Hypersonic

^ I honestly don't think many Russians (or citizens of the other former states of the USSR) harbour much resentment towards the United States ...some former Soviet leaders might.

But it was the citizens of the USSR itself, who played the biggest role in its destruction. I believe things started to disintegrate firstly in Poland in the 1970s when trade unions were formed that challenged the Soviet authorities.

I remember when the Berlin wall came down (I was a teenager at the time) ...it was a remarkable day. There would be very few Eastern Europeans, despite the difficult years following the collapse of the USSR, who would ever want to return to a Soviet-style system.

Choleric

I totally missed this thread and conversation it seems. I am most definately not trying to justify the nuclear bombings, though I do feel the right decision was made considering the circumstances and time period, I just wanted to point something out. They may have been civilians, but they were civilians in a completely mobilized military state, they were making the bombs, bullits, ships etc... every day. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were MAJOR ports and manufacturing cities supplying the war effort. Nuking these cities was more than just picking a city on a map, there was a strategic reason behind it. Though the death of civilians was terrible, In the minds of the leaders American lives were worth more than Japanese.

Plus Tine, What makes a soldiers life less valuable than a civilians? Soldiers were plucked from their daily lives as teachers, mechanics, construction workers etc... and forced into a gruesome war. Old crusty men moving markers on a map deciding where these teachers, mechanics, construction workers, etc... will die next. They are doing their job that most did not sign up to do just as any other person does their job. What makes it alright for them to die but not the person who made the rifle they just killed six people with? A life is a life and war is war, people are going to die. The whole nation is at war not just the soldiers.


That is pure and utter hindsight and speculation. I think it was Gullwing who brought up Iwo Jima, but I think point he was going for wasn't clear. Japan would not surrender, Most definately not when their home islands are under attack. As witnessed at Iwo Jima. Hundreds of thousands of lives would have been lost on both sides if there were to be an invasion of Japan. Who knows how bad the civilian death toll would have been. The nuke was a weapon, they knew they could end the war immediately with the use of it, of course they were going to do it. If any country had that power they would use it in a heartbeat.


Once again, yes these events were terrible, but do I regret what my country did, no. I think in the end the right decision was made considering the circumstances.

In the end, humans are terrible animals and do terrible things, i.e. war. I doubt that will change anytime soon.

Hypersonic

Great post Jeff. You have made some excellent points.

Harry Plopper

So, by this analogy - since US are in war against terrorism - it's OK civilians die? Incl. eg. you personally? To be blown up in the middle of city on a peaceful Sunday?

It's like saying eg. American citizens / tourists, or eg humanitarian workers around the world are a legitimate target - since US are in war, and they somehow support that (or at least do not actively oppose to it).

Or eg. American workers who work for military industry & support? Are they a legitimate target?

No, they are not a legitimate target!


If you can't see the link then I'm afraid you've been a target of brainwashing. I sincerely hope you haven't been.


****

Why warriors are a legitimate target? Because they are AN ARMED FORCE!!! In opposite to civilians who are not armed.

Of course in the state of war people are somehow mobilized to support the country, if not defend it with arms in hands. But that does not make them a legitimate target? As I've already answered above: NO, THEY AREN'T!


****

I'm aware what was going on in Hiroshima & Nagasaki - but bombing ports & other military facilities (incl military factories) would be more legitimate.

As I say before: Geneva convention is clear: every attack on civilians during a war is considered a WAR CRIME!!! No matter how you try to justify it.

Nuerenberg trials anyone?


****

It's also a speculation nuking those cities had spared thousands of lives. Speculatively multiplying Iwo Jima casualties , and projecting it into hypothetical invasion on Japan is a blatant & outrages speculation.


****


As said before: I do understand the tactics used on every side. But I definitely DO NOT justify & support them. Like I said: every attack on civilians is a war crime, and should be condemned, not just rejected. For the sake of the future.

You still do not get it how dangerous is to justify such acts?

Maybe they were legitimized at that time, but today they are not. And the history ALWAYS has to be evaluated from today's point of view.

Otherwise eg. slavery, massacres of native people during colonial invasions, race segregation, Catholic inquisition & crusades, Muslim / Ottoman crusades, violent religion conversions, Nazism, Holocaust, Communist oppression, Nuke bombing, 9/11 etc. can also be justified - if taking specific situation of that time into consideration.

No! Such acts have to be condemned at every single point in history. No matter who did it.

Yes, I know it takes a lot of power & courage to condemn the deeds of your country / ancestors, but that's the only right thing. Condemning the losing side's acts only is so hypocritical, and it implies moral superiority. Which I think is an arrogant & ignorant act par excellence.

Bad decisions & deed should be condemned (or at least regretted) - no matter who did it.

Otherwise people could not move on - since the "moral superiority" implication mentioned above.

Hypersonic

We should not assume that the contemporary evaluation of history is somehow viewed from a completely unbiased and unquestionable context?

History can be deconstructed and re-contextualized to fit just about any agenda.

Harry Plopper

True. I absolutely agree. Facts can't be forged, yet interpretation can vary - it depends on current system of values.

It's not about re-positioning of "good guys" into "bad guys" bracket. It's just a reflection - an ability to evaluate some things that couldn't be properly evaluated before.

All in aim to LEARN A LESSON - to tell future (& current) generations such things CAN'T happen again.