Vain person asks about higher education valuability.

so you would say the same thing for Greeks if you were a Frenchman. though now you look at them suddenly not so scissor sisters anymore just because one of them doesnt have money. the reason USA took part in world wars next to French has many economical and political reasons, nothing so emotionally as brotherhood or anything. the reason the two countries are so close at the moment is solely economical, as any other alliance in this world. one of these reasons is USA attirbuted crazy amounts of help when France was in crisis at 50s and 70s. which is the American way, no offense, to try to buy their friends, since they always think they dont have any.

say if for example Germany wasnt in a certain crisis at the end of the medieval ages and could assume a colonial role earlier than it had unsuccessfully done much later and adapted to industrial age in time and got kicked out of every rich colony by the british and allied themselves with the natives and with every kind of enemy and rebels that the british had just to be an ass to them and became their lifelong rivals and had a port town to Atlantic, we would be having a much different discussion right now. then you would be calling them brothers, not caring how many Jews got brutally murdered, like you dont care now about Japanese or Morrocans. maybe a friendly sanction or a trial or two, but still brotherly.

 

Wow, remind me to re-read that when I'm really really drunk, it might make sense.

 

Kio, I'm going to guess what you are trying to say.

What you said about the French can also be said about the Turks. We didn't have to "buy" the French into helping us during the American Revolution, we had a common enemy: the English. But we have stayed on the same side since because we still have common interests. This is why we helped rhem in the '50's. It was to our benefit, of course.

The common enemies the Turks and the U.S. had was the Soviet Union, and later, Arab extremism.

German banks got rich during the colonial era by financing it. That's how it had the money to become an industrial juggernaut by the the late 1800's. (You don't think all that Native American gold stayed in Spain, did you?) Otherwise all Germany would been exporting in the middle of the 20th century would have beeen sausage instead of panzers.

The Germans didn't try colonization until the 1800's. Most of the German colonists went to places like the United States and South America. Notice that the men charge of the Pacific, Nimitz, and in Europe, Eisenhower, were both Germans. Texas has a huge German population. The neighborhood I live in now started out as German.

 

[/QUOTE=Gaear;111549]
e.g., a man who is shunned by women sexually is not likely to be regarded highly by his peers. I guess it's possible that this is not true in Finland, but somehow I strongly doubt that

Generally, I admit that you are right. But, as there is always a: but, the prestige a male receives by his peers is dependent on the social groups of the female. By my personal experience: a skinhead male being shunned by a hippie female, only fostered his prestige among his peers. Then again this may be one of the many anomalies.

“1%?” I thought that refers to the (criminal) motorcycle gangs who have decided to live outside the boundaries of normal society?

Nothing rids one from false arrogance or hubris better than a bootcamp.  But it has its factual perks too. In a moment of crisis, like a pileup on a highway, Finns (at least males) won’t panic. They would just form a chain of command and follow thru. I guess that is why we are so “civilized” with cops. We are used to take commands.

Did you post post that just to piss me off? The mighty US of A chose isolation and kept it so, up until it had no other choice but to join the war, just like with WW. Kicking someone to the head whilst one is already laying on the ground is nothing but cowardice. Remember: Stalingrad, Kursk, Danzig, Dresden! Yet again the Great Us of A tries to get the credit of deeds done by others. Annoyance of the war claims victory, should I cry or laugh?

Utterly true, yet the last time you (American kin) defended your soil was in the eighteenhundreds.

 

Pretty sure that was exactly GA82's point: better to fight proxy wars in Europe or Asia than to suffer the devestation of a war on your own soil. What fool would wait until the war reached their doorstep if war was inevitable and the opportunity to fight it elsewhere existed?

That is, by the way, the best logic I have ever heard for our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (though I'm not sure that reasoning existed when the invasions occurred.) Note that there has not been a successful major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11, in no small part because we have forced the terrorists to fight closer to their own homes than to ours.

Wow, you seriously think the Russians would have beaten Nazi Germany without the US and England on the other side of the continent, and without US Lend Lease economic and military aid? I can't even argue with that. I wouldn't know how to reach close enough to your version of reality to begin...

 

Why would you think that?

Are you angry the Americans didn't intervene earlier? Or are you angry when we DO intervene. Pick one.

Either way, you won't get what you want. If you aren't there, then we don't care.

There have been several attempted attacks on our soil this last year. There was a successful major attack on 9/11/01. We chased the Taliban and Al Quaeda out of Afghanistan in 2002. We wiped out Al Quaeda in Iraq in 2003. We are busily killing them all over the world now.

