• starting
  • HOME
  • Current
  • Dragan Dobrašinović: Why is Srebrenica a genocide and Hiroshima is not?
Read me the article

Dragan Dobrašinović: Why is Srebrenica a genocide and Hiroshima is not?


In the days behind us, 77 years have passed since the monstrous destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the first two, and so far the only, use of nuclear weapons against the civilian population during wartime conflicts. On August 6 and 9, 1945, the United States of America destroyed these two Japanese cities without any military justification, and about 250.000 people died in Hiroshima alone as a direct result of the nuclear attack and diseases caused by radiation. Practically the whole town, almost all men, women and children.

The order for the use of nuclear bombs was issued by US President Harry Truman. The nuclear attack on Hiroshima was carried out by the American bomber "Enola Gay". The plane was piloted by Colonel Paul Tibbetts of the 393rd Bombardment Squadron of the United States Air Force. A uranium bomb weighing 4 tons and 3 meters long was dropped on Hiroshima, affectionately called "Little Boy" or "Little Boy".

Three days later, on August 9, 1945, a US Air Force B-29 Superfortress "Boxcar" bomber dropped a nuclear bomb affectionately named "Fat Man" on Nagasaki. It was piloted by Major Charles Sweeney of the 393rd Bombardment Squadron. It is estimated that 39.000 people died immediately in the bombing of Nagasaki, and that 75.000 men, women and children died in the following years from the effects of radiation.

America's atomic bombs left only ash, radiation, suffering and death. A death that spared no one, regardless of gender, religion and age. The complete extermination of the people from these two cities, whose suffering was recommended only by the fact that they belonged to the Japanese people.

If anything, beyond any doubt, can be subsumed under the term genocide, whose root is the word genus, and which was coined by Rafael Lemkin, a Jew born in Russia and "inspired", before the end of the Second World War, it is interesting, not the Holocaust, but the mass slaughter of Assyrians in Sumail, Iraq in 1933 and the mass liquidation of Armenians in Turkey from 1915 to 1917, then it is certainly this crime of the American state against the Japanese people.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948, which entered into force in 1951, stipulates that for the existence of genocide, it is essential that the act was committed "with the intention of the complete or partial destruction of a national, ethnic, racial or religious groups as such", and the crime can be "murder of group members, serious injury to the physical or mental integrity of group members, intentional subjecting of the group to living conditions that should lead to its complete or partial destruction, measures aimed at preventing births within the group , forced transfer of children from one group to another."

Therefore, if the dropping of atomic bombs, the properties of which at the time of their use were undoubtedly known to President Truman in the American military leadership, and which resulted in the death of at least 350.000 Japanese civilians, who were killed simply because they belonged to the Japanese people, in the modern world , and primarily in mainstream historical and legal science, does not perceive it as genocide, because of and in the name of what should Serbs, taken for granted, accept the myth of the Srebrenica "genocide"?

If genocide is not the killing of almost all the inhabitants of one or two cities, why would the genocide be the killing of part of the inhabitants of one small town? If killing all men, women and children belonging to one ethnic group is not genocide, why should killing only men belonging to one ethnic group be genocide? If total destruction, which represents the physical extermination of the entire population from one territory for all time, is not genocide, why would partial destruction, which leaves the remaining population with the possibility of reproduction, be genocide? Finally, if the total extermination of a part of a national group is undeniable
ordered by the president of a foreign country is not genocide, why should the partial liquidation of the population whose real orderers were never identified through an impartial legal procedure be genocide?

We know the answers, of course. They are them and we are us. They are strong and we are weak. They are the masters of the world, and we are a training ground for the demonstration of their power. They are the ones who determine the rules that do not apply to them, and we are the ones who apply and the ones that do not apply to anyone in the world.

It's OK. But it won't be like that forever. And if already at this moment, in good measure and thanks to ourselves, we have almost nothing of what is necessary for us to oppose and defend ourselves, there is always one thing at our disposal. It is common sense - the last refuge of free and freedom-loving people, that oasis of meaning in the desert of meaninglessness. And he tells us that even in the world of serious crimes and omnipresent evil, which does not spare us either, there is still hierarchy and order, and that less cannot be greater than greater, and especially not greater than the greatest.

And that the real 3.714 victims are less than the fictional 8.000, and both are incomparable to the 350.000 lives destroyed in just two days. And where is the rest of the same clients and contractors, let's not even mention it now. But if we don't mention, it doesn't mean we don't know. As we know that a serious war crime took place in Srebrenica, which no quasi-judicial mechanism or reckless incitement propaganda, from here or there, will ever be able to turn into genocide. Because he is not, and we know it.