posted 12-07-98 10:40 AM ET        

Do people think that Pearl Harbor day has been intentionaly forgotten? Should it be? have any of the younger SMACers even heard of it?

Personaly, IMHO, it worries me that such days of rememberance are falling by the wayside. And to those who say that remembering war is rememberng hate, I say that doesn't have to be the case.

Thanks for listening to the rant.

posted 12-07-98 04:16 PM ET            

Yes I too remember, and I am 18 years old. YYYH will probably remember as well and I'm a year senior to him.

posted 12-07-98 05:09 PM ET            

No secret that the U.S. was essentially allied at that point with boats and trucks to the UK and USSR, but still, it's a quantum leap to open hostilities. I mean, why not just wipe up the British Empire in the Pacific first, and then pick a fight with a United States with only a few meager possessions-- (except perhaps for the Phillipines)? I mean, what were they thinking, anyways? Is this something you would do as a startegic gamer?

And what could they really hope to gain? Look, if the Japanese really wanted to do it right Pearl Harbor Day would've been maybe December 7, 1944 or something like that. By then they could have secured enough bases for raw materials and either worn down or eradicated the British Empire from the Theatre.

My only guess is that maybe there was some strategic resource that was only being produced on the Phillipine islands-- other than that, I really can't explain Pearl Harbor Day.

posted 12-07-98 06:53 PM ET            

Now it is true that the Japanese government has never accepted their responsibility as aggressors in the Pacific, never paid out the moneys owed to "comfort girls", never owned up to concentration camp atrocities, and all that, but to paint the U.S. as "my country, right or wrong" is absurd.

How about the U.S. internment camps for the Japanese-- relatively few died there, but can you deny that the government deprived citizens of the same civil rights that soldiers and marines were dying half a world away for? Hey, you wanna talk concentration camps-- check out the ones the U.S. inflicted on its own soldiers during the Civil War. How about the ones we used on the Indians, or Natives Americans-- you know, the ones where blankets were given freely to the Indians. Blankets with pox, that is. Biological warfare is quite dirty business, isn't it? Suppose that's why you don't read about it in American History class (at least in America).

Hey, I know it was 100 years ago-- but I don't have to go that far, do I? How about the countless villages we burned in Viet Nam, the napalm we dropped on enemy soldier and neutral civilian alike? How about indiscriminate killing in the name of anti-communism and democracy? How 'bout it?

posted 12-07-98 07:20 PM ET            

You should only judge a people when its goverment does something horrable. IE. Killing 20 Million people. the Nazi. Or raping a entire city, the Japananese.

Sure America has done some things we are not we maybe should have not done. But to say that we are the same as the Nazi is not only decreasing the horrors they inflicted, insulting the survivers, and making one heck of a overstatment.

Treating 1,000,000 native americans bady is not the same as killing 20 million people. the Goverment of the US never indorced Geonocide, we did want to assimulate but did not want to wipe out.

And what State are you from? I learned all this is American history classes.

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 12-07-98 08:10 PM ET            

I indeed leanred that all in my history class as well Hothram.

I think it's stupid that the Japs try & make us feel bad about nuking two of their cities during a WAR. They would have killed as many Americans, in the invasion & occupation, as the civilians in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. More civilians would have died in their full blown & suicidal attempts to stop us, then when we nuked them. As many have pointed out, the Japanese don't seem to remember that they started the war by a sneak attack on us, on their concentration camps, etc etc.

I have never been to Pearl Harbor, yet. But I plan on going some time in the future.

posted 12-07-98 08:50 PM ET            

But enough of that-- hey, I was just considering acts of war here, but I forgot our other wonderful actions.

How about all those folks (Irish, Chinese, Black) who died putting the intercontinental railway together? How about the blacks who not only built the South with their bare hands, but did so while under the lash?

Talk about racism towards Jews? They had a very horrible time for 20 years, which leaves them about 300 or so short on the oppression visited upon America's minorities.

posted 12-07-98 09:10 PM ET            

Oh, and American History folks:

What is the Trail of Tears?
What name did the Seminoles give Andrew Jackson?

How many slaves did Thomas Jefferson own?
How many did he free by the time of his death?
Why were so few selected?

Why did Texas declare independence from Mexico?

How was the nation of Panama founded?

What president barred blacks and whites from working together in federal offices?

What year was Thanksgiving first celebrated as a Holiday?
Who was Squanto?
Why did he cast his lots with the Pilgrims once they landed at Plymouth?
How did the settlers at Plymouth originally acquire tools?

What was Hellen Keller's political stance?

posted 12-07-98 10:41 PM ET            

This is the trail that the Cherokee Nation took when they got relocated from N.Alabama.

And if this is your example of a "horrable" action by the US goverment think again. Altought the Prez at that time ordered the removal the Supreme Court of the US under Chief Justice Marshall voted that this was unconstituional and that he should not be able to do that. Is it really our fault that at that time the military and the Presedent had far to much power?

"What name did the Seminoles give Andrew Jackson?"

Who cares? The Seminoles where not very nice people. They are not a good example of a Native Tribe that was oppreste by the evil Europeans. There idea of fun was seeing how many days/weeks they could keep people alive and screaming. The other Tribes that lived near them HATED them and asked us for help in fighting them.

How many slaves did Thomas Jefferson own?
Few thousand. Who cares? Slaverly was inmoroal but still legal. Look to Hamilton as the first true American.

"How many did he free by the time of his death?"

Probibly none... cannot remember if it was him or Washington who freeing all his slaves.

"Why were so few selected?"
have no idea, do not see the point.

"Why did Texas declare independence from Mexico?"
Because they had no say in there goverment. The new Prez Santa Anna was insain. And they were not allowed to have there own goverment.
Some people say it was because of slaves, but thats not true because the amount of slaves in Texas was extremly small. So small it was not a issue.

"How was the nation of Panama founded?"
We backed some revulutionarys to fight Colombia which at that time owned Panama. WE created that nation.

"What president barred blacks and whites from working together in federal offices?"

Who cares? Was probibly before desegration.

"What year was Thanksgiving first celebrated as a Holiday?" Have no idea.

"Who was Squanto?"
no idea.

"Why did he cast his lots with the Pilgrims once they landed at Plymouth?"
still no idea.

"How did the settlers at Plymouth originally acquire tools?"
traded from the indians.

"What was Hellen Keller's political stance?"
have no idea.