What particular event in the 1800's are you referring to? There were many attacks on American soil in the 1800's and in the 20th century.

 

Those fools who cannot avoid it because of their geopolitical situation. We didn’t ask for war, war came to us. Of course it serves US interests to wage wars on foreign soil, but doing so comes with a price. Someone will always hold a grudge.

Neither was 9/11 an act of war (instead of an act of terror) nor did the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan had anything to do with it. The war in Iraq is just a war to quench the thirst of an oilhungry nation. The war in the burial ground of empires is just a vengeful amok of a hurt nation who dare not retaliate against those who really were behind the 9/11. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren’t the highjack’s mainly Saudi - Arabians, your close allies? Those terrorist (freedom fighters) you are referring are not the cause of the US invasion, but a product of it.

Well I see you live in a bubble of fantasies. Both colonial empires French and UK were totally decimated by the Nazis. The fact that Britain is an island is the only thing that spared it from German occupation. All the UK, the US and the Reich lost less than two hundred kilos on the battle of the Western front, meanwhile the Reich’s casualties on the Eastern front piled up to four megas and those of the Soviets up to ten megas. The soviets could have easily just retreated behind the Urals, and wait until their massive industry would have pushed out enough T – 34 Sotka’s to run over the entire Europe. Even the FRUS and (later) the notes published by the Reagan regime admit that the vast natural resources of the Soviets were something that the US could never challenge, little they knew that the insufficiency of the Soviet government would render those resources meaningless. Unlike the current Russian regime, who successfully keeps the entire EU in its iron grip. We will bitch and moan, but do nothing more no matter what the Russians do in Chechnya, Ukraine or in Georgia. The oil and gas must flow. What comes to the WWII the sheer numbers tells you were the war was really fought, lost and won. It is only typical American arrogance to take credit on events; they had little or no effect at all.

There was recently a sociological/criminological publication about the organized criminal gangs in Europe (those who wear vests) titled “the 1%:ers”. They claim that they are the 1% who refuse to live by the rules and norms of the 99% and they proudly present their criminal affiliation by wearing the 1% patch in their vests. That patch can be seen in any court photo of a Hell’s Angels or Bandido’s member. Since the criminal methheads are rarely inventive, I just assumed that the 1% thing was something they had aped from their American colleagues/idols. Feel free to correct me.

Truth to be said: both. In December 1939 when the Soviets tried to invade us you were so sympathetic towards us, but did squat. When avoidance of the war was no longer an option you chose THEIR side, only to later wage a cold war with the same Soviets, but this time with the possibility of mutually assured destruction. Never ever giving any consideration to those who will pay the prize of your saber clutching, for us, the small peoples of the world, who had to pay the prize with our blood. But what pains me the most is: that even in this time and age when past grievances should truly be things of the past, you cannot admit that the mighty US of A might have made some ill decisions in the past.

Acts of terror, not acts of war. Yes, you have been very busy in the killing business. Did or did not your victims had any affiliation with terrorism or any anti-American action remains doubtful. Executing suspects is so much easier than to meet the burden of proof in front of a independent and impartial jury.

The only war the US waged in the 19th century that I am aware was the Spanish American war, and I am not even sure if Santa Anna ever actually invade US soil since Texas was independent at the time. Civil war doesn’t count, brothers fighting brothers is a family quarrel. Nor does count the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the continent, women and children rarely shoot back. But I admit, my expertise lies in 18th century European history, the events of the colonies prior to the 20th century are somewhat a blind spot to me. Please, feel free to educate me.

All what you said about service in Yugoslavia is true, but does that really matter? That is what one sings for when taking the oath (?). According to the American TV – series, yanks have their golden years in the high school. Mine were in the service. Approximately 40 000 (circa 70% of a generation) every year does their service, only less than a thousand is accepted to continue their service in abroad. I never even had to apply. I was asked and I refused. Now I will never know whether if I was as good as my drill officers thought I was and more importantly: I will never know could I have not been a coward. All I know is that I am as our national epic depicts as “those who are unfit for the quiet life, those who have the crimson blood”. Perhaps that is why I have no wife, no children and why I have not yet graduated. When the sun finally returns from its long wintery slumber I feel exhilaration, the need to forget everything and to get on the road. As ridiculous as it sounds, the only time I have felt peace in my heart (my ex-fiancé might disagree) and had a sense of belonging was in the military.

