Truman had the means to end the war and save America and Allied lives, which was his responsibility as president. I do believe people who think it unjustified is an opinion that I respect, for it did cause immense devastation. But as commander-in-chief, Truman's responsibility was to America and allied lives and winning the war. To not use the weapon would have been dereliction of duty on Truman's part.

no no no dont you see, not atomising those slurs would've in fact been worse because proud AMERICAN lives might've been lost

edit: goddamn there's a fucking chorus of "bombs saved lives" libs, just jerking themselves off about how justified it was to bomb civilians because the japanese army did warcrimes. Very Cool

2 mentions of 731 as justification and zero mention of the American cover-up. Cool.

One of these History Understanders says that Japan getting partitioned like Germany would have been 'infinitely worse' than having two cities nuked

Didn't say who it would've been worse for - I think I can guess

deleted by creator

it's almost kind of impressive how the US "education" system managed to get the people in that thread to trot out their defences of probably the worst war crime in the history of humanity so confidently, when even yank military leaders at the time thought using the nukes was somewhere between "unnecessary" and "unforgivable".

and I bet they would all lose their shit if someone said they might have been propagandized in their schools...

anyway, sure this kind of discourse is sad and disturbing to see on reddit, but I feel worse seeing it on lemmy, e.g. https://lemm.ee/comment/3384957