Even Truman, the endless defender of the bombings, seemed to harbor deep unhappiness about their collateral damage. In Dec. 1945 he referred to the bomb as "the most terrible of all destructive forces for the wholesale slaughter of human beings" — he didn't whitewash it.
-
Show this thread
-
One can invoke, of course, the hypothetical lives the bomb saved. Because they are hypothetical, they can be nearly as many as you want them to be (and the defenders of the bombings revised that number upwards and upwards over the years), and whomever you want them to be.
2 replies 33 retweets 204 likesShow this thread -
But I can't help but feel that the actual dead deserve a bit more attention, versus the hypothetical dead. I know: your grandfather was slated to be in the invasion, you might not be here, etc. (Assuming the war didn't end prior to November 1945, which it may well have.)
4 replies 31 retweets 264 likesShow this thread -
But even in that situation you've still got to reconcile with the costs. You've got to say, "I am OK with all of those children having died, so that I may live." I find that a defensible statement. But I rarely hear people say it — because it's hard.
8 replies 47 retweets 281 likesShow this thread -
I guess that's my argument, here: if you want to defend the bombings, that's fine with me. There are certainly arguments to that end. But you can't ignore the consequences of them. To do that puts us in a dangerous place; an "ends justify the means" that overlooks the "means."
6 replies 45 retweets 307 likesShow this thread -
Truman managed to defend the bombings, while being very open about the horror, once he learned of it. He turned that into a desire not to have nuclear weapons be used ever again, if it was possible. He's a more complex figure on this than his detractors or defenders tend to know.
25 replies 49 retweets 402 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @wellerstein
I find it notable that this whole thread makes zero reference to the tens of millions of Asians that Imperial Japan has slaughtered up to that point.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AskAKorean
I do make a reference to the Japanese militarists; I certainly do not absolve Japan for their role in the war, or the horror they wrought on their neighbors. In the US educational context, this is heavily emphasized. It doesn't make killing Japanese children any better, IMO.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein
I know you don't mean to absolve anyone. I just find it interesting millions of Asian deaths never entered your moral calculus. The argument is a bit different when it iss: "I'm OK with all these children having died, because for their sake, many millions have been killed."
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AskAKorean @wellerstein
I would also very much disagree that US education heavily emphasizes Imperial Japan's war crimes. Mention Rape of Nanjing or Comfort Women to most Americans and what you get is a blank stare.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
In my experience (as an American, who teaches Americans, etc.), most know that Japan did terrible things during WWII. One can always wish it did more to fill out the full story — I do. But I don't think people thought Japan as a nation was innocent, here.
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.