What do you base the figure of a few days or a couple of weeks on? However, at the same time, we must also recognise that the information that is released to the public at the time (upon which 'History' is based) may not always be factually correct.ĭid those in the upper echelons of power have the actual "power" to surrender? We can say what we like about them, but we must recognise those facts. Would Lyndon B Johnson have committed more troops to Vietnam if he had known what the eventual outcome would be? Would we have gone for three bridges instead of two at Arnhem? Would Nelson have still gone to Trafalgar if he knew that he was going to be killed? The fundamental point is this: our leaders did what they thought was best at the time, based on the information that they had available to them at them time. We must remember that the logic of the normal You And Me do not apply to those in the higher echelons, nor are they necessarily correct with the benefit of hindsight. Would an invasion have been necessary? See the statements above. However, there are many counter arguments ģ. A significant number of lives would have been lost. A matter of days or a couple of weeks at maximum:Ģ. Therefore, in the grand scheme of things, they were unnecessary.ġ. The point that I made was that, in the upper echelons, moves were afoot to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped. I was not debating whether one served there or not, nor was I debating the fightin spirit of the individual Japanese soldier. In closing, and in answer to the original question, I prefer Enola Gay - I like the nose picture more. In the long term, however, it resulted in the Arms Race and the related politics for the next 50 years. When it is stated that the atomic bombs shortened the war, it is probably only by a matter of days. In fact, the firestorms in Tokyo and other cities had a far greater effect on the Japanese psyche. The fall of the chain of Pacific islands, the advances of the Chinese and the reduction in effort in Europe meant that Japan had fewer resources on its side, while at the same time, there was the ramping up of the 'opposition'. The result was that, once defeat in foreign lands became inevitable, so did defeat at home. Conversely, once those lands were lost to the Japanese, they became increasingly unable to function on a war footing. Japan simply did not have the raw materials required in order to produce the equipment that it needed.
The whole point of the invasion of Manchuria in the 30's, and the subsequent invasion of Indochina and Indonesia was simple - raw materials. The main purpose for dropping the bombs was to intimidate the other main contender in World Power - Russia. The Japanese had already started making moves towards surrender. Therefore, neither mission nor aircraft were necessary. I may be unnecessarily blighting this discussion, but there was a different history to the one that has been protrayed throughout the Cold War and that still persists (since most of us were brought up during the latter part of the Cold War).