5 ms·

So the Soviets under Stalin murdered 10's of millions before 1950 but maintained moral equivalence with the United States until JFK was elected? I guess I have

So the Soviets under Stalin murdered 10's of millions before 1950 but maintained moral equivalence with the United States until JFK was elected? I guess I have a different sense of morality.

loxs 16y ago
You know, things like nuking whole cities do count when measuring moral. Not that USSR was highly moral, just the opposite. USA was not too moral that days.
- protomyth 16y ago
  As opposed to fire bombing a whole country or doing death marches?
  - loxs 16y ago
    I am not trying to measure who is (was) worse. The thing is that the USSR had their arguments to carry their propaganda on for several decades. And their people believed them more or less.
- te_platt 16y ago
  You know, things like making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) is terrible thing to have to do. Making a calculated political decision to murder millions just isn't in the same category. I don't want to justify any of the wrongdoings of anyone based on "the other guy is worse". I also don't accept that the United States was morally equivalent to the Soviet Union until JFK was elected.
  - loxs 16y ago
    As I said (in the neighboring comment): I am not trying to measure who is (was) worse. The thing is that the USSR had their arguments to carry their propaganda on for several decades. And their people believed them more or less.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) There are always options. The simplest argument to be made is that, at most, nuking one city would probably suffice. There was little need for nuking the second one. Next, one could, conceivably, nuke a landmark instead of a city, prove the destructive power of the device and, still, spare a lot of lives. No. Nuking 2 cities was more a weapons test than a way to shorten a war.
    - astine 16y ago
      > No. Nuking 2 cities was more a weapons test than a way to shorten a war. You'd think nuking one city would have been enough for that... The Americans didn't have to nuke any cities to test the nuclear bomb, they had already measured it's destructive capacity in the dessert. There is a belief among some historians that dropping the bomb was a way to impress the USSR and this idea does have merit. As for the second bomb, the US only dropped the second one when the first one failed to elicit the response they desired. Japanese scientists were actually further along in designing their own weapon than the Nazi's were. They had a notion that the bomb was incredibly expensive to make and were gambling that the US couldn't make another.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        > They had a notion that the bomb was incredibly expensive to make and were gambling that the US couldn't make another. Is there any evidence of that? Any official communication inside the Japanese government?
        jwhitlark 16y ago
        There were three days in between the two nukes. The Japanese govt. had observers report back at the end of the first day. People forget that the US had already destroyed ~85% of the top 60 cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exempted so they could serve as undamaged test cases. The Japanese strategy, once it became clear they were losing the war, was to increase the cost in order to force concessions from the Allies. The atomic bomb, by changing the equation to one plane, one bomb, one city destroyed that hope. The Japanese high command didn't surrender because they lost two more cities, they surrendered because the US demonstrated that it could annihilate cities without giving any opportunity to strike back. For better or worse, wars aren't won by killing people, they're won by killing hope.
  - Confusion 16y ago
    It's irrelevant whether you can rationally defend dropping an atomic bomb. The only thing that matters is that you lose moral credibility when you do, whether you like it or not. This isn't about who is right; this is about how the public responds.
    - jbm 16y ago
      I'm a bit depressed that you are being downvoted. This article, right or wrong, is about perception; your comment perfectly captures the way the same act can be perceived by different groups. Can one of the down modders please explain why they did so? The only thing that is coming to mind is that you disagree with the opinion (and that really is no reason to do a down mod)
- astine 16y ago
  While from my armchair perspective I disagree with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they at least were under the auspices of ending a much larger war. Stalin's massacres had no such justification. The two acts are incomparable.

So the Soviets under Stalin murdered 10's of millions before 1950 but maintained moral equivalence with the United States until JFK was elected? I guess I have a different sense of morality.

loxs 16y ago

You know, things like nuking whole cities do count when measuring moral. Not that USSR was highly moral, just the opposite. USA was not too moral that days.

protomyth 16y ago
As opposed to fire bombing a whole country or doing death marches?
- loxs 16y ago
  I am not trying to measure who is (was) worse. The thing is that the USSR had their arguments to carry their propaganda on for several decades. And their people believed them more or less.
te_platt 16y ago
You know, things like making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) is terrible thing to have to do. Making a calculated political decision to murder millions just isn't in the same category. I don't want to justify any of the wrongdoings of anyone based on "the other guy is worse". I also don't accept that the United States was morally equivalent to the Soviet Union until JFK was elected.
- loxs 16y ago
  As I said (in the neighboring comment): I am not trying to measure who is (was) worse. The thing is that the USSR had their arguments to carry their propaganda on for several decades. And their people believed them more or less.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) There are always options. The simplest argument to be made is that, at most, nuking one city would probably suffice. There was little need for nuking the second one. Next, one could, conceivably, nuke a landmark instead of a city, prove the destructive power of the device and, still, spare a lot of lives. No. Nuking 2 cities was more a weapons test than a way to shorten a war.
  - astine 16y ago
    > No. Nuking 2 cities was more a weapons test than a way to shorten a war. You'd think nuking one city would have been enough for that... The Americans didn't have to nuke any cities to test the nuclear bomb, they had already measured it's destructive capacity in the dessert. There is a belief among some historians that dropping the bomb was a way to impress the USSR and this idea does have merit. As for the second bomb, the US only dropped the second one when the first one failed to elicit the response they desired. Japanese scientists were actually further along in designing their own weapon than the Nazi's were. They had a notion that the bomb was incredibly expensive to make and were gambling that the US couldn't make another.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      > They had a notion that the bomb was incredibly expensive to make and were gambling that the US couldn't make another. Is there any evidence of that? Any official communication inside the Japanese government?
      - jwhitlark 16y ago
        There were three days in between the two nukes. The Japanese govt. had observers report back at the end of the first day. People forget that the US had already destroyed ~85% of the top 60 cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were exempted so they could serve as undamaged test cases. The Japanese strategy, once it became clear they were losing the war, was to increase the cost in order to force concessions from the Allies. The atomic bomb, by changing the equation to one plane, one bomb, one city destroyed that hope. The Japanese high command didn't surrender because they lost two more cities, they surrendered because the US demonstrated that it could annihilate cities without giving any opportunity to strike back. For better or worse, wars aren't won by killing people, they're won by killing hope.
- Confusion 16y ago
  It's irrelevant whether you can rationally defend dropping an atomic bomb. The only thing that matters is that you lose moral credibility when you do, whether you like it or not. This isn't about who is right; this is about how the public responds.
  - jbm 16y ago
    I'm a bit depressed that you are being downvoted. This article, right or wrong, is about perception; your comment perfectly captures the way the same act can be perceived by different groups. Can one of the down modders please explain why they did so? The only thing that is coming to mind is that you disagree with the opinion (and that really is no reason to do a down mod)
astine 16y ago
While from my armchair perspective I disagree with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they at least were under the auspices of ending a much larger war. Stalin's massacres had no such justification. The two acts are incomparable.