Sixty Three Years Ago Today
August 6, 2008, Matthew Good 
It is altogether proper that we fear nuclear weapons. While one has not been used in 63 years – 63 years ago on this very day, in fact - the horror and devastation wrought by the two employed in the summer of 1945 was enough to usher in an age of unprecedented fear and paranoia. In the wake of that fear and paranoia a nuclear arms race would commence that would help promote a theory that to maintain nuclear détente the production of weapons was required to ensure that a global balance was maintained – along with all of the military hardware and support mechanisms required to maintain it. And so here we find ourselves, over six decades later, with the world’s foremost nuclear powers attempting to safeguard their nuclear superiority, concerned that the theory that they put into practice over a half century ago will be employed by fledgling nuclear powers.
It is also altogether proper that we fear propagandized history, even though risks are involved when the presentation of information that challenges overwhelmingly popular historical myths is presented. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, according to popular doctrine, military necessities. According to your average history book, the bombs were dropped to force Japan into unconditionally surrendering so that a conventional invasion of Japan could be avoided. It has long been contended that were the United States to have invaded Japan that millions of Americans would have been lost in the endeavor. But what is commonly overlooked is the fact that conventional bombing had already devastated much of Japan, so much so that its infrastructure was in utter ruins.
John Pilger of The Guardian put it best today…
“The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate “good war”, whose “ethical bath”, as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb.
The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. “Even without the atomic bombing attacks,” concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, “air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that … Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including “capitulation even if the terms were hard”. Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful” that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out” that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strength”. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.
Information such as this is commonly scoffed at, even though it is based on factual historical evidence. The reality is that an invasion of Japan would never have needed to occur, nor would the Japanese have ‘fought to the last’, a belief that has been promoted as fact since before the war’s conclusion. Of course, the majority of Westerners are not exposed to the testimonials of those Japanese civilians and military commanders that would, following the war, claim such accusations baseless. Being that they contradict the mythology that has been instilled in young minds since the 50’s, the inclusion of the ‘other side of the story’ has been conveniently removed from the pages of rudimentary academia for decades.
As Pilger also points out, the groundwork of misrepresentation began almost immediately following the employment of the bombs…
“In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb’s blast. It was the first big lie. “No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin” said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. “I write this as a warning to the world,” reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called “an atomic plague”. For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated.”
When I was a child we were made to practice drills in the event of a nuclear attack. We were told to get under our desks and cover our heads with our hands. It was utterly pointless, of course, being that were we attacked our school would probably have been hit by a rolling shockwave that would have ripped the entire structure from its foundation. Hurling through the air with tons of concrete and other debris, we would eventually succumb to being crushed by something if the air in our lungs hadn’t already been vacuumed out.
They commonly held such drills on what used to be known as ‘hot dog days’ - and did so for obvious reasons. The very same, in fact, that prompted the New York Times to declare that there was no radioactivity in the ruins of Hiroshima.
This little symbol lets you @ another comment
I’m far too young to have participated in those drills, but I remember my elementary school having hot dog days… Never thought they’d had such an erie beginning.
