Sgt. Stryker posts about the Hiroshima bombing anniversary, and comments on the revisionist theory that dropping the A-Bombs were unnecessary.

I ran into the same revisionist thinking when I was in college over 20 years ago. I was taking a History of WWII course, and it was straight revisionism, from start to finish. As I already knew a fair amount about that war, I was shocked and offended that the 2 teachers of the course would sell their revisionism as established historical fact. In fact, I refused to spout back their theories, and my grade in the course suffered. My dad liked my stand, but my GPA didn't. These were also the types of teachers that completely believed that there was no way to be objective in reporting history; one must always approach the research with one's personal outlook, so one better have the right outlook. Really, they tried to teach me that. Contrary bastard that I am, I resisted.

Incidentally, every WWII veteran I have ever spoken to is convinced that the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 (1) shortened the war, (2) saved in the neighborhood of 2 million american lives by making an invasion of the Japanese home islands unnecessary, and (3) probably saved their lives, as well.

Had I been Truman in the moment, with the information I had about the planned home island operations and anticipated casualties, and without any of the [now justified] fears about nuclear weapons that have developed over the last half century, I would have used the bombs, too.