Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
Oh, no doubt that was the justification at the time, but in hindsight, I think we can objectively state that a military invasion of Japan would have caused a tremendous number of casualties, which almost certainly would have exceeded the number killed by the two atomic bombs.
Whether or not an invasion was the only viable alternative to the bombs is, as you stated, a valid point of contention amongst historians.
|
I guess I'm not convinced Japan was really still raring for a fight. My opinion is that they were so utterly broken at that point (the firebombings in particular were devestating), that their ability to wage an actual defense is highly overrated. They were low on almost all industrial resources as a result of bombing, low on food, ammo, guns, vehicles, gasoline, able-bodied males, etc. At Iwo Jima you have a defensive strong-point, supplied with all of the above, so naturally the battle was incredibly vicious. At Japan a-bomb point in time, I have a tough time imagining what kind of horrific defense the Japanese could have put up that would have slaughtered so many Americans. Did they have a few fully supplied crack divisions waiting in caves to pour out in defense?
I think that invading, and conquering, Japan in late-45 would have been insanely easier than doing the same to Germany in 44. The Germans had everything when they were invaded, while the Japanese would have had nothing (but ashes, of course). I think the current general historical analysis of the possible invasion of Japan overestimates American casualties and the time it would take to accomplish taking the island.
I do understand that Joe's Guide to WWII disagrees with my points though. I'm used to being in the minority on this one. Interesting debate though!