3 ms·

It's not a factual blame issue. Are then only those that dropped the bomb responsible? It's a mentality problem, people feel guilty because they don't think any

It's not a factual blame issue. Are then only those that dropped the bomb responsible? It's a mentality problem, people feel guilty because they don't think anything changed in their society and feel powerless and afraid that something like that could happen again, which is also why they keep writing about it, to keep awareness high and try to change society. And with this I'm not saying that you should feel responsible instead. I'm simply saying that dismissing this by saying "My parents weren't around 60 years ago" without including an analysis of the context and environment is a pretty weak argument. For example, would you have made the same decision in the same circumstance in 1945?

sliverstorm 15y ago
For example, would you have made the same decision in the same circumstance in 1945? I have absolutely no way of knowing. Not in the least because I don't know what I would have known, and that is often my issue with this sort of hindsight-criticism. Besides the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont aspect of these types of huge decisions (I'm quite sure Truman would have received plenty of criticism if he decided NOT to drop the bomb), they often assume- this one somewhat included- perfect knowledge. Sure, the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. Did the President know that? Sure, Japan was secretly hoping to use the USSR as leverage in negotiations with the USA. Did Truman know THAT? It goes on. I suppose perhaps I do dismiss it a little too quickly, but I wish more revisionist criticism would focus a little less on what is right from the grand, 20/20 all-knowing-birds-eye-view and a little more on individual knowledge and perspective.
- dialtone 15y ago
  However I think most of the criticism doesn't come from trying to picture Truman as a killer or as someone who has vaporized a city for lust of violence. Criticism comes from the fact that today we know what nuclear warheads are capable of doing, and yet these are still a viable weapon. This means that somebody still considers the possibility of using them, and this creates the need to do something to stop it (and makes people still feel guilty).

sliverstorm 15y ago

For example, would you have made the same decision in the same circumstance in 1945? I have absolutely no way of knowing. Not in the least because I don't know what I would have known, and that is often my issue with this sort of hindsight-criticism. Besides the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-dont aspect of these types of huge decisions (I'm quite sure Truman would have received plenty of criticism if he decided NOT to drop the bomb), they often assume- this one somewhat included- perfect knowledge. Sure, the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. Did the President know that? Sure, Japan was secretly hoping to use the USSR as leverage in negotiations with the USA. Did Truman know THAT? It goes on. I suppose perhaps I do dismiss it a little too quickly, but I wish more revisionist criticism would focus a little less on what is right from the grand, 20/20 all-knowing-birds-eye-view and a little more on individual knowledge and perspective.

dialtone 15y ago
However I think most of the criticism doesn't come from trying to picture Truman as a killer or as someone who has vaporized a city for lust of violence. Criticism comes from the fact that today we know what nuclear warheads are capable of doing, and yet these are still a viable weapon. This means that somebody still considers the possibility of using them, and this creates the need to do something to stop it (and makes people still feel guilty).