Whether the Americans were politically driven or not, whether the Japanese deserved it or not, or if the Soviets are to blame --is all irrelevant. The ability to dehumanize humans to justify killing is the real crime here...on all sides. Genocide by one act, a series of acts, over a short period of time or a long period of time are all the same thing.
Are you saying that the Axis powers and the Allied powers were equally culpable (morally) for the death and carnage experienced in WWII?
The Nuremberg Tribunal made "new law" in which War Crimes and the crime of starting or unleashing war was identified and those, who in the opinion of the Tribunal, started WW2 were held to account. Lumping all participants together won't do; otherwise, those who defend themselves against attack are deemed equally culpable as those who attack.
That the Tribunal did not go far enough, by not going after those who economically and financially backed the Nazis, is another matter.
A far greater criticism of Nuremberg is that it didn't even deal with war crimes committed by the Allies. It was purely a victors' court, dispensing victors' justice.
International tribunals ever since have been the same way.
A far greater criticism of Nuremberg is that it didn't even deal with war crimes committed by the Allies. It was purely a victors' court, dispensing victors' justice.
Were the British, Russian, French, and American people demanding that their wartime leaders be tried for war crimes? No.
How successful do you think an opposition party would have been in an attempt to try the wartime leaders of the victors?
I think there would have been a collective "WTF are you talking about?!?" by the people in the UK, Russia, France and the US, followed by something like, "We lost, especially the Russians, millions of soldiers' lives in a life-and-death struggle to defeat the Axis Powers. We're really not interested in whether or not we should have fire-bombed Dresden."
That seems to be the practical reality underlying "victors' justice," no?
My uncle died in April. He left behind a previously-unknown wartime diary (my aunt found it in his papers and never knew it existed before that time). In that diary (of an early 20-something young man), he detailed the unbelievable horrors of D-Day (he landed at Utah Beach at 6:30am), the fighting in Belgium through the Battle of the Bulge, and, ultimately, a near-final note: "We heard that Hitler died today" when he was in Germany.
My dad (who also fought in Germany) always said that it was a miracle that "Uncle Dick" ever survived. He was in a tank destroyer battalion whose purpose was to fight Panzer tanks and by February 1945, 32 of his battalion's 36 tanks had been taken out by the Germans. The circumstances involved horrific fighting with thousands dying all around him and ugly conditions (he spend a two month period living in filth - "I smell like a pig," he said, because he hadn't had a shower in two months).
Daily, he would list the names of his comrades who were killed ("two [American] tanks were destroyed right next to me today [and everyone in the tanks was killed]") and he would often detail the Germans killed by the Americans.
In one entry, he described taking several Germans as prisoners. They were all unarmed, except one German concealed a grenade and threw it at the American soldiers back in camp but fortunately it missed and no one was hurt. Yet, my uncle said, "We took care of him" (i.e., they shot and killed the then-unarmed German soldier).
Now, is that last act a "war crime"? I suppose it is. But, what's the likelihood of the victors' punishing those soldiers for that act after the war? Were the people in America (or in Russian, or in Britain, or in France, for that matter) clamoring to have all of the Allied individuals who committed war crimes punished after the life-and-death struggle they had just survived?
Now, you may say, "Well, I'm not talking about the soldiers - I'm talking about the leaders of the Allied Powers." But, again, after surviving six years of absolute hell caused by the Axis powers, there was undoubtedly zero interest in punishing the very Allied leaders who helped bring about the victory over the Axis powers - just like you couldn't have found one American (or Russian, or French, or British) citizen out of a million who would have condemned what those soldiers did to that unarmed German prisoner.
Leading "the people" to want to punish the Allied leaders (or the individual soldiers) for war crimes would have been about as successful as an attempt to snuff out the emotions of lust, greed, and envy from humanity.
Dad was a in a tank regiment from Quebec that went overseas in '39. As a child I asked him plenty of times about the war. He'd get a terribly serious look on his face, and then he'd do his darndest to change the subject. I was the youngest of five, and my brothers said I coerced a few more war stories out of the old man than they were able to. I still remember him repeating a name of a big Newfoundlander who dad and some guys from Edmonton tried to rescue from a burning Sherman. That was painful for him, and I remember the anger on his face the few times he repeated the memory. Fishing and prospecting were much higher priorities on his list of good times.
