World Politics

[Bustedknuckle]

....oh my gosh isn't fundamentalism grand ( Volume 564,398 in a continuing series....)...though truth be known it does induce a serious case of myopia....or put another way, history is a wonderful thing but relying on it entirely when moving forward is like driving down a highway using only the rear view mirror for direction...

Cheers

We'll see where Vlad's' investigation' goes. I'm betting on
-ISIS
-CIA
-UK with the US
-Ukraine(maybe the girl friend?)

But nobody in Putin's mafia will be sacked, that is for sure.

 

[blutto]

We'll see where Vlad's' investigation' goes. I'm betting on
-ISIS
-CIA
-UK with the US
-Ukraine(maybe the girl friend?)

But nobody in Putin's mafia will be sacked, that is for sure.

...he also had a history of dealing with some shady Russian money interests....so who knows, because if Russia is only half as weird as The Ukraine that would still be pretty weird...

Cheers

 

[movingtarget]

We'll see where Vlad's' investigation' goes. I'm betting on
-ISIS
-CIA
-UK with the US
-Ukraine(maybe the girl friend?)

But nobody in Putin's mafia will be sacked, that is for sure.

ISIS no. They did not have time to make a boring video and get the cutlery out, not their style. I would say a salivating Nationalist who has posters of Putin on his wall and is on holidays from the Ukraine incident that Russia has no involvement in.

Interesting that the girlfriend is not being allowed to leave Russia for her own safety of course. According to some she is under unofficial house arrest.

 

[python]

Interesting that the girlfriend is not being allowed to leave Russia for her own safety of course. According to some she is under unofficial house arrest.

she's been back in ukraine now for many hours 'to attend her sick mother' in stead of a funeral of her 'loved one'...way before you had a chance to wake up and post an out of date piece of 'news'.

besides, how surprising is it to have the only material witness to the assassination be held for questining ? she's a ukrainian citizen who flew over a day before to meet her bf.

according to her own interview, she was told she was a witness - not a suspect - and respecting her desire to stay in the friends apartment of her slain boy friend - as opposed to a safe house offered - she was given a 24h witness protection until her questining was complete. given, that an assassin knew exactly the couples evening plan and a route, it is absolutely logical to question the only surviving privy to that plan. but i agree, it is almost certainly not an islamic extremist's job, though, it was said the slain was loudly critical of putin forbidding the ch. hebdo cartoons...

 

[movingtarget]

she's been back in ukraine now for many hours 'to attend her sick mother' in stead of a funeral of her 'loved one'...way before you had a chance to wake up and post an out of date piece of 'news'.

besides, how surprising is it to have the only material witness to the assassination be held for questining ? she's a ukrainian citizen who flew over a day before to meet her bf.

according to her own interview, she was told she was a witness - not a suspect - and respecting her desire to stay in the friends apartment of her slain boy friend - as opposed to a safe house offered - she was given a 24h witness protection until her questining was complete. given, that an assassin knew exactly the couples evening plan and a route, it is absolutely logical to question the only surviving privy to that plan. but i agree, it is almost certainly not an islamic extremist's job, though, it was said the slain was loudly critical of putin forbidding the ch. hebdo cartoons...

Yes I just noticed and and as you say, being a witness it was understandable. If she was there for another week or so eyebrows might have been raised more. I also heard that the nearest security camera was out of action, whether this is true or not I don't know and that is not so uncommon either. As usual more questions than answers.

 

[MBotero]

I guess that's as bad as the murders committed by Stalin, the horror of Hitler and Nazi germany or the barbaric acts of the japanese. Before and during WWII. Hmmmm, maybe not.

Funny that a german is trying to throw stones at post WWII USA, I thought the victors wrote the history. But Hitler was Austrian, after all.

Of course, the US could have scrapped the Marshall plan and Europe, particularly Germany, would be a third or fourth world nation. Or better yet, a US Protectorate, like Guam..

