Hiroshima justified? (wasRe: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements



On 22 Dec 2003 15:59:56 -0800, [email protected] (cave fish)
wrote:

>Charles Gray <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On 21 Dec 2003 22:39:38 -0800, [email protected] (cave fish) wrote:
>>
>> >"Linda Terrell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<epxRkhlUwRo0-pn2-7PgD6QdS3d3F@dialup-
>> >67.31.204.131.Dial1.Tampa1.Level3.net>...
>> >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:32:03 UTC, [email protected] (cave fish) wrote:
>> >>
>>
>> But you're also missing the information context-- this was long before "multiculturalism" was
>> a common word, and long before asian studies departments were fixtures at most universities.
>> Much of the work on Japan, pre-war by western authorities (the ones who would be consulted),
>> were well.... inaccuarte. For one thing, this led to a great deal of ambiguity in western
>> minds about the place of the emperor, arguably theone thing where a change in western stance
>> might have led to a quick end of the war.
>
>The hell with muliticulturalism and other leftist buffoonery. I'm not making a left vs right or people-of-
>color vs white argument. I'm saying there are limits to everything if into fighting in WWII? Yes.
>Were we on the right side? Yes. Did we have the moral right to break Japan's back and destroy its
>empire? Yes. Did we have the right to indiscrimately destroy entire civilian populations? No. Your
>argument is US uber alles. Do you ever think US made wrong decisions during WWII against Germans or
>Japan? Or, is your position simply that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING USA did was good because what we do
>is good, period. This is the sort of mentality that brought Germany and Japan to aggression, this
>inability to reflect, to self-criticize, to justify anything they did. We don't need a US IS ALWAYS
>BAD vs US IS ALWAYS GOOD dichotomy. We can believe in American values, justify American strategy,
>while criticizing when Americans have failed in areas of tactics. We can justify the American cause
>in WWII without apologizing for EVERYTHING Americans did. If we say Americans were completely
>blameless in WWII, then we're playing God, not thinking humans.
>

You need to learn a lot about intentions and analysis. Multiculturlism in this context simply
means the fact that when Roosevelt picked up the phone, there were not very many people in the
U.S. who could give him very good intel about Japanese culture and intentions, and just about ALL
of them were professors who had studied japan-- and in many cases never lived in it. Will the
japanese surrender? How important is it to them that they keep the Emperor? What is the
likelyhood that they'll take unconditional surrender if we throw them a few bones that make no
difference in reality? Those are all the sort of questions that can only be answered by having an
ability to analyze the culture, and that simply did not exist in the 1940's-- hell, it didn't
really exist in the 1960's, which explains many of the problems faced in Vietnam.

>
>> And this makes all of the "of course they would have surrenderd" arguements suspect to the
>> authorities of the time. Japanese soldiers had fought to the death in nearly every theatre,
>> they had fought at Okinawa to the point that nearly 1/3rd of the civilian population had died,
>> and there was no reason to believe that they'd either surrender or not fight for Japan.
>> Waiting, by all accounts was never even considered by the allies, and invasion would have been
>> very dangerous-- I have read some accounts, although I cannot vouch for them or even provide
>> cites (this was back in 1986), the claimed that Downfall might have also involved the use of
>> chemical weapons, and in any case, a full scale invasion would have killed quite as many as
>> the bomb.
>
>This still doesn't justify wholesale massacre of civilian populations. And, we speak with the
>benefit of hindsight. We know Japan did surrender. But, Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima. So,
>wasn't that a false calculation and estimate? After Nagasaki, Japan did surrender. But, suppose
>Japanese were as fanatical and crazy and dedicated to dying to the last person as American experts
>had claimed. Suppose Japan hadn't surrendered after Nagasaki? Then we would have great many killed
>for no purpose. Then, what's next? Do you keep nuking Japanese cities until everyone's dead or til
>the Japanese government finally surrenders?
Short answer: Yes. You don't want to surrender? I have more than enough B-29's loaded with
firebombs and I'm getting more atomic bang-bangs. Lets' make the rubble bounce in Kobe, or
possibly Tokyo. Eventually, you will either surrender, or lose any ability to resist.

