Attitudes about Horoshima and Nagasaki
Evleth
Rennie complained about hyperbole o this point. My
view was that WWII brutalized American, it also did the same thing
to Britain. Bomber Harris is well known there although less
well known in the USA. WWII Allied bombing policies also on our my
list of humanitarian complaints. The death penalty is not alone in
that regard.
My reaction to Horoshima was early on as a teenager, right after the war
John Hersey published his book "Horoshima" and describe the horror of the
effects of a nuclear bomb, its heat and then its radiation damage on
human beings. The verbal images of flesh hanging in strips off of living
bodies still is in my mind. I have read and reread many accounts of the
development of the bomb, once in my life I had the honor of spending an
evening with Richard Feynman when I was a student at Caltech. He help make
the bomb but refused to go further to the H-bomb. I understood him, I did
not agree because it was obvious at the time that the Russians would be a
mortal danger to the rest of the world if they possessed it and we did not.
The after WWII policy of mutual destruction saved up from every having to
use the bomb again even in versions thousands of times more powerful.
Demonstration of the power of H-bombs, in fact should have been more
generally dissiminated, the hawks would have been less hawkish.
When I say Americans are insensitive over the historical use of the bomb I
speak from experience. A good friend of mine sat with me at lunch in January
here in Paris, along with my Syrian colleague and used all the arguments
that are standard defending its use, even to the point that it "actually"
saved lives, Japanese lives, in cutting the war short. I did not challenge
my friend but looked at my Syrian colleague and he looked at me and we
both had the same feeling of dispare, "we will we ever learn" were our
feelings. Some Arabs are sensitive as to the bombings that occurred in
Iraq, the highway of death north of Kuwait city. One kills in war,
that alone is horrible enough, one does not overkill and morally get
away with it. Some remember. Certainly the Japanese do.
I take the position:
"If I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, I would not have
done it"
This is the wonder of hindsight, it should never be underestimated. Do
we learn by experience? If we say I would not do it again, one
has undergone some moral evolution, towards something a little better.
Our egos, both individual and collective, prevent us from admitting
when we have done wrong. Having been once for the death penalty I can
claim I changed, through reflection and analysis, I was wrong. Using the
bomb in a manner which killed large numbers of civilians was wrong. It would
be wrong now and it was wrong then. These are moral arguments, which have
nothing to do with the conduct of the war at that time. I can get into a
historical argument as to its military necessity at the time but that would
lead me away from the moral issues. In fact, if somebody posts on that I
think I can claim now, I have read or heard it before. Again and again.
But I have moved on, I am much further down the road on this issue. I often
wonder if there is anybody walking along side. Hopefully I am not alone.
Richard Jackson
At the risk of sounding like Don Kool, War is war. It is fighting to
the point where the enemy either no longer has the ability to fight, or
the will to fight and surrenders. This can be accomplished by
attrition or shock. In a war of attrition, the goal is to extend the
war to the point that the popular support of the war in the enemy's
homeland no longer exist due to financial drain and human loss over a
long period of time. The shock method is to hit the enemy so hard, such
a massive, destructive blow, that they feel it is futile to continue
against such an overwhelming force, and sue for peace.
Japan attempted to use the shock method when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
They very nearly succeeded. If the Pacific Fleet carriers had been in
port, the US might very well have sued for peace once Japan got totally
established in strategic locations across the Pacific. As it was, they
failed, and the US undertook a steady war of attrition. At the end, it
became clear that the Warrior's Code would not allow the Japanese
military to accept an unconditional surrender despite being defeated on
all fronts and running out of naval and air resources. To decide the
matter, President Truman decided to strike blows with the most decisive
weapon available, the atom bomb. Only after the bombs were dropped did
Japan unconditionally surrender (the only type of surrender the American
public would have accepted, in my opinion). It is questionable if they
would have surrendered then had they known those were the only two of
the things we had which were operational and would be for some time.
The Allied forces (principally US forces) already had invasion plans
drawn up for the Japanese homeland. The Japanese military already had
plans drawn up for a suicidal defense of their homeland which included
men, women, and chldren. To get a pretty good idea of what would have
transpired, study what the civillian population did on Iwo Jima. They
were brainwashed by the Japanese government so badly that they committed
suicide by the hundreds rather than surrender. It was one of the most
heartbreaking times of the war. Combined, the casualties would have
been horrendous on the US side alone.
I trained in survival of a thermonuclear war and know full well both the
short term and long term effects of such weapons. I have also studied
the effects on the only two cities nuclear weapons have (thank God) ever
been used on. The effects are horrible without question. They did,
however, serve the purpose of ending the will of the Japanese military
to continue fighting, thus ending the war without the necessity of an
American invasion of the home islands. Thus, they did save lives while
taking the lives of thousands of Japanese civillians. It is horrible
that innocents have to die in time of war, but it happens. The
millitary even has a catchword for it, collateral damage.
AS far as what occurred during the Gulf War to Saddam's troops, that
happened. They were not civillians, although they had literally raped
and plundered Kuwait. There is no doubt they were slaughtered my the
thousands on "Death's Highway" North of the city. They were also
slaughtered by the thousands in the Desert by inept commanders who
ordered them to use Russian winter tactics fighting in the open manuver
country of the desert. Perhaps you should ask your Muslim friends if
the next time Iraq troops come invading, they would rather we left them
to their own devices. Make no mistake, Iraq has rearmed, and is even
more dangerous now than before.
Al Qur'an teaches Muslims not to slaughter an enemy when he has ceased
being a combattant and is fleeing. That's why your Muslim friends are
not comfortable with what happened north of the city, and that's why the
US did not finish the job in Iraq. Unfortunately for the Iraqui troops
fleeing north, the US had the goal of striking so great a blow to the
Iraq military as to render them incapable of fighting another war for a
while and destroying their will to fight. In the fight that ensued, the
US destroyed as much equipment and men of iraq as was humanly possible
in the shortest amount of time that it could be done.
--
Richard Jackson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Osmo Ronkanen
Richard Jackson <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>At the risk of sounding like Don Kool, War is war. It is fighting to
>the point where the enemy either no longer has the ability to fight, or
>the will to fight and surrenders.
Actually most wars are fought until a suitable political solution is
reached.
Osmo
S Moir
"Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:8tph6a$g81$1...@news2.isdnet.net...
Perhaps the bombs which were dropped on Japan did brutalise us collectively,
but I would stop short of calling it morally wrong.
We were in the midst of a terrible situation and drastic action was
required. Many things were morally wrong at that point in time, but I am
grateful for the actions taken on behalf of us all.
It is not nice to think of civilians perishing, but as there were no "smart"
bombs capable of flying themselves halfway around the map, stopping to ask
for directions, ringing the doorbell to make sure they had arrived at a
military installation and then posting themselves through the letterbox
before detonating live on CNN there was not much else of an option.
Life is hard and we all just have to make the best of it. I can understand
your feelings about the bombing and would agree that it is daft to look upon
it as an act which saved lives, but don't you think the repercussions of not
taking this course of action would have been much worse?- the Japanese would
never haved surrendered.
Shona
John Rennie
"Osmo Ronkanen" <ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:8tppre$5o7$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
The salient word here is 'most'. Some never reach that stage - NI and
Israel are two such examples.
A Planet Visitor
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tpok8$bma$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<Revisionist historical claptrap clipped.>
> > But I have moved on, I am much further down the road on this issue.
I
> often
> > wonder if there is anybody walking along side. Hopefully I am not
> alone.
> >
> >
Unfortunately, you have not move far enough. As with
the DP, you still see the value of just one life of the causes
(murderers, Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor), equal to
about 100 lives of the effects (those murdered, innocents
lost in battle).
>
> At the risk of sounding like Don Kool, War is war.
At the risk of sounding like A Planet Visitor... Earl Evleth
is as full of shit as a Christmas Goose, in this case.
Anyone who believes that the use of the Bomb did
not save an astronomically larger number of innocent
lives than its non-use, has to be.
A PV
<Intelligent and reasonable response of Richard Clipped>
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> At the risk of sounding like A Planet Visitor... Earl Evleth
> is as full of shit as a Christmas Goose, in this case.
> Anyone who believes that the use of the Bomb did
> not save an astronomically larger number of innocent
> lives than its non-use, has to be.
Nonetheless, it would be difficult for _me_ to press the button/whatever
in order to drop the thing. Even with that knowledge which comes from
hindsight.
Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"Alright brain, I don't like you and you don't like me... so let's just do this
and I'll get back to killing you with beer."
Evleth
> That's why your Muslim friends are
> not comfortable with what happened north of the city,
I did not mention that the Syrian is a Christian Arab, Catholic
to be exact. There are a lot in the region. I am sorry I did
not mention it. Strangely enough North African Arabs also
automatically believe that all Arabs are muslims.
The Syrian is actually my student, I was his research director
for his doctoral degree in France and he has become a personal
friend also. He taught me a lot about Arab mentalities.
Earl
John Rennie
Not at all surprising. Tariq Aziz, Hussein's Foreign and Deputy Prime
Minister is a Catholic. Which reminds me of an appalling joke.
. "What time does Saddam Hussein have his tea?" " the same time Tariq
Aziz".
Glenda R. Taylor
there had been talk of surrender. It was all but a formality. Really put a
squeeze on the good old US if it wanted to test out its new toy. So, boom,
it pretended that there was still a need. Truman quoted as saying that God
gave us the knowledge for the bomb. Thinkus sous?
John Rennie
"Glenda R. Taylor" <tcg...@midusa.net> wrote in message
news:8tq8re$kda$1...@iac5.navix.net...
Nonsense Glenda. The 'word' as you call it emanated from the mouths of
those who know nothing but guilt for the undoubted horrors of the after
effects of the bombs.
If Roosevelt had been alive they would have been dropped so don't try to
blame Truman. But its no good taking my word - have a glance at General
George Marshall's comments about the decision to drop the bombs. You will
find them on the Web. Frankly what's good enough for him is good enough
for me.
Avital Pilpel
[Crossposted to s.c.u because it is relevant to this discussion, I
think...]
> Rennie complained about hyperbole o this point. My
> view was that WWII brutalized American, it also did the same thing
> to Britain.
Wars of survival tend to do that. When someone attacks you with intent
to kill, if you are not brutalized in time to realize that you must do
*anything* to survive, you are often destroyed.
> Bomber Harris is well known there although less
> well known in the USA. WWII Allied bombing policies also on our my
> list of humanitarian complaints.
I still fail to see why. Hitler (and the Japanese) tried their darnest to
do the *exact same thing* to the UK and the USA. The "blitz", for
example, is a case in point.
Hitler and Geobbles, whose propaganda kept talking about the RAF and the
USAF as "murderers of the sky" should have thought of that *before* they
started WWII with the intent of subjugating the entire world - literally -
under the boot of Nazi occupation and murder, and before they had showed
the world what "terror bombing" was first, as in Spain, Poland, France,
and Britian.
The best reply to Hitler's claim of American and British "War crimes" is
found in a letter sent from Churchill to Roosevelt in 1943 (quoted by
Chuchill in "The history of the second world war"):
"Hitler says that he considers [a certain USAF bombing raid] a war
crime. Well, he can certainly be considered an expert witness on the
subject."
> My reaction to Horoshima was early on as a teenager, right after the war
> John Hersey published his book "Horoshima" and describe the horror of the
> effects of a nuclear bomb, its heat and then its radiation damage on
> human beings. The verbal images of flesh hanging in strips off of living
> bodies still is in my mind.
The Japanese should have thought of that *before* Pearl Harbor, the
occupation of most of Southeast Asia and huge parts of China, and so on.
Also, their stubborn refusal to surrender which would have forced an
american invasion of the mainland was also part of it. Truman warned
Japan that if they will not surrender, they will suffer "destruction".
They ignored it. He then had two choices: Drop the bomb and cause
surrender, or invade Japan with probably as many as 1,000,000 american
dead.