I’m reminded of the old Dubliners song, Protect and Survive:
Well the government’s made a document
To help prevent embarrassment
And in the event of an accident
Catching us with our trousers down
It’s no use to you when you’re dead
Nor even when alive
And the name of this peace of paper is
Protect and survive
So when the nuke’s come raining down
It’s great to be alive, well
World War Three can be such fun
If you protect and survive
Protect and survive
Well a nuclear strike can be recognised
It would stand out in a crowd
There’s a flash, then a bang, then a blast of heat
Then a bloody great mushroom cloud
So if you happen to see one at the end of your street
Would you please pick up the telephone
And inform your local police
So when the nuke’s come raining down
It’s great to be alive, well
World War Three can be such fun
If you protect and survive
Protect and survive
Put sticky tape on your windows
Block your ears and close your eyes
But it won’t make a blind bit of difference
You won’t have to watch yourself fry
If you find yourself in the target zone
And you haven’t got a shelter
Take a spade into the garden
And dig like merry hell, sir
http://www.free-lyrics.org
So when the nuke’s come raining down
It’s great to be alive, well
World War Three can be such fun
If you protect and survive
Protect and survive
They’ve got strategic ICBM’s
Both theatre and tactical
With independently targeted
Multiple reentry vehicle’s
Backfire bombers, Polaris sub’s, cruise missiles
And the boy’s who hang around the Pentagon
Can’t wait to use these toys
So when the nuke’s come raining down
It’s great to be alive, well
World War Three can be such fun
If you protect and survive
Protect and survive
When Armageddon gets underway
And the rockets come pouring down
All the bloody politicians who started it
Will scuttle off underground
And when they finally reemerge
With no life to be found
They can administrate the rubble
And they can order each other a round
So when the nuke’s come raining down
It’s great to be alive, well
World War Three can be such fun
If you protect and survive
Protect and survive
For they give us a four-minute warning
When the rockets are on their way
To give us time to panic and Christians time to pray
So when you hear the siren’s going
Place your head between your thighs
Whilst maintaining this posture
You can make a final gesture
And with a little muscular pressure
You can kiss your arse goodbye
So when the nuke’s come raining down
It’s great to be alive, well
World War Three can be such fun
If you protect and survive
Protect and survive
Protect and…
And the same reasons that this aspect profit is never talked about is thesame reason that the Japanese in internment camps is rarely talked about.
Because we think that we can do nothing wrong, and the reason we think this is because we tr not to talk about the terrible deeds we have done. Thus a cycle of ignorance and acts that are so horrid that there is no comparison to how bad they are, as each event is unique, sharing horrors that nobody can measure. And instead of trying to comprehend it, and trying to do something to stop it from happening again, we just walk away.
[Sorry – crap link in mid of my comment]
Also, this and many other of our historical screw ups reminds me of soemthing I recently wrote
here time has come for the end of what we never knew
There is more that we could do
It’s up to me and you
There is something you are missing and I can see it—see it—-see it
Somebody is saying something but you refuse to Hear it—hear it—hear it
A man in need is in your presence your tell them “beat it—beat it—beat”
Your ignorance could be more obvious because I feel it—feel it–feel it
The time has come for the end of what we never knew——–
There is more that we could do—-
It’s up to me and you
How could it be so hard
Getting to to know them
Would it have gone too far
To take the time to show them
The better side of you—-
When all they want is money instead of company do you like it—like it—like it?
If you save a life and they kill you in return is it Betrayal—betrayal—betrayal?
If they ignore the writing on your walls is it okay to say whatever—whatever—whatever
If you say you want to die would it be wrong to say Go ahead—go ahead—ahead?
The time has come for the end of what you never knew——–
Ignorance is breeding
Intelligence is leaving
Coming from an ocean
Filled with unrecognized hypocrisy
Of Forgetting history
see it—see it—-see it
Hear it—hear it—hear it
“beat it—beat it—beat”
feel it—feel it–feel it
The time has come for the end of what we never knew
There is more that we could do
It’s up to me and you
How could it be so hard
Getting to to know them
Would it have gone to far
To take the time to show them
The better side of you
The time has come for the end of what we never knew
Obviously it doesn’t point out to any certain event, but I meant it to be more of a general look on things.
I remember those drills too - boy that brings back memories - they sometimes had the drills during recess and wrecked you game of conkers.
Yet another in a long line of sad anniversaries that should serve to remind us humans of the fantastically horrific things we do to one another.
Just to add to the fact that elements of the Japanese government had been trying to negotiate a surrender for months before Hiroshima, the only condition they asked for in later offers to surrender was that they be allowed to retain the emperor as a figurehead. That’s something the US conceded anyway, even after forcing an ‘unconditional’ surrender. And of course the idea that a ground invasion would have been necessary is completely absurd.