"Answer these correctly, and you're on your way to truth."

Nope just you making a Mountain out of a ant hill.

Hothram Upravda
TB

On the subject of crazy Apologists i once heard that some group wanted the US to say we where sorry for killing Germans during WW2.....

P.S. O yea "20,000,000" Indians in the New World DOES not mean 20 Mil in North America.
N.America did not have a very large indian population. And also most inportantly the VAST 90%+ of deaths in the Indian populations where because of DIESEASE!!!! Can we say malaria, flu, and god knows what else...

posted 12-07-98 11:11 PM ET            

Even I, a non-american know enough about American history to know your opinions are rather one-sided. The fact of the matter is you had no right to take any land of them at all.

posted 12-07-98 11:17 PM ET            

Yes, we "founded" Panama. But you leave out a crucial point. The only reason we did so was that Colombia was not willing to give us the land for the Panama Canal. We supported the revolution in exchange for the land.

Actually, the whole issue of Indian removal was hotly debated, with the Northeastern states and the more religious factions on the side of the Indians. The case that the Indians won before the court was contesting a Georgia law that required any white man in Cherokee territory to register with the state, thereby saying that Georgia did not have jurisdiction over Cherokee lands. Jackson was quoted as saying, "John Marshal has made his decision; now let him enforce it." It wasn't until the Presidency of van Buren that the Cherokee were forcibly removed(the 'Trail of Tears', where many Cherokee died due to starvation and illness). Altogether one of the darker moments of US history. It is very interesting to note that Jackson had adopted a Cherokee boy as his son. Jackson also carefully portrayed Indian removal as voluntary and to the benefit of the Indians.

posted 12-07-98 11:44 PM ET            

"My country, right or wrong, my country." - Steven Decateur, US Navy

posted 12-08-98 12:00 AM ET            

As to Jojo's questions, I know a few and realize I should know more. Although not knowing the past makes us likely to repeat it, it is more important to guess right from wrong today and ACT accordingly.

posted 12-08-98 01:35 AM ET            

While I agree with your point, you used the wrong reasoning to come to it. The Japanese CIVILIANS who lived there did nothing to bring this down on them selves. That was their government, as Hothram says. And their government fell after the war. Should we grieve? Maybe, but we should not regret. It was a war, after all, and we saved more Japanese and American lives but not invading, and we kept Japan free of communism.

Columbia would sell us the canal; they just wanted more money. This was not a wise thing to do with TR as president, who regarded the Latin American countries as virtual protectorates of the US. So we made Panama.

"What president barred blacks and whites from working together in federal offices?"

I'm going to guess Wilson. While an idealist and a fan of self-determination of other countries, Wilson was a virulent racist against blacks and actually helped institutionalize segregation in the army, and in the government too I suppose.

posted 12-08-98 01:46 AM ET            

A few days or weeks ago, wasn't there the anniversary of a disasterous Canadian raid during World War II which resulted in 80% odd casulties.

On a totally unrelated note, wasn't their some scandal in Europe about some Scandanavian country having a eugenics program in place until the late 1970's?

posted 12-08-98 02:01 AM ET            

As for the last thing you said, AUH:
"Half of everything in life is luck, James."
"And the other half?"
"Fate."

show me a moral war, and i'll show you a species that is savage enough to justify mass murder.

posted 12-08-98 02:28 AM ET            

AUH20: that was a extremly well writen post. Good job .

O yea Yamato knew that Japan could not win a war with the US even if he was able to complety wipe out the US fleet. For it only took 6 months for the US to completly remake and rebuild that fleet.

posted 12-08-98 03:21 AM ET            

Perhaps as bad as the nuclear weapons were the fire bombs. The biggest impact these had were on the civilan homes and the civilians who dwelled in them.

posted 12-08-98 08:27 AM ET            

AUH2O: You said that Solzhenitsyn was arrested and imprisoned due to the secret police intercepting a letter of his, and how this didn't happen in the US. Tabs were kept on civil rights activists throughout the 50s and 60s, which included intercepting mail.

posted 12-08-98 12:29 PM ET            

Little side note: Had FDR know should he of allowed it, inorder to get the US into the war?

Midway was the diffintion of luck though. However the US resolve would have won. Midway did take sereval years off the war.

The only border line things the US officailly did in WW2 was the sinking of Jap merchant ships, didn't someone get ten years for that, and the killing of the Admiral. Is targeting one man a war crime even if he is a great tatician.

posted 12-08-98 03:18 PM ET            

It is, however, undeniable that the casualties on both sides would have been greater if an invasion had taken place. It is somewhat plausible to imagine a communist North Japan emerging after the war had ended, sometime in 1946 or 1947.

But we hook ourselves on the horns of a false dilemma. The assumption is that the bombs could have been dropped on unscathed Japanese cities or the could not be dropped at all.

Many options lie in between which we not explored, including dropping the bombs as demonstrations.

Another alternative would have been for the Allies to revise the Potsdam declarations to assure the Japanese that the dynasty would remain (which it did) even if the government was entirely replaced (which it was).

The fact is that using atomic weapons on highly populated, previously untouched cities was in all likelihood, the harshest of all possible options. The only thing harsher may have been to bomb the Emporer's palace-- which of course would leave a gap as to who exactly would be around to sign the instrument of surrender.

Yesterday, I posted a series of questions about the Good Old U.S.A. up here for folks who fancied themselves History experts. I confess that I was a little surprised (but not too much) that one set of responses consisted mostly of "who cares?"

I bet our buddies outside the U.S. weren't too surprised by those answers....

By the way, Helen Keller was a rabid Socialist-- practically a Bolshevik, who led labor demonstrations and protests. She was as red as red could be. But you don't get that in American History class-- all you get is that she was a blind-deaf who was able to overcome her handicap-- with the implied message of "so if you think you have problems, just look at what she did, and quit your complaining." The message loses its meaning once you add that she was an anti-business agitator who DID complain-- not about her afflictions, but those imposed on the working class.

posted 12-08-98 03:44 PM ET            

I find that in many of these threads the vast majority of folks criticize the USA rather than complement. Is this type of fanaticism the world is growing familiar with?

AUH20 had some very valid points in his statements. Capatilism is not the best, but it is the best we have going. It is up to people to step up and take responsibility and do something. There is not a thing wrong about that. Sure, some people are at a disadvantage, but I would rather be here in this country with a disadvantage than in most others.

