| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
17 Jul 2005 09:53:32 PM |
| Object: |
Hiroshima |
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. Many articles
will be written and documentaries broadcast detailing the suffering of
the city's population. None of these outlets should forget to also
detail the initial sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that commenced this
war, killing thousands of innocent Americans. They should remember to
run articles and films detailing the atrocities perpetrated on allied
POW's, crimes as vile as anything the Nazi's committed in Russia. They
should detail the occupation of the Asian countries that fell under the
Japanese sword. Was the bombing justified? If it saved even ONE
American life, it was worth it. August 6th should be commemorated as a
holiday honoring Harry Truman.
http://www.abcasiapacific.com/news/stories/asiapacific_stories_141604...
The Japanese city of Hiroshima is preparing to commemorate the 60th
anniversary of the world's first atomic bombing on August 6.
Some 140,000 people, almost half the city's population at the time,
died immediately or in the months after the nuclear attack from
radiation injuries or horrific burns.
Latest research has found 76-percent of survivors still experience
flashbacks.
The Hiroshima bombing was followed by the dropping of a second atomic
bomb on the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, leaving tens of
thousands more dead.
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 09:52:48 AM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3u0io6aw2.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
The fifty or so WWII veterans you talked to, by your own account, where
not in Washington, and most likely did not have any sort of detailed
information about Japanese resources such as fuel supplies, manufacturing
resources, etc., and last I heard, Japan does not produce its own oil.
Of course they didn't believe Japan was going to collapse. If you were
standing in the middle of the road watching an 18 wheeler being driven
by an angry driver barreling down on you, would *you* believe it was
going to stop? Probably not, although someone who knew that it was
running on fumes might come to a different conclusion.
and there were "overtures" being made informally for some
face-saving arrangement to end the conflict, without the loss of
life that an invasion might have entailed.
"On April 5, 1945, one week before Rooseveft's death, Japanese Prime
Minister Kuniaki Koiso and his Cabinet resigned because of the increasingly
disastrous course of the war--the second such resignation in less than a
year. A peace faction in the military-dominated Japanese government had
begun to realize that a way had to be found to negotiate an end to the war.
The Allied demand for "unconditional surrender" was, however, regarded as
intolerable. Emperor Hirohito approved the appointment of the aged Admiral
Kantaro Suzuki as the new Prime Minister. But Suzuki's government was
hobbled by severe tensions between the peace faction and militarists who
vowed to fight to the bitter end. As a result, direct negotiations with the
United States could not be undertaken, and Japan lost an opportunity to try
to end the war early."
<snip>
As I said ... a negotiated end was possible provided it included some
face saving, and face saving is not "unconditional surrender". Some
in the "peace faction" in the "military-dominated Japanese government"
you refer to were in fact using informal contacts with well-connected
Americans (who were holding these informal discussions with the
knowledge of our government, acting as relays between the two sides).
One question is whether a demonstration of the weapon would have given
Suzuki and Hirohito a compelling reason to overrule the objections of
Japanese militarists, as was done in the aftermath of the
instantaneous loss of two Japanese cities. Such a demonstration was
one of the proposals that people who developed the bomb made.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 12:35:08 PM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3ll409pwb.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3u0io6aw2.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them
believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
The fifty or so WWII veterans you talked to, by your own account, where
not in Washington, and most likely did not have any sort of detailed
information about Japanese resources such as fuel supplies, manufacturing
resources, etc., and last I heard, Japan does not produce its own oil.
Of course they didn't believe Japan was going to collapse. If you were
standing in the middle of the road watching an 18 wheeler being driven
by an angry driver barreling down on you, would *you* believe it was
going to stop? Probably not, although someone who knew that it was
running on fumes might come to a different conclusion.
and there were "overtures" being made informally for some
face-saving arrangement to end the conflict, without the loss of
life that an invasion might have entailed.
"On April 5, 1945, one week before Rooseveft's death, Japanese Prime
Minister Kuniaki Koiso and his Cabinet resigned because of the
increasingly
disastrous course of the war--the second such resignation in less than a
year. A peace faction in the military-dominated Japanese government had
begun to realize that a way had to be found to negotiate an end to the
war.
