RE Rules:
That’s part of the problem of here. We’re playing by rules, but the other side isn’t.
RE Innocents:
How about the argument of bombing Dresden or Tokyo into a firestorm. There were innocents there too - civilians who were not part of the war machine. There were no large troop concentrations there, or heavy war industry... it was done purely to break the other side’s will to continue fighting.
I know... it’s a delicate line. Where do you draw it...
As I understand it, upwards of 100 major cities in Japan were firebombed, destroying upwards of 50% or more of the city.
I will have to admit to not being a big fan of that or what took place at Dresden.
It’s easy for me to say from the comfort of my home office, not privy to the realities of the time, particularly to the commanders that had access to information I don’t, under pressures I am not.
At the end of a conflict, you need to be able to look back and know that you didn’t become an evil part of civilization.
In many instances, with victory comes exoneration. In some instances it may not be deserved.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been a very tough call for me. Knowing what he did, and facing what he faced, I don’t fault Truman at all. I think he made the right call. I detest that Japan’s leadership left very little choice there.
Imagine us proving we had that ability, and Japan waffling for three days more, so we had to do it again. Seriously, the leadership were truly vile men.