I am always intrigued by discussions like this one. On one hand, you have the individuals plain publicly spoken words; on the other you have the never-ending desire of historians, various news hounds, and other experts to uncover what individuals "really meant" - the hidden thoughts and secret meanings presumably buried in the id or deep subconscious.
Regards your May 2018 Hand grenade
The issue of the Alperovitz and other Hiroshima revisionists ignoring Ultra and other matters counter to their thesis is very much an issue of "arguing with drunks and religious fanatics."
Hiroshima revisionists don't want to hear or consider contrary data because of identity issue ideological conditioning.
This is a quick thumbnail Historical Background to the rise of “Atomic Diplomacy” prior to Alperovitz, via one of my posts to the Chicagoboyz web log  --
Having read Mr Myers response, his quote from President Truman "To get Japan to surrender and end the war as quickly as possible." is of relevance to me. Having met at a conference down in Adelaide earlier this year a American psychiatrist, with whom I discussed the paper he had presented. This leading on to lunch, and over a bottle of very good South Australian red the conversation turned around to families. His father had been in the 4th Marines in China 1939-41, and our father had been with the British Army there for some 12 years in the interwar years.
Truman being "Pro-Russian": On the other hand, Truman was less pro-Russian than Roosevelt had been throughout the war. As soon as he became President on Roosevelt's death, Truman verbally castigated the Soviet ambassador (recall the famous exchange "I've never been talked to like that in all my life!" "Well, live up to your agreements and you won't get talked to like that again."), and he tried to steer events, as best as he could, to avoid having the Soviets take part in occupying Japan, in contrast to the situation in Germany.
Perhaps the revisionists continue to rise because their arguments serve a political agenda. Their current political goals need the support of a certain narrative--whether or not the facts support it--thus there will always be a ready market for Alperovitz. This practice is not that new; consider the Lost Cause histories written during the late 1800s.
John, fearless moderator and historian, maybe it's just that we all kind of want to . . . forget about Korea. Vietnam, on the other hand . . .
Yikes, nothing. Perhaps the wrong forum, eh? Next time I will see if H-DIPLO will mirror something like this, might get a few responses from that crowd.
best, John T. Kuehn
CfP: New Voices in the History of War
Organisers: Anita Klingler, Dr Ismini Pells, Jan Tattenberg, Louis Morris