General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Every year, I see the same thing re Hiroshima and Nagasaki [View all]Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... and though unfortunate, it is the way it is. I think all nations have an inclination to look the other way, depending on the relationships they have with those involved. But its still, in the end, a "what is my interest in the matter?" analysis. It sucks, but its true.
What the British did in India didn't really affect US interests. Neither did Stalin's crimes. Hitler was screwing with all of our interests in Europe. The Japanese aligned with Hitler, and were screwing with our interests in the pacific.
For a while, we tried to get away with a strategy to supply the forces opposing Hitler, and tried to slow Japan with an embargo. Then, Japan hit us in the face. We got involved in both wars, and had to find a way to end them. The bomb was ultimately the way Truman chose to try and do that, and I believe the bomb was originally targeted for Berlin before it fell to the Russians. So, we had the bomb, and we still had this war going on in the pacific. Drop a couple of bombs and kill a lot of Japanese civilians, or invade the Japanese islands and kill a lot of Japanese civilians and American servicemen.....
Just out of curiosity, what do you think we should have done differently - both with regard to getting into the war, and getting out of it? And how would our different actions have stopped Hitler or the Japanese - assuming you think they needed to be stopped? And how many of us might not be here if 1 million US servicemen had been lost in an invasion in 1945?
I have to go, but I'll check in tomorrow.