A few maintained there was no need for atomic bombs or an invasion: Deprived of supplies and food, Japan would have surrendered sooner or later. Most of that sprinkling spoke out only after the war, when evidence became available of just how severely American submarines had crippled Japanese industry. They apparently didn't notice that their argument also applied to the Palau Islands, the Philippines, Iwo Jima, and the other murderous stepping-stones. If blockades could have done the job, weren't the deaths there and at Okinawa also logically unnecessary?
