re: #109 Dark_Falcon

I do not think such an argument repulsive in the context of World War Two: The responsibility of President Truman, Gen. MacArthur, Adm. Nimitz and all other Allied leaders was to their own troops and Allies. The Japanese had forfeited such concern by their surprise attack and horrific behavior.

This is something where we will agree to disagree and I certainly acknowledge the historical context of this. I’m just saying that in hindsight, we can also know that the decision to invade would have resulted in horrific civilian casualties on both sides and acknowledging that this probably resulted in fewer deaths on both sides, even at the cost it had, seems fair.

I have not been to Hiroshima yet; my husband tends to visit the less common sites at this point after living in Japan for 2.5 years, and our only trip together was Tokyo and some outside sides. I’m hoping to go back in December/January though, and even if it doesn’t happen this visit, it will happen at some point. But there was a human cost, and many of those lives were innocent. Pearl Harbor, for all its horror, was an attack on a military target that caused few civilian casualties. We cannot say the same about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whatever military purposes they may have served.