75 Years Ago – 6 August 1945

Today, 06 August 2020, marks the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima by the United States.  I know many disagree with me, but in my opinion, the bombing of Hiroshima, and three days later Nagasaki, were nothing short of war crimes, of crimes against humanity.  Approximately 210,000 people died as a result of those two bombings.. These people were not the military brass who were leading the Japanese army and navy in attacks against the allies, nor were they even the soldiers who were following orders.  They were innocents — senior citizens, women, children, civil servants — people who were only going about their lives until suddenly … BOOM … they no longer had lives to go about.  I will always believe that the use of nuclear weaponry is wrong.  Period.

Three years ago at the observance of the anniversary, Japan held their annual ceremony at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, attended by some 50,000 people representing 80 nations.  Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called for global cooperation to end nuclear weapons.

“For us to truly realize a world without nuclear weapons, the participation of both nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states is necessary.”

In July of that year, the United Nations reached its first agreement to ban nuclear weapons. But Japan, along with the nine nuclear-armed nations, including the United States, refused to take part in the negotiations and the vote, saying it does nothing to counter the “grave threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program.”

Japan already adheres to a policy of not possessing, producing or allowing nuclear weapons on its territory. It is the only country to have ever come under nuclear attack.  So far.

U.N. Secretary General António Guterres issued a message calling for the United States and other nuclear-armed countries to do more to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

“Our dream of a world free of nuclear weapons remains far from reality. The states possessing nuclear weapons have a special responsibility to undertake concrete and irreversible steps in nuclear disarmament.”

Every president since 1945 has worked toward test bans and global reduction of nuclear weapons … until the current administration who, we learned in May, is considering resuming nuclear testing.   Trump has withdrawn the United States from arms treaties including the landmark INF agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. Additionally, he has failed to extend the New START accord, which expires early next year.  If it expires without renewal or a replacement, then we will have no treaty in place controlling the two largest nuclear arsenals. There will be no trust, no verification. Today, there are about 14,000 nuclear weapons worldwide according the Arms Control Association, most of them held by the United States and Russia.

Contrary to the “dream of a world free of nuclear weapons”, in February 2017 Trump told Reuters that “if countries are going to have nukes, we’re going to be at the top of the pack.”  Trump, in fact, has said some chilling things along those lines:

  • Trump said he might use nuclear weapons and questioned why we would make them if we wouldn’t use them. – March 2016
  • “Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table.” (Answering a question whether he would ever ‘nuke’ Europe) – March 2016
  • Trump said that “you want to be unpredictable” with nuclear weapons – January 2016
  • Trump reiterated that it was important to be “unpredictable” with nuclear weapons – March 2016
  • Trump said he’d be OK with a nuclear arms race in Asia – May 2016

He has made other, similar comments, and I won’t go into detail here, but suffice it to say that he does not, apparently, realize what the use of nuclear weapons by any country on the globe would mean for the future of mankind.  Or perhaps he does …

In my opinion, the absolute worst invention in the world … ever … was the invention of nuclear weapons that are capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people in a matter of seconds.  This is not a toy, not something funny to play around with, and it is damn sure not something that should be used to threaten other nations.

Today, let us simply remember the atrocities, the horrors, of August 6th and August 9th, 1945.  And let us hope that somehow, someday, we can have a world free of the nuclear threat.

In Memory …

hiroshima-8.jpg

Related posts:

On President Obama’s Visit to Hiroshima

A Serious Conversation

112 thoughts on “75 Years Ago – 6 August 1945

  1. John Steinbeck is best known for authoring many novels, but he was also a special war correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune from June to December of 1943. In his 1958 book “Once There Was A War”, which is a collection of some of his dispatches from the war and a very good read, there are some words worth remembering : “All war is a symptom of man’s failure as a thinking animal.” I must agree! Thank-you!

    Liked by 2 people

    • I, too, completely agree with Steinbeck’s quote! It’s rather the way I think when I see a parent hitting a child … they have failed to do their job teaching the child, for it can be done without physical violence, but it requires a bit of thinking.

      Like

  2. Why is it so much easier to kill than to work towards peace? I know some will find this statement naive, but really – we as a global community seem to make this choice pretty easily with a lot of justification on all sides. If everyone decided war was not worth the inevitable cost, well, it starts with one…And thanks – I don’t need to hear the lectures of inevitability. I’ve heard them all and I will never believe purposeful mass destruction of life is a lesser of two evils.

    Liked by 1 person

    • … until YOU have to make the choice. And by YOU I mean to say any of US.

      To me, the question is what can be done each and every day to redirect this path away from tragedy and unnecessary suffering? And the primary one, I think, is to adopt a philosophy that does not intentionally divide people into groups, to reject any ideology that demands we do so, and support the principle of unity, of common sharing, of respecting exactly those individual rights and freedoms AND RESPONSIBILITIES we expect for ourselves and one that frames the world as Us, in this world together, and working towards a common goal of betterment of the human condition of Us. That requires active participation and not avoidance. This is something each of us can do every day.

      We can do this. But we cannot first accept and then go along with an ideological movement that in principle will always, always, always, divide people into competing hierarchical groups. THAT is an abdication of our collective responsibility to every other human on the planet.

      Liked by 1 person

      • If this is what you believe, tildeb, and I certainly hope you do, why dom ou so often sound so harsh, and argumentative. Are you trying to play devil’s advocate? Don’t we have enough devils in the world to pretend there are even more. Yes, I should be the one to talk, I love to play devil’s advocate. However, I try to be the one to play DA from the side of the saints, if you will allow me such a word. I have little use for saints, unless they are being saintly without an ego attached. Too many people “demand” to be recognized for their good deeds. I read the other day some Hollywood stars refuse to wear Covid masks because they don’t think they will be recognized. How stoopid can they be? Masks are about respecting the lives of others, not openly disrespecting them.
        And then there is Da Justice Terrorist, who demands to be recognized for his stoopidity, and his wilful disrespect. He cannot stand that Fauci is liked by more Americans than like him. He has no respect for most people, be they Americans, or the Queen of England. There was an intentional gaffe, first making her wait for him, then deliberately rushing in front of her to show her up. I have no use for royalty, she did nothing to earn my personal respect. But she’s an old lady. Since when is it disrespectful to show respect for her age?
        Arrrrgh, don’t get mestarted.
        My apologies, tildeb, for bringing the Fool on the Hill into a conversation when I am trying to give you some well-earned respect for showing us a side of you I for one did not know existed. Thank you.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I think the reason is that people, by nature, are never satisfied but always think they must have more than they have. They are arrogant and greedy, believing their beliefs and way of life are somehow superior and that they deserve more, deserve to have the power to tell others how to live their lives. Same reason we have racial strife, though obviously on a much larger scale. Sigh.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. A tragic and unavoidable conclusion to War on the industrial scale. Oddly, again Robert E Lee came up with a prescient statement
    ‘The war… was an unnecessary condition of affairs, and might have been avoided if forebearance and wisdom had been practiced on both sides’.
    …How many wars could have been avoided if that were so. Yet once they start. God Help Us All.

    Liked by 2 people

    • God? Are these solutions really so far out of reach, so far beyond our own human character, that we need a divine miracle to avoid these disasters?

      If only there were some public reminders about our history into, through and beyond these historical lessons, about the real cost to allowing circumstances to spiral out of control and forcing individuals into making a choice between terrible decisions… especially to the point of unbreachable partisanship, where one side is moral and ethical and righteous and the other immoral and unethical and evil – deplorable people, really. If only we could remind people to pay attention when we start to head down this divided road… I don’t know, maybe some statues? Memorials? Hey, maybe to teach actual history that isn’t washed of unpleasantness, isn’t categorized and reframed and then taught as a social power hierarchy for the patriarchy and the one percent (ignoring that each of us today lives in the top tenth of the 99th percentile compared to all human history in every category of advancement), maybe even be urged to read books from these times even if they contain ‘forbidden’ words?
      I mean, teaching people how to be responsible adults might be helpful, too. Like discussing what it might be like to BE in the positions of responsibility so that those we claim as deplorable can be better understood as part of the We rather than the They and see how we – armed with our morality and ethics and righteousness – might do better?

