Was Truman a war criminal?

[Constable Reggie]

Last post because your increasingly heartless disregard to anyone except civilians is mortifying.

The rape of Nanking destroyed morale, can you possibly justify it from a military standpoint? So what if it dropped morale, it mass murdered more civilians in a single night than any raid before it. It's absolutely a war crime, innocent people were purposely slaughtered with incendiary weaponry.

You're comparing widespread pointless atrocities going on for several weeks when the city was already taken to the use of a bomb to get a surrender. How the fuck did Nanking lower morale?

There's no way that you can possibly justify the mass-killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents while also claiming that it's wrong to launch a surprise attack on a very clear enemy. You have to be fucking with me right now.

It's called fucking war. Shit happens in war, including the use of bombs. Pear Harbor was not a wartime attack.

Only one thing has happened, any other thing is what could have happened.

Doctor: If we don't treat this guy for leukemia, he's going to die.

Dumbass: Don't worry, anything can happen!

Doctor: But he's going to die!

Dumbass: nonononono, we can't prove that!

We can infer from all the info there was in WW2 that Downfall was most likely going to happen if the bombs never came to play. Quit pretending like it wouldn't. This isn't "could" or "should", it's "would".

I prefer not intentionally killing innocent people. The events in question are irrelevant. Aiming to kill civilians is always wrong. Period.

IT IS ENTIRELY RELEVANT. Quit ignoring it because you can't admit this gem:

Apparently soldiers are subhuman to you, because you don't give a shit about them in comparison to civilians. You think every soldier goes to war ready to die? Are you really that fucking heartless that you choose for more of them to die, if it meant not *intentionally* killing civilians, in a heartbeat?

Aiming to kill civilians is bad. Letting several million soldiers die (with even more civilian deaths, which apparently don't count for you because "they didn't try to kill them") is even worse.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Narga_Rocks]

How is it that the saving of lives makes something better? Are you saying that no actions matter, so long as the outcome is good? The ends always justify the means?

When faced with two options, or three or four or whatever, how would you decide best? Not necessarily the saving of lives. Ruining 100 people's lives to save 1 death is probably not justifiable, but like Reggie said, would you rather kill 1, 10, 100, or 1000 people? All else being equal, isn't the one that kills the fewest, or perhaps nobody, better?

And yes, the ends can justify the means. But remember that the means can be part of the ends, so if the means are atrocious they are usually included in the ends. For example, doing something horrible to save somebody's life. The what or how is not important for the hypothetical. The "ends" is not merely the saving of a life, but the fact that something horrible was done. So in this example, it is possible for the ends to justify the means depending on how horrible this "something" is, or it is possible that this "horrible" thing is so bad that it outweighs the life saved. But that same "horrible" thing could perhaps be outweighed by saving 1 million people.

If I must, I'll state an example, but I'm having trouble coming up with something really bad that (a) somehow manages to save a life and (b) is so bad that the means outweighs the saving of a life. Or maybe I'm just thinking too complex. You could say something simple like "let's say you sacrifice 10 people to rescue 1 guy" then do the ends justify the means? How you define "ends" and "means" is just as important a question. I would define the ends as "net -9 people" and so the means are not likely to be justified by that end because the ends are bad. But if you define the "means" to be "lose 10 people" and the ends to be "save 1 life" then the ends likely do not justify the means despite the ends being "good".

What I'm saying is that if you define "means" and "ends" properly, then yes, the ends always justify the means if the ends are good, and don't if the ends are bad. If you define "means" and "ends" in a weird way like "means = lose 10 people" and "ends = save 1 life" then the ends will rarely justify the means even should the ends be "good".

Why don't you just imagine some of the victims being YOUR friends and relatives? Is it so hard?

Um, what are you trying to get at here? I'll admit, I have a preference for my friends and relatives. I am actually worried I might be a little heartless if you gave me the option to take 10x the number of deaths if it saves my friends and relatives. Could I green light a decision that saves my friends and relatives if it costs 2x or 3x or 10x the number of people to achieve?

What I'm asking here is do you think I should prefer my own over others. The part of me that wants to believe I value all life equally says that yes, if the victims were my friends and relatives but losing them saved 3x their number in others then I would say that decision that killed my friends and relatives was a good one. I'll be miserable and so will any of the survivors that have lost their friends and relatives, but I would never gainsay that decision because it saved more than it cost. Can you not say the same? Are you so selfish that something is worse if it happens to your friends and relatives compared to strangers?