The Allied demand for "unconditional surrender" was, however, regarded as
intolerable. Emperor Hirohito approved the appointment of the aged
Admiral
Kantaro Suzuki as the new Prime Minister. But Suzuki's government was
hobbled by severe tensions between the peace faction and militarists who
vowed to fight to the bitter end. As a result, direct negotiations with
the
United States could not be undertaken, and Japan lost an opportunity to
try
to end the war early."
<snip>
As I said ... a negotiated end was possible
Not according to that citation. Read it again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 07:57:57 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3ll409pwb.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"On April 5, 1945, one week before Rooseveft's death, Japanese Prime
Minister Kuniaki Koiso and his Cabinet resigned because of the
increasingly
disastrous course of the war--the second such resignation in less than a
year. A peace faction in the military-dominated Japanese government had
begun to realize that a way had to be found to negotiate an end to the
war.
The Allied demand for "unconditional surrender" was, however, regarded as
intolerable. Emperor Hirohito approved the appointment of the aged
Admiral
Kantaro Suzuki as the new Prime Minister. But Suzuki's government was
hobbled by severe tensions between the peace faction and militarists who
vowed to fight to the bitter end. As a result, direct negotiations with
the
United States could not be undertaken, and Japan lost an opportunity to
try
to end the war early."
<snip>
As I said ... a negotiated end was possible
Not according to that citation. Read it again.
No, it is consistent with what I said. We made a choice - nothing
less than unconditional surrender was acceptable to us and that was
unacceptable to the Japanese without a threat of complete annihilation
- so the informal discussions I mentioned went nowhere as both sides
could not possibly agree. But that was in fact partly our choice,
not something sent down from on high on the proverbial stone tablets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 09:14:27 PM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3wtnjlkzn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3ll409pwb.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"On April 5, 1945, one week before Rooseveft's death, Japanese Prime
Minister Kuniaki Koiso and his Cabinet resigned because of the
increasingly
disastrous course of the war--the second such resignation in less than
a
year. A peace faction in the military-dominated Japanese government
had
begun to realize that a way had to be found to negotiate an end to the
war.
The Allied demand for "unconditional surrender" was, however, regarded
as
intolerable. Emperor Hirohito approved the appointment of the aged
Admiral
Kantaro Suzuki as the new Prime Minister. But Suzuki's government was
hobbled by severe tensions between the peace faction and militarists
who
vowed to fight to the bitter end. As a result, direct negotiations
with
the
United States could not be undertaken, and Japan lost an opportunity
to
try
to end the war early."
<snip>
As I said ... a negotiated end was possible
Not according to that citation. Read it again.
No, it is consistent with what I said.
Then your reading comprehension needs improvement.
"But Suzuki's government was hobbled by severe tensions between the peace
faction and militarists who vowed to fight to the bitter end."
The militarists did not allow a negotiated peace. They held the power, at
the time. The militarists would not allow ANY sort of surrender,
unconditional or otherwise.
We made a choice - nothing
less than unconditional surrender was acceptable to us and that was
unacceptable to the Japanese without a threat of complete annihilation
- so the informal discussions I mentioned went nowhere as both sides
could not possibly agree. But that was in fact partly our choice,
It was completely Japan's choice.
not something sent down from on high on the proverbial stone tablets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 09:28:29 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3wtnjlkzn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
No, it is consistent with what I said.
Then your reading comprehension needs improvement.
Actually yours does, not to mention your attention span since you
cut the text in the middle of a very short paragarph. :-)
"But Suzuki's government was hobbled by severe tensions between the peace
faction and militarists who vowed to fight to the bitter end."
The militarists did not allow a negotiated peace. They held the power, at
the time. The militarists would not allow ANY sort of surrender,
unconditional or otherwise.
We made a choice - nothing less than unconditional surrender was
acceptable to us and that was unacceptable to the Japanese without
a threat of complete annihilation - so the informal discussions I
mentioned went nowhere as both sides could not possibly agree.
But that was in fact partly our choice,
It was completely Japan's choice.
No, it was our choice too (and now you are reduced to snipping mid
sentence). We chose to demand unconditional surrender. Nobody forced
us to do that.
not something sent down from on high on the proverbial stone tablets.
..... well?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 09:45:07 PM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3fyu7lgss.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3wtnjlkzn.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
No, it is consistent with what I said.
Then your reading comprehension needs improvement.
Actually yours does, not to mention your attention span since you
cut the text in the middle of a very short paragarph. :-)
"But Suzuki's government was hobbled by severe tensions between the peace
faction and militarists who vowed to fight to the bitter end."
