sweynforkbeard said:
Thanks, Skash, that's new to me and very interesting. However, I would say that these are the views of one man who admits to being depressed. Perhaps the unrelenting horrors of the Pacific theatre had taken its toll. Certainly these views were overidden by the vast majority of Allied military planners. It is undeniable that during the invasions of Saipan, Okinawa etc Japanese civilians commited suicide en masse due to Japanese military terror propaganda - the Americans would eat their children alive in front of them etc. The death toll amongst both civilian and military personnel from any attempted invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been appalling - sadly the fatalities caused by the two nuclear bombs would likely have been a drop in the ocean.
Far from the only one:
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children.
Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb.
John McCloy
Assistant Secretary of War
P.M. [Churchill} & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.
President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945
Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study
Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