What comes to the possibility to have been called to fight and perhaps to die for a side I wouldn’t believe in is irrelevant. I have given the oath to follow the orders and the personal example of my commanding officer to the best of my abilities till the day I die, and so I will. But yet again, that oath has never been put unto a test, so I can only say what I think I would have done.

Serbs still live in there; they are nowadays only a minority in their own country. The Kosovo Albans are Muslims and relics of the Ottoman occupation. Given that the occupation ended less than a century ago, those people are the least welcome into the European family. Americans may have waged war with the followers of the false prophet only for few years, maybe even a decade, but our grudge with the infidels is millennia old. Muslims do not belong on Christian soil.

 

@erkper

In the case you did not know: we Finns owe our indecency to the great Wermacht, Luftwaffe and Waffen SS. Without their help, we would have shortly succumbed under the rule of your most hated enemy, the soviets. Adolf may be a villain in your pantheon, but he is a hero in ours. That been said, I have no reason to exaggerate the capabilities of the red war machine.

 

Yeah Rocktoy, I get the Finns' situation. The Soviets and Nazis were both evil empires, but it was the Soviets that invaded you. In the classic Sun Zu sense, the enemy of your enemy became your friend. Pretty much the same thing for us: we had no love for the Soviets, if Hitler hadn't been stupid enough to invade the USSR before finishing off England we certainly wouldn't have sided with them. Kind of hard to side with your longtime allies the English and French without siding with the other guys their enemies attacked.

I do not doubt the ferocity or scale of the fighting on the Eastern Front, but I would be interested to know where you came up with the losses suffered on the Western. I have seen larger casualty numbers for the Battle of the Bulge alone, which was only a 3 week offensive in the winter of 1944, let alone the entire campaigns in N. Africa, Western Europe, and don't forget the Pacific. Do you think the Japanese might have bled off some of the Soviet military if they hadn't been distracted by the efforts of the US of A stealing all the credit for winning the war? Which was your claim, never mine by the way. It is interesting you think the Soviets could have just picked up and moved east to continue the fight had they needed to. Most historians (European and Russian alike) seem to feel the Soviet Union would have collapsed if Moscow had fallen, and those T-34s you mentioned were rolling off the factory floor directly into battle - if the Sovs had been pushed east of the Urals they would have had to leave most of their heavy industry behind and sure wouldn't have had the manufacturing capability (especially without US economic aid) to continue the fight. As it was, the USSR's war machine was mostly transported by Ford and half the fighters in the Soviet Air Force were US-made P-39 Airocobras or P-40 Warhawks.

I don't think the USA won the war all by themselves, far from it... but to claim the Soviets would have been victorious without a Western Front and US aid is as ludicrous as what you claim I think. After all, we are talking about the same Soviet military that was so inept it couldn't subjugate a third-rate military power right on their own border...oke:

On another topic:

Please translate "jihad" for me. As for the rest regarding the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan - you are somewhat correct about Iraq, I think that had much more to do with Bush the younger wanting to finish what daddy started than oil however, but for Afghanistan you are completely wrong. Afghanistan was the main training ground for Islamic terrorism and Al-Qaida was fully supported by the Taliban government. This is beyond debate. Even if it weren't true, the very act of a US invasion of an Islamic country in the name of defeating Islamic extremist terrorism was exactly the lightning rod that was required to draw the terrorists away from attacks on US soil.

Oh, and one more thing:

I'd rather ignore someone's whiny grudge than bury my neighbor or family.

 

Saying so: shows ignorance. History knows neither good nor evil, only things that existed. Condemning something that existed in the past by the values of the present is only hypocritical hindsight. I cannot say whether of the aforementioned empires were “evil” or not, but as you said it was your ally who tried to invade us and your enemy who tried to save us.

Yet again, American ignorance over European affairs: (not to say that, I am equally ignorant of the US history) the Germans were our old allies. During the World War, it was the imperial Germans and Royal Prussian Jaegerbattallion number 27 (in which my grand uncle served) that initially secured Finnish independence from the Russian empire. Thus it was only right and proper that we sook their help, when the Russians once again threatened our independence.

Correct if I am wrong: but didn’t you let French been occupied and only laughed when your former Master, England, was bombed and threatened to be overrun? It was no love for the European colonial masters that brought you in the war, it was the attack to the Pearl Harbor, which was done by the Japs, allies of the Reich.

You can check some numbers from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths in the meanwhile. It has been eight years since I have done WWII courses, and I am currently struggling with my bachelor’s thesis in anthropology and with my master’s thesis in history, so it will take some considerate time to dig up proficient references. Couple of months at least, hence all I can recall was the name of the author (MCMillan or MacMillan) and the place of publication (Cambridge).

