Overly Glorified or Idealized Historical Figures

[Revoltingest]

Should we brush aside the significant differences in ideology and historical context between the two? Y

In this case, yes.
Lenin vs Stalin goals are irrelevant to the question of
appropriateness of nuclear bombs in Japan. I've no
idea what your purpose is in making this discussion
about those malefactors.

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.

Not on terms acceptable to USA.
I'm not familiar enuf with them to argue whether
they should've been acceptable. I'm adopting that
view as a premise, lest this thread be further derailed.

I didn't say that; I said it's the same kind of reasoning... and it is.

The difference is insignificant.
Dang...quote function is messing with me again.

You posted...
"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."

Logic can be used by anyone. The tools of war
can be (& will be) used by anyone at war.
They don't need my views to justify anything.
They will do what they will do independently.

What matters is whether one believes the goals
to be worthwhile. Winning WW2 justified many
terrible things. Winning it more quickly justified
more terrible things.
And assuming the premise that Japan was unwilling
to surrender under appropriate terms, your way is
even worse (IMO), ie, continuing the conventional war.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I just don't see you as trying to understand that morality
is complex, & that reasonable people can disagree.
You seem to have moral absolutes, & bristle at opposing
views. I don't think you're wrong...you're not even wrong.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In this case, yes.
Lenin vs Stalin goals are irrelevant to the question of
appropriateness of nuclear bombs in Japan. I've no
idea what your purpose is in making this discussion
about those malefactors.

I'm bringing them up as an example of two things:

• That consideration of past actions in historical context doesn't mean we can't find said actions atrocious even within their own historical context.

• That "the ends justify the means" has more often than not been an extremely harmful principle from which a leader or decision-maker could operate. Under that logic, all one needs to do is be convinced that a goal is sufficiently worthwhile in order to justify all manner of abuse and violence in pursuit of it.

Not on terms acceptable to USA.
I'm not familiar enuf with them to argue whether
they should've been acceptable. I'm adopting that
view as a premise, lest this thread be further derailed.

That's a relevant and core point, however, and considering that the US hasn't exactly been a benevolent global actor in the last several decades, I find "satisfactory to the US" to be quite a lacking criterion by which to judge Japan's terms of surrender.

The difference is insignificant.
Dang...quote function is messing with me again.

You posted...
"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."

Logic can be used by anyone. The tools of war
can be (& will be) used by anyone at war.
They don't need my views to justify anything.
They will do what they will do independently.

What matters is whether one believes the goals
to be worthwhile. Winning WW2 justified many
terrible things. Winning it more quickly justified
more terrible things.
And assuming the premise that Japan was unwilling
to surrender under appropriate terms, your way is
even worse (IMO), ie, continuing the conventional war.

These are the same points we have already been over. I have nothing to add that wouldn't be a recycling of previous points.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I just don't see you as trying to understand that morality.

Because it is not morally defensible. You "disagree" about the historical "factoids", but those are the facts of what had happened. To frame with an analogy, it's like shooting someone right as they're going to tie the white flag on the pole.

That is what I disagree with; the position that it was useful and indeed moral.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm bringing them up as an example of two things:

• That consideration of past actions in historical context doesn't mean we can't find said actions atrocious even within their own historical context.
• That "the ends justify the means" has more often than not been an extremely harmful principle from which a leader or decision-maker could operate. Under that logic, all one needs to do is be convinced that a goal is sufficiently worthwhile in order to justify all manner of abuse and violence in pursuit of it.

That still doesn't make relevant the differences
between the goals & evil acts of Lenin vs Stalin.

That's a relevant and core point, however, and considering that the US hasn't exactly been a benevolent global actor in the last several decades, I find "satisfactory to the US" to be quite a lacking criterion by which to judge Japan's terms of surrender.

Since I'm not making a general argument that
USA is either good or evil, that is irrelevant.
I'm addressing the WW2 choice to use nuclear
bombs on Japan.

You can't win an argument specific to a particular
issue at particular time & place by making general
criticism about more recent USA behavior.
That just smells of mere anti-USA hostility.
Moreover, it ignores my criticiising many of the
same things.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because it is not morally defensible.

You have a bad case of belief in "The Truth".
I'm not a simplistic moral absolutist.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You have a bad case of belief in "The Truth".
I'm not a simplistic moral absolutist.

So then tell us, as
1. A land invasion to force surrender of Japan was unnecessary, and
2. Japan was in the process of negotiations for their surrender, and
3. US officials and joint chief of staff largely disagreed with use of the bombs,

How then can you claim that it was useful and morally justified? Seems very simplistic and absolutionist to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

So then tell us, as
1. A land invasion to force surrender of Japan was unnecessary, and
2. Japan was in the process of negotiations for their surrender, and
3. US officials and joint chief of staff largely disagreed with use of the bombs,

How then can you claim that it was useful and morally justified? Seems very simplistic and absolutionist to me.

Well trodden ground there.
Nothing to add.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

History isn't there for you to judge

Disagree. What other use would it have? We evaluate the past to understand the present and shape the future.