Responding to Mr Jacubs

I am most grateful to those of you who have rebutted the mistaken attacks made on me here by Mr Jacubs, who accuses me of abusing the Bomber Command aircrew and of wishing that Britain had been defeated in the two great European wars, both mistaken accusations without basis in fact. I had thought of doing it myself, but I am now confident that other readers here (even those who do not agree with me) can explain to this person that he is badly in the wrong.

 

I have no time for a long response. I'd say a couple of other things: one,  I hope Mr Jacubs learns a little about debate from this, makes his apologies and returns to make some more accurate and level-headed contributions; second that I understand much modern historical scholarship rejects the idea that the alternative to the Hiroshima bomb was a bloody invasion of Japan. I think it is now generally accepted that Truman's military chiefs were against use of the bomb, and that Japan was militarily and economically prostrate.

 

I'd welcome intelligent and informed debate about this. Many decent people, confronted with the horrors of Hiroshima and even less excusable horrors of Nagasaki, have welcomed the old argument of necessity, the the alternative was much worse. George Macdonald Fraser does so in his fine book about the Burma war 'Quartered Safe out Here' . I don't blame them. I just don't think it's true.