> I have read and reread many accounts of the
> development of the bomb, once in my life I had the honor of spending an
> evening with Richard Feynman when I was a student at Caltech. He help make
> the bomb but refused to go further to the H-bomb. I understood him, I did
> not agree because it was obvious at the time that the Russians would be a
> mortal danger to the rest of the world if they possessed it and we did not.
Exactly. He who wants peace must prepare for war.
> The after WWII policy of mutual destruction saved up from every having to
> use the bomb again even in versions thousands of times more powerful.
AND saved western Europe from being occupied by the communist regime. The
threat of Armaggedon - and ONLY that - saved the freedom of hundreds of
million of people. Moral argument are completely useless when you are
fighting a foe - such as Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Saddam Hussein's
Iraq - which ignore them and see people who care for them as nothing but a
sign of weakness.
> When I say Americans are insensitive over the historical use of the bomb I
> speak from experience. A good friend of mine sat with me at lunch in January
> here in Paris, along with my Syrian colleague and used all the arguments
> that are standard defending its use, even to the point that it "actually"
> saved lives, Japanese lives, in cutting the war short. I did not challenge
> my friend but looked at my Syrian colleague and he looked at me and we
> both had the same feeling of dispare, "we will we ever learn" were our
> feelings. Some Arabs are sensitive as to the bombings that occurred in
> Iraq, the highway of death north of Kuwait city.
Boo hoo. Saddam Hussein should have thought of that before he invaded
Kuwait, I am afraid. Funny how your Syrian friend was so "sensitive" to
the lives of the poor Iraqis, but said not a word (I'll bet) about the
"little" fact that the Iraqis simply decided to invade Kuwait one day and
set up a terror "new order" there just like in the rest of Iraq.
> One kills in war,
> that alone is horrible enough, one does not overkill and morally get
> away with it.
Please. I hardly think that US needs moral lessons from SYRIA, of all
places - one of the worst dictatorships in the world. The moment the US
will start to pay attention how it is "morally perceived" by the likes of
Syria, Iraq, and so on, is the day its deterrant power is at an end. The
"moral outlook" of those nations is, in a sentence, "I can invade and kill
as much as I want, but it is an awful war crime if someone stops me with
force, and I will consider this person morally evil."
Taking seriously complaints about "moral crimes" from Syria is like
taking seriously complaints about "being violent" from Ted Bundy.
> Some remember. Certainly the Japanese do.
They sure do!!! They have completely stopped being a militaristic
dictatorship like they were for 500 years or so and became one of the most
peace-loving nations in the world. THAT was the REAL effect of complete
defeat in WWII - same with Germany, by the way.
This sort of effect on the agression of a nation, history tells us, cannot
be achieved by anything less than COMPLETE defeat and conquering of the
agressive nation, not merely military defeat of its forces; something that
will remembered by the entire generation. Germans did not turn away from
war when they lost Stalingrad; only when they lost Dresden. Japan didn't
admit defeat and sue for peace when it lost midway; only when they lost
Nagasaki.
The opposite case can be seen in the Gulf war: in an attempt to "be
nice", not to cause undue hardship to the Iraqis, etc., Baghdad was not
wiped off the face of the earth and Saddam Hussein was not even toppled
from power. Result? Iraq is still a continuing threat to world peace,
and Saddam is using every cent he gets from oil sales to reequip his army
and build additional presidential palaces, while deliberately letting the
Iraqi children starve and die of illness - it's SO good for propaganda.
Avital Pilpel
Richard Jackson
Yes. One side surrenders to the other, withdraws from the arena, or is
conquered by force. Your idealistic view of war would be wonderful,
Osmo, but it just isn't what happens in most cases. Wars are about
territory and death. Territory on the national level, and death on the
personal level for the grunt in the field.
Richard Jackson
Knowing full well what the effects of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons
are, especially today's improved weapons, I hope it is impossible for
anyone to ever push the button.
Unfortunately, there has been enough weapons grade plutonium lost to
make many of the things, and with today's technology, it is entirely
possible to make a "suitcase" nuclear bomb. (actually about the size of
a small steamer trunk) I am afraid it is but a matter of time before
some terrorist organization gets its hands on one and commits mass
murder in someplace like DC or some other major city of the world.
Richard Jackson
Japan wanted to surrender on their terms, which would have left the
military infrastructure intact, and the Emperor a god which was, in
fact, a figurehead for the military. None of that was acceptable. All
of that aside, I do not believe the American people would have stood for
anything less than an unconditional surrender after what happened at
Pearl Harbor.
With the bombs, America got its unconditional surrender and with General
Douglas mcAuthur in charge of the occupation forces, completely
restructured the whole Japanese governmental system to a democratic form
of government where the Emperor is revered, but not worshiped. The end
result is the stability of Japan which has lasted for over fifty years
now.
John Rennie
"Avital Pilpel" <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100110...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu...
>
Snipped
> They sure do!!! They have completely stopped being a militaristic
> dictatorship like they were for 500 years or so and became one of the most
> peace-loving nations in the world. THAT was the REAL effect of complete
> defeat in WWII - same with Germany, by the way.
>
> This sort of effect on the agression of a nation, history tells us, cannot
> be achieved by anything less than COMPLETE defeat and conquering of the
> agressive nation, not merely military defeat of its forces; something that
> will remembered by the entire generation. Germans did not turn away from
> war when they lost Stalingrad; only when they lost Dresden. Japan didn't
> admit defeat and sue for peace when it lost midway; only when they lost
> Nagasaki.
snipped
As is usual with your posts I agree with 80% and disagree with 20% but for
once I have left unsnipped the point I most agree with. I have just read
Keegan's Military History of the First World War. Now this was a war we,
the Allies, were supposed to have won.
But we did not occupy Germany and although the Armistice decreed that the
German Army be severely reduced, the old officer core kept reasonanly
intact. The worst effect, however, was on the civilian population - they
did not feel that they had lost the war.
There was no occupying army marching down their streets as is the practive
with victorious armies. They were still governing themselves, the Kaiser
had merely been exiled to Holland not hanged as certainly the British public
wanted. They did not feel that they had lost especially as their armies
had been winning massive victories some 6 months before the end of the war.
They should, as you state above, been made to feel that they had lost; that
the ethos of militarism that they had indulged in since Prussia unified
Germany had led them into chaos and that there was no percentage in trying
to go to war again. As it was they were given every incentive to try
again. We were very soft and it didn't pay. All this is with the
benefit of hindsight - I do not think I would have sung this tune at the
time. But with the example of what happened in WW I our leaders cannot be
faulted for demanding 'unconditional surrender' from both Germany and Japan.
Evleth
> At the risk of sounding like Don Kool, War is war.
By definition, somebody else has expressed it as "war is hell". While
that is now a cliché, its association with "hell" has an extended
association with Satan, the Prince of Death.
The moral problem of war is not being sucked in and becoming like the
enemy, if one presumes moral superiority. Most waring people`s do,
the "Gott mit uns" complex is general.
Moving a little higher on the moral scale of values, honoring one`s
principles is important to some, and some will actually chose "death
before dishonor". Schindler is not the only person honored by
the Jews for helping them in their moment of need, some even paid
with their lives in doing so.
"The shock method is to hit the enemy so hard, such a massive, destructive
blow, that they feel it is futile to continue against such an overwhelming
force, and sue for peace".
This is one approach, but the other approach is to having such power
that one`s opponent yields without a fight. Within the group, animals
normally chose dominance over annihilation. Alphas dominate the Betas.
Demonstration of strength, force, determination can produce a victory
without deaths. Note that the collapse of the USSR was essentially
bloodless. Gandhi and Martin Luther King were able to provide non-violent
leadership that led to victory. The error of the Palestinians is in not
choosing non-violent methods. Strength, force, and determination can be
in moral form, and can overpower its physical counterparts.
> Japan attempted to use the shock method when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
> They very nearly succeeded.
It succeeded alright, it produced a hornet`s nest effect! The American
people got a big back bone transplant. Isolationism died instantly.
Anyway, I know the history very well, I am an amateur WWII buff and my
wife is an historian of the occupation period in France. So WWII history
is a steady diet in our household, I write this message in her office
surronding uniquely by books from this period.
I`ll snip part of your message if I find something to comment on. You
already wrote it so others can look at your posting directly.
> At the end, it became clear that the Warrior's Code would not allow the
> Japanese military to accept an unconditional surrender despite
> being defeated on all fronts and running out of naval and air resources.
> To decide the matter, President Truman decided to strike blows with
> the most decisive weapon available, the atom bomb.
Standard argument. The facts were that the war was lost, the last
real sortie of the Japanese navy was to Okinawa, their ships only had
oil for a one way trip. The US naval submarine forces had long closed off
Japan from its southeast Asia oil supplies, the reason the war was started
for in the first place. Oil is needed to run a modern war. Within Japan
itself, industrial production was at a standstill. American classical
bombing performance had so affected Japan that it was running purely
on will.
Russia`s plans to enter the war were in the process of being realized.
With the use of the bomb they advanced their schedule in order to realize
the territorial seizures they had planned. They had to get in on the war
to be at the peace table. The one positive fall out of the bomb`s use was
that Russian could not participate in the occupatio of Japan.
My wife constantly lectures me on not using the "what if" argument to
speculate on possible historical alternatives that might have occurred
if we had not use the bomb. Nevertheless it is also speculation to
say that Japan would never have give up without a fight if the bomb had
not been used. We ended up preserving the Emperor in his place. The War
leadership had already been replaced, the armed forces were in disgrace.
The regime should have yielded within months of when the bomb was dropped.`
Effectively, was invasion necessary if the bomb had not been used?
It was not politically possible NOT to use the bomb, it was ready and
a lot of money was spent to produce it. It would end the war quickly.
Patience was not the order of the day. The European war was over, the
boys were coming home but some were being sent to Asia. So end the
damn war. Having just faced a determined Japanese defense in Okinawa
with the successful use of kamakazi defenses, the Americans were telling
themselves that there would be one million Allied casualities with
invading the main islands of Japan.
All these above considerations were reasonable. The problem of choosing
a target for the bombs was not easy since military targets had been largely
exhausted. The fire bombing of Tokyo already established that the
Americans were willing to use anti-civilian terrorist tactics. So moral
considerations had been cast aside.
> Only after the bombs were dropped did Japan unconditionally
> surrender (the > only type of surrender the American public would have
> accepted, in my opinion).
The retention of the Emperor by MacArthur was accepted with some grumbling
but the war being over was enough. "Unconditional" meant what? The Allies
arranged some show war crimes trials, some of which are now considered
historically shameful. But the Emperor was left out of this little charade
and some histories tried to make him out as not being as powerful as
he really was. I think your opinion is not supported by the historical
facts.
> It is questionable if they
> would have surrendered then had they known those were the only two of
> the things we had which were operational and would be for some time.
History never demonstrates the alternatives. Peace overtures by
Japanese diplomats has occurred, but they never had time to develop.
> I trained in survival of a thermonuclear war
Fortunately for you and the rest of us, that training was never put to the
test.
> It is horrible that innocents have to die in time of war,
> but it happens. The millitary even has a catchword for it, collateral damage.
My objection was in selecting a target that would produce "collateral
damage", in fact the principle victims of the bombings were civilians who
were not just accidental bystanders. I also refuse to accept the idea
that the ending of the war justified using these means.
The moral principle I tried to invoke is whether we approve now of what
was done then? Are we never suppose to criticize errors of the past?
How else can we avoid errors in the future? This is the value of hindsight.
Hindsight is not to be criticized at all in that respect.
> AS far as what occurred during the Gulf War to Saddam's troops, that
> happened. They were not civillians, although they had literally raped
> and plundered Kuwait. There is no doubt they were slaughtered my the
> thousands on "Death's Highway" North of the city. They were also
> slaughtered by the thousands in the Desert by inept commanders who
> ordered them to use Russian winter tactics fighting in the open manuver
> country of the desert. Perhaps you should ask your Muslim friends if
> the next time Iraq troops come invading, they would rather we left them
> to their own devices. Make no mistake, Iraq has rearmed, and is even
> more dangerous now than before.
