“It is the phrasing of the term, "it ended the war", to create the belief, it was a "good thing", rather than stating, 'chances are we may not have defeated the Japanese on their island with conventional means'.”

On what basis do you put forth the proposition “rather than stating”:

"chances are we may not have defeated the Japanese on their island with conventional means."

All the evidence prior to using nuclear weapons was that; as had already been demonstrated by the complete destruction and defeat of the German national effort, the Japanese national effort would be completely destroyed and defeated on their island with conventional means also. One would think that someone with a personal history of national defeat at the hands of America would have a more measured and realistic view of the chances of a wartime ally facing the same!

“Hypocritical and apologetic, to say the least. But than again, propagandist rethoric is part of the equation”

Reviewing the posts of this thread it appears the “it ended the war” construct is a fabricated “phrasing of the term” of your own, you falsely attribute to some other! The fact that no one uttered either those words or statement makes it hard to understand your basis for concluding that something unspoken is hypocritical or apologetic much less propagandist rhetoric! Critical analysis is usually more valued if the subject of said critique exists somewhere other than in the mind of the critic!