Was Stalin Right?

[MA-Caver]

Was Stalin Right?

Nothing more fair than the international protests in the case of Iranian Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, sentenced to death by stoning. The case is not unique. In Iraq, a country under U.S. occupation, just in Baghdad alone, 133 women were murdered ("honor murders") in 2007. We should look at other records too. It is estimated that the U.S. invasion has left more than a million dead Iraqis. In what terms should a discussion of human rights be put? You will need to agree with Stalin when he said that "the death of a person is a tragedy; the millions, a statistic." The article is by Reginaldo Nasser.
Reginaldo Nasser (*)

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/16-08-2010/114617-was_stalin_right-0/

Interesting article.
One million dead due to the "occupation" of U.S. Troops in Iraq. Not all by U.S. troops assuredly but primarily as a result. The old guard that were still loyal to Saddam Hussein at the beginning of the invasion/occupation, and presently the insurgents have just as much blood on their hands.
But is it a statistic or a huge tragedy?
According to the author the same thing went on at near the end of WWII and the Japanese.

Aside from the moral issues involved, was the nuclear attack necessary? Japan had been defeated militarily. The Japanese maritime defense area was practically annihilated, U.S. bombers promoted a real devastation in the cities. On the night of March 10, 1945, a wave of 300 American bombers struck Tokyo, killing 100,000 people and destroying 35% of all households. A million residents were displaced. Food had become so scarce that most Japanese lived on a starvation diet. On May 23rd was the largest air raid of the Pacific War, when 10,000 tons of incendiaries were released on Tokyo and other major cities (see this story in the Film: The Fog of War).
According to American air force commander, LeMay, the goal of American bombers was to drive the Japanese "back to the stone age." But the same general said that "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the ending of the war." Today, there are reams of documentation showing that the Japanese in mid-April 1945, were offering surrender terms virtually identical to those that were accepted by the Americans in September (see the excellent historical research on this question in The Journal of Historical Review , May-June 1997, Vol 16, No.3).

(bold highlights are mine)
By the Battle Of Midway the threat to coastal U.S. was marginal at best and worries about the Japanese doing something major for a while should've been minimal. With the bulk of their Naval might decimated and no other long-range methods of logistics at their disposal "pounding them back to the stone age" was a bit over-kill. Of course the war would've dragged on much longer.
Right now we're withdrawing (finally ??) from Iraq. Yet we're still occupying another country in force. Separate places but in many ways related. Historically Afghanistan has been a very tough place to keep, just ask the Soviets.
How many will die before we decide to withdraw? Where will we go to next? How many more will die in the name of freedom?

 

[Blade96]

Good post and I agree. In fact i wrote a whole essay about truman not needing the atomic bomb to defeat japan, it was all about the cold war and terrifying the russians.

about the million is a statistic thing well people would call it stats now stalin was no angel but....

 

[Bruno@MT]

There is a difference between the 2 posted examples. In the example with Japan, the people getting shafted were the ones who started the hostilities and there was a legit reason to drop the bomb: to save allied lives, rather than throw them away in a hard fought land war.

In Iraq, the people getting shafted had done nothing wrong, and there was no good reason for invading the country. The people opening the hostilities are also the ones who caused the tragedy.

The latter example is much more 'wrong' imo.
And Stalin was undoubdetly right about it. People care more about singular incidents than about mass tragedies. That doesn't mean it is ok; just that is seems to be the reality.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There is a difference between the 2 posted examples. In the example with Japan, the people getting shafted were the ones who started the hostilities and there was a legit reason to drop the bomb: to save allied lives, rather than throw them away in a hard fought land war.

I am not an expert on WWII, but from what I have read, it was not the Japanese people who wanted war, with the USA or with anyone. Nor did the Emperor. But the military did.

In addition, Japan was very much offended that they were not allowed to participate in the type of empire-building that the Western powers were embarked upon the the Far East. When they attempted to gain a seat at the table, we blockaded them and denied Japan oil, rubber, and iron imports; all prior to the start of WWII.

When it came to the final days of the war, it was understood that the Emperor was seen as a God to the everyday Japanese. If he said for them to fight to the last person, they they would. In the battle of Okinawa, the Japanese Army drove 50,000 Okinawan civilians in between the two armies, resulting in the destruction of nearly all those people. The repeated firebombings of the mainland had not had the desired effect; although the people of Japan were fearful and demoralized, they were not going to stand up to their military or the Emperor and demand an end to the war. It was going to take some monstrous act that would finally convince the Emperor that if Japan did not surrender, it would cease to exist at all.

I do not know about the alleged documents offering surrender prior to the atomic bombs being dropped. Could be; we're still uncovering new historic information.

But I agree that this was very different from the situation in Iraq.

 

[MA-Caver]

But I agree that this was very different from the situation in Iraq.

Yes it is... unless there some solid proof that Saddam had a hand in the 9/11 attacks ($$ or some other type of aid to the terrorists) we actually had no right to go into Iraq. Now sure harboring terrorists is bad, but then so does quite a few other Middle Eastern and African countries. But having an all out invasion to find a couple of small groups? A crack team of commandos can do that couldn't they? Or are we just being systematic one-at-a-time kind of hunting, in full force and while we're there lets westernize these primitive folks? That's going to take an awfully long time isn't it? <sarcastic>

War is damned profitable business so the longer it goes on the better. Maybe not for US but for those who would make a considerable profit from it. Who cares HOW MANY people die in the process?