View the H-Diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-Diplo's November 2004 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-Diplo home page.
The idea that the losing side is responsible for all the death and destruction caused by war seems curious. After all, the Vietnamese, too, had a decision to make and a harder one. They "decided" to sacrifice a million of their citizens, not to mention wide scale destruction of their land to prevent a Korean type outcome. I wonder whether given a choice the Vietnamese people would have opted for it then or whether they still believe it was worth it. Clearly, the US leaders decided that they better find a "cheaper" way to win the Cold War. But, then, the American leadership, unlike the Vietnamese one, was answerable to its people. As Nathan Sharansky argues in _The Case for Democrac_, governments dependent on their own people do not go to war against each other -- their peoples will not stand for it. Judith Klinghoffer Rutgers University Kaiser writes: >I believe that one million estimate is a common one. I can't help >noting, however, that Dr. Zimmerman made the same mistake I referred to, >that is, automatically assuming that I meant Americans had killed one >million civilians. I didn't say that. I am saying that they died >because the United States decided to fight that war, and thereby made it >much, much longer, and much, more destructive, than it otherwise would >have been, without changing the outcome.