>>
>> And more importantly, if Japan was so flat on their back, why didn't they surrender? The
>> prapartions being made were for an all out attack on the allied forces, and the rightests were
>> quite open in teir belief that ten million Japanese with bamboo spears and suicide bombs could
>> throw us back.
>
>Pride. For the same reason that the Confederates fought long and hard even when it became quite
>certain that the Union was going to win. Ever see boxers all beaten up and helpless but still
>trying to stand though they don't have a punch left in them? Also, if Japanese resistance to the
>Allies amounted to bamboo spears and suicide bombs, then surely invasion should have been the
>option. Some resistance! Some village women with a bamboo spear! Americans nuked Japan because
>American soldiers were afraid of women and chilren with bamboo spears?
>
That's a good reason to attack-- the Confederate pride convinced them that they had never lost,
leading to better than a century of resistance, which in some ways continues to plague us today.
When you crush a nation, the the point is that as they walk though the ruins of Hiroshima, they
know that every breath they take is by your grace, then you crush that pride. You do not simply
defeat them, you make them FEEL defeated, in their very bones.
 
"Linda Terrell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<epxRkhlUwRo0-pn2-cvRiKCMyUZ4c@dialup-67.31.202.78.Dial1.Tampa1.Level3.net>...
> > The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the destruction. If atom bomb had
> > been dropped on a Japanese military target it might have been justified. But, to kill like that
> > in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill.
>
> Hiroshima was a military target -- it was a port wity with several railroad lines running in and
> out of it. That means supplies going to the Army.
>
> LT

Then you attack the military infrastructure of the city, not the entire city. That's like killing
the whole person with the disease.
 
Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> cave fish wrote:
>
> >
> > In that case, it's all the worse to use a weapon of such terror(which includes nukes) on
> > civilian populations.
>
> You are concerned about the terror unleashed on the population of Japan? It was nothing compared
> to the terror unleashed on the people in places that the Japanese invaded and occupied. Sit down
> and read "The Rape of Nanking" to find out about terrorizing a populace. Japanese soldiers tied
> groups of Chinese men together with barbed wire and threw gasoline on them and then lit them
> afire. They tied them up and used them for bayonet practise, lined them up had contests to see who
> could chop off the most heads. Women of all ages were raped and usually killed, some even had
> sticks or other objects shoved into their vaginas. The Allied soldiers who were captured by the
> Japanese faced unimaginable hardship. They were enslaved, over worked and underfed, beaten and
> tortured.
>
> Given the wide range of atrocities committed by the Japanese, is there terror faced by their
> population when the war turned on them really something that we need to worry about?
>

I know all about Nanking by the way, thank you. But, two wrongs don't make a right. Also, that book
you mentioned is history as sensationalism. We don't know how many died at Nanking; estimates vary
from tens of thousands to 300,000 yet Chang only insists on 300,000 to 350,000. But, your argument
is pointless because it justifies one insanity with another, especially when Americans couldn't have
cared less about Chinese lives and showed nothing but contempt and brutality to Chinese-Americans in
the first part of 20th century. If we justify Hiroshima with Nanking, then Japanese can say, "Ah,
but look at Chinese invasion of Tibet. Why should we feel guilty when Chinese themselves are
imperialists and even to this day and haven't admitted any wrongdoing whatsoever for their genocide
against Tibetans." Where does this leave us? Does it absolve Nanking? No more than Nanking absolves
Hiroshima. And, of course, there's the other great loony argument. Who are Americans to judge
Japanese atrocities in Nanking when Americans had committed genocide against Indians, stolen land
from Mexicans, and enslave blacks? This sort of fingerpointing gets us nowhere. I don't doubt US has
the moral upperhand in WWII and that Japan was a sinister force in Asia, that Japanese military
needed to be defeated. That doesn't mean ANYTHING GOES.
 
On 22 Dec 2003 15:48:57 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>"Linda Terrell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<epxRkhlUwRo0-pn2-cvRiKCMyUZ4c@dialup-
>67.31.202.78.Dial1.Tampa1.Level3.net>...
>> > The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the destruction. If atom bomb had
>> > been dropped on a Japanese military target it might have been justified. But, to kill like that
>> > in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill.
>>
>> Hiroshima was a military target -- it was a port wity with several railroad lines running in and
>> out of it. That means supplies going to the Army.
>
>So does that make entire cities like San Diego "military targets" as well? If al-Qaeda or North
>Korea nuked Arlington or DC, would you chalk it up as a respectable act of war?

