Political Crossfire Forums

[superskippy]

Quote: I had no idea the fighting was that intense.....the Soviet losses were greater then ours in any battle we had against Japan? I had no idea......

It was a short campaign called August Storm that lasted for several days for battles that raged across Manchuria. Had the ceasefire and the surrender forced by the atom bombs not occured it is possible that Japan could have reformed a defensive line with the more than 700,000 troops still available to them and a large stockpile of supplies based in never touched areas of Korea where a strong forced and supply center was maintained.

People like to harp on the desperate situation that Japan was in and that regardless of the atom bombs they were doomed to a bloodless defeat faltering under their own weight. The problam is that no one ever informed Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany of these problams when they faced the situations where they could not hope to stand any longer. Nazi Germany fought on without fuel, without enough food, without enough clean water, and without ample supplies of ammunition for months from beyond the Oder to Berlin to Vienna and more. More than 1,000,000 died and the German defenders still whipped an insane defense up and bured more than 200,000 Soviet troops.

Now you are telling me that Japan who still had whole armies in the field, supply depots at operation, and an untouched homeland with a government intact and resolute, and millions of tons of munitions, and millions of reserves, was going to without any conclusive climax lay down their arms and accept total and complete surrender and defeat and submit to occupation? That is beyond foolish.

In recent years a growing number yet still the minority have accepted a misplaced guilt for the atomic bombings and even the war against Japan. It is wrong, Japan incurred it's own punishment and fate when it went to war. There should be no sympathy for Japan anymore than we have for Nazi Germany which we razed city by city, Japan has it's own sins to the sum of millions of innocent dead in Asia and of captured prisoners executed and brutal Nazi style regimes. There should be no pity for Japan and certaintly no guilt for the destruction wrought on Japan, they deserved just as much if not worse.

Japan deserved to be set to the sword as much as Germany did.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: I had no idea the fighting was that intense.....the Soviet losses were greater then ours in any battle we had against Japan? I had no idea......

Thats the one thing I love/hate about history. The more you learn, the more you know you dont know.

And those battle casulties rates a like multiples of Okinawa, but instead of two months they happened in days

[eynon]

MG1962 wrote: Quote: I had no idea the fighting was that intense.....the Soviet losses were greater then ours in any battle we had against Japan? I had no idea......

Thats the one thing I love/hate about history. The more you learn, the more you know you dont know.

And those battle casulties rates a like multiples of Okinawa, but instead of two months they happened in days

I know, that's why I was all :shock: over 100,000 causalties.....and no-body mentions it.

btw........thanks Skippy :-D

[Felix]

superskippy wrote: Without the atom bombs the war would have lasted several more months perhaps dragging into 1946, the Japenese while they may have shown some signs or willingness to negotiate on some governmental levels, it is foolish to beleive that they would have up and surrendered without some other form of decisive action, and it is foolish to beleive that the US would have accepted anything less than total surrender and occupation.

What would that decisive action be? Atomic bombs? Soviet intervention? Famine? Invasion?

The Japanese were in a pitiful state by August 1945. I have to side with Curtis LeMay, that an invasion would be unnecessary and foolish. Japan was isolated from her dwindling empire, and all that was needed was to keep the pressure on.

Quote: Japan still had at least 800,000 troops that could supply themselves and were well organized in Manchuria and ample supplies of artillary and high calibre rounds to mount an effective resistance. They were the troops that were crushed in the surprise offensive by the Soviet Army, the fight was short because of the suprise intensity and the war was already near it's end when the ceasefire was declared and they surrendered. But even so some 24,000 Soviet soldiers fell dead in the onslaught another 48,000 were wounded. This against a foe that was supposed to be depleted, the Japenese suffered some 50,000 killed in the campaign. Make no mistake Japan and the means to continue the fight even in it's mainland forces.

The once vaunted Kwantung Army had degenerated into a skeleton force by August 1945. Its 12 elite divions were sent to many Pacific Islands and the Phillippines to fight against the Americans, as well as Taiwan to guard against invasion. 25 percent of the Kwantung Army who fought the Soviets during August Sotmr had been drafted within the previous ten days. Not the cream of the Imperial Army it had once been.

And 24,000 Soviet dead? That's the Japanese estimate. The Russians place their dead at 8000. Of course, in Stalinist times, these figures may or may not be true.