There is one topic that is increasingly interesting to me. The bombing of Japan to end the war. My college thesis was over this exact issue. Was it done in malice or necessity? Very interesting. Truman had some of the best people surrounding him, so the judgement was made with accute and intelligent people. However, I don't think too many in this thread have really given thought to the mass bombing in Europe by both the allies and the nazis. Or Stalin and his Death Camps. Two wrongs do not make a right, but there again is two sides to the issue. The free world went to war because it was attacked and looked at Totalitarianism as evil. There was a "good" reason to fight. We had a purpose and hopefully a good goal. There is no such thing as a "gentleman's" war. War is evil no matter what and the first victims are the innocent.

War sucks, but it happens and it always will.
I just hope that this "anti-Americans" as well as these "pro-nationalist Americans" can be a little rational and "fair" and try to see the issues from both sides.

posted 12-08-98 04:10 PM ET            

----

posted 12-08-98 04:22 PM ET            

"The other countries in WWII committed atrocities, so it's OK if the U.S. did, too."

Kind of a flexible morality there. Assume that this is a correct position. Why then does the U.S. like to focus on the deaths at Pearl Harbor and not the ones in Hiroshima? Aren't both tragic events?

No, we were asked to remember Pearl Harbor Day, and all the brave people who died in its defense. What about the innocent and defenseless people who died because they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time?

It seems another counter-argument in this thread runs something like this: "Well, the U.S. is not perfect, but no nation has ever been perfect."

This is a worthless truism. Of course the U.S. is not perfect, nor should we expect it to be, nor can anyone make it perfect, nor will it ever be perfect. The problem I have is not in the imperfection with the U.S.-- I am aware and coping with its many shortcomings.

The issue, however, is the stance taken by many in the U.S. that its actions are either totally correct, or excusable becuase of noble intentions. U.S. History books never mention avarice or vice as a motive for any action. They also paint us half-pictures so we see heroes like Woodrow Wilson.

Wilson was quite the idealist-- to an extent. Yes, he had the 14 points, yes he wanted democracy to trhive in Europe, and yes, he wanted nations to be formed on culturally acceptable terms.

But only for white people. It was Wilson, as someone pointed out, who segregated blacks in federal service. He was a white supremacist to the extreme. He also feared foreigners on American soil, assuming they were mostly here to stir up revolution. He also made no effort to secure the same human rights guarantees in colonial possessions that he wanted for Europe. Wilson was a great man, with a distinct dark side, but pick up any U.S. History book used in U.S. schools today and find me this information.

posted 12-08-98 04:44 PM ET            

So whould I now concede that dropping the atomic bomb on a heavily populated civilian target was a correct thing becuase Oppenheimer, et. al. said so? What about Leo Szilard? Why no mention of him? Or Einstein's position?

When the first Zeppelins flew over England in WWI what they did was considered atrocious. The impact was negligible in that very few lives were lost and little damage was done. Odd how we can slide down the slope to justify destruction of an entire city.

Now it is entirely impossible to change history in any way; but there are two things which the U.S. currently does which are, for me, morally unacceptable:
1) History class in high school is an indoctrination, not a search for truth. The typical class is taught alleged facts without critical debate of motives. Dates and events become meaningless, just as cotton candy is nutritionless.
2) U.S. History textbooks typically paint all actions and actors (or at least victors) as heroic. The build pedastals for tin gods, and exact reverence from them.

posted 12-08-98 05:12 PM ET            

As for a black or white issue and President Wilson, whats the point, Jojo? His policies, the man, his issues, all are dead and now subject to the estimations of millions for generations to come. There is no President in the USA history that didn't come with some baggage or have some type of hang up.
I am still waiting for you to admit that you would rather work in the USA and bring home that check, study, whatever than in most other places in the world? you see, I think these anti-Americans are all alike. They want to complain, cry race, discrimination, poor me, the "man" has done me in crap and not take the responsibility to pick themselves up and make it a better world. Instead of complaining and being bitter, say something positive and try to work our way to a better life.
I will say something Truman said after the bomb fell: "If the situation had been similiar years from now, I would have done the same thing over again. I made the best decision possible for the time I made it".
I don't justify any killings, but it is either your butt or your enemies and that is a fact. The Japanese had plenty of chances to get a peace. They were dreaming of victory the whole time. Once we took Okinawa, it was a matter of time, and any decent Japanese Citizen, if they knew the truth, probably would have known this and gone for a peace settlement.
As for the History book issues, it is unfortunate that the books don't give more "fair" assessment of both issues in American History. The fact is, people like you Jojo, couldn't have a "decent" history book printed because it couldn't contain everything on both issues to your satisfaction. My point is, History is subjective to a point and will always be judged by the living. I doubt if we could agree on a standard History book for the entire USA. Where I live, the History of Native Americans is widely taught. Where does that leave African America? Mexican? Asian, etc. You see my point? When in the college level, all these histories are taught and from what I have observed, very sufficiently.

Jeff
Ceasar of the Stars

posted 12-08-98 05:46 PM ET            

Now then, as to the history issue, I agree that it is subjective to some point. I also beleive that both the good and the bad should be taught, and the uncomfortable truths are the ones that must be remembered at all costs, so that the past does not repeat itself.

posted 12-08-98 06:04 PM ET            

Oh, btw, Helen Keller was a Commie, so WHAT! Like it matters! She isn't famous for it. Eugene Debs is famous for Communism, but not Mrs. Keller.

posted 12-08-98 07:04 PM ET            

Now, for the folks outside this country; I believe they know quite abit about issues, etc, but it would be hard for them to actually know the local, district, etc, situations and then to make a comment. General comment, yea, why not, the world does, so why not everyone else. It would be facitious of me to comment on internal issues about Russia since I don't live there. Like I said in an earlier reply, USA lives the life of criticism. This nation is in a catch-22 syndrome of major proportions.
You can't do two things without someone flaming the country, the people, the cultural melting pot, the issues, the music, the language, the foreign policy. Oh, well, I guess it goes with being a young and powerful nation. Early Europe didn't fair very well either in there early nation days barely 225 years old.

posted 12-08-98 07:47 PM ET            

http://www.stud.unit.no/~gef/hibakusha/

posted 12-08-98 07:50 PM ET            

On the one-sided, propoganda of history books we have. It reminds me of a chapter on WWII in my old 8th grade history book. There was a picture of American troops storming on shore, & the little caption below, I'll never forget what it said, "The US(no Britain & Canada??)stormed ashore the Normandy coast of France on June 6, 1944. How did the fighting in the east help the Russians on the Eastern Front?" I wanted to scream when I read that! If anything the Russians were helping US, by keeping Germany's best soldiers, & generals on the Eastern Front. Do you think we would have actually gotten to far if the Russians weren't dying on the Eastern Front of the war?? Germany would of mauled us! In fact, in the Normandy hedgerows the small group of Germans there were able to kill a lot of Americans, because the invaders weren't well trained in the infiltration tactics needed to fight in those hedgerows. The only reason we were able to get out was because of the number of Allied troops there! I'm glad we did get out though, I wouldn't wanna be speaking German, or throwing rocks at Jews...