Yes-- and you might wish to note that Had Al Qaeda used a cruise missile against the pentagon, it
wouldn't be considered a criminal act by many-- the pentagon is a military target.
 
Charles Gray <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:11:46 -0600, Col. RJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On 21 Dec 2003 22:27:02 -0800, [email protected] (cave fish) wrote:
> >
> >>"Gene Storey" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<lRlFb.2940$6l1.955@okepread03>...

> >>> > > didn't have **** to with Pearl Harbor.
> >>>
> >>> Yea, they stayed home while their husbands and sons raped China, Korea, and Indo-China. They'd
> >>> be raping your mother now if it wasn't for the American leadership in breaking the enemies
> >>> backs.
> >>>
> >>> Women and children always pay for the sins of their fathers.
> >>
> >>
> >>Nobody is debating which side was on the right side of history. United States, no doubt.
> >>However, being on the right side of history doesn't give the winning side the right to wage any
> >>kind of war. Would it have been okay to drop a massive chemical or biological weapon on
> >>Hiroshima and infected the entire population with some horrible disease. This is considered too
> >>horrific even for use against soldiers as agreed by the Geneva Convention. In that case, it's
> >>all the worse to use a weapon of such terror(which includes nukes) on civilian populations. Yes,
> >>Americans were on the right side of history. It's a good thing we won. But, complete victory at
> >>any cost somehow undermines even the side on the right side of history.
> >
> >And all you folks that moan about the nukes would have whined for their use if we had starved out
> >the Japs and you saw pictures of a million dead babies piled in every area of Honshu. Do you
> >really think that the Japs or the Nazi would not have nuked every major city if the tables had
> >been turned? Hell they sent their stupid balloon bombs for the sole purpose of killing US
> >civilians, thank god only one made it that I know of and it killed a school teacher in Oregon
> >with several of her students. Our victory was not undermined, except for selfrightous pinheads
> >that would have ****** themselves if placed in the same position of having to decided.
>
>
> I would point out to all those talking about the evil U.S., that the proof is in the occupation.
> We had lost thousands of soldiers to illetgal execution, to starvation, to torture. And after
> 1945, Japan was utterly prostrate, we could have done anythign we desired. And out great
> vengeance was to... Woprk to rebuild the nation, while insuring the creation of a political
> system that kept the rightest from returning to power. We executed *some* Japanese, those who
> were responsible for the worst war crimes, and although I do think that in some cases the
> findings were wrong, they got a *court*, held in the open, and were not simply shot and dumped
> in an alley. More importantly, if anything, the U.S. erred on the side of caution-- many
> officers that might have been in danger or war crimes trials were simply left on their own.
> those who proclaim that the A-bomb was all about "vengeance" on Japan conveniently avoid talking
> about our behaviour after we occupied Japan, when we could have had all the vengeance we wanted.

Yes, I completely agree. United States was a more advanced, progressive, justice, forgiving, and
just nation than Japan. But, one of the things that made US a better nation over the years was the
ability to question its judgment, which is why slavery was abolished, amends made to Indians. Which
is why today we admit that internment of Japanese Americans were wrong. But, victory at any price is
not a sane policy in any war. And, one of the good developments over the decades is we care more
about minimizing civilian casualties. But, we can't become better by blindly justifying whatever
actions US took in war, no matter how extreme or heinous.
 
Charles Gray wrote:
>
> Yes-- and you might wish to note that Had Al Qaeda used a cruise missile against the pentagon,
> it wouldn't be considered a criminal act by many-- the pentagon is a military target.

Speaking of which, does anyone here have any links to photos of the airliner hitting the Pentagon or
its resultant wreckage? I think we've all seen the Two Towers incidents MANY times, but the Pentagon
crash seems far less well covered.

--

"Homer, I'll tell you what I told Redford - 'It ain't gonna happen'" -
Paul Newman, The Simpsons

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

I find that while malice and greed are prime motivations in human
behavior, it is a serious error to discount basic human stupidity.
 
On 12/22/2003 4:00 PM, in article [email protected], "Dave
Smith" <[email protected]> opined:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> So does that make entire cities like San Diego "military targets" as well? If al-Qaeda or North
>> Korea nuked Arlington or DC, would you chalk it up as a respectable act of war?
>
> If the US can invade Iraq Iraq pre-emptively because Bush thinks they pose a threat to the US, and
> the US poses a threat to North Korea, then the answer is yes.
>
>
>
It's not preemptive after 12 years of impotent UN resolutions.