The militarists did not allow a negotiated peace. They held the power,
at
the time. The militarists would not allow ANY sort of surrender,
unconditional or otherwise.
We made a choice - nothing less than unconditional surrender was
acceptable to us and that was unacceptable to the Japanese without
a threat of complete annihilation - so the informal discussions I
mentioned went nowhere as both sides could not possibly agree.
But that was in fact partly our choice,
It was completely Japan's choice.
No, it was our choice too (and now you are reduced to snipping mid
sentence). We chose to demand unconditional surrender. Nobody forced
us to do that.
Actually, they did. If you would read some history on the matter, our
allies, including Russia, the Chinese, and numerous other countries that
Japan had committed autrocities against were demanding unconditional
surrender. Stalin was particularly adamant on the subject.
not something sent down from on high on the proverbial stone tablets.
.... well?
Well what? Now you want me to respond to meaningless rhetoric? The
Potsdam Declaration clearly spelled out the terms of surrender. While it
wasn't written in stone, it was strongly worded and written on very strong
paper.
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html
You will note article 5.
5 Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are
no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.
That seems rather clear to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 10:01:31 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3fyu7lgss.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
No, it was our choice too (and now you are reduced to snipping mid
sentence). We chose to demand unconditional surrender. Nobody forced
us to do that.
Actually, they did. If you would read some history on the matter, our
allies, including Russia, the Chinese, and numerous other countries that
Japan had committed autrocities against were demanding unconditional
surrender. Stalin was particularly adamant on the subject.
It was still our choice - our navy and our troops with Russia and China
sitting in the peanut gallery.
Stalin might have been adamant, but (to paraphrase what he said regarding
the Pope), how many aircraft carriers did you say Stalin had off the
coast of Japan?
Well what? Now you want me to respond to meaningless rhetoric? The
Potsdam Declaration clearly spelled out the terms of surrender. While it
wasn't written in stone, it was strongly worded and written on very strong
paper.
The Potsdam Declaration was dated July 26, 1945. The first atomic
bomb was detonated at the "Trinity" test site on July 16, 1945.
Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, 1945.
Sounds to me like you have a causality problem. We already had
the bomb when the Potsdam Declaration was issued, and that declaration
would not have been binding on us if we did not agreed to it. So,
as I said, it was our decision.
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html
You will note article 5.
5 Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are
no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.
That seems rather clear to me.
Also rather irrelevant for the reasons given above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
22 Jul 2005 05:48:57 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m37jfjlf9p.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3fyu7lgss.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
No, it was our choice too (and now you are reduced to snipping mid
sentence). We chose to demand unconditional surrender. Nobody forced
us to do that.
Actually, they did. If you would read some history on the matter, our
allies, including Russia, the Chinese, and numerous other countries that
Japan had committed autrocities against were demanding unconditional
surrender. Stalin was particularly adamant on the subject.
It was still our choice - our navy and our troops with Russia and China
sitting in the peanut gallery.
Russia and China sat in the peanut gallery? LOL! No wonder your sense of
history is skewed.
Stalin might have been adamant, but (to paraphrase what he said regarding
the Pope), how many aircraft carriers did you say Stalin had off the
coast of Japan?
I suppose the term "Ally" should be meaningless, right?
Well what? Now you want me to respond to meaningless rhetoric? The
Potsdam Declaration clearly spelled out the terms of surrender. While
it
wasn't written in stone, it was strongly worded and written on very
strong
paper.
The Potsdam Declaration was dated July 26, 1945. The first atomic
bomb was detonated at the "Trinity" test site on July 16, 1945.
Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, 1945.
Sounds to me like you have a causality problem. We already had
the bomb when the Potsdam Declaration was issued, and that declaration
would not have been binding on us if we did not agreed to it. So,
as I said, it was our decision.
We had the bomb in response to Germany's success in being the first to split
a Uranium Atom. We didn't know at the time of the ending of the war wotj
the Germans that they had decided not to develop the bomb for budgetary
reasons. We had not decided to use it against Japan by the time of the
Potsdam Declaration.
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html
You will note article 5.
5 Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There
are
no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.
That seems rather clear to me.
Also rather irrelevant for the reasons given above.