      Just thinking out loud here…

      Of course, it’s so easy to sit back and tsk tsk others, to categorize them safely from a distance into convenient groups that can be dissed and dismissed as not nearly as caring and compassionate and empathetic as we are – in our own minds – on an historical hill of our own making where our view is unimpeded, and then with a wave of the hand or pen reframe history to guarantee our own superiority. And we can favour our own own little echo chambers to reaffirm our basic goodness using these methods and call for others to join us .
      Just

      Liked by 1 person

      • History is a harsh teacher. And is not popular
        No one really likes to see the record so deep that everyone’s ethics and actions are called into action.
        No group or community who have massaged their past into a romantic catalogue of the noble many fighting against the oppressors who won only because of a few traitors betraying the majority. No one wants to know that the cause was lost because there was a sizeable proportion of the community siding with the invaders or oppressors, it spoils the annual celebrations and the folk songs.
        No one wants to know that their hero had flaws and was at times questionable.
        And these days so many folk want to think that everything is somehow controlled by a sinister cabal and isn’t just a mish-mash of chaotic actions resultant from a myriad of uncoordinated groups struggling for their little piece of the pie.
        And there is the problem

        Liked by 1 person

      • Morality stinks. Trying to make one side “moral” and the other side “immoral,” stinks just as bad.
        What’s moral to one side is immoral to the other side, and vice versa. As much as I wish you could, you cannot teach responsibity. A person has to learn responsibility for themselves? If you try to “teach” responsibility, it will only last until something more fun or easier to do comes along.
        We’re talking about human beings here. Always they take the easy road.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Roger seems to believe in God. I do not agree with him. You, I cannot tell. You seem to swish in the wind. We all are who we are. We get where we are going. I’m not going to ask for your respect. That’s yours to give or not. But disrespect is not yours to give, even if we earn it. Generally speaking, it costs nothing to be nice. Kindness heals. Hatred hurts.Why hurt?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Or they could turn their swords into the proverbial ploughshares?
        Imagine a military based solely on the basis of search and rescue. We’ve seen it done in small scale in some disaster areas.
        Would that not be such a cool notion.
        See, I can hope for wishes to come true too.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Why use military? Use rescue workers. There are such people, my nephew is one. He is always on call. He trains all over the world, under every possible weather and climate. He carries no weapon. He is a pacifist like me. He works solely for the good of others. He believes in making a difference.
          He cannot tell me how many rescue teams there are around the world, he doesn’t know., There are lots. Where their funding comes from he has no idea. He gets called, he goes. His marriage fell apart because there is always some fool putting themself, and others, in danger. Because others live on the edge, he lives on the edge.
          He did not find this job, it found him. He makes next to no money doing search and rescue work, but he has many things provided for him, food and shelter first among others. He can be in Canada one day, Equador the next, and Burkina-Faso yet the next, or he can spend weeks in one place, depending on the situation. He is a hero. You will never know his name, probably never see his face, unless you are in trouble. When you need him, or someone like him, they will be there.
          And I’m probably going to get in shit for telling you. But there is nothing they can do to me. And there is nothing they will do to him. And there is nothing he won’t do for you if he is capable of providing it. I hope you never do.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Oh indeed your nephew is a hero, one without compare because he has already sacrificed his life for a cause in which he believes and gets no reward or parade or medal. And is likely to get shot at by one side or another and for some peculiar reason vilified at home by one group or another because they are too (bad word) lazy and ignorant to look into the true facts.
            No, I was just suggesting since we’ve got all these military machines and trained folk let’s take the killing out of the equation and use what’s left over. I know a lot of UK troops look a damn sight more at ease handling out supplies to folk in devastated areas and patrolling with weaponry in hostile zones.

            Liked by 1 person

            • I would be too. Unfortunately they do carry those weapons, visibly. That marks them as targets. I guess what I was trying to say is don’t put them in uniform. Let them look like civilians following peaceful occupations. My bad.ĺ

              Liked by 2 people

        • I would rather turn a sword into words. Yes, we all know words can hurt. Except words can also mitigate, and heal. Again, generally speaking, words spoken in haste hurt, while those spoken with consideration heal, or at least do not hurt. I’m pretty sure you agree with me, if we take the time to act responsibly, other people are going to respond in kind. Not always, but most of the time.
          Please, everyone, think first, then there will be no reason to shoot.

          Liked by 2 people

  4. Pingback: On War. The Fearful Logic. | Writing Despite Computers and Programmes

  5. Thought experiment: You are the President. You get a letter from Einstein (and others) telling you about this potential weapon of immense power being developed by hostile foreign power, one that has already used force to expand its borders, one that has also developed a rocket program (delivery system). Other agencies report all of this is true. He urges you to start a similar program so that you and your country can respond in kind if necessary. Do you do it? Or do you stick fast to the idea that it is immoral to develop this weapon program and so you won’t do it?

    Jump ahead.

    You are the President. You have just concluded the battle of Guam: 7800 American casualties, over 14,000 Japanese casualties. They would not surrender. Battlefields and fortifications designed to cause maximum casualties even in loss. You know the home islands will have to be invaded so you ask for estimates. You are told that the invasion will cost about 268,000 American deaths. Other estimates are higher. Personnel at the Navy Department assure you that the total losses to America will be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. Japanese civilian casualties are estimated to be about 10 million Japanese. You know they run civilians drills for total war in the event of invasion. Do you have reason to doubt these projections?

    You are offered the means to bomb Japanese cities into vast areas of destruction one at a time with no or few American casualties if surrender is not forthcoming. You know there will be no surrender if invasion occurs.

    Your choice.

    Now tell the American people why you as their elected representative and Commander in Chief think it is far more moral to ask hundreds of thousands of YOUR citizens to die and millions more Japanese citizens to die rather than use these powerful bombs. Go ahead. See if you can maintain this sense of moral outrage about using these weapons of mass destruction in this very real circumstance. See if you can sit down with a mother and explain why her sons need to die so that YOU can feel better about not using these terrible weapons and bringing the war against the country that started this war (with no concern about American casualties and who will maintain this war to cause maximum casualties) to a swift end.

    Can you do it? Can you maintain this blanket condemnation that YOU would not do exactly the same thing? I dare you to try to still feel the moral certainty that you are making not just the right choice for you but on behalf of every mother you are going to have to face by choosing invasion because, hey, nuclear weapons are so destructive.

    Try it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, I would still find another option. I do not believe there is any difference that could not, if people worked at it, be solved without loss of life. If we truly want world peace … and I think the majority of us do … then we must learn to accept others as they are, be satisfied with what we have rather than seeking to expand our own sphere of influence, and adopt the “live and let live” ideology. Never, under any circumstances, would I call for the deaths of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of innocent civilians. Period. The argument that “more would have died had the war continued” is moot in my book, for the war didn’t need to continue. It didn’t need to begin. However, that is neither here nor there and there isn’t much point in discussing how mens’ greed and lust for power started the war, then those men sat back smoking their fat cigars while innocent people died.

      Like

      • The thought experiment is to get you away from the ought and into the is. That’s the only way to understand the perspectives of history. I thought I’d suggest you try it rather than avoid it. It’s eye-opening.

        It’s ever so easy and lazy to wish things were different, presume they coulda, woulda, shoulda, been different, but quite another to have to deal with what is… like President Truman had to face AND MAKE A DECISION. That’s the point of the thought experiment: to put yourself in the shoes of another. That’s the ONLY way real compassion can be experienced. Shared suffering.

        To vilify the decision that had to be taken then but based now on imported and fuzzy oughts is to abdicate any historical understanding of the context in which history is made. We were at war. Total war. Efforts that affected your entire life, every day. What you did added to or subtracted from this effort. Everything. It is very difficult for today’s generation to even begin to image what that might have been like; rather, the presumption is that us virtuous people today wouldn’t have done such stuff then… because… well, oughts, and shoulds don’t you know.

        And this incredibly brutal regime that instigated and conducted a total war against you, your family, your neighbours, your town, your state, your country (I, too, listened to the Japanese survivor) that would not accept defeat EXCEPT by annihilation played a rather central role in that decision, don’t you think? Yet where oh where is the Japanese mea culpa from such survivors about deserving exactly what was declared AND PROVEN to be necessary, about the mandatory training and arming of millions of civilians to withstand invasion and make the costs as deadly as possible to the invader? I can’t hear any. The silence is deafening. This was a slave state you’re talking about, starving and killing wantonly because defeat is the greatest shame, turning tens of thousands of women into prostituting for the Japanese troops, of wiping out entire cities to set a good example of the seriousness of occupation, by people assured in their own racial and virtuous superiority and with the military means to impose it on others. That’s the hypothetical negotiator you imagine across the table from you who will only accept either your absolute servitude or death. YOU have to choose how to respond during a real life war where your electorate is fighting and dying every day… if you wish to understand the context in which Truman ordered the bombs to be dropped. Imagine, if you can and I seriously doubt most people are even willing to try, the burden that man took on to himself (The buck stops here) on behalf of future American generations of people able to live free of exactly that tyranny or any global tyranny afterwards, but who later show their appreciation and understanding and compassion by telling you that you were wrong, that you were morally bankrupt, that you were a pawn of the military industrial complex, that you were a war monger, that they would have done it so much better than you, yada, yada, yada. As if this absence of understanding behind these popular guilt-ridden sound bites today excuses such airy-fairy opinions about oughts, yet paying lip service of appreciation to such real life costs of dedicated military service on your behalf… every Veteran’s Day. This hypocrisy is an insult because it’s empty of any real historical understanding or compassion. It’s just ideological pablum.