Edited April 14, 2013 by Narga_Rocks

[Dwalin2010]

Um, what are you trying to get at here? I'll admit, I have a preference for my friends and relatives. I am actually worried I might be a little heartless if you gave me the option to take 10x the number of deaths if it saves my friends and relatives. Could I green light a decision that saves my friends and relatives if it costs 2x or 3x or 10x the number of people to achieve?

What I'm asking here is do you think I should prefer my own over others. The part of me that wants to believe I value all life equally says that yes, if the victims were my friends and relatives but losing them saved 3x their number in others then I would say that decision that killed my friends and relatives was a good one. I'll be miserable and so will any of the survivors that have lost their friends and relatives, but I would never gainsay that decision because it saved more than it cost. Can you not say the same? Are you so selfish that something is worse if it happens to your friends and relatives compared to strangers?

I asked this because imagining the victims being people close to you is the easiest way to understand the tragedy. Many people are very cold and distant in their judgement, but when something bad happens that involves their family or friends directly, they change their opinion completely.

[Rehab]

I'm having a hard time finding an answer to one thing in particular that seems like it would cut down on the circular argument, at least going simply from wikipedia. The entry on the firebombings of Tokyo, and the one of the air raids on Japan in general, IIRC, said something along the lines that a good lot of war production took place in homes, or in factories unavoidably close to homes. Is it accurate to say it was impossible to target Japan's wartime production without targeting civilians en masse, is the relevant question to me.

Regarding civilian lives vs soldiers and this vague ethical calculus going on: my first reactionary opinion is that it's unjustifiable to kill someone who can't fight back, and who can be plainly verified to neither pose a theat, nor clear support to the enemy. I also feel as though I've heard that it's a war crime to target medics intentionally, though I wouldn't personally doubt that line was crossed plenty itself.

[Esau of Isaac]

Last post because your increasingly heartless disregard to anyone except civilians is mortifying.

The fact that you have the balls to complain that I lack empathy for a group in this topic is beyond galling.

I can practically choke on the irony.

Oh and I'm bracing myself for your next inevitable LAST POST GUYS THIS TIME I'M SERIOUS.

You're comparing widespread pointless atrocities going on for several weeks when the city was already taken to the use of a bomb to get a surrender. How the fuck did Nanking lower morale?

The same way that Tokyo lowered morale? Through widespread death and destruction. It could be considered destroying morale in the same way that Operation Meetinghouse was. Moreso, because it did even more damage to the people.

It's called fucking war. Shit happens in war, including the use of bombs. Pear Harbor was not a wartime attack.

Pearl Harbor was the initiation of a war. Surprise attacks also happen in war.

If it saved American soldiers' lives to pre-emptively strike Japan with a nuclear missile before hostilities had ever begun would it have been wrong in your eyes?

Doctor: If we don't treat this guy for leukemia, he's going to die.

Dumbass: Don't worry, anything can happen!

Doctor: But he's going to die!

Dumbass: nonononono, we can't prove that!

We can infer from all the info there was in WW2 that Downfall was most likely going to happen if the bombs never came to play. Quit pretending like it wouldn't. This isn't "could" or "should", it's "would".

Even if I were to accept that it absolutely would have happened otherwise --which is a shitty argument that doesn't justify use of nuclear weaponry-- it doesn't change whether or not it is wrong to kill innocent people.

IT IS ENTIRELY RELEVANT. Quit ignoring it because you can't admit this gem:

Apparently soldiers are subhuman to you, because you don't give a shit about them in comparison to civilians. You think every soldier goes to war ready to die? Are you really that fucking heartless that you choose for more of them to die, if it meant not *intentionally* killing civilians, in a heartbeat?

In a single heartbeat I will answer unconditionally no matter how many times you ask me that purposely slaughtering innocent civilians is unequivocally, one hundred percent, undebatably unacceptable. Minimizing the death of American soldiers should be top priority for any general, but committing atrocities to avoid soldiers' deaths is inexcusable and unjustifiable.

Aiming to kill civilians is bad. Letting several million soldiers die (with even more civilian deaths, which apparently don't count for you because "they didn't try to kill them") is even worse.