IT IS CALLED LEADERSHIP. SOMETHING AS A cANADIAN YOU WILL NEVER REALIZE.

--
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where
the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes
up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the
great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best,
knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he
fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
knew neither victory nor defeat," Theodore Roosevelt.

"Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
 
creative non-compliance? Problem was that the notion of bushido had
pervaded the Japanese psyche. The Japanese populace was no more capable of
non-compliance (they were convinced that it WAS the right path) than they
were of self starvation or sebukku (ritual suicide) - which is essentially
what it became in the last days of the war.
"RogerM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Greg Hennessy wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:19:37 GMT, RogerM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Dave Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >
> > >Those are all terrible crimes, indeed. The Japanese civlians were not responsible for those
> > >crimes, however.
> > >
> >
> > Yes they were, they were the head of the logistical chain which kept japanese forces in the
> > field committing these atrocities, what part of
that
> > can you not get into your thick yoghurt knitting skull ?
> >
>
> Given that they were ruled by a military dictatorship, how much choice did they have?
>
> > >> Given the wide range of atrocities committed by the Japanese, is
there terror faced by
> > >> their population when the war turned on them really something that
we need to worry about?
> > >>
> > >
> > >If we are to remain human, yes.
> >
> > "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men
stand
> > ready to do violence on their behalf"
> >
>
> 'Rough men' aren't nearly discrinating enough about those to whom they do violence. The Germans
> and Japanese had lots of 'rough men' ready to do violence.
>
> --
>
> "Homer, I'll tell you what I told Redford - 'It ain't gonna happen'" - Paul Newman, The Simpsons
>
> The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.
>
> I find that while malice and greed are prime motivations in human behavior, it is a serious error
> to discount basic human stupidity.
 
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:10:41 -0500, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Col. RJ" wrote:
>
>>
>> >Credit where credit is true. Britain had managed to thwart an invasion of their island. The US
>> >had thought that it was a lost cause, but were more interested once they realized that Britain
>> >was not losing.
>> >
>> What total manure. There were Americans flying at that time for the British.
>
>Have you rewritten the history books to place the US air force in England before 1942? There were
>some Americans who had joined the RCAF and RAF, but the US

Thats what I said above, Americans not America. Many were actually Army Air Corps pilots on loan
because we knew eventually we would be in the war. Note that as soon as we entered the war
officially all those American pilots came right home with their combat experiance and became Army
Air Corps again.

>
>> We were giving them ammo, food and several ships as well as guarding convoys. FDR wanted to jump
>> into WW2 as faast as possible and finally had to allow the Japanese to attack Pearl to get us in.
>
>Giving? It was cash and carry, and the Allies lost a lot of the stuff to U-boats on the way
>over.The Destroyers for Bases deal didn't go through until a year into the war, and the Lend Lease
>deal came in March of 1941.
>
>

--

"Conan, what is best in life?''

''To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.''
 
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:32:06 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Col. RJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 19:30:34 -0500, Dave Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> What total manure. There were Americans flying at that time for the British.
>
>Nope the Eagle squadrons were formed after the BOB, there were more South Africans flying in the
>BOB than Yanks

I never said any numbers. Lets us not forget the Canucks that flew either. Dang, how many countries
were flying at that time under Brit control?

>
>> We were giving them ammo, food and several ships as well as guarding convoys.
>
>Nope the lend lease act was passed in 1941, anything Britain got from the US before that had to be
>paid for in gold up front.
>
>> FDR wanted to jump into WW2 as faast as possible and finally had to allow the Japanese to attack
>> Pearl to get us in.
>>
>
>Nope having Japan attack Pearl harbor didnt get the USA into a war with Germany, the Nazi
>declaration of war on Dec 11 1941 did that. There was no treaty obligation on Germany to do so and
>Japan was very careful not to go to war with the USSR.
>
>Keith
>

--

"Conan, what is best in life?''

''To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.''
 
If it saved the life on just one American soldier, dropping the bombs was well worth it.
 
On 21 Dec 2003 23:00:36 -0800, [email protected] (cave fish)
wrote:

> You are right. However, anyone who justifies the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki based purely on
> estimates are on shaky ground. They keep saying how it saved lives. But, how do they know?

