You are misunderstanding. Try reading it this way" "in the OPINION of the Report..."
Your original statement was - "The Strategic Bombing Report was there, it was then, and it was conclusive . The Japanese were going to surrender by the end of December...PERIOD: no ifs, no ands, no buts. "
dictionary.com
con·clu·sive (kn-klsv) adj.
Serving to put an end to doubt, question, or uncertainty; decisive. See Synonyms at decisive
You in effect said that the report puts an end to doubt, question, or uncertainty. There was little or no uncertainty that the reports opinion was that the war would have ended by the end of December but that wasn't the question. The question was not "did the report say the war would have ended by december?" but rather "would the war have ended by decemeber?".
"Also that report assumed continued heavy bombing and blockade until the wars end."
It did not assume any such thing that I can recall. Perhaps it is YOUR assumption.
It concluded that the war as it was being waged would end by the end of 1945. The current way the war was being waged included a lot of bombing. I hardly think the report would have come to the same conclusion if it had examined the effect on the likelihood oh a Japanese surrender or us leaving Japan alone. The report didn't even speculate about the US ceasing to attack Japan before a surrender.
her leaders, convinced of the inevitability of defeat, were preparing to accept surrender. The only remaining problem was the timing and terms of that surrender."
If we stopped attacking them they would not be so convinced of inevitable defeat. Also the timing and terms where important considerations. The terms where a political decision separate from the specific decision to drop the bomb. The timing or in other words how much longer the war would go on could determine the fate of hundreds of thousands or potentially millions of people, mostly Japanese. Furthermore there were certainly powerful elements within Japan that where resisting the idea of peace. I disagree with reports contention that a reasonably quick surrender was inevitable. That Japan would lose was inevitable, but when and how was still uncertain.
If Truman takes the political flak and negotiates a conditional surrender, we have no starvation; if not, then we have some; but in all probability, none past October. Very few people would starve during that short time provided they had water and perhaps one meal a week to put a worse case scenario on it. Trying to equate even the worse case scenario with atomic bombing is just too desperate a prejudice.
It is certainly possible that a better, less destructive way to end the war could have occured but the worst case scenario was much worse then the atomic bombing.
"So under the circumstances that I laid out which approach would you choose?"
I would have negotiated a conditional surrender on humanitarian grounds
That doesn't answer the question. The question included the statement "under the circumstances that I laid out". Those circumstances did not include a conditional surrender being available atleast not before months of bombing and blockade, an A-bomb attack, or an invasion. I understand that you don't think those where the only alternatives in reality. As I said before "I am trying to separate the "Japan would have surrendered soon anyway" argument from the "it is always immoral to target civilians no matter what" argument." I am looking to answer the question - "If a timely surrender was not going to happen without the a bombs would you have dropped them?" IF you answer is yes then our only disagreement was about how likely it was that Japan was about to surrender anyway. If the answer is no I would like to examine why.
Tim |
