5 ms·

It's very easy to judge past America 60 years from the moment. Say you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. Wouldn

by ksou32 10y ago

It's very easy to judge past America 60 years from the moment. Say you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon to end the war ?

nihonde 10y ago
This article was written immediately after the war, and doesn't really pass any judgment. It's one of the greatest works of non-fiction of all time, in my opinion.
hasenj 10y ago
I think would much rather my leaders just sign some sort of an armistice agreement rather than annihilate "enemy" civilians. I mean there are ways to end a war without total destruction. And the logic of killing civilians to save soldiers is just .. no comment.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- hugh4 10y ago
  >I think would much rather my leaders just sign some sort of an armistice agreement rather than annihilate "enemy" civilians. Great idea! Now, how do we persuade the other side to sign that agreement?
  - bluejekyll 10y ago
    You're making the assumption that you -need- the other side to sign an agreement. Japan was completely contained by the US at this point in the war. This was a decision to hasten the end of the war, but did we ever actually leave? We still have bases in Japan. This was about hastening an end with a guarantee that the US would have full control of Japan. Please don't misunderstand me though, Japan needed to be defeated thoroughly, it had acted and performed gross injustices against many people in the world. But these bombs were not necessary.
    - lujim 10y ago
      So maybe just a tug o' war or a water balloon fight to decide the winner of the Pacific War? We could have used those 1 million Purple Hearts we produced for the invasion of Japan for anyone who stubbed a toe during all the festivities.
      - bluejekyll 10y ago
        Read Howard Zinn's, 'A People's History of the United States', then get back to me.
        lujim 10y ago
        I will check out a summary and if it looks good I will give it a read. My googling makes it look a bit revisionist but I will check it out. Since we are starting a book club try 'With the Old Breed' by Eugene Sledge and/or 'Flyboys' by James Bradley to see the hell on earth the Japanese military had exported all over the Pacific. I was actually somewhat mentally exhausted by the end of 'With the Old Breed' and was glad when it was over. The book described something horrifying and grueling with no end in sight so I can't imagine how it would feel to actually have lived it.
        bluejekyll 10y ago
        James Clavell's fictional account based on his experiences in a Japanese prison camp is wonderful read too, 'King Rat'. I talked with my grandfather often about his service as a submariner in the pacific, brutal, but oddly he never hated the Japanese. He saved that for the French.
  - lujim 10y ago
    Since we have our pens out we should also sign something outlawing poverty, disease, and Mondays.
- ksou32 10y ago
  >And the logic of killing civilians to save soldiers is just .. no comment. Since their was totally a way to invade Japan and not harm any civilians. Since Japan totally didn't kill millions of innocent Chinese , Vietnamese, and Philippinos. It's not a bad guy good guy comic When exactly was the last no civilian casualties war ? We firebombed Dresden too, but you don't see Germany getting a peace day. And remember Truman's first duty is to save the lives of the drafted men on the front lines.
- lujim 10y ago
  Well to be fair soldiers are humans and aren't just completely disposable. Read "With the Old Breed" by Eugene Sledge to see the fun and games a 19 year old kid from Mobile Alabama got to have as a US Marine in the Pacific. Spoiler alert, his experience was probably about as bad as anything a human could endure.
sangnoir 10y ago
Added additional context to your question: > Say as an armed soldier, you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. > Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon on civilians to end the war ? I know WWII blurred the lines on what counts a legitimate target (military installations, civilian-manned factories, entire towns like the firebombing of Dresden). As a soldier, would you be able to justify indiscriminate targeting of unarmed civilians? I suspect some Americans lack empathy on that part because the US homeland has never had a hot war in a very long time to the extent that is not imaginable.
- ksou32 10y ago
  Most of the men in WW 2 were drafted. In that case I see no difference between a solder and a civilian. Truman's duty is to American boys who are dying in a war Japan started. He's wasn't the president of Japan You also have to factor in with any negotiation Japan may of argued they still owned Korea, as they'd had since 1910 In the Battle of the Bulge children were drafted,they magically become disposable war machines.
  - nihonde 10y ago
    Truman's duty was to humanity, not "American boys".
    - ksou32 10y ago
      Keep in mind millions of people are dying in Asia due to Japanese occupation during this time. Shouldn't those lives count as well. Ether way Truman was president of AMERICA, not the greater good
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > In that case I see no difference between a solder and a civilian. Surely even when you're drafted, being trained and armed sets you apart from civilians? This WWII vet[1] is of the opinion that even unarmed soldiers (AKA ejected pilots who no longer have access to arms) are not legitimate targets, let alone civilians. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8LVlYJ5eJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8LVlYJ5eJU

by ksou32 10y ago

nihonde 10y ago

This article was written immediately after the war, and doesn't really pass any judgment. It's one of the greatest works of non-fiction of all time, in my opinion.

