The comment in the national review editorial of March 29 on the statement of former President Harry S. Truman, in which he sought to justify the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was timely, cogent and to the point. But something more than his dubious public manners and his lack of sympathetic perspective is at stake in dealing with his statement that: “I think the sacrifice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was urgent and necessary for the prospective welfare of both Japan and the Allies.” The situation calls for some realistic historical analysis.
Well-informed persons have known for years that the bombing of these Japanese cities was not needed to bring the war to a speedy end and make it unnecessary to launch an assault against the Japanese mainland which, if actually carried out, would certainly have led to enormous bloodshed on both sides. It has been difficult, however, to get this momentous fact before the American public in any effective manner, even though the relevant information has been published in prominent American newspapers and periodicals, the most complete revelation having actually been made on the Sunday following V-J Day. What are the facts in the situation?
Comments