Because the US is still using Purple Hearts from those struck for the invasion of the
Japanese homeland?

And there's no foreseeable end to the supply at the rate they're being used?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer [email protected]
 
On 22 Dec 2003 16:38:33 -0800, [email protected] (cave fish)
wrote:

>"Linda Terrell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<epxRkhlUwRo0-pn2-cvRiKCMyUZ4c@dialup-
>67.31.202.78.Dial1.Tampa1.Level3.net>...
>> > The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the destruction. If atom bomb had
>> > been dropped on a Japanese military target it might have been justified. But, to kill like that
>> > in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill.
>>
>> Hiroshima was a military target -- it was a port wity with several railroad lines running in and
>> out of it. That means supplies going to the Army.
>>
>> LT
>
>
>Then you attack the military infrastructure of the city, not the entire city. That's like killing
>the whole person with the disease.

Buzz! Reality check. The ability to launch such pin-point raids on point targets didn't exist
until Vietnam, at all, and arguably wasn't really usable from high altitude bombers until GWII. At
the time, "Accurate" meant that you managed to land the bomb in the near vicinity...which could
mean anything from a direct hit to "hmmm...did you hear something?" from the target. Some raids in
Europe, involving hundreds of planes, managed to kill just about everythign for ten miles around,
while missing the primary target.

That's like saying: Gee, we could have avoided the use of nukes-- all we would have needed was a
CVBG or to with GPS guided weapons along with some Tomahawks and A-10's to back them up. Looks
wonderful-- completely fantasy.
 
"DALing" <daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> your history is a bit confused - The Soviets declared war on Japan exactly when they agreed to -
> 30 days after Yalta. japanese delay in surrendering was more due to bureaucratic imeptness than
> anyting else. In th einterim. the use of fat man got authorized (the Japanese would have
> surrendered in ANY case) In the end, Japan lost the Kirils anyway Of course, they had taken them
> _from_ Russia at the end of the Russo-Japanese war in the early 1900's
>
> "Greg Moritz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > From what I read and have seen, it was supposed to be the entry of the Soviet Union into the war
> > (with Japan) that was the deciding factor. The bombs might have been the final straw, but the
> > prospect of an eventual joint Soviet / American invastion was really distasteful to them.

The Soviets invaded Manchuria on August 9th. It doesn't really matter when they declared war on
the Empire.

The Japanese leadership was on record that any amount of casualties were going to be acceptable in
an American invasion since they felt that the Americans would not have the stomach for as many.
 
[email protected] (cave fish) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Greg Moritz) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...

> > From what I read and have seen, it was supposed to be the entry of the Soviet Union into the war
> > (with Japan) that was the deciding factor. The bombs might have been the final straw, but the
> > prospect of an eventual joint Soviet / American invastion was really distasteful to them.
>
> This is unconvincing. The only reason why Russians were engaged in the eastern sphere was because
> FDR wanted Russians there, to minimize US casualties. Very shortsighted thinking, espcially since
> Japanese military was vastly overrated in China. Russians went to Japanese like butter in
> Manchuria, which is what made Russians hungry for more.
>
> Russians would not have dared invade Japan if Americans adamantly opposed such idea. Perhaps, the
> nukes were used to demonstrate US power to the Russians but whether Russia jointly invaded Japan
> or not was entirely up to the Americans.

I agree that it is unconvincing, but it is not entirely unplausible. From my point of view, what
more would the government of the Emprire need that seeing the destruction of those bombs? However,
I'm not the expert.

In regards to your post, how would the Japanese have known that the Russians would not have dared to
invade Japan? It seems to me that from their point of view it was a likely scenario. Your post is
reasonable, but I have not heard otherwise regarding the Japanese intelligence at the time.

There is a similar parallel with the bombs: They didn't really know that we could not have sustained
a drop every few days. (Sort of like on 9/11 we didn't know how many 'other' planes were out there,
so we brought them all down.)
 
In rec.arts.movies.current-films Linda Terrell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Not ten Japanese civilians were worth one American soldier.
>
> We ended it.

Wow, fascinating.

Where exactly did you come up with this algebra?

I'm honestly curious. That's the way the Nazis felt about the Jews and Slavs they slaughtered, too.

