Unbiased Beeb

Proving once again that the BBC has no political agenda whatsoever, they've got a completely unbiased article that jabs the United States for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

On the 60th anniversary of the destruction of Hiroshima, new questions are being asked about whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb - and whether the bomb was really responsible for the Japanese surrender.

Historians will never fully agree on the answers.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am a historian. I have a degree in history. I've been studying it for years, professionally, academically, not just as a hobby. Historians will never fully agree on anything. You could put five historians in a room with a clock and a gun filled with blanks, the thing could go off, and you'd get five different versions of when and why the gun went off, at least two of which would probably blame President Bush in some way for the damage to the hearing capacity of the historians due to his evil support of the evil National Rifle Association.

Don't believe me? I bet you could easily find some legitimate historian, with credentials and everything, who will blame America for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. After all, it was the evil American aggression against the stoic, noble, ancient warrior culture of the Japanese. Try it. I dare you.

And the children born of fathers who might otherwise have been sent to invade Japan in 1945 often wonder if they should not be grateful that the bomb was used, first on Hiroshima on 6 August and then against Nagasaki.

Churchill likened the explosions at the time to the "Second Coming in wrath."

US President Harry Truman also recognised their significance.

When he was told of the successful test of the atomic bomb - and then took the decision to use it with no warning - he wrote in his diary: "We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark."

The opinions of mankind since then continue to be divided as to why the decision was taken.

You know the real tragedy? The BBC paid some guy named Paul Reynolds to write this "article". My regrets go out to the citizens of the United Kingdom, whose taxes provided the funds.