Except for the fact that we signed it, agreed to it. Like I said, the
language was clear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
23 Jul 2005 03:25:02 PM |
|
|
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m37jfjlf9p.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
It was still our choice - our navy and our troops with Russia and China
sitting in the peanut gallery.
Russia and China sat in the peanut gallery? LOL! No wonder your sense of
history is skewed.
Yep, they were in the peanut gallery - neither had much in the way of
military assets poised to contribute to an invasion of Japan. No
surprise there - China had been occupied and Russia had been up to
its eyeballs fending off the Germans. You might consider that the
term "Eastern Front" was from the German perspective.
Stalin might have been adamant, but (to paraphrase what he said regarding
the Pope), how many aircraft carriers did you say Stalin had off the
coast of Japan?
I suppose the term "Ally" should be meaningless, right?
Do you honestly think Rosevelt thought of Stalin as someone who could
really be trusted? Everyone knew that Stalin would look after his own
interests first, and it would have been foolish for us to not take
that into account.
The Potsdam Declaration was dated July 26, 1945. The first atomic
bomb was detonated at the "Trinity" test site on July 16, 1945.
Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, 1945.
Sounds to me like you have a causality problem. We already had
the bomb when the Potsdam Declaration was issued, and that declaration
would not have been binding on us if we did not agreed to it. So,
as I said, it was our decision.
We had the bomb in response to Germany's success in being the first to split
a Uranium Atom. We didn't know at the time of the ending of the war wotj
the Germans that they had decided not to develop the bomb for budgetary
reasons. We had not decided to use it against Japan by the time of the
Potsdam Declaration.
Irrelevant - top-level U.S. officials knew about the bomb and knew
that it worked. The Potsdam Declaration is not relevant to a discussion
of what options we had: we could have insisted on something different.
Also rather irrelevant for the reasons given above.
Except for the fact that we signed it, agreed to it. Like I said, the
language was clear.
You can argue that signing and agreeing to it is what set our policy,
but as I said, nobody forced us to do that, and since we already had
the bomb and new it worked, it is not like something completely out
of the blue showed up after the agreement went into effect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
23 Jul 2005 03:52:14 PM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3pst95l6j.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m37jfjlf9p.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
It was still our choice - our navy and our troops with Russia and China
sitting in the peanut gallery.
Russia and China sat in the peanut gallery? LOL! No wonder your sense
of
history is skewed.
Yep, they were in the peanut gallery -
LOL! Come back when you can carry the debate intelligently.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Secretary of HomIntern" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
25 Jul 2005 12:04:16 AM |
|
|
It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality, when
Andrealphus wrote:
"No One" wrote...
"Andrealphus" writes:
"No One" wrote...
It was still our choice - our navy and our troops with Russia and
China sitting in the peanut gallery.
Russia and China sat in the peanut gallery? LOL! No wonder your sense
of history is skewed.
Yep, they were in the peanut gallery -
LOL! Come back when you can carry the debate intelligently.
Excuse me? What substantial contribution did they make to the war with
Japan? China did nada, and the USSR took the Kuriles. Otherwise, what? And
how much firepower were they prepared to bring to bear? Not enough to make
a difference, that's for certain, before late that year. If Hirohito (not
"Hiro Hito") had called Truman's bluff, the war would indeed have carried
on for years. Massacring over 200,000 people didn't accomplish anything by
itself, but making them think Americans were vengeance-crazed mass
murderers with the ability to destroy entire cities, and an eagerness to do
so -- that accomplished everything. Since you did, after all, destroy two
cities and kill a lot of people, they can hardly be faulted for getting
that impression. Hmmmm. Considering that Tojo and Hitler were responsible
for the majority of the mass murders in WWII, has the US been trying to
catch up since then?
--
_______________________________________________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
Killfiled by: directory
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
02 Aug 2005 04:10:24 AM |
|
|
The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
and the USSR took the Kuriles. Otherwise, what?
Manchuria?
More importantly, they demonstrated to Japan that they were not going
to be a mediator for their silly surrender negotiation fantasies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
02 Aug 2005 04:02:54 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
No, it is consistent with what I said. We made a choice -
nothing less than unconditional surrender was acceptable
to us and that was unacceptable to the Japanese without a
threat of complete annihilation
Too bad for Japan.
If someone doesn't want to be forced to surrender to us, on terms that
WE choose, they shouldn't start a war with us.
But that was in fact partly our choice, not something sent
down from on high on the proverbial stone tablets.
