Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> > just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
> > wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
> > to that point.
>
> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
> a walk in the park.
This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
books. I am not at all sure it is true. Of course there is no way to
what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
demonstration on an uninhabited island. No doubt the destruction at
Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
raids and incendiary raids.
Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?
As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
achieved the same results.
Personally I am glad the war ended when it did. My Father was stationed
on a picket destroyer that would have been involved in the invasion.
Ed