        This vilification of the US for using nuclear weapons reveals the opposite of what most people assume, a kind and caring understanding with a healthy dose of guilt. Such vilification and inherited mea culpa is none of those things but a indoctrinated mantra that is contrary to reality and full of ingratitude.

        Like

        • I missed your comment that “it’s ever so easy and lazy to wish things were different…” That, madam or sir, is such an arrogant statement I cannot believe you had the temerity to even suggest it. The easy and lazy way is to follow history, fight the war, and accept the consequences, without trying to change anything. Fighting, non-violently, against all the traditions humanity accepts as built into it. there lies the true hardship. For starters, Jill and I and a whole host of others put the lie to the belief that “anything” is built into us. I won’t speak for Jill, or anyone else, but I will fight the fight against violence for as long as I live, and I will only stop when I have succeeded to destroy the idea of violence. No matter what you or anyone else say, though you can kill us, or throw us into solitary confinement or fly us to the moon or whatever punishment you can present, but I will win, because I, an army of one, cannot lose.
          I know you do not believe me, you sit there smug as a bug being hugged by a pug, thus it has always been, thus it will always be. But I will fight to my dying breath and beyond, because I know I can change the future, while you are content in the past.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. Jill, I just watched an interview on CBS with an 81 year old Japanese woman who was six and survived the Hiroshima blast. Speaking in Japanese, she spoke of her lifelong fight to de-nuclearize. But, at the end of the interview, she spoke in halting English saying to make friends with people in other countries and we will be less inclined to go to war with them.

    And, that is a powerful statement. Keith

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Something of a small dissertation here Jill, sorry about the length but you deserve a full and open response. There should be snappy one-liners or swift four line paragraphs when it comes to War.

    Don’t stand too close and be advised not to read too much on the subject because it changes the perspective. Just read the words of this writer, the third maybe fourth hand observer. A reader and studier of Military and of War. And bear in mind these words come in all damn analytical sincerity.
    The use of the A-Bombs was the result of a military logic in which the Japanese Military High Command had played its part, in its fanatical intransigence to twisted version of the Bushido code and determination not to lose face.
    For three years the forces of the USA had slowly, inexorably pushed those of Imperial Japan back towards the homelands, paying a fearful price in ‘blood and treasure’. In response the Japanese Imperial forces did not display by western standards understandable conventional responses by surrendering or retreating when nothing was to be gained in defending land but threw away the lives of its own men and women in indoctrinated slaughter masking as honourable suicide, at a cost to both sides.
    War requires a foe to surrender, be conquered, annihilated or the attacker just plain give up, that is what happens when The Beast is released. Japan was not willing to continuance the first option. An invasion of the home islands of a nation in such a mindset would present a death toll far in excess of anything so far experienced by the USA and by the Japanese Civil population who would have been coerced/convinced into the defence. War requires a swift conclusion where possible. The USA had the weapon. The USA used it. This is the logic of War. The hard, certain, decision making process which exists in such an atmosphere. (You’ll recall Jill I mentioned a reply a while back and have said several times how when Democracies are brought into war they can be as deadly as their totalitarian foes.)
    The use of the A-Bomb was a foregone conclusion, from the moment the Japanese Military adopted the defence at the cost of suicide policy. There was no war crime here, there was the steady, deadly, fearful march of the logic and cause and effect of War. Never forget that War works under a different set of values, your people are dying, haunted by the cost in lives in WWI military planners in the West looked to minimise their losses.
    The feature of the A-Bombs were they caused a great deal of deaths in a swift spectacular manner. The firebombing of cities of Germany and Japan by conventional weaponry were causing similar death tolls, but in slower manner. They caused us fright though, once we knew ‘The Other Side’ had them and could level our cities also in minutes and there would be no legendary ‘London Blitz’ scenario (over glamorised), there would be death, wastelands and nuclear aftermath (as opposed to unexploded munitions left buried in the earth aftermath).
    War demands this behaviour of the parties. The battlefields are nationwide, and the populations are part of the machinery of war. This was ever so. You could claim (as some in the South would) that Sherman was a war criminal for he carried out his march in deliberately destructive fashion. This is War and when nations lock horns and we summon up War, we do so at our own peril, because we then leave our civilian outlooks behind in pursuit of Victory.
    I will leave you with one thought which I have never read or heard voiced in The West. Would those in China, Philippines, Malaya, Burma, Singapore or in the military Prisoner of War camps who suffered the capricious and cruel occupations of the Imperial Japanese Forces have objected to the use of those bombs upon the nation which occupied them?
    Lee of the Confederacy said the right thing as he viewed the slaughter at one battlefield:
    ‘It is as well War is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it,’
    In my opinion Jill, not a crime but a fearful warning as to what WAR requires of us when we invoke it. It changes all the rules, all the judgments, all the values. Even to read of it in too much detail will change your outlook.

