回复
-
pinpoint秦琼
-
pinpoint秦琼
-
pinpoint秦琼50 years: The writer stated in third principle that only leaders are responsible for the war. Civilians and soldiers are innocent. But sometime they could cause serious impacts. The agitation of civilians are horrible. And the extra crimes soldiers made even cause more sever effects than the war itself(Like what Japanese did in China)
-
pinpoint秦琼50 years: The writer stated in third principle that only leaders are responsible for the war. Civilians and soldiers are innocent. But sometime they could cause serious impacts. The agitation of civilians are horrible. And the extra crimes soldiers made even cause more sever effects than the war itself(Like what Japanese did in China)
-
LYZheIn 50 years after Hiroshima, i was impressed by this phrase: "Another failure of statesmanship was not to try to enter negotiations with the Japanese before any drastic steps such as the fire-bombing of cities or the bombing of Hiroshima were taken." How to do this in such horrible war?If we do not put the enemy to death, the enemy will be able to seize the first opportunity to attack back.
-
关.50 Years:1.Why this article have something to do with Kant's thought?(as you said) 2.I don't understand this small sentence {There is no office of statesman, as there is of president, or chancellor, or prime minister} 3.The author says {statesman should not be swayed, especially in war and crisis, by passions of revenge and retaliation against the enemy} I think it's totally right ,but it my be too ideal in some particular situation when the statesman must place his own county's interest to first. I think the author neglect the special situation when boming is a immoral but indeed a better choice.