Quote: With this example alone it should be clear the Japan had both the means and the will to carry on a fight at least for some more favorable terms, something less than total surrender which they need not subscribe to without invasion. A continuing bloody war to the finish would be the inevitable outcome to the failing of the Atomic Bombs. Allied victory is assured in the end.

Keep in mind, the Japanese Army had always hated the Russians, ever since 1904, and always viewed them as their traditional foe. A large portion of the Imperial Army wanted to invade Siberia, but after Nomonhon, this faction was discredited. However, after the German invasion in 1941, the Strike-North faction was still contemplating a move into Siberia.

Also, the Soviets attacked the Japanese, not the other way around. Alot of Kwantung Army soldiers were fighting for their lives. Also, the vast majority of the Kwantung Army surrendered, forsaking the whole 'death before dishonor' mentality. The POWs that made it back to Japan, were often fanatic Communists, brainwashed in the Siberian GULAGs.

Also, many Japanese units in the Kuril Islands, which were also invaded by the Soviets, wanted to surrender, but were attacked anyway.

Quote: People like to harp on the desperate situation that Japan was in and that regardless of the atom bombs they were doomed to a bloodless defeat faltering under their own weight. The problam is that no one ever informed Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany of these problams when they faced the situations where they could not hope to stand any longer. Nazi Germany fought on without fuel, without enough food, without enough clean water, and without ample supplies of ammunition for months from beyond the Oder to Berlin to Vienna and more. More than 1,000,000 died and the German defenders still whipped an insane defense up and bured more than 200,000 Soviet troops.

Different situation. Japan is an island and Germany in the middle of the continent. Japan was more effectively isolated, especially because she has no natural resources of her own.

Quote: Now you are telling me that Japan who still had whole armies in the field, supply depots at operation, and an untouched homeland with a government intact and resolute, and millions of tons of munitions, and millions of reserves, was going to without any conclusive climax lay down their arms and accept total and complete surrender and defeat and submit to occupation? That is beyond foolish.

Untouched homeland? LeMay's bombings missions destroyed dozens of Japanese cities. Millions were left homeless. The Japanese city of Toyama was 99% obliterated. Far worse than the bombing missions over Germany. Japan was hardly 'untouched'.

Add to that, the fact that Japanese waterways were being constantly mined and ravaged by American submarines, constant strafing runs and a general shortage of everything, causing massive hunger.

Untouched homeland my ass.

And the government was hardly 'resolute'. Prime Ministe Suzuki was desperately trying to end the war, but was blocked by the hawks under War Minister Anami's clique. When the head of the government, along with the Emperor, wants peace, it can hardly be considered 'resolute'.

Quote: In recent years a growing number yet still the minority have accepted a misplaced guilt for the atomic bombings and even the war against Japan. It is wrong, Japan incurred it's own punishment and fate when it went to war. There should be no sympathy for Japan anymore than we have for Nazi Germany which we razed city by city, Japan has it's own sins to the sum of millions of innocent dead in Asia and of captured prisoners executed and brutal Nazi style regimes. There should be no pity for Japan and certaintly no guilt for the destruction wrought on Japan, they deserved just as much if not worse.

For me, it's not so much of a 'misplaced guilt' as it is an objective look of the facts. Many senior Military men of the time believed the atomic bombs were uneeded, such as Eisenhower, Leahy, and LeMay. It was politicians, specifically Secratary of State James Byrnes, who were the main proponents of dropping the atomic bombs. Not out of any Miltary strategy, but to make the Soviets more managable in Europe and keep them out of Asia.

And in hindsight, it wasn't a bad idea to keep them out of Asia. Soviet intervention allowed the Chinese Communists to gain a foothold in Manchuria, allowing them to get an upper hand in the subsquent civil war. The Soviets also propped up the North Korean regime, leading to another costly, bloody war in five years.

But the idea that 'if we didn't drop the atomic bombs, millions of Americans would have died in the inevitable invasion' is nonsense.

[superskippy]

Quote: What would that decisive action be? Atomic bombs? Soviet intervention? Famine? Invasion?

The Japanese were in a pitiful state by August 1945. I have to side with Curtis LeMay, that an invasion would be unnecessary and foolish. Japan was isolated from her dwindling empire, and all that was needed was to keep the pressure on.