I think that if you are going to use Devil's algebra like yours, you should at least explain from
where it commences.

--
A.E. Jabbour

"Dancer in the Dark" is one of the most sadistic films I've ever seen, but it also raises the
possibility that sadism might be, in spite of itself, a species of love." - A.O. Scott
 
Side note and little kown fact except for those in State and War department. Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were unique from other Japanese cities in what way? Industrially? Nope. Military value? Nope
Culturally? So-so. So how where they different. They were both centers of Christian evagelsim and
considered highly Christian sympathetic cities. Chirstianity had come to Japan with the Portuguese
monks several hundred years before. So why would state and War department wish Christian and western
sympathetic locales to be the targets o nuclear distruction? Because from soon into the war, there
were those in State and War depts who were planning for a post war world which would be strongly
friendly to world socialist expansion. What did Russia do? Wait until the war in the east was all
but over before entering the war in Japan on the side of the allies.From the beginning, WWII
contained a subtext by adminstration insiders who were seeking to advance the socialist-communist
cause, and it was feared that once the war wa over in Japan, that the country who'se Shinto
dominated Budhiistic culture would collapse and that the Christian Japanese centered in the soon to
me nuked cities would swell out over the populace and evangelized the culturally destroyed
nipponsese population. And who are less suseptable to marxist population than almost anyone,
believeing Christians. Japan's nuclear nightmare had a secret agenda directed by those men who
secretly manipulated the Yalta conference, and later the founding of the UN and the collapse of
Nationalist China, Owen Lattimore, Harry Dester White and Alger Hiss. You can believe the **** they
teach in college but the truth is that for many in the war it truly was about advancing the
globalist elites vision of a New World Order. When finally after MacArthur's caesarian delivery of
Japans new society into the modern world. During which MacArthur considered forceably converted the
Shogun to Christianity, only nineteenthen century man that the General was at heart, he couldn't
make uo his mind should the Niponese be Presbeterian or Catholic who were still in 45 not friendly
to each other. But the least that could be done by fellow Travelers in State and War was to lay the
ground work for invasion by Russia, again they were thwarted by Mac who affored the Japanese their
dignity and a chance to rebuild. On the other hand Soviet Russia, took back Sakalin island and a few
other islands and the Marxist agenda was thwarted for the time being. Imagine if the Japanses
Christians had been their themselves instead of incenerated, Japan might have had a different and
more important history and not just as the techno geeks or makers of magnet trains and good cameras
and fine watches.. So once again the forces of "democracy" failed to protect an already brutalized
enemy and why? Ambrose
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Charles Gray <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Also, if Japanese resistance to the Allies amounted to bamboo spears and suicide bombs, then
> >surely invasion should have been the option. Some resistance! Some village women with a bamboo
> >spear! Americans nuked Japan because American soldiers were afraid of women and chilren with
> >bamboo spears?
> >
> You've never learned about MOUTs or talked to anyone who has. Also, the typical reponse of most
> military units to millions of people with bamboo spears is millions of bullets and lots of CAS
> using napalm and HE. You don't save a lot of lives, especially when the second tactic in such
> battles is the following: See a village. Hmmmmm could there be bad guys in there? Call in A-
> 20's and napalm the living hell out of it. (or WP, as Napalm was a later innovation).

Napalm showed up late during WW2 in the Pacific theater, IIRC, first used in flamethrowers.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (cave fish) wrote:

> "Linda Terrell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<epxRkhlUwRo0-pn2-cvRiKCMyUZ4c@dialup-
> 67.31.202.78.Dial1.Tampa1.Level3.ne
> t>...
> > > The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the destruction. If atom bomb had
> > > been dropped on a Japanese military target it might have been justified. But, to kill like
> > > that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill.
> >
> > Hiroshima was a military target -- it was a port wity with several railroad lines running in and
> > out of it. That means supplies going to the Army.
>
> Then you attack the military infrastructure of the city, not the entire city.

Impossible to do at the time: the military targets were intermixed with civilian areas.
 
On 22 Dec 2003 13:51:51 -0800, [email protected] (cave fish) wrote:

>Russians would not have dared invade Japan if Americans adamantly opposed such idea.

The russians hadn't the means to invade japan period.

greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland. I said just eat my burger, baby,make
you smart as Charlie Chan. You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.