|
Cadet Seaman probably didn't see my post which was.....
"Could I ask a question? If the Japanese didn't surrender by the invasion date, what would make it imperative to invade?
I've seen several reasons, and none seem very convincing."
Simply asking why not continue to bomb them until they surrender or starve, instead of invading and taking a million+ casualties?
And about wanting to create as little "collateral damage" as possible.
It was really the opposite, the Allies were trying to create as much collateral damage as possible.
The Allies hated the Japanese with a vengance, and with good reason after Pearl Harbour, the Bataan death march, the Burma railroad, the rape of Nanking etc, etc, and did'nt worry two hoots about "collateral damage" the U.S. 20th air force had been roaming up and down Japan fire bombing the heart out of just about every major Japanese city, burning men, women and children alive to the tune of about 500,000+ deaths.
Id sure hate to see "collateral damage" if that wasn't it.
LeEnfield says they would rather starve then surrender, well o.k. let them starve, better millions of Japanese starve then a million American casualties, would you agree? Although as I posted before, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey said they would have surrended probably before the invasion date, or by the end of December.
The only reason i've seen put forth were the danger of Japanese submarines, well except for the sinking of the unescorted Indianapolis heading home after delivering components of the atomic bomb, I think Japanese sub kills at that time, were negligible.
I think the best reason would have been political, rather then military.
But i'm not even sure about that one either.
Can some one put forth a compelling reason?
Id be interested in seeing it.
|