weary ) wrote:

: "Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
: ...

....


: So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
: necessary.
: Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.

:
: http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html

Have you actually looked at the USSBS report? Recognize that it
was written by those who carried out the extensive conventional
bombing of Japan and had an interest in showing the value of that
campaign. It was written by people who overestimate the value of
aerial bombing as a matter of professional survival.

: Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
: 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.

: But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.
: "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 because of the
: effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
: "

Nobody says it was necessary. All agree the war could have been
won without it. The question is the cost of victory with and without
the bomb. Without, with or without an invasion, the casualties would
have been much higher. Thousands were dying every week in China, in
the Dutch East Indies, in the Philippines, not to mention Japan itself.
I have the book where Leahy makes that statement. Recognize that
he was an ordnance expert and said many times that the bomb would not
work. He was extremely embarrassed that it did, and never really
understood it. He thought even as late as 1950, when he wrote the
book, that the bomb killed by radiation--that every casualty died of
radiation poisoning.

But actually reading these sources, and others such as
Eisenhower, is much more difficult than quoting sound bites.