Wars over colonies were irrelevant, given that the Pacific war was the true stage where US waged its war, and was triumphant.

Anthony Beevor in his book “Stalingrad” (isbn 951-0-24922-x) dictates that the Stalin’s generals argued that it would have been a “wise” choice to retreat behind the Urals and gradually wear the enemy out, but the Sunny Father saw such a choice as a act of cowardice. Moscow was not to be let fall, no matter how much blood must be spilled. “Warhawks” and “Aircobras” are unknown to me, but then again aren’t all the Soviet (major) nuclear facilities and launch cites east from the Urals. A lesson learned?

On the contrary. The US of A won one war, the war over the Pacific. McMillan argues that the a-bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not dropped to defeat the Japs (that empire was already on its knees) but to show to the Russians: seize no more Europe. What comes to the soviets trying to subjugate us, a third-rate military power, half of our entire front was defended by the Wehrmacht. With the generous help of the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe, the Waffen SS and the Norwegian and Swedish volunteers we were able to stop the Soviets. A deed you needed nuclear weapons to accomplish. Poke one you.

 

Your interpretation of history is your choice. The Nazis were responsible for Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, and the rest. Stalin murdered more of his own people than the Great War did, not to mention his treatment of those outside his borders. When I see those events, I see evil. If it soothes your conscience to be unable to see evil, so be it.

Times change, Rocktoy. The German Empire of the First World War was a far cry from the Nazi Third Reich, and Kaiser Wilhelm was a far cry from Adolf Hitler.

It was US isolationism that kept us out of direct conflict until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but we were supporting England long before Dec 7, 1941. Laughed? Hardly. American volunteers were flying in England defending against the Blitz, giving their lives to protect our closest allies - as were US sailors and merchantmen carrying desperately needed aid to Britain as the U-boats ravaged their convoys.

Regardless of what you consider "irrelevant," I'm pretty sure US, British, Australian, New Zealander, German, Japanese and Italian soldiers all died fighting in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, SE Asia, and countless other places.

Exactly my point. Stalin would not abandon Moscow, Stalingrad, and the rest of the major cities because he knew their psychological, military and economic importance to the survival of the Soviet Union. And yes, crafting the post-war USSR to be less dependant on the industrial base west of the Urals was absolutely a deliberate lesson learned from the sad state the Soviets found themselves in in 1941 and early 1942.

Ah yes, poke one on the strategy that prevented a direct conflict between the superpowers of the cold war. A conflict that would have made the casualties of the second world war look trivial. How stupid was that?

Exactly - Holy War. The Islamic extremeists consider it a war, so do we. What part do you not get?

I never said the Afghan people supported the terrorists, or even that the Taliban funded them. But the Taliban allowed Al-Qaeda to set up shop training terrorists in their country, and we went there to shut them down.

Yes, it is.

 

My interpretation of history is the one I was thought by the faculty of social studies. We, historians, are thought to perceive historical occurrences as objectively as humanly possible. It is not our place to judge, on the contrary, it is our calling to find out the actual course of events and the causality that led to those events and no more. The ignorant are always welcomed to educate themselves to their limits, but surely they are not welcomed to dictate history? Lest you want history become as an incoherent ramble of self-righteous bigots?

I do not wish to underrate the horrors and pains caused by Auschwitz, etc., nor do I deny the atrocities committed by the Soviets. The cries of the children and lamentation of the women slaughtered by the carpet bombings of Dresden and Danzig or by the nuclear attacks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki does not escape my conception either. To put it in a way even you can understand: war has no “goodies” only “baddies”.

Ah the American perspective, so refreshingly opposite to European. Yes the Fremen in Frank Herbert’s Dune say: “The sands of the dunes do shift, but they do not shift overnight.” The German empire or the Reich are not things of some distant past as far as we are considered, those are things of yesterday. Americans are sons of a bastard nation, sons without a legacy. We, Europeans, do not share that luxury. We are still bound by the grudges and allies forged decades, centuries, even millennia ago. The EU has currently two capitals: Strasbourg and Brussels because the French and the Germans could not agree over pre-Napoleonic disputes. Strasbourg was German and protestant region before WW after which it was annexed to France. But the dispute over ownership has been present ever since the Romans. Same goes with Brussels, it is currently the capital of Belgium but it used to be part of the French empire and before that a part of the Hapsburgian Holy Roman Empire.

