[af_vet_rr]

Not sure how long that link at the paper will last, so posted in its entirety here. To anybody who wants to dispute the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, show them this article. I can see why James Michener held off publicizing his views - he would have been crucified for them, being such a popular and respected writer.

[af_vet_rr]

Apologies for all the bold, I only meant to highlight a few sentences.

[genefromjersey]

And, his "crucifixion" would have been at the hands of the "ruling intelligentsia" of the day: the people with the power to silence him :by giving his books bad reviews;by seeing to it lucrative writng assignments for major magazines never came to pass;by making sure nothing he wrote would ever be considered for films.

These same people:these self-appointed Censors would have done all these things without thinking twice...AND while screaming about "McCarthyism".

[pabianice]

Not to worry. The New York Times will soon alter it and publish the forgery to fit their politics.

[Question_Assumptions]

The bombings were best for the US and Japan. Had the war gone on longer, the Russians would have taken Hokkaido and perhaps more of Japan (they still hold 4 small islands and do not have formal peace from WW2 as a result). Had the US accepted a conditional surrender, the Japanese would not have been protected by the American occupation from the communism that swept China, Korea, an Southeast Asia and Japan would have missed the American-crafted democracy it has. And had atomic bombs not been dropped then, frightening everyone, they would have been used a few short years later in Asia or Europe because the nuclear deterrant wouldn't have been as strong and the Cold War might not have stayed so "cold". No matter how you cut it, the atomic bombs ended the war at the right time (before the Russians became fully engaged) and in the right way (unconditional surrender, allowing the US to occupy Japan and recreate its government).

The only potential point of debate concerns the targets and the civilian deaths. To that, I'll simply say that hindsight is 20/20 and we had no way then of knowing what the impact of a demonstration explosion or a more remote target would have been, nor can we really know now. And while Hiroshima and Nagasaki had many civilians, the US spared the Imperial household in Tokyo and the temples of Kyoto.

[glorgau]

I know that if I went public with my views I would be condemned and ridiculed,

Yeah, it might have hust his reviews or book sales. It's OK to release now that it is fashionable. A brave man.

[ChewedGum]

Thank you for posting this! Everyone should read this letter.

Gum

[stevem]

This is interesting in that the letter was written in 1995 after Michener had made the complete transition into the "liberal" persuasion. I sort of question his request that this be published after his death. I suppose it can be understood in the fact that Michener was already an old man, and of possibly deteriorating health at the time.

Yet why should someone of Michener's stature wait for 50 years to pen his response. I noticed when he was writing memoir-like works, he didn't hesitate if he deemed criticism of western institutions, religious institutions etc. as necessary.

Why not defend a decision against revisionists, especially when the dicision may have save his life?

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

"Not sure how long that link at the paper will last, so posted in its entirety here. To anybody who wants to dispute the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, show them this article. I can see why James Michener held off publicizing his views - he would have been crucified for them, being such a popular and respected writer."

And not to mention gutless for not standing up for the truth as he knew it at the time it mattered.