Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Leaving aside the historical inaccuracy of the suggesting that we had a big huge stockpile of A-bombs.....
On what theory -- other than "the interests of a nation justify the deaths of millions" -- can you possibly advocate "dropping A-bombs where we think Stalin is?"
As a history prof of mine put it -- we hanged people at Nuremberg for doing what you are suggesting, but they did it on a much smaller scale.
|
In September of 1945 what is the difference between Russia and Japan? Russia has invaded Poland and Finland. Japan had invaded islands in the Pacific. Both were nations with a history of aggression.
At this point with Japan the United States demanded unconditional surrender. We didn't have to ask for unconditional surrender. Japane would have done a peace deal, but we demanded full surrender because we did not trust their government to be peaceful. Why was the Japanese government any less trustworthy than Russia.
The only difference between the two countrys was that we had not gotten in Russia's way when it was trying to take chunks of Europe but we had gotten in the way of the Japanese we they were trying to take chunks of the Pacific.
Stalins government was infinitely more evil than the Japanese government. Stalin stepping down would have been a lot better for the Russias than Tojo stepping down in Japan (in otherwords if Tojo has stayed in power what he would have done to Japan would have been a lot less worse than what Stalin had in store for the USSR).
So why was it OK to bomb the Japanese until their government stepped down, but it was not OK for us to bomb Russia until Stalin stepped down?
Just because one attacked us and the other one did not? If they attack us we can demand unconditional surrender, but if they attack someone else (Poland and Finland) and have a much more hostile and aggresive government we have to leave them alone?