Since we were the victor, whatever we decided was set down in stone.
It was up to Japan to deal with accepting our terms, and it was up to
our military to bash Japan until they agreed to accept our terms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
02 Aug 2005 10:16:45 AM |
|
|
<hiroshima_facts@yahoo.com> wrote:
No One wrote:
No, it is consistent with what I said. We made a choice -
nothing less than unconditional surrender was acceptable
to us and that was unacceptable to the Japanese without a
threat of complete annihilation
Too bad for Japan.
If someone doesn't want to be forced to surrender to us, on terms that
WE choose, they shouldn't start a war with us.
Might makes right.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
02 Aug 2005 06:46:09 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dco2ot$5rp$1@bolt.sonic.net...
No One wrote:
If someone doesn't want to be forced to surrender to us, on terms that
WE choose, they shouldn't start a war with us.
Might makes right.
That's what the al Quaedans say.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Secretary of HomIntern" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
02 Aug 2005 06:54:54 PM |
|
|
I'll never know another like
in alt.politics.homosexuality, they're so drad:
No One wrote:
No, it is consistent with what I said. We made a choice -
nothing less than unconditional surrender was acceptable
to us and that was unacceptable to the Japanese without a
threat of complete annihilation
Too bad for Japan.
If someone doesn't want to be forced to surrender to us, on terms that
WE choose, they shouldn't start a war with us.
That's very imperious-sounding. Which is appropriate for empires, I suppose.
Isn't it a bit odd for citizens of a republic to use that sort of wording,
though? Especially when trying to justify a course of action taken by their
military?
But that was in fact partly our choice, not something sent
down from on high on the proverbial stone tablets.
Since we were the victor, whatever we decided was set down in stone.
It was up to Japan to deal with accepting our terms, and it was up to
our military to bash Japan until they agreed to accept our terms.
I /see/. No more republic for you! Retroactive to 1945, even.
--
_______________________________________________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -7.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
Killfiled by: directory
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
03 Aug 2005 10:47:57 PM |
|
|
The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
I'll never know another like
in alt.politics.homosexuality, they're so drad:
No One wrote:
No, it is consistent with what I said. We made a
choice - nothing less than unconditional surrender was
acceptable to us and that was unacceptable to the
Japanese without a threat of complete annihilation
Too bad for Japan.
If someone doesn't want to be forced to surrender to us,
on terms that WE choose, they shouldn't start a war with
us.
That's very imperious-sounding. Which is appropriate for
empires, I suppose. Isn't it a bit odd for citizens of a
republic to use that sort of wording, though? Especially
when trying to justify a course of action taken by their
military?
I don't think "empire" and "republic" are mutually exclusive terms.
Rome was imperial in scope for the last 100 years of their republic
period of history.
And I am not sure how us choosing the surrender terms, when we are the
victor, is necessarily imperial, or contradictory to the term republic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
02 Aug 2005 03:53:41 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
"Andrealphus" <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> writes:
As I said ... a negotiated end was possible provided it
included some face saving, and face saving is not
"unconditional surrender".
That is incorrect. No negotiated end was possible.
The only way the war could end was with Japan accepting our terms
without condition.
Some in the "peace faction" in the "military-dominated
Japanese government" you refer to were in fact using
informal contacts with well-connected Americans (who were
holding these informal discussions with the knowledge of
our government, acting as relays between the two sides).
There were no informal discussions of any substance between Japanese
agents and American agents.
The Emperor's people were focused on getting the Soviets to mediate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 10:55:58 AM |
|
|
Andrealphus <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
Do you have any idea what a ridiculous statement that is?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 02:21:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:55:58 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dbogid$d3e$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Andrealphus <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
Do you have any idea what a ridiculous statement that is?
It wasn't ridiculous to those who were fighting and dying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
25 Jul 2005 11:10:24 AM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Andrealphus <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
Do you have any idea what a ridiculous statement that is?
It wasn't ridiculous to those who were fighting and dying.
Do you do anything but spout ridiculous propaganda and logical
fallacies? Tell us: Why would a front-line soldier have ANY
idea of the enemy's top-level plans?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
25 Jul 2005 05:28:18 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:10:24 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc32tg$quk$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Andrealphus <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
Do you have any idea what a ridiculous statement that is?
It wasn't ridiculous to those who were fighting and dying.