You know those USA angels committed their share of crimes too,like the Dresden bombing,Tokyo bombing,the nukes.They were also at Yalta were almost half of the Europe was sentenced to 50 years of darkness without being asked

Europe and Germany,being a third or fourth world nation without Marschall plan,now this is very funny,maybe it's time to read some"anti-USA propaganda"to learn more about Marschall plan real impact

 

[Bustedknuckle]

You know those USA angels committed their share of crimes too,like the Dresden bombing,Tokyo bombing,the nukes.They were also at Yalta were almost half of the Europe was sentenced to 50 years of darkness without being asked

Europe and Germany,being a third or fourth world nation without Marschall plan,now this is very funny,maybe it's time to read some"anti-USA propaganda"to learn more about Marschall plan real impact

Total war is just that. If Nazi Germany hadn't done the UK blitz, then V1/V2 'terror' weapons, the death camps(or are you a holocaust denier??)'maybe' the allies wouldn't have designed then carried out the 'scorched earth' policy. As for Japan, sorry, I'm one of those who agreed with Truman. Even after fire bombing Tokyo(ya know 'total war'?), Japan wasn't going to surrender. Millions, on both sides would have died in an invasion. The US could have nuked Tokyo, ya know.

BUT after the rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, Kamikazis, treatment and brutal death in Japanese POW camps(highest percentage BY FAR of any POW camp, even German)..along with the horrors of Hitler..not surprised the allies chose this path.

I'm sure Europe would have emerged from the ashes without the US help($$++) but it would have taken decades longer.

Yes, the US AND the UK abandoned eastern europe. With that, I have no argument. BUT any president and leader of the UK, presented with the same circumstances, would have done the same thing. I doubt a war with Russia would have been very popular, in spite of MacArthur.

 

[rhubroma]

Total war is just that. If Nazi Germany hadn't done the UK blitz, then V1/V2 'terror' weapons, the death camps(or are you a holocaust denier??)'maybe' the allies wouldn't have designed then carried out the 'scorched earth' policy. As for Japan, sorry, I'm one of those who agreed with Truman. Even after fire bombing Tokyo(ya know 'total war'?), Japan wasn't going to surrender. Millions, on both sides would have died in an invasion. The US could have nuked Tokyo, ya know.

BUT after the rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, Kamikazis, treatment and brutal death in Japanese POW camps(highest percentage BY FAR of any POW camp, even German)..along with the horrors of Hitler..not surprised the allies chose this path.

I'm sure Europe would have emerged from the ashes without the US help($$++) but it would have taken decades longer.

Yes, the US AND the UK abandoned eastern europe. With that, I have no argument. BUT any president and leader of the UK, presented with the same circumstances, would have done the same thing. I doubt a war with Russia would have been very popular, in spite of MacArthur.

The US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on a civilian population, no matter the circumstances. The Marshal Plan was strategiclly based to ensure US market growth and the complete endebtment of Western Europe (as a buffer to Russia, notwithstanding, but it still came with a "McDonaldization" of the Old Continent) the effects of which are still a reality today, when we realize the state of the globe and the iter of capitalism over social democracy today. That was just the price Europe had to pay for prosperity and security? While that may have been the case (as indeed it was), the state of the globe today after the quixotic US campaigns in the Middle East is hardly fortuitous.

What I'm getting at is that your narrative is a gross oversimplification of a very complex series of causes and effects, of which there was no "sacred" principle driving them; nor can America hardly be portrayed as holy either in its motives or objectives. The fact that Nazi-Fascism and Stalinist communism were rather "unholy" realities, doesn't mean that the US always came down on the side of virtue and justice. Of course, to affirm that one needs to admit to a wee bit more objectivity than the usual triumphalist rhetoric.

 

[hrotha]

BUT after the rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, Kamikazis, treatment and brutal death in Japanese POW camps(highest percentage BY FAR of any POW camp, even German)..along with the horrors of Hitler..not surprised the allies chose this path

It's one thing to understand why the US and Britain chose to conduct the war in a certain way, given the circumstances and the historical context. Similarly, I understand why the Mongols spared the cities that surrendered without a fight but razed and annihilated those that resisted. You can't judge an era from a completely different system of values and all that.

