Hypersonic

I agree that it was a very drastic thing to do ....but I don't think the Americans should be ashamed of it when most of them weren't even born at that time. It was a tactic that seemed like the quickest way to end the threat from Japan.

In hindsight, it is obvious that this was a terrible decision in light of the fact that it targeted civilians ...but from a strategic stance, it was most effective. It is important to note that even the men who drooped the bombs had some moral conflicts about what they did.

I also think there was some good old fashioned racism involved -- I find it difficult to imagine the US dropping nuclear bombs on a European city for example -- although the Nazis wouldn't have had any problems doing that on anybody.

Also, I will say again that the Japanese were also working on a nuclear bomb -- and they most certainly would have used it -- so lets not get all high and mighty and moralistic ...the world was at war and despite all the talk of "war crimes", in the real world, during a war, morality is generally the first thing to break down.

We should be very careful not to re-interpret history to fit with current political contexts and agendas ...that is something that both the Left and Right do a lot these days.

Hypersonic

I honestly can't agree with you about Japan ....most of that war generation have died ....and you are right that they never forgave the United States. But most Japanese people are far too pragmatic and civilized to carry this hate today -- just as most Americans do not hate the Japanese.

Do young Germans hate the British for bombing Dresden?

Do young Pols hate the Germans for invading Warsaw?

We should always remember history ...but not as a reason to hate. We are all human beings after all ...regardless of our Nationality, political views, religion, or race.

Also, why do you think the Russians hate the United States so much? ...a few die hard Communists might, but in reality the Soviet Union ultimately destroyed itself.

Harry Plopper

So, by this analogy 9/11 WTC attack can also be described as "a terrible decision in light of the fact that it targeted civilians ...but from a strategic stance, it was most effective."
And many similar attack as well ... they all are justified due being strategically effective. Terrorism usually is.


Yes, so were the Germans. But both Germans & Japanese were years away from really developing a working nuclear bomb. Even Americans needed a lot of year to develop it -despite having all the know-how, technology & material (eg. enriched uranium / plutonium).
Also mind in August 1945 the war was de facto over - Europe was secured, Japan was also military weak already. So, not using the N-bombs the war in the Pacific can prolong for a few months or so. But in the end Japan would surrender anyway.


****

I've been always against this US tactics of preemptive strikes. It has been used too many times (incl. Iraq) for no justifiable reason. I'm afraid similar can happen to Iran.


It's a known fact that the history is written by the winners.
So, the fact presentation & interpretation is usually biased.

We're now 50 years away ... I think it's time to re-evaluate some "facts", and be more critical of some things that should never happen (eg. war crimes).

Eg. Italian state (& people) are still in denial regarding their Mussolini fascism era. Many crimes against humanity was done in that time (many social groups were systematically oppressed).
But Italians do not admit that, nor they they children learn about this in schools. While eg. Germans have no problem to admit the terrible mistake they've done by Nazism & Hitler.

Same thing is happening in our country - the communist regime killed thousands POW & regime opponents jast after WWII ended. And that was done by the silent approval of the western allies. And today our country is still in denial a horrible war crime happened many years ago. And the people who want to reveal that are usually labeled as "successors of collaborators" - since most POW & regime opponents were labeled as "collaborators" so the killing was "justified".

And similr thing is happening in Russia - they still haven't broken with the past. And same thing is happening in the Balkans (ex-Yugoslavia).


****

Back to nuke-bombing.

IMO - just like Holocaust - nuke bombing is another thing that should not happen again. Never, ever! It was a bad decision.
Justifying such tactics - although happened in 1945 - is a very dangerous matter. Because with doing so you in a way legitimize using such tactics today or in the future.

Btw, why USA government does not recognize the Hague Tribunal of War Crimes (established by UN)? While on the other hand the same USA government puts pressure on specific countries to fully cooperate with the same tribunal US are not recognizing.

I tell you why: because of American military doctrine which includes (unilateral) preemptive strikes / attacks / invasions. And such acts are recognized by UN Geneva convention as war crimes.

Double standards.



PS: I have nothing against US, or Americans per se. I just can't believe sometimes US government & some people there completely lack self-criticism. Not that other countries around the world are any better. But ... As a "world cop" USA should be a moral authority as well. Without any double standards. But I guess that's just an illusion. World have been f..ed up since the beginning, yet from time-to-time were can enjoy the "enlightening" eras. So, some generations are very lucky - being born in the right time, while the others - born in the wrong time - are doomed.

I'm very grateful to be a member of "the lucky generation". But I'm still young ... so ...