    It sits in its own Tower, watching and waiting for us to call for it to fly down and cover us in lamentations, pains, suffering, destruction and death.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Well, Rog, you know I am a pacifist, so you know I just gotta disagree with you. The problem is not war itself, THERE IS NEVER A GOOD REASON FOR WAR. IT IS NOT A NECESSITY. But it is an option, if you are a Military Think-er. If we would get rid of militaries, but more especially the Military Think-ers (for there would be no militaries without them), there would be no question, Should we go to war?.
      I shall never change my belief that no conflict cannot be overcome by negotiation. It is only stubborn personalities that force it to go further, and the stubborn people never go to war, cuz thet’re cowards. But they have no problem killing others to further their own egos.
      All that bullshit of saving face, etc., that’s on the culture, not on individual people. But both sides are wrong! Wiping out 100,000 people each “pop” was unnecessary, and to me is a criminal act. But by calling it war, it eases human minds, somehow. Not my fault? I call bullshit on that!
      You just got saved by the bell, sir. Gotta go see a man about a horse. My wrath will be eased by the time I get back. Lucky you, lol.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hi rawgod.
        Of course we weren’t going to agree, that has to be a given. But that doesn’t stop the discourse.
        When I was writing out my response your comments about the Age of Aquarius kept on resonating and allegories about birth pangs. An experience which won’t quite fit into words, at present that is.
        All which you say is true. In theory that is.
        But I have to ask. For instance….Could you have negotiated with Hitler and saved The Jews, The gays, The Jehovah Witnesses, The Gypsies? Stopped the cult of Drang Nach Osten (Drive to the East- not an original idea of the nazis by the way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drang_nach_Osten)? Was there anyway this national mix of hysteria and miasma could have been stopped? Yes, maybe, in a world where all the folk were coming around to the idea that war could be avoided.
        But that was not the world of the early 20th century. WWI was still be replayed over and over. It was unfinished business in the eyes of many, many had wished to avoid another, the trouble was as many wanted a rematch and would not be disabused of that idea.
        We could always hope for a better circumstance. We could always wish. We are not there yet.
        WAR is a feature of Humanity, and as long as it is there. WAR will enfold us in its arms and bring on its own deadly logic.
        Ask the survivors of Nanking if they minded an Atom bomb being dropped on The Japanese. Tell them it was a crime. WAR came to visit them in its worst ways, for them the A-Bomb was simple payback. I don’t use this as an argument to belittle your statements I just say it. We can sit back here and discuss one way or another. The folk on the ground who have been through one experience or another have a different view and that view plays out down generations.
        Flawed species.
        And you’ll come back to me.
        I’m here waiting.
        See ya.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Hitler was an oddity, a product of his time, even as others were products of their times. Trump himself is a product of this time. (Heh, heh, can you see me sweating as I stall for time? Lol.) (Nah, I am just kidding. I couldn’t be a pacifist if I had not looked at peace and violence from every angle I could think to use.)
          IF, and this whole conversation is A VERY BIG “IF,” if we had perfected or at least tried to perfect the art of negotiation, and had never developed the stupidity of the Art of War as most popularized by Sun Tsu (Did I spell that right, master?), we would never have gotten to the point of war, especially WWI. Yes, WWII was definitely a direct result of WWI, plus an unexpected anamoly (You’ve read Asimov’s Foundation and Empire, as every good baby boomer has–the bad ones like Trump have not!, but that is neither here nor there, nor then nor now) named Adophe Hitler. All bets are off, we have no way to know how far Hitler would have gone without knowledge of war, but looking back on the Real History of the World, we know War was invented prior to God, Gold, or even Government, if you count the family unit as not being governmental. I can pretty much say without doubt, the first time one family group of proto-humans ran into another group of proto-humans, whatever stage of humanity we had reached by then, the meeting ended in war. I bet you won’t bet against that.
          I have struggled with writing a short story of that first meeting for years now, trying to make the obvious obvious but still adding a new twist to it. So far, the only new twist I can conceive of is that one family lied to the other family (they would have used grunts and hand gestures to communicate), and made promises to be peaceful (Were peace or war even human concepts at that time?) and as soon as the first family to fall asleep fell asleep, (Who knew you needed to post guards? The family that survived this meeting!) they were slaughtered by the awake group, whose male members immediately raped and otherwise subdued the women of the dead males, letting them know in no uncertain way that they now were the property, and slaves, of the killers, including the women of that group.
          Oh, don’t I paint such a loving picture of humanity? I knew you would be impressed.
          Getting back to Mr. Hitler and his intention (or was it Goebbels idea) to try to genocide the sons and daughters of Israel, the best way to negotiate with him would have been to sneak a weapon into the meeting, and use it as quickly and efficently as possible. Even a pacifist has to be a realist at some point. I don’t know if I could have been that negotiator, could I have killed a man intentionally? I really cannot say. If Hitler were a bug, or a non-human animal, no I could not have. But knowing he was a thinking human being planning on harming other, unsuspecting humans, you can bet ⁰the farm I would have had to be responsible for my fellow humans before being the idealist. The laws of survival, as written and recognized by my self, require that life must be protected at all cost, followed by species (though not the human species, for they are capable of reason! and must be held accountable by me to other species), then by individuals of the species (asked as: Who is the more necessary individual in my opinion, and within my understanding of the cosmos? And last but not least, you or me. It is not a given I would have to choose myself. There are many individuals I would sacrifice my life for. Most are not human. Neither Hitler nor Trump are two of that group.)
          So, here is where I stand. I am not the most important human individual in the world, but somewhere in-between first and last, not to be decided upon till faced with a real life/death situation. Where you stand, Roger, only you can decide. Do you have a set of priorities? I do.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Yes, indeed, they are products of their Time. We can exam every ‘Time’ and find those sorts of products. Some of them make a big impression, others only regional, and they have their followers, supporters, sponsors, speculators who see a quick opportunity for advancement.
            I try to avoid Sun Tzu, not because of the work itself, it’s because it has become a source of quotes and clichés for every author who is short of something original to say and wants to sound profound. Whether he did actually exist or not is another matter. Maybe someone collected a whole lot of saying from a whole lot of folk. War by that time had become quite standardised and everyone could quote back to an earlier and apparently more ‘heroic era’ which if taken literally must have been pretty spectacular around 10,000 BC, whereas usually it was who had the biggest rock and sharper stick.
            As invented earlier by Big ‘Ug and Big ‘Urk during the Big Fight over the Big Bit of Water-itself an echo of tribes of chimpanzees having a set-too. And what really shatters illusions is when you see two pods of dolphins in a balletic conflict, the object being to isolate and capture one from the opposition pod and then rape them- yep see it on documentary. Conflict is part of Life. The Human flaw is we have the perception and insight not to take it to the excesses we indulge in, and in fact find other ways around the whole business. But we don’t, we’re still throwing stones and stabbing each other, only we usually get machines to help us.
            The danger is, WAR whispers its appeals. You take the idea of killing Hitler. It is the removal of one person deemed a threat for their beliefs by an act of violence. The issue as to whether it is justified depends on which side you are one. And does the removal help? Does someone else take his place? Does he get mythologised as a martyr? Does he become rallying cause? There are a site too many books written about the SOB as it is. Sure Napoleon invented a whole code of law for France and his armies rampaged all over Europe- Living Off the Land he called it, no need for long supply trains- yeah right. Look at the guy, he’s some sort of folk hero. He was a war monger, with a butcher’s bill of his own forces as long as any. Yet how many admire him. Because he was so astute at WAR. And Henry V got a play written about him, made sure we all remember St Crispin (patron saint of Cobblers-who knew?) and slew(ed) lots of French nobles – so we’ll gloss over the devastation and massacres wrought by his troops and camp followers, shall we? (standard method in those days- so much so I’m surprised there were any French folk left by 1500 AD) But he won a WAR? (no he didn’t actually he took part in one which lasted about 100 + years on and off, and eventually his descendants were on the losing side)
            We are fearfully good at turning the whole thing around and selecting the point at which we justify the action, without looking at the part before that point. The only hope is to dig at those root causes. Intolerance, Fear, Prejudice, Greed and Arrogance, take those away and what reasonings are there left? If those are not tackled first WAR will always be with us, because it is such an damn easy and attractive response to those to impose Intolerance, Fear, Prejudice, Greed and Arrogance upon the other side.

            Liked by 1 person

            • I never said killing Hitler could be justified, but once he definitively started upon his course to slaughtering so many people, it became prudent, at least in theory.

              But, then, the Canadian government saw it prudent to hang Louis Riel, after he called off the war that would have changed history in what is now western Canada. He started 2 rebellions. In Manitba he forced the so-called Canadian government to recognize that Metis people were just as human as white people, and through the Metis, to recognize that the original inhabitants of the areas now known as the Americas were also human. Of course, the white Canadians had their fingers crossed behind their backs, so they weren’t responsible for anything they said, even though they said it in the voice of the Mother, Queen Victoria.

