C
Charles Gray
Guest
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.
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.