I was stressing the idea that killing in war is one of the effects of war,
purposefully overkilling is a moral error, a crime against humanity.
> Al Qur'an teaches Muslims not to slaughter an enemy when he has ceased
> being a combattant and is fleeing. That's why your Muslim friends are
> not comfortable with what happened north of the city, and that's why the
> US did not finish the job in Iraq.
As I stated in another brief mention, my colleague is a Christian
Arab from Syria. However, he claims and I believe him, that all Arabs,
Christian and Moslem are infused with Islam in a cultural sense. What you
said is true, and Islam has its civilised face like all religions do. In
this respect, Christians might have something to learn with respect to
the slaughter of those who no longer can defend themselves. That the
Iraquis were thieves fleeing with their loot was obvious, whether they
deserved death for it, is another question. But I am talking
more about the principle of overkilling rather than this specific incident.
I know I felt a certain pleasure in seeing these thieves get
theirs. But that feeling did not come from the highest "moral authority"
in my soul. I was equally joyful when the bombs were used on the
"dirty Japs". I revised my feelings later, but still carry the shame
of my first feelings. I deal with the death penalty in the same manner.
I could feel no regrets at the execution of Bundy, but felt shame in
having those feelings. This is why I talk about issues like "soul damage",
our deep emotions are often used to kill, our higher one`s are for life.
We also possess this duality, it is part of our human heritage.
Richard Jackson
The Palestinians use what they understand.
> > Japan attempted to use the shock method when they bombed Pearl
Harbor.
> > They very nearly succeeded.
>
> It succeeded alright, it produced a hornet`s nest effect! The American
> people got a big back bone transplant. Isolationism died instantly.
>
Most true. One wonders, however, if the carriers had been in port and
damaged as well, if the US wouldn't have reacted a bit differently.
> Anyway, I know the history very well, I am an amateur WWII buff and my
> wife is an historian of the occupation period in France. So WWII
history
> is a steady diet in our household, I write this message in her office
> surronding uniquely by books from this period.
>
> I`ll snip part of your message if I find something to comment on. You
> already wrote it so others can look at your posting directly.
>
> > At the end, it became clear that the Warrior's Code would not allow
the
> > Japanese military to accept an unconditional surrender despite
> > being defeated on all fronts and running out of naval and air
resources.
> > To decide the matter, President Truman decided to strike blows with
> > the most decisive weapon available, the atom bomb.
>
> Standard argument.
Yep.
The facts were that the war was lost, the last
> real sortie of the Japanese navy was to Okinawa, their ships only had
> oil for a one way trip. The US naval submarine forces had long closed
off
> Japan from its southeast Asia oil supplies, the reason the war was
started
> for in the first place. Oil is needed to run a modern war. Within
Japan
> itself, industrial production was at a standstill. American classical
> bombing performance had so affected Japan that it was running purely
> on will.
>
Tactically, the naval phase of the war was over for Japan. They had
little left to fight with, and very little ability to replenish either
the ships or manpower with which to sail them. As you pointed out,
japan was running on will. ("Yamato Damashi"-unconquerable spirit from
"Bushido"-- the warrior's code) It was Bushido and Butoku (the
principles of warriors) which dominated the military thinking in Japan
at this time. The feudal military system used so long by Japan would
have indicated an invasion if they were to be defeated, or a long
period of attrition. Either of those options would have required the
US to continue losing men, and spending the enormous amounts of time
and money required to fight a war.
> Russia`s plans to enter the war were in
the process of being realized.
> With the use of the bomb they advanced their schedule in order to
realize
> the territorial seizures they had planned. They had to get in on the
war
> to be at the peace table. The one positive fall out of the bomb`s use
was
> that Russian could not participate in the occupatio of Japan.
>
Agreed. They would have attempted to peacemeal it as they did Germany.
> My wife constantly lectures me on not using the "what if" argument to
> speculate on possible historical alternatives that might have occurred
> if we had not use the bomb. Nevertheless it is also speculation to
> say that Japan would never have give up without a fight if the bomb
had
> not been used. We ended up preserving the Emperor in his place. The
War
> leadership had already been replaced, the armed forces were in
disgrace.
> The regime should have yielded within months of when the bomb was
dropped.`
>
Douglas McAuthor preserved the Emperor as a figurehead similar to the
English monarchy. His status,however changed from that of a god to a
man.
> Effectively, was invasion necessary if the bomb had not been used?
>
> It was not politically possible NOT to use the bomb, it was ready and
> a lot of money was spent to produce it. It would end the war quickly.
> Patience was not the order of the day. The European war was over, the
> boys were coming home but some were being sent to Asia. So end the
> damn war. Having just faced a determined Japanese defense in Okinawa
> with the successful use of kamakazi defenses, the Americans were
telling
> themselves that there would be one million Allied casualities with
> invading the main islands of Japan.
>
All of which were the standard arguments we both agree upon. BTW, I
did give a false piece of information in my posted reply. It was
Okinawa where much of the the civillian population killed themsleves,
not Iwo Jima.
> All these above considerations were reasonable. The problem of
choosing
> a target for the bombs was not easy since military targets had been
largely
> exhausted. The fire bombing of Tokyo already established that the
> Americans were willing to use anti-civilian terrorist tactics. So
moral
> considerations had been cast aside.
>
There was a tactical reason for firebombing te cities as well. Much of
the Japanese production was invested in "back yard" production (a
practice still in use today in many instances in Japan, and other
places inthe East.) The only way to stop the manufacturing of small
items produced in those circumstances is to destroy whole sections of
cities including the civillian housing. Small arms ammunition,
assembely of differing types of war materials such as firearms,
gernades, etc, can all be accomplished in back yard shops. The process
spreads out the manufacturing effort into multiple small locations which
make it very hard to stop if only "military targets are picked.
> > Only after the bombs were dropped did Japan unconditionally
> > surrender (the > only type of surrender the American public would
have
> > accepted, in my opinion).
>
> The retention of the Emperor by MacArthur was accepted with some
grumbling
> but the war being over was enough. "Unconditional" meant what? The
Allies
> arranged some show war crimes trials, some of which are now considered
> historically shameful. But the Emperor was left out of this little
charade
> and some histories tried to make him out as not being as powerful as
> he really was. I think your opinion is not supported by the historical
> facts.
>
Was the entire governmental system of Japan changed to a democratic
form? It was. Was the militarty leadership and consequent
dictatorship of the nation destroyed? It was. Was Japan limited to
self-defense forces in both treaty and within their own constitution.
Yes. None of this was possible, in my opinion, without the complete
and total unconditional surrender of Japan.
> > It is questionable if they
> > would have surrendered then had they known those were the only two
of
> > the things we had which were operational and would be for some time.
>
> History never demonstrates the alternatives. Peace overtures by
> Japanese diplomats has occurred, but they never had time to develop.
>
I don't believe their proposals would have been accepted by the
American public.
> > I trained in survival of a thermonuclear war
>
> Fortunately for you and the rest of us, that training was never put to
the
> test.
>
I totally agree. One thing which became very clear to me early in the
training was that in a full scale nuclear and thermonuclear war, life
would eventually cease to exist on this world. The old movie "On The
Beach" might not have been too far from the truth.
> > It is horrible that innocents have to die in time of war,
> > but it happens. The millitary even has a catchword for it,
collateral damage.
>
> My objection was in selecting a target that would produce "collateral
> damage", in fact the principle victims of the bombings were civilians
who
> were not just accidental bystanders. I also refuse to accept the idea
> that the ending of the war justified using these means.
>
It is always an evil thing to take human life, even when necessary.
Personally, I believe that if I am given a choice between taking
someone else's life or losing my life or the lives of my loved ones, it
is less evil to take theirs. I value my life, and my loved ones '
lives above that of someone attempting to kill me or mine. Call it
selfish, but I do.
> The moral principle I tried to invoke is whether we approve now of
what
> was done then? Are we never suppose to criticize errors of the past?
> How else can we avoid errors in the future? This is the value of
hindsight.
> Hindsight is not to be criticized at all in that respect.
>
Criticize away. My opinion is different from yours. That doesn't make
either right or wrong, and does nothing to change what actually
happens. Personally, I hope that we never forget the horror of what
happened. Perhaps it will keep, and I think has kept, us from ever
using the things again.
I agree. There is much wisdom in the faith of Islam.
That the
> Iraquis were thieves fleeing with their loot was obvious, whether they
> deserved death for it, is another question. But I am talking
> more about the principle of overkilling rather than this specific
incident.
>
I guess we could have captured them and used the classic Islamic
punishment for thieves for everyone having loot. I wonder how your Arab
friend would have felt about several thousand Iraquis missing their
right hand?
> I know I felt a certain pleasure in seeing these thieves get
> theirs. But that feeling did not come from the highest "moral
authority"
> in my soul. I was equally joyful when the bombs were used on the
> "dirty Japs". I revised my feelings later, but still carry the shame
> of my first feelings. I deal with the death penalty in the same
manner.
> I could feel no regrets at the execution of Bundy, but felt shame in
> having those feelings. This is why I talk about issues like "soul
damage",
> our deep emotions are often used to kill, our higher one`s are for
life.
>
> We also possess this duality, it is part of our human heritage.
>
>
It *is* part of the "ancient" within each of us. It is that primal
instinct of a creature which once lived in a kill or be killed
environment where only the strong survived.
Unfortunately for us all, that primal man comes to the surface easily
when given the proper stimuli. I know, I've seen it first hand on more
than one occasion. Not just emotionally, either. It isn't real pretty,
but for personal survival, it is necessary some times.
You are right about wars hardening the human psyche. One thing I
learned long ago is that green troops have to be conditioned to kill. A
great part of training is designed to accustom troops to the idea of
killing other human beings. Even then, experienced troops have to take
the FNG's and harden their hearts for them to be good fighters. This is
done in several different ways, most of them pretty raw. Combat troops
get pretty hard, emotionally, and it takes some readjustment of attitude
once a combat veteran returns to the real world if he has been in a
hostile environment very long. Even the hardest man or woman would be
sickened by the results of the two atom bombs dropped on Japan.
I still think it was a necessity.
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> Unfortunately, there has been enough weapons grade plutonium lost to
> make many of the things, and with today's technology, it is entirely
> possible to make a "suitcase" nuclear bomb. (actually about the size of
> a small steamer trunk) I am afraid it is but a matter of time before
> some terrorist organization gets its hands on one and commits mass
> murder in someplace like DC or some other major city of the world.
You're a right little ray of sunshine, you are, Richard ... there I was
thinking that human beings were shits, and along you come, and cheer us
all up.
Fuck, I want a beer ...
--
**********************************************************************
* Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris *
* dcou...@vdp.fr http://www.forumdesimages.net/ (01) 44.76.62.29 *
* PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr *
* Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93 *
**********************************************************************
that_frog_...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>Fuck, I want a beer ...
Poor Desi! He's on the way to another drunken weekend.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
des...@coughlan.net wrote:
> Fuck, I want a beer ...
French beer? Pfagh!
</blatant OT troll>
Richard Jackson
That's OK Desmond. Unless some Algerians or Vietnamese are still pissed
off at France, you should be safe enough.
Mark Andrew Spence
>
> All of which were the standard arguments we both agree upon. BTW, I
> did give a false piece of information in my posted reply. It was
> Okinawa where much of the the civillian population killed themsleves,
> not Iwo Jima.
>
I believe it was Saipan, not Okinawa, where civilians leapt to their deaths.
M.S.
Evleth
--
> July of 1945!
Right, a typo on my part. I have not checked where I mentioned other dates
but the final oil embargo was in early summer of 41, following Japanese
occupation of Indochina, considered a risk to south east Asia at that time,
which is was.
