Not using the nukes does not mean that millions would have died. Already at the end of June Japan had announced through the soviets that they were willing to negotiate a surrender - just not an *unconditional* surrender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_Union
Prolonging the war only allowed the soviets time to transfer more divisions to the far east to steamroll Manchuria which became the only reason that an almost defeated Mao suddenly had control over a large area of China and was able to fight Nationalist China on equal terms.
I'll refer you to the lecture I mentioned previously. I'm growing fairly sure now it was Richard B. Frank, as his book seems to ring a bell. Can't find the thing though, if anyone knows the one I'm talking about and wants to help out?
They did invade Japan. At least what belonged to Imperial Japan back then, namely the south of Sachalin Island, the Kurils and North Korea by amphibious assaults so that soviet forces were already there when their army that waltzed through Manchuria arrived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria#Campaign
So the Soviets were able to do amphibious assaults, at least on a small scale and unlike you Truman did not dismiss their abilites so easily and considered a postwar division of Japan when the war did not end before the soviets advanced further
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Negotiations
Indeed, I am not ignorant of this. However, this capability was small scale and heavily flawed. The feasibility of a large scale invasion of Japan (particularly without US efforts in the South) would be in question.
Really? Because under Truman the US very much took the lead into most problems it was forced to confront. Marshall Aid, Berlin, Korea. China is the odd one out, but an intervention there would have had been a large and dubious proposition.
There was little reason to conceive of hitting Tokyo in a desperation attack.
Desperation attack? The US wasn't doing desperation attacks by 1945.
Their enemy was surrounded and strangled for resources.
Indeed, and still refusing to surrender.
It's doubtful that the Japanese would have taken long before surrendering to the Americans, fearing the ravenous Soviet army.
The ravenous Soviet army as you put it was separated from Japan by a large body of water.
Again, I'd point you to this lecture (once I find the bloody thing) which pretty conclusively dismisses this point.
The idea that because they had never performed marine invasions before, is completely counter to what actually happened with the Americans and Japanese, who were performing naval invasions for the first time
Well, no. The US and Japan both had extremely well developed naval traditions, and had traditionally considered the problems of amphibious landing (this was particularly true in the Japanese case). In the US case this existing experience had been built upon over 3.5 years of warfare and the support of the world's largest industry.
To compare the Soviet amphibious capability to that of America is ridiculous.
and performing ground operations in completely foreign terrain throughout their war in the Pacific and America's war in Europe.
I don't see the point here. Armies can and did adapt to terrain, though I'd note that Europe isn't so different from North America as you suppose. It's somewhat harder meanwhile to develop the techniques and equipment needed for largescale amphibious warfare and then build/implement them.
What do you mean give an example? His use of the two nukes alone set the stage for nuclear proliferation and the mutually assured destruction doctrine.
Saved millions of lives. Damned fine Presidenting.
Besides, do you really think noone else was going to want nukes anyway?
His hostile diplomacy was the embodiment of that 'we can be civil, so long as we have daggers to each other's throats' element within the idea of nuclear deterrence.
See, as much as Truman's diplomacy might be considered hostile, it was Stalin who decided to turn Eastern Europe into his backyard, Stalin who decided to squeeze Berlin in return for concessions, and the Norks who decided it was playtime in Korea.
It's not just something that was naturally going to spring up on its own, but a meta game... and Harry S. Truman had first go at writing the rules. And all of that played back and forth into US and Russian diplomacy; two countries which didn't necessarily need to compete or be rivals.
Actually I'd argue the start of the Cold War was fairly natural. You have the world's two clear leading powers, each with strongly opposed interests, each seeing a background of threat. For the USSR that comes from the Great Patriotic War and Stalin's own paranoia, for the USA it comes from the Soviet advances in Eastern Europe.
None of that was Truman's fault. Indeed, if anyone was the initial aggressor one should look to Stalin for his decision to seize control of Eastern Europe.
None of it was what was called for at the time, and caused a lot of people a lot of pain.
Rebuilding Europe after WW2? Sounds decent to me, even if it was a massive cash making/anti-Communist plan.
Feeding Berlin? Pretty decent move.
Korean War? Well, call me Susanna but I'm not sure the Kims are nice fellas.
Can I ask a follow up here? Are you an FDR fan?
