Originally Posted by MontyB

To all the people who are about to jump up at down about me not being there please note this does not remove the fact that I believe the A-Bombing was justified it is purely hypothetical thinking about another possible aspect of the campaign with 60 years of hindsight.

Well i guess that's part of what this thread is all about, the other solution would be to go back in time which we can't (yet) ^^

Ah i almost forgot- theres a good and entertaining book that comments on what we can/ should make of "historical" movies (in this case focusing on Rome):
Marcus Junkelmann- Hollywoods Traum von Rom (Hollywoods dream of Rome)
There is also a translated version

Marcus Junkelmann: Hollywoods dream of Rome - "„Gladiator "“and the tradition of the monumental film. 1. Edition. Philipp of Zabern, Mainz 2004, ISBN 3-8053-2905-9

There was never going to be a negotiated peace, all the allied leaders were adamant that the Axis countries should be made to surrender unconditionally. What was worrying the Allies that unless the Axis countries where truly beaten that we might have re run of the war in other twenty years. Any peace treaty made with Axis could have been just round two and when they had rearmed and reequipped they just might try again. It was by imposing peace on Japan and changing their life style by force that helped change Japan for all times

thats a good point, haven't considered that yet...

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

There was never going to be a negotiated peace, all the allied leaders were adamant that the Axis countries should be made to surrender unconditionally. What was worrying the Allies that unless the Axis countries where truly beaten that we might have re run of the war in other twenty years. Any peace treaty made with Axis could have been just round two and when they had rearmed and reequipped they just might try again. It was by imposing peace on Japan and changing their life style by force that helped change Japan for all times

It's interesting to note that a declaration of an unconditional surrender certainly made the Germans fight even harder, particularly in the Rhineland. This cost many more lives on both sides.

I remember after the end of WW2, how everybody was so happy that there would never be another war, because of the atom bomb. Now it seems we will never have peace as long as they exist.

errol..............There had to be an unconditional surrender, as the Germans thought that they were not defeated after WW1, so we had rerun off it. Did you think that the Allies would go down that path again.

Well, like Le, I was here at that time and I back him 100%.

I, who lived in Lodon at that time, amongst masses of soldiers who were familiar with the way Japan had waged WW11, can confirm that in England the news was probably the most welcome and applauded moment of the conflict. The Japanese forces at that time were feared and hated here, and whilst we were not aware of the power unleashed until later, everybody had been getting bombed devastatingly throughout the duration. It was looked upon as payback and retribution by those who had the misfortune to face the Japanese war machine.

The news was greeted with great cheers and a special Victory over Japan celebration with monutain high bonfires and dancing in the streets.

The word for what happened is War, and only retrospect brings aany reconsideration.

Did it shorten the war? Of course. There is suggestion that some Japanese isolated Japanese have not yet agreed to surrender!

Was the example a deterrent? What do you think? Did it remove the prevailing taste for conflict? What do you think?

This is of course the opinion of someone who had experienced years of involvement and threat, but who has long since put all that to one side, not least because of the nature of the defeat imposed by such a bomb.

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

errol..............There had to be an unconditional surrender, as the Germans thought that they were not defeated after WW1, so we had rerun off it. Did you think that the Allies would go down that path again.

The thing is that despite the claims of an unconditional Japanese surrender it wasn't entirely unconditional as Japan pretty much got what it was asking for in the July offer and that was immunity for the Emperor and the right to disarm their own military.

The only variations on the late 1944 peace offerings were that the wanted no occupation or war crimes trials and to retain their island possessions at the out break of the war the war in the Pacific could have been finished before the the war in Europe and several high ranking American officials obviously knew it and were keen for it to happen for example:

On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."
Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


This is why I have said this needs to be looked at from two points of view:


1) Political:
Was a diplomatic solution possible and I it is clear that the answer to that is yes which means dropping the bombs was unnecessary had politicians done all that was in their power to end the war sooner.


2) Military:
If an invasion was going to be necessary then would the casualty rate have been high enough to justify dropping the bombs and the answer to that is clearly yes the dropping was justified.

The thing with the germans and surrender is that they had this fear of Versailles, the reason that braught the whole mess... the punishment after ww1 was just way too hard and that wasn't even an unjust war because every nation wanted/ needed / provoked a war at that time... thats what most of modern Historians say/ support.