My source for saying that is the RTTH biography:
I know, I read it too. There are good reasons to be skeptical about the statements in there, as off the records statements such as the one I referred to imply. Steve was unhappy with firing Blaze, he was proud of the work he had done with him, and I think what we are reading in RTTH is his attempt at convincing himself that it had to go this way. But the statement "I thought we'd get a completely new singer, if anything" I find doubtful. To elaborate:
Another thing that could have played a role in getting Bruce back:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/275760.stm
$
I'm pretty sure that money was the main reason, and that's why I find it unlikely that Blaze would have been fired before it was certain that Bruce would come back. From a business standpoint, that was the only way to go. Replacing Blaze with another, perhaps unknown, singer would have been too much of a risk.
We have to live with the fact that by 2000, Iron Maiden had become a business first, and an artist second.
Blaze could have stayed in the band if the band themselves would have made adjustments. We all know about the downtuning stuff, but if you read
At the End of the Day, Blaze makes a very interesting comment about in-ear monitors that he got for himself. He was convinced that they improved his performance, and said that they broke midway during the tour. There are two things I don't understand about this: First, why wasn't this a band expenditure, but a private purchase of Blaze's? Second, if they broke, why didn't the band find a way to replace them? The band as a group should have filed this under touring equipment, not as an expenditure at the leisure of an individual member. It improved Blaze's performance and I don't understand why it wouldn't be in the interest of the band as a whole; unless the idea to get rid of Blaze already existed midway in the VXI tour, and independent of Blaze's performance.
I don't think we will ever find out the truth about this,
but I find the following at least a plausible hypothesis: Three months into the VXI tour, Bruce released The Chemical Wedding. The album was proof that his return to Maiden-esque metal was not a one-off for Accident of Birth. It could have been read by the Powers That Be (Rod?) as a signal that Bruce would be ready to reunite with Maiden. Steve and others in the band may have been convinced of Blaze when VXI was released and the tour kicked off, but possibly some secret negotiations took place with the Bruce camp as the tour progressed, and by the time it drew to a close, the decision had been made. Blaze's monitors didn't get replaced; there are rumours that Nicko played Steve soundboard recordings to make him realise Blaze was performing poorly (so maybe Nicko was chosen to do the dirty work to convince Steve); Blaze talked about funny vibes at the end of the tour, which makes it obvious that the decision had already been made then.
I realise this is basically a conspiracy theory without any hard facts, and I stand to be corrected, but I find it more likely than taking the risky business step of firing Blaze without knowing who would replace him. It's possible that Steve wasn't actually in on it. Rod may not have let him know that it was certain that Bruce was coming back, and Steve may believe it wasn't to this day. That's why I'm not going to accuse him of lying in RTTH. Rod probably knows Steve better than anyone else, and may have thought that letting him know that Bruce would be coming back would not find his approval, as Steve is not a businessman, but believes in artistic integrity. But Rod is a businessman. He may have wanted the certainty, and thus would have left Steve in the dark about the actual proceedings to better convince him of bringing Bruce back.
It's all speculation, all of it. But it's a plausible scenario based on the evidence we have if we believe the statement I heard that it was certain that Bruce would come back when Blaze was fired.
I knew there was one song on Axe Attack, thought it's either Sanctuary or Wrathchild