Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Have you seen the magic summaries? Since when is the WSJ not a decent source?
The problem isn't the WSJ, its in understanding the context in which those casualty figures came into play in forming an opinion on what to do next.
I am sure you would agree that the casualty figures are very high and probably represent the a 'worse case scenario' if not out right propaganda.
Were those figures discussed as reason for or against the bomb? Or for some other reason like maybe to push a peace agreement with out direct invasion?
Ultimately the bomb was dropped but there were many reasons put forth over the years as to how that decision was arrived at. I am sure the decision was based on many diffferent aspects, some we know, some we don't.
Marshall wasn't convinced that dropping the bombs would cause a surrender and he was planning that the invasion(s) would still be necessary.
[/b]
Its a General Job to plan for every situation. He would not have been doing his job if he didn't plan for an invasion.
I am sure the US government has 'plans' for all sorts of 'unlikely things'.
The Japanese went to the Soviets hoping they would intervene on their behalf with the western allies.
The Soviets didn't need any deal at all with Japan. Whether they invaded Japan or not the surrender of Japan would have left a power vacuum and the Soviets would taken what they wanted of Asia anyway.
Had they decided to make a deal with Japan not go to war for 'parts of Asia' or whether then went to war and kept what they took the end result would have been the same.
Japan was on its last leg and if we ignore any one of the events that happened at the time they surrendered or if we over state the affect of any one thing over the other then then we won't ever arrive at a clear understand.
The lack of a deal with the Soviets and the subsequent invasion of Manchuria should not be under estimated in the decision for surrender.
When asking the question 'did the bomb' defeat Japan its only fair to look at all the circumstances. Not every one even at the time the bomb was being dropped agreed it was necessary. Not every one at the time believed that invasion was necessary. It wasn't limited to either or...
You may want believe the altruistic nature of the US government 'only did it to save lives' but that doesn't make it true. There were many reasons.
That said if I was marine or soldier awaiting my invasion orders, expecting an invasion then I would have been happy if all of Japan would have been nuked to keep me from going. However, things aren't always black and white.
If you want to say that Japan surrendered because of the bomb alone then it shouldn't be to hard to strip away all the other events and isolate the 'bomb' as the 'reason'.
Yup. The marines would land unopposed, the locals would surrender and present ceramonial rice cakes and saki to the liberating marines, the kamakazi's would chicken out and opt to not die for a lost war and the japanese military would high tail it for the mountainous interior were we could carpet bomb 'em at our leisure.
A cakewalk. Everybody knew the japs were beat, even the japs.
Strawman fallacy nonsense, quote who said anything approaching that...
PS what do wotan, sandman and boroda all have in common?...
We are all pinko commies? You don't know anything about me...