Japan was in a pitiful state of what it once was but had more than the capacity to continue on with the fight for many months if needed, and the lack of fuel their main resource deficiancy was not a requirement in defensive action as Germany showed to terrible effect.

As for decisive action, it would have to come either has invasion of one of the smaller home islands to drive home that Japan could not win, or to engage their forces on all the remaining islands and Manchuria.

While we may debate over whether a blockade may or may not have won victory for the Allies allowing them to ride out the clock on Japan, the fact does remain that they did have troops in the field, they did have supplies, and they did have the ability to fight. We also know that the Allies would not have adopted a strategy of that sort, a decisive conclusion had to come about not one that would take months and months of waiting outside Japan to hope for capitulation.

Quote: The once vaunted Kwantung Army had degenerated into a skeleton force by August 1945. Its 12 elite divions were sent to many Pacific Islands and the Phillippines to fight against the Americans, as well as Taiwan to guard against invasion. 25 percent of the Kwantung Army who fought the Soviets during August Sotmr had been drafted within the previous ten days. Not the cream of the Imperial Army it had once been.

True enough, but that doesnt eleminate what it was, an Army as many nations showed doesnt have to be the creme to fight an effective battle. The forces in Manchuria were still large and relativly well equipped to their standard and still maintained large amounts of their veteran troops from the mainland campaigns. Also your tally of 25% being 10 day trained veterans from I what I can find seems to be a gross exaggeration of how ill prepare they were.

As for the casualty estimate I tend to beleive the Japanese and later American estimates of between 16,000-24,000 dead, the Soviet estimates are just far too low, they fought less equipped and prepared forces on the Western Front for far more casualties, and many of the troops of the Far East divisions were not as well prepared or experianced as their Western counterparts who joined in the battle giving an added weakness of less able body of troops.

Quote: Also, the Soviets attacked the Japanese, not the other way around. Alot of Kwantung Army soldiers were fighting for their lives. Also, the vast majority of the Kwantung Army surrendered, forsaking the whole 'death before dishonor' mentality. The POWs that made it back to Japan, were often fanatic Communists, brainwashed in the Siberian GULAGs.

I never displayed that Japan attacked the Soviets, however the Japanese didnt forsake their orders to keep fighting, August Storm ended in searous force as the Allies accepted the Japanese surrender, and the Soviet forces ended the campaign in Manchuko and small area south of the Yalu river. The Japenese never even got a chance to organize a campaign yet they proved they could still fight.

Quote: Untouched homeland? LeMay's bombings missions destroyed dozens of Japanese cities. Millions were left homeless. The Japanese city of Toyama was 99% obliterated. Far worse than the bombing missions over Germany. Japan was hardly 'untouched'.

And I dont regret that it happened in the slightest, however by untouched I meant the landing of foriegn troops. So long as an armed force of large proportion maintained strength in Japan and Japan lay unsullied by the feet of foreign soldiers I do not think it is reasonable to say that without one more step in the campaign the Japenese would have surrendered.

Quote: For me, it's not so much of a 'misplaced guilt' as it is an objective look of the facts. Many senior Military men of the time believed the atomic bombs were uneeded, such as Eisenhower, Leahy, and LeMay. It was politicians, specifically Secratary of State James Byrnes, who were the main proponents of dropping the atomic bombs. Not out of any Miltary strategy, but to make the Soviets more managable in Europe and keep them out of Asia.

And we know the situation in Japan very clearly, the civilian leadership wanted to edge out for peace but as they did the military regime became more resolute. What the atomic bombs did was allow the civilian leadership and emperor bring the side decisivly to surrender. Even unto the end a military coup was attempted to keep the war going. Until the Atomic Bombs they were determined to fight and without the atomic bombs the war would have lasted many more months with or without the invasion and hundreds of thousands would have died.

If the war had continued on a route of simply waiting for the Japanese to starve out than it probably would have lasted until mid 1946 with Soviet troops occupying much of Asia unless an American forces was sent in. Millions would have died in Japan from bombing and starvation, as well as millions dieing on the continent from the ravages of war, as well as the POW's in Japan being executed to free up supplies and lose an unneed obligation. In fact plans were drawn up to that effect.

I may not be able to respond for several days but feel free to write up a responce in the mean time.