Now, you may say, "Well, I'm not talking about the soldiers - I'm talking about the leaders of the Allied Powers." But, again, after surviving six years of absolute hell caused by the Axis powers, there was undoubtedly zero interest in punishing the very Allied leaders who helped bring about the victory over the Axis powers - just like you couldn't have found one American (or Russian, or French, or British) citizen out of a million who would have condemned what those soldiers did to that unarmed German prisoner.
There were plenty of people who retained their humanity, despite the war. Concentration camp prisoners whom the Nazis tried to dehumanize and turn into animals prior to killing them resisted these efforts and retained their humanity even until their death. So did many others in much less trying conditions. Try to remember that, eh, and you'll do a good job of honouring those who fought.
There were plenty of people who retained their humanity, despite the war.
Undoubtedly. But, it strikes me that many sit, vastly separated from the time and horrors of World War II, in nicely-lit rooms with cups of coffee next to their Macs and pontificate about the immoral actions of the Allies as though the war was a chess game conducted in a sanitary pharmaceutical clean room with perfect information about the enemies' thoughts and intentions and with plenty of time to carefully consider and ponder each move - and always from the strictest of ethical perspectives (as opposed to what will win a life-and-death struggle).
Dad wasnt all that moral after the war. Fits of rage the odd time mum said. Took it out on my older siblings, the neighbor, and fellow workers sometimes. And my uncle who came back from Pacific war fighting with the Yanks tried to refocus on his humanity through the bottom of a bottle. He was a real basket case for many years after.
If your intention is to whitewash the Allies by suggesting that they really didn't have enough time to think about the morality of what they were doing, I'm not buying it. They certainly had enough time to calculate the domestic political and world geopolitical implications of what they did. The fact that they often shoved aside moral considerations is not a point in their favour.
I'm sure many Germans made the same excuses for the Nuremberg defendants.
If your intention is to whitewash the Allies by suggesting that they really didn't have enough time to think about the morality of what they were doing, I'm not buying it. They certainly had enough time to calculate the domestic political and world geopolitical implications of what they did. The fact that they often shoved aside moral considerations is not a point in their favour.
I'm sure many Germans made the same excuses for the Nuremberg defendants.
I am all in favor of a discussion about what the Allies did wrong. I want to see as much information about the era available as possible. That's healthy.
But, why is there a single-minded fixation with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why doesn't anyone post a thread here and wrings their hands about the "Xth Anniversary of the German Instigation of World War II", even though they were the ones who unleashed the war that killed at least 50 million people (700,000 people per month) in the first place. Instead, it's: "Yeah, but look at what the Allies did in Japan, and in Dresden, and in etc., etc., etc.!! They are evil, too!!"
In all of the years I've been on babble, I guess I've somehow missed those discussions.
Personally, I think the most appropriate time for a thread like that will be just a few days from now on the 70th anniversary of the start of the declared war (September 1, 2009). It will be a good time to reflect and wring our hands about all of the evil things the Germans did.
And, we should probably have a thread about how evil the Soviets were in the gulag days when the leaders slaughtered millions of their own citizens. Any suggestions for an appropriate date for such a thread?
Oh, and don't forget to mark your calendar for April 11, 2010 (Holocaust Remembrance Day). It's weird, but I seem to have missed any threads started here to mark that day, either. I wonder why?
On this day of remembering the bombing, lets remember the people whose lives were ended abruptly. Most of them were likely good people with no say in their imperial system or the decisions taken on their behalf that led to the Allies bombing their city. On this day I will also note that there have only ever been two ground zeros and the American misappropriation of the term to talk about a minor (in relative deaths) terrorist act is obscene but even more obscene since it was they who dropped the only two nukes used against real targets.
Sven, if you're unhappy about the lack of discussion on certain days of topics near and dear to you, then take heed of the old saying and IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DONE PROPERLY THEN DO IT YOURSELF!
Sven, if you're unhappy about the lack of discussion on certain days of topics near and dear to you, then take heed of the old saying and IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DONE PROPERLY THEN DO IT YOURSELF!
I will do that.
That being said, I have a question for you (or for anyone else who may care to offer an opinion): Why do you think there is a fixation here regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and utter silence regarding any other event (or series of events) of mass death in World War II?