There was no "letting" several million soldiers die. These soldiers would not have been vaporized in the event of sparing civilians from mass slaughter. The military was not definitively forced into throwing its men into a meat grinder, and hundreds of thousands could have been easily spared. As repeatedly stated either way, it is ultimately a crime to attack innocent people in an effort to do good on a greater level. Whether or not it were eventually shown that the Holocaust led to the cure for cancer and saved billions over time, it would be a war crime. Whether or not it were somehow shown that Hitler somehow absolutely had to enact the Final Solution, it would not change a thing. Because slaughtering innocent people is the most basic war crime there is, no debate required.

When faced with two options, or three or four or whatever, how would you decide best? Not necessarily the saving of lives. Ruining 100 people's lives to save 1 death is probably not justifiable, but like Reggie said, would you rather kill 1, 10, 100, or 1000 people? All else being equal, isn't the one that kills the fewest, or perhaps nobody, better?

You will then say that the world in which the Allies do not battle the Axis powers is better than the one in which we live now? One in which the Allies simply lay down their arms and submit to the Axis? Millions would have been spared the deaths they eventually faced.

And yes, the ends can justify the means. But remember that the means can be part of the ends, so if the means are atrocious they are usually included in the ends. For example, doing something horrible to save somebody's life. The what or how is not important for the hypothetical. The "ends" is not merely the saving of a life, but the fact that something horrible was done. So in this example, it is possible for the ends to justify the means depending on how horrible this "something" is, or it is possible that this "horrible" thing is so bad that it outweighs the life saved. But that same "horrible" thing could perhaps be outweighed by saving 1 million people.

If I must, I'll state an example, but I'm having trouble coming up with something really bad that (a) somehow manages to save a life and (b) is so bad that the means outweighs the saving of a life. Or maybe I'm just thinking too complex. You could say something simple like "let's say you sacrifice 10 people to rescue 1 guy" then do the ends justify the means? How you define "ends" and "means" is just as important a question. I would define the ends as "net -9 people" and so the means are not likely to be justified by that end because the ends are bad. But if you define the "means" to be "lose 10 people" and the ends to be "save 1 life" then the ends likely do not justify the means despite the ends being "good".

What I'm saying is that if you define "means" and "ends" properly, then yes, the ends always justify the means if the ends are good, and don't if the ends are bad. If you define "means" and "ends" in a weird way like "means = lose 10 people" and "ends = save 1 life" then the ends will rarely justify the means even should the ends be "good".

I couldn't read the majority of that, but you seem to be saying that the ends always justify the means so long as one more person is living. Am I understanding this right? As long as, when choosing between two situations, one more is alive, that is a better outcome?

I'm having a hard time finding an answer to one thing in particular that seems like it would cut down on the circular argument, at least going simply from wikipedia. The entry on the firebombings of Tokyo, and the one of the air raids on Japan in general, IIRC, said something along the lines that a good lot of war production took place in homes, or in factories unavoidably close to homes. Is it accurate to say it was impossible to target Japan's wartime production without targeting civilians en masse, is the relevant question to me.

This could be argued in the case of some of Tokyo's bombings, perhaps, but by the tail end of the bombing of Japan, and in Meetinghouse, a comparatively large amount of the destruction wrought was not only industrial areas, but in commercial ones. The switch to incendiary weaponry is notable because Japan's cities were constructed by and large out of wood. This is why entire cities were almost completely destroyed with brutal ease. Near the end of the war, targeting of less pressing areas was mainly because there just wasn't a whole lot left to bomb. Dozens of Japanese cities were practically leveled to the ground. Imagine New York being half burned to ash overnight with the hundreds of thousands of its citizens trapped inside a literal hellish inferno. From a Japanese perspective could it have saved lives? Absolutely. But it would have been a horrific and unjustifiable act.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Narga_Rocks]

You will then say that the world in which the Allies do not battle the Axis powers is better than the one in which we live now? One in which the Allies simply lay down their arms and submit to the Axis? Millions would have been spared the deaths they eventually faced.

I couldn't read the majority of that, but you seem to be saying that the ends always justify the means so long as one more person is living. Am I understanding this right? As long as, when choosing between two situations, one more is alive, that is a better outcome?

You seem to be having understanding problems, so since I doubt I can explain it any better than I just did (and I don't see why you are misunderstanding but whatever) I see no point in saying it again. Suffice it to say, you've got it way off. Not sure if this is intentional to make me look bad or what, but I'm done.