Hypersonic

Come on now Tine ....you are a very smart guy, you know this is not a fair argument. The US was at war with Japan -- those bombs were dropped with the specific intention of ending the war.

The attacks on the WTC were intended to start a war .....so they got what they wanted I guess.

I am not an apologist for the US ...I don't always agree with what they do ...but I also know that the US has played a vital role in the peace many of us take for granted. The US is a very easy target for criticism ...there is a great amount of hypocrisy from many of its critics.

MikeJ

I think that this particular comment by Rob is one of the smartest things anyone has ever written on this forum. Historic events should never be 'moralized' by modern standards...

Harry Plopper

Killing over 200,000 civilians instantly. Civilians - who were not a direct danger to the US.

I know what was the intention, I know what was the tactic, I even understand it from military point of view, but I defenitely do not approve it - I even condemn it!


This is another topic. Don't let me start. Eg. the US role in Israeli / Palestinian conflict & the US military presence on Muslim holy land etc.
I condemn 9/11 attack strongly - as I condemn every terrorist attack. Incl. the ones in eg. Israel.
I'm just saying the 9/11 attack didn't come out of the blue. Mind US embassy bombings in Eastern Africa, attack on USS cole & US troops in Saudi Arabia, first attack on WTC in the 90s etc.
Terrorist attack always has a political statement.



I'm aware of the US role in the world ("world cop"). They've done a lot of good deeds. Incl. ending both WW, rebuilding Japan & Europe, helping Third World countries, ending the Balkan war, democratizing the world etc.
I'm very grateful for that.
But sometimes I just do not approve the measures.

You know ... the goal should not justify the measures. We should try to avoid this Machiavellian approach.

And criticism is always good in a debate - it brings all parties back to the essence of the matter, and it is a great opportunity for reflection.

And the most important thing: it forces the opponents in a debate to come out with best arguments possible.

Germaniac

Just wanted to say Eni I enjoyed reading your well considered and reasoned thoughts.

Hypersonic

OK ...I know you don't want to get into this ....but this is total BS.

The attacks on the WTC had absolutely nothing to do with any of those issues you just mentioned. Al Qaeda (and other Radical groups) have there own reasons for jihad ....it is a fundamentalist religious one -- destroying the infidels.

The "America got what it deserved" belief (which has become popular among many critics of the US) is extremely misinformed, misguided, and incorrect -- but has played right into the hands of Al Qaeda.

Harry Plopper

Actually they should be. They even have to be. To learn a lesson from such terrific actions. To differ right from wrong. And after so many years it's always an opportunity to do some reflection & evaluate some things.

That's why history is so important - to learn the time line of causes & consequences, and to learn & evaluate some decisions from the history. Or to even present some counter arguments - since (as I said) history is written by the winers, and therefore it's biased.

Btw, From your point of view ("not moralizing by modern standards") even Nazism could be legitimized, or Holocaust, or crimes done by eg. communist regimes etc. Since at that specific time when those bad things happen there was "a right reason to do it."

Imagine Germans or Russians or Japanese or Americans advocating & legitimizing acts done by their armies during WWII. Not a good thing. Hence self-criticism is needed, and some acts done by our grandfathers should be condemned.




Yes, I somehow UNDERSTAND why some acts were done, but that still does not prevent me to condemn them.

By not condemning such acts we would send a message to the young & future generations that doing such acts is justified in some cases. And some people would feel to be entitled to do such things - since being legitimized.

Get it?



Why should the winning side be immune from being criticized - especially when doing war crimes just like the losing side were doing. Just because they won the war? Just because they didn't start the war? Just because they were labeled as "good guys".

I just don't buy it.

There is no "good" or "justified" violence. Otherwise everybody could find a reason to justify violent acts. Saying that I admit there could be some extenuating circumstances present when doing it - but that does not justify the act, and make it a "good act".


****

In this debate I can see the differences here - between two legal / moral systems. The Continental (European) one vs. Anglo-Saxon one. Absolute vs. relative judging predispositions.

Absolute evil vs. justified evil.

To me evil is absolute, and can't be justified. But I understand the other side somehow - since in some cases there is no other solution. Theoretical vs. practical approach. Yet to me it is very important to condemn every violence, every evil - no matter the circumstances. Otherwise- as I said - the wrong message would be sent.

Hypersonic

You have made a strong argument here Tine.

But precisely what bias are you referring to with the historical accounts of WW2 from "the winners" perspective -- many Japanese born after WW2 are not even aware of much of what happened.