Earl
John Rennie
"Ron Bargoot" <ronald....@tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:3A02EDD5...@tufts.edu...
> Evleth wrote:
> >Using the
> > bomb in a manner which killed large numbers of civilians was wrong. It
would
> > be wrong now and it was wrong then. These are moral arguments, which
have
> > nothing to do with the conduct of the war at that time. I can get into a
> > historical argument as to its military necessity at the time but that
would
> > lead me away from the moral issues.
>
> inflict as much damage on the enemy, in as short a time as possible,
> with as few casualties of your own as possible. The bomb fulfilled it's
> role, and quite well.
>
> Ron Bargoot
Quite well indeed. I wish some on this thread would read up on General
Mashall's comments about the use of the bomb. He had to be persuaded to
use it and it was what he wanted that mattered even more so than what Truman
wanted. He was actually surprised when the Japanese sued for surrender
after the bombs had been dropped. All the intelligence that the Americans
had received from many varied sources were adamant; the Japanese would
fight to the end.
He considers that the reason that they did surrender was that the bombs gave
them the opportunity to surrender. They, the Military, could get
themselves off the bloody hook they had impaled themselves on, 'Death or
Glory', by telling the Japanese population that there was no possible glory
in defying a weapon that was so final and absolute.
Richard Jackson
Thanks. That's the problem of working from memory when the memory is
failing. You know somethin happened, but just can't seem to remember
the specifics. I guess I need to put sticky notes all over m monitot to
remind me of things.
Richard Jackson
"Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Most true. One wonders, however, if the carriers had been in port
and
> > damaged as well, if the US wouldn't have reacted a bit differently.
>
out,
> which would have damaged oil storage facilities. The Japanese
commanders
> were amazed at their success but worried about the carriers, being
attacked.
> They had damaged the American fleet and knew that their missions was
> accomplished. Yamamoto had said that they could run wild for a year
before
> the Americans could recover.
>
> I think the US would have gone ahead with war in the Pacific under any
> conditions, its national honor had been challenged. A Pacific campaign
> had been on the drawing boards since WWI, (Plan Orange), Pearl Habor
> had been constructed with the intent of being an advance base of
operation.
> Basically the US had not role in the western pacific, but Theordore
> Roosevelt and Admiral Dewey created a presence, a sort of neo-colonial
copy
> of what the Europeans were doing in the region. War with Japan was a
> historical imperative, it was going to happen sooner or later.
>
> The Japanese Naval Command was always favorable to a war policy which
would
> draw the American fleet into the Western pacific and they would
destroy it
> in one glorious battle. The role of the battleship was misjudged but
the
> Japanese had also carrier superiority at the time, their airplanes and
> pilots were better, and their "will" was greater (they thought).
Yamamoto`s
> plan to attack Pearl Harbor was unique in Japanese naval planning. If
it
> had not been carried out, the American fleet would probably have been
drawn
> into battle in a reactive manner to the invasion of the Phillipines.
The
> American naval command knew they were weaker than the Japanese and
wanted
> to delay any war for at least a year, by which time the new carriers
under
> construction would be placed into service. But Roosevelt advance the
> calender with a full oil boycott in the early summer of 41 and the
> Japanese were "forced" to go to war within 6 months or so for oil.
>
Both the Americans and the Japanese failed to fully absorb te
implications of Tarranto. Both overestimated the importance of the
battleship until the US Navy was forced to rely on Fleet Carriers as the
main weapon of naval warfare out of sheer necessity.
The Japanese did, however, understand the important role carriers could
play, at least in part, and prepared accordingly. Had they fully
understood the lesson, they would have constructed carriers from every
ship of the line hull they laid, and built naval Zeroes until they
couldn't prior to starting the war in the Pacific.
> Finally, in having broken a portion of the naval code, the
Americans
got
> a lucky break. They had essentially lost the first couple of sea
battles
> in the south pacific, with the Japanese demonstrating overally air and
sea
> superiority. But Midway was a lucky break, the critical part of that
battle
> only lasting 10 minutes or so. From then on, the Americans
demonstrated
> repetitively that they learned from mistakes, and did not repeat them
in
> what turned out to be one of the most brilliant campaigns in history.
> Plan Orange was essentially carried out, updated and the eventual
strike
> into the heartland of the Japanese Empire carried out. MacArthur`s
side
> shows were unnecessary and he essentially shined as an administer of
> the occupation of Japan.
>
The capture of the enigma machine and breaking of Japanese code were,
along with radar, two of the most important developments of the war.
> I have read and reread many accounts of the Pacific campaign and the
only
> big policy error I detected was the terror bombings of Tokyo and the
use
> of nuclear weapons against a predominately civilian population.
"Backyard" manufacturing?
The
> Americans were generally so cruel, there are many stories of GIs
begging
> Japanese mothers not to jump to their deaths with their babies from
the
> caves of Saipan or blow themselves up with hand granades in Okinawa.
> So their humanity was not completely crushed by the brutality of war.
>
No more than anyone's humanity is crushed.
> >("Yamato Damashi"-unconquerable spirit from
> > "Bushido"-- the warrior's code) It was Bushido and Butoku (the
> > principles of warriors) which dominated the military thinking in
Japan
> > at this time. The feudal military system used so long by Japan
would
> > have indicated an invasion if they were to be defeated, or a long
> > period of attrition. Either of those options would have required
the
> > US to continue losing men, and spending the enormous amounts of time
> > and money required to fight a war.
>
> The code was for the armed forces, in disgrace. It is hard to predict
> when catastrophic breaks occur. The Allies had a lot of myths running
> through their heads to. In Europe at the time of the collapse there
> was a lot of fear that Nazi extremists would hole up in the alps,
> the Werewolf fiction. This was believed by Eisenhower on down to the
> common soldier.
>
Bushido was preached to the common people. It was no myth that
ordinary people were being prepared for a last ditch stand against an
American invasion. The invasion of Japan would have made Vietnam look
like a walk in the park.
> The recent collapse of the USSR was largely moral, the decay of will
> in the face of a poorly understood historical movement. Who would
> have thought, with the Red Army and the KGB, that is would be
bloodless?
Believe it or not, I was predicting the collapse of the Sovied Union in
the seventies. Not so much from the economic viewpoint, but from the
education viewpoint. My theory, which I used in one baby thesis, was
that the Soviet Union was educating itself right out of Communism. I
believed then (as I still do) that a communist syhstem cannot exist
with a high literacy rate in the general population. One thing most
Communist governments do is raise the educational level of their
people.
> These are movements which are characterisized by pyschological switch,
> an inversion of some type, almost like a religious conversion.
> Douglas McAuthor preserved the Emperor as a figurehead similar to
the
> > English monarchy. His status,however changed from that of a god to
a
> > man.
>
> My point is that it was not part of the natural plan to change
everything.
> Underconditional surrender implies a revolutionary change in the
political
> and social structure of the occupied nation, completely under the will
of
> the occupier. McArthur was uncharacteristically pragmatic, possibly
because
> he was an authoritarian and play image to the hilt, more of an actor
at
> times than a General.
>
He did a brilliant job of managing the Japanese. He was so good at it
that he became a hero to many.
> My other point is that nobody really knew what unconditional surrender
> real meant. It was a slogan. Different people had different ideas.
> In Germany, the Morganthau plan was to pastorialize Germany, the
Russians
> wanted to loot its remaining industrial plant (and did) and communize
> the Germans, creating a puppet state (they did that too). The western
> Allies quickly realized the game (Americans are not historically
brilliant
> and caught on more slowly than the British who knew what was afoot).
> So then German was reindustrialized. In Japan we had a straight shot.
>
> McArthur was asked once how long the occupation would last. He
responded
> "3 years, if is goes longer, we will have failed". An absolutely
> brilliant piece of judgement. And uncharateristically. Americans will
> maintain occupations forever (Haiti`s lasted over 20 years from aruond
> WWI). The Cuban embargo is still going on. You still have the death
> penalty. So mostly Americans suffer from a constant state of the
stupids.
> How McArthur was able to escape this cultural trap is a mystery to me.
>
He was a genius. Like many highly intelligent people, he walked ot the
beat of a different drum. it is one of the qualities which did not
endear him to his superiors. Patton was another.
> > All of which were the standard arguments we both agree upon. BTW,
I
> > did give a false piece of information in my posted reply. It was
> > Okinawa where much of the the civillian population killed
themsleves,
> > not Iwo Jima.
>
> I did not notice it, Iwa Jima did not have signficiant civilian
population.
> I mention Saipan above, which was the first Allied encounter with
> civilian suicide, plus the massive banzai attacks. Generally the
Japanese
> wasted lives in a military sense by relying on sucidal techniques.
> A defense should extract 3-4 lives each from the attacking enemy than
> expended by the defense. I don`t remember the Japanese reaching this
> figure even with bloody Tarawa. I think the total Japanses losses
> in the South Pacific were much more by disease and starvation (they
> were poor at logistics) than in battle. I have seen the numbers but
> they did not register permanently. Also, it was a fiction that they
> were naturally better at jungle fighting. They are from a northern
> climate, not use to jungle warfare. The Australians were better
> and the Americans learned from them and by experience.
>
I agree. The accounts of what prisoners did surrender from Japanese
forces in jungle warfare indicates they were a pretty sorry lot by the
time they surrendered.
> > I don't believe their proposals would have been accepted by the
> > American public.
>
> The peace negociations had not developed to the point of determining
> what proposals would be mutually acceptable. Keeping the Emperor was
the
> major demand. Nuclear bombing of the holy mountain near Tokyo would
have
> produce an impressive demonstration of the power of the bomb.
Announcing
> the coming bombing of a major city, with leaflets etc would have given
> the civilians and the Government a choice, leave or get cooked. If
> suicide was decided than our own moral responsibility would have
diminished.
> My recent reading showed that contrary to pro-bombing apologists, the
US
> was producing one bomb a month from July of 1944 on. We could have
kept
> bombing non-human targets until the conditions of negociation were
> met.
>
> One thing that people sometimes argue is that at least the horror of
the
> human suffering the nuclear weapons generate was demonstrated to man.
> I personally think we have as a race "rise to our level of
incompentency"
> with nuclear weapons. They are too powerful and we are still too
primitive
> for the combination to exists.
>
> Next, it has never been demonstrated that nuclear weapons are
practical
> military weapons. They are too powerful and even in their smaller
versions
> conventional explosives can do the same thing without polluting the
> surroundings. So nuclear arms serve as a terrorist threat in the
political
> sense. Any nation which has some feels like the "big man", so they are
> national ego building. Being member of the nuclear club is a big deal
> to some. Mutual annihilation possibilities allows a nation lke Israel
to
> defend itself from the billion of Arabs around it. Indian and Pakistan
> can menace one another and Iraq still dreams to be part of the game.
> If some crazy leader uses the "bomb" this whole house of cards comes
> crashing down, at least locally. The entirity of Israel gets whiped
out
> and a large portion of the civilian population of Iraq if Saddam
realizes
> this game.
>
> The other strange fall out of the bomb in the USA was the addition of
the
> academic scientific community to the "miltary industrial complex". The
> success of the bomb`s development allowed science to become vested
interest
> in securing taxpayer support for a large number of research projects,
it
> creating a blooming in the area. The NSF and NIH became major
consumers of
> public monies. This has not been a negative development because
industrial
> science also bloomed and the two communities interacted positively.
The
> current prosperity of America is tied to this evolution in some
manner.
> But the possibility of the early annihilation of life on earth also
> occurred with the bomb, we have clearly taken a tiger by the tail.
>
>
No argument at all for me here. The things scare the devil out of me,
especially the giant economy size such as the former Soviet Union
built. O course there is the theory that in a full scale way the
first couple of bombs which detonate might be the last in each wave of
bombs. It has been predicted by some, that the first couple of
weapons will destroy the circetry of the ones following with
electromagnetic pulse. Then there was the fear that the first weapons
might set the atmosphere on fire and consume Earth, back befor the US
successfully tested the things. Who knows, or would want to?
