Any reason you emphasize the "angry Truman wanted to strike out and punish the Japs" story ("for whatever it's worth") and suppress the "Truman wanted to end the bloodshed as rapidly as possible" one? Hmmm
To maybe put it another way: I'm certainly, in this Tweet storm, trying to dislodge the firmness of the "obviously pro-bomb" case. I'm not trying to nudge it into the "obviously anti-bomb" case, but rather put it in some kind of center-ground: "lots of stuff to think about."
-
-
I try to make very clear I don't think there are easy answers here, though I also state the areas where I do have some views (e.g., the need to think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki separately as questions of propriety, and not lump them).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's a meta-argument but I just don't see the "obviously pro-bomb" case as hegemonic, not in American high school education or anywhere else. It's a narrow majority opinion in the general public and probably minority among youth and the highly educated.http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/04/70-years-after-hiroshima-opinions-have-shifted-on-use-of-atomic-bomb/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.