Sven the Japanese were ruled by an imperialist system that didn't try to dress itself up as the saviour of the world. If the American industrialists had not sold goods to both the Japanese and Germans prior to the US's late entry in the war maybe the war would not have been as bad. I don't understand why on a memorial day you insist on saying each and ever time, why not talk about something else.
Why do you think there is a fixation here regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and utter silence regarding any other event (or series of events) of mass death in World War II?
It's a curious absence.
In part, it's because we know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are evils that could easily happen again, and could happen to us next time.
They are also evils that are unrecognized by many (including the majority of USians). They are therefore controversial, and fitting subjects for discussion threads.
If you'd like to start a thread commemorating the annexation of the Sudetenland, go ahead. But you won't get much discussion about the pros and cons.
I don't understand why on a memorial day you insist on saying each and ever time, why not talk about something else.
Don't try to kid yourself. This is not so much about "remembering the innocent victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" as it is another festive reason to bash the USA with self-righteous indignation.
I mean, let's call it what it is, shall we?
If this was really about remembering the victims in Japan, then why the hell is there utter silence about, oh, say, the holocaust here on Holocaust Rememberance Day?
Sven I think I understand what you said so I will rephrase it for clarity. Blah blah blah blah Is that about it. I am anti-American and I admit it. They ethnically cleansed my ancestors, invaded my country and are in the process of absorbing us into their evil empire. Why shouldn't I distrust them and not believe a word of its shining light propaganda.
Now try being honest about your pro-American bias.
As I said above, I actually think the discussion about whether or not the American bombings in Japan in August 1945 were justified is an excellent conversation to have. I'm not saying that the bombings were justified (in contrast to the absolute moral certainty of some of those who think the bombings were not justified). Instead, I think it's a subject worthy of serious debate and analysis. In other words, my "pro-American bias" is not such as you might imagine (i.e., an immediate and unquestioning defense of America's actions in Japan in August 1945).
I have two American cousins - born in England, married GIs and are moral people. They are uncomfortable talking politics, because the land of the free isn't. They are admirable folks, in their stilted way. Human. Loving. You could not dislike them. They do not represent the America that folks love to hate, and if their kind were more active, people would not hate America.
Stop the goddam generalizations about "hating" countries made up of men, women and children, many of the far, far better people than you and I Gunga Dhin.
And Sven, if they had blown the top off Mount Fuji with Fat Boy, they could have brought about the surrender.
But there were some Bush types about, even then. And a vast, dumbed down populace, as now.
Stop the goddam generalizations about "hating" countries made up of men, women and children
I think that few, if any, babblers generally hate Americans as people. But, it's not a generalization to say that many do hate what America represents (and I don't quibble with that) and Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply represent another opportunity to for those people to flog America. Given that no one ever talks about the other various and countless victims of WWII (except, perhaps, the civilians of Dresden), I simply do not believe that statements (or threads) about Hiroshima and Nagasaki are about "remembering the innocent victims".
The Unitied States should be tried fore war crimes in this case.
In addition to the couple of dozen German military and civilian leaders who were tried for war crimes at Nuremberg, should "Germany" -- as a country -- have also been tried for war crimes?
In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of the principal military and civilian leaders responsible for the bombing of Japan are long dead. How should "the United States" -- as a country -- be punished now for the actions taken 64 years ago by the now-long-dead American leaders?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Bloody hell, I'm having a bad finger to keyboard week. I meant the American government. And yes, I do think future leaders are responsible for correcting the wrongs of previous leaders. How long did it take the Canadian government to "apologize" to Aboriginals? I think governments should make reparations to the people their country has destroyed, interned in camps, hurt, maimed and killed. America invaded Iraq illegally, killing god knows how many people, yet somehow many Americans think the Iraqi people "owe" them something and worse, many Americans still harbour the ridicules idea that the US is "fighting for freedom". What a load of hogwash. I don't buy it from our government; I sure as hell do not buy it from an American government; a government which has been waging wars incessantly to further its geopolitical goals.
And yes, I do think future leaders are responsible for correcting the wrongs of previous leaders.