[Esau of Isaac]

You seem to be having understanding problems, so since I doubt I can explain it any better than I just did (and I don't see why you are misunderstanding but whatever) I see no point in saying it again. Suffice it to say, you've got it way off. Not sure if this is intentional to make me look bad or what, but I'm done.

I'm misunderstanding it because you took "ends justify the means" and redefined each word in a separate way over multiple paragraphs. What you concluded in the end was something along the lines of the ends can always justify the means in some conditions. To me that seems to say that something is always true some of the time. It was worded in a way that confused me.

I don't see why my first reply missed what you are saying. You mentioned that it would be preferable to save lives by ending innocents. This, along with the rest of your argument, seems to very strongly state that the outcome picked which saves lives is ultimately preferable. Would it also not be preferable to save lives by not engaging in warfare in the first place? Why not just let the Axis powers win? Over 50 million people died in WWII. Are 50 million people not worth saving by not engaging in WWII?

[eclipse]

Would it also not be preferable to save lives by not engaging in warfare in the first place? Why not just let the Axis powers win? Over 50 million people died in WWII. Are 50 million people not worth saving by not engaging in WWII?

Not starting a war: Preferable, but if a bunch of random forumites can't get along (this topic is a prime example), then I doubt that it'll transition over to the rest of the world.

Let the Axis powers win: We'd still have the issue of people dying because of the Axis powers.

Not engaging in WWII: See above.

[Esau of Isaac]

Not starting a war: Preferable, but if a bunch of random forumites can't get along (this topic is a prime example), then I doubt that it'll transition over to the rest of the world.

Let the Axis powers win: We'd still have the issue of people dying because of the Axis powers.

Not engaging in WWII: See above.

Would the Axis powers have killed more than 60 million people, though? That sounds like a stretch.

[eclipse]

Would the Axis powers have killed more than 60 million people, though? That sounds like a stretch.

I don't know if they'd do so directly. I think it's possible for them to do so indirectly (wage war versus Russia in the middle of winter, for example).

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't know if they'd do so directly. I think it's possible for them to do so indirectly (wage war versus Russia in the middle of winter, for example).

But I'm referring to a situation in which all of the Allies unanimously surrendered to the Axis, thus preventing those deaths from occurring.

[eclipse]

But I'm referring to a situation in which all of the Allies unanimously surrendered to the Axis, thus preventing those deaths from occurring.

I don't see this happening, no matter how history is cut. Thus, I don't see the point in continuing this train of thought.

[Life]

But I'm referring to a situation in which all of the Allies unanimously surrendered to the Axis, thus preventing those deaths from occurring.

You forget that the ultimate goal of Nazi Germany was to eliminate all those not of the Aryan race. Hence why it was more than just Jews targetted (Roma, blacks, Poles...). They just went apeshit when it got to the Jews.

On a relevant note, today is Rememberance Day for all Israeli soldiers who fell in defense of Israel over the past 65 years. We do, however, also have a day for remembering all the Arab soldiers that died fighting against us. That would be tomorrow if anyone's interested.

[Rewjeo]

I'm sure Hitler could have found 60 million people to kill. He killed 10-12 million in just the part of Europe he occupied. Now toss on the rest of the planet.

[Fruity Insanity]

...I think everybody here realizes that nobody is going to change their opinions.

Arguing would be useful if the participants would willingly analyze and break down (thoroughly) what the other has to say.

But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Naturally, humans, being innately obstinate (usually), won't give in so easily.

Whether or not one side is correct, the argument leads, well, nowhere.

Also, the fact that this is an online argument doesn't help either. (In real life, it could - probably would - be very different.)

No one will give in, because he/she has to be right. Being ignorant of another's opinion - as in, not acknowledging it - shouldn't be in arguments at all, as doing so shows your own ignorance.

But, eh, who am I to say anything? I'm just as - perhaps more - ignorant than the rest.

Just saying.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't see this happening, no matter how history is cut. Thus, I don't see the point in continuing this train of thought.

I'm not discussing whether it would have or could have happened, but whether it would have been preferable. Using the line of thought that saving lives is innately better, can one assume it would have been?

You forget that the ultimate goal of Nazi Germany was to eliminate all those not of the Aryan race. Hence why it was more than just Jews targetted (Roma, blacks, Poles...). They just went apeshit when it got to the Jews.

On a relevant note, today is Rememberance Day for all Israeli soldiers who fell in defense of Israel over the past 65 years. We do, however, also have a day for remembering all the Arab soldiers that died fighting against us. That would be tomorrow if anyone's interested.