Though in all fairness (or equally distributed unfairness at least), Japanese students learn only the barest sketch of the Japanese side of WWII, but spend weeks on the atomic bombs. Every country whitewashes their history to some degree, which may have something to do with why we keep repeating it.
[quote]The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, according to popular doctrine, military necessities. [/quote]
So was the invasion of Iraq, right?
Stimson’s quote about being afraid the bomb would not be able to show its full strength says it all right there… incredibly telling. Show of power, that’s what it was.
The misrepresentation in the media at that time is shocking to me… but then again, I suppose it shouldn’t be, and it’s only clear how much of a lie it was in retrospect. How much of what we’re fed today is twisted or just outright untruths?
Duck & cover…………and if you survie you will be covered, with radioactivity.
“Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media. ” — Noam Chomsky
I did a little research after reading this. I wanted to see if I could find a copy of that New York Times with the “No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin” headline. Turns out it’s the September 13th, 1945 issue. I can’t find it anywhere, but I hope to have it framed on my wall one day. Not as a reminder that our governments lie and manipulate the press, that would be completely unnecessary. I’d like to hang it there as proof that eventually their lies are uncovered.
on the topic of nuclear weapons, everyone go watch the british telemovie “THREADS”. it’s basically a nuclear holocaust film set in 1980s britain. it’s one of the most brutal things you’ll ever watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads
Very difficult to justify those actions, obviously.
I’m tellin’ yah, though. If my country is hit with an atomic bomb like the one that Hiroshima suffered from, I’m on the telephone, the radio, sending Morriss code, etc. the next day waving the white flag.
What’s the facts in concern to the Japanese surrender in between the two bombs? The Americans did not give them a lot of time to respond, 3 days or so. But I’m not too clear on why the Japanese did not immediately surrender. That’s something surely that the Americans could use to argue the resilience of the Japanese government at that time. There are other obvious indications, war tactics from the Japanese did not show any regard for life, in any manner. Suicide bombings for example — equipment, such as planes that were not designed to return from combat. Bizarre tactics such as those are unexplainable.
And if this post reminds us of any poetic, or lyrical content it has to be Dylan and Hard Rain.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are clearly not intended as a message to the Pacific theatre. Surely they were dropped in the NAME of putting the final nail in the already sealed coffin of the Japanese empire, who have no moral high ground of their own to stand on (re: Nanking), but in truth were dropped as a message to the rising power of the Soviet empire.
Look what we can do if you try to mess with us..
[quote comment="60888"]Yet another in a long line of sad anniversaries that should serve to remind us humans of the fantastically horrific things we do to one another.[/quote]
Well, good to know things have changed since then, eh?
That’s one disturbing picture.
For those interested, I highly recommend viewing the HBO documentary “White Light, Black Rain: The Destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. It’s very powerful and listening to the personal accounts of the interviewed survivors is just heart wrenching. Despite all their physical and emotional pain they suffered, it seems the survivors received little or no support from the Japanese government and, what really surprised me, faced often intense discrimination from their fellow Japanese. There are some really graphic images in the documentary.
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/whitelightblackrain/synopsis.html
It is scary to ‘imagine’ the truth about our continuing nuclear reality. I remember when I was 4 or 5 (1994-5) the news was still going on like a broken record about the fall of the Soviet Empire. In 1995 Russia went Red Alert because, despite their best efforts, notification of a Norwegian weather satellite launch failed to get to the proper authorities. Russia believed, at least for a time, that it was a US nuke. Such incidents (and the consequences) remain possible. Yet compared with what we may yet faced, such risks are relatively minimal.
With regards to the bombing of Hiroshima, I believe to say it was an appalling and heinous act of mass murder is an understatement. The suffering of those unlucky enough to survive is beyond comprehension. Over 200,000 deaths purely for political pragmatism in the opening stages in the Cold War. Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) may not have been the worst excesses of the war, but they were certainly chilling reminders of our abilities of morally bankrupt and senseless wholesale destruction.
