This is what is known as revisionist history. You can also read where Robert McNamara states he was against the Vietnam war too.
Well, until last week, I had not heard this. I was talking with a co-worker, my age, both our Father's were WW2 Vets. His father taught at the War College for many years after. Surprised me, but, this controversy was well known in the Military. We talked at length about some of these details. Many peer reviewed papers have been written and exchanged beneath and beyond the public story.
The Public story was to spare our guilt. Our guilt would have come from this point of view. It is the guilty view. And of course, Macarthur was not informed. I'm sure there was a difference of opinion about the use of these weapons. There still is. It is complex ego posturing on both sides. The idea that China would have scorched Japan was also debated. Many felt they were just waiting to fall on each other, Mao-Sheik Style. They would not have the means to invade Japan, being in civil war.
IAC, no one refutes the idea that they were arming themselves with bamboo spears, quite outside what the military was planning. And no one refutes the fact that Macaurthur took up and burned several hundred thousand Samurai swords. The Military may have been on the ropes but everyone agrees the fight to the death is what the US was facing. 10s of millions of desperate civilians, where honorable suicide is a noble ideal.
The revisionism, of course, is the idea that it was NOT to end the war quickly but is WAS to rein in the Soviet. War is everything. All the considerations are important. So, in this article, this is the REAL reason? No, just another good reason. WW2 was about Nukes, start to finish.
We had a great leader in Truman. FDR fiddled and we got in almost too late.
"Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War."