Evleth
> Most know that Herman Goering poisoned himself in his cell a couple of hours
> before his scheduled hanging. However, the book I am reading claims that
> they went ahead and hanged him anyway!
>
> Is this true?
Never heard that one and would not have believed it anyway. His picture
as a dead man I remember clearly, his eyes were half open.
Pierre Laval tried to exit the same way the they pumped his stomach,
got him into good enough shape to tied him to a post and shoot him.
There was some ironical statement about their saving his life show they
could shot him.
Cheating the executioner is in the heads of some of the to be executed
anywhere, including today on death row.
Earl
Evleth
> War is not moral
Most societies rationalize their going to war in moral terms. This is call
the "Gott mit uns" syndrome. Hitler did this in terms of the survival of
the German people, the US was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war, it
was not hard to argue how "wronged" we were. Rehearing Roosevelt speech
before congress still send shivers up and donw my spin. It was a glorious
moment in history.
The Japanese also had a number of rationalizations, in fact if one knows
Japanese history one can easily play the devil's advocate and defend
their attacking the USA.
But my main position is that if one has moral standard they should
especially not be abandoned in times of difficulty. The ends of
victory should be reached in a fashion which is morally acceptable.
How one behaves in war is a moral test, and for some a test by God. Our true
nature are tested by adversity.
A Planet Visitor
to me that your "typo" was a rather grave mistake in dating
and relating the historical events and significance of the use
of Atomic Weapons, which is the entire thrust of this thread.
"Typos" are spelling or punctuation errors in nature, and need
no clarification if the intent is otherwise clear. Incorrect dating
of historical events are not "typos," and often result in papers
being held to ridicule. In July 1944, the war was at its most
intense level on the European Continent, 1 month after
D-Day. Stating that the U.S. had the bomb at that time, and
did not use it in that conflict certainly helps to give rise to the
totally false innuendo that the U.S. did not use the bomb in
Europe, because of the race card. You need to be more
careful in your historical dating of the events of WW II if you
wish to claim any degree of expertise in that area. Correct
dating of events of any historical significance is fundamental
to the understanding of the historical event, and the event's
connection to the present. I doubt seriously that any educated
European would claim that the Battle of Hastings was decided
in 1065! WW II ended in 1945, and in no way was the U.S.
in possession of the bomb more than a year prior to its
conclusion. Since you always seem to grade my posts to
you, let me say that your historical post represented at the
most, a C+.
You're so easy, E.E.... it's almost cruel on my part to comment
on your postings!!!
A PV
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > You're a right little ray of sunshine, you are, Richard ... there I
> was
> > thinking that human beings were shits, and along you come, and cheer
> us
> > all up.
> >
> > Fuck, I want a beer ...
> That's OK Desmond. Unless some Algerians or Vietnamese are still pissed
> off at France, you should be safe enough.
Question: are all Americans this blind to irony ..? :-(
Desmond Coughlan
> > Fuck, I want a beer ...
> French beer? Pfagh!
Well no, German beer, in fact ...
[snip]
St.George_in_Las Vegas, NV
<snip>
> The retention of the Emperor by MacArthur was accepted with some grumbling
> but the war being over was enough. "Unconditional" meant what? The Allies
> arranged some show war crimes trials, some of which are now considered
> historically shameful.
This reminds me of something I was reading today, which surprised me
greatly.
Evleth
>
> Most true. One wonders, however, if the carriers had been in port and
> damaged as well, if the US wouldn't have reacted a bit differently.
A "what if in history". A 2nd raid on Pearl Harbor was not carried out,
Finally, in having broken a portion of the naval code, the Americans got
a lucky break. They had essentially lost the first couple of sea battles
in the south pacific, with the Japanese demonstrating overally air and sea
superiority. But Midway was a lucky break, the critical part of that battle
only lasting 10 minutes or so. From then on, the Americans demonstrated
repetitively that they learned from mistakes, and did not repeat them in
what turned out to be one of the most brilliant campaigns in history.
Plan Orange was essentially carried out, updated and the eventual strike
into the heartland of the Japanese Empire carried out. MacArthur`s side
shows were unnecessary and he essentially shined as an administer of
the occupation of Japan.
I have read and reread many accounts of the Pacific campaign and the only
big policy error I detected was the terror bombings of Tokyo and the use
of nuclear weapons against a predominately civilian population. The
Americans were generally so cruel, there are many stories of GIs begging
Japanese mothers not to jump to their deaths with their babies from the
caves of Saipan or blow themselves up with hand granades in Okinawa.
So their humanity was not completely crushed by the brutality of war.
>("Yamato Damashi"-unconquerable spirit from
> "Bushido"-- the warrior's code) It was Bushido and Butoku (the
> principles of warriors) which dominated the military thinking in Japan
> at this time. The feudal military system used so long by Japan would
> have indicated an invasion if they were to be defeated, or a long
> period of attrition. Either of those options would have required the
> US to continue losing men, and spending the enormous amounts of time
> and money required to fight a war.
The code was for the armed forces, in disgrace. It is hard to predict
when catastrophic breaks occur. The Allies had a lot of myths running
through their heads to. In Europe at the time of the collapse there
was a lot of fear that Nazi extremists would hole up in the alps,
the Werewolf fiction. This was believed by Eisenhower on down to the
common soldier.
The recent collapse of the USSR was largely moral, the decay of will
in the face of a poorly understood historical movement. Who would
have thought, with the Red Army and the KGB, that is would be bloodless?
These are movements which are characterisized by pyschological switch,
an inversion of some type, almost like a religious conversion.
Douglas McAuthor preserved the Emperor as a figurehead similar to the
> English monarchy. His status,however changed from that of a god to a
> man.
My point is that it was not part of the natural plan to change everything.
Underconditional surrender implies a revolutionary change in the political
and social structure of the occupied nation, completely under the will of
the occupier. McArthur was uncharacteristically pragmatic, possibly because
he was an authoritarian and play image to the hilt, more of an actor at
times than a General.
My other point is that nobody really knew what unconditional surrender
real meant. It was a slogan. Different people had different ideas.
In Germany, the Morganthau plan was to pastorialize Germany, the Russians
wanted to loot its remaining industrial plant (and did) and communize
the Germans, creating a puppet state (they did that too). The western
Allies quickly realized the game (Americans are not historically brilliant
and caught on more slowly than the British who knew what was afoot).
So then German was reindustrialized. In Japan we had a straight shot.
McArthur was asked once how long the occupation would last. He responded
"3 years, if is goes longer, we will have failed". An absolutely
brilliant piece of judgement. And uncharateristically. Americans will
maintain occupations forever (Haiti`s lasted over 20 years from aruond
WWI). The Cuban embargo is still going on. You still have the death
penalty. So mostly Americans suffer from a constant state of the stupids.
How McArthur was able to escape this cultural trap is a mystery to me.
> All of which were the standard arguments we both agree upon. BTW, I
> did give a false piece of information in my posted reply. It was
> Okinawa where much of the the civillian population killed themsleves,
> not Iwo Jima.
I did not notice it, Iwa Jima did not have signficiant civilian population.
I mention Saipan above, which was the first Allied encounter with
civilian suicide, plus the massive banzai attacks. Generally the Japanese
wasted lives in a military sense by relying on sucidal techniques.
A defense should extract 3-4 lives each from the attacking enemy than
expended by the defense. I don`t remember the Japanese reaching this
figure even with bloody Tarawa. I think the total Japanses losses
in the South Pacific were much more by disease and starvation (they
were poor at logistics) than in battle. I have seen the numbers but
they did not register permanently. Also, it was a fiction that they
were naturally better at jungle fighting. They are from a northern
climate, not use to jungle warfare. The Australians were better
and the Americans learned from them and by experience.
> I don't believe their proposals would have been accepted by the
> American public.
The peace negociations had not developed to the point of determining
Richard Jackson
A Planet Visitor
<rest clipped>
> My recent reading showed that contrary to pro-bombing apologists, the
US
> was producing one bomb a month from July of 1944 on. We could have
kept
> bombing non-human targets until the conditions of negociation were
> met.
>
Ahem...not to nitpick, but that would be July of 1945! Obviously the
rest is an INDIVIDUAL historical perspective of the motives leading to
WW II, the strategies employed in the War, the consequences
of the defeat of Japan, and the impact which the bomb has made
on our lives in subsequent years. I believe the thread started with
the claim that we should NOT have employed the bomb in the
closing days of WW II. I can assure you that I, IMHO, do believe
that use of the bomb was fundamentally instrumental in less loss
of lives, by several orders of magnitude, than would have been
lost without its use.
A PV
<Rest clipped>
Ron Bargoot
>Using the
> bomb in a manner which killed large numbers of civilians was wrong. It would
> be wrong now and it was wrong then. These are moral arguments, which have
> nothing to do with the conduct of the war at that time. I can get into a
> historical argument as to its military necessity at the time but that would
> lead me away from the moral issues.
War is not moral, war is force. When fighting a war, the purpose is to
inflict as much damage on the enemy, in as short a time as possible,
with as few casualties of your own as possible. The bomb fulfilled it's
role, and quite well.
Ron Bargoot
http://ronbargoot.com
Rev. Don Kool
Evleth wrote:
>
> Rennie complained about hyperbole o this point. My
> view was that WWII brutalized American, it also did the same thing
> to Britain. Bomber Harris is well known there although less
> well known in the USA. WWII Allied bombing policies also on our my
> list of humanitarian complaints. The death penalty is not alone in
> that regard.
>
> My reaction to Horoshima was early on as a teenager,
Oh, now I understand; you're simply insane. That clears a lot of
your postings up. When the nips bombed Pearl Harbor without
provocation, they chose to die as a race. American beneficence is
the only reason that did not happen. When your beloved murderers
choose to murder, they also choose to die. American beneficence is
the only reason they do not die as horribly as their innocent
victims.
Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
Rev. Don Kool
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > At the risk of sounding like A Planet Visitor... Earl Evleth
> > is as full of shit as a Christmas Goose, in this case.
> > Anyone who believes that the use of the Bomb did
> > not save an astronomically larger number of innocent
> > lives than its non-use, has to be.
>
> Nonetheless, it would be difficult for _me_ to press the button/whatever
> in order to drop the thing. Even with that knowledge which comes from
> hindsight.
That's why you're a pseudo LINUX kiddie and not a warfighter. When
the cause is Just (as with the just Death Penalty) it is not that
difficult to do the right thing.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Rev. Don Kool
Richard Jackson wrote:
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:
> > "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> > > At the risk of sounding like A Planet Visitor... Earl Evleth
> > > is as full of shit as a Christmas Goose, in this case.
> > > Anyone who believes that the use of the Bomb did
> > > not save an astronomically larger number of innocent
> > > lives than its non-use, has to be.
> >
> > Nonetheless, it would be difficult for _me_ to press the
> button/whatever
> > in order to drop the thing. Even with that knowledge which comes from
> > hindsight.
> >
> > Mr Q. Z. D.
> > ----
> > Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round
> bastard.
> > "Alright brain, I don't like you and you don't like me... so let's
> just do this
> > and I'll get back to killing you with beer."
> >
>
> Knowing full well what the effects of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons
> are, especially today's improved weapons, I hope it is impossible for
> anyone to ever push the button.
>
> Unfortunately, there has been enough weapons grade plutonium lost to
> make many of the things, and with today's technology, it is entirely
> possible to make a "suitcase" nuclear bomb. (actually about the size of
> a small steamer trunk) I am afraid it is but a matter of time before
> some terrorist organization gets its hands on one and commits mass
> murder in someplace like DC or some other major city of the world.
