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.
Yes, you are right. I reposted the criticism after I realized what he was up to. He kind of led me down the primrose path there, but it’s my duty to be sure before I post.
I wonder how Japan would have liked being the Western Pacific’s Berlin.
My father spent time in Japan shortly after the end of the war. He told me how polite the people were to him. He even had pregnant ladies try to get up and give him their seat on public transportation.
One lady told him they didn’t hold the U.S. responsible for the actions it had taken.
And now we have some blithering idiot trying to set the record straight about 65 years later.
Makes my blood boil.