So, should, say, presidents Carter or Clinton or GW Bush have "corrected the wrongs" of Truman, viz., the bombing of Japan? If so, how could they have "corrected" those wrongs? If Obama fails to "correct" those wrongs (and his ten succeeding presidents also fail to "correct" those wrongs), should the 11th succeeding president (who would be serving probably around the end of the 21st century) "correct" those wrongs, even though his or her grandparents probably weren't even alive when Japan was bombed in 1945?
I believe in punishing actual offenders. Not their children - or their children's children - or their children's children's children.
Stargazer wrote:
I think governments should make reparations to the people their country has destroyed, interned in camps, hurt, maimed and killed.
First of all, "governments" can't make reparations - the people the government represents pay reparations.
Second, reparations were tried in the Treaty of Versailles, no? The French, in particular, and understandably, wanted to be compensated by the German people for the almost incalculable amount of damage and loss suffered by the French in World War I (including 1.4 million dead French soldiers and about 300,000 dead French civilians). Reparations weren't very successful -- in fact, they were an utter failure. I think that was principally because they bred resentment by the Germans (especially those Germans who were kids or not even born when the events leading up to World War I occurred). In fact, had the peace of the victors been more compassionate (such as how the Allies dealt with the German and Japanese people after the war), World War II probably wouldn't have even occurred.
Stargazer wrote:
America invaded Iraq illegally, killing god knows how many people...
Well, that is a contemporary example. If someone has the ability to punish GW Bush - then GW Bush should be punished. But, failing the punishment of GW Bush, how could you justify, for example, punishing GW Bush's children's children's children? They weren't even alive when GW Bush was president.
It's the same concept with the bombing of Japan. No one is even alive today who was morally responsible or culpable for making those decisions back in 1945.
I simply do not believe that statements (or threads) about Hiroshima and Nagasaki are about "remembering the innocent victims".
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
[/quote]
I do not believe you know anything about how I feel about the victims of any tragedy and your comment sounds like a self-righteous asshole. Yes Sven you are most moral person in the world and all other babblers pale in comparison and actually have no empathy for anyone or anything we merely hate Amerika. So crawl back under the rock you call a bedroom okay.
If this was really about remembering the victims in Japan, then why the hell is there utter silence about, oh, say, the holocaust here on Holocaust Rememberance Day?
Hint: The perpetrators where not American
Okay, I see what you mean. But what if we bash only a select few Americans while praising the tens of thousands who could no longer be held back from volunteering to fight fascism?
Political hawks drummed Oppenheimer out of the AEC because he wasnt war-like enough for them. And today, the USbased World Bank and IMF tend to abet those countries which spend far too much money on nuclear weaponry than poverty reduction around the democratic capitalist thirdworld. That's not your fault either, Sven. And governments past and present in my own country have to share some of the blame for aiding and abetting warhawks in your country.
There is an excellent book called "April 1865" regarding the long-term effects of the manner in which the victorious North treated the vanquished Southerners at the end of the American Civil War.
The population of the United States at the beginning of the war was only about 31 million people. But, the war resulted in the deaths of about 600,000 people (about one in every fifty Americans was killed in the war -- and many times that were wounded). Understandably, there was a lot of anger about such a tremendous loss and that anger could have been translated into calls for "justice" (or reparations) or, worse, vengeance. But, Lincoln and Grant were determined to avoid that and to, instead, set in place a process for unity. And, Lincoln certainly would not have advocated for the punishment of the Southerners' children's children's children.
What could have been a division that lasted for generation after generation after generation (like the civil splits in many parts of the world) has resulted in a re-united country where regional animosities are usually limited to competing college football teams.
I think that process put in motion by Lincoln, much like how the Allies treated the defeated citizens of the Axis countries, resulted in the best long-term outcome. But, even if a leadership is culpable for its actions and should be punished, it is inconceivable to me that the leaders' children's children's children should some how be punished.
What could have been a division that lasted for generation after generation after generation (like the civil splits in many parts of the world) has resulted in a re-united country where regional animosities are usually limited to competing college football teams.
The person who wrote this has never read a book by William Faulkner or Cormac McCarthy
Why has rabble, babble section, required me, in mido-sentence, to again login and give my pssword?
All I wanted to do was sign off with this product of the American mindset who has now decided to take us through the Civil War and the attributes of Abraham Lincoln.
A slippery customer who is hopelessly, blindly in love, with his land of acculturation.