When UE decided to introduce a common currency in year 2000 it was originally named as ECU which was an acronym from the words European currency unit. But since ECÚ was the name of the currency used by the French during the reign of the Roi-Soleil, the Germans insisted to change the name. So nowadays we use the euro; acronym for European Unit of Account.

But all of those are but miniscule whining of the yestereve in comparison to the Greeks. When the soviet Yugoslavia finally disintegrated forming a number of new states, all the former parts are an route to EU membership, even the disputed Muslim Kosova, but not the Macedonia. The latter does not even have a name that the EU would recognize. But why? Because according to the Greeks, Megas Alexandros was born in Greek municipality called at the time Macedonia. And no-one is allowed to steal the heritage and pride of the Hellenes, no matter two and a half millennia has passed since his heroics.

You the Americans, the bastard sons of Europe, have been blessed with the greatest gift known to us: the possibility to start from a clean state, shortly freedom. A word so often and mundanely used by Americans, that it makes me wonder do you even ever grasp the deeper meaning of that word? Freedom from the past sins of your kind?

Volunteers did what they saw as proper thing to do and for their courage I salute them. They were fine and brave individuals whose legacy should not be forgotten. Nevertheless their actions were actions of enlighten individuals and not actions of their government. It is not fit to grant the glory of few brave individuals to bless a government of cowards.

Point well taken. We Europeans too often accuse the Americans to be ignorant and self-centered, whilst we are guilty for the same arrogance. But then again we do earn that status of the centre. Both of the WW’s were first and foremost European wars, given that they escalated to the colonies. Europe as miniscule part in the global scale, nevertheless it is the place where history is written. You Are aware that North Africa was the only non-European theatre of war you mentioned. Former slaves, fighting for their master, such irony.

What I meant with the poke was that to the peoples of the world summarily vaporizing hundreds of thousands of women and children was hardly an act of superior strategy? Bombing the civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were acts of terror, crimes against humanity. Unlike the victims of Auschwitz and Dachau, the innocent victims of the foramentioned atrocities have never been granted the justice. Their slaughters were on the winning side and thus pardon for all their crimes, such hypocrisy…



Exactly - Holy War. The Islamic extremeists consider it a war, so do we. What part do you not get?

And such proclamation by few deranged individuals justifies an occupation of an entire country and an ever increasing death toll of women and children?

 

Again, whatever helps you sleep at night. I find no little coincidence that the historians who taught you live in a country that was allied with Nazi Germany. You might find the historians in, say, Tel Aviv or even Brussels to have a bit different interpretation. I also find it interesting you deny the existence of "goodies" when most the rest of the world (at least, those who were not allied to Nazi Germany) see a pretty clear association to the forces fighting to defeat Germany and Imperial Japan.

The economic turmoil of post-WWI Europe led to some pretty drastic change, akin to an earthquake on Herbert's dunes. Things shifted very fast indeed - Finland simply refused to recognize the change. But again, you vaccilate to avoid the shame of siding with one of the most evil men in all history. And yes, history does indeed define individuals in that way. For examples, see Nero, Caligula, or Vlad the Impaler. I would personally rate Hitler and Stalin somewhere above most of those... but I'm not an historian.

Other than the gratuitous insults directed at America/Americans, what is the point of all this? I fail to understand how making fun of the Greeks absolves Finnish guilt over association with and alliance to Hitler.

Those Eagle Squadron volunteer pilots in England were supplied and equipped by the United States, as were the Flying Tigers in China. It is rather hard to argue they acted without the support of their government. Equally hard to argue the US Navy warships that escorted convoys to the midpoint of the Atlantic in 1940 and 1941 were acting without official government support. At the same time, the US government was sending billions of dollars of supplies and equipment to the Brits and Soviets, with deferred or no payment required. The government did everything it could to support England and oppose Japan and Germany without an official declaration of war. FDR's trade embargo of Japan basically forced them to go to war with us, lest their industry grind to a halt for lack of raw materials.

I do not believe SE Asia is in Europe, nor was the rest of the Pacific Theatre. But my point was to refute your minimilization of all the rest of the war to focus on the European Eastern Front. The Allies did not defeat the Axis Powers soley based on the might of the Red Army. Were the Soviets an integral and necessary component of that victory? Surely so, as I have stated often. But not the only necessary component.

For a self-proclaimed historian, you are woefully Eurocentric as to the origins of the Second World War. It could easily be argued the Great War did not start in Europe with Hitler's occupations and invasions of his neighboring countries at all, but rather in Korea and Manchuria years earlier when the Japanese began expanding their empire by force of arms.