              The Metis Story, told by mouth to mouth.
              The Batoche Rebellion at Batoche, Saskatchewan, was only a day or two from slaughtering the Canadian army when Riel had a dream that he should give up the fight. His “General,” Gabe Dumont argued for continuing fighting, but Riel cited “Too much blood!” and walked away. Their allies were dumbfounded but left for their homes, followed by Canadian soldiers. Riel surrendered, the rest is the history of Canada, not the story of the Metis.
              !Amazingly, the Canadian history is much different than that of the Metis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Batoche. They say we were running out of bullets, but do not mention their food supply problems. They say they captured Riel, we know Riel surrendered. But such is the way of life.
              I can say I have very few regrets in life, Roger, there is nothing to regret if one learns to change from making even stupid mistakes. But I do regret advising a young man with Fetal Aicohol Spectrm Disorders to be honest at his trial for child molestation. He thought about having sex with a young boy, maybe even obsessed about it, but when he went to try he did not want to hurt the kid and he stopped before anything happened.
              He was a client of mine for a social work practicum. I was supposed to be able to sit at his bench with him as an officer of the court without official standing, to basically hold his hand and support him through those parts of the trial he could not comprehend. It was obvious to everyone he was not mentally competent to stand trial by himself or even with just
              his lawyer. He needed to be with an “expert” in FASD, and while I, being a 4th Year Social Work student, was not an expert the judge deemed me as so because my client trusted me, and few others.
              I did not see the “bait-and-switch” coming. I had only a month left in my practicum, and the judge promised to ensure the trial be over by then. My client pleaded guilty, and was supposed to receive leniency. While I learned never to trust a trial judge, that was no help to my client. The prosecutor asked for, and received, numerous extensions, and I had graduated by the time the actual trial took place a year later. Of course I was not notified when it did happen. I was no longer deemed an employee of the Public Guardians Office, as I had been during my practicum, and my client was no longer deemed my client. All perfectly legal? Yes, except that without my presence my ex-client was no longer fit to stand trial. But, the judged ruled at the time the trial date had first been set, and I was in attendence, that he was mentally fit to stand trial “with me present.” Since nothing had changed except the trial date, notwithstanding I could no longer be there to support him, the trial could continue “as if” I was present. Legal gobbledyguk.
              My ex-client was by now 18, and an adult in legal standing. (Oops, I forgot to mention that despite his FASD diagnosis, and his age at the time of arrest–a few days short of his 17th birthday, the charge that had first been laid as attempted molestation of a minor had been added to, to wit: attempted kidnapping of a minor for sexual purposes.You talk about selling someone down the river, I am sure even his white legal-aid lawyer did not protest any of these prosecutorial moves. Though never mentioned at trial, an attractive personal care worker, whom I had known and talked to just a day prior to her recent (at that time) and horrible, and widely-publicized murder/rape, had been committed by a boy of native descent, diagnosed with FAS. The community was on high alert.
              I guess it is time to tell you the circumstances of the so-caĺled crime: Johnny, not his real name obviously, and remember please he was sufferering from FASD, was abused by a foster brother at a very young age over a lengthy period of time. Having been sexualized before he was 10, by a homosexual child, he was very confused by his own sexiality. He liked and was attracted to girls, but he also held an abnormal understanding of sex with young boys. He was seeing a counsellor at time of his arrest, but this was not brought up at the trial. Was it significant that the father of the potential victim was an upstanding citizen of the community? The event itself, as recorded by video security surveillance camera, showed Johnny approach a young boy in the lane behind his house. While the video was of good quality, the young boy was mostly hidden by a picket fence. This is in agreement with the testimony of the neighbour who called the police because she had never seen Johnny in that area before. He looked like the boy on TV who had just committed the murder described above. FASD children seem to have a similar facial appearance. She had young children of her own, and she agreed she might be bein??somewhat over-protective of them. But no matter, there was no clear video that Johnny had done anything illegal. What was illegal was that the police interrogated Johnny as if he were an adult. They said he was tall and had a heavy shadow of a beard, making him look like an adult. At almost 17, Johnny was maybe 5′ 3″, so he was not tall, nor did he have any facial hair. It was admitted by a witness that in the video he looked tall for his age due to the slope of the lane. The video also showed him to be reaching as if for the child’s shoulder, but no actual contact can be clearly seen. In Johnny’s testimony to police, which should never admitted into court, but was because the judge ruled tha police made an error in judgment, but otherwise did nothing wrong, and were above reproach.
              All in all, there was so much wrong with this case, nothing should ever have come to the conclusion it did. Johnny, on his own, no friendly faces near him, was sentenced to a minimum two years less a day in a facility for adults with FASD, where he could be examined and his potential future propensity for sexual predation could be determined. This facility was in an entirely different jurisdiction where Johnny woild likely be ignored by his immediate family, meaning his sister who had her own family by then would have trouble being able to visit.
              In my mind Johnny was wrongfully tried and judged not for any crime he may have thought about doing, but did not do, because he was partially native, and his mother had used alcohol during her pregnancy, and because the residing judge wanted to make someone pay for the murder of a beautiful young white woman.
              Johnny commited suicide after being raped in the adult facility to which he was sent. I did not find out about any of this till a couple years later. By then it was too late to correct anything. Johnny wss dead by his own hand.His sister asked me not to pursue the real criminals, and I kept the promise till today. I don’t know if you can see the relationship between this case, and what we were talking about earlier, but in my mind it had to do something with this. Sorry you had to listen to it!

              Liked by 2 people

              • Hi rawgod
                Here I am, replying at last.
                In UK our interest in Canada tends:
                1. Fade after General Wolfe and the Battle of Quebec.
                2. Takes little spikes when those ‘treacherous Americans’ try to invade, and get soundly thrashed (from our viewpoint).
                3. Pops up again when Canadians volunteered to serve in both World Wars.
                4. Flutters again when De Gaulle made his “Vive le Québec libre!” speech.
                5. And then is used in counterpoint to underscore Trump’s tenure.
                So your account concerning Riel, of whom I was completely ignorant was very interesting and opened up another of those examples of how complex histories are and how just one account is not the final say in matters. Thanks for that.
                My ‘Hitler’ point was another of those examples or questions on the complexities Humanity weaves, not a comment on what you as a person may or may not do. We should always take him as Warning, though regrettably he has achieved a ‘personality’ status with a lot of admiration, still. (And far too many books written about him).
                You were quite right rawgod to write down your experiences of one facet of ‘The System’. Speaking as one who worked in a UK aspect (ie The Taxation- H.M Inspector Taxes & then The Welfare – Dept. of Works & Pensions- Incapacity Benefit) I can imagine how your client Johnny fell foul of it.
                It may sound trite but you did what you could, in your situation, the fact that you still recall it with a fearful clarity means that ‘Johnny’ remains alive (for others now know him) and in a convoluted way, a type of justice has been served in that his full circumstances are made public. Small comfort for him in those last hours of his life of course.
                This is one example as to why I have a paradoxical relationship with my own somewhat authoritarian left-wing views. Sure in my perfect world, everyone who managed the administration would be dedicated and of the ‘firm but fair’ breed with a complete knowledge of all the facets of their tasks and the whole system would be funded fully. Yeah….right…..never going to happen man. Which is why folk like me should not get into positions of power but just be left to sit in our little corners grumbling away.
                Do you remember when we had a dignified tussle over the issue of ‘To Vote or Not To Vote’ and you said I was a pragmatist? I guess I must be….Caveat: Pragmatism tends to accept certain levels of injustice, which is fine for the pragmatist as long as those injustices are not happening to them.
                You guys should inherit The Earth and us Pragmatists left to mull of histories.
                Keep on keeping on.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Pragmatism has to accept levels of injustice, else they would go stark ravin’ bonkers. We do need all kinds of people in the world, but depending on their ideals, we need more idealists. Not those who lay claim to Nazi ideals, or white power ideals, but to those who meet all people as people. While I know there are serious right wing people out there, I think most of them just want to get laid, so they put themselves in direct view of girls and women who are looking for rebels. They seem to get along really well, until they grow up, if they grow up.
                  Thank you for your words on “Johnny.” Yes, those of Jill’s readers who go back occasionally and read all the commentors, some of them now know his side of the story, but the missing part is the actual trial story. None of the parts I was knowledgeable enough to add were never part of the actual proceedings. I think to be fair that part needs to be known too, even if just for its “foreground” perspective. Obviously, I was appealing to passion, and the sense of injustice that appeals to the underdog. People love underdogs, especially when they are overdogs, though not topdogs. Johnny has been dead ten years now, a bit more even, I guess. I got my Bachelor when I was 57. I wss trying to find an entryway back into society. THAT was not the right way to find it. How did I ever think, after being a “rebel, with cause” for almost 50 years, that there was a place there for me. I gave it a try, I really did, but “normal” society and I will never see eye-to-eye. How can we, my eyes are open, while society’s minds are closed.