The emergence of other nuclear nations prompts me to wonder whether the old balance of power will survive. I suspect not, especially as new nuclear nations are exceptionally sensitive politically - to mention little of what the US and Russia remain capable of.
To give an idea of scale, the Tsar bomb of 1961, the most powerful weapon ever devised, was over 3000 times more powerful than that used at Hiroshima. To say we are playing with fire is an understatement here. And just last year Russia completed it’s ‘father of all bombs’. Perhaps something of an arms race is well underway as we speak.
But Russia is relatively trustworthy, however beyond horrible the consequences of nuclear engagement are. It is difficult to know what Pakistan, India, China and Israel may attempt in nuclear armament and how they might plan to deploy them.
Yet for the extremely serious nature of the issue there has not been a major push for disarmament since 1991 (if not before). The reality is that soon enough another nuke is going to be deployed if something is not done; a reality that we should not be comfortable with.
One question about the bombing has always stuck with me from one of Ondaatje’s books or poems but I can’t quite remember which peice it was in.
It asked whether the nuke would have been dropped had Japan not been a ‘brown nation’. Was one of the reason’s we could overlook the horror of what had been done simple because we percieved them as so different from us? Would we have done it to Germany or Russia?
The bombing of Dresden was a terrible thing, but nowhere near what was done to Japan.
I don’t like the answer that seems to be so clear.
The manga series Barefoot Gen provides a really moving–and sometimes shocking–story, based on the author’s experience in Hiroshima immediately before, during and after the bomb. It really shows the other side of the story: that of the japanese civilians affected by the bomb. It’s a fantastic series, though I’ve only read the first four books and volumes 7-10 haven’t been published in english.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_Gen
[quote comment="60925"]Very difficult to justify those actions, obviously.
I’m tellin’ yah, though. If my country is hit with an atomic bomb like the one that Hiroshima suffered from, I’m on the telephone, the radio, sending Morriss code, etc. the next day waving the white flag.
What’s the facts in concern to the Japanese surrender in between the two bombs? The Americans did not give them a lot of time to respond, 3 days or so. But I’m not too clear on why the Japanese did not immediately surrender. That’s something surely that the Americans could use to argue the resilience of the Japanese government at that time. There are other obvious indications, war tactics from the Japanese did not show any regard for life, in any manner. Suicide bombings for example — equipment, such as planes that were not designed to return from combat. Bizarre tactics such as those are unexplainable.
And if this post reminds us of any poetic, or lyrical content it has to be Dylan and Hard Rain.[/quote]
The tactics employed by the Japanese are far from bizarre, and even further from unexplainable. The Japanese military played heavily on the ideology and philosophy of the samurai, which is deeply entrenched in their culture. To the samurai there is no greater honour then to give one’s own life in service to the master, preferably in combat. As a result Japanese pilots returning from battle could be seen as dishonourable for not giving up their lives and flying their planes into the very midst of their enemies to deliver a final blow with their last breath. Faced with the shame this would bring upon not only themselves, but their families, it is not hard to understand why many pilots rallied behind the Kamikaze idea as a result. After all, do you suffer a death which will bestow upon you the greatest of honours, or do you suffer a life in which you will have to carry the greatest of dishonours?
Perhaps ironically, this is very similar to the situation being faced in both Iraq and Afghanistan with regards to suicide bombers. Impressionable youth are indoctrinated with an ideology and philosophy that tells them there is no greater act in the name of Allah then to strap a bomb to their chests and detonate it in the very midst of the unbelievers. Such an act, they are further told, will secure them (and in some cases even their families) a place in paradise. Given the deep cultural entrenchment of the ideas that the recruiters are playing upon, its is very easy to see why a young man or woman willingly blows themselves up in a crowded market, police checkpoint or government building.
