I REFER to the debate (Letters, January 8, 9 & 14) in relation to the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. Brian Quail (January 14) avers that "it was fear of Russian occupation and his own execution that motivated Hirohito, not Hiroshima". These considerations no doubt had a part to play in the Emperor arriving at his conclusions, but were not the only factors. It is said that the Emperor was profoundly influenced by the injury, death and destruction visited upon so much of the Japanese population at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that, without the use of the atomic bombs, the Emperor, faced with so much opposition against surrender, would not have been able to find the resolution to concede defeat to the Allies.

On the same page Margaret Forbes states that "the bombs were dropped to tell the Russians the US had the upper hand". That in my view only tells part of the story. I find it hard to accept that the US was not also influenced, in arriving at the decision to drop such bombs, by a number of other factors, such as the Imperial Japanese Army being resolved to fight to the end, with General Tojo's Instructions for Servicemen having stated: "Do not survive in shame as a prisoner. Die, to ensure that you do not leave ignominy behind you"; the estimates, which were made of Allied casualties following the defeat of Japanese resistance on Okinawa, which would be involved in taking the Home Islands of Japan; and concerns in relation to the capability of Japan to embark on biological warfare.

I believe that we should be grateful, for many reasons, that the Americans were first to get nuclear weapons. Otherwise we might not have been able to continue to state freely the kind of opinions which are expressed in the columns of this newspaper every day. The position in relation to the use of nuclear weapons during the Second World War is not as straightforward as it is sometimes described to be.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

THE fact that Brian Quail had the privilege of meeting Professor Joseph Rotblat and uses a quote from General Groves to bolster his case is irrelevant to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As for vast amounts of military equipment being trundled halfway around the world, what is little realised by many in the west is that Russian advances in any direction would have been impossible without the support that they received from the western powers. The much-vaunted ability of the Russians to advance across great distances was only possible due the massive amount of equipment, raw materials and technology, supplied by Canada, Great Britain and the United States, especially the latter.

As an example, 20 per cent of fighters and 30 per cent of bombers were American-built, with another 10 per cent of fighters coming from Britain. The allies supplied more than half the aluminium used by Russia to manufacture aircraft. However, much more important was that the US alone supplied more than 500,000 tactical wheeled and tracked vehicles — whereas during the war the total Russian output of cars and lorries was just over 340,000. Not only was the equipment supplied greater in numbers than that produced by Russia, it was more reliable and of better quality. Thousands of tanks were supplied by the allies, but I have never seen a piece of Soviet film showing any of these, not even the M4A2 Sherman, which was used to equip some Russian mechanised corps in their entirety.

Both Margaret Forbes and Brian Quail claim that Japan would have surrendered. There was little to no chance of that without an invasion of the mainland, presumably the Russians were threatening to swim to Japan? They certainly didn’t have the amphibious capacity of the US. What the two writers describe is the Stalinist land grab from the already defeated remnants of the Japanese armies in the region. Neither does either correspondent mention the infamous “Kill Order”, which was to be carried out on August 21, 1945, the expected date of the invasion of Thailand – the allies had actually set the date as August 18. And as previously stated in these pages, by the time that the Soviets exploded an atomic device the US had demobilised the vast majority of its forces – that’s what happens in democracies, the generals do not call the shots. Dictatorships are a different matter entirely.

Dr Ronnie Gallagher,

5 Wyndhead Steading, Lauder.