What could have been a division that lasted for generation after generation after generation (like the civil splits in many parts of the world) has resulted in a re-united country where regional animosities are usually limited to competing college football teams.
The person who wrote this has never read a book by William Faulkner or Cormac McCarthy
I didn't say it was all roses and lollipops after the war. But, had Lincoln taken a more "just" approach and endeavored to punish the Southerners with crushing reparation payments to pay for the war damages, ala the Treaty of Versailles, not to mention trying and executing Jeff Davis and Gen. Lee and a slew of other Confederate civilian and military leaders, I think it is unlikely that the country would have the degree of unity it has today (and may have fallen back into civil war).
Kurt Vonnegut certainly wrote about Dresden, he was there at the bombing, picking up the bodies...Slaughterhouse Five. Bet the farm you have not read that either, Sven.
Are you saying that the Axis powers and the Allied powers were equally culpable (morally) for the death and carnage experienced in WWII?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
That's the "rule utilitarian" approach, kate.
As an "act utilitarian", I'll kill anyone threatening my family or myself.
The Nuremberg Tribunal made "new law" in which War Crimes and the crime of starting or unleashing war was identified and those, who in the opinion of the Tribunal, started WW2 were held to account. Lumping all participants together won't do; otherwise, those who defend themselves against attack are deemed equally culpable as those who attack.
That the Tribunal did not go far enough, by not going after those who economically and financially backed the Nazis, is another matter.
A far greater criticism of Nuremberg is that it didn't even deal with war crimes committed by the Allies. It was purely a victors' court, dispensing victors' justice.
International tribunals ever since have been the same way.
Double Post...
Were the British, Russian, French, and American people demanding that their wartime leaders be tried for war crimes? No.
How successful do you think an opposition party would have been in an attempt to try the wartime leaders of the victors?
I think there would have been a collective "WTF are you talking about?!?" by the people in the UK, Russia, France and the US, followed by something like, "We lost, especially the Russians, millions of soldiers' lives in a life-and-death struggle to defeat the Axis Powers. We're really not interested in whether or not we should have fire-bombed Dresden."
That seems to be the practical reality underlying "victors' justice," no?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Yup, you've got it, Sven.
.
Nice to see the mods back from vacation...
My uncle died in April. He left behind a previously-unknown wartime diary (my aunt found it in his papers and never knew it existed before that time). In that diary (of an early 20-something young man), he detailed the unbelievable horrors of D-Day (he landed at Utah Beach at 6:30am), the fighting in Belgium through the Battle of the Bulge, and, ultimately, a near-final note: "We heard that Hitler died today" when he was in Germany.
My dad (who also fought in Germany) always said that it was a miracle that "Uncle Dick" ever survived. He was in a tank destroyer battalion whose purpose was to fight Panzer tanks and by February 1945, 32 of his battalion's 36 tanks had been taken out by the Germans. The circumstances involved horrific fighting with thousands dying all around him and ugly conditions (he spend a two month period living in filth - "I smell like a pig," he said, because he hadn't had a shower in two months).
Daily, he would list the names of his comrades who were killed ("two [American] tanks were destroyed right next to me today [and everyone in the tanks was killed]") and he would often detail the Germans killed by the Americans.
In one entry, he described taking several Germans as prisoners. They were all unarmed, except one German concealed a grenade and threw it at the American soldiers back in camp but fortunately it missed and no one was hurt. Yet, my uncle said, "We took care of him" (i.e., they shot and killed the then-unarmed German soldier).
Now, is that last act a "war crime"? I suppose it is. But, what's the likelihood of the victors' punishing those soldiers for that act after the war? Were the people in America (or in Russian, or in Britain, or in France, for that matter) clamoring to have all of the Allied individuals who committed war crimes punished after the life-and-death struggle they had just survived?
Now, you may say, "Well, I'm not talking about the soldiers - I'm talking about the leaders of the Allied Powers." But, again, after surviving six years of absolute hell caused by the Axis powers, there was undoubtedly zero interest in punishing the very Allied leaders who helped bring about the victory over the Axis powers - just like you couldn't have found one American (or Russian, or French, or British) citizen out of a million who would have condemned what those soldiers did to that unarmed German prisoner.
