Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
Maybe. I don't know.
I think the phrase 'tough break' can apply to this whole thing though. Obviously it's a terrible tragedy that all those citizens were killed, but Japan pretty much deserved whatever their enemies could send their way at the time.
How many more soldiers would have to die to get the too surrender? Impossible to say the exact number, but whatever it is, you could argue that it would have been too many.
|
There's two different things to talk about here, 1) did the A-bomb end the war quickly and 2) was the A-bomb
needed to end the war quickly.
The answer to 1 could be yes, but the answer to 2 might be no. I guess that's my main point... the A-bomb's didn't defeat the Japanese, they were already defeated, they just refused to admit it. Anyone who thinks the Japanese would have put up a huge resistance with a shortage of a) oil b) food/ammunition c) medical supplies d) effective communication throughout the islands e) most of their manpower already employed (and dead) in the armed forces f) the bulk of their equipment had been destroyed or was stranded in China.
I guess I just don't agree that the Japanese would have given stiff resistance at the cost of 100,000's of US soldiers lives. They were in terrible shape before the A-bomb dropped. My opinion though, obviously it's tough to tell what 'could have' happened, we only know what did happen.