>Just because they're looking
>to negotiate to end the war, doesn't mean they'd be willing
>to do so on acceptable terms. You have some U.S. military
>and political figures who think they would've surrendered
>fairly easily, and you've got some signs from the Japanes of
>looking for a way out, but nothing conclusive. Ultimately,
>you've got a lot of hearsay and conjecture. And the fact
>that they were making their most plaintive overtures to
>Moscow is not necessarily a good sign, much as I hate to
>ever agree with Expertise, it could well be that the
>Japanese were trying to link themselves up with the other
>great Asian power, in order to gain a more advantageous
>position, and hang on to countries that they had taken over.

Intecepted messages from Japanese
high command are not hearsay and
conjecture. You have really got
to be kidding me.

And I agree that a Soviet alliance
is nothing to write home about, but
honestly, I'd accept that before I
would nuke babies and old women.

>One of your sources said the Japanese would agree to
>surrender as long as the U.S. put in only a "token
>occupation force", and I highly doubt that Japan would've
>allowed all the constitutional/economic reforms that took
>place under the occupation to happen, in your alternate
>scenario.

Now who is conjecturing? What
evidence do you have that sug-
gests otherwise? There is con-
clusive and irrefutable evidence
which indicates Japan's was eager
to get the hell out of the war.
Just ask the Swedes and Soviets.

>But in terms of total
>deaths, it's only slightly more than the firebombing of
>Tokyo, and the firebombing of Dresden.

Comparing the severity of one
atrocity to the other is not
the best way to analyze this.
You're also forgetting one
very important point, as bad
as the Tokyo bombings were,
Japan was not suing for peace
at that time. It's appauling
when your enemy waves a white
flag and you bomb the hell out
of innocent civilians.