Subject:
|
Re: Bummer of the Week: LEGO Made in China
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Sep 2001 04:09:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1687 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mladen Pejic writes:
> I don't wanna even touch this one... But I will!
>
> The U.S. bombed Japan to show the U.S.S.R. that they had AND were willing to
> use nuclear weapons.
The initial plan had been to drop one on a relatively untouched
German city, which was questionable to some--a question that
conveniently vanished in May of 1945. There was also some
concern over "why couldn't the bomb have been demonstrated
for a Japanese observer at some unpopulated location?" too,
but in the end the "better use it and make it credible" seems
to have been the deciding factor. Note that they were very
calculating; they crossed Kyoto off the list, expecting that
it would lessen the chances of Japan surrendering and gain
them nothing in return. So it was two parts political calcu-
lation, one part utility.
Think about it:
In terms of actual destructive force--forget about the radiation,
which was an untested (but forecast) part of the equation--the
atomic bombs each killed fewer people than the firebombing of Tokyo
in March 1945 by 300-odd aircraft, and the aircraft and conventional
weapons were much more readily available than the uranium and
plutonium bombs. Also, if it was a matter of expedience, why
make bombs on two different material bases? It's because Japan
was a proving ground.
But...in hindsight, it seemed like the option with the greatest
overall value. Although I allow that its paramount factor was
political, I still think it was, in hindsight, justifiable and
necessary. As weird as that combo sounds, that's how I feel.
> Dang, if you don't know that, go back to high school. ;-)
You learned this interpretation in high school? That's odd.
They usually don't like to throw out really thorny debates,
because really thorny debates tend to bring in angry parents
who are sure they know more than teacher about X or Y (and,
what's worse, they occasionally do ;D ).
> > > I wonder what you would do to an enemy who did this to your country and • people?
> >
> > Did the U.S. slaughter all Japanese and German prisoners of war? Did the
> > British?
No, but the Japanese and Germans didn't do to the US--or to
the UK--what Germany did to Russia. It also wasn't ideological,
but a question of national character for us; we didn't have an
exterminating rhetoric against our foe the way Germany and Russia
had for each other after June 1941. (Man, that little NAP
interlude was just WEIRD--even Ribbentrop commented on its
oddity.)
> The U.S. did drop a bomb on Japan, killed thousands of INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
> There's a difference between executing a fascist follower, who wants to butcher
> people by joining the army, and murdering thousands of innocent people without
> them even knowing it.
Here's where we part ways on interpretation. I'll start it with
a line of questioning: In a total war like WWII, how much is too much?
Who decides? Where do the lines of battle stop?
A second line of enquiry: Was everyone in the German army a
collaborator in Hitler's crimes? Were all Germans who did not
actively oppose their insane dictator? And if so, why weren't
Japanese civilians just as culpable for living their lives, doing
their jobs, and otherwise contributing to the criminal acts of a
given state, in however small a manner?
In short, what makes German draftees any more guilty in war than
Japanese munitions workers, who were equally conscripted and
threatened with punishment for noncompliance? The lines in WWII
were a lot blurrier than they seem. People can only agree on what
was totally and unequivocally monstrous, but beyond that we're
still coming to terms with the war. Witness the Goldhagen/
Browning/etc. debate over the legacy of guilt for the Holocaust,
and the acrimonious debate over whether the Bomb needed to be
used and how we should teach our children about it (Alperovitz,
Linenthal, and others I can't name off the top of my head).
> > > In my laziest response, whatever. Those are your beliefs; I could care less.
> >
> > Then why respond? You have taken just about everything I have said the
> > wrong way - I'm not quite sure why you are being so defensive.
>
> Why do you like to blame the "Commies" so much? Why do you love to point out
> facts which have been stated hundreds of times before?
>
> >
> > And it's, "I couldn't care less."
>
> No, I'm pretty sure it can be said both ways.
I'm totally sure it's a useless phrase in either case,
because either wording is ambiguous as heck. :D
> > And to amplify on the "Evil Commies", Stalin was just as evil as Hitler.
> > That's all I meant. No more no less. Whether or not a country is socialist
> > I don't really care about - ruthless totalitarians I do.
>
> Well, Stalin was probably a murder... But I still think without him the Nazis
> would have overrun the U.S.S.R. To me, even Bush is a bad, evil... er... very
> stupid leader. All leaders screw people over, if you don't believe that, you're
> a sucker. ;-)
I don't know. Without Stalin, Trotsky would probably have been
at the head of the USSR (we can argue this if you like, given that
Trotsky was a great theorist and motivator, but not so great at
cutthroat politicking); with Trotsky, no mid-1930s Army purge;
with Trotsky, no Non-Aggression Pact; with Trostky, a more prepared
Red Army (as he proved so conclusively during the Civil War). Now,
there also would have likely been no NEP after a Trotsky consol-
idation, but also no ideological holy war against the Kulak, which
atomized the Soviet population and drove production down, down, down.
I don't think anyone, from Kamenev to Bukharin to the long-lamented
Kirov, would have matched Stalin's brutality by even the most
distant margin. However, it's also important to note that *all*
took part in and even furthered the trial and execution of "enemies
of the state" during and after the Civil War. They all could stoop
to the methods, but not, I'd argue, to the sheer *degree*.
Now, if you want to propose Stalin dropping dead on 23 June 1941,
you may--but who knows who would have stepped in at that moment?
Lev Beria? Zhukov (who might have been even more effective at
turning the Germans out, but might also have lost the ideological
edge that made the Soviets so determined)? Either way, the Soviet
manufacturing base was well behind the front lines by the time
the Germans were knocking on Moscow's gates. It's a really
intriguing counterfactual, though. I'm interested in what people
think about it.
> Stalin killed people, so did Hitler, so did Mao, so did Saddam, so did FDR
> (Japan), so did Clinton (Yugoslavia)... Just because Hitler and Stalin are the
> top players, doesn't mean that all the other butcherers are excempt... Even one
> human life is important.
Yes, but what if by saving one life, you automatically
sacrifice a thousand the next day? What's the right course
then? I can't agree that all butcheries are equal in the
grand scheme, though I won't deny that they sure all look
equal to the individual dead. But then, isn't society the
basis of everything we hold dear in life? So shouldn't
the determination of what's moral or immoral be based upon
the context?
Just rhetorical rambling, from a 'boomer born 25 years behind
the cohort. :)
all best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bummer of the Week: LEGO Made in China
|
| (...) Do you get kicks out of pointing that out? (sarcasm on) Bruce, tell me something I don't know! (...) Serbia... (...) Suuure. ;-) (sarcasm on yet again) Gee wiz, I feel so safe when the U.S. is around. I love it when they solve a problem (i.e. (...) (23 years ago, 7-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
103 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