I'm sure Hitler could have found 60 million people to kill. He killed 10-12 million in just the part of Europe he occupied. Now toss on the rest of the planet.

I mean, I guess, but I don't think it would have been applied to everyone non-Aryan. While the killings were varied towards groups such as the Roma, Jews, etc. I'm not sure if ultimately Hitler would have systematically murdered everyone non-Aryan had he won. His main goal was to make a pure German race, not necessarily a worldwide one.

Simply assume for this line of discussion that he doesn't, in any matter. Or at least, assume that it is less than 50-60 million.

...I think everybody here realizes that nobody is going to change their opinions.

Arguing would be useful if the participants would willingly analyze and break down (thoroughly) what the other has to say.

But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Naturally, humans, being innately obstinate (usually), won't give in so easily.

Whether or not one side is correct, the argument leads, well, nowhere.

Also, the fact that this is an online argument doesn't help either. (In real life, it could - probably would - be very different.)

No one will give in, because he/she has to be right. Being ignorant of another's opinion - as in, not acknowledging it - shouldn't be in arguments at all, as doing so shows your own ignorance.

But, eh, who am I to say anything? I'm just as - perhaps more - ignorant than the rest.

Just saying.

Of course no one's going to change their minds in a debate. Or rather, no one is going to state that they have changed their minds during the course of most debates. It's a sign of weakness. If you can't possibly stand by your own line of logic then it's clear that it's not worth holding. Even if I radically altered others' thoughts on the matter they are not likely to voice it now, and vice versa.

Moreover, the goal is never to change your opponent's mind. In light of what I've just spoken of, it would be pure foolishness to even bother. Instead, the goal of debate is to display to the third party --the fence sitters, that is-- that your given ideals are most suitable.

Also it's just plain fun to argue

Edited April 15, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[Fruity Insanity]

That makes sense.

(I'm just wondering *who* those "fence-sitters" are in this case...)

[Chiki]

Here is the thing: no one can deny that Truman could have simply ordered a bomb to drop in some isolated area.

As long as that possibility existed, Truman just is a war criminal.

[Esau of Isaac]

That makes sense.

(I'm just wondering *who* those "fence-sitters" are in this case...)

Usually it's anyone not participating in the debate, but realistically it's just anyone that doesn't have a vested interest in upholding the viewpoints debated upon.

Here is the thing: no one can deny that Truman could have simply ordered a bomb to drop in some isolated area.

As long as that possibility existed, Truman just is a war criminal.

Pre-empting the answers, which will be the rhetoric given at the time:

1.) They could not risk it not going off and being captured

2.) They didn't want to risk American POWs' lives

3.) They didn't want to waste a nuke in an area that wouldn't get the shock and wow of a populated center

Responses are pretty simple

1.) The possibility of this happening was infinitesimal and would have been worse in a populated city than an uninhabited island

2.) Funny given several POWs were vaporized anyways

3.) Arguable, but completely forgetting the value of human life lost through this unquantifiable strategic gain.

[eclipse]

I'm not discussing whether it would have or could have happened, but whether it would have been preferable. Using the line of thought that saving lives is innately better, can one assume it would have been?

No, because. . .

I mean, I guess, but I don't think it would have been applied to everyone non-Aryan. While the killings were varied towards groups such as the Roma, Jews, etc. I'm not sure if ultimately Hitler would have systematically murdered everyone non-Aryan had he won. His main goal was to make a pure German race, not necessarily a worldwide one.

Simply assume for this line of discussion that he doesn't, in any matter. Or at least, assume that it is less than 50-60 million.

It's impossible to ascertain whether or not someone who has a track history of purging people based on race would stop after a surrender. Remember that Jews in other countries were subject to this, too (never mind the other races that were thrown into the mix). The people who made those decisions couldn't make such assumptions at the time; thus, I don't think it's remotely valid to throw in those conditionals in a debate such as this.

Here is the thing: no one can deny that Truman could have simply ordered a bomb to drop in some isolated area.

As long as that possibility existed, Truman just is a war criminal.

The possibility of having all the ships moved out of Pearl Harbor before the bombing existed, too. Lives could have been saved! Looking at things with hindsight glasses and then assigning a judgment to it is sloppy, if you're attempting to debate history.

[Chiki]

The possibility of having all the ships moved out of Pearl Harbor before the bombing existed, too. Lives could have been saved! Looking at things with hindsight glasses and then assigning a judgment to it is sloppy, if you're attempting to debate history.

Lol. That's the worst analogy I've ever heard. There's a difference between having poor hindsight (Roosevelt) and a difference between actively deciding on committing a crime (Truman). Truman even considered the option of dropping a bomb on an isolated area, but he decided against it due to a fear of embarrassment over saving lives. We know where his priorities lie: embarrassment is more important than preventing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He was a bonafide criminal in our terms, and likely a sociopath on a similar level to that of serial killers and Hitler.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Olwen

[Esau of Isaac]

It's impossible to ascertain whether or not someone who has a track history of purging people based on race would stop after a surrender. Remember that Jews in other countries were subject to this, too (never mind the other races that were thrown into the mix). The people who made those decisions couldn't make such assumptions at the time; thus, I don't think it's remotely valid to throw in those conditionals in a debate such as this.

If we assume that he would have stopped before million systematically killed, would it have been preferable to World War II?

The possibility of having all the ships moved out of Pearl Harbor before the bombing existed, too. Lives could have been saved! Looking at things with hindsight glasses and then assigning a judgment to it is sloppy, if you're attempting to debate history.

How dare we analyze Stalin and say he was wrong it happened in the past and those things are immune to the criticisms of we in the future.

[eclipse]

Lol. That's the worst analogy I've ever heard. There's a difference between having poor hindsight (Roosevelt) and a difference between actively deciding on committing a crime (Truman). Truman even considered the option of dropping a bomb on an isolated area, but he decided against it due to a fear of embarrassment over saving lives. We know where his priorities lie: embarrassment is more important than preventing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He was a bonafide criminal in our terms, and likely a sociopath on a similar level to that of serial killers and Hitler.

I think there's an argument out there that I'm too lazy to look up that said something along the lines of Roosevelt having the option of moving the ships out, but deciding not to. Also, that's a lot of absolute assumptions about a lot of people who were doing this before you were born.

If we assume that he would have stopped before million systematically killed, would it have been preferable to World War II?

That would again depend on what kind of world it would've lead to. If it turns out that all of Europe gets nicely paved roads and good food, then it would be ideal. If his government does things like kill all those that voice dissent, then no.

How dare we analyze Stalin and say he was wrong it happened in the past and those things are immune to the criticisms of we in the future.

This quote illustrates how far up the fallacious tree you'll bark because you're so in love with Japan that it can't do any wrong. The previous sentence may or may not be true (I'm leaning towards not true), but me assuming that about you is wrong on the basis that I'm not you. I can't assume what I think you know is what you know, nor do I know what points of view/circumstances drive you. Before making a knee-jerk response, take a look at the context first, and don't argue for the sake of arguing.

[Chiki]

You completely ignored the part where I said Truman actively chose to commit a crime whereas Roosevelt made a foolish decision.

[Esau of Isaac]

That would again depend on what kind of world it would've lead to. If it turns out that all of Europe gets nicely paved roads and good food, then it would be ideal. If his government does things like kill all those that voice dissent, then no.

Let's assume that he kills anyone that voices dissent, but the kill count never reaches the number that died in World War II.

This quote illustrates how far up the fallacious tree you'll bark because you're so in love with Japan that it can't do any wrong. The previous sentence may or may not be true (I'm leaning towards not true), but me assuming that about you is wrong on the basis that I'm not you. I can't assume what I think you know is what you know, nor do I know what points of view/circumstances drive you. Before making a knee-jerk response, take a look at the context first, and don't argue for the sake of arguing.

The fact that I am wholly against the slaughter of innocents has nothing to do with me liking Japan, and that you would even make such a sweeping generalization isn't only uncharacteristically hurtful, it also ignores the multiple times when I've cited the incredibly inhumane actions of Imperial Japan including Unit 731 and the rape of Nanking, both of which I utterly condemned. That I like anime and speak Japanese doesn't mean I support everything Japan does, just like me liking hamburgers and speaking English doesn't mean I support everything America does.

There is nothing wrong with judging the Allies for not dropping the weapon in a remote location, as Olwen had cited. You argued from a position that was as though Truman needed the ability to see into the future to possibly consider such an event. They discussed it. They weighed it. They dismissed it. How is this something beyond judgment by any reasonable person?

Edited April 16, 2013 by Esau of Isaac