General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: An overlooked A-bomb issue: the wait-a-couple-weeks argument [View all]joshcryer
(62,270 posts)So maybe we're both wrong on that count. I just think that I can't see the Japanese surrendering, even if they know they have lost, without lots of dead lining the street in a protracted battle. Yes I think that, eventually, the Soviets would've caused them to surrender. I simply do not have enough information about the Soviet advance on Japan to be 100% sure when that would've happen. I just don't think in the few weeks time frame. I think your conditions would've still meant the bomb got dropped unless you move it out a month or two and unless you add a million+ casualties.
I think ultimately the US would've had to send in ground troops to meet up with the Soviets and allow the US to have a say in how post-war Japan was to grow (probably Korean-war like partitioning, or an Eastern-Bloc partitioning). The spoils of war to the victor, and all. Having the bomb at that time meant to me that the US wouldn't have sent in troops without first trying the bomb. So the "wait for the Soviet advance" scenario doesn't work.
Interestingly tidbit. One of the B52 bomber pilots got captured after the bomb and claimed that the US had 100 of them and would be dropping bombs regularly until all of Japan was destroyed. He didn't know how big the arsenal was, of course. It was a ballsy bluff though because the US literally blew its load on Japan, and wouldn't have had another bomb for a few weeks, iirc.