Those are useful points, Amos & Rapaire. Yes, I am speaking with the benefit of hindsight. Truman probably did what he thought was best, given his understanding of the situation. There were strong voices among the atomic scientists both for and against using the bomb, and I tend to sympathize with those who argued against doing so.

The firebombing of Tokyo with conventional bombs killed more people than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Still, there is a certain horrific aspect to the use of atomic weapons that places them somehow in a different psychological category altogether.

It's the unspoken assumptions that lie behind people's thinking that trouble me, such as...

1. the notion that a massive invasion of Japan was actually necessary...I doubt that it ever crossed the minds of American commanders that it wasn't, and that was because they couldn't think "outside the box" of their usual assumptions. They were repeating a familiar past.

2. the notion that unconditional surrender is EVER necessary to finish a war!!!!!! It isn't...unless Adolf Hitler happens to be your opponent. Surrenders can always be arranged...with certain conditions...when things reach a certain point of weakness for the losing side. Unconditional surrender seems to have been a notion invented by Ulysses S. Grant in the American Civil War. It's a notion that stinks, and smacks of extraordinary hubris. I say that while adding that I have a good opinion of Grant in a general sense. He was a fine general. When it did come down to Lee's surrender at Appomatox, Grant treated the defeated Confederate forces with honour and respect...and they DID arrange for certain conditions. The southern troops, for example, were allowed to return home and keep their horses, which they needed to start farming again, etc...

3. Behind these sort of sweeping grand assumptions such as "we must launch a full-scale invasion next or drop the bomb" and "we must demand unconditional surrender" lie certain attitudes which aren't too healthy. Hubris, hatred, the certainty of racial/cultural/moral superiority, the certainty of the enemy's inherent unworthiness and evil.

I'm not saying the Japanese would have behaved any better...they certainly would not have. What I am saying is that that doesn't make any difference to my concern over the moral issues involved. A war crime is still a war crime, even when the "good guys" commit it in the name of freedom or some other wonderful notion.

I am against war crimes being whitewashed by the victors, when it might be more honest to just admit that EVERYONE committed some war crimes, be glad it's finally over...and get on with making a better future for everyone instead of indulging in rituals of revenge upon the fallen enemy.

- LH