Don't worry too much, Richard. If history is a guide, that
suitcase is much more likely to explode in Paris or London than in
the United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth,
BTW). We will of course be called upon to clean up the mess. :-(
Our use of the just Death Penalty has shown time and time again
that, unlike our eurotrash friends, we are capable of doing the
tough jobs that need doing.
Hope this helps,
Evleth
> I believe it was Saipan, not Okinawa, where civilians leapt to their deaths.
The civilians died in various fashions, some killed by Japanese soldiers
along with killing themselves, I remember hand granades being the principle
method used. The thing that greatly shocked the American arms forces was
the kamakazi attacks, first initiated in the Phillipines. Nearly 5000
American naval personel were killed in these attacks. Also several Japanese
battleships and carriers were sent on one way missions to attack American
forces at Okinawa, they failed to get much even close. But the Japanese
planes did get to targets enough of the time to cause a lot of deaths.
These attacks certainly played a key role in the decidion to use the bomb
since a conventional invasion was estimated to cost a million Allied
casualties. Indeed, stories after the war told of Japanese women preparing
bamboo spears to use was weapons. The propaganda at the time had American
soldiers as being rapists and killers. The civilian suicides on Saipan and
Okinawa testified to the fear of the civilians.
All this said, the Japanese leadership knew better, some of them had
studied in the USA and knew American culture. One has to differientiate
between the military leaders like Tojo, who were militarists and had
come to power through the assasination of civilian political leaders
in the 1930s, and the surviving civilians in the Government who were
less extremist. The military leaders were in disgrace, Tojo has left power
and the civilians were in ascendency. We will never know the alternative
route to peace. If the bomb had not existed, the Russians were soon have
entered the war, coming in for the military and political advantages at the
final kill. Korea and North China were essential economic elements in the
war, Japan had obtained Korea at the turn of the century exactly because
they needed to expand to increase steel production. The initial Japanese
navy built around the turn of the century was accomplished in part on
imported high grade steel from USA and Europe. That dependency of foreign
imports ran counter to the nationalistic, eventually imperialistic, goals of
Japan as an emerging power in Asia. Eventually Japan saw itself as the only
power capable of removing European imperialists from the west Pacific.
If they had been less brutal about their behavior they would have been
continued to be received as heros in that part of the world. The war
did accomplish their missions, the Dutch, the French and the British
left Asia to Asia. America had planned on yielding the Philipines and did
but the Vietnam adventure was the less imperialistic hurrah of foreigners
in the region. In a broad sense, Japan fulfilled its historic mission.
But for WWII the loss of North China and Korea to their old enemies, the
Russians, would have been the last straw in destroying Japans will to fight.
They might have entertained mass suicide, but the Emperor would have cut
that short. The final irony is that MacArthur was a benevolent
administrator. In fact as I told my Syrian friend, Iraq could do worse than
to be occupied by the USA, at least for a few years.
The only bad mark was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those of you
who think it was right should go to those cities, meet with the suriviors,
and see if you can tell them what you think directly to their faces. Some of
those faces, on the older, will be marked by a less benevolent act against
the people.
Evleth
> He considers that the reason that they did surrender was that the bombs gave
> them the opportunity to surrender. They, the Military, could get
> themselves off the bloody hook they had impaled themselves on, 'Death or
> Glory', by telling the Japanese population that there was no possible glory
> in defying a weapon that was so final and absolute.
I posted the argument that Russian invasion and occupation of North China
and Korea would have been the final straw, the final disgrace of the
military and it would pave the way. History does not provide us with the
alternatives. I had forgotten Marshall`s comments, I only vaguely remember
his semi-opposition, if at all.
Thanks
Earl
Evleth
> Believe it or not, I was predicting the collapse of the Sovied Union in
> the seventies. Not so much from the economic viewpoint, but from the
> education viewpoint. My theory, which I used in one baby thesis, was
> that the Soviet Union was educating itself right out of Communism. I
> believed then (as I still do) that a communist syhstem cannot exist
> with a high literacy rate in the general population. One thing most
> Communist governments do is raise the educational level of their
> people.
If you are a Republican you are expressing an opinion which says
that Reagan was not responsible for the collapse of the USSR.
In fact that is the position of historians, the economic collapse
began to be visible in the late 1970s and all the reformist movements
that were attempted in the 80s did not work.
One historian said that the problem was that Russia did not have an
industrial-military complex, it WAS such a complex.
Donna, my wife, visited Russian in the early 80s and said that
there were too many things that did not work, the system must
eventually collapse. In some respects DeGaulle predicted the whole
thing when he said "ideologies come and go, cultures remain the same".
I have a close French friend, ex-communist who had lived in Russia for
a while and has a Russian wife. His becoming an ex-communist occurred on
coming back and telling his comarades here that "it is not like you think".
He was ejected from the party, which retained, until recently, its sort
of Stalinist leadership. Most lower level French communists wanted a
more democratic structure in the party and when it did not occur they
left or were kicked out by trying to hard to make it happen.
He pretty much followed DeGaulle`s line that the Russian culture has its
percularities, he does not think it can really go capitalist either.
Indeed, he found it funny that all these Americans were running over to
teach the Russians about free enterprise. At the time (1991) he figured
that a sort of mafia would develop, with some of the more intelligent
communists would do a switch and come up keeping the marbles. So far
he has been right. His wife came from Russia recently, was a French
translator there and fits well into French life. But we have had
a lot of various nationalities in France, Russians included. The
city absorbs them, takes their children and teaches them French
and, presto, they become French. The language has a cultural brain washing
aspect.
DeGaulle said once that America was "un autre monde" but the same comment
can be applied to Russia.
Earl
Evleth
> For one who professes to be a military history expert,
I said my wife was. I am a buff, like Richard. But you have not
added anything to this discussion at all. I assume it is because
you are a know-nothing about the period? You can do a snipe but
can you add anything. Is your role purely destructive?
Let me see, to you have any scientific knowledge? Like how the bomb
works? How did the isolated the U235? How was the plutonium produced?
What is critical mass? How much was necessary for the bombs?
This all should be high school science now unless American has gone
completely to teaching creation science.
Earl
A Planet Visitor
>
>
<Rest clipped>
> The only bad mark was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those of
you
> who think it was right should go to those cities, meet with the
suriviors,
> and see if you can tell them what you think directly to their faces.
Some of
> those faces, on the older, will be marked by a less benevolent act
against
> the people.
>
>
Another crock from EE. My personal experience was 2 years
spent in Fukuoka, Japan while in the military, stationed at
Izakuke AB, on the island of Kyushu, about 50 miles from
Nagasaki, during 1959-1960. In that time, being young and
having the typical Japanese female companion, I visited
Nagasaki at least 20 times. I went with her to the ground
zero site many times (a very impressive park with a male
statue in a Buddhist sitting pose, pointing an outstretched arm
and finger directly to the sky where the bomb exploded).
I visited the villa where Puccini wrote "Madama Butterfly,"
many times. I ate sushi, and drank sake to extremes in
simple sushi bars many, many times, and I met and talked
with many Japanese regarding the deployment of the Atomic
Bomb many times. NEVER did I detect any regrets from
those survivors, only some 15 years after the bomb was
dropped. To a person, they felt that Japan would have
suffered more if the bomb had not been used. It has been
55 years since we used the bomb, and what we now have
is revisionist history written and spoken by, not the survivors
of that period, but their following generations, who think they
can interpret the meaning and tragedy of a world at war.
They look back and comment on how awful it was that the
U.S. did such a terrible thing, but they have no idea of what
the situation was at the time the bomb was used. And they
have no idea of how many lives would have been lost had
this calamity continued.
My impressions of the U.S. use of the bomb were formed in
large part, long ago, by personal contact with those who
actually survived this period. Exactly how many years did you
spend on the island of Kyushu, EE?? Exactly how many
actual survivors of the bomb have you met, EE?? Exactly
what are you talking about, EE??? Oh, I forgot.... you
read a book about it!!! Sorry, can't give you more than a flat
"D" on this latest post of yours, EE. You'll have to try
harder.
A PV
A Planet Visitor
the particulars of HOW something works, if it has been proven
TO work, especially to you or this newsgroup, to justify my
disgust over many of your postings. This is a newsgroup
devoted to the DP, not a science exam, which you would like
to turn it into to display your peacock-feather presence and
scientific credentials again. I think you should go to many of
the newsgroups devoted to Chemistry, and begin a dialog with
"Uncle Al," who hangs around most of them. He also tends
to drift off-topic there, and is probably more knowledgeable
then you are concerning Chemistry. You two should have fun.
As to my role with you... yes, it is destructive in purpose. I
gain much satisfaction in deflating the egos of those who think
they possess some form of extraordinary "Messiah" ability
to declare the DP a "crime against humanity," find murderers
to be "non-violent," believe that the U.S. possessed the atomic
bomb a full year before the war ended, and assert that those
who support the just execution of "dead-on" murderers,
somehow have "corroded" souls.
Another "D" for you, EE.
A PV
Rev. Don Kool
A Planet Visitor wrote:
> "Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote...
> <Rest clipped>
>
> > The only bad mark was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those of
> you
> > who think it was right should go to those cities, meet with the
> suriviors,
> > and see if you can tell them what you think directly to their faces.
> Some of
> > those faces, on the older, will be marked by a less benevolent act
> against
> > the people.
> >
> >
>
> Another crock from EE.
[...PV's facts snipped...]
Sadly lies and half-truths are the only currency of the anti Death
Penalty cabal. Facts do nothing for them as all the fact support
the just Death Penalty. They are left to spin lies to their
gullible minions who can't get enough of their tall tales. The just
Death Penalty is right, the bombing of the enemy was right. History
is testament to it.
Shane in UK...
am...@NOSPAMearthlink.net says...
gymnasium by an American Hangman who favoured the short drop method. I
believe that this is covered in the book "Rise and fall of the Thrd
Reich" and numerous other publications.
The corpses of the executed were also photographed still bloodied and
with the halters on before being dispatched to the crematoria (such
irony) and the ashes spread to the 4 winds.
I don't know if anyone else on this NG has read Albert Pierrepoint's
excellent book "Executioner:Pierrepoint" but in there there is a
chapter devoted to the execution of German War Criminals at Hamelin
Jail Germany. There were 13 executions of such worthies as Irma Grese
and Hoss to be carried out in one day. The 2 women went first and the
men followed after. The only hitch in that days festivities was, there
was only 12 coffins and the last executee had to be buried wrapped in
a hessian sack.
Mr.Pierrepoint later went on to execute quite a few more of the
condemned War Criminals after the Americans made such a complete cows
arse of it.
--
Shane
Almost living the American Dream...
Today, I was forced to, for the first time in fifteen years, use
public transportation, as some criminal bastard, whom father Darwin
shall have a closer look at as soon as I find the fucker, had stolen
my car plates.
Mark Andrew Spence
>
> If you are a Republican you are expressing an opinion which says
> that Reagan was not responsible for the collapse of the USSR.
> In fact that is the position of historians, the economic collapse
> began to be visible in the late 1970s and all the reformist movements
> that were attempted in the 80s did not work.
>
> One historian said that the problem was that Russia did not have an
....
Fact is, historians--like the rest of the world--were caught completely
offguard by the collapse of the Berlin Wall, dissolution of the Warsaw Pact,
Yeltsin's displacement of Gorbachev, and related events . . . ditto for
criminologists and the drop in crime the US has undegone.
M.S.
Dino64
>Douglas mcAuthur in charge of the occupation forces, completely
>restructured the whole Japanese governmental system to a democratic form
>of government where the Emperor is revered, but not worshiped. The end
>result is the stability of Japan which has lasted for over fifty years
>now.
>
>Richard Jackson
Sadly, Many of Japanese's war criminals escaped trail and possible
execution, as they were the same people that were needed to provide this
stable new Japan.