Leading "the people" to want to punish the Allied leaders (or the individual soldiers) for war crimes would have been about as successful as an attempt to snuff out the emotions of lust, greed, and envy from humanity.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
As I said, you've got it. The "rule of law" only applies to the losers. That's why ICTY never charged NATO troops with war crimes in Yugoslavia.
Do you think that will ever change?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Dad was a in a tank regiment from Quebec that went overseas in '39. As a child I asked him plenty of times about the war. He'd get a terribly serious look on his face, and then he'd do his darndest to change the subject. I was the youngest of five, and my brothers said I coerced a few more war stories out of the old man than they were able to. I still remember him repeating a name of a big Newfoundlander who dad and some guys from Edmonton tried to rescue from a burning Sherman. That was painful for him, and I remember the anger on his face the few times he repeated the memory. Fishing and prospecting were much higher priorities on his list of good times.
There were plenty of people who retained their humanity, despite the war. Concentration camp prisoners whom the Nazis tried to dehumanize and turn into animals prior to killing them resisted these efforts and retained their humanity even until their death. So did many others in much less trying conditions. Try to remember that, eh, and you'll do a good job of honouring those who fought.
It's too bad our federal governments didnt honour those who fought a little more than they did.
Undoubtedly. But, it strikes me that many sit, vastly separated from the time and horrors of World War II, in nicely-lit rooms with cups of coffee next to their Macs and pontificate about the immoral actions of the Allies as though the war was a chess game conducted in a sanitary pharmaceutical clean room with perfect information about the enemies' thoughts and intentions and with plenty of time to carefully consider and ponder each move - and always from the strictest of ethical perspectives (as opposed to what will win a life-and-death struggle).
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Dad wasnt all that moral after the war. Fits of rage the odd time mum said. Took it out on my older siblings, the neighbor, and fellow workers sometimes. And my uncle who came back from Pacific war fighting with the Yanks tried to refocus on his humanity through the bottom of a bottle. He was a real basket case for many years after.
Sven:
If your intention is to whitewash the Allies by suggesting that they really didn't have enough time to think about the morality of what they were doing, I'm not buying it. They certainly had enough time to calculate the domestic political and world geopolitical implications of what they did. The fact that they often shoved aside moral considerations is not a point in their favour.
I'm sure many Germans made the same excuses for the Nuremberg defendants.
I am all in favor of a discussion about what the Allies did wrong. I want to see as much information about the era available as possible. That's healthy.
But, why is there a single-minded fixation with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why doesn't anyone post a thread here and wrings their hands about the "Xth Anniversary of the German Instigation of World War II", even though they were the ones who unleashed the war that killed at least 50 million people (700,000 people per month) in the first place. Instead, it's: "Yeah, but look at what the Allies did in Japan, and in Dresden, and in etc., etc., etc.!! They are evil, too!!"
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
We do that on May 9th. It's August fer chrissake.
In all of the years I've been on babble, I guess I've somehow missed those discussions.
Personally, I think the most appropriate time for a thread like that will be just a few days from now on the 70th anniversary of the start of the declared war (September 1, 2009). It will be a good time to reflect and wring our hands about all of the evil things the Germans did.
And, we should probably have a thread about how evil the Soviets were in the gulag days when the leaders slaughtered millions of their own citizens. Any suggestions for an appropriate date for such a thread?
Oh, and don't forget to mark your calendar for April 11, 2010 (Holocaust Remembrance Day). It's weird, but I seem to have missed any threads started here to mark that day, either. I wonder why?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
On this day of remembering the bombing, lets remember the people whose lives were ended abruptly. Most of them were likely good people with no say in their imperial system or the decisions taken on their behalf that led to the Allies bombing their city. On this day I will also note that there have only ever been two ground zeros and the American misappropriation of the term to talk about a minor (in relative deaths) terrorist act is obscene but even more obscene since it was they who dropped the only two nukes used against real targets.
Can we look forward to hearing similar sentiments from you here on babble on April 11, 2010 (see my post above)?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sven, if you're unhappy about the lack of discussion on certain days of topics near and dear to you, then take heed of the old saying and IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DONE PROPERLY THEN DO IT YOURSELF!
I will do that.
That being said, I have a question for you (or for anyone else who may care to offer an opinion): Why do you think there is a fixation here regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki and utter silence regarding any other event (or series of events) of mass death in World War II?