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • Two part answer here rawgod:
                    Politics-On the ‘Right-Wing’. I’m on the ‘Left-Wing’ which once upon a time was thought to be the home of tolerant folk but with strong views; now I find there are as many narrow-minded bigots in those ranks and are often mirror images of The Right. So being a good British socialist if there’s one type I hate more than a Right-Winger it’s a Left-Winger betraying the cause….And that’s a mix of gallows-humour and fact. So I personally try and keep my opinions out of the FaceBook mad-house because I can start an argument with both sides at once. Seems like my solutions would only give rise to other problems. These days I stick with WP and writing my fantasy novels, where sometimes the characters let me have a say in the narrative.
                    Secondly:
                    Getting into the system of Society after so many years is a hard task, like hill walking in winter in summertime clothes.
                    I was (instinctively?) drawn to working in the government service and felt at ease with the concept. The trouble was I belonged to the ethos of ‘The Rule Book Is There For The Guidance of The Wise and The Adherence of The Unhappy’, and whereas I could have said I walked the path of Hawkeye Pierce in M*A*S*H there was not a team of screen writers to tie up all the problems to fit into a programme slot. Retired in 2013 and still get flashbacks to things that went wrong. My wife says she was surprised I didn’t go mad, well I did ,but not so that no one would notice.
                    Thus I can full understand how you fell foul of the system, by the time I was 57 after 40 years ‘in service’ I could distort the truth and fiddle with the rules to suit my purpose, which essentially was meant to help the public and my fellow workers; it didn’t work out as well as I wanted. You either embrace the system, fight a low-key bush war of shifting alliances or you have a very miserable time wishing you could leave. You have my sympathies for coming up against it.
                    I don’t miss it.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    • Couldn’t stand “the system” then, Roger, and I cannot stand it now. It has no heart, and as far as I am concerned, it has no heartbeat either. It is just a perpetual motion machine that grinds down the living, until it pushes them out, heart-dead.
                      It even grows people like BoJo, a clown. Dumbpy Trumpy, another clown. Justin Trudeau, an ass. Vladimir Putin, an arrogant ass. Clowns and asses, all rising to the top together, at the same time, what are the chances. (And to think, still waiting in the wings in Canada is even a worse ass, Andrew Sheer, or whoever his replacement will be. Not to mention my own fearless leader in Alberta, mini-Trump Jason Kenney.) Actually, it had to be. They think they stopped the Marxist Revolution. Pompous asses. It’s still coming, I just hope they are so over-confident, and cannot see it coming anymore.
                      The stupidest thing Marx ever did was publish Das Kapital. If he had just written it, and distributed it like the underground word of reality it was supposed to be, capitalsm would not have seen it coming, and the revolution would have came and went years ago. Was it his ego, he couldn’t stand to know something and he had to show the world how smart he was? Was it his greed, his publisher offered him enough money, and some money inspired him to want more, or was it his overpowering need to be right, not realizing forewarning the elite was therefore forearming them against trade unions and labour organizations and such. The right has done a fantastic job, shutting down the left–too good a job. Instead all they did was postpone the revolution, because capitalism has created an elite of the elite, where simple millionaires, with 7 figure wealth seem almost like paupers. 0nly 1 person in each 4,000,000 on earth is a billionaire. Yet those people own an unfathomable percentage of the world’s capital wealth. This cannot go on unchallenged. And it will not. (Dear, Jill, the figures I sent the other day are wrong, but I truly do not know how to calculate the figures I am looking for. Nothing makes sense to me anymore. All I know is that world wealth figures are SO OUT OF LINE with any kind of economic reason that something has to blow up in their faces, just like Marx originally predicted.) Yet the capitalists chase money like they can never have enough. This is a sad, sad, sad, sad, sad world we are living in, Master Jack. (Talk about mixing metaphors: Tania Rose, William Rose, and Stanley Kramer, with David Marks and Four Jacks and a Jill. Do you know four Jacks, Jill?)
                      As for socialism, Roger, I started there too. But I walked left, farther left than I ever thought I could go. It is not just capitalism that the world must fear, the world must fear government itself. Don’t say it, the world can operate without government. We are so used to being told what to do we have become slaves to the word freedom without ever learning what true freedom is. In the world we have built, we believe cannot live without government. We cannot ever be free. But that is a false belief, perpetrated and perpetuated upon us by the very governers who can only be on top when they are governing. We can govern ourselves. We must govern ourselves. NO OTHER WAY CAN OR EVER WILL WORK. I won’t live to see it, but if a future “me” sees it I will say, told you so. That is if I return to this reality. I have been told many times by absolute strangers that I will not return here, and sometimes I even believe them. But I have to be on guard, it is so easy to backslide. As George Harrison wrote in “My Sweet Lord,” “it takes so long to see you, my lord.” Yeah, he seems to be talking about his god, and in a way he is, but he only had a limited number of words at his disposal. His “lord” is not the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Lord Thy God. At worst it is the Lord Buddha, but really it is the lord, Life. Yes, I am putting words in his mouth, my words. I have a few more words available to me than he did. But still not enough.

                      Sorry to get all spiritual on you, Roger, but I cannot separate that part of me from me anymore.
                      Anyway, time to let you go back to your life. Ta Ta.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • Hi rawgod.
                      This is my usual slow response machine, used when someone makes a very pertinent set of points I don’t wholly agree with so time out to ponder on.
                      Revolutions are things which like Electricity and Fire are to be handled with great care, and Humanity has not yet worked out how to do that. The principal driving forces appear to be either anger (A) At social injustice (B) A response by one community (nascent nations included here) at the way they a treated by ‘The Greater Power’. This anger comes with that Human Flaw of resort to Violence, with its cousin the Urge for Retribution/Revenge- masking as Justice. Thus the cycle of violence starts with all the complications as various groups decide they have a better idea on how to do things. IF the Revolution is successful then those who resorted to violence and also suffered from violence will most likely rise to the top, because they got the weapons. They then ensure the Revolution succeeds by imposing their Will, which of course is the correct one, and being on top they have to be seen on top, so along come the big houses, their own military and security police etc etc.- Hello ANIMAL FARM.
                      Thus do Revolutions get a bad press, which in many cases they worked very hard to get, and then blame everyone else for distorting the view.
                      Sadly wherever you find a movement for Freedom, Justice and Equality you will find a group of folk who are so dedicated they will help you find the exact type of Freedom, Justice and Equality you need, and woe betide you if you dare to disagree because if you do it proves you are obviously a counter-revolutionary.
                      Social and political evolution in a slow steady march is the only viable answer, so folks get used to it. Not an easy road, because there are always the vested interests of Greed, Hate and Ignorance, which need to be suppressed….oooops look at me Roger Jacob officer of the Thought Police (I can’t recall when I signed up-must be sensitive information)- see what I mean?

                      Liked by 1 person

                • Oh, yeah, “outsiders” will barely ever see internal histories of outside nations. Schools seldom look at particular stories, just the “general view.” The general view, or “general’s view” that insiders seldom put on display, that is not for common consumption. Only the parts that the general wants seen are seen. Hmmm, I seem to want to fall asleep. Nite night in the afternoon, Rog.

                  Liked by 1 person

                    • Never is. It is a bane of humanity that the follower NEVER CLEARLY UNDERSTANDS the motive of the leaders, and once the leader is dead there is do one who can be sure of what the leader meant to do, had he or she lived just tha litte longer? And this I why I refuse to be a teacher, I want no deluded followers trying to interpret my intentions. Only I know what they are. You must find your own way. Whatever the hell either of us are talking about.So, no, I am not talking about a revolutionary process, but a natural process that ends up just happening. It has no leadership to take over from old leadership and leave a void to be filled by, and established in an out-of-control anarchy! Again, words fail me!

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • Correct me if I’m wrong but was it Timothy Leary who might have said ‘Think for yourself. Question Authority’. So I said to myself (being in the miserable teenager stage) ‘OK man. I’ll do that. Like I question you, since you’re in a kind of counter- authority’.
                      And thus joined the UK Civil Service and questioned everybody from all directions….
                      Which can be kinda of cool, if you’re a grumpy old man (My wife reckons the doctor said on my day of birth : ‘Congratulations Mr & Mrs Jacob…It’s a grumpy old man’)

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • A good compliment from a very prescient doctor, though I fear your beloved is just trying to tell you “you’re an ass!” in the kindest possible way.
                      If Leary said that, of which I have no knowledge, at the very least it was George Harrison who probably was exhorting his then wife to “Think for Yourself” on the Rubber Soul album, arguably The Beatles’ best album ever. It is my favoutite, minus Lennon’s “Run for Your Life” track.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • Chose? Preferred? Worshipped?
                      Andy Warhol, although madly and POPularly avant-garde, could only POPularize The Underground for so long, and then his attention was ripped away.
                      I think had Lou Reed and the VU been allowed to earn their own popularity in Grenwich Village, they would and could have been much more famous. As it was, Heroin is still an athem today, at least in my mind, though happily I never tried the drug.
                      Good Choice.

                      As for the Beatles, I didn’t sweat their self-indulgence, if that’s what it was. Their music still set the bar right to the end IMO, and since the Best Beatle of Them All (George Harrison) was finally shining on brightly, I was happy.
                      Me, I chose The Animals, but really all my love was for Eric Burdon. No one can ever be better than Eric, not for me, and even including Jimi, Jim, and Janis. Oh what I wouldn’t have paid to see that quartet on one stage. Fortunately for me, the Forever Pauper, I never found out. I probably would have greatly considered suicide if they shared a stage, and I could not afford to go.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • Definitely preferred, worshipping them would have been a bit freaky, as unlike a clutch of bands (or front-men) what you saw was what you got.
                      Then of course there was the infuriatingly talented but hopelessly without rudder…Love (up until ‘Forever Changes’, that is….but let’s not talk about ‘Da Capo’ which was one half sublime and one half…eaaccchhh!)

