History isn't 'just is'. It's interpretive. I say that as someone who strongly disagrees with judging historical figures and actions through a modern lens.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Overly Glorified or Idealized Historical Figures
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
History isn't 'just is'. It's interpretive. I say that as someone who strongly disagrees with judging historical figures and actions through a modern lens.
Meh...useful is a low bar for the use of atomic weapons. Nagasaki was as much about sending a message to the Russians as it was anything to do with Japan. I say that as someone who sees the Japanese as worse than the Nazis in many ways, whose grandfather fought them, etc.
I don't think I'm speaking from a place of emotional baggage, but if I were, it would serve to bias me against the Japanese.
Hiroshima...maybe. Nagasaki..nope. Can't see the justification, unless one were to look at it from an emotional point of view...
It's the term I used because it accurately reflects my views.
And yes, I'm aware of the Soviet factor in the decision.
(Twas another poster carrying the baggage.)
Hiroshima didn't finish the job.
Nagasaki brought surrender.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I strongly disagree. Not two days later the Allied Powers gathered together and found legal reason to hold the Nuremberg Charter and hold Nazi Germany accountable for crimes against humanity. There was the Hague Convention and the Lieber Code, both geared toward the protection of civilians and civilian property during times of war. As well I would imagine that parts of the First and Second Geneva Convention were broken by the bombs being dropped, as medical facilities and religious sites would have certainly been destroyed and damaged by the targeted attack. I would go so far as to say our government would be subject to the Nuremberg Charter itself, and having committed that act so close to the trials is excessively hypocritical.
In any case it was more than just another military operation, it was an attack on a civilian population. We have no right to clap our hands and say "Well, there wasn't a law written that said we couldn't do that yet."
Weren't you the one whining about "good form" for not being tagged or mentioned when addressing your posts? Aye, you were. And here you are, yet again, vaguely referencing me whist doing the same... With the added quip that I'm joking about the topic; how hypocritically droll.
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
Yep, "crimes against humanity" which were made up post factum. That seemed a better way (even though it broke all juridical principles) than indicting them for war crimes. The axis and the allies had de facto agreed to suspend international treaties by ignoring them equally on both sides. Bombs against civilians were used long before Hiroshima. The effects of atomic bombs were widely unknown so that, at the time, the only thing that was special about them, was the destructive power.
And that effect wasn't unique, since
firestorms caused even more deaths.
Odd....I see no argument that those
were war crimes, or even improper.
Once again, it appears that people are
upset because the weapons were nuclear,
not because of the extent of death &
destruction.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Then as per usual Revolting, you're not paying attention.
The issue here seems to be word use. Call it what we will today, at the heart of the matter is that we committed an act that not two days later we condemned and judged Nazi Germany of the same. We slaughtered 200,000 civilians without need, and have not been held accountable for that in any way.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Nope. The "crimes against humanity" were not war crimes. The allies did recognize the hypocrisy that would result. They invented a new crime that wasn't even on the books until then to avoid the hypocrisy.
Lenin's approach to his revolution was useful to his goals insofar as achieving them faster, but I think we agree that despite the historical context, neither of us would look back on much of what he did and justify it. Why shouldn't usefulness be cited as a justification in his case, though?
I'm phrasing the question in a way that presupposes we agree that many of Lenin's actions were indefensible, because I'm almost certain we do.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
My argument is that - ideologically - it does not absolve us of the hypocrisy. In fact, I would say that it makes it worse. It is a direct application of "Good for me, but not for thee" with only the saving grace that we "won" the war.
If the issue is one of terminology, then let's call them "atrocities" or "mass murder of civilians."
I also don't see the point in the "at the time, it was just a bigger bomb" distinction. Yes, the difference between a grenade and a nuke is primarily one of size and reach. Size makes all the difference in terms of the lives lost and the "collateral damage," except that the nukes were knowingly dropped on civilians.
And therein lies the matter of morality,
which is more important than the tools,
eg, killing, destroying.
I judge Lenin's & Stalin's goals as immoral.
But USA's goals to win WW2 were moral.
Do you disagree, or find morality of goals
to be irrelevant?
Last edited:
I strongly disagree, since I have consequentialist leanings (although I'm not fully in favor of that philosophy). The ends don't always justify the means, and "good intentions" don't justify atrocities.
Lenin's ideology was quite different from Stalin's. They had a lot of different goals and ruled in very different circumstances.
Either way, as I said, "the ends justify the means" is an adage I rarely find applicable in practice.
Lenin differs from Stalin....meh....tomato differs from tomahto.
We disagree about which ends are justified in which circumstances.
(Although my disagreement isn't strong due to complexity
of the choice. I'll leave passionate positioning to others.)
I weigh the alternatives, & choose the lesser evil...which is about consequences.
Your choice is simply a different evil...but it's still evil...the greater evil IMO,
ie, an extended war with hand-to-hand killing, firebombing, shelling, etc.
Claiming that my choice enables Russian evils is specious.
Last edited:
Let's not wield labels as though they
make the argument for you, eh.
War is all about murdering people & destroying things
on the other side. It should be done with thoughtful
balancing of useful results with minimum carnage.
But it's going to be brutal & full of controversial choices.
Last edited:
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Oh! Oh the whole point is wholesale slaughter. Silly us, that makes everything okay then.
Here's where that whole position falls apart. You, Revolting, have stated that not only was the nuking of 200,000 civilians useful, but that the goals of the US were moral.
Which again, completely ignores the established historical fact that Japan was in the process of surrender, a land invasion was not going to be necessary, and neither was the bombing of two cities necessary to bring about surrender.
Whatever post-war absolution we've given ourselves, we bombed a civilian population and killed 200,000 innocents of a nation that had given up on further aggressions.
Here's where that whole position falls apart. You, Revolting, have stated that not only was the nuking of 200,000 civilians useful, but that the goals of the US were moral.
Which again, completely ignores the established historical fact that Japan was in the process of surrender, a land invasion was not going to be necessary, and neither was the bombing of two cities necessary to bring about surrender.
Whatever post-war absolution we've given ourselves, we bombed a civilian population and killed 200,000 innocents of a nation that had given up on further aggressions.
Last edited:
Should we brush aside the significant differences in ideology and historical context between the two? You have no problem taking into account the historical context of the twin bombings, so I'm sure you could do the same in this case too.
This has already been addressed. We don't know that the alternative was "extended war"; there's evidence that Japan had already been willing to surrender.
I didn't say that; I said it's the same kind of reasoning... and it is. Anyone who agrees with Putin's goals could use the same logic you're using to justify the means with which Russia is pursuing those goals. Never mind the mass murder of civilians, war crimes, and hostile interventionism; they're just "useful" to achieve his ends.
As always, you add so much to the discussion.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Then I'll reiterate what I added.
Here's where that whole position falls apart. You, Revolting, have stated that not only was the nuking of 200,000 civilians useful, but that the goals of the US were moral.
Which again, completely ignores the established historical fact that Japan was in the process of surrender, a land invasion was not going to be necessary, and neither was the bombing of two cities necessary to bring about surrender.
Whatever post-war absolution we've given ourselves, we bombed a civilian population and killed 200,000 innocents of a nation that had given up on further aggressions.