[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by oleg:
Thermo' arguments are valid in the situation when the outcome of the war has not been decided yet. That was most certainly not true in the case of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Please read my older Posts with quotes of people intimately involved in the desision. I regard their opinions much higher than canonised official US history books.

That is too simplistic a point of view. To say that the war was won at that point is easy to say now. But at that time, Japan still had several million men fighting in the field. And based on the losses in the previous battles, the prospects of invading Japan were costly at best. Had we paused, there is little evidence that Japan would have surrendered and allowed an occupation. Had we continued to bomb and relied on a blockade, then how many would have died in the next six months? And with the way politics functioned in Japan, it could easily have taken six months to replace the military majority of Japans government. It should be remembered that the emperors hold on the nation was not so strong that he could defy the wishes of the majority of the military. A final point that is seldom mentioned is the need to limit the Soviet advances into the area. While the alliance was still in place at the time, Soviet intentions were known for what they were. And there was a recognized need to contain their expansion into the Pacific basin. Several of the gamed results showed the Americans holding only the southern Island at wars end, the rest having fallen to the Soviets. I think we can all agree that American occupation was a kinder result than Soviet occupation would have been.

[ December 14, 2003, 04:26: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]