But it's quite another thing to then cry foul whenever someone wants to assess just how brutal and destructive, and yes, potentially criminal even by their own standards, those methods were. The way to study history is not to pick sides and refuse to look at the darkest bits of the history of your guys. Examining Dresde, Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Tokyo doesn't make you a Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan sympathizer, and it's frankly laughable to suggest otherwise.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

The US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons on a civilian population, no matter the circumstances. The Marshal Plan was strategiclly based to ensure US market growth and the complete endebtment of Western Europe (as a buffer to Russia, notwithstanding, but it still came with a "McDonaldization" of the Old Continent) the effects of which are still a reality today, when we realize the state of the globe and the iter of capitalism over social democracy today. That was just the price Europe had to pay for prosperity and security? While that may have been the case (as indeed it was), the state of the globe today after the quixotic US campaigns in the Middle East is hardly fortuitous.

What I'm getting at is that your narrative is a gross oversimplification of a very complex series of causes and effects, of which there was no "sacred" principle driving them; nor can America hardly be portrayed as holy either in its motives or objectives. The fact that Nazi-Fascism and Stalinist communism were rather "unholy" realities, doesn't mean that the US always came down on the side of virtue and justice. Of course, to affirm that one needs to admit to a wee bit more objectivity than the usual triumphalist rhetoric.

My point was to the other poster who called things like 8th AF bombing campaigns and the UK night only bombing campaigns(inaccurate), and the Nuking of Japan as 'crimes'. Those policies pale in comparison to Hitler's and Hirohito's policies. Why Hirohito wasn't placed on trial is beyond me.

The allie's conduct of WWII was a fight for survival, and the tactics used by the allies were appropriate, IMHO. Berlin would have been nuked if the Germans had not surrendered.

Yes, very complex. And hopefully never to be repeated but I think I'm wrong about that.

 

[hrotha]

The Allies' conduct of WW2 was a fight for survival, being generous, up to 1943, and it so happens most of the things that make people raise an eyebrow about their conduct of the war came later than that.

 

[rhubroma]

My point was to the other poster who called things like 8th AF bombing campaigns and the UK night only bombing campaigns(inaccurate), and the Nuking of Japan as 'crimes'. Those policies pale in comparison to Hitler's and Hirohito's policies. Why Hirohito wasn't placed on trial is beyond me.

The allie's conduct of WWII was a fight for survival, and the tactics used by the allies were appropriate, IMHO. Berlin would have been nuked if the Germans had not surrendered.

Yes, very complex. And hopefully never to be repeated but I think I'm wrong about that.

The brutality of war is not an aliby for the brutality of its consequences. The one is a tragic consequence of the other, but others crimes do not excuse ones own.

I will refrain from speculating on the Dresden bombings, however, the narrative that says that if the US did not nuke Heroshima and Nagasaki, thousands of its own soldiers would have necessarily perished as a result is no longer taken for granted.

There is, consequently, an opposing viewpoint that argues the evidence does not completely back such a narrative and that as a result the decision to bomb the Japanese cities (with the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives this caused) could have been made with other considerations and calculations in mind. Either way the great historical and human burden of the horrific outcome cannot be exclusively placed on the shoulders of the Japanese regime, at least form the point of view of any serious and objective analysis.

Personally the very choice to nuke two cities, no matter what cause, implies a measure of criminal behavior, even from a purely legal "war crimes" perspective. Of course the US is never going to be tried for war crimes, but there is the moral imperative of non-justification for the future of civilization.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

The brutality of war is not an aliby for the brutality of its consequences. The one is a tragic consequence of the other, but others crimes do not excuse ones own.

