 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / March 2009What is the meaning of "buck"?
Hi, I do not understand the meaning of the word: "buck" in the last sentence. Could you explain it and the associated context for me? Thank. President Barack Obama, who took office just under two months ago, told reporters Wednesday that his administration was not responsible for a lack of federal supervision of AIG that preceded the company's demise. But Obama added, "The buck stops with me." > Hi, > I do not understand the meaning of the word: "buck" in the last [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > But Obama added, "The buck stops with me." It has a meaning, but it's not important. The whole sentence is a standard one, which means "In the end, I am responsible". That is to day, he is the top of the tree of authority.  SignatureDavid >> Hi, >> I do not understand the meaning of the word: "buck" in the last [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > standard one, which means "In the end, I am responsible". That is to > day, he is the top of the tree of authority. Hum, I meant "That is to say ..." SignatureDavid F.L.: > > But Obama added, "The buck stops with me." "David": > It has a meaning, but it's not important. The whole sentence is a > standard one, which means "In the end, I am responsible". Correct. Obama is following the lead of Harry Truman, who was president from 1945 until 1953, and had a sign on his desk reading "The buck stops here." As David said, the original meaning is not important, but it refers to an old custom in poker where a buckknife was placed on the table by the dealer. When it was the next person's turn to deal, you "passed the buck". So the term "passing the buck" came to mean getting rid of responsibility by saying someone else was responsible. And, by extension, the person where "the buck stops" is the one who has responsibility in the end. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | Do not meddle in the affairs of undefined behavior, msb@vex.net | for it is subtle and quick to anger. My text in this article is in the public domain. > F.L.: >> > But Obama added, "The buck stops with me." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > extension, the person where "the buck stops" is the one who has > responsibility in the end. The "buck" is evidently older than the Buck knife: The History Of The 99-Year-Old Buck Knife - Popular Mechanics The Buck Knife story began in 1902, in Kansas, with the curiosity and imagination in the fertile mind of a 13-year-old apprentice blacksmith named Hoyt Heath Buck... www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/adventures/1277451.html Buck passing or passing the buck is the action of transferring responsibility or blame onto another person. It is also used as a strategy in power politics when the actions of one country/nation are blamed on another, providing an opportunity for war. The latter expression is said to have originated with the game of poker, in which a marker or counter, frequently in frontier days a knife with a buckhorn handle, was used to indicate the person whose turn it was to deal. If the player did not wish to deal he could pass the responsibility by passing the "buck", as the counter came to be called, to the next player. Wikipedia >> F.L.: >>>> But Obama added, "The buck stops with me." >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Wikipedia Here's M-W Online's take on it: Main Entry: 4buck Function: noun Etymology: short for earlier buckhorn knife Date: 1865 1: an object formerly used in poker to mark the next player to deal; broadly : a token used as a mark or reminder 2: responsibility - used especially in the phrases /pass the buck/ and /the buck stops here/ SignatureSkitt (in SF Bay Area) www.geocities.com/opus731/ > F.L.: >>> But Obama added, "The buck stops with me." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > extension, the person where "the buck stops" is the one who has > responsibility in the end. Although there are other theories eg in OED: "1887 J. W. Keller Draw Poker 38 They resort to the bold and ludicrous experiment of 'passing the buck'. The 'buck' is any inanimate object, usually knife or pencil, which is thrown into a jack pot and temporarily taken by the winner of the pot. Whenever the deal reaches the holder of the 'buck', a new jack pot must be made." Pam Ayres had an entirely different take: I am a bunny rabbit, Sittin in me hutch, I like to sit up this end, I don't care for that end, much, I'm glad tomorrow's Thursday, 'Cause with a bit of luck, As far as I remember, That's the day they pass the buck. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >Pam Ayres had an entirely different take: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >As far as I remember, >That's the day they pass the buck. Doh! SignaturePaul >> Pam Ayres had an entirely different take: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > Doh! Good one! >>> Pam Ayres had an entirely different take: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Doh! > Good one! I wonder how much of Pam Ayres's power lies in her voice and enunciation. I'd love to hear one of her good ones for the first time recited, without attribution, by somebody else, just to find out a) if it was still funny, and b) if I'd recognize it as one of hers (I think most of us would). If I /did/ recognize the author, I'm quite sure my mind would swap her voice in, just as it did, loud and clear, as I read the above. Supplementary wonder: does she have the same merry-making effect on people who aren't familiar with a range of British regional accents? SignatureMike. >>>> Pam Ayres had an entirely different take: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Supplementary wonder: does she have the same merry-making effect on >people who aren't familiar with a range of British regional accents? Yes. It's remarkably hard *not* to hear this one, especially " I don't care for that end, -- much" -- in her voice. I'd certainly be interested in participating in an experiment. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > >>>> Pam Ayres had an entirely different take: > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > -- in her voice. I'd certainly be interested in participating in an > experiment. I see they're bringing back the Cadbury's Caramel Bunny. Infinitely sexier than Jessica Rabbit. DC -- >> >>>> Pam Ayres had an entirely different take: >> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >I see they're bringing back the Cadbury's Caramel Bunny. Infinitely >sexier than Jessica Rabbit. Nibble, nibble. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Hi, > I do not understand the meaning of the word: "buck" in the last [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > But Obama added, "The buck stops with me." There is an expression "to pass the buck", which means to avoid responsiblity by passing it on to someone else. US President Harry S Truman famously had a sign on his desk which read "The buck stops here"; in other words, ultimate responsbility (for government actions) rest with the current president. Sounds like Obama is picking the idea up. DC -- >Hi, >I do not understand the meaning of the word: "buck" in the last [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >But Obama added, "The buck stops with me." It comes from a phrase "to pass the buck", which means to hold someone else responsible for a state of affairs. Some US president (F.D. Roosevelt?) is reputed to have had a sign on his desk that read "the buck stops here". