Two myths come to the forefront of my mind, though like before with other myths, I don't find them annoying.
One was proposed by Niall Ferguson in his excellent book, War of the World, which I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone to read and it's further expanded on by certain 'apologists' (and I mean this not that they're apologizing for the Axis, but merely in how they are attacking the conduct of the prosecution of the war by the Allies) but also by revisionist authors, many of whom may happen to be Japanese, but also German and Russian and American in fact.
The myth being that the Allies prosecuted their War against the Axis and in that effect, were just as brutal and barbarous as the Axis. Citations of this include, most obviously, the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign over both Germany and Japan, which killed tens of thousands of people, the proposed Morgenthau Plan, the demand for Unconditional Surrender from both Germany and Japan, the Allies collusion with the purely evil Soviet Union as well as the very myopic arguments, such as the brutality of certain Allied units whether in regards to population or prisoners of war, the starvation/winter privation of the Lowlands in 1944 etc.
I find such arguments lose their luster for several reasons:
1) When the Allies occupied Germany and Japan, the Western Allies took a great deal of care at great expense, in rebuilding both Germany and Japan into prosperous, functioning, democratic societies that even until now, have (controversies aside) renounced militarism in large part even now. Conversely, from history, we know that German and Japanese occupation of Europe and Asia was marked by inequality, brutality, oppression, villainy, looting, exploitation, slavery and savagery and there is no reason whatsoever to think it would be mitigated in a Japanese occupied North America or German occupied United Kingdom.
2) The 'brutality' of the Allies was incidental to the prosecution of a war and had increased in intensity for both sides as the war continued. There were massacres, and civilian death at the hands of Allies, but there was never an intentional or systematic targeting of certain minorities, party members, or civilians in general or other forms of ethnic or any other kind of cleansing/genocide. GI's and Tommies didn't even drag former Nazis to the gas chambers. The extremely mild Nuremburg Trials in fact, then and now, have actually still faced a great deal of scrutiny for their dubious legality in prosecuting the most inhumane mass murderers in human history.
3) The choice of war wasn't something the Western Allies wanted. Even the liberals in Britain and France found they were pushed too far by March 1939 that they felt compelled to offer a security guarantee with Poland that Spring. But when war was forced upon them, they realized they had to fight and you don't fight wars of national survival against insatiable fascists through half measures. You fight them by pursuing a Total War doctrine. And that means that when you are prosecuting that kind of war, especially with the level of technology and resources in their possession, and considering that the leadership of both Germany and Japan were more then willing to lay waste to their own lands and populations, terrific casualties even amongst the civilians maybe unavoidable.
4) Almost forgot, there was a fourth reason, this in regards to Unconditional Surrender and the idea of isolationism following WW2. I believe in the pursuit of Unconditional Surrender completely in regards to WW2. And it was worth dropping two atomic bombs on Japan if need be even over a simple amendment such as keeping the Emperor in power as Head of State. World War Two, which killed tens of millions of people, was the outgrowth of the First World War, not just in Europe and as an outgrowth of Versailles, but also in the Pacific. In Germany in World War One, this would've perpetuated the "stabbed in the back" concept that was so pervasive after World War One. Germany, despite being starved, racked by civil disorder, its armies fleeing the fields of battle, and abdication of its governments, still believed, within a generation, it hadn't been defeated. By keeping the Japanese political and divine leader in place, regardless of his guilt, by not occupying Japan, by subordinating Allied authority to even one Japanese demand, meant that such a myth could prosper. Germany and Japan had to not just be forced to surrender, they had to experience defeat and the complete dismantling of the governments responsible for those actions and that could only be done by a surrender without condition and postwar occupation.