No, actually I didn't say that. Follow out the sequence. I acknowledged that the controversy would have made a trial difficult, and that it was fortunate we did not have to endure one.
As for the "extermination of a civilian population" argument: as soon as the Axis resorted to counter- population tactics, all bets were off. We could not endure their bombardment of cities without striking back in kind. In that respect, the nuclear issue is irrelevant, since we had used conventional or incendiary bombs against civilian populations already. The sole issue was if the exigencies of the particular war dictated a degree of brutality that would normally been avoided. The British, for example, could not let Hitler bomb London with impunity. A comparable asset was dictated. Similarly, after the savagery with which the Japanese beseiged Chinese cities, and the fanaticism demonstrated by the kamakaze, extraordinary means were necessary to break their will to fight. So, in my judgment, it was no crime in the first place. Add to that the attempt to conserve human life, and it was a "no- brainer".
No, the collateral damage, the collapse of infrastructure (with attendant starvation and disease), and the last ditch use of boys and old men as reserves would have assured a large number of essentially civilian casualties. When we over- ran Germany, home defense was being carried out by pubescent boys and grandfathers. |
