The Decission to use the Atomic Bomb...

[vargtass]

togheter

The allies would not have succeded without the russians, americans or British.

And about the atomic bombs:

Positive: Japan gave up.

Negative: Civilian casualties.

What would have happend if America did not drop the bombs? Maybe more ppl would have died, u never know...

[bosse_s]

I am troubled about one thing

I think that we (and I am mostly refering to us living in the Western world) have been brought up to a life in a world of of individual rights. During the 20th century, the rights of indivudals have prospered (legal rights, democratic rights, protection from abuse etc)

My question if - if nations, to a larger extent than during wwII, today have to pay attention to individual rights, then does it make sense to discuss about killing people as a protection for (possible) future deaths?

We know that thousands of lives were taken away instantly, and hundreds of time more in the long-term effects of the atomic bombs in Japan. In that era and that context, the argument was pretty much to avoid further problems. At that time, indivual rights were just being born.

But today, can we argue the same way? International and domestic right to a large extent focus upon individual rights towards the interest of nations. We can't use people as tools of nations anymore, at least that is the thought that is very much practiced in Europeand and U.S legislation.

I think this is when it gets confusing, by looking at the present U.S. administration. The dealing with the prisoners of Camp X-ray says a lot about this. In the interest of the U.S. nation, hundreds of individuals (including Swedish citizens) have been jailed without any leagal protection - against national and international jurisdiction. And the way the U.S deals with it (slow process, keeping it off American soil, lack of openess etc) eventhough the direct threat towards the U.S is removed, confirms to me that the U.S still thinks "nation" ahead of "individuals".

The U.S distance to the UN might have a significant importance and value to the U.S, but I really wonder if it does not have a serious backlash upon what legal protection individuals have - both in the U.S.A and in this world. How do we acknowledge human rights while the largest democracy in the world show that they are always side-stepped by the interest of the nation.

It does not make sense to what I have grown up to believe in, and to argue for towards those who do no yet have - or believe in - the luxury of being being seen as an individual rather than a tool in the hand of our leaders.



[Edited by bosse_s on 21st May 2004 at 11:41]

[lolly]

Originally posted by DruidSmith

Sorry you feel so slighted, Lolly, but over here we DO in fact hear about the valiant Aussies in North Africa and Pacific campaigns. The Aussies were certainly key in keeping the Afrika Korps in check. But likewise I hope you don't RESENT the US efforts for example in the battle of Coral Sea during the Japanese New Guinea campaign.

Too bad we seem to have lost this sense of coalition and those skills in stabilization and rebuilding since.

[Edited by DruidSmith on 20th May 2004 at 12:21]

I certainly don't resent the fact they were there. I just don't want to hear about how they saved the world.

I don't think people pay enough attention to what the Russian's suffered and fought back with during WW2. Out of every other country, they lost more people than all others combined.

[DruidSmith]

Certainly Russia had massive and horrendous losses- there were many particularly bloody battles fought on that front. We were in fact taught about the role of the Russians and others in WWII, the US saved the world slant you percieve isn't as severe in reality here in the US.

But I digress- to my recollection, Britain and the US weren't particularly eager to help out on the Russian front, as they saw the Soviets as a potential threat even then, and were frankly glad to see the Germans and Soviets beating each other into a bloody pulp. So that's somewhat of a separate issue... The Soviets weren't strictly an ally as much as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I believe it was General Patton who felt we should have kept the US tanks rolling all the way to Moscow, and Churchill had similar doubts about the Soviets.

Considering the actual threat to US soil was limited, the US did nonetheless pour its entire heart and soul into fighting WWII- as opposed to the british, soviets, french, and so on, who had no choice but to fight or be subjugated. We could have just sent a token force of a few thousand. We could have stayed out of it altogether... We could have left the Germans and Japanese to rebuild themselves... And that's yet another entire series of debates, but to one degree or another, the world would likely be a different place today were it not for the American contribution.

From my perspective, I don't think that "we saved your asses, you ungrateful bastards, you'd all be speaking German or Russian and living in a fascist dictatorship bla bla bla..." card started getting played until the Europeans started jumping up and down yelling about how much they just hate the US, more than anything else. Couple this with none of these same folks expressing that same degree of hatred for Al Qaeda- no, "in fact the US deserved what it got on 9/11"... Salt in the wounds. For every action there is an opposite reaction. Ugliness begets ugliness. Everybody is quick to berate the bad things the US has done in the world, but with short memory for anything good the US has done in the world. So THAT's where it comes from in the head of the average American, though not necessarily all things that I agree with.

For the vast majority of genuine American WWII veterans, the war was and is typically NOT DISCUSSED. It's just us generations of young punks that came after, with our poor schooling and general degree of ignorance.

I'd be particularly surprised to hear that you hear that "we saved your asses you ungrateful bastards" diatribe expressed to Aussies, care to elaborate on that?

[Edited by DruidSmith on 22nd May 2004 at 21:07]

[nonchalant]

i like the last post by druidsmith and agree with those statements as well. it could be that americans feel so adamant about ww2 because it was our last major success in defending a cause that had immediate global implications. i think we are still living off the glory of our efforts during this period of history. from the information i've heard, there was full support of our leaders by every citizen regardless of politcal views in ww2. this doesn't mean that if we weren't successful at normandy that the world would have been taken but europe definitely would have been restructured. history has shown that no nation, with a single form of government, could expect the entire loyalty of all the countries of the world.

[bosse_s]

Originally posted by nonchalant
history has shown that no nation, with a single form of government, could expect the entire loyalty of all the countries of the world.

A truism indeed

[homerandjethroswede]

when i was 20 i was always obbcessed usa did it and wondered if they could have at least dropped it in countryside to save lives just to show we had such power ,or in the ocean

im also obbesed with ww2 and the versaile treaty and i heard it wasnt fair to germany and the french knew it would cause ww2