On the atomic bomb. I think it was justified to drop it. The Japanese were desperate as it is. They were on the bottom of their oil barrels, they were using kamikaze pilots, & their best pilots were for the most part wiped out at Midway, the Marianas Turkey shoot, & other early air engagements. They were also determined to win still, & defeat us, even at that point! The casualties would of been horrendous if we invaded, on the scale of WWI! The atomic bombs killed less civilians, then would of died in the invasion. Suicides, kamikazes etc. In fact, the Japanese were training 12 year olds(!!) to fly kamikaze rockets into American ships, planes, etc. That amazed me.

On the fire bombings. The reason so many cities in Japan were fire bombed was because they didn't have the large scale factories of Germany & Italy. Rather, they depended on the civilians to produce maybe a small part of munitions, etc in their home, then send it to another hone to finish it, or add another piece to it. These small houses were next to impossible to individually target, & the factories would of survived anyway. The only way to knock the factories out, really, would be through dropping the incendiary bombs on them. I think it was justifiable, considering we had to stop their war machine. Air power was over rated though. German factories were usally re-built in 6 weeks, I'm not sure if the Japanese could get on their feet with the civilian houses burned, & the civilians who made the guns dead.

Hope you cared,

posted 12-08-98 08:32 PM ET            

Of course it worked. Ever wonder why all those German tanks at the battle of the Bulge had to stop? Because they ran out of fuel. Wonder why they didn't have any? Because we had destoryed every rail, pipe line, and refinery that the germans had. Sure they rebuilt it, but that took yet more time, people, and reasorces.

If anything one of the most inportant things we did in WW2 was our Stratigic bombing. The nuke was a minor little thing at the end of the war. The massive Bombing Raids into the heart of Germany where far more inportant as well as deadly for both sides.

Same situation with the Super Fortresses in the Pacific.

Our Air men in those bombers were some of the bravest fighting men of the war. They often flew against overwellming odds with little to no fighter cover(till the coming of the P-51 Mustang).

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 12-08-98 09:07 PM ET            

What BigER wrote:
Jojo, again you show the revisionist history bent- You claim that the atomic bomb was the worst thing that happened to the Japanese during WWII, but you either don't know or choose to distort the facts.

*****

posted 12-08-98 09:23 PM ET            

Furthermore, during WW2, the US gov used racist propaganda (just take a look at some of the racist, stereotypical posters the US distributed). And American citizens of Japanese ethnicity were discriminated against and placed in concentration camps, ostensibly to prevent them from becoming potential spies.

There's a lot of American history that's not well addressed in American schools.

posted 12-08-98 09:49 PM ET            

It's pretty clear that the decision to attack Pearl harbour was the biggest Axis mistake of WWII (and they made a few). To bring the heretofore vacillating yanks fully into the conflict was the killer blow, as Admiral Yamato correctly stated at the time: "We can fight them for approximately three years, afterwhich we will fall."

America's sheer production capacity, combined with its wealth, made it an eventually unstoppable opponent in the war, no matter early losses were inflicted. Combine that with the fact that the attack at Pearl harbour missed the carriers, which, in the broad scheme of things, were the only REAL target of consquence, and you have a stragetic disaster in the form of a tactical victory (the pacific navel war quickly turned into a duke out between the American and Japanese flat-tops).

It probably should be noted, that, except for the casualties inflicted at Pearl Harbour, the attack was the best thing that the allies could have hoped for.

As for bombing, while it's true that the early days of WWII saw british bombers using astro-navigation to find their targets, and missing by up to twenty miles, the rest of the war saw, for the times, highly accurate attacks, using radar to guide the bombs and highlight the release point (two crossed beams, which lead to the first radar countermeasures). And the bombing of cities, hideous as the consequences were, actually saved the Allies' ass, changing Nazi focus from British airfields to London streets (had this not happened, there could well have been an invasion of england, once the British airfields had been wiped out).

I can't tell what would've happened if the nukes hadn't been dropped; but if America had had to invade Japan, there would have been countless casulties on both sides. A good number of conventional lives were probably saved by these nuclear atrocities.

posted 12-08-98 10:05 PM ET            

1. Dunkirk
2. Starting war on the Eastern Front
3. Bombing Peal Harbor
4. Bombing cities instead of RAF airfields

posted 12-08-98 10:20 PM ET            

Also the invasion was delayed three weeks while Hilter helped out his italian pals in Greece. That left the Nazi invasion force headed right in the middle of a Russian winter, during which the Russkies were able to start some kind of defensive action (make no mistake, Hitler had Stalin hook line and sinker. And then messed it up.)

posted 12-08-98 11:26 PM ET            

As for the A-bomb being moral or not: the emperor was NOT the primary motivator behind the war, it was his Foreign Minister Tojo. I still don't think it was moral. I never argued whether it was a necessity or not; i merely stated that it was an atrocity simply because of its primary and secondary devastating effects. Hothram: how can you say "only 50K"? Only 50K? are they a mere statistic? You have people with families, with lovers, with friends, with brothers and sisters. You had flowers and trees, you had wonderful beauty in those cities. You had LIFE in those cities. After the A-Bomb, you had shattered families, crispy glowing friends, your brethren were particles of dust. The trees were flaming ashes. After the A-Bomb, there was nothing but Death and Suffering. How can you say the murder of 50K or more is not an atrocity? It quite simply was a defilement of life on earth. It doesn't matter about the casualty rate. I don't agree with Stalin's quote, "One death is a tragedy; A million is a statistic," which it seems like you are implying in your post debating whether my death toll was right or not. As i said earlier, the number of casualties do not matter; it's the overall effect that you must take into accout - how would you feel if your home city was nothing but radioactive cinders after a brief instant? Wouldn't you consider it an atrocity as well?

