Good call. I reposted it.
Yep, nothing much tees me off more than someone taking military planners to task, for ending the war. None of us likes the idea of using those nukes. War is hell.
Look at Iwo Jima. The honeycombed passageways in its volcanic mountain’s inner sanctum, held thousands of Japanese troops.
I just read the other day that several Japanese troops didn’t actually surrender until 1950 possibly 1951. Now that’s determination.
I’m sure that if my ship-mates had been blown to bits, before the use of the bombs, I’d be tracking this blithering idiot down to beat him to a pulp.
The author redefines the legal structure of war by pointing to the indiscriminate killing of military and civilians and then claims in his hand-wringing conclusion: That made these attacks war crimes.
1. The earlier fire bombing exacted a higher toll of civilian deaths but was not regarded as inappropriate.
2. The Japanese War Lords did not believe the first A-bomb meant they had lost the war and ignored our peace demands.
3. Russia was massing forces and by prior agreement was moving to invade Japan in a matter of weeks - which would have caused an otherwise avoidable blood-bath, extinguished the nation of Japan and given the USSR a warm water pacific port.
4. Truman would have been charged with a war crime at home if he had needlessly squandered the lives of hundreds of thousands American lives while holding the weapon that would end the war.
Try 1974 when Lt. Hiroo Onoda surrendered to local authorities on Luzon, Philippines, after getting official orders to do so from Tokyo! There were multiple other Japanese holdouts, mostly where the conditions allowed them to be self-sufficient.