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Kinda. It was a mutual love affair, And Eric brought the last piece to War that solidified their sound. He and “Lee Oskar, harmonica virtuoso from Denmark,” had been working together when they met up with the just-forming members of War in L.A. It was a win-win-win for everyone, but especially for music fans everywhere. After 3 (I think) albums with War, Eric decided he was holding them back, and it was time for them to spread their own wings. Already very popular with Eric’s lead vocals, it wasn’t long before they were producing their own hits, and their live performances were being rated No. 1 in the world. Lee Oskar, at last account, was still with the “Low-Rider Band,” the current version of War.
                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Oskar

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • My pleasure. Did you know the final approx 10 minutes of New York 1964, America 1968 on “”Every One of Us” was a musical rendition of an acid trip the lyricist, whom I think to be Eric himself, had prior to recording that album. How do I know that? I had an almost identical trip in the very same time proximity. By the time I played the record for the first time I could not believe how accurate both the words and music were. The intensity in the music and in my brain, mind, and spirit is nigh on perfect. This is not something anyone can imagine without living through it. Critics pass it off as Eric freaking out with a microphone. If only they knew how close they were to the truth.
                      But it is the lyric people who upset me the most. They leave the song in the middle of the struggle for spiritual freedom, arguably the most important section of Eric’s entire musical repertoire, in my humble opinion.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • I didn’t know that about New York 1964 America 1968. Interesting that you could relate to the experience.
                      The opening of this song echoes in my head another piece of music and I am currently durned if I can make the connection- it’s out there somewhere!

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Are you refering to the line: “And when I got to America it really blew my mind” or is it the story of the “brown girl from the Bronx showed me her home.” If other, please do tell.
                      For me the “brown girl story” relates, don’t ask me how, to “Handbags and Gladrags,” written by Mike D’Abo of Manfred Mann, and first “recorded” by Chis Farlowe in 1966 (release date appears to be 1967, but unsure.) Later recorded by by Rod Stewart, but nowhere close to as good.
                      Maybe you are feeling the same “connection” as I am. No idea. Now I’m off to Strange Days by the Doors, and The Fool by the Original Animals off their Before We Were So Rudely Interrupted album released in 1977, and one of my Top 25 All-time Albums in My Lifetime, probably in the teens somwhere. For very personal reasons EVERY ONE OF US is my No. 1.
                      I said to Jill just recently that she sends me on Magical Musical Mystery Tours with many of her daily selections. This conversation has sent me on another. Wow, I love living in my very fertile mind.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • Yep the opening lines.
                      And yesterday it occurred to me where the connection was:
                      Jefferson Airplane.
                      Crown of Creation.
                      Lather
                      “But wait, oh Lather’s productive you know
                      He produces the finest of sound
                      Putting drumsticks on either side of his nose
                      Snorting the best licks in town”

                      Must have been the vibes flying around at the time.
                      Music eh?

                      Like

    • Your understanding of such things is far superior to mine … in fact, to most people I know. Thank you, dear Roger, for your thoughtful and thought-provoking analysis. I know that on a logical level you are right, but unfortunately I still have that emotional bit in me that cries out that there is never a cause to harm the innocent. Frankly, I would opt for sending the generals and leaders who make the decisions to declare wars into hand-to-hand combat and let them work out their differences in that manner, leaving our young people to live their lives. But, I am an anomaly. So, after reading what you wrote yet a third time, it comes to me that the only logical option is to learn to get along with others and not have wars … so simple, and yet nobody has figured out how to do it yet. Why? Because people aren’t ever satisfied with their lot in life, but must have more, must gain control over others who may think a bit differently. Sigh.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you Jill.
        I was worried (in the late hours of reflection) my words might have come across as a down-down or rebuttal. Not so.
        When it comes to War, along with Not-Voting and a few other subjects I become fearfully pragmatic and civil-service analytical. Thus I become a cypher as it were for History, I cannot help the way it was, I can only relate how it was, not how it should have been.
        Maybe, just maybe, somewhere along the lines the Age with come when folk like you, Keith and rawgod are in the ascendancy. And when the Hate-Mongers, the bigots and the prejudiced ignorant are either converted or have been consumed by their own bitterness and no longer pollute the world, you can all pat my head and say ‘See? Told you,’
        And I’ll nod, smile in acquiescence and say to myself ‘Who’d have thought it?’
        And go and do, whatever else has my attention.😊
        ‘Wouldn’t it be nice?’ (Beach Boys)

        Liked by 1 person

        • No, I didn’t take your words as rebuttal or a downer, just a logical assessment. As to that day ever coming when we can pat you on the head and say, “See, I told you” … I think we both know that it will not happen … humans seem to be hard-wired for conflict. At the very least, I can say it won’t happen in our lifetimes, but I really think humans are on a self-destructive path with their bigoted, arrogant ways, as well as their refusal to make sacrifices in order to preserve and protect the environment. Doesn’t mean I’ll stop fighting for justice, for peace, for preserving the planet … I’ll keep fighting as long as I breathe, but I’ve accepted that I am, as Hugh sometimes tells me, “spitting in the wind”.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Seems I never did finish all I wanted to say about your above comment, Roger. You are lucky because in the interim I forgot a lot of what I did want to say to you, and those who believe like you. “I know I had some fantastic ideas to beat you soundly about the head and shoulders with,” but I forgot those too. In lieu of those, let me see if I can replce them with these:
      You stated, “This is War and when nations lock horns and we summon up War, we do so at our own peril, because we then leave our civilian outlooks behind in pursuit of Victory.” Do we summon up war, as in both sides make a reasoned decision to resort to warfare, or is this not done by one side only to smash their opponent who is unwillinging to be verbally bullied. “If we can’t get you to capitulate with words, then we will use swords (and their modern equivalents) to show you we are completely committed to demolishing you!” Would you say this is basically what the declarer of war is saying to their opposition? In 1939, and I am certainly not an expert on this, it seems to me Austria and maybe a few other nations capitulated to Germany, while France, and most others, refused to do so. Switzerland, as was its wont, stayed neutral, and Spain declared its neutrality because it was involved in its own civil conflict. The thing is, Hitler had Germany primed for war, but no one else was. Is this cheating, or is it prudence. If you want to win a war, don’t let anyone else know your plan is to commit to war. Germany swept over Europe! Everyone who studies history and war knows, or should know, the declarer of war always has the advantage “in the beginning,” but if you don’t completely eradicate your enemy, and you give them time to gather their senses, they are going to come back at you with vengeance. It is only a matter of time.
      But what I really want to do is compare a nation ready to go to war with an individual who uses anger as an excuse to commit acts of violence. Anger is an emotion, people have insisted on that for generations unenumerable. Hate to tell you, folks, anger is deliberate release of your social restrictions in order to bully the object of your attention. That deliberate release, that allowing anger to happen, is nothing but a switch the offender uses to give up one’s self-control so as to minimize blame. It can take but a microsecond to mentally flick that switch, but in 99.999999etc% of cases, anger is a chosen response to some kind of irritant. I studied my father, who resorted to violence every day of his life by appearing to become angry to the point of uncontrollable rage, and after just a few episodes I could tell when he was convincing himself to let go. His eyes showed conniving, how fast should he let it happen? When should he explode for maximum affect? What was his first action going to be? It was a pattern, one that could happen so fast you had to be watching for it to see it. But I learned the minute I saw his eyes go strange to get the hell away from him. It didn’t help anyone else mind you, he would just turn his attention on someone else. But me, I was his most favourite child to hate.
      Anyway, he loved to go into that anger state, it was like a drug to him. War is like a lot of people at one time going into an anger state. They can rape, pillage, steal, and murder, without having to be responsible for their actions. War is just anger on a macro level, and it is done at a conscious level. The work of a bully. Bullying.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hi rawgod
        Sorry to read that you had a father like that. I guess I was lucky, although he could be short of temper my dad had a fascination with the entire world about him, read a lot and had something a sardonic sense of humour (although in a nice way). From what I’ve read over the years I was indeed fortunate. He had also been through part of WII in Europe I reckon on reflection of what we would now see as PTSD (like thousand and thousands of others coming home), left an impression on me.
        There is another aspect of War which we must always consider when we view it as circumstance Humanity gets tangled up and this goes back deep into our evolution. Before I go any further this is not a get out clause, as we should have evolved by now. Anyway….
        When we look at the behaviour of our various cousins (some very distant) on this planet, there is an instinct to defend territory, this may be to ensure the survive and have resources, this may be to protect their young (Hard luck on you if by chance a pair of gulls decide to next on your roof. When the chick hatch you are likely to be divebombed by the parents and in the UK fighting back is limited by law- no semi-automatic weapon response solution here). So when we consider War we have to consider the Fear and Protect responses. Now at a basic domestic level this can be a simple low key threatening voice saying ‘Get the (bad word) off of my place and stop scaring my family otherwise I will kick your butt- (bad word)’, which often has the desired effect. The danger arises when the community or nation decides it is threatened and want to get the first kick in. ‘get them before they get us’. And folk will say ‘Yeah! The Bully had it coming’, hence there comes War.
        This sounds find, except there is always a payback, somewhere down the line, maybe in the next generation, because the roles could have been reversed in the mess of what might be termed ‘Victory’.
        ASIDE:
        It occurs to me we have taken over one of Jill’s posts here and we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface. Thus here is what I propose. For a while there has been a post bubbling from a Writing Perspective in which violence and war is considered through the viewpoints of characters in my trilogy, there has been a reluctance to take this up, in case it was view as cheap publicity for my own work. But I reckon we could carry on using this as a platform and could have a lot of discussion.
        What do you reckon?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Any time, any place, as long as you pay my expenses (considered to be $0.00 CD, £0.00, or €0.00), uless you require my personal presence in England, or your personal presence in northern Alberta, though after living in England this may cause you to destablize due to agoraphobia (open spaces, lol.)

