Headline and use of word 'atrocity' was ill-chosen

I don’t know if this headline was written by a sub-editor or the writer of your piece on the dropping of the two nuclear bombs on Japan in WW2.

Whoever is to blame needs a short, sharp, lesson in modern history and/or a move to an inactive post.

While the piece itself came close to being well balanced, it ignored two central facts. By shortening the war, countless innocent lives were saved among civilians and prisoners-of-war, most of the latter being close to death anyway by that time. And the second bomb would not have been dropped had the Japanese not prevaricated over their surrender following the first.

It is of course totally tragic that the vast majority of the casualties were civilians, women and children, yet the world still awaits any form of apology for the “Rape of Nanking” and the later Japanese atrocities in the Philippines and other nations they temporarily conquered.

The word “atrocity” in this context is incendiary, totally unjustified, subjective and does nothing for your otherwise good reputation.

David Hardcastle

Chiang Mai