As for the kamikazes and fanatics: I maintain my idea that these fanatics that we hold with distaste and hatred are called PATRIOTS in the nation or group that they serve.

As for mistakes in the war: wars are massive incidents, and being able to fix everything and control everything is extremely difficult. It's easy to point out the mistakes in hindsight, is it not? Place yourself in the leaders' shoes? What mistakes would you make? How badly would those mistakes affect you? Face it, the sheer amount of data required for a flawless execution of a battle plan is impossible to achieve. The reason i think that America and the Allies won (note- i am refraining from using the term "good guys" because i think that's too subjective, based on a moral code that everyone might not share) was because they were able to process information better: they could break the codes and handle the data transfers better than the Japanese or the Nazis.

Final note: please, nobody use the terms "Japs", "Gooks" or anything else, because they are racial terms which may be viewed as insulting by some people.

Wars suck, blow, bite, gargle, and <insert your own distasteful insults here>.

I apologize for the vulgar comment above, but it's true. It f**ks everything and everyone over, from the land and nations to the wives and civilians and verterans.

posted 12-08-98 11:30 PM ET            

Imran Siddiqui
Wondering

posted 12-08-98 11:44 PM ET            

Q Cubed: When i said ONLY 50k died that is exactly what i mean. If we had not droped the bomb it would have been Millions. Hence 50k is a smaller number hence the use of the word ONLY.

Because 50K are less then 1,000,000 and its a goverments job to minimise the damage its people take. Its the US Goverments job to protect its people and its families no matter what and how they do it... Or at least in times of war.

Remember WE did not start that war. But luckly for us we did finnish it. We were and are the GOOD guys. Because what we did to win the war and what we did to the defeated was a hell of alot better then what they would have done to us. We NEVER tried to wipe them completly out. Something both the Germans and the Japanese did.

And whats with the "please do not say racial slures thing?" No one did....

War sucks, but losing a war is far far worse. When your not only fighting land and wealth. But your way of life. That is not a war we even have the option of losing. For to lose is to be enslaved.

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 12-08-98 11:50 PM ET            

I accept that ordinary germans and Japanese were not evil, with a few exceptions, primarily the people manning the concentration camps (not merely those for Jews, either). And atrocities were committed on both sides, fine. War is hell.

But the Nazis were ultimately fighting for bad reasons, and the allies for good. That makes the allies the good guys. While do I agree with much of what you say, especially about the Kamikaze pilots, I think you are sailing too close to the waters of revisionist history, and that it pays to remember who the aggressors were.

posted 12-09-98 12:29 AM ET            

Also, we did have nasty parallels in our history. Our treatment of the Native Americans could be considered an analogue, even though we did not have the brutally and hellishly efficient tools of murder the Nazis did.

And about the racial slurs thing...in one of the posts, i read a slur...i thought it was this one, but i guess not. my apologies if i've offended anyone here, but now i guess we can use that segment of a post as preventative medicine.

posted 12-09-98 01:28 AM ET            

This was what Hitler used to incite the Germans to overthrow the yoke of the allies. It was only later that the war was used to commit the atrocities that were caused (such as the Holocaust).

And I think the reason they pick out the A-Bomb is that unlike the allied bombing of Germany, which was in rataliation for the bombing of Britain, the Japanese had not actually bombed American civilians. In fact, IIRC, the only civilians the Japanese bombed were the Aussies in Darwin.

Then of course there is the whole fear of the A-Bomb. Mention firebombing of cities or napalming of jungles, and people barely bat an eyelid. It is almost an accepted form of warfare. After all, barely anyone complains too loudly about the bombing of Sarajevo by artillery.

But the bomb is something else. A whole generation grew up in fear of the bomb, and that fear still lives on today. Thus, the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are seen as far more "evil" than firebombing a city such as Dresden.

And I always find the old argument of "We dropped the bomb to save japanese and american lives" a rather ammusing one. Frankly, to win the war against Japan, no-one would have had to invade Japan on land. If the US had destroyed their fleet (which from memory, they all but had) and their airforce, then chances are if they appeared on their doorstep with the entire Pacific Fleet, backed by the Chinese on the mainland, I feel pretty sure Japan would have surrendered.

And don't trot out the line about them fighting to the end for honour. Despite it all, they were not to honour bound that facing an impossible position they would not have surrendered.

In the end, what it comes down to is that the Americans chose to use the bomb for expediency. Sure, it no doubt saved some lives. Millions? I doubt that very much. A lot? Probably.

As for saving Japanese lives, the US frankly didn't care. It was worried about saving it's own soldiers, not about saving Japanese lives. And also very importantly to show the world not to screw with the US.

The US chose the the greater of two evils in dropping the bomb. Though they must be admired for the way they helped Japan get back on it's feet after the war.

posted 12-09-98 02:57 AM ET            

Back to the orginal discusion:
Should we be sorry for our desision to drop the bomb? NO!, why because, war is hell and that was the fastest way out.

Should the Japanesse be sorry far attacking a friendly, or at least, neutral country. YES! Why becuase the winner write history.

posted 12-09-98 04:08 AM ET            

1) Protect/reduce own civilian casualties
2) Limit own military casualties
3) Protect/reduce enemy civilian casualties
4) Limit enemy military casualties

So, by my lights, Japanese casualties should have been a consideration, but the prime factor in this would be casualties to our soldiers.

I doubt any figure of US dead in the millions for an invasion; according to the War Dept. logistics corps, they were preparing for around 750,000 casualties(and that is for all casualties, dead and wounded). (interesting aside: All the Purple Hearts handed out since WWII came from the lot ordered by the War Dept. in preparation for the invasion of Japan.)

posted 12-09-98 08:52 AM ET            

Hothram:
I will say again...it was 240,000 dead, not 50,000.

Greg:
"the only civilians the Japanese bombed were the Aussies in Darwin"
They conducted air raids on cities in China as well, but I know what you mean.

