Mutually Assued Destruction? Yeah, I'll Have Some of That!

[richyoung]

in your imaginary world the idea of you being put in a zoo is intrinsically eveil and my reference to it is demonizing my family.

It would be evil if it were true, but it's BS. Are you claiming that ALL Japanese would like to see all non-Japanese in cages? Or MOST of them? Or even MANY? If so, how do you account for their subsequent embrace of baseball, Hello Kitty and all things western? A generation of hardest hard-core racists gave birth to a generation of relatively normal human beings (except for their unaccountable love of noodles and paper walls)?

Even more interesting would be your experience. If 1/10th of what you say is true, then their hatred for half-bloods would exceed their hatred for foreigners. Was that your experience? And if you experienced bigotry wile in Japan, then perhaps it isn't so much a question of your superior grasp of the "eastern mindset," but rather your own personal demons talking.

--Len.

There are 7 classes in Japanese society - with the highest class containing the Emporer's family and such, and the lowest containing common gutter prostitutes, and such.  All 7 classes are Japanese.  Non-Japanese don't even rate in any class or as human beings.  In fact, their word for "foreigner" is the same as "devil".  Much like the Nazis, they considered all other races subhuman.  Infamously, a Japanese doctor carried out a vivisection of an (unanesthetised) chinese girl - who was pregnant with HIS child!  Add in beheading contests, rape of nanking, etc, etc, etc.  As to "Hello Kitty" and such, I would certainly hope things are better NOW - but that's not what we are talking about, is it?

[richyoung]

heck we've killed more in a single nites conventional raid.

I'm not sure that is quite true, I think the Dresden figures were exaggerated initially although they were high. Interesting to ponder on whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were possible without Dresden.

Fire-bombing raids killed more people in one attack than either nuking.  Hard to believe, but true.  The prospect of CONTINUED firebombings, PLUS carrier raids PLUS more nukes PLUS slow starvation coutesy of US subs PLUS [soviet union] "Hey, I wanna play now! [/soviet union] PLUS civil unrest, combined, ended the war.

[Len Budney]

Much like the Nazis, they considered all other races subhuman...

Yet they attempted to surrender, and we nuked them anyway.

[Brad Johnson]

Yet they attempted to surrender

Prove it.

Brad

[Len Budney]

Yet they attempted to surrender

Prove it.

I've already quoted Truman's own diary, a Japanese cable to Berlin, the US Strategic Bombing Survey, MacArthur and Eisenhower. See, for example, post #82 in this thread. If that isn't evidence enough for you, what would constitute "proof"?

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

A cable from the Japanese Emporor meant nothing in military terms.  The people revered the Emporor as a god but the military had power.  Period.  The Emperor could have signed all the peace documents in the world and the military would have continued fighting.

The Japanese did not attempt to surrender.  The Emperor made an appeal for peace.  The two are not the same and you know it.

Try again.

Brad

[Len Budney]

A cable from the Japanese Emporor meant nothing in military terms.  The people revered the Emporor as a god but the military had power.  Period.

Um, proof?

I quoted, like, actual people. Including the man who actually ordered the bombing himself. You've so far only quoted your talking belly button.

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

A cable from the Japanese Emporor meant nothing in military terms.  The people revered the Emporor as a god but the military had power.  Period.

Um, proof?
--Len.

Um, like cultural history?

Brad

[Len Budney]

A cable from the Japanese Emporor meant nothing in military terms.  The people revered the Emporor as a god but the military had power.  Period.

Um, proof?

Um, like cultural history?

Citations? Random noun phrases don't constitute proof. You can say "cultural history," and I can reply "metonymous psycohistory." To which you can of course counter "applied zenobiology." To constitute proof, you need to present evidence.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

Much like the Nazis, they considered all other races subhuman...

Yet they attempted to surrender, and we nuked them anyway.

Do you have any idea how many people in history have said "We surrender!" as a distraction while they took a moment to reload, regroup, or reorganize, hoping the enemy would fall for it?

Determining whether it's a ruse or an actual attempt at surrender involves verifying that all military units had ceased fighting and had laid down arms in all senses of the word...which they certainly had not!

[Len Budney]

Do you have any idea how many people in history have said "We surrender!" as a distraction while they took a moment to reload, regroup, or reorganize, hoping the enemy would fall for it?

Your observation might justify caution. It certainly doesn't justify a nuclear frickin' strike. When you fight with your neighbor and he offers to desist, do you watch him closely, or do you blow two of his kids away with a twelve gauge just to make sure?

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

Len, you are creepy sometimes.  Literate, intense, and very dedicated to your cause, but creepy.

It is accepted history that, prior to and during WWII, the Japanese people revered the emperor as a humanized deity.  A godhead.  On a strictly technical level the emperor had social and political power commiserate with his status and station.  

In reality, however, the Japanese military was calling the shots, often using the emperor as a puppet in order to keep social order with the general populace.  In other words the military ran the show.  They hid behind the emperor, pulling his strings as needed to keep the Japanese people on their side.  The military wasn't about to give up, give in, or give anything, for that matter.  They were, by all accounts, prepared to fight to the death, using the general populace as buffer and shield if needed.

You want quotes?  Study history like I did.  It's full of them.

Brad

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

rich young it appears you have some practical experience with japan  and i mean other than a few grad students. its very difficult for ganjin to understand. i was raised japanese by mom and my asiatic dad and i was in my 30's before i was able to bend my mind that way.


and the "old thinking" is just now really truly fading under a wave of "americanization"   a fact that saddens me.
a truly classic example of the 2 mindsets was my moms funeral. she killed herself in fairly late stages of cancer. and the emotions and attitudes amongst the mourners was split along cultural lines. i felt bad for the round eyes  they were so uncomfortable  visibly winced when the word suicide was used  seemed embarassed for me and confused by my acceptance of it. even amongst us kids we split  my sisters are more americanized and hung with the white folks. my brother and i were with the japanese folks and there was a level of comfort and acceptance that kept me sane.
when she was near the end she tryed to help dad pick a new wife. brought her single japanese friends by for dinner with dad. an interview as it were. my american friend freak when i tell them. the idea of being that commited to the greater good at the sacrifice of your own immediate desires is sadly not a big feature of american culture.i think it was mark twain who said "the inability to see is mans most common failing" and lens demonstrating today. thats also not a good or bad thing it just is. "pappy" boyington had a decent understanding of the japanes and wrote of it. tough  school a pow camp

 

[Len Budney]

It is accepted history that, prior to and during WWII, the Japanese people revered the emperor as a humanized deity.

Right. Not in question.

In reality, however, the Japanese military was calling the shots, often using the emperor as a puppet...

Even ONE quote demonstrating that would be helpful. But I merely point out that Truman, MacArthur, Eisenhower and practically everyone else at the time saw things differently than you did. They considered the nuclear bomb unnecessary, and then dropped it anyway. Even if they were wrong, they believed that it wasn't necessary to accomplish Japan's surrender, and they dropped it anyway. Now THAT'S creepy.

--Len.

[Scout26]

Len,

I'm going to follow my father's advice.  "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Len Budney]

I'm going to follow my father's advice.  "Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

No problem. If, rather than discuss actual evidence from the people who actually made the decision, you'd rather call me a pig and ignore me, that's your prerogative. It's interesting how many strong proponents of the right AND the left are alike in this behavior, though. And each likes to accuse the other of "refusing delivery on the facts." 

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

Truman, MacArthur, Eisenhower and practically everyone else at the time saw things differently than you did. They considered the nuclear bomb unnecessary, and then dropped it anyway.

So, the three people most able to abort the mission, including the very person who made the final decision to go, decided to use nuclear weapons even thought they didn't feel it necessary.

Um, okay.  

Brad

[Len Budney]

So, the three people most able to abort the mission, including the very person who made the final decision to go, decided to use nuclear weapons even thought they didn't feel it necessary.

MacArthur is on record having opposed it consistently. Evidence is quite strong that Truman opted to do it to send a message to Stalin. But you're dodging the point: the evidence that they did consider it unnecessary to the defeat of Japan is already on the record here. And instead of refuting it (which of course you can't) you attempt to argue that it sounds implausible--despite the evidence that it is in fact true.

--Len.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

it  takes a special kinda commitment and beliefr in ones self to continue to believe in the face of the contrary experience of others. more so when you have so lil experience in a topic by comparison. i too once was aqble to do it. but the futher i got from the campus magic kingdom the less able in this regard i become   experience can be a cuel thing

[Brad Johnson]

Evidence is quite strong that Truman opted to do it to send a message to Stalin.

We've had over six decades to sort out the informational wheat from the chaff and all you can come up with is "quite strong"?

 

Brad

[Len Budney]

it  takes a special kinda commitment and beliefr in ones self to continue to believe in the face of the contrary experience of others.

Because I believe MacArthur over your "experience"? If you study up on the difference between primary sources, secondary sources, and navel-gazing BS, you'll learn that MacArthur's own words, and Truman's diary, are what we call "primary sources." Your assurance that they would never have surrendered without being nuked because "you know these people, and they are absolute in their racism and fanaticism" is... um... not a "primary source."

but the futher i got from the campus magic kingdom the less able in this regard i become   experience can be a cuel thing

How old are you, and when did you finish your PhD? It's possible you're older than I, but I think you've leaped to a conclusion or two here. Not that it matters, since personal slams are ignored anyway.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

We've had over six decades to sort out the informational wheat from the chaff and all you can come up with is "quite strong"?

You've had five pages to offer a shred of proof, and all you can come up with is "go read history books"? 

Hint: Truman wasn't Catholic. But even if he were, and even if he confessed on his deathbed to the precise reasons for nuking Japan, his father confessor would be required to keep that confidence. So absolute certainty what was in his mind at the time disappeared when Truman returned to the dust from whence he was taken.

We'll never know the precise motivation for Bush's invasion of Iraq, either. In 1994, Cheney accurately predicted the failure of the 2003 invasion, as did lots of other people before the invasion began. We know he didn't do it to damage Al Qaeda, because everyone knew Al Qaeda wasn't there before the invasion. But we'll never know exactly what he was thinking.

Anyone who claims certainty is selling something.

--Len.

[Brad Johnson]

Len, your tinfoil is a bit tight.

Brad

[Len Budney]

Len, your tinfoil is a bit tight.

You realize that personal insults (1) are against the policy of this forum, (2) can get you banned, (3) don't bother me, and (4) make you look pathetic. Right?

[Brad Johnson]

Len, your tinfoil is a bit tight.

You realize that personal insults (1) are against the policy of this forum, (2) can get you banned, (3) don't bother me, and (4) make you look pathetic. Right?

That's nice.  I seem to remember a crack about my overly verbose bellybutton.  So what was it about those rules, again...?

Brad