Also, regarding Japan’s surrender… they had been trying to surrender for two years. The persistent dismissal of such attempts by the American government of the time could very easily be interpreted as a rejection of any peace at all without total subjugation and domination of the Japanese. Given what followed the end of the war during the US occupation of Japan, it really is not that much of a stretch that the Japanese government could have come to such a conclusion well before the bombs were dropped.
So sure, they could have had every person out there trying to wave a white flag, but what good is that going to do when your enemy has shown again and again that they aren’t willing to acknowledge it?
I don’t remember such drills when I was in school and I’m just a few years older than you, Matt. ;-)
With regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I had the opportunity to visit Hiroshima back in 2003. There’s really nothing left standing that wasn’t build before the bombing. There is, of course a few ruins left as memorials/reminders to the event. We visited the park where they have the statue in the memory of Sadako. You can read her story here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadako_Sasaki
I’ve taken some pictures of the trip, but I think what really made an impact on that trip was the Peace Museum. There you have relics from that date. There was also a special exhibit of drawings made by survivors. It’s incredible to see the horrors they experienced.
I would also suggest the animated movie “Graveyard of the Fireflies”. It’s a difficult film to watch, I find, as it illustrates how things were in Japan at that time. As well made as the animation was, I just can’t watch it again.
Amazingly, a city like Kyoto was relatively unscathed. I believe this may be due in part to an American official who had visited the city once and recognized it for its historical and cultural value. And indeed, Kyoto is an amazing city.
One historical note that should be added to this discussion. Between 1943 and 1945, the Japanese had three factions fighting internally, the military, the civilians and the traditionalist. Each group had representatives contacting the US government and military. It was all very confusing. And General Douglas MacArthur had a heavy hand in trying to confuse the situation since he wanted to have a ground war in Japan.
The world was a much bigger place in 1945. Information took much longer to reach its destination giving many the opportunity to manipulate the information. With so much death in the world between 1939 and 1945, the minds of our leaders -especially Truman was to end the suffering. I wish our leaders had had the opportunity to see the problem more clearly but between a new President that was seen as weak and eager military officials who wanted to see what their new weapon could do, the bombs were dropped. Remember, the white-washing of history goes both ways. It is so hard to read logic into decisions that were made under the pressure of that moment in history. And with all the false statements made after the war ended, it leads us to believe we were lied to about what options the US had in front of them in 1945. I hope we have a much better opportunity to find out what really happen in our present administration that led to the War in Iraqi.
[quote comment="60944"]The manga series Barefoot Gen provides a really moving–and sometimes shocking–story, based on the author’s experience in Hiroshima immediately before, during and after the bomb. It really shows the other side of the story: that of the japanese civilians affected by the bomb. It’s a fantastic series, though I’ve only read the first four books and volumes 7-10 haven’t been published in english.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_Gen/quote
Keiji Nakazawa, the author of Barefoot Gen, is one of the survivors interviewed in the doc White Light, Black Rain.
[quote comment="60959"]
With so much death in the world between 1939 and 1945, the minds of our leaders -especially Truman was to end the suffering. I wish our leaders had had the opportunity to see the problem more clearly but between a new President that was seen as weak and eager military officials who wanted to see what their new weapon could do, the bombs were dropped. Remember, the white-washing of history goes both ways. It is so hard to read logic into decisions that were made under the pressure of that moment in history. And with all the false statements made after the war ended, it leads us to believe we were lied to about what options the US had in front of them in 1945. I hope we have a much better opportunity to find out what really happen in our present administration that led to the War in Iraqi.[/quote]
‘History is a set of lies, agreed upon’ - history is an art. We can only very rarely be sure exactly what happened and why. Sometimes there simply isn’t much rationality to our decisions at all - this could certainly be seen to be the case for the current US administration.
Fictionalization of history is another matter, and not one I particularly want to argue about. But, I believe (however sincere the suffering of the many and varied victims of the war) many stories such as that of Sadako (and mangas and so forth) are often used to manipulate opinion. Japan (unlike Germany) still hasn’t apologized for its war crimes or made much restitution to the families of the victims. The US has much blood on its hands too, although not as much. I certainly think both need to apologize. It could do little harm, after all.
