General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: No Choice: Why Harry Truman Dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan [View all]stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Anyone who has studied Curtis LeMay knows exactly what he meant by that. He meant to try to ensure that people believed that the multiple raids daily by 50+ and in some cases 100+ bombers on Japan are what did it (secured the surrender) and not the Atomic bombs. The point would be to ensure that post-war, the US would continue to spend tons of money on large bomber and fighter squadrons and not rely on nuclear weapons for defense. LeMay's bailiwick was commanding squadrons and wings of bombers and fighters and he wanted that to continue. That was LeMay's pretty obvious agenda here.
Eisenhower, Nimitz and Halsey are likely both correct in one respect, militarily it wasn't necessary. Of course no one is arguing that point is the problem. Militarily Japan was finished. Everyone knew that and no one disputed it then or disputes that now.
But being militarily finished doesn't necessarily translate into a nationwide surrender, which is a political decision. Zipplewrath gives a good outline here https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10969236 of the fact that obtaining an actual surrender was very difficult and was touch and go up until the very end. Meanwhile, their entire populaces was being trained to resist an invasion.
On top of that, a very confusing message was given by the Japanese in response to the Potsdam declaration that made it very difficult for the folks in Japan who wanted peace to let that be known to the allies. The "Mokusatsu" response.