Easy there, Voshkin
There is no doubt that there was plenty of suffering to go around. I have family on wife's side from Russia (the family of an Orthodox priest from Poland) that certainly could tell you a lot about what hardships are all about. The in-laws had I think 11 brothers and sisters in one family, and 1 made it back. I do think that memorials take on new meanings over time as history gets revised, but we all have to take a lot more feelings into account than just our own. I personally would rather keep our national monuments within the borders of our nation, just so that if we choose to dispose of it, it is our decision, and we as a nation have to come to an agreement before moving it, and come to terms with it after moving it.
As an American, I am deeply offended by the lack of respect for our war dead buried in dozens of countries that cannot remember who paid the ultimate sacrifice for their sake. It was an international effort, and those who cannot remember it do not deserve the honor of having the graves of our dead in their country. But I am not going to try to justify hacking them or anything -- knowing them for the cretins they are is enough for me.
The problem is, whether anyone likes it or not, when the monument was put up, these countries were part of the Soviet state, which they are no longer a part of. The dead they commemorate belong to a country that no longer exists, but most Russians still identify themselves as being part of it, while others want to revise history. While that is foolish, as what happened did happen, it does not diminish the honor due to the Soviet dead, but the foolishness of these times, and the tendency of politicians to say and do whatever they think will get them votes, regardless of what is right and what is wrong, wrong, wrong..
The part that bothers me most in moving this monument is that Russian sensitivities were not taken into consideration prior to doing it, and consequently the rhetoric has gone from bad to worse over it. That's undiplomatic to say the least.
That said, you imputed a war crime where there was none. You only have to have one army to be at war, and Japan was convinced they were still at war at the time. Those bombs were dropped *during* the war with Japan, and although they had an effect, relative to US B29 firebombing campaigns they were not as effective as might be surmised. Japan had one Giorgiy Zhukov headed towards them like a freight train out of the west, and they had the decision as to surrender to the US, or become obliterated by an enemy whose bitter grievances went back to around 1905. I hardly think Zhukov would have shown mercy, especially if casualties would have gone as high as projected. It was a no-brainer from Japan's perspective -- the nukes just gave them a face-saving way to avoid obliteration.
Just like the Germans in the race to Berlin, Japan had a choice as to who to surrender to unconditionally, and this left them with a way out. I'm not saying that it was pleasant, or that the loss of life was wanted -- however, it weakened the resolve at the right time, and the numbers of lives saved (including Japanese) has to be nearly in the hundreds of millions. By their very nature and excellence of dedication, the Japanese weren't going to give up easily. I do not believe for a minute that any nation at war at that time would have declined the use of a war-ending weapon, and if Germany had gotten the necessary materiel to Japan in time, I certainly believe they'd have made use of it.
So, in this history lesson, you now learn that not only US was still at war at the time, but also SSSR, as I can only assume Zhukov was operating under the authorization of his nation. It'd be hard to miss an army of that size and capability -- pretty sure Stalin knew what was going on, and people did tend to follow his orders quite well.
Spasibo.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