It's a curious absence.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sven the Japanese were ruled by an imperialist system that didn't try to dress itself up as the saviour of the world. If the American industrialists had not sold goods to both the Japanese and Germans prior to the US's late entry in the war maybe the war would not have been as bad. I don't understand why on a memorial day you insist on saying each and ever time, why not talk about something else.
(For Sven) Quit whining. You're giving your conservative credentials away. Nobody will listen to you if you keep this up.
Exellent non-answer to my question.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Funny you should mention that Spector. I've just got to that point in reading William Shirer's book. Don't give it away, OK?
In part, it's because we know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are evils that could easily happen again, and could happen to us next time.
They are also evils that are unrecognized by many (including the majority of USians). They are therefore controversial, and fitting subjects for discussion threads.
If you'd like to start a thread commemorating the annexation of the Sudetenland, go ahead. But you won't get much discussion about the pros and cons.
And a holocaust couldn't happen again?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
The beach beckons. Sayanara.
Indeed it is entirely possible but this time it will be people of the Islamic tradition. oops its already happening.
Don't try to kid yourself. This is not so much about "remembering the innocent victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" as it is another festive reason to bash the USA with self-righteous indignation.
I mean, let's call it what it is, shall we?
If this was really about remembering the victims in Japan, then why the hell is there utter silence about, oh, say, the holocaust here on Holocaust Rememberance Day?
Hint: The perpetrators where not American.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sven I think I understand what you said so I will rephrase it for clarity. Blah blah blah blah Is that about it. I am anti-American and I admit it. They ethnically cleansed my ancestors, invaded my country and are in the process of absorbing us into their evil empire. Why shouldn't I distrust them and not believe a word of its shining light propaganda.
Thank you for your honesty.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Now try being honest about your pro-American bias.
As I said above, I actually think the discussion about whether or not the American bombings in Japan in August 1945 were justified is an excellent conversation to have. I'm not saying that the bombings were justified (in contrast to the absolute moral certainty of some of those who think the bombings were not justified). Instead, I think it's a subject worthy of serious debate and analysis. In other words, my "pro-American bias" is not such as you might imagine (i.e., an immediate and unquestioning defense of America's actions in Japan in August 1945).
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
I have two American cousins - born in England, married GIs and are moral people. They are uncomfortable talking politics, because the land of the free isn't. They are admirable folks, in their stilted way. Human. Loving. You could not dislike them. They do not represent the America that folks love to hate, and if their kind were more active, people would not hate America.
Stop the goddam generalizations about "hating" countries made up of men, women and children, many of the far, far better people than you and I Gunga Dhin.
And Sven, if they had blown the top off Mount Fuji with Fat Boy, they could have brought about the surrender.
But there were some Bush types about, even then. And a vast, dumbed down populace, as now.
I think that few, if any, babblers generally hate Americans as people. But, it's not a generalization to say that many do hate what America represents (and I don't quibble with that) and Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply represent another opportunity to for those people to flog America. Given that no one ever talks about the other various and countless victims of WWII (except, perhaps, the civilians of Dresden), I simply do not believe that statements (or threads) about Hiroshima and Nagasaki are about "remembering the innocent victims".
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Clearly I meant yearly, not daily.
Bloody hell, I'm having a bad finger to keyboard week. I meant the American government. And yes, I do think future leaders are responsible for correcting the wrongs of previous leaders. How long did it take the Canadian government to "apologize" to Aboriginals? I think governments should make reparations to the people their country has destroyed, interned in camps, hurt, maimed and killed. America invaded Iraq illegally, killing god knows how many people, yet somehow many Americans think the Iraqi people "owe" them something and worse, many Americans still harbour the ridicules idea that the US is "fighting for freedom". What a load of hogwash. I don't buy it from our government; I sure as hell do not buy it from an American government; a government which has been waging wars incessantly to further its geopolitical goals.
Yikes, Stargazer!! You're not holding anything back with that post!!
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
So, should, say, presidents Carter or Clinton or GW Bush have "corrected the wrongs" of Truman, viz., the bombing of Japan? If so, how could they have "corrected" those wrongs? If Obama fails to "correct" those wrongs (and his ten succeeding presidents also fail to "correct" those wrongs), should the 11th succeeding president (who would be serving probably around the end of the 21st century) "correct" those wrongs, even though his or her grandparents probably weren't even alive when Japan was bombed in 1945?