Quoting MG: “When I was a child we were made to practice drills in the event of a nuclear attack. We were told to get under our desks and cover our heads with our hands.”
That’s actually something that I experienced myself during kindergarden and first class which was some time around the early 1980s. And it was pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were usually brought up to legitimize such practices considering the fact that, at the time, the cold war had long since become less of a threat.
[quote comment="61010"]Sometimes there simply isn’t much rationality to our decisions [/quote]
There is of course a certain rationality to the decisions of the US leadership. It is rationality in terms of profit maximation or maybe system maintainance. So if the goal is to stay the most powerful nation in the world, doing everything to achieve that would be rational choice (see: economics, the paradigme, RREEMM, Homo Oeconomicus).
[quote comment="61010"] The US has much blood on its hands too, although not as much. I certainly think both need to apologize. It could do little harm, after all.[/quote]
I think it inappropriate to argue over which country has killed how many people throughout its history. Such a debate is inevitably doomed to be irrelevant.
[quote comment="61024"][quote comment="61010"]Sometimes there simply isn’t much rationality to our decisions [/quote]
There is of course a certain rationality to the decisions of the US leadership. It is rationality in terms of profit maximation or maybe system maintainance. So if the goal is to stay the most powerful nation in the world, doing everything to achieve that would be rational choice (see: economics, the paradigme, RREEMM, Homo Oeconomicus).
[quote comment="61010"] The US has much blood on its hands too, although not as much. I certainly think both need to apologize. It could do little harm, after all.[/quote]
I think it inappropriate to argue over which country has killed how many people throughout its history. Such a debate is inevitably doomed to be irrelevant.[/quote]
I think it is entirely justified to compare the death toll of wars. I think we can agree the Second World War was worse in most every way than Iraq. Irrelevant?
Not at all! How could apologizing not help in at least some way (provided it was sincere)? We still live in a dangerously nuclearized world (as I pointed out) and one of our best chances to determine a sensible approach for the future is to draw on lessons of the past. Of course historical debate is relevant and important to our understanding of issues of this kind.
Now, I don’t want to rant about the various mass-genocides of history and I agree that is not a very fruitful exercise. War is war, after all. But there are instances in which it may prove useful for comparison. It is hard to suggest that the US was as totalitarian in genocide in comparison with Japan, for example. The difference in the number of victims is not a pointless discussion either - for example the roughly 400,000 victims of the atomic bombings don’t scratch the surface of the casualties taken in China or at Stalingrad and Leningrad (even Kiev and such others were several times more bloody, on a purely numeric basis). Nevertheless I retract that comment; it really wasn’t very relevant.
Although I’m totally behind an apology to them - proving little as it might, it is still a moral imperative the way I see it.
[quote comment="61085"]I think it is entirely justified to compare the death toll of wars. I think we can agree the Second World War was worse in most every way than Iraq. Irrelevant?[/quote]
That’s something totally different than I wrote above. I didn’t say that we shouldn’t talk about death tolls of wars, but about “who has more blood on his hands”. Don’t you see the semantic difference in that?
And then: I find it of course “irrelevant” in some way to discuss which war was more evil. It’s starting to become irrelevant as soon as you put the discussion on a personal level: be sure that the mother who has lost her children in Iraq couldn’t care any less about the fact, that in WWII much more people died actually than in Iraq, due to the bitter truth, that it was the war in Iraq that took away her kids and NOT WWII. I think there is some emancipation in thinking to be done in regards to that issue. War means people dying, definately and irrespective of tolls, reasons or participating nations.
[quote comment="61085"]Not at all! How could apologizing not help in at least some way (provided it was sincere)?[/quote]
Does it really need death tolls to legitimize calls for an appology adressing those in charge? I don’t think so. And that’s what we were talking about: you think appologizing is a matter of how much blood is on the hands of a country. That’s what you said, ain’t it?