Dino
A Planet Visitor
"St.George_in_Las Vegas, NV" <am...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in
message news:MvvM5.12823$rl.10...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
http://history1900s.about.com/homework/history1900s/gi/dynamic/offsite.h
tm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.deltanet.com%2F%7Ecybrgbl%2Fnuremberg%2Fnurem
berg.html
for a complete description of the executions. Goering was taken
from his cell and displayed for onlookers to verify that he was in
fact dead, but he was not hung. This URL is a graphic first-hand
account of the entire execution process.
PV
Richard Jackson
You should also be aware that for the most part, most Nazis arrested and
tried following WWII also excaped execution. some were incarcerated for
some years, but relatively few were executed. Most lesser party
members, which included nearly all civil offices, never faced trial at
all, but continued running the towns and nation.
Richard Jackson
"Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote:
>
>
> > Believe it or not, I was predicting the collapse of the Sovied Union
in
> > the seventies. Not so much from the economic viewpoint, but from
the
> > education viewpoint. My theory, which I used in one baby thesis,
was
> > that the Soviet Union was educating itself right out of Communism. I
> > believed then (as I still do) that a communist syhstem cannot exist
> > with a high literacy rate in the general population. One thing most
> > Communist governments do is raise the educational level of their
> > people.
>
> that Reagan was not responsible for the collapse of the USSR.
> In fact that is the position of historians, the economic collapse
> began to be visible in the late 1970s and all the reformist movements
> that were attempted in the 80s did not work.
>
I am not a Republican. I am, and have been since I first voted, an
independent who votes for whichever candidate I feel will do the best
job.
> One historian said that the problem was that Russia did not have an
My theory was that with a better education comes awareness of the
outside world. Russia could not compare with western nations in either
economy or lifestyle. the people became aware of that and thus aware of
just how inefficient their government was. When they no longer
supported that government, it fell.
Evleth
The artful dodger goes on, but it proved to me that PV is a no
nothing. He said he was in the military for 20 years and should
know.
Most Uranium is U238. U235 is present in a small amount.
One of the jobs of the Manhatten project was to find a way of
separting the two isotopes. This can be effected in a mass
spectrometer, a device which first ionizes the atom and then
accelerates it in an electric field and letting it enter a magnetic
field. The heavier U238 flies off to the side the the U235 is
retained in the interior of the beam. However, this method failed
since too little material was isolated. The other method developed
was diffusion, the heavier atom diffuses less quickly through small
holes. The problem here was developing volitile forms of uranium.
After a lot of research, UF6 was found to work OK, so huge plants
were built to separate (or enrich) U238 and U235. U235 is fissionable,
put enough of it together in a single mass and the natural emissions
of neutrons from it will cause cause other U235 atoms to fission, the
reaction will run away quickly (in a few milliseconds) if the mass
can be held together long enough. This was done in the bomb by using
an explosive discharge to slam to subcritical masses together.
Plutonium is another story. If forms as a byproduct of the absorption
of U238 of a neutron. Run any enrich 235 reactor long enough and residue
Pu239 builds up (these are breeder reactors). Since it is chemically
different than Uranium, its compounds can be prepared, and the Pu containing
compounds separated. Pu239 is fissionable and can be detonated like U235.
Note, this is general knowledge, I am not a nuclear chemist, I am a
quantum chemist. We only deal with nuclei as single quantum objects,
like electrons, and we calculate statistically what they "do". But
they don`t change in our mathematics.
I am not surprised PV did not know, miltary people are surprisingly
generally ignorant. I remember during the Vietnam war talking to
one US Army officer, who had been to War college, that a particular
battle going on in Vietnam reminded me of Dien Bien Phu. His response
was "hugh?". Never heard of it, he never studied the reasons for the
French defeat in Vietnam. That battle was unknown to him. I guess
the American military has an occasional scholar of war that comes
along, Patton was given the image of a cultured individual. But I have
never met a cultured military man personally, PV certainly doesn`t
no fit that description.
History is bunk. DeGaulle told the Americans "forget it" but the "can do"
approach of Americans make them reject the lessons learned by others. They
will strut on over and show"em how it is done.
Anyway, it must irritate General PV that we in this group don`t follow
orders.
willof...@my-deja.com
I suggest Earl that you stop expounding and do a little more
research. General Marshall was in a much better position than anybody
to judge whether the Japanese were ready for surrender. The
occupation of Korea and Northern China was a sideshow. This is the
sort of news that the Military chiefs of Japan could keep secret.
Having a couple of important cities eliminated could not be kept secret.
I bet you have never heard of the fact that Marshall was surprised that
the Japanese were ready to surrender after the atomic bombs were
dropped. "I only vaguely remember his semi-opposition" indeed. Stop
trying to kid us.
A Planet Visitor
know that there was no atomic bomb in July 1944. And I
do know that survivors of the atomic bomb in Nagasaki,
realized the alternative to be worse. But thanks for bringing
back some long forgotten memories. Lord: it was great to
be young. Any chance we could do it again!!
EE has clearly gone over the edge!!! Send your donations
to "The Society for Feebleminded Americans-Unable to
Cope with Reality-Living in France." They are desperately
needed, as is demonstrated by his, now recognizable,
descent into senility. Does anyone other than me begin
to realize that this is a person in deep, deep withdrawal
from NORMAL human contact? He goes from the laboratory,
where he fawns over subatomic particles; to the prison,
where he fawns over murderers. And he never stops for
a café au lait and croissant in the most beautiful city in the
world, to observe and wonder on the vast panorama of
the real world, as it passes by him. In a newsgroup
devoted to the DP, an analysis of the properties of
inanimate particles, is a clear demonstration that EE is
holding on only by a thread, and desperately trying to
impress with the expertise he claims to possess in an
entirely disconnected topic. Science, and quite clearly
the uncertainty of Quantum Mechanics, makes an impact
on many ideas connected to Religion, our connection to
our existence. But it has no DIRECT impact whatsoever,
on moral or ethical views, which is essentially the core of
the DP examination. My own main expertise is in the
"Exquisite Art of Chinese Lantern Hanging." Anybody
interested in starting another off-topic thread in that
subject?
>
> I am not surprised PV did not know, miltary people are surprisingly
> generally ignorant. I remember during the Vietnam war talking to
> one US Army officer, who had been to War college, that a particular
> battle going on in Vietnam reminded me of Dien Bien Phu. His response
> was "hugh?". Never heard of it, he never studied the reasons for the
> French defeat in Vietnam. That battle was unknown to him. I guess
> the American military has an occasional scholar of war that comes
> along, Patton was given the image of a cultured individual. But I have
> never met a cultured military man personally, PV certainly doesn`t
> no fit that description.
You obviously have deluded yourself into another of your
"messiah" complex fits. You have this disturbing, and
dare I say revolting, habit of characterizing groups of
humans into specific boxes. "Black folks," "wetbacks,"
"Military men," "DP supporters." I believe that this
type of behavior forms the first step toward prejudice
against those certain classes. It would certainly tend to
indicate a closed mind, if you believe everyone in the
class fits your mental image.
>
> History is bunk. DeGaulle told the Americans "forget it" but the "can
do"
> approach of Americans make them reject the lessons learned by others.
They
> will strut on over and show"em how it is done.
>
History is bunk???? That would be a quote from...???
> Anyway, it must irritate General PV that we in this group don`t follow
> orders.
>
Every day, you are becoming less and less of an irritant to me,
EE. And more and more of a jackass to this newsgroup. Good
luck in finding the Higgs Boson.
PV
A Planet Visitor
<willof...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8u44t1$gg1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
You are correct. Marshall most certainly was surprised. In
"Marshall, Hero for our Times," Leonard Mosley, who had
access to 40 hours of tape-recordings Marshall made just
before his death, reported on pages 338-339 that both
Marshall and Stimson (Secretary of War), believed that
the gamble (the use of the bomb) had failed and that they
would be forced to invade Japan. Marshall had already
agreed on an invasion plan with the JCS, and more atomic
bombs were supposed to play an integral part in it. Nine
more bombs, not yet produced, to be used in the Southern
tip of Japan coincident with the first landing force.
Marshall, desperately anxious to avoid an invasion, agreed
to the dropping of a second bomb, intending to convey
the implication that we had further bombs, when in fact
they would have had to be produced first. If any historical
revisionism over the use of the bomb can be implied, it
was the use of the second, not the first bomb. The
total destruction accomplished by the first bomb made
communication of the damage assessment impossible,
thus delaying any Japanese response to sue for peace.
After the second bomb, the Japanese now imagined
that Tokyo could be next, and sued for peace 24 hours
after the dropping of this second bomb.
PV
Evleth
----------
Dans l'article <qfjN5.10556$Ze6.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A Planet
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
>
>> Note, this is general knowledge, I am not a nuclear chemist, I am a
>> quantum chemist. We only deal with nuclei as single quantum objects,
>> like electrons, and we calculate statistically what they "do". But
>> they don`t change in our mathematics.
>
> EE has clearly gone over the edge!!! Send your donations
> to "The Society for Feebleminded Americans-Unable to
> Cope with Reality-Living in France." They are desperately
> needed, as is demonstrated by his, now recognizable,
> descent into senility. Does anyone other than me begin
> to realize that this is a person in deep, deep withdrawal
> from NORMAL human contact? He goes from the laboratory,
> where he fawns over subatomic particles; to the prison,
> where he fawns over murderers. And he never stops for
> a café au lait and croissant in the most beautiful city in the
> world, to observe and wonder on the vast panorama of
> the real world, as it passes by him.
This is Donna Evleth writing to correct a few errors of fact here in your
post about Earl.
1. "he fawns over subatomic particles". Earl just told you he was not a
nuclear chemist. I have read all his articles to check for typos and
spelling errors and have never seen any mention of subatomic particles in
any of them. He works with electronic wave functions.
2. "He goes... to the prison, where he fawns over murderers." The prisoner
we visit here in France is not a murderer. He is a casualty of the war on
drugs, his major crime having been knowing the wrong people. Sorry to
disappoint the stereotype here, but the truth must be told. This man is,
incidentally, the only prisoner we visit here.
3. "He never stops for a café au lait and croissant in the most beautiful
city in the world, to observe and wonder on the vast panorama of the real
world, as it passes by him." Whatever gives you this idea??? We have not
one but two cafés where we are habitués, which we go to at least twice a
week, sometimes more. And watch the panorama of the real world, for sure.
I don't want to get involved in your war with Earl, but I cannot let factual
inaccuracies go by, especially since I am involved with Earl in two of these
activities, the prison and the cafés.
>
> History is bunk???? That would be a quote from...???
Henry Ford.
Donna Evleth
>
>>
>
Rev. Don Kool
A Planet Visitor wrote:
> "Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote...
[...snip...]
> EE has clearly gone over the edge!!! Send your donations
> to "The Society for Feebleminded Americans-Unable to
> Cope with Reality-Living in France." They are desperately
> needed, as is demonstrated by his, now recognizable,
> descent into senility.
If you left out "Americans" I could think of another frog wannabe
who could use a support group.
> Does anyone other than me begin
> to realize that this is a person in deep, deep withdrawal
> from NORMAL human contact? He goes from the laboratory,
> where he fawns over subatomic particles; to the prison,
> where he fawns over murderers.
Perhaps it takes his mind off the sinking euro.
> And he never stops for
> a café au lait and croissant in the most beautiful city in the
> world, to observe and wonder on the vast panorama of
> the real world, as it passes by him. In a newsgroup
> devoted to the DP, an analysis of the properties of
> inanimate particles, is a clear demonstration that EE is
> holding on only by a thread, and desperately trying to
> impress with the expertise he claims to possess in an
> entirely disconnected topic.
As my degree is in Chemistry, I can tell you with more than a
little confidence that Earl's postings are hardly impressive. They
all begin with his love of the act of murder and they all end with
his love of the act of murder. Happily he has and can have no
effect on Justice in the United States (the greatest country on the
face of the Earth, BTW). The world remains a better place because
of that fact.