[Felix]

superskippy wrote: Japan was in a pitiful state of what it once was but had more than the capacity to continue on with the fight for many months if needed, and the lack of fuel their main resource deficiancy was not a requirement in defensive action as Germany showed to terrible effect.

Like I said, it was a different situation. Japan is an archipelago and could be more effectively isolated.

Quote: As for decisive action, it would have to come either has invasion of one of the smaller home islands to drive home that Japan could not win, or to engage their forces on all the remaining islands and Manchuria.

Or continued bombing into September. Really, it's all kinda speculation. But I don't think the atomic bombs were the only way to raise the white flag.

Quote: While we may debate over whether a blockade may or may not have won victory for the Allies allowing them to ride out the clock on Japan, the fact does remain that they did have troops in the field, they did have supplies, and they did have the ability to fight. We also know that the Allies would not have adopted a strategy of that sort, a decisive conclusion had to come about not one that would take months and months of waiting outside Japan to hope for capitulation.

True, it was a practical method to end the war. Byrnes wanted the Soviets out of Asia, for good reasons. But simply looking at the facts, and hindsight is always 20/20, it appears the LeMay was correct and continued bombing would have convinced Japan that resistance was futile; making an invasion moot.

Quote: True enough, but that doesnt eleminate what it was, an Army as many nations showed doesnt have to be the creme to fight an effective battle. The forces in Manchuria were still large and relativly well equipped to their standard and still maintained large amounts of their veteran troops from the mainland campaigns. Also your tally of 25% being 10 day trained veterans from I what I can find seems to be a gross exaggeration of how ill prepare they were.

I got the source from 'Osprey-The Japanes Army 1942-45'. Perhaps it is inaccurate, but I'm inclined to agree with them. The Imperial Army consisted of thousands of green conscripts, the elite divisions lost in the Pacific Islands, China and Burma, and the Imperial Navy had been destroyed throughout Pacific Ocean, with the final nail in the coffin at Leyte Gulf.

Operation August Storm, while bloody indeed, was something a Soviet blitzkrieg. Manchukuo was dismembered within two weeks; I think Mukden and Changhun were reached on August 20 and showed no signs of slowing down. Also the casualities, even the highest ones, were far below a million. (I understand Manchukuo was not the same as Japan, but it is something to consider)

Quote: As for the casualty estimate I tend to beleive the Japanese and later American estimates of between 16,000-24,000 dead, the Soviet estimates are just far too low, they fought less equipped and prepared forces on the Western Front for far more casualties, and many of the troops of the Far East divisions were not as well prepared or experianced as their Western counterparts who joined in the battle giving an added weakness of less able body of troops.

Well, the Soviets always had ample cannon fodder. When you look at the Eastern Front casualties, the Russians always seem to outweigh the Germans.

Quote:
I never displayed that Japan attacked the Soviets, however the Japanese didnt forsake their orders to keep fighting, August Storm ended in searous force as the Allies accepted the Japanese surrender, and the Soviet forces ended the campaign in Manchuko and small area south of the Yalu river. The Japenese never even got a chance to organize a campaign yet they proved they could still fight.

True, but like I said, the casualities were much lower than one would think. Manchuria is a huge land area, and the Soviets conquered it faster than the Germans overran Poland.

Quote: And I dont regret that it happened in the slightest, however by untouched I meant the landing of foriegn troops. So long as an armed force of large proportion maintained strength in Japan and Japan lay unsullied by the feet of foreign soldiers I do not think it is reasonable to say that without one more step in the campaign the Japenese would have surrendered.

Whether or not you regret it, (techincally the bombing crews would be the only ones who could 'regret it') it doesn't matter. My point was that Japan was virtually burned to the ground, severely crippling their war machine.

Quote: And we know the situation in Japan very clearly, the civilian leadership wanted to edge out for peace but as they did the military regime became more resolute. What the atomic bombs did was allow the civilian leadership and emperor bring the side decisivly to surrender. Even unto the end a military coup was attempted to keep the war going. Until the Atomic Bombs they were determined to fight and without the atomic bombs the war would have lasted many more months with or without the invasion and hundreds of thousands would have died.

