Use of Atomic Bombs to End WW2 Was Necessary

Thanks for accepting dynasty. In order to show that the bombings were unnecessary, I must provide the alternative, better option to the bombings.Was Japan ready to surrender?By 1945, Japan was pretty much beat. "What was left of Japan's factories and workshops struggled fitfully to turn out weapons and other goods from inadequate raw materials. (Oil supplies had not been available since April.) By July about a quarter of all the houses in Japan had been destroyed, and her transportation system was near collapse. Food had become so scarce that most Japanese were subsisting on a sub-starvation diet."[1]The Japanese knew this too. Their diplomatic moves leading up to the bombings confirm this. In April of 1945 (the war ended August 15th), a new head of government was appointed, Kantaro Suzuki. His purpose was to seek peace for Japan[1]. In April and May, Japan made three attempts with the neutral countries Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to an end. The United States ordered these countries to show no interest or cooperation with these efforts[1]. By mid-June, the Japanese had turned to the Russians for help with surrendering[1]. The Japanese leadership never had any intention of 'fighting to the last man', as many people assume they did. Quite the opposite in fact. "Japan’s leaders were in fact quite savvy, well aware of their difficult position, and holding out for strategic reasons. Their concern was not so much whether to end the conflict, but how to end it while holding onto territory, avoiding war crimes trials, and preserving the imperial system."[2] I can't stress this point enough. The Japanese were ready to surrender, but first they wanted to try to get as good a deal as possible. This fact will become more and more important as you continue reading. So why weren't these peace offers taken?The Allies were bent on getting 'unconditional surrender' from Japan[1]. The purpose behind this was to ensure that none of the fellow Ally countries would cut a peace deal with the enemy country that would have negative outcomes. Each time the Japanese offered peace, they offered it with a single condition, and that was that their Emperor would remain in some form of power[1][2]. Since this violated the unconditional surrender objective, the US made sure these peace offers were not taken.How else could this have been solved?As things grew more and more desperate, their last hope for peace on their terms was Stalin, Russia's dictator. "...they hoped to convince the Soviet Union, still neutral in the Asian theater, to mediate a settlement with the Americans. Stalin, they calculated, might negotiate more favorable terms in exchange for territory in Asia. It was a long shot, but it made strategic sense."[2]Their efforts never came to fruition however. "The Soviet Union declared war and launched a broad surprise attack on Japanese forces in Manchuria. In that instant, Japan"s strategy was ruined. Stalin would not be extracting concessions from the Americans."[2]The above happened August 8th, the second nuke fell on Nagasaki the day after[1][2], while the Japanese leadership was preparing their terms of surrender[2]. Now with the Soviet Union gone as an option to keep the Emperor, the Japanese were forced to accept an unconditional surrender on August 15th[1][2]. So we can see that it was the loss of Russia as their possibility for conditionally surrender that lead to the Japanese surrender, and end of World War 2. Here is the alternative. Take away their hope in Russia, and the war ends. So the nukes had no effect?It is extremely unlikely, for several reasons. For the most part, Japan's leaders didn't care what the civilian casualties were. If they did, would they have ordered civilians to fight American soldiers on their beaches with sharpened bamboo sticks? Because they did[2]. Secondly, there had already been widespread bombing[2][3], so for the Japanese leaders who cared about civilian losses to any degree, they would've been numbed to this. Additionally, there is little historical evidence to support the theory that civilian losses influenced surrender."...history suggests that leveling population centers, by whatever method, does not force surrender. The Allied firebombing of Dresden in February of 1945 killed many people, but the Germans did not capitulate. The long-range German bombing of London did not push Churchill towards acquiescence."[3]In conclusion, the use of nukes was not the reason the war ended. The war ended because Russia entered into the fighting, and Japan knew its option for conditional surrender was gone, and they gave in to unconditional surrender. So, I say that all the United States had to do was wait for Russia to invade. The bombings were unnecessary. I'm not the only one who thinks so, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey agrees with me."The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms......The mission of the Suzuki government, appointed 7 April 1945, was to make peace. An appearance of negotiating for terms less onerous than unconditional surrender was maintained in order to contain the military and bureaucratic elements still determined on a final Bushido defense, and perhaps even more importantly to obtain freedom to create peace with a minimum of personal danger and internal obstruction. It seems clear, however, that in extremis the peacemakers would have peace, and peace on any terms."[1]Thanks for reading.Sources:[1] http://www.ihr.org...[2] http://www.boston.com...[3] http://www.boston.com...