Steel_Dragon:
"Should the Japanesse be sorry far attacking a friendly, or at least, neutral country."
The US was neither friendly nor neutral...the US was attempting to put a stranglehold on Japanese oil supplies.

jfrazier:
"but for Americans to feel proud that they stood up in the face of a deadly challenge, and instead of appeasement like Europe"
The US appeased Japan for a decade in Asia (as did everyone else). It was only when they might threaten US interests that the US started embargoes.

posted 12-09-98 11:18 AM ET            

Use of Atomic Bomb on Japan to end war in P.T.O. remember that at the time of its use that the long term effects of an atomic bomb were almost completely unknown. Also though a demonstration could have caused the surrender of Japan, they had already been under heavy "conventional" bombing and it was not having that effect. Thus in my opinion with the knowledge that they had at the time the choice to use atomic bombs against Japanese cities was the correct one.

Pearl Harbor, though the US might have known in advance of this attack that is irrelivent <sp?> the significance of Pearl Harbor is not the attack itself but the lost lives of those involved.

Lastly history is written by the victor, that said anyone who simply absorbs the tripe fed to them by anyone (public schools, church, government, most "news" companies) deserves what they get in the long run. Truth does not simply come to anyone it, like anything worthwhile must be searched for and constantly guarded.

As far as the political views of Hellen Keller, Jefforsons slaves, and other assorted, what relevance do they have? Ms. Keller is looked up to because she was severly handicapped and yet continued on, Jefferson was instrumental in forming the government of the US, side issues such as these do nothing when looked at through the lens of current political and philosophical thought, they must be concidered within the frame of others of their time.

posted 12-09-98 03:12 PM ET            

What is worse, employing a weapon against your enemy for which you know the exact effects, or using one with other secondary effects which you have not estimated?

Also, I hear a good many people saying that it doesn't matter if Helen Keller was a communist or Wilson a white supremacist or Jefferson a slave-holder. The mantra is: "it's not important".

Not important to whom? Who decides what is and is not important? Did you decide what you American History book was filled with? Frankly all three of these people become much more interesting, much more real, once the hidden truths about them are revealed.

posted 12-09-98 03:14 PM ET            

What is worse, employing a weapon against your enemy for which you know the exact effects, or using one with other secondary effects which you have not estimated?

Also, I hear a good many people saying that it doesn't matter if Helen Keller was a communist or Wilson a white supremacist or Jefferson a slave-holder. The mantra is: "it's not important".

Not important to whom? Who decides what is and is not important? Did you decide what you American History book was filled with? Frankly all three of these people become much more interesting, much more real, once the hidden truths about them are revealed.

posted 12-09-98 04:14 PM ET            

Some big differences between Banzai chargers and Picketts Charge. One Gen. Lee thought that Picketts charge would work. He did not send in those troops with the idea that they would be almost completly wiped out. We thought they would win. The Japanese new they would die and still charged because they could not live with themselves after being defeated.
Although talked about this i do not understand. Americans have always understood that the greatist sacrifice a person can make is to fight against overwellming odds for your country and your people. We have always celebrated people who have made that sacrifice. For example, the Alamo.

What we did not understand, and where horrified by. Was the Japanese throwing there children off cliffs, straping explosives to themselves and charging out troops. This whole scale slaughter of not only there fighting men but also there own children and civilions are what horrified us.

All this happened whenever we came into contact with Japanese Civs... These types of things made it so that we did not want to have to do a land battle on Japan itself. It would have just been way to bloody.

posted 12-09-98 06:01 PM ET            

True, both are indicriminate killers, but the bomb on Hiroshima was within a half mile of its target, the center of the city. Wonder how many of those balloons hit with that kind of accuracy.

But for sheer destructive power, I don't see how you can attempt to write off atomic bombs or a fire-bombing raid with balloon bombs.

The point is, however, not how reprehensible the use of the atomic bomb was. I think deaths on the order of 200,000 from a single weapon call for as much of a pause as the casualties from the raid on Pearl Harbor, if not more.

posted 12-09-98 06:22 PM ET            

Morals in peace are different then morals in war. Do not confuse the two.

Remember McArther wanted to drop 50+ nukes on China, which would have completly destoryed every major city in the nation. During the Korean War. Militarily that would have been the easiest way to win the war, and also would have dramaticly changed the world.

But Truman didn't do it, because he thought that much death was not worth it. Its all a matter of if its worth killing people. In the Korean War it was not, in WW2 it was.

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 12-09-98 06:40 PM ET            

But now we get to the point of it: morals in war are different than morals in peace.

Japan considered itself at war with the U.S. when it made the attack on Pearl Harbor. It saw nothing less than its national existence in the balance. Therefore, if we can justify the atomic bomb on such grounds-- in fact we have justified it on lesser grounds-- then we should see Pearl Harbor as a justified attack on the U.S.

posted 12-09-98 07:01 PM ET            

We may not have been friendly towards Japan, We may not have been trading with them, but we were in a state of peace with Japan, when they attacked. Therefore their action should not be judged in the same light as an act of War.

posted 12-09-98 10:48 PM ET            

Yes there is a major difference between the two.

Do you have any idea how much Red Cross ad went to Japan? Or how much medical and humanitarian help we gave to them before the war?

Let me tell you it was a great deal. America was not expecting to be attacked by a country with whom we helped and asked for nothing in return.

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 12-09-98 10:58 PM ET            

BG: A small point, but Hitler's success with the German people stemmed from violence and the lack of any real governmental power, rather than any more subtle means. During the 1920/30s there were street riots and minor military engagements between the Nazis and their Communist opposition, the Junkers, about which the emasculated German government could do little. The Nazi 'Stormtroopers' were allowed to run amok during the 1932(??) elections, beating up rival supporters, etc, they managed to win some seats in parliament (previously, they got 1% of the vote - the German people were hardly screaming out for them). The Reichstatt (Word? Spelling? Goddamnit.) naively allowed Hitler the Chancellorship, hoping he would be exposed as the fool he seemed to be, and he responded by burning the parliament down and seizing control of power.
Make no mistake, Hitler's great speechs came after this point, when he had total control, and had little to do with his policital rise beforehand.

posted 12-09-98 11:27 PM ET            

There wasn't much of an Allied yoke to be overthrown during the 1930's - European politics was in a total mess except for the League of Nations, which was little better.

posted 12-10-98 12:24 AM ET            

Firstly, nukes are bad. No-one wants to be at ground zero. But whether you die this way or simply from a stray bullet or Naplam shell is largely irrelevant.