I will refrain from speculating on the Dresden bombings, however, the narrative that says that if the US did not nuke Heroshima and Nagasaki, thousands of its own soldiers would have necessarily perished as a result is no longer taken for granted.

There is, consequently, an opposing viewpoint that argues the evidence does not completely back such a narrative and that as a result the decision to bomb the Japanese cities (with the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives this caused) could have been made with other considerations and calculations in mind. Either way the great historical and human burden of the horrific outcome cannot be exclusively placed on the shoulders of the Japanese regime, at least form the point of view of any serious and objective analysis.

Personally the very choice to nuke two cities, no matter what cause, implies a measure of criminal behavior, even from a purely legal "war crimes" perspective. Of course the US is never going to be tried for war crimes, but there is the moral imperative of non-justification for the future of civilization.

I don't agree. Far more civilians were killed by conventional bombing. It just took more aircraft and more missions. AND although I have read some accounts who say using a Nuke wasn't necessary, many historical scholars disagree. No way to know if Japan would have surrendered unconditionally w/o the Nukes. Without an invasion also.

I think 'burden' of the strategy of the US and UK CAN be placed on Germany and the Japan. It wasn't pretty, it was horrible but again, given the circumstances, any leader of the US and UK would have made the same decisions

 

[rhubroma]

I don't agree. Far more civilians were killed by conventional bombing. It just took more aircraft and more missions. AND although I have read some accounts who say using a Nuke wasn't necessary, many historical scholars disagree. No way to know if Japan would have surrendered unconditionally w/o the Nukes. Without an invasion also.

I think 'burden' of the strategy of the US and UK CAN be placed on Germany and the Japan. It wasn't pretty, it was horrible but again, given the circumstances, any leader of the US and UK would have made the same decisions

It has nothing to do with the amount of deaths versus conventional weapons (as if any comparison was being made), but with the exponential demonstration of lethal force for the future scenario of power and the global order. The arrival of nuclear warfare was simply the realization of industrial weaponry's lethal potential. The US knew this and chose to "experiment" with that as a power display, as much as to save its own troops lives at land and at sea.

The historians who fall into the camp of exclusive justification and apology are simply awful historians. Blinded by ideology, they have relinquished their abiltiy for objective critical thought to an order that does their thinking for them, about which they are convinced has been the only righteous one in a world otherwise without light. With time this viewpoint is not only stupid, but potentially dangerous.

 

[hrotha]

1. No one here has said conventional carpet bombing wasn't a war crime. Dresden and Tokyo didn't involve any nukes, and both have been mentioned in this thread.

2. The "measure of criminal behaviour" comes not from the death tally, but from the purposeful targeting of civilians for the sake of a show of force.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Why Hirohito wasn't placed on trial is beyond me.

If even something as basic as that is beyond you, maybe time to start reading up?

 

[python]

if the complex ww2 issues are too be sorted out (i'm not talking about reaching an agreement, which is IMPOSSIBLE), the various view points at the events need to be separated and examined through the eyes and on the merit systems of the different viewer....the last series of posts do nothing to advance such approach. rather, they blend and conflate them making the usual mess of the otherwise valid individual angles.

there is a soldier's view of war. this poor soul and his commanders were to kill or be killed. the japanese, american, russian, german soldiers were in the same brutal circumstances. perhaps there were differences of nuance, but to motivate the soldiers, the other side HAD TO inflate the crimes of the other side. all used the war crimes to brutalize their soldiers. it seems to me, the bustedknockles view is a rather straightforward and candid view of a retired soldier. when the view is looked at from a historical perspective, it shows glaring holes...

then, there's a historian's view it is a far more complex and contradictory thing. it requires an analytical bend of mind and, above all, it takes good basic skills in economy, contemporary politics and ethnographic circumstances. besides, the inherent complexity, the very term an 'independent historian' is a self-delusion...that's where i reckon hrotha and rhubroma sit. it's a cool and needed view, but the excessive intellectualizing is its shortcoming, imo

then, there is a history researcher's view that's where i put the author of that der spiegel article i linked to. the subject was an attempt to redress a grossly under research issue of the american soldiers rapes post-war, not the war actions (or crimes if you will) of hiroshima, dresden, nanking etc. several esteemed posters ran with war crimes....

soldiers mistreating each other and the civilians DURING the war is one thing.

a drunk, uncontrolled soldiery mass raping a concurred enemies defenseless women is quite another !