You seem remarkably ignorant about the Pacific war in general. The Japanese were not about to surrender. Even after Germany and Italy had been defeated, even as the Soviet war machine started turning eastward, even after all their defensive outposts in the Marianas, Phillipines, and Okinawa had fallen, they would have fought on. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff were given an estimate of the casualties if we had to invade Japan to force an end to the war. That estimate came to half a million US dead - and 3-5 million Japanese military and civillian deaths. Compared to that projected cost, the use of nuclear weapons was predicted to cause fewer than 100,000 casulties. It turned out to be quite a bit more than that, but that was what the scientists were saying at the time. Given those numbers, the Joint Chiefs made a hard choice to recommend the nuclear option to President Roosevelt. After much deliberation, FDR agreed. I hope to God such a decision is never made again, but in the same situation I cannot say I would not make the same choice.

LOL, have you any idea what life under the Taliban was like to the women and children of Afghanistan? I guarantee you fewer are being killed today by US/UN forces than were by their own "government" before the Americans came. And yes, when a handful of those deranged individuals can kill thousands in an instant, it justifies a lot.

 

Well, I do not think that former allies of the “evil” soviet empire, has the right to judge the former allies of the similarly “evil” Reich. I also assure to you that no historian, no matter in which place one resides, will never pass judgment nor call a historical phenomenon as evil. Their points of view and points of interest may vary, but they will still share the same notion of paradigm as I do. When you say “rest of the world” you refer to the former allies? Or have you ever conversed with a Romanian, Estonian or anyone from the former Yugoslavia? They might hold a different view over the “evil” of Soviets and Nazis.

I would personally add some names with the Hitler and Stalin as one of the most evil men that have walk on earth. Alas, I cannot recall the names of the US presidents who were responsible of the genocide of the native American population, nor can I recall the name of the president who nuked the Japanese or napalmed the children of Vietnam, nevertheless they deserve the same disdain.

Dante Alighieri in his epos La (divina) Commedia describes the ninth circle of Hell as the ultimate destination for the most wicked, namely those of the traitors, where Lucifer himself gnaws the arch traitors: Brutus, Cassius and Judas. Since we betrayed our former ally, I guess, that is the fate we deserve.

I did not mean to insult you. I use the term “bastard” to emphasize that the US does have its root in European soil, like a bastard son, but is not constricted by his father’s name, ie. his past sins. Here in Europe, no decision can ever be made by the EU without a tedious compromise over grievances of centuries old. The French do not give a crap that we allied with Hitler, they already are appaled us because we fought under the flag of the Gustavus Adolphus Magnus in his protestant crusade against the Catholics in the 17th century.

What I tried to say here was that things in Europe are complicate. Things said and done eons ago still affect our daily lives, as do those of the more recent. The US on the other hand is a “bastard” son ours, aware of our past but not imprisoned by it. Free to do as it pleases whilst not hindered by any old grudge. That is what I call freedom.

Fine. The US government supported the war effort of its former masters, but was too much of a coward to intervene, until the war already won.

Touché. I am guilty of Eurocentric point of view once again.

Again yes. I am regrettably Eurocentric. But I am not self-proclaimed historian; I am a grad student majoring in history. My bachelor thesis in cultural anthropology will be presented in March 6th and my master’s thesis in history in April 19th. I will be happy to send you both, if you can read Finnish that is.

Ignorant of the pacific war, I am. All I know is that the Japs had initiated peace talks way before the nuking. But the US were not willing to accept anything but unconditional surrender. To the nation of the Samurai, that was not an option. They had fought courageously and deserved to be treated as such. Instead of negotiation over conditional peace, the US chose to nuke women and children. What a glorious day.

I do not care about the living conditions of the Afghans under the Taliban rule. They chose the Taliban rule (well, after a long civil war) so let them live under it and reap the flavor of hallal. There is the vogue concept of national “sovereignty” you might have heard of? What comes to your justification: if Hitler had found a handful of deranged Zionists would that have justified the holocaust? And if not, why?

 

Two points:

There is NO such thing as an objective historian. They are trained to draw conclusions, or at least inferences, from incomplete data. Objectivity is not an option. ALL history is opinion.

This is a lesson I've learned myself: Once you express yourself negatively, everything you say afterward will be viewed in that very same unflattering, unhelpful, point-obscuring light. (Maybe I should say I haven't actually LEARNED it. )

Both of these two points support your contention that what is EVIL in history is a matter of perspective.