I believe in punishing actual offenders. Not their children - or their children's children - or their children's children's children.
First of all, "governments" can't make reparations - the people the government represents pay reparations.
Second, reparations were tried in the Treaty of Versailles, no? The French, in particular, and understandably, wanted to be compensated by the German people for the almost incalculable amount of damage and loss suffered by the French in World War I (including 1.4 million dead French soldiers and about 300,000 dead French civilians). Reparations weren't very successful -- in fact, they were an utter failure. I think that was principally because they bred resentment by the Germans (especially those Germans who were kids or not even born when the events leading up to World War I occurred). In fact, had the peace of the victors been more compassionate (such as how the Allies dealt with the German and Japanese people after the war), World War II probably wouldn't have even occurred.
Well, that is a contemporary example. If someone has the ability to punish GW Bush - then GW Bush should be punished. But, failing the punishment of GW Bush, how could you justify, for example, punishing GW Bush's children's children's children? They weren't even alive when GW Bush was president.
It's the same concept with the bombing of Japan. No one is even alive today who was morally responsible or culpable for making those decisions back in 1945.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
I simply do not believe that statements (or threads) about Hiroshima and Nagasaki are about "remembering the innocent victims".
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
[/quote]
I do not believe you know anything about how I feel about the victims of any tragedy and your comment sounds like a self-righteous asshole. Yes Sven you are most moral person in the world and all other babblers pale in comparison and actually have no empathy for anyone or anything we merely hate Amerika. So crawl back under the rock you call a bedroom okay.
Okay, I see what you mean. But what if we bash only a select few Americans while praising the tens of thousands who could no longer be held back from volunteering to fight fascism?
Political hawks drummed Oppenheimer out of the AEC because he wasnt war-like enough for them. And today, the USbased World Bank and IMF tend to abet those countries which spend far too much money on nuclear weaponry than poverty reduction around the democratic capitalist thirdworld. That's not your fault either, Sven. And governments past and present in my own country have to share some of the blame for aiding and abetting warhawks in your country.
There is an excellent book called "April 1865" regarding the long-term effects of the manner in which the victorious North treated the vanquished Southerners at the end of the American Civil War.
The population of the United States at the beginning of the war was only about 31 million people. But, the war resulted in the deaths of about 600,000 people (about one in every fifty Americans was killed in the war -- and many times that were wounded). Understandably, there was a lot of anger about such a tremendous loss and that anger could have been translated into calls for "justice" (or reparations) or, worse, vengeance. But, Lincoln and Grant were determined to avoid that and to, instead, set in place a process for unity. And, Lincoln certainly would not have advocated for the punishment of the Southerners' children's children's children.
What could have been a division that lasted for generation after generation after generation (like the civil splits in many parts of the world) has resulted in a re-united country where regional animosities are usually limited to competing college football teams.
I think that process put in motion by Lincoln, much like how the Allies treated the defeated citizens of the Axis countries, resulted in the best long-term outcome. But, even if a leadership is culpable for its actions and should be punished, it is inconceivable to me that the leaders' children's children's children should some how be punished.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
The person who wrote this has never read a book by William Faulkner or Cormac McCarthy
Why has rabble, babble section, required me, in mido-sentence, to again login and give my pssword?
All I wanted to do was sign off with this product of the American mindset who has now decided to take us through the Civil War and the attributes of Abraham Lincoln.
A slippery customer who is hopelessly, blindly in love, with his land of acculturation.
I didn't say it was all roses and lollipops after the war. But, had Lincoln taken a more "just" approach and endeavored to punish the Southerners with crushing reparation payments to pay for the war damages, ala the Treaty of Versailles, not to mention trying and executing Jeff Davis and Gen. Lee and a slew of other Confederate civilian and military leaders, I think it is unlikely that the country would have the degree of unity it has today (and may have fallen back into civil war).
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Can't resist...
Kurt Vonnegut certainly wrote about Dresden, he was there at the bombing, picking up the bodies...Slaughterhouse Five. Bet the farm you have not read that either, Sven.
"And so it goes." (Vonnegut)
Pages