The truth is: a nation having inflicted war and death on others appologizing or not towards the victims mainly depends on the geopolitical status of that country after the war has ended. Be sure that germany hadn’t appologized to that very day would it not have been defeated, destroyed and totally dependent on the good will of others. You have a different situation for the USA and also it was different for Japan. That’s why for them there still is no need to come to terms with their past.
[quote comment="61085"]Now, I don’t want to rant about the various mass-genocides of history and I agree that is not a very fruitful exercise. War is war, after all.[/quote]
Well, that’s what I was about to express.
You know, my point of view is deriving from the theses that as long as there is some sort of codified extra-ordinary worst case that has been and that can’t be compared to anything else there won’t be possibilities of recognizing similar events in the future as what they really are, since comparing to the worst case has widely become a no go. I find that sort of dangerous, as people tend to think like: “Oh, they haven’t killed 6 Million of the other one, than it’s not as bad as the holocaust and thus can be neglected.”
Tradition maintanance is a form of historical policy.
OMG, that’s so difficult to express in english….
The history can’t be changed. They happened with some reason, if I remember correctly from my memory of school studies, it was a sort of experiment, but anyway it happened.
In Japan still some people who were exposed with the bomb are suffering from some diseases and nightmare.
I think the best thing we can do is abandoning every nuclear weapon.
Nothing that happened in the past changes even if we accuse someone or a country or something, just all we can do is ask for all of the world to abandon nuclear weapon.
I understand some people say nuclear weapon is a kind of deterrence, but reconsider it please, if no one has nuclear weapon, that’s much better.
[quote comment="61086"]
That’s something totally different than I wrote above. I didn’t say that we shouldn’t talk about death tolls of wars, but about “who has more blood on his hands”. Don’t you see the semantic difference in that? [/quote]
Debatable, but I don’t care to do so. Not now at least.
[quote comment="61086"]
And then: I find it of course “irrelevant” in some way to discuss which war was more evil. It’s starting to become irrelevant as soon as you put the discussion on a personal level: be sure that the mother who has lost her children in Iraq couldn’t care any less about the fact, that in WWII much more people died actually than in Iraq, due to the bitter truth, that it was the war in Iraq that took away her kids and NOT WWII. I think there is some emancipation in thinking to be done in regards to that issue. War means people dying, definately and irrespective of tolls, reasons or participating nations. [/quote]
Of course. Winners (and powerful nations) see little use in apology. The historical importance of WW2 isn’t too debatable, though, although I most definately see your point with regards to the present. Of course, although in absolute terms the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been small in relative terms, there have been far-reaching implications due to it. And it has been about as terrible for combatant and civilian alike for those involved.
[quote comment="61086"]
Does it really need death tolls to legitimize calls for an appology adressing those in charge? I don’t think so. And that’s what we were talking about: you think appologizing is a matter of how much blood is on the hands of a country. That’s what you said, ain’t it? [/quote]
Yes. You’re right.
[quote comment="61086"]
You know, my point of view is deriving from the theses that as long as there is some sort of codified extra-ordinary worst case that has been and that can’t be compared to anything else there won’t be possibilities of recognizing similar events in the future as what they really are, since comparing to the worst case has widely become a no go. I find that sort of dangerous, as people tend to think like: “Oh, they haven’t killed 6 Million of the other one, than it’s not as bad as the holocaust and thus can be neglected.”
[/quote]
I never meant to suggest that, although that that comparison is overused and unfair is certainly the case. “What’s a few 10,000 dead to the holocaust anyway?”
It’s still horrible and should be treated as such. I wonder if people are less sensitive to such news today than 100 years ago… undoubtedly.
My main point, by the way, was simply that there are some people who mistakenly overestimate the importance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and do not understand their political (rather than faux military) importance. They were nowhere near as bloody as other episodes of the war, but no less horrible. That was all.