hasenj 10y ago

I think would much rather my leaders just sign some sort of an armistice agreement rather than annihilate "enemy" civilians. I mean there are ways to end a war without total destruction. And the logic of killing civilians to save soldiers is just .. no comment.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hugh4 10y ago
>I think would much rather my leaders just sign some sort of an armistice agreement rather than annihilate "enemy" civilians. Great idea! Now, how do we persuade the other side to sign that agreement?
- bluejekyll 10y ago
  You're making the assumption that you -need- the other side to sign an agreement. Japan was completely contained by the US at this point in the war. This was a decision to hasten the end of the war, but did we ever actually leave? We still have bases in Japan. This was about hastening an end with a guarantee that the US would have full control of Japan. Please don't misunderstand me though, Japan needed to be defeated thoroughly, it had acted and performed gross injustices against many people in the world. But these bombs were not necessary.
  - lujim 10y ago
    So maybe just a tug o' war or a water balloon fight to decide the winner of the Pacific War? We could have used those 1 million Purple Hearts we produced for the invasion of Japan for anyone who stubbed a toe during all the festivities.
    - bluejekyll 10y ago
      Read Howard Zinn's, 'A People's History of the United States', then get back to me.
      - lujim 10y ago
        I will check out a summary and if it looks good I will give it a read. My googling makes it look a bit revisionist but I will check it out. Since we are starting a book club try 'With the Old Breed' by Eugene Sledge and/or 'Flyboys' by James Bradley to see the hell on earth the Japanese military had exported all over the Pacific. I was actually somewhat mentally exhausted by the end of 'With the Old Breed' and was glad when it was over. The book described something horrifying and grueling with no end in sight so I can't imagine how it would feel to actually have lived it.
        bluejekyll 10y ago
        James Clavell's fictional account based on his experiences in a Japanese prison camp is wonderful read too, 'King Rat'. I talked with my grandfather often about his service as a submariner in the pacific, brutal, but oddly he never hated the Japanese. He saved that for the French.
- lujim 10y ago
  Since we have our pens out we should also sign something outlawing poverty, disease, and Mondays.
ksou32 10y ago
>And the logic of killing civilians to save soldiers is just .. no comment. Since their was totally a way to invade Japan and not harm any civilians. Since Japan totally didn't kill millions of innocent Chinese , Vietnamese, and Philippinos. It's not a bad guy good guy comic When exactly was the last no civilian casualties war ? We firebombed Dresden too, but you don't see Germany getting a peace day. And remember Truman's first duty is to save the lives of the drafted men on the front lines.
lujim 10y ago
Well to be fair soldiers are humans and aren't just completely disposable. Read "With the Old Breed" by Eugene Sledge to see the fun and games a 19 year old kid from Mobile Alabama got to have as a US Marine in the Pacific. Spoiler alert, his experience was probably about as bad as anything a human could endure.

sangnoir 10y ago

Added additional context to your question: > Say as an armed soldier, you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. > Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon on civilians to end the war ? I know WWII blurred the lines on what counts a legitimate target (military installations, civilian-manned factories, entire towns like the firebombing of Dresden). As a soldier, would you be able to justify indiscriminate targeting of unarmed civilians? I suspect some Americans lack empathy on that part because the US homeland has never had a hot war in a very long time to the extent that is not imaginable.

ksou32 10y ago
Most of the men in WW 2 were drafted. In that case I see no difference between a solder and a civilian. Truman's duty is to American boys who are dying in a war Japan started. He's wasn't the president of Japan You also have to factor in with any negotiation Japan may of argued they still owned Korea, as they'd had since 1910 In the Battle of the Bulge children were drafted,they magically become disposable war machines.
- nihonde 10y ago
  Truman's duty was to humanity, not "American boys".
  - ksou32 10y ago
    Keep in mind millions of people are dying in Asia due to Japanese occupation during this time. Shouldn't those lives count as well. Ether way Truman was president of AMERICA, not the greater good
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > In that case I see no difference between a solder and a civilian. Surely even when you're drafted, being trained and armed sets you apart from civilians? This WWII vet[1] is of the opinion that even unarmed soldiers (AKA ejected pilots who no longer have access to arms) are not legitimate targets, let alone civilians. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8LVlYJ5eJU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8LVlYJ5eJU