I would judge both men based on the results of their actions, not based on my country of origin. I would not concede that Truman's use of the A-Bomb can be reasonably compared with Chamberlain's lack of preparedness. The Atomic Bomb was used in lieu of a full scale invasion of the Japanese homeland. Any reasonable analysis of the loss of life to be experienced by both sides in those circumstances would show the A-Bomb killed fewer individuals. I read Hiroshima and was appauled by the suffering of those who were at or near ground zero. I also have had the privilige of having first hand discussions with vet's who served in the Pacific theater. I do not concede your point. The result of Chamberlain's policy was a Europe under Hitler's thumb for nearly 6 years. The result of Truman's decision was a swift end to the protracted conflict in the Pacific which in the end, saved more lives than it cost. I think that your posted draft suffers from relying too much on the opinions of others. A reasonable person can review the circumstances of the time, and judge based on merit whether the policies of Chamberlain were effective or not. Quoting the flawed conclusions of others does not a persuasive argument make when those conclusions do not pass the "common sense" test. The threat was Germany, the approach was appeasement, the result was tyranny in Europe and carnage in England from German bombs. The alternative was defiance, the result was liberation from tyranny, and freedom from the fear of the German bombs. Compare the alternatives and the results, and you have a solid argument. Continued attempts to provide excuses for incompetent preparedness and failed foreign policy does not change the outcome OR the appropriate conclusions to be drawn. Regards, CZ52'