Subject:
|
Re: Lego Holocaust art (Was: can someone help me identify these parts?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 02:03:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
838 times
|
| |
|
|
Scott Edward Sanburn wrote:
> No offense, but this is so erroneous, I cannot even begin to verbalize, but I
> will try anyway:
>
> Why do we have official "apologies" for so many things? I cannot begin to think
> we the United States or anyone else for that matter should apologize outside of
> 1) People as a whole who did the atrocities in the first place (Such as Nazi
> Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan) or 2) Individuals who did them
> (Hitler, Mussolini (sp?), Third Reich Members, etc.) for what happened in World
> War II. The japanese were the ones that destroyed Pearl Harbor, killing innocent
> civilians, plus military personnel.
Pearl Harbor wasn't destroyed. Messed up, yes. But vital strategic assets were
untouched--the oil tank farms most prominently. Had those been knocked out, it
would have taken the USN *years* to rebuild those fuel oil stocks. The sub pens,
too--and it was ComSubPac (and its precursors/departments) more than any other
single service arm that was responsible for bringing the Japanese economy to a halt.
> We had to respond, and we did. The United
> States had invasion plans for the mainland of Japan, and were gearing up for
> that until the nuclear bombs were ready and the go ahead was ordered. Wars are
> not nice, are not friendly, and most of all, not politically correct. When you
> fight a war, to win, you use whatever means necessary in order to do that.
> Estimates were over 1 million to two million Allies casualties, and the
> estimates for winning were from 1948 to 1950!
This doesn't jibe with extant evidence. It's a well-perpetuated myth--what
estimates existed said that the US could expect ~100,000 casualties, and that the
war might last one additional year. It feels good to say we saved millions and
millions of lives; in fact, more may have died in an invasion than did die from the
bombs, but it's just as likely that the Japanese would have negotiated a surrender
without either. The only condition they wanted was preservation of the Emperor,
which they ended up getting anyhow despite the "unconditional" label put on the
surrender. Trouble is, a lot of the documents are still classified; I don't believe
that there's anything to apologize for, but it's silly to pretend that the atomic
bombs were anything but brutal tools to an end...
> The nuclear weapons ended Japans
> ability to respond, and they surrendered. Yes it was horrible, yes it was
> tragic, but it was war. The Japanese started it, we finished it. Pure and
> simple. We do not need to apologize.
That said, the end wasn't the defeat of Japan. James Byrne (Secretary of State)
was much more interested in the deterrent effect the atomic bomb would have on the
Soviet Union. See, the Japanese knew something was up, and made overtures long
before the bombs were dropped. A simple demonstration over a purely military
target--or a deserted area--would have sufficed for most of the Japanese military
and civilian leaders (die-hard Tojo inner-circle members--who tried to stage a coup
in August anyhow--notwithstanding). The willingness to use the bomb was vital to
show the Soviets, because they would be the next target. The plans for a winter
1945-46 bombing campaign in the Soviet Far East have already come to light, even if
they were merely academic.
I agree, we don't need to apologize, but I disagree that the bombs were anything
but realpolitik that traded Japanese civilian lives for an uncertain policy
objective. It wasn't about Japan, it was about the USSR. I don't agree with him
100%, but Gar Alperovitz assembles most of the information in _The Decision to Use
the Atomic Bomb_ (give or take a preposition). Japan's ability to "respond" ended
in late 1944, in the Philippine Sea and at Leyte Gulf.
> Speaking of getting stuff off our chests, how about our wonderful
> Perjurer-as-Chief, Bill Clinton, apologizing for slavery. Did he have something
> to do with it? Or is it yet another attempt by this administration to get a
> photo op? Does it make a difference? No. Does it help anyone? No. Does it affect
> people today? Only for a political tool. Oh wait, that is what this president
> always uses. What a joke. Ugh! Now to eat lunch and find some solace in some
> bricks.
He didn't actually apologize for slavery, did he? It would simply contribute to
the "us vs. them" environment. "We" need to apologize to "them." Ugh. Sherman
didn't apologize for burning Atlanta, did he? And we're all still "us."
LFB.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
54 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
