was no possible way for them to continue."
Go home and let them just build up again, tell themselves stories of how they were cheated. Or what if Stalin took advantage and invaded Japan and turned it into another peoples republic like China and North Korea?
It happened the correct way in my view.
The opening premise of the presentation is just bad history. There is no evidence that Japan was going to surrender without an invasion. A blockade would have resulted in far more horror than the atomic bomb, and it would have ended the war only if civil war broke out in the populace due to famine. It was already a risk in 1945, and had not changed thinking.
It is also idiotic to suggest that no one, including Truman, had any idea about expected casualties should there be an invasion. Leadership was acutely aware of the unbelievable ferocity of Japanese resistance and its suicidal character. All that you had to do was scale up Iwo Jima or Okinowa to make an estimate about the casualties for an invasion, which they did at the time. No one knew with any precision what it would be, except that it was a certainty to be horrific. The idea that Truman was just empty headed about the expected casualties for invasion, and therefore did not consider that factor when authorizing use of the bomb, makes zero sense.
He does make the crucial points that the Japanese were not ready to surrender in 1945, and that an offer that they could keep the Emperor would not have ended the war.
The Japanese had already stripped down defenses in Manchuria in order to reinforce the home islands. They also knew that the Russians had prematurely terminated the non-aggression Pact, and that the Russians wanted to re-acquire territory lost to Japan in 1905. They were aware of the likelihood of Soviet attack, and that had not increased any willingness to surrender. There was no reason to believe that a Soviet attack would change anything.
That is incorrect, there is evidence: first being the logs of the Japanese War Council, and second being the communications between the Japanese ambassador to Moscow, Naotake Sato, and the Japanese minister of foreign affairs.
In the months before the deployment of the bombs, Sato was continuously asked by the foreign minister to investigate whether they could ask the Soviet government to mediate an agreeable peace accord between the U.S. and Japan; the ambassador knew the Soviets wouldn't and repeatedly told them to just surrender already because he suspected the Soviets were going to invade. The minister told him essentially to shut up and just do what he was asked to do, which I think shows pretty well how insistent Japan was on ending the war on the condition if they were going to retain the Emperor. While Japan had indeed not decided at the moment that they were going to surrender, the option was definitely on the table so long as they knew that the Emperor was going to be left alone. If the U.S. made it clear to Japan that the Emperor was going to surrender, this would have likely at least accelerated their surrender. The indecisiveness of the war council was a result of a lack of proper information onto the next actions and peace conditions of their opponents, not just their determination to bleed American forces (which was not an option supported by the moderates, who were open to a surrender so long as the Emperor was left in charge).
It was ultimately the chance that the U.S. would leave the Emperor alone (As the U.S. did not mention the Emperor needing to be punished or removed from position of power in their ultimatum), as well as the dashing of the hopes of a Soviet mediation due to their declaration of war, that finally convinced the Emperor to intervene and overrule the council to agree to the terms of the Potsdam declaration. The nuclear bombs played a similar effect to the firebombings of other Japanese cities, which was pretty much negligible at this point. It's only after the war that their true damage was really understood by the Japanese leadership, which led to the whole "we were facing a wonder weapon that we could not hope to counter" excuse.
@@MalevolentSpirit234false the emperor stated that it was the atomic bombs and the Soviets lacked the logistical means to invade Japan effectively, the idea that the bombs had little effect is idiotic, the emperor broke the tie citing the atomic bombs.
@@MalevolentSpirit234also please cite a source because if you want to hear the opposite I suggest sadeo asada as a good start
One correction - the War Department and Truman’s own cabinet estimated up to 1M U.S. lives and up to 4M Japanese lives would be lost in a full invasion scenario.
If an invasion was necessary it would have costs 100s of thousands of lives. That’s obvious. Also, the Soviets would have had control of Japan proper or parts of it. It’s has been a huge benefit, for the Japanese and Asia, that a democracy be established. That wouldn’t have happened had the Soviet Union and the US invaded. It would have been like Berlin. Where part of japan was under Soviet control, part under U.S. Control.
Attacking the decision like this is shameful. This decision was made with a heavy heart. Looking back with a Sober mind betrays the reality of 1945.
It seems the upset is the use of bomb. Apparently it would be ok if the Japanese and allied soldiers died other ways…gunshot, bombs, knives, etc.
Wait, we had 50,000 casualties taking Okinawa alone… and someone had to spell out to Truman that taking Japan would entail hundreds of thousands of dead on the US side and five-ten fold that on the other? This whole question of the bomb is repugnant to me… if Americans were then anything like they are now, and I suspect some thread weaves thru time, then I must trust the best decisions were made with the facts they had at hand.
invading a nation is going to cost lives you do not need documentation to know the president would know it would cost many lives. American AND Japanese civilians
I was tasked with landing in Tokyo on a commercial fight to kidnap all the generals and force their surrender. I was called off the mission 2 hours before they surrendered.
Here's what is not talked about - Harry Truman had been briefed about Union of Soviet Socialist Republics traveling through Eastern Europe and Eastern Germany. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares war on Japan and begin moving troops East to Islands Russia retained after Russo/Japanese War to take part in the party of an Invasion of Japan. Based on loses on Okinawa an estimated 1,000,000 Americans killed and possibly 1,000,000 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Soldiers killed. And how many Japanese civilians killed.
Two Bombs = 200,000 Japanese Dead and a President who had seen Combat. You do the math.
Use of the bomb is irrelevant. The bombs existence is what’s important. In fact, the use of the bomb declared to the world its mighty power. Reality instead of an abstract concept.
Humans always assume the road NOT traveled is the better one. That if the bomb hadn’t been used, the world would be peaceful and nuclear war wouldn’t exist.
That is such foolishness. This presenter is an embarrassment to history, logic and to our vets. Roosevelt would have used the bomb. Roosevelt is the deity of the left. Someone this presenter adores. It was Roosevelt who authorized the creation of the bomb. Why is the bombs creation undiscussed but its use dammed?
Once man knows what is possible, the genie is out of the bottle. Some nation would have discovered it. Thank God It was the US and it’s Allie’s who sought no hegemony.
If we really believe Truman’s logic is sound, then all future wars should avoid costly combat, and we should just vaporize civilian populations. It’s the moral thing to do.
The dirty little secret is that Japan was desperately trying to surrender. But, nope, they "wanted" to use those bombs because without them there would have been no cold war. And, THAT they simply would not allow.
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
I agree.Truman had been given estimates of dead and wounded and was well aware of the cost.He is just making things up as he goes.
I'm sure you are just as successful in his field
@@roachtheflorist9492 behind your response is a valid point: this author along with Barton J Bernstein have attempted to find a new way through the very divisive debate between two sides on this discussion; the earlier comments fail to say anything beyond unsupported opinion.
@@jerryg53125Exactly. Truman knew it would cost hundreds of thousands of American and millions of Japanese lives to invade, continue the aerial bombing, and blockade ports. He made the only feasible decision.
This man is an embarrassment to history, logic and hairlines.
If an invasion was necessary it would have costs 100s of thousands of lives. That’s obvious. Also, the Soviets would have had control of Japan proper or parts of it. It’s has been a huge benefit, for the Japanese and Asia, that a democracy be established. That wouldn’t have happened had the Soviet Union and the US invaded. It would have been like Berlin. Where part of japan was under Soviet control, part under U.S. Control.
Attacking the decision like this is shameful. This decision was made with a heavy heart. Looking back with a Sober mind betrays the reality of 1945.
It seems the upset is the use of bomb. Apparently it would be ok if the Japanese and allied soldiers died other ways…gunshot, bombs, knives, etc.