Do you do anything but spout ridiculous propaganda and logical
fallacies? Tell us: Why would a front-line soldier have ANY
idea of the enemy's top-level plans?
They don't. But they had a reason for being there, especially during
WW2.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
25 Jul 2005 11:12:42 PM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Andrealphus <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
Do you have any idea what a ridiculous statement that is?
It wasn't ridiculous to those who were fighting and dying.
Do you do anything but spout ridiculous propaganda and logical
fallacies? Tell us: Why would a front-line soldier have ANY
idea of the enemy's top-level plans?
They don't.
And that's why the statement was ridiculous.
But they had a reason for being there, especially during
WW2.
The generals said so.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
26 Jul 2005 06:55:26 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:12:42 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc4d7q$9v5$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Andrealphus <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
Do you have any idea what a ridiculous statement that is?
It wasn't ridiculous to those who were fighting and dying.
Do you do anything but spout ridiculous propaganda and logical
fallacies? Tell us: Why would a front-line soldier have ANY
idea of the enemy's top-level plans?
They don't.
And that's why the statement was ridiculous.
But they had a reason for being there, especially during
WW2.
The generals said so.
Were you there? If not it is obvious that, as usual, you have no idea
what you are talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
26 Jul 2005 10:35:40 PM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:12:42 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc4d7q$9v5$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Andrealphus <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
Do you have any idea what a ridiculous statement that is?
It wasn't ridiculous to those who were fighting and dying.
Do you do anything but spout ridiculous propaganda and logical
fallacies? Tell us: Why would a front-line soldier have ANY
idea of the enemy's top-level plans?
They don't.
And that's why the statement was ridiculous.
But they had a reason for being there, especially during
WW2.
The generals said so.
Were you there?
Idiot.
If not it is obvious that, as usual, you have no idea
what you are talking about.
Yeah, those soldiers just bought themselves trasportation and
weapons and went to fight all on their own.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
26 Jul 2005 11:09:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:35:40 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc6vec$i79$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:12:42 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc4d7q$9v5$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Andrealphus <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
Do you have any idea what a ridiculous statement that is?
It wasn't ridiculous to those who were fighting and dying.
Do you do anything but spout ridiculous propaganda and logical
fallacies? Tell us: Why would a front-line soldier have ANY
idea of the enemy's top-level plans?
They don't.
And that's why the statement was ridiculous.
But they had a reason for being there, especially during
WW2.
The generals said so.
Were you there?
Idiot.
It appears you were not. Yet you seem to know more than those who
were there did.
If not it is obvious that, as usual, you have no idea
what you are talking about.
Yeah, those soldiers just bought themselves trasportation and
weapons and went to fight all on their own.
No, but they were unified in their purpose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
26 Jul 2005 11:19:09 PM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:35:40 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc6vec$i79$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:12:42 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc4d7q$9v5$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Andrealphus <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
Do you have any idea what a ridiculous statement that is?
It wasn't ridiculous to those who were fighting and dying.
Do you do anything but spout ridiculous propaganda and logical
fallacies? Tell us: Why would a front-line soldier have ANY
idea of the enemy's top-level plans?
They don't.
And that's why the statement was ridiculous.
But they had a reason for being there, especially during
WW2.
The generals said so.
Were you there?
Idiot.
It appears you were not.
It is obvious that you're an idiot who's playing with a smokescreen.
If not it is obvious that, as usual, you have no idea
what you are talking about.
Yeah, those soldiers just bought themselves trasportation and
weapons and went to fight all on their own.
No,
So it would appear that it is YOU who hasn't a clue.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
27 Jul 2005 06:40:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:19:09 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc71vt$oih$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:35:40 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc6vec$i79$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:12:42 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc4d7q$9v5$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Andrealphus <NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
Do you have any idea what a ridiculous statement that is?
It wasn't ridiculous to those who were fighting and dying.
Do you do anything but spout ridiculous propaganda and logical
fallacies? Tell us: Why would a front-line soldier have ANY
idea of the enemy's top-level plans?
They don't.
And that's why the statement was ridiculous.
But they had a reason for being there, especially during
WW2.
The generals said so.
Were you there?
Idiot.
It appears you were not.
It is obvious that you're an idiot who's playing with a smokescreen.
What you are is more than obvious, but please keep talking and
continue to confirm it.
If not it is obvious that, as usual, you have no idea
what you are talking about.
