Terry, Ask yourself WHY the Allies had to invade Japan to end the war. From a military point of view, it wasn't necessary. Japan is an island nation with virtually no natural resources, and very dependent on maintaining transportation links outside the country (eg Shipping). At that point in the war, they were beaten. No air force, no means of waging any real offensive. They had fallen back to their island. Allied forces were as close as Okinawa. Why did the allies have to invade to end the war? When a nation is arming its women and children to defend against attack, that is a clear sign of a defeated nation eg germany in 1945 was using 13-15 year olds in their infantry units.
The Allies had tremendous naval and air power. All they would have had to have done was to impose a naval blockade around the island and kill any Japanese shipping, and with their air power, destroy all industrial capacity and infrastructure. In a period of 6 months to a year they would have likely achieved Japanese surrender with very very light allied casualties and very light Japanese CIVILIAN casualties.
The answer to the original question is that there was NO NEED for a land invasion of Japan. That is simply the line the Spin Doctors have fed history in order to justify the atomic bombings. Of course, they could never admit the real reasons.
As for Pearl Harbour, it was a brilliantly executed military attack on MILITARY TARGETS. It incorporated deception and surprise, key principles in a military operation. If the US had executed a similar attack, you would be heralding it as a textbook example of how to conduct such an operation. The point is that Pearl Harbour targeted military targets, while Truman targeted civilian cities.
As for calling Richnorth "a blithering idiot", do you really think that's necessary? Is that how you deal with someone who has a different opinion than you? |