Secondly, the U.S entered the war not for any reason other than that they were attacked. Not for racism, jealous of the japanese, or the simple urge to fight, but because a fleet of bombers came over and plastered pearl harbour, killing hundreds upon hundreds of innocent U.S citizens - who, if you remember, weren't actually at war with Japan at the time.

The top level knowledge of the effects of atomic weapons at the time the bombs were dropped was very vague. There certainly was no intention to leave behind any lasting radioactive effects, as was so tragicially the case.

The U.S had two choices - invade Japan and fight hand to hand across Tokyo against a opponent as unmovable and committed as the Russians - or force their surrender with this display of power. Atrocity or not, it was the cheaper of the two options, in terms of human lives and general destruction.

There certainly was no option of withdrawing and leaving the Japanese to rape China and the South Pacific. America looks after its allies.

You are correct that wars occur for some ulterior motive. However, it may also be that one party is innocent and fights purely out of self defense. America's non-involvement up to pearl harbour supports this point of view. Their financial aid to Japan and Europe after the war confirms it.

posted 12-10-98 01:55 AM ET            

Back to the comment that sparked this debate:
Jojo posted 12-07-98 05:09 PM ET
Notice, however, that the Japanese nation, and few in the U.S. feel obliged to remember Hiroshima or Nagasaki Days.....

These acts were the best alturnitive we had at the time, as such we should not be sorry that we did it. Maybe be sorry that it was nessasry to bring about peace.

What gets under my skin is we apologized(Bush or Clinton), and are yet to recieve an apology from Japan for starting the Bloody thing.

posted 12-10-98 02:15 AM ET            

We have never apologized for droping the bomb. Frankly no US Prez would be stupid enough to get every living US Vet and the majority of the population of the US made at him just to make the Japanese fell better for losing a war they started.

posted 12-10-98 02:21 AM ET            

As for the nuking of Japan (or war in general) - of course there were ulterior motives. That doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do - there were ulterior motives for the Marshall plan as well, but the plan was nevertheless a Good Thing. (Oh dear, I'm not saying nuking is a good thing here).

posted 12-10-98 03:18 AM ET            

Defining non-trivial truths are sort of difficult, though. I don't even agree with myself whether or not there are trivial truths... I suppose you could say that 2+2=4 is a trivial truth, though it might be simple definition more than it is truth..? Anyway, it doesn't really matters - just ignore everything I say

posted 12-10-98 01:34 PM ET            

Q: What name did the Seminoles give Andrew Jackson?"
A: Who cares? The Seminoles where not very nice people....

Q: How many slaves did Thomas Jefferson own?
A: Few thousand. Who cares?...

Q: How many did he free by the time of his death?
A: Probibly none... cannot remember if it was him or Washington who freeing all his slaves.

Q: Why were so few selected?
A: have no idea, do not see the point.

Q: Why did Texas declare independence from Mexico?
A: Because they had no say in there goverment. The new Prez Santa Anna was insain...

Q: How was the nation of Panama founded?
A: We backed some revulutionarys to fight Colombia which at that time owned Panama. WE created that nation.

Q: What president barred blacks and whites from working together in federal offices?
A: Who cares? Was probibly before desegration.

Q: What year was Thanksgiving first celebrated as a Holiday?
A: Have no idea.

Q: Who was Squanto?
A: no idea.

Q: Why did he cast his lots with the Pilgrims once they landed at Plymouth?
A: still no idea.

Q: How did the settlers at Plymouth originally acquire tools?
A: traded from the indians.

Q: What was Hellen Keller's political stance?
A: have no idea.

******************

What would rank as the most appalling feature of these responses? The ignorance itself, the poor spelling (not all of that was typos), or the apathy? Is there any wonder why U.S. citizens have earned the title of "ugly Americans" when they travel abroad? Since such cultural unawareness and lack of critical thinking is imbued in these typical responses, should we be surprised at the inability of some U.S. citizens to question their own government's actions? Whether it's digging up graves to get tools (how the Pilgrims first "traded" with Indians), spreading disease, dropping atomic weapons, infecting minorities with disease for studies, or burning entire Vietnamese villages, the U.S. history student finds himself/herself unable to address these issues with anything more than calims of necessity, despite the base immoraility.

So we should not be surprised to find sleeping sailors and soldiers deified and Japanese civilians written off when a U.S. history student's perspective is brought to bear.

posted 12-10-98 04:03 PM ET            

Most of you so called examples of American Historians inability to talk about our actions are based either on actions that we did in times of war. Or actions we could not control. We have NO control in any way on the spread of disease which wiped out the vast majority of Indian populations. No control AT ALL. So I do not see why you would even bring that up.

Last. The biggest of your many logical valises is to state that the American Educational System is flawed because one member does not spell very well. As this member is me I think I should speak on this subject.
I do not spell very well in some of the posts that I create not because the Education System is flawed or because it failed me but because I am mildly Dyslexic and some of my posts are written on computers that do not have a spell checker. Just because I do not spell well does not mean that America is in any way a badly educated country.

"Is there any wonder why U.S. citizens have earned the title of "ugly Americans" when they travel abroad?"

I once again do not understand you. Who cares what other countries think? Other counties say the same things about the French, English, Japanese, Germans, and the Italians. Its not like we are the only country who has tourists that are not always liked.

Also, I am a extremely well educated individual who has a Degree in History. But unlike you I understand that small meaningless little actions do not damn whole populations. I do not make Mountains out of ant hills. Which you seem to do on every occasion.

Please go to collage get a education then come back. Hopefully with a little more education you will have a greater understanding of not only History but also the world.

posted 12-10-98 04:25 PM ET            

As for my education level-- well, I'll let my own words be the indicator. If you're curious though, you can take a guess where I got my B.S.

posted 12-10-98 05:48 PM ET            

Fine, 300. But once again who cares? The Pilgrims are not a very inportant moment in history. Besides Pilgrims are not Americans. What they did does not really matter. Only thing they gave us is Thanksgiving. Nothing else.

"As for my education level-- well, I'll let my own words be the indicator. If you're curious though, you can take a guess where I got my B.S."

Once again. Who cares? I can make one educated guess, it could not have been a very good school.

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 12-10-98 05:55 PM ET            

And 300 years is still a little short of the mark.

And the Pilgims did leave an impact on society-- from belief in the right to education to the censorship of literature. Which, come to think of it, is a compelling reason to study how their belief systems transcended to the current U.S. mentality.

posted 12-10-98 08:49 PM ET            

Your quote: "You are correct that wars occur for some ulterior motive. However...one party is innocent and fights purely out of self defense...America's non-involvement... supports this point of view. Their financial aid...after the war confirms it." is somewhat true. Americans did provide massive amounts of financial aid. However, a large number of Americans also profited much from the Japanese internment as many Germans did from the removal of the Jews. Successful Japanese -American stores were taken over by Americans, Japanese-American heirlooms were taken or bought at bargain bin prices...can you say that the war was fought purely for defensive reasons by the Americans? And besides...America WAS involved before - it was shipping supplies and what not to Britain and other Allied nations well before the Japanese bombed the Harbor.

posted 12-10-98 09:37 PM ET            

You seem to mantain that the end doesn't justify the means in ANY circumstances, and the U.S should be cast as the villian for its use of atomic weapons. I tend to believe in mitigating circumstances - they had to win the war, and in doing so they had very few options. And high command seemed to regard the bomb as a much bigger version of the Blockbuster - you drop it, it goes boom - end of story.

As for treatment of Japanese Americans during the war - nasty as it was - it was still a great deal better than Japanese treatment of their occupied territories and POWs. These things are relative - and the 1940's was exactly a great time for minority groups during peacetime, either. Thank god we've improved a bit.

posted 12-10-98 10:19 PM ET            

Anyway, i understand your point about the high command knowing very little about the aftermath of a detonation, and that they may have been backed into a corner. however, to this date, to the best of my knowledge, i do not recall an instant when the US has made a formal apology, written and notarized, about the nuclear explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. i also still believe that it was an atrocity, even though it may have been necessary. It is war, but still...the murder of thousands in a flash isn't exactly the kind of treatment i would wish on any nation under any circumstance.
However, i would like to point out that i am NOT on japan's side. they have yet to make the same kind of reparations the the germanss have over their atrocitys. japan pillaged korea, hainan, manchuria, and taiwan, not to mention other places, in their conquest for an empire. in their "colony" states, like korea, they took young girls up to the front line where they would be abused and eventually killed. they took young men and forced them to fight with poor equipment and sent them on suicide missions as well, without hope of assistance. as for the older people, they treated them little better than slaves...If any of you have seen Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, there are many parallels between the Bajoran/Koreans and the Cardassian/Japanese.

And, you're right about the mistreatment of minorities during that time period...and later on we'll move into McCarthyism. I believe i mentioned that earlier anyway.

posted 12-11-98 12:28 AM ET            

"Hey...i went to see this wizard, and you know what? that guy was so nice and he gave me a heart! it's in a box on the coffeetable as we speak!" <cue a dog eating out of the box on a coffee table in the living room>

posted 12-11-98 01:18 PM ET            

So we should not be surprised to find sleeping sailors and soldiers deified and Japanese civilians written off when a U.S. history student's perspective is brought to bear.

How unfortunate. Anyways, I can see this thread keeps rehashing the same old stuff, and nobody shows a willingness to grow on this issue. Can we start one that's more fun?

posted 12-11-98 04:17 PM ET            

Jojo. Revising history when it is done with a logical mind and when it looks at all the facts and not just the ones that fit your ideas is a ok thing. what your doing is not both logical, or good history.

BigER. Nice posting by the way. Very well thought out. And Dyslexia is extremly annoying at times.

Hothram Upravda
TB

posted 12-14-98 11:08 AM ET            

Well, depends on which rate of purchase power parity you use.

Shining: "And the bombing of cities, hideous as the consequences were, actually saved the Allies' ass..."

posted 12-14-98 11:59 AM ET            

Now as for the individual vs the group way of life. I think they are different but not contrasting you can achive harmony with both ways of life. There is nothing wrong with your cultural beliefs, in fact this is what gives our world such a rich and interesting history. If we were all part of the same cultural background wouldn't it be boring?
We might as well all sign up for indoctrination into the hive!

posted 12-14-98 02:23 PM ET            

By the way-I am not discounting that you are well read-you seem to have extensive knowledge. What I object to (one more time) is the blatant blanket statements that seem to follow the majority of attacks on the American way of life.
Have we all heard the phrase "never judge a man until you walk a mile in his shoes."

That is why I asked you (Jojo) about which military you were in and what has coloured your view of America.

Oh well, there seems to be to large a rift there to repair. I shall move on.

posted 12-19-98 12:25 AM ET            

My $.02
(Rhetoric mode <<ON>> )

I don't think I like the way I am being told to grieve for this and apologise for that. It really is a shame that humanity has had to hurt itself so many times in it's history, but that's just it. It's history. I can learn from history without feeling that I have to grieve for it or shoulder the burden of guilt for it. And the wars of today? Terrible as well, but will this ever change?

I hope for things like world peace too, and,personally, would always strive for a peaceful compromise. This is what I have learned (and have been taught ) about history, but if half the world rose up against us tomorrow (whoever 'Us' is...) and would not compromise, Would 'We' not have to fight 'Them'? Maybe 'We' would have to use weapons of mass destruction on 'Them'. Maybe the other way around?

If my city (hehe..Vancouver. 'Nuclear Free Zone'. ironic?) was destroyed tomorrow by war, I would grieve, but I wouldn't expect several future generations to. We're talking about a World War. Most people (ie. me) can't wrap their minds around the implications of that any more than I can picture the National Debt (Canadian in my case), or guess how many frickin' jelly beans are in a barrel.

Oh well. This is a great discussion, and importanty, I'm sure most of us have learned things, but I don't think the issue should be focusing on which countries should feel sorry for which things.

War is the atrocity. A-bombs, tanks, or handguns are just a sum of the whole.

posted 12-21-98 12:48 PM ET            

Hmmm.. should that also apply to Germany etc with regard to the Holocaust ? There's a heated debate going on with some taking almost exactly your position on the issue, and as usual, they are beaten with the fascism clubb (cl... ehm.. you know what I mean, I hope...).

posted 12-21-98 01:32 PM ET            

The issue is your comment "should be forever, ashamed of our history". The debate is whether germans and austrians should be collectively ashamed of their history forever, or take a more positive approach (ie stress the "learning" factor). Someone who had been a victim of the nazis had said that only when germans and jews have a "normal" relationship to one another, like eg UK-Jews/Israel, the right consequences have been drawn. The alternative is the "special" relationship, eg forbidding any german initiative in the middle east peace process as it would be historically inappropriate.