          Liked by 2 people

          • No fares necessary…In the words of the Moody Blues song ‘Thinking is The Best Way to Travel’ (although they did tend to use self-medication as well).
            Actually, my place of origin and current location is Wales (y’know the bumpy bit west of the Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol line and nearly bumps into Ireland -and in some legends was a durn site closer). My wife is English -Birmingham…..
            Although since the lemming-like rush of Brexit and the placement of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister neither of us espouse as loyalty to either nation as both populations appear to have too many folk willing to embrace both, thus the least said on that score the better.
            Anyway I will let you know when the post is up, and you can read into it as your leisure.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Agh, don’t say lemming in front of me. Jill, please tell him why!
              So you and David share a homeland, interesting. No offense to either, but you aren’t half as stuffy as he. Not that all Welshmen cannot be neither or both, but I seem to be using a lot of triple negatives these days. Talk to my English teacher, whose name I think I finally forgot, don’t use double negatives, Mr. rawgod. So I don’t, I use triples. Have even attempted a few quads, but like in figure skating, a guy’s got to practice to know how to land them. Well, I’m practising. If I get the chance I’ll try one on you.
              It’s like writing in the second person, it’s hard, but it can be done. The question being, is it worth it?

              Liked by 2 people

  8. I may be wrong but I seem to recall that Japan has surrendered after Hiroshimo, so that Nagasaki wasn’t needed. Unnecessary killing. That’s how I see Trump, unnecessary killing not caring how many innoocents are caught in it.
    It’s an evil invention kept by evil people or people capable of great evil,
    Cwtch

    Liked by 3 people

    • Not to nit-pick David, just to clarify.
      The A-bombs were used on the 6th & 9th of August.
      Japan surrendered on the 15th August and signed the declaration on the 2nd September.
      Arguably WWII came to an end, although various resultant civil wars and insurgencies carried on long after. And pity help many of those populations who happened to be on the losing sides when the ‘victors’ imposed their rule.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Einstein regretted his part in the Manhattan project developing the nuclear bomb and felt that the atomic option was unnecessary. He originally agreed to sign a 1939 letter which prompted FDR to pursue construction of an atomic bomb. However, Einstein agreed with the letter-writers only under the assumption that the Nazis were pursuing the bomb themselves (as they in fact were) and the fear that we might require the atomic bomb to defeat them. When the Nazis were defeated without the use of the bomb, Einstein felt that his original justification for encouraging Roosevelt to pursue the project was gone, and that bombing Japan was unnecessary as they were already well on their way to surrender. In 1946, Einstein was quoted by the New York Times as saying, “that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate.”
      Later books quoted Einstein declaring, “I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan” and “I made one great mistake in my life…when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atomic bombs be made.”
      The sinister reason US bombed Japan was US wanted to show the world there’s a new boss in town, and Japan became the sacrificial lamb. Of course prejudice and racism played a part, since US wouldn’t dream of bombing Germany or Italy. Hiroshima was horrific enough and would have proven the point, why Nagasaki? There was that element of war fatigue and insanity, a low point in human history.

      Liked by 2 people

      • The Nipponese, or Nihonese, were not white, so white Americans had no problem obliterating them. They’ll never admit to that, mind you, because “those” Americans who did that are pretty much all dead now. Trump wasn’t even alive yet, but he certainly belongs to the “thinkers” of that era. I think the reasoning for They deserve it Nagwsaki went, “Well, we got a second bomb, why waste it!” But in using it, they wasted it, so what was the difference.
        ANOTHER 1 00,000 LIVES! Hunh? Drop in a bucket. (Just in case you cannot hear the sarcasm, believe me, it’s there! 100,000 x there!)
        Side bitch: Why can’t we call others what they call themselves. I mean, except for the Welsh, and a few others (Sorry, David), surely we can show some respect. We, after all, demand to be respected, even if we don’t deserve it!

        Liked by 2 people

    • They hadn’t, but still there was no need for Nagasaki … in my book, it was an ego trip, a “see what I can do!” statement that killed so many innocent people. Sigh. And you’re right about Trump … his statement in the Axios interview, when asked about the more than 1,000 deaths per day, he shrugged and said, “It is what it is”. HOW CALLOUS!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Sigh.
      Cwtch

      Liked by 1 person

      • The Pope spoke out against a bomb of that power. Catholics can defend their homes and families and fight in the military to defend against evil but not just destroy like that. That is never necessary for the reasons you gave. It just wipes out all life in certain areas. The bomb itself is evil. —- Suzanne

        Liked by 2 people

          • Ever tried talking with a Chinese communist government official? Ever tried talking with an ISIS rapist? Both produce exactly the same result: nothing but granting more time for them to continue their actions unabated under thecover of pretending to listen.

            Fact check: the Uyghurs have been rounded up and imprisoned. Estimates between 1 and 3 million people. Men, women, and children. Right now. This second. In concentration camps. Talking, you may be surprised to learn, doesn’t matter when the desired result by the supposed listener is death to those who stand against their absolute authority in all matters.

            Fact check: over 40,000 of the Yazidi were targeted by ISIS with impunity. I personally know several who had family members killed outright if male, and raped repeatedly and enslaved if female by ISIS ‘fighters’. Several older women were just shot. In front of the children. Sometimes no amount of talking matters.

            It sounds good to talk about reasoned approaches to conflicts. In small scale one-on-one encounters like withi families, kudos to those parents who understand violence against children is not discipline but punishment. Always. And accolades to those parents who wish to expand their effective parenting tool kit and learn better and far more effective methods or teaching children how to become a healthy, happy, well adjusted, caring and responsible adult.

            But you cannot extrapolate this small setting where authority is between relations inside a tribal connection into a wider world where in some tragic circumstances talking and listening simply don’t matter, where the only and final arbiter in these cases of disagreement and demands is extreme violence, death, and destruction… both received and given.

            You can’t expect talking to a falling bomb or a shot bullet or a supersonic missile is a sane plan. Such a plan not only doesn’t address reality but actually imperils everyone else because it effectively clears the decks of any capable and cohesive impediment to those who will not talk but demand either your total subservience or your death. Such a plan of only talking, of rejecting any violence on principle, is the same thing as a complete and utter moral and ethical capitulation to those who will use only violence, death, and destruction to achieve their desires. This is what faces today’s Uyghurs when they seek support from the West… from people who pretend to value not just their own individual rights and freedoms but everyone’s. Well, everyone, that is, as long as that moral virtuousness of pacifist principle doesn’t require any violence to maintain them. Then, all bets are off.

            If you ask a Yazidi as I have about the violence used by the immoral and unethical and really awful people who used violence on their behalf – the Western military coalition and their allied Kurds (that Trump unceremoniously dumped to please his despotic pal Putin and close buddy Dear Leader Erdogan) – to gain their freedom from ISIS supporters, they will look at you as if you come from an alien planet. They are not shy to offer their highest thanks and utmost respects to these Western fighters who freely risked their life, limb, and liberty to effect the same for the Other, for the Yazidi…a military that did so one soldier, one aircrew, one sailor, one marine at a time… not because it enhanced the profits of the military-industrial complex but because it was the right thing to do AND they had the means to do so. Violence, great violence, and the ability to cause destruction and death. Violence and the means to carry it out. You cannot do the former without investing in the latter. That’s just a brute fact. And thank goodness, we will be told if WE learn to listen from real world victims, that we in the West have both the economic means and people of principle to do so or we would all be Yazidi, all be Uyghurs, and the dream of liberty and rights and freedoms for all would be swept into the dustpan of history.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s