The problem is that all major anniversaries of the bombings (and certainly the 60th) seem to prompt a wave of media coverage which blithely condemns what happened as wicked and wrong and a crime against humanity. It is almost as if the Americans had acted purely out of spite, and as if there had been no conceivable arguments in favour of the bombs worthy of serious consideration.
I'm sure the vast majority of WW2TALK members (even those opposed to the bombings) know that the truth of the matter was far more complex than that. I get the impression that most members probably share my view that the bombs avoided far more suffering than they caused, but I entirely respect the views of those who have considered both sides of the argument and reached the opposite conclusion.
Where I do have a problem, though, is when fashionable opinion-formers get on their high horses and condemn the bombings out of hand, in spite of their apparently knowing nothing about why they happened and their not having even attempted to consider what not dropping the bombs would have meant.
So why does it bother me so much?
Because I am one of countless thousands of people alive today who know (not suspect, but know) that they would never have been born were it not for the atomic bombs. Without the bombings, my father would unquestionably have died in 1945 (and, if they had been dropped two weeks later, they would almost certainly have been too late to save him).
THIS VIDEO CLIP EXPLAINS WHY
But this isn't all about him (or me). There were over 100,000 others in his position (and vastly more who were saved by the bombs in other ways), yet hardly anyone in the wider world seems to have any inkling of what would have happened to these men.
How can something as serious and as momentous as this be practically unknown?
My comments are directed mainly at the media - not at individuals. I doubt that I would have known about it myself if it had not affected my own father.
Edited by REK, 12 August 2010 - 06:08 PM.