{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5928", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5928, "subject": "(no subject)", "messages": 5, "voices": 4, "first": "2011-01-19T19:55:53+00:00", "last": "2011-01-20T15:26:52+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-19T19:55:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn: Allow me to take the Devil's side for a bit. The Imperial Japanese \nculture in the early 1940s glorified nihilistic fanaticism. Long after \nit was clear that they would not win the war, the Emperor and the J \ngovernment had decided that if they were beaten there should be a \ngenocide of the Japanese people." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI certainly allow it, if I am permitted to take Angel's advocate role for a minute.\nIt is a simplistic, cruel view of life to say that if an enemy Emperor orders the genocide of\nhis people that we ought to be the perpetrators of it. Somehow that is the right thing to do?\n \nIf I were transported back in time and installed as US president I would order something along\nthe lines of a N. Korea strategy. Containment. One cannot in good conscience commit a crime \nagainst humanity, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people (including American POWs) in the\n\"hopes\" (and it was simply hope at the time) that it might avert a worse killing.\n \nHowever, if I were actually from that primitive time period when declarations of victory and national \npride were so much more important than human life than they are now I would probably think\ndifferently. If I thought as I do now I almost assuredly would never be elected president then." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But, if you weigh the horrors of ALL the uses of atomic weapons over the last 65 \nyears AGAINST the almost certain toll without them , Pres Harry Truman's \ndecision to use the bomb looks quite humane. So God bless the Bomb." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI agree with this. But it is hindsight. A global blessing that couldn't have been foreseen (after\nWWII many were already looking to WWIII). If I had been preident in 1945 and enforced a containment\nstrategy on Japan (and avoided assassination) I don't know if we would have had Pax Americana for\nthe next 65 years. We'll never know. But as a 21st century resident I know could never nuke any nation.\n(meaning I couldn't be elected president now either, esp. if I spoke that publicly ;- )). \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D374CF1.5090200@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-19T20:43:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thomas Bitterman-\nIt is entirely possible that the atomic bombs were not the cause of \nJapanese surrender. Some Japanese principals have denied that the \nbombs were a major factor, citing instead the Russian invasion. In any \ncase, invasion wasn't the only other option - a blockade along with \ncontinued bombing was also an option, and would have almost certainly \nsucceeded (albeit more slowly)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As in North Korea? Do you really think we could have pulled off such a \nblockade during the Cold War with China and the Soviet Union right off \nof Japan's coast? I think the idea that the bombing wasn't THE factor \nin the surrender is extremely wishful thinking. There was likely a \nJapanese ministers or two who thought privately that surrender would be \na good idea. But the military and emperor called the shots. If the \nJapanese didn't surrender after the loss of Okinawa, it is improbable \nthat they would have capitulated to the loss of some small islands \n(which the Soviets didn't take until after Hiroshima). And anyway, they \ndidn't surrender after the loss of those islands. They surrendered after \nNagasaki." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "James Wynn: Allow me to take the Devil's side for a bit. The Imperial Japanese\nculture in the early 1940s glorified nihilistic fanaticism. Long after\nit was clear that they would not win the war, the Emperor and the J\ngovernment had decided that if they were beaten there should be a\ngenocide of the Japanese people." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee-\nI certainly allow it, if I am permitted to take Angel's advocate role for a minute.\nIt is a simplistic, cruel view of life to say that if an enemy Emperor orders the genocide of\nhis people that we ought to be the perpetrators of it. Somehow that is the right thing to do?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"War //is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give \nthem all they want.\"\n~ William T. Sherman" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee-\nIf I were transported back in time and installed as US president I would order something along\nthe lines of a N. Korea strategy. Containment. One cannot in good conscience commit a crime\nagainst humanity, kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people (including American POWs) in the\n\"hopes\" (and it was simply hope at the time) that it might avert a worse killing." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I appreciate that sentiment. However, knowing how containment has worked \nfor North Koreans and Iraqis, I am unconvinced that would have been the \nhumane choice. Compare Japan to North Korea. Compare SOUTH Korea to \nNorth Korea." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee-\nWe'll never know. But as a 21st century resident I know could never nuke any nation.\n(meaning I couldn't be elected president now either, esp. if I spoke that publicly" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, if you had been President in 1945 and sent 10s of 1000s of \nyoung men to die to liberate remote Pacific Islands and then said \"We'll \njust spend the next 40 years watching Japan's borders.\" You probably \nwould have been impeached. If you had chosen to invade Japan rather than \nend the war quickly with a couple bombs, you certainly would have been \nimpeached. We elect presidents to make unpleasant choices: Take it in \nthe face or fight back. If Americans had wanted half-measures, they'd \nhave run the country from Congress." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2011-01-19T21:44:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": "<4D374CF1.5090200@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:43 PM, James Wynn wrote:\n\n\nThomas Bitterman-\n\nIt is entirely possible that the atomic bombs were not the cause of\nJapanese surrender. Some Japanese principals have denied that the bombs\nwere a major factor, citing instead the Russian invasion. In any case,\ninvasion wasn't the only other option - a blockade along with continued\nbombing was also an option, and would have almost certainly succeeded\n(albeit more slowly).\n\n\nAs in North Korea?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Japan was not connected to a much larger country that was actively\nsupporting it. Also, we have not continued bombing North Korea in the\nmanner we would have continued bombing Japan in the scenario I actually\npresented. Japan had no oil and was busy starving." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Do you really think we could have pulled off such a blockade during the\nCold War with China and the Soviet Union right off of Japan's coast?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why not? What were China and the Soviet Union going to do? Run the\nblockade because they liked Japan so much?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think the idea that the bombing wasn't THE factor in the surrender is\nextremely wishful thinking." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yet that is what is maintained by several people who should know - people\nwho were directly involved in the decision. Perhaps they are unreliable,\nbut that could be true of anybody." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There was likely a Japanese ministers or two who thought privately that\nsurrender would be a good idea. But the military and emperor called the\nshots. If the Japanese didn't surrender after the loss of Okinawa, it is\nimprobable that they would have capitulated to the loss of some small\nislands (which the Soviets didn't take until after Hiroshima). And anyway,\nthey didn't surrender after the loss of those islands. They surrendered\nafter Nagasaki." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Soviets invaded Manchuria (a sizeable land area, not some small islands)\nright about the same time as Nagasaki. Again, Wikipedia with the info." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-19T22:19:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nThe Soviets invaded Manchuria (a sizeable land area, not some small islands)\nright about the same time as Nagasaki. Again, Wikipedia with the info." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was a bad joke - AFTER we had dropped\nthe Hiroshima bomb, and Japanese capitulation was certain, they\nmarched into a conquered area where the Japanese were grossly\noverstretched and the native population were going to hail them as\nliberators. A total \"us-too\" invasion." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2011-01-20T15:26:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nThomas Bitterman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The Soviets invaded Manchuria (a sizeable land area, not some small\nislands)\nright about the same time as Nagasaki. Again, Wikipedia with the info." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was a bad joke - AFTER we had dropped\nthe Hiroshima bomb, and Japanese capitulation was certain," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If capitulation was certain after the first bomb, the second bomb becomes\nmorally problematic. In any case, given the continued reluctance to\nsurrender even after the second bomb it seems unlikely the issue was settled\nafter the first." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "they\nmarched into a conquered area where the Japanese were grossly\noverstretched and the native population were going to hail them as\nliberators. A total \"us-too\" invasion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Japanese were scared. They had reason to be after what the Russians had\njust gotten done doing to the Germans. There was little reason to believe\nthe Russians would or could be stopped.\n\nBut we are way off topic." } ] } ] }