So you consider all the denomination members of the "National Council of CHurches" (whatever they were called in 1946), as "LEFTIES.
I have no idea who those people are, but if I catch any of them pushing falsehoods about the A-bombings and/or surrender of Japan, I'll be sure to pounce on them.
Also D Eisenhower, when informed of the plans to drop a bomb, QUESTIONED its necessity .
Ike was a major obstacle to progress. When he was president he would go around proclaiming that we weren't going to build any nukes bigger than about the 10-15 MT range, and then when the weapons labs tried to build bigger nukes he would undercut them by saying that they'd be making a liar out of him. No one ever told him that if he'd just keep his mouth shut and stop saying stupid things, that wouldn't be a problem for him.
He also instituted that stupid rule that nothing could be targeted with a weapon bigger than 2 MT unless the military could justify why a smaller nuke was not sufficient.
And when the military tried to buy enough nukes to ensure our ability to destroy 90% of the Soviet arsenal, Ike told them that he'd be happy with 70%. At least the military was able to overturn this last one once Ike was out of office.
We were already fire bombing Osaka and Tokyo (etc etc) and killing more people with napalm (pwr visit) than we would with an atomic bomb. But noone seems to have been questioning the use of Napalm bomblets that essentially burn down these balsa cities in an evenings raid.
True that the napalm raids get a lot less press. But occasionally the Tokyo raid does get denounced by one of the anti-war people.
Did the Japanese really surrener unconditionally?
The Potsdam Proclamation was a list of surrender terms.
Did the Japanese really surrener unconditionally? How come we let em keep the damn emperor??
They might have refused to surrender, making a bloody invasion necessary, had we not done so.
Also, by keeping and controlling
the emperor, we were able to shape Japanese society into a peaceful democracy.