If the war had continued on a route of simply waiting for the Japanese to starve out than it probably would have lasted until mid 1946 with Soviet troops occupying much of Asia unless an American forces was sent in. Millions would have died in Japan from bombing and starvation, as well as millions dieing on the continent from the ravages of war, as well as the POW's in Japan being executed to free up supplies and lose an unneed obligation. In fact plans were drawn up to that effect.

I may not be able to respond for several days but feel free to write up a responce in the mean time.

I'm not saying it wouldn't have been bloody. All I've been trying to do is to dismiss certain cherished myths; i.e. the atomic bombs were the only way to end the war, short of an invasion that'll kill millions of Americans and Japanese. Both of which are not true.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: I'm not saying it wouldn't have been bloody. All I've been trying to do is to dismiss certain cherished myths; i.e. the atomic bombs were the only way to end the war, short of an invasion that'll kill millions of Americans and Japanese. Both of which are not true.

Instead of constantly saying that, why do you back it up? I posted earlier in the thread a fairly detailed tactial summary of the two stages of the invasion, along with anticipated battle and civilan casualties.

As super skippy pointed out earlier - the battle casualties in Germany - particulary the battle of Berlin where horendous. A country also burned to the ground, with supplies etc etc.

[sunwook]

Well, previous to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the U.S. had bombed other major cities such as Tokyo. I find it surprising that the non-nuclear bombings that were conducted resulted in the loss of more lives than the two atomic bombs dropped to end the war. I would have to say that there would be more U.S. casualties due to the difficulties of invading a country with its entire population prepared to fight. I would say that it was not the damage the atomic bombs did that caused surrender, but the shock of such massive damage in such a short period of time. So what would have happened was (IMO) the U.S. would bomb the mainland some more, destroying infrastructure, devastating the population hoping to force surrender. However, it would not have been likely due to Japan's plan to fight to the death, even if it meant every single one of them died. By then, the outlying islands in the pacific would have been taken away from the Japanese (more casualties for the U.S.) and we would have been forced to conduct a massive invasion of the island (more death). I'm not sure whether the Japanese would have ever agreed to unconditionally surrender in the face of invasion.

[superskippy]

Quote: Like I said, it was a different situation. Japan is an archipelago and could be more effectively isolated.

Germany was easily more isolated at that point, it had no merchant fleet, no naval force of any ability to ferry anything after the disasterous evacuations and casualties East Prussia and the Baltic States, it was surrounded completely with no in industrial capacity remaining to churn out any supplies, it was surrounded by millions of soldiers from East to West and their pockets in the Balkans had been isolated and cut to pieces, their forces in Italy were surrounded in the mountains and had no supplies or control of the roads. With all of this Germany managed to throw up a fight for months and kill over 200,000 of it's enemies.

Japan at least had standing industry to prepare some amount of supplies in the way of ammunition and mechanical parts. It still had a small but functioning merchant fleet that could ferry albeit with enormous strain supplies and troops from Manchuria which I might add is what they did to bulk up for the expected campaigns. They had an unoccupied homeland and with even more importance while they suffered immense strategic bombardments of cities, they were not under interdiction and could move supplies and troops relativly freely.

Quote: Or continued bombing into September. Really, it's all kinda speculation. But I don't think the atomic bombs were the only way to raise the white flag.

I never said it was, but it was the quickest way and the least bloody.

Quote: True, it was a practical method to end the war. Byrnes wanted the Soviets out of Asia, for good reasons. But simply looking at the facts, and hindsight is always 20/20, it appears the LeMay was correct and continued bombing would have convinced Japan that resistance was futile; making an invasion moot.

Yes but as I have said it wouldnt have been a 1 month or 2 month or 3 month campaign it would have taken well into 1946 for Japan to be thoroughly reduced in all levels as well as finishing the campaign in Manchuria and Korea, and accepting a few more thousand US boys going home in coffins. Sure it could have worked, but more Japanese would have died, more Americans would have died, and more Soviets would have died, more Koreans would have died, and Japan would be ash. It could have and would have worked, but it wasnt an acceptable option.

Quote: I got the source from 'Osprey-The Japanes Army 1942-45'. Perhaps it is inaccurate, but I'm inclined to agree with them. The Imperial Army consisted of thousands of green conscripts, the elite divisions lost in the Pacific Islands, China and Burma, and the Imperial Navy had been destroyed throughout Pacific Ocean, with the final nail in the coffin at Leyte Gulf.