Shane in UK...
<Snppage>
>
> You should also be aware that for the most part, most Nazis arrested and
> tried following WWII also excaped execution. some were incarcerated for
> some years, but relatively few were executed. Most lesser party
> members, which included nearly all civil offices, never faced trial at
> all, but continued running the towns and nation.
>
Richard Jackson
Shane in UK... <evilmo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <8u2spk$knk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ri...@my-deja.com says...
> <Snppage>
> >
and
> > tried following WWII also excaped execution. some were incarcerated
for
> > some years, but relatively few were executed. Most lesser party
> > members, which included nearly all civil offices, never faced trial
at
> > all, but continued running the towns and nation.
> >
>
> --
> Shane
> Almost living the American Dream...
> Today, I was forced to, for the first time in fifteen years, use
> public
> transportation, as some criminal bastard, whom father Darwin shall
> have a
> closer look at as soon as I find the fucker, had stolen my car plates.
>
Quite a few fled to South American nations favorable to their cause.
There are a couple of places where German surnames are quite common.
A Planet Visitor
>
>
> ----------
> Dans l'article <qfjN5.10556$Ze6.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "A
Planet
> Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> a écrit :
>
>
> >> quantum chemist. We only deal with nuclei as single quantum
objects,
> >> like electrons, and we calculate statistically what they "do". But
> >> they don`t change in our mathematics.
> >
> > EE has clearly gone over the edge!!! Send your donations
> > to "The Society for Feebleminded Americans-Unable to
> > Cope with Reality-Living in France." They are desperately
> > needed, as is demonstrated by his, now recognizable,
> > descent into senility. Does anyone other than me begin
> > to realize that this is a person in deep, deep withdrawal
> > from NORMAL human contact? He goes from the laboratory,
> > where he fawns over subatomic particles; to the prison,
> > where he fawns over murderers. And he never stops for
> > a café au lait and croissant in the most beautiful city in the
> > world, to observe and wonder on the vast panorama of
> > the real world, as it passes by him.
>
your
> post about Earl.
>
> 1. "he fawns over subatomic particles". Earl just told you he was not
a
> nuclear chemist. I have read all his articles to check for typos and
> spelling errors and have never seen any mention of subatomic particles
in
> any of them. He works with electronic wave functions.
>
"Subatomic: Adjective. Physics. 1. Of or pertaining to a process
that occurs within an atom. 2. noting or pertaining to a particle
or particles contained in an atom, as electrons, protons, or
neutrons." Now do a search of his comment which you left in,
above, and you will find that he says "We only deal with nuclei
as single quantum objects, like electrons..." Further, he uses
the word "proton" a few times in his "fawning" description of
the fundamentals of fission.
> 2. "He goes... to the prison, where he fawns over murderers." The
prisoner
> we visit here in France is not a murderer. He is a casualty of the
war on
> drugs, his major crime having been knowing the wrong people. Sorry to
> disappoint the stereotype here, but the truth must be told. This man
is,
> incidentally, the only prisoner we visit here.
>
You certainly get a lot of milage, in comments to this
newsgroup, over this one lone criminal, not even a
murderer. The way you describe it sometimes, it
seems that's all you do. I'm not going to search
back and find all the comments you've made in this
regard, but rest assured that I will comment the next
time. What about the one you help in the U.S.?
Seems you get a lot of milage out of that one also.
> 3. "He never stops for a café au lait and croissant in the most
beautiful
> city in the world, to observe and wonder on the vast panorama of the
real
> world, as it passes by him." Whatever gives you this idea??? We have
not
> one but two cafés where we are habitués, which we go to at least twice
a
> week, sometimes more. And watch the panorama of the real world, for
sure.
>
Then you should realize that each one of us deserves the
best protection that can be afforded by society. If we
accept less, we accept murder as a consequence of
this lesser acceptance to a certain degree. Your view
that murderers should enjoy protection to a greater
extent than innocents is shallow, IMHO. Do not tell
me that L wop is every bit as effective as the DP,
because I do not believe it... it's as simple as that.
Others may believe it... and that is their right... but
I do not... and that is my right. I have provided some
examples which I gleaned only to support my opinion,
not to claim that my opinion is the ONE, TRUE,
RIGHT and MORAL opinion, which Earl and yourself,
would claim for the abolition of the DP.
> I don't want to get involved in your war with Earl, but I cannot let
factual
> inaccuracies go by, especially since I am involved with Earl in two of
these
> activities, the prison and the cafés.
>
> >
> > History is bunk???? That would be a quote from...???
>
> Henry Ford.
'Snap'... sorry, you bit on the bait. A quote which caused
Ford much grief... as did his series of clearly anti-Semitic
attacks on the "International Jew," a mythical figure he
blamed for financing war, which he later was forced to
retract. But if he's Earl's hero, I can well understand that
he would be quoted by him.
>
> Donna Evleth
Shane in UK...
> Quite a few fled to South American nations favorable to their cause.
> There are a couple of places where German surnames are quite common.
Wasn't Josef Megele dug up in South America somewhere? Now he was an
evil bastard if I ever come across one. All those experiments within
the camp system and all that.
Richard Jackson
Chile', if memory serves me correctly. There is some speculation that
some higher ranking and middle ranking SS officers came to the US under
the protection of the OSS as well.
For sure, Werner Von Braun and some other German scientists formed the
base for our space and other important national scientific programs.
A Planet Visitor
"Shane in UK..." <evilmo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.147272929...@news.btinternet.com...
> In article <8u722p$pt6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ri...@my-deja.com says...
>
> > Quite a few fled to South American nations favorable to their cause.
> > There are a couple of places where German surnames are quite common.
>
> Wasn't Josef Megele dug up in South America somewhere? Now he was an
> evil bastard if I ever come across one. All those experiments within
> the camp system and all that.
>
> --
> Shane
ADOLF EICHMANN
DUTIES: As head of the office of Jewish emigration for the Nazi
party and an expert in Jewish Culture, Eichmann was responsible
for the implementation of the "forced Emigration" of the Jews.
He oversaw the creation of death camps, gassing techniques
and supervised the transportation of Jews to Death Camps.
FATE: After the war, he was arrested, but escaped and fled
to Argentina. He was kidnapped by Mossad in 1960, publicly
tried in Jerusalem in 1961, and sentenced to death for crimes
against humanity and the Jewish people on May 31, 1962.
JOSEF MENGELE
Angel of Death
DUTIES: Mengele was the notorious extermination camp doctor
at Auschwitz in charge of selection for the gas chambers and
horrifying medical experiments. He was especially interested
in medical experiments on twins, hoping to find a method of
creating a race of blue-eyed Aryans.
FATE: Mengele escaped from a British internment hospital
in Germany and fled to Buenos Aires. He drowned in 1979.
KLAUS BARBIE
Butcher of Lyon
DUTIES: Head of the Gestapo for Lyons, France, Barbie
was responsible for the capture and torture of Jews
and French Resistance leaders. Adroit at torture and
interrogation, Barbie's crimes included 4,342 murders
and 14,311 arrests. He sent 7,591 people to the
concentration camps.
FATE: An unrepentant Nazi, he continued to proclaim
his devotion to Hitler even when he was discovered in
Bolivia in 1971. Barbie was tried in France and sentenced
to life imprisonment in 1987. He died in 1991.
JOSEF SCHWAMMBERGER
DUTIES: Schwammberger was the SS Technical Sergeant
in charge of three slave labor camps in Poland. According
to witnesses, he terrified hundreds of trapped Jews at
Przemysl and proclaimed that he was their God and their
Satan.
FATE:Schwammberger found refuge in Argentina for
forty years before he was extradited to Germany for trial
in 1990. He was convicted of crimes against humanity
and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1992, where he
remains today.
ERICH PRIEBKE
DUTIES: A former Nazi SS Captain, Priebke assisted
in the Ardeatine Caves Massacre that killed 335 Italian
men and boys, including 77 Jews.
FATE: Priebke was extradited in 1993 from Argentina,
where he had been living quietly as an innkeeper. His
trial began on May 8, 1996 in Rome. Priebke claims that
he had no choice but to obey orders for the massacre or
face death himself. Five of his fellow officers were tried
for the same crime in 1948 and were acquitted on the
grounds that they had been following orders.
To name a few from South America.
PV
PV
Back4YK2
Desmond Coughlan
> Japan deserved it.
Any more gems like that ?
--
**********************************************************************
* Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris *
* dcou...@vdp.fr http://www.forumdesimages.net/ (01) 44.76.62.29 *
* PGP Public Key: http://www.coughlan.net/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr *
* Fingerprint: 3F1F C838 88D5 2659 B00A 6DF6 6883 FB9C E34A AC93 *
**********************************************************************
Back4YK2
(Snip)Any more gems like that?(snip)
You mean truths?
Desmond Coughlan
>> > Japan deserved it.
> You mean truths?
If that's what you like to call them ...
Evleth
>> Japan deserved it.
>
> (Snip)Any more gems like that?(snip)
>
> You mean truths?
I agree that Japan, in the abstract, "deserved it".
It is the concrete that bothers me. The concrete were the civilians, women
children and babies who got literally fried alive, while others
lingered on for weeks before they died.
John Rennie
"Back4YK2" <back...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001110031450...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> > Japan deserved it.
>
> (Snip)Any more gems like that?(snip)
>
> You mean truths?
I think the Zoo Keeper will be making another call on you very soon. The
idea of posting on any group is to contribute, to try to add to our sum of
knowledge. You appear incapable of doing this. I can see a number of the
residents here reaching for their kilfile buttons. Please try harder.
John Rennie
>
>
> >> Japan deserved it.
> >
> > (Snip)Any more gems like that?(snip)
> >
> > You mean truths?
>
>
> It is the concrete that bothers me. The concrete were the civilians, women
> children and babies who got literally fried alive, while others
> lingered on for weeks before they died.
Of course that happened. What didn't happen was many more millions dying
equally horrible deaths all over Japan. I suggest most of them would have
been Japanese. I don't want you to love the Bomb but I do think you
should show a little gratitude.
Pa...@sgi.net
killed in the Pearl Harbor area when they declared war on the U.S. by there
sneak attack? NO War is hell, someone had to put an end to it. If the U.S.
figured that those two bombs were the only way, they were correct. The U.S.
just waited a little too long to drop them.
You want to talk about cruel, inhuman treatment, look into there treatment of
the American POW's and how they were treated. I thought I seen some stiff
treatment in Nam, but the Japs were ruthless in there treatment of prisoners.
As for the civilians in Japan, they were all trained to fight and protect the
Emperor and the country. Which is totally unlike the U.S. and most other
western nations.
For the unwarranted sneak attack on the U.S. and the atrocities against the
American POW's, Japan we find you guilty.
"Two Bombs Weren't Enough"
Back4YK2
idea of posting on any group is to contribute, to try to add to our sum of
knowledge. You appear incapable of doing this. I can see a number of the
residents here reaching for their kilfile buttons. Please try harder.
- - - - - - - - -
Yes sir!
Back4YK2
actresses and models in the U.S. They are identical twins known as the "Barbie
twins".
The Zoo Keeper
A number of contributors to this ng have drawn my attention to your posts.
They complain that they are tasteless, unfunny and generally unintelligent.
If the above is a representative sample I am forced to concede that the
complainants are right in all three respects. If you persist in sending
these infantile posts I shall have to remove you to my Troll Cage. Not a
pretty fate! Once placed there other posters will be warned not to feed
you. They will be advised to completely ignore you and should your
screaming and banging on the cage bars become excessive, they will told to
kilfile you. This is your first and final warning.
Zoo Keeper.
JIGSAW1695
From: "The Zoo Keeper" J...@AOL.com
Date: 11/12/00 1:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <8ummlt$vcl$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>
Zoo Keeper.
===============================
Wow!!
Talk about cruel and unusual. One can only hope that Amnesty International does
not get windof this.