 

[MBotero]

Total war is just that. If Nazi Germany hadn't done the UK blitz, then V1/V2 'terror' weapons, the death camps(or are you a holocaust denier??)'maybe' the allies wouldn't have designed then carried out the 'scorched earth' policy. As for Japan, sorry, I'm one of those who agreed with Truman. Even after fire bombing Tokyo(ya know 'total war'?), Japan wasn't going to surrender. Millions, on both sides would have died in an invasion. The US could have nuked Tokyo, ya know.

BUT after the rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, Kamikazis, treatment and brutal death in Japanese POW camps(highest percentage BY FAR of any POW camp, even German)..along with the horrors of Hitler..not surprised the allies chose this path.

I'm sure Europe would have emerged from the ashes without the US help($$++) but it would have taken decades longer.

Yes, the US AND the UK abandoned eastern europe. With that, I have no argument. BUT any president and leader of the UK, presented with the same circumstances, would have done the same thing. I doubt a war with Russia would have been very popular, in spite of MacArthur.

So total war justifies those acts which were taken place in 1945,when Germany and Japan were winning the warOk everybody can have his opinion about this.

About the Marshall Plan historians have different views,there are some who sustain that the impact in the recovery of post-war Europe was minimal,just saying.

Btw wtf was suppose to be that Holocaust denier insertion,are you making an assumption or is just a slip of the tongue?

 

[red_flanders]

It has nothing to do with the amount of deaths versus conventional weapons (as if any comparison was being made), but with the exponential demonstration of lethal force for the future scenario of power and the global order. The arrival of nuclear warfare was simply the realization of industrial weaponry's lethal potential. The US knew this and chose to "experiment" with that as a power display, as much as to save its own troops lives at land and at sea.

The historians who fall into the camp of exclusive justification and apology are simply awful historians. Blinded by ideology, they have relinquished their abiltiy for objective critical thought to an order that does their thinking for them, about which they are convinced has been the only righteous one in a world otherwise without light. With time this viewpoint is not only stupid, but potentially dangerous.

While clearly the US went to great lengths to learn about and measure the effects of the bomb on the target areas, including selecting areas they thought they could effectively measure, the idea that this was equivalent to the strategic issues around invasion and loss of American life is not supported by any facts of which I'm aware. Further, the use of the word "experiment" suggests some kind of arbitrary use of power.

If you haven't, and I'm in no way suggesting you haven't, Henry Stimson wrote a fairly elaborate justification which discusses the decision. He opens with:

In &#8233]

It's well worth a read: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/eacp/japanworks/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf

Now clearly this isn't the entire discussion and this is a PR piece in Harpers magazine, but it does give insight into the depth of thought around development and deployment, and the strategic imperative with Germany working on a bomb as well.

If you have supporting evidence for the claim that the intent was to "experiment" or that the strategic decision was equally about experimentation and ending the war and avoiding an invasion I would be interested to read it.

If you have further clarification of your remarks which would illuminate the issue, I would be interested. Not looking for argument but discussion. Thanks.

 

[rhubroma]

if the complex ww2 issues are too be sorted out (i'm not talking about reaching an agreement, which is IMPOSSIBLE), the various view points at the events need to be separated and examined through the eyes and on the merit systems of the different viewer....the last series of posts do nothing to advance such approach. rather, they blend and conflate them making the usual mess of the otherwise valid individual angles.

there is a soldier's view of war. this poor soul and his commanders were to kill or be killed. the japanese, american, russian, german soldiers were in the same brutal circumstances. perhaps there were differences of nuance, but to motivate the soldiers, the other side HAD TO inflate the crimes of the other side. all used the war crimes to brutalize their soldiers. it seems to me, the bustedknockles view is a rather straightforward and candid view of a retired soldier. when the view is looked at from a historical perspective, it shows glaring holes...

then, there's a historian's view it is a far more complex and contradictory thing. it requires an analytical bend of mind and, above all, it takes good basic skills in economy, contemporary politics and ethnographic circumstances. besides, the inherent complexity, the very term an 'independent historian' is a self-delusion...that's where i reckon hrotha and rhubroma sit. it's a cool and needed view, but the excessive intellectualizing is its shortcoming, imo

then, there is a history researcher's view that's where i put the author of that der spiegel article i linked to. the subject was an attempt to redress a grossly under research issue of the american soldiers rapes post-war, not the war actions (or crimes if you will) of hiroshima, dresden, nanking etc. several esteemed posters ran with war crimes....

soldiers mistreating each other and the civilians DURING the war is one thing.

a drunk, uncontrolled soldiery mass raping a concurred enemies defenseless women is quite another !

This was my point. Whereas the goal isn't for the historian to be "independent" (utopic, if you will), but objective (which doesn't always mean seeing both sides of the fence, just not always only one - there is a big difference between the two).

The point is that in the flash of an instant tens of thousands of lives were extinguished, which, as it turned out, was the merciful outcome. Tens of thousands more were condemned to atrocious agony before clement death arrived. Against the historical backdrop was a Germany already out of commission by Russia, a Allied liberated Europe and a desperate Japan on its last stand. Any assessment and verdict must take these factors into consideration, as well as the temporary negotiations edge (however fortuitous at the time this may have been, for those that stood to benefit) it gave the US at the bargaining table with Russia.

Now what is certain is that history, from that point, moved rapidly into the nuclear age, the arms race evolved and the stability of the planet has become increasingly difficult to manage, as recent developments attest. Would any of this have been avoided, or put off indefinitely, had a different course of action been taken? Probably not, though this is not for the historian to judge, given that his or her job is to analyze what actually took place for a better critical understanding of the past, with an eye on learning from it for the future.

Unfortunately, the way much history is written contemplates neither objective.

 

[rhubroma]

While clearly the US went to great lengths to learn about and measure the effects of the bomb on the target areas, including selecting areas they thought they could effectively measure, the idea that this was equivalent to the strategic issues around invasion and loss of American life is not supported by any facts of which I'm aware. Further, the use of the word "experiment" suggests some kind of arbitrary use of power.

If you haven't, and I'm in no way suggesting you haven't, Henry Stimson wrote a fairly elaborate justification which discusses the decision. He opens with:



It's well worth a read: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/eacp/japanworks/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf

Now clearly this isn't the entire discussion and this is a PR piece in Harpers magazine, but it does give insight into the depth of thought around development and deployment, and the strategic imperative with Germany working on a bomb as well.

If you have supporting evidence for the claim that the intent was to "experiment" or that the strategic decision was equally about experimentation and ending the war and avoiding an invasion I would be interested to read it.

If you have further clarification of your remarks which would illuminate the issue, I would be interested. Not looking for argument but discussion. Thanks.

Ok, first of all, I deliberately used quotation marks when deploying the term, which implies personal opinion rather than historical "fact."

One thing I will say, however, is that the historical backdrop against which the US government made its decision (see my previous post) to use nuclear force at the time demands that the issue be put forward, as for example the late Howard Zinn has. Though certainly anti-establishment, Zinn nonetheless sincerely tried to provide a serious scholarly history told from the "loosers point of view."

Secondly, if I have understood you correctly, even if I don't have sources in mind, the idea that the issue at stake was to save US lives may have been more propaganda than reality. My point was that, even if this were the case, it certainly was not the only consideration (or, perhaps, not even of real significance) as far as those in power in the political and military industrial/ complex are conserned. Eisenhower's famous subsequent quote, and that he was a republican only adds weight to its prophetic worth, lets us know that such an establishment in the new nuclear age was something to be concerned about; concerns which personally I imagine were already sinisterly at work in 45.

 

[red_flanders]

Ok, first of all, I deliberately used quotation marks when deploying the term, which implies personal opinion rather than historical "fact."

Ok, I thought you were quoting some reference.

One thing I will say, however, is that the historical backdrop against which the US government made its decision (see my previous post) to use nuclear force at the time demands that the issue be put forward, as for example the late Howard Zinn has. Though certainly anti-establishment, Zinn nonetheless sincerely tried to provide a serious scholarly history told from the "loosers point of view."

Secondly, if I have understood you correctly, even if I don't have sources in mind, the idea that the issue at stake was to save US lives may have been more propaganda than reality. My point was that, even if this were the case, it certainly was not the only consideration (or, perhaps, not even of real significance) as far as those in power in the political and military industrial/ complex are conserned. Eisenhower's famous subsequent quote, and that he was a republican only adds weight to its prophetic worth, lets us know that such an establishment in the new nuclear age was something to be concerned about; concerns which personally I imagine were already sinisterly at work in 45.

That's all fine, I just don't think it can be extrapolated that the U.S. objectives were primarily anything but about winning the race to build the bomb and ending the war with Japan as quickly as possible. It's the idea that other considerations or motives were equal or even close that I was surprised to read. I don't read the history that way at all. Thanks.

 

[rhubroma]

Ok, I thought you were quoting some reference.



That's all fine, I just don't think it can be extrapolated that the U.S. objectives were primarily anything but about winning the race to build the bomb and ending the war with Japan as quickly as possible. It's the idea that other considerations or motives were equal or even close that I was surprised to read. I don't read the history that way at all. Thanks.

Well my reference was Zinn. In other words I wan't just fabricating a thought out of a vacuum, so read him if you will.

If you think that the idea was as cut and dry as that, that the other motives were not of serious weight, then I don't really know what to say accept: such a viewpoint goes contrary to how power operates since the time Thucydidis was writing about the Peloponesian War. And, frankly, it is a typically American patriotic way of looking at history in which I don't find much validity.

 

[red_flanders]

Well my reference was Zinn. In other words I wan't just fabricating a thought out of a vacuum, so read him if you will.

If you think that the idea was as cut and dry as that, that the other motives were not of serious weight, then I don't really know what to say accept: such a viewpoint goes contrary to how power operates since the time Thucydidis was writing about the Peloponesian War. And, frankly, it is a typically American patriotic way of looking at history in which I don't find much validity.

I'll have another look at Zinn. My recollection is that he's an ideologue who while brilliant, frames history with a certain view, and seems not to consider the whole picture. Well worth reading as alternate history, but hardly the final word on the question of American motivation to use nuclear weapons.

I don't put any validity in your assertion that my viewpoint is based in American patriotism. It's dismissive without being informed of my background, feelings on American patriotism or my education. I'm a history minor and the son of a history professor who specialized in WWII. I've read a lot on the topic, and believe myself to be fairly un-impressed generally with flag-wavers and other un-critical thinkers.

I simply don't yet see any evidence for the degree with which you ascribe certain motives or considerations in this case.

 

[blutto]

....yeah there is that total war canard that allows an awful lot of unsavoury behaviour to be swept under the carpet but there is also this Nuremburg thingee that was meant to reinforce the idea that even within the context of war there were rules of conduct that must be adhered to ( and then there some damn pieces of paper called the Geneva Conventions )...

...so the bottom line is that if you want to trumpet the exceptional city on the hill idea it would behoove the trumpeter to adhere to some moral standard that makes you better than the other guys that haven't been blessed with exceptional/hill status...to do otherwise is tantamount to rank hypocrisy ( ...read, after WW2 some of the evil bad guys were hung for waterboarding prisoners...haven't heard of anyone lately being held to the same standard...)

Cheers