No one will ever know for certain, but what I find the most convincing is the theory that a combination of racism, hate and anger - mindsets that are understandable coming at the end of a war - kept Truman and others from realizing the other paths open to them, no matter how much evidence there was. There was a possibility, which they did not pursue, of a negotiated surrender; the reason they didn't pursue it was because the ruling mind-set in the US at the time could not see it. They were convinced that an unconditional surrender and nuking Japan was necessary.
Within that context, sending a message to the USSR - and keeping the USSR from being involved in the restructuring of Japan - was a bonus, but not the primary goal.
Barry
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:47 PM Subject: Re: Christian scholars say no war
> Barry Deutsch wrote:
>
> > > The U.S. nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as much terrorist
> >> acts as anything else. I think they were justified terrorist
> >> acts--they succeeded in bringing an end to the Japanese militarist
> >> government, and did so with a much lower butcher's bill than any
> >> conceivable invasion of Honshu. But that doesn't change their
> >> character...
> >
> >This assumes that it would have been implausible to end the war without
> >either dropping the nukes or doing a full scale invasion of Japan. Many
> >current historians don't feel that's a safe assumption.
>
> No, and it was probably directed more against the USSR than Japan anyway.
>
> Doug