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> Hi, >> I do not understand the meaning of the word: "buck" in the last [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Some US president (F.D. Roosevelt?) is reputed to have had a sign on > his desk that read "the buck stops here". It was Harry Truman, as someone else has already mentioned. >>> Hi, >>> I do not understand the meaning of the word: "buck" in the last [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >It was Harry Truman, as someone else has already mentioned. Yes, I saw that later. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> Hi, >>> I do not understand the meaning of the word: "buck" in the last [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >It was Harry Truman, as someone else has already mentioned. That'll be good old Harry S Truman, where the S stands, not for Shameful, but for nothing, who was responsible for dropping not one, but two nuclear bombs on the citizens of Japan in the closing months of World War II. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>> Hi, >>>> I do not understand the meaning of the word: "buck" in the last [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > but two nuclear bombs on the citizens of Japan in the closing months > of World War II. And how long had he been President? Has anyone done a study of VPs-become-Ps to find out how eager they are to use the power vested in them after years of frustration and being "kept out of the loop"? Or maybe it isn't the sudden access of power that goes to their heads, but the left-behind eager beavers hired by their predecessors. FDR authorized everything but the actual test and deployment. We don't know what he would have done had he not died. Would JFK have invented a Gulf of Tonkin incident (especially considering the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs)? >>>>> Hi, >>>>> I do not understand the meaning of the word: "buck" in the last [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >And how long had he been President? At the time of the use of nuclear bombs Truman had been president for about four months. >Has anyone done a study of VPs-become-Ps to find out how eager they are >to use the power vested in them after years of frustration and being >"kept out of the loop"? Truman was vice-president only for a few months. He had been an influential Senator before that. I don't think he was particularly frustrated by not being let in on the secret of the Manhattan Project prior to his ascendancy to president. >Or maybe it isn't the sudden access of power that goes to their heads, >but the left-behind eager beavers hired by their predecessors. I don't know where you're going with this, but the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a very popular decision at the time. It's very easy now, over sixty years later, to express 20-20 hindsight, but I'm not so certain it was, even with that hindsight, the wrong thing to do. >FDR authorized everything but the actual test and deployment. I assume that the test at Trinity was a logical extension of the Manhattan Project mission, and if FDR never explicitly said "go" for the test I should think he didn't really need to. >We don't know what he would have done had he not died. No. We don't know, and can't know. What's your point? >Would JFK have invented a Gulf of Tonkin incident (especially >considering the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs)? The Bay of Pigs was largely "invented" by Eisenhower andwas foisted on JFK by the military about three months after he took office; JFK didn't "invent" it, and afterward he expressed his regrets about listening to the four-stars. His later conduct during the Missiles of October crisis seems to indicate a certain forebearance on his part. It is idle speculation to wonder what he would have done if the military had tried to foist off the Gulf of Tonkin affair on him. The real question there is whether LBJ was aware that it was a non-incident adn cynically used it. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> "Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote >>>>> Some US president (F.D. Roosevelt?) is reputed to have had a sign >>>>> on his desk that read "the buck stops here". [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> Or maybe it isn't the sudden access of power that goes to their >> heads, but the left-behind eager beavers hired by their predecessors. (snipped Hatunen opinion about rightness or wrongness of wartime use of A-bomb) >> FDR authorized everything but the actual test and deployment. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No. We don't know, and can't know. What's your point? Didn't I say, back in the first paragraph? >> Would JFK have invented a Gulf of Tonkin incident (especially >> considering the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs)? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > during the Missiles of October crisis seems to indicate a certain > forebearance on his part. I'm just saying. After the mess at the Bay of Pigs, would JFK really have jumped right into a war in Vietnam? > It is idle speculation to wonder what he would have done if the > military had tried to foist off the Gulf of Tonkin affair on him. Right. But, once bitten, twice shy. > The real question there is whether LBJ was aware that it was a > non-incident adn cynically used it. Well, he's dead and gone, so why is your question any more valid? >>>>> "Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >>> We don't know what he would have done had he not died. That's why I'm expressing it as a surmise. >> No. We don't know, and can't know. What's your point? >Didn't I say, back in the first paragraph? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I'm just saying. After the mess at the Bay of Pigs, would JFK really >have jumped right into a war in Vietnam? Personally, I doubt it. I was in the US Army Nov 1960 to Sept 1963 and I saw little to indicate that JFK might be sending us to Viet Nam. In fact, I ad friends who were volunterring for MAAG Saigon because it was a good way to make some extra stripes. On the other hand, we were put on alert when the Berlin Wall was going up, and I was given tropical vaccines and orders to Key West in Oct 1962. >> It is idle speculation to wonder what he would have done if the >> military had tried to foist off the Gulf of Tonkin affair on him. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Well, he's dead and gone, so why is your question any more valid? It isn't. Although, as with the Pentagon Papers and the Nixon recordings, there just might be some sort of archive somewhere.... Has anyone asked McNamