Hiroshima mon amour.

[PanzerJaeger]

There is nothing wrong with revisionism if it dispels myths.

But if the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded in 1946 that the A-bombs were not needed then one would have to find some good arguments as to why the survey's conclusions were wrong.

That's the problem with his argument. A 1946 survey reflects knowledge that was availible in 1946, not 1945.

The bredth of knowledge availble post-war, including detailed internal military and political assessments from the Japanese leadership itself, was far and away different from what was availible to Allied commanders at the time.

The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

In any event, it seems as though people fall into two distinct camps on this issue. Either it was an appalling sacrifice of Japanese innocents just to scare the Russians, or it was a moral choice taken for the greater good of saving more lives than it took. In reality, I think history shows that in the minds of American commanders of the time, the two were not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the historical record demonstrates that the decision to drop the bombs reflected both ambitions.