I think perhaps it is adding in the figure past a 800,000 for the Imperial
Army to 1,200,000 perhaps the added bump as I have seen that higher figure accounts for the enormous amount of recruits. Could you tell me the troop levels your book describes before I comment further?

Quote: Well, the Soviets always had ample cannon fodder. When you look at the Eastern Front casualties, the Russians always seem to outweigh the Germans.

True enough but I dont think we should on that account excuse away all of their high casualty rates.

Quote: Operation August Storm, while bloody indeed, was something a Soviet blitzkrieg. Manchukuo was dismembered within two weeks; I think Mukden and Changhun were reached on August 20 and showed no signs of slowing down. Also the casualities, even the highest ones, were far below a million. (I understand Manchukuo was not the same as Japan, but it is something to consider)

True enough, but the Soviet's had not entered the most developed and most dense of the Japanese holdings and as the Japanese were preparing their lines in Korea as the Soviets were prevented from pushing past the Yalu river from some time the war came to an end.

My intention was never to show that Japan would fight an enemy to standstill, my intention was to display that even in the constantly paraded degenerate and degraded state they could still fight and would fight as a cohesive force and could still kill thousands of their enemies.

Quote: Whether or not you regret it, (techincally the bombing crews would be the only ones who could 'regret it') it doesn't matter. My point was that Japan was virtually burned to the ground, severely crippling their war machine.

Japan still had major cities that remained producing and active, this alone is proven by the dozens of US targets for the Atom Bomb on cities that were still at optimum levels or untouched. Their roads were still in order allowing a flow of troops and supplies and refugee's. They were not a nation of ash they were battered and burning but yet less so than Germany.

Quote: I'm not saying it wouldn't have been bloody. All I've been trying to do is to dismiss certain cherished myths; i.e. the atomic bombs were the only way to end the war, short of an invasion that'll kill millions of Americans and Japanese. Both of which are not true.

I've never made a point otherwise, my point is that the Atom Bombs were when taking into account both sides the quickest and least bloody way of ending the conflict.


In conclusion it would appear we agree far more than it had appeared before, we seemed to have misunderstood one another more than anything.

[private_citizen]

If it failed, I would not be able to drive my Toyota, nor eat good Sushi and Miso this Saturday night.

I would probably be woofing down McLard burgers and driving a Hummer.

[micfranklin]

I had a discussion about this some time ago. I saw it as that we gave Japan time to surrender and they didn't, so we dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima.

Now they made the assumption that we only had one of them, but the thing is if we only had one then why did we explode several of them out in the deserts.

Then their assumptions cost them Nagasaki and about 60,000 people three days later. And then they surrendered later.

[Mr.Bill]

Quote: then why did we explode several of them out in the deserts.

We only exploded one at Trinity NM...

[Green]

A infantry invasion of Japan would hac casualties totaling millions. They were training civilians to fight to the death. Japaneese soldiers would often charge if they thought there were going to loose. The japaneese whoever, did not have the very effective anti- tank weapons the germans did, that made russia's urban tank wars a slaughter house.

[Norbert]

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this, but wasn't there some sort of plan in the works with a last ditch attempt to invade Claifornia? I seem to remember a story about how the Navy picked up some Japanese sailors on war vessels off our coast, with only enough fuel for a one way trip... Now THAT would have been costly... the question is, would American citizens have been able to defend their homeland as fanatically as the Japanese would have? (There is no doubt in my mind that had the first 2 bombs not worked, that we would have used more, then invaded...)

[superskippy]

I never heard of that but I cannot see that doing anything but causing a slaughter of the Japanese invaders. The US army had thousands of soldiers deployed to the West Coast along with in base national guard units. Not to mention that there was little Japan could throw at the US and if they could even make it into California and land troops even more unlikely.

[Snake]

Other, disasterous for both sides. The Japanese do not surrender, as was proven in the many preceding battles, they would rather die, and we would have been forced to kill them, without taking any prisoners, any prisoners taken, as ordered by their beliefs, would have no choice but to commit suicide. They were also very tenacious, fight to the last man, use a hundred troops to swarm a single machine gun, suicidal crap like that. We would have been forced into a war of attrition, fighting for months, mabey even another year before they could fight no longer. Our casualties would run high, as would theirs, many more people would have died than were ever killed by two atomic bombs.