Yeah, those soldiers just bought themselves trasportation and
weapons and went to fight all on their own.
No,
So it would appear that it is YOU who hasn't a clue.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
02 Aug 2005 03:46:41 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
If it became general knowledge that a weapon was
available which would have saved American lives and
shortened the war but was not used the public outrage
would still be echoing today.
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time
(and I heard this from a person who knew some of the
people involved), Japan was about to collapse anyway due
to running out of resources, and there were "overtures"
being made informally for some face-saving arrangement to
end the conflict, without the loss of life that an
invasion might have entailed.
Some of the overtures were done without the backing of the Japanese
government.
Others were done by the Japanese government, but were only requests to
the Soviets to have them mediate, with no concrete surrender proposals
offered.
In either case, there was nothing that had the appearance of a serious
attempt at surrender.
And the Japanese Army was more than prepared to try to repel our
invasion if it came to that, even as their society collapsed around
them.
And "face saving" is basically code for "surrender terms that were
utterly unacceptable to us".
There were also proposals to set up a 'demo' of what the
weapon would do, which would be terrifying enough to make
the point without the loss of life (it was, after all,
dropped on cities as opposed to purely military targets).
The use against cities was more shocking, and the whole point was to
shock them as badly as possible, to make them give up.
By the time we dropped the bomb, we basically had complete
air superiority and the ability to totally blockade the
country with our navy.
The blockade, had it continued, would have had more dire consequences
for Japanese civilians than ten A-bombs dropped on their cities.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 05:52:19 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:32:56 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3u0io6aw2.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:57:47 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3u0irzc2r.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"Ryd" <ryda56p@yahoo.com> writes:
200,000 + civilians killed by atomic weapons.
Why on earth would Truman kill so many CIVILIANS???
Oh, I know, they were JAPANESE CIVILIANS!
And KILLING THEM WITH A WEAPON NEVER BEFORE USED ON HUMANS JUST SEEMED
LIKE THE THING TO DO AT THE TIME.
The last statement is closer to the truth. Based on a first hand
account that I heard from a person there at the time, the generals who
visited the test site a few days after the first test literally did
not know what to make of it - they exploded the bomb hundreds of feet
in the air at the top of a tower (being higher up makes the bomb more
effective), and the generals didn't understand why there wasn't a big
hole in the ground. That the sand was fused went over some of their
heads.
As the decision percolated upwards towards the prez, details and
sublties were lost and by the time it got to Harry Truman, it was
boiled down to "Might shorten the war? Do it."
Harry had enough trouble with language (he could be a bit vulgar) and
French words like nuance were not things he worried about. There was
the story about how Harry was campaigning and telling a bunch of
farmers that he used to be a farmer and knew that farming was
manure, manure, and more manure. Someone took his wife Beth aside
and said, "Can't you get him to say 'fertilizer'?" Beth replied,
"you don't know how long it took me to get him to say 'manure.'"
If it became general knowledge that a weapon was available which would
have saved American lives and shortened the war but was not used the
public outrage would still be echoing today.
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources, and there
were "overtures" being made informally for some face-saving
arrangement to end the conflict, without the loss of life that an
invasion might have entailed.
There were no serious 'overtures' and the military command structure
did not want to stop even after the bombs. They tried to prevent the
radio broadcast of the Emperor's surrender, and at least one of the
top generals committed suicide rather than personally surrender.
They had planned to fight to the death and made no secret of it. They
expected that strategy to slow down or prevent an actual invasion
because they thought the Allies would never accept the number of
casualties that would result.
There were also proposals to set up a 'demo' of what the weapon would
do, which would be terrifying enough to make the point without the
loss of life (it was, after all, dropped on cities as opposed to
purely military targets).
That was rejected because there were only two bombs available, and the
fact that the military wanted to continue the war even after the two
were dropped shows such a demonstration would have been useless.
Curiously, the people most opposed to using it were the ones who had
actually seen the test.
And who were not involved with actually fighting the war.
Those who were not there can never understand the tone of that era.
And the absolute total public dedication to the successful end to the
war.
By the time we dropped the bomb, we basically had complete air
superiority and the ability to totally blockade the country with our
navy.
But it did not matter to them. It was a religious war, and every one
of them expected to die for the Emperor. They just wanted to kill as
many of the enemy as possible in the process.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
