I don't have time to spend hrs replying to your comments (some of which I like, some not so much). I might come back to it on the weekend. But I have to cut in with a few points worth adding that often get skipped in this line of argument... /1
-
You seem to be wanting to get into the moral question (which I've not really ventured into in this thread at all, just poked at), which is something a bit different from that.
But if I were to prod you on the moral question, here's how I'd frame it: Under what conditions is it moral act for a state to deliberately set hundreds of thousands of civilians on fire, by any means, to achieve its military or political aims?
-
-
I'm not saying there aren't any. Maybe they're the conditions you've outlined. But it refocuses attention around the specific means. Because in the end, if you are going to imply that the ends always justify the means in such a situation — that's a pretty dark road to go down.
-
But to your general point, in no way would I want to imply that the war wasn't hell, and especially for the peoples occupied or captured by the Japanese. I don't let them off the hook. I try to not let *anyone* off the hook.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I have no issue w/ anyone asking that moral question whatsoever. I often ask it myself in the Japanese & German context re: WW2 area bombing, etc. But I do want future generations to remember occupied cities like Nanjing & Singapore & GIs dying on Luzon when they do the asking -
-
- b/c it's one thing to say "it's immoral to have dropped those weapons;" (hell, I respect pacifists so why wouldn't I respect that question?). Quite another to frame it as if Truman had no urgent moral reasons to decide that one way or the other.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.