Wobbles,

If you read the link I provided, you would see a summary of an argument by a historian called Frank. He claims that revisionist arguments like yours have been shot out of the water by the release of information that was kept top secret until the 1990s. The US had broken the Japanese codes during the war, and only a few Americans at the very top were given access to some of them. This did not even include the vice president or any of the people associated with the Manhattan project. The so-called "Magic" or "Ultra" reports that were given to Truman have now been released (and have not been denied by the Japanese).

Frank claims on the basis of decoded Japanese diplomatic messages that have now been released that the Japanese had no intention of accepting an unconditional surrender. The military government knew that they could not win, but thought that they could wear down the American public and politicians to the point that they would accept a negotiated surrender that would leave the militarists in charge; this was far more than just wanting a figurehead emperor. Their official policy was to go on fighting to the bitter end. Their actual plan was to keep fighting until they got what they wanted. The casualties involved in taking Okinawa were horrendous, both on the part of the American troops and even more on the part of the Japanese troops and civilians. Frank thinks that any other politician who might have conceivably been president instead of Truman would have also ordered those bombs dropped and that it had nothing to do with the Soviet Union.

Divergence,
I’m aware of the breaking of the Japanese codes during the war and this is the basis of yet another contentious argument by some historians that Australia knew as early as 1942 that it was never in danger of invasion by the Japanese.

For what it’s worth, here’s another perspective that puts a slightly different slant on Richard B Frank’s opinion.

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/08/dropping-big-one.html

Also, according to historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, the surrender was more due the combination of the Soviet Union's entry into the war on August 8 and the US decision to let Japan retain the Emperor. Many of the Japanese military elite were still in public denial over the possibility of losing the war, even after the bombs were dropped, so opinions vary considerably, even among “experts”.

Nevertheless the terms revisionist and apologist are loosely used on both sides of most arguments.

Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between all these opinions.

In the context of historical revisionism, the lesser-known stories of what happened after the war to all the pre-invasion weapons that were being stockpiled on Okinawa, or some of the research from the infamous Japanese Unit 731 are far more interesting in how our world has been shaped since that time.

DEMOS, it is nothing short of sad, infuriating, ignorant and dangerously complacent to say "nuclear weapons are just weapons".

They are like nothing that humankind has ever faced before.

Are you concerned about climate change? - consider a nuclear winter from even a fraction of today's 27,000 nuclear weapons, hundreds of which remain on 'hair trigger alert' status.

From tourism, economics and farming, to refugees, whaling, forests, endangered species, all unborn generations - until the nuclear threat is removed these are ALL at risk.

http://www.icanw.org

http://www.votenuclearfree.net

"I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'...."
- General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander Europe during World War 2 and later US President.

http://www.votenuclearfree.net

It's really too bad the Americans dropped the a-bomb. If they hadn't we would now know just how long after Aug.6, 1945 it took the Japanese to surrender with out conditions and just how many more millions of lives would have been lost. Unfortunately we are left with the reality that it did happen and Japan did surrender. Not if, but, or maybe, did, period.
The puerile arguments through twisting and turning of "facts" and "quotes" to justify or condemn the actions of the Americans or what "maybe" the Japanese would have done, mean not to the object of the lesson.
Nuclear weapons are very effective at stopping a nation intent on hemispheric domination and who used the most barbaric behavior to attain that goal. The Germans had begun nuclear research in the 30's and had a jump on the U.K. and America. Lets not wonder if the Japanese would have eventually been beaten into submission by American industry in lieu of the bomb. Lets wonder how Australia would look today after the Japanese dropped a couple of nukes to better enslave the pacific. Or isn't all speculation fair argument?

Few points Atom.

1. Eisenhower was supreme commander in EUROPE at the time. He never fought the Japanese. He was not on the joint chiefs of staff.

2. Eisenhower was a politician from the very beginning and was more of an administrative chief than a military supremo

3. Its is hardly surprising that after the billions of dollars spent on the Marshall plan rebuilding the Axis powers, inflammatory statements by generals were avoided.

4. there was as least as much opinion that the Japanese were not going to surrender unconditionally. So Truman felt fully justified in not taking the risk. He had it in his power to end the war immediately. We can never know whether this act saved lives or not and it is pointless to speculate

5. we can all agree that it should never happen again.