General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hiroshima - quit lying to yourselves [View all]branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 08:09 PM - Edit history (2)
There were no good choices, only different versions of very, very bad. I fully understand the doubts and revulsion one could have in light of the horror inflicted by bombs. That is why it was so controversial as the polarized opinions on even this very liberal forum clearly attest. It's just the smugness and certainty, the simple black and white of your position, that I, and many others here, find astonishing. Do you really believe it should have been that simple for Truman in 1945? Who gets to decide which lives have more value; does anyone?
Both servicemen and civilians, men, women and children had died, and would continue to do so in great and possibly larger numbers, even if Truman's had decided against the use of the bomb. History would probably treat Truman as someone criminally negligent for extending the war and ruining so many allied lives if he did not drop the bombs. Probably many of your friends and colleagues, as well as members here at DU, and their own children, would not be alive today if the bombs did not fall.
Similarly, why was it worse that many thousands died because of two bombs rather that the regular and incendiary bombings that took many times the number of the atomic attacks? There simply was no option "C" where no bombs, atomic or otherwise, would have been used.