A few days ago marked the 77th anniversary of the monstrous destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the first two, and so far the only two, instances of using nuclear weapons against civilians during armed conflict. On August 6 and 9, 1945, the United States of America destroyed these two cities in Japan without any military rationale to speak of, and more than 250,000 people died in Hiroshima alone from the direct consequences of the nuclear blast and radiation-related sickness. Practically the entire city, almost all men, women and children.

The order to deploy the nuclear weapons was issued by the President of the United States of America Harry Truman. The nuclear attack on Hiroshima was executed by an American heavy bomber designated Enola Gay. The plane was flown by Colonel Paul Tibbets from the 393rd Bombardment Squadron of the Unites States Army Air Forces. A uranium bomb weighing 4 tons and 3 meters long was dropped on Hiroshima, affectionately called “Little Boy”.

Three days later, on August 9, 1945, a United States Army Air Forces heavy bomber B-29 Superfortress, designated Bockscar, dropped a nuclear bomb affectionately called “Fat Man” on Nagasaki. It was piloted by Major Charles Sweeney from the 393rd Bombardment Squadron. Estimates say that 39,000 people were directly killed in the bombing of Nagasaki, whereas another 75,000 men, women and children died over the following years from the consequences of exposure to radiation.

The American nuclear bombs left only ashes, radiation, suffering and death in their wake. Death that nobody was spared from, regardless of sex, religion or age. The total extermination of people from these two cities who were only chosen to suffer because they happened to belong to the Japanese nation.

If there is anything that can be without a doubt filed under the term “genocide”, whose etymology comes from the word genus (kind, species), and which was coined around the end of the Second World War by Raphael Lemkin, Jew born in Russia, and “inspired”, interestingly, not by the Holocaust, but by the mass slaughter of Assyrians in Simele in Ira1 in 1933 and the mass destruction of Armenians in Turkey between 1915 and 1917, then this crime by the American state against the Japanese people certainly fits the description.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 9, 1948, taking effect in 1951, states that the relevant criteria for the existence of genocide is that the act was committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such”, while the act in question may involve “killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.

That being so, if the use of atomic bombs, the properties of which in the moment of their use were undoubtedly known to President Truman and the United States military leadership, and the consequences of which led to the death of at least 350,000 Japanese civilians who were killed only because they belonged to the Japanese nation, in the modern world, and above all in the mainstream historical and legal science, is not perceived as a genocide, then why and in the name of what are Serbs supposed to take for granted the myth about the Srebrenica “genocide”?

If the killing of almost all the residents of a city, that is, two cities, is not genocide, then why would the killing of a portion of the residents of a small town be genocide? If the killing of all men, women and children who belong to an ethnic group is not genocide, then why would the killing of only men who belong to an ethnic group be genocide? If the total destruction, which includes the physical extermination of the entire population from a territory for all of time is not genocide, then why would the partial destruction, allowing the possibility of reproduction to the remaining population, be genocide? In the end, if the total extermination of a part of an ethnic group indisputably ordered by the president of a foreign country is not genocide, then why would the partial destruction of the population whose true orderers have never been identified through impartial legal procedure be genocide?

Of course, we already know the answers. They are them, and we are us. They are powerful, and we are weak. They are the masters of the world, and we are the proving ground for them to demonstrate their power. They are the ones who set the rules that do not apply to them, and we are the ones to whom all rules apply, including those that do not apply to anyone else in the world.

It’s all good. But it won’t be like that forever. And even if we, in good part thanks to ourselves, at this time do not have anything that we need to stand up and defend ourselves, there is one thing that is always available to us. That would be common sense — the last resort of the free and freedom-loving people, that oasis of sense in a desert of nonsense. And it tells us that even in a world of severe crimes and omnipresent evil, which we are not spared from, there is still hierarchy and order, and that less cannot be greater than more, and especially not greater than the most.

And that the actual 3,714 victims are fewer than the fabricated 8,000, and that either of those are incomparable to the 350,000 lives destroyed in only two days. And where is the rest that came from the same orderers and perpetrators, we don’t need to talk about that right now. But just because we don’t talk about it, doesn’t mean that we don’t know about it. Just like we know that what happened in Srebrenica was a severe war crime, that no quasi-judicial mechanism nor relentless incendiary propaganda, from here or from there, will ever be able to turn it into a genocide. Because it is not one, and we know that.