Youve made a good contribution, thank you.

For me one must judge the poeple by the standards of the day and what they had went through.

One cant forget that the US was ANGRY when it fought Japan, your country hated these people. It wasnt just pearl harbour, it was Batan and a whole host of other atrocities.

On must also understand the psycholigical importance of complete victory. The US lost alot of men fighting the Japanese, as did the allies. To end this fighting in a slow blockade hoping the Japs would see sense soon would be unacceptable to most of the servicemen and the Allies in general.

Although civilians are not responsible for the conduct of the military, that is a modern notion that was not tightly applied in WW2. Add to the fact that civilians IN GENERAL are in fact collectively responsible as the military grows out from them and their culture.

As for the A bomb, although I dont disagree with its dropping. I do recognise it as the biggest single act of terrorism the world has ever seen given the fact that it was a move designed not to destroy but to induce pure terror.

SO i take it that when an american soldier commits an unnecessary atrocity overseas, you take credit and blame for it?????

Civilians are collectively responsible when their army hijacks their government and uses force (and in the modern age which you referred to earlier, the state has far surpassed the civilians in the control and use of force) to impose their will upon them??

I would hate to be born in a totalitarian regime and learn that you were sending soldiers my way! You would hold me responsible for things beyond my control?

__________________

Well, no matter how you want to slice it, the people are at least PARTIALLY responsible for the actions of their government, no matter what type of government it is.

After all, where does the military get their soldiers? Where do they get their funding?

While some allowances can be made, the people of any country are at least PARTIALLY responsible for their government's actions.

I agree with Norrin. [Looks up, worried that the sky may be falling . . .]

The principle of civilian control of the military is solidly entrenched in every government except a military dictatorship. Even in nondemocratic governments such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, the civilian government had the last word on military action. In the case in question, the decision to drop the bomb was made by President Truman, not by a general. The decision to fund the Manhattan Project was made by President Roosevelt, not by a general (and by Congress in some fashion one supposes, although the project was so secret that it's doubtful most of Congress knew about it).

As to why we used nuclear weapons in Japan, the argument that it was necessary to forestall the casualties from an invasion of Japan has never been convincing to me, for the simple reason that no invasion of Japan was necessary. A blockade and a little patience would have brought about surrender. The Japanese were already beaten at that point and represented no military threat. Nor do I believe Truman would have used nukes merely to shorten the war's technical duration by a few months, as opposed to avoiding casualties.

The most likely reason the bomb was used had to do more with our allies than our enemies. The Soviet Union was under agreement to declare war on Japan after the surrender of Nazi Germany. Stalin kept this promise, which is how he got his hands on North Korea. At the same time, Soviet troops were occupying all of eastern Europe after driving the Germans out of same, and concern in the U.S. was already shifting from the defeated Axis to the USSR. Nuking Japan may have hastened the surrender by a month or two, but much more importantly it sent a message of power and ruthless resolve to Stalin in a language the Soviet dictator understood fluently.

In short, I believe the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sacrificed on the altar, not of military victory, nor of saving American lives, but of Cold War geopolitics.

interesting. Am i responsible for the deaths of all people who die in US airstrikes around the world?

Many times, through force, coercion, and terrorism, they acquire these resources REGARDLESS of the will of their subjects.
This is a tough one. In the modern era, the state has enough technology at its disposal, and has a monopoly on the legtimacy of the use of force/violence, in order to project its will REGARDLESS of the complicity of its civilians. The civilians do not have access to the weapons systems and legitimacy of the use of force that would be REQUIRED to CHANGE their government's policies.

So here, you are dead wrong.

__________________

In Nazi Germany, Hitler made all military decisions and acted as general. His 'civilian' title as furher and his military title as furher were one in the same.

In Japan, the military hijacked control of the government against the will of a weak and scared emperor. While technically he had the last 'say', evidence shows he was not in practical control of policy.

In any case, Hitler was neither elected as furher and the military government of Japan nor the emperor were elected by their people.

Each used force to acquire their legitimacy. Placing blame on civilians for this unfortunate situation is as self righteous as it gets.

__________________

ehhh, I wouldn't say that about Hitler. While the Nazis never recieved a majority vote in the country they, believe it or not, came to power more or less by constitutional means.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness, Self-Reliance, Perseverance

Hitler's title of "Fuhrer" was NOT military. His only military title was "corporal" (or whatever the German equivalent is -- somethinggruppenfuhrer, I think), which is the rank he earned in World War I. His standing in German society came entirely from German civilian politics, not the military.

Japan actually was a military dictatorship at the time, which is, as I noted, the exception to the rule. (BTW, for the emperor to be a figurehead was the norm and had been for centuries. Emperors using their nominal absolute power and making things happen was rare. It happened when Meiji insisted that the country modernize in the 19th century, and again when Hirohito ended World War II. Most of the time, the actual running of government was done by less lofty figures, Shoguns during the medieval period, the military during World War II, and the elected leadership today.)

No, here we disagree. No government EVER rules its own people solely by force. A conquered other people, yes, sometimes, but its own, never. It's not possible. Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence only got it half right. Governments derive their powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed, or at least of enough of the governed to constitute a working consensus.

What happens when a government, even a nondemocratic, autocratic police state, loses the consent of the governed? See the Soviet Union in 1991 for an example.

The German people supported Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Their party was voted into a plurality in the Reichstag and put a working coalition together with a couple of other small parties, which is standard procedure in parliamentary democracies when no party has an outright majority. Hitler became Chancellor according to the terms of the constitution, and then assumed dictatorial powers again according to the terms of the constitution after the Reichstag fire. Although there were no more elections after that, the indications that Hitler continued to have strong public support were there, until the Germans began to lose the war.

Yes, the German people of the time were to blame for putting Hitler in power. He could not have done it alone. You have to qualify the blame when it comes to the Holocaust, which was carried out in secret, but less-drastic antisemitic measures did have public support. (I'm thinking the Holocaust would not have, or it wouldn't have been secret; Hitler was no political dunce.)

If MY GOVERNMENT COMMITS CRIMES then I am partially responsible, as are ALL the people.

It is the duty of every citizen to make sure their government is kept under control. If a government is committing crimes it is up the people to get rid of that government by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

To say that the people share NO BLAME for the actions of their government is ABSURD.

Would you say that this is true for only democratic societies or any type of society?
Well, if the government is established against the will of the people, is it really theirs?
And, your answer to this is probably, well they have the power to change it.

However, considering the legitimacy that modern nation states have established for themselves, their extremely disproportionate access to weapon technology and resources, it is very arguable than in many cases people find themselves lacking the essential means to remove their government. Such a task may have been much easier in say the late eighteenth century, when the government had muskets and the people have muskets.

What if i am a member of a small community of dissent in a nation where the overwhelming majority of the citizens have pledged blind faith to their government and its legitimacy? am i still guilty?

__________________

Hitler made all military decisons. PERIOD. He wore his military jacket. He was the final say in military decisions. His title of Furher was self-applied. IT was quasi civilian and quasi military.

Did they ever have the consent of the governed? Are you arguing that it is impossible for a government to rule solely by force? Or that just never happens? I think you are giving an enlightenment theorist a tad too much of the benefit of the doubt. I consider the whole consent of the governed thing to be a bit of an idealistic theory. Did the peasants of Ukraine who were systematically starved by the SU give Stalin their consent? How do we know the fall of the SU was not simply a failure by a government who never had the consent of its people to continue imposing its will through force?

correct.
So are the one's who never supported Hitler responsible for his actions?
Way too simplistic. Hitler was not voted Furher. He was not voted Chancellor. He was appointed chancellor by democratically elected leaders, yes, but those democratically elected leaders did not will him to be Furher, and intened to use him as a pawn. Happenstance, propaganda, and timing won him the title of Furher.
All of the public? Or just segments? This is the weakness of your argument. You are failing to explain how those who never supported Hitler period fit into this analysis and argument.

__________________

I would say by a stretch. Hitler was appointed chancellor by constitutional means. He was given emergency powers by constitutional means. I would not go as far to say that the Weimar constitution had a provision for a man to establish himself as "Furher" indefinitely, without a vote, and to completely erase the prior constitution. of course i could be wrong.

there is a reason why it is called the Third Reich, and not the "tail end of Weimar"

__________________

That's rather an example of a police state failing to mobilize and impliment every brutal force necessary to quell troublemakers in the needed fashion at a certain moment of time.

Saddam's Iraq in 1991/92 is an example of a police state being able to quell popular unrest, even in the light of a military defeat.

__________________
"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes

Excellent points. It is hard to argue that Sadam Huesein governed by the consent of his people. If that is true, the US committed war crimes and we need to be occupied in the same manner that Sadam was.

__________________

If your government, any government, is committing crimes, then you are PARTIALLY responsible for those crimes, unless you are doing everything in your power to stop these crimes, or to remove said government.

In my case, I am partially responsible for every crime my government has committed in my adult lifetime, since I did nothing to try to stop said crimes.