[81alum]

Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives. 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

It is arguable.  Truman certainly saved millions of lives compared with a land invasion of Japan, which was the only real alternative he considered. 

Bart Bernstein's Hist 252 course has long raised other possibilities which we could discuss here, but which would be off topic in an already off topic thread.  Suffice it to say that Curtis LeMay himself, architect of the bombing campaign against Japan, stated “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb,” Eisenhower regretted the decision to use the bomb, and Chester Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. … The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”  (Bernstein's argument is that the A-bomb was used more for diplomatic reasons--to prevent the USSR from contributing to the defeat of Japan and thus gaining greater influence in Asia.  The Cold War in this view began before the end of WWII.)

This review of a 1995 book by Alperovitz discusses the controversy and some of the evidence that came to light long after the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books...op-it.html

Debating whether the A-bomb was necessary or useful for ending WWII became a cottage industry in the 1990s and there is a lot of interesting reading about it.  In the 1970s when I confronted my parents about Hiroshima, I was told that my father would have been in the invasion, he would likely have been killed, and I never would have been born.  That was a conversation-stopper.

Now, if I had to make this relevant to a Ukraine thread, I would say that Putin is obsessed with self-serving interpretations of history.  He might well claim that our decision to deliberately kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to accelerate victory in WWII was no different from his deliberate killing of civilians.  There are obvious counterarguments to that, but it does rather force us to talk about the ends of war rather than the means if we want to take the high ground.

[81alum]

Truman acted decisively and, arguably, saved millions of lives. 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-if-...d-in-1938/

It is arguable.  Truman certainly saved millions of lives compared with a land invasion of Japan, which was the only real alternative he considered. 

Bart Bernstein's Hist 252 course has long raised other possibilities which we could discuss here, but which would be off topic in an already off topic thread.  Suffice it to say that Curtis LeMay himself, architect of the bombing campaign against Japan, stated “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb,” Eisenhower regretted the decision to use the bomb, and Chester Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. … The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”  (Bernstein's argument is that the A-bomb was used more for diplomatic reasons--to prevent the USSR from contributing to the defeat of Japan and thus gaining greater influence in Asia.  The Cold War in this view began before the end of WWII.)

This review of a 1995 book by Alperovitz discusses the controversy and some of the evidence that came to light long after the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books...op-it.html

Debating whether the A-bomb was necessary or useful for ending WWII became a cottage industry in the 1990s and there is a lot of interesting reading about it.  In the 1970s when I confronted my parents about Hiroshima, I was told that my father would have been in the invasion, he would likely have been killed, and I never would have been born.  That was a conversation-stopper.

Now, if I had to make this relevant to a Ukraine thread, I would say that Putin is obsessed with self-serving interpretations of history.  He might well claim that our decision to deliberately kill hundreds of thousands of civilians to accelerate victory in WWII was no different from his deliberate killing of civilians.  There are obvious counterarguments to that, but it does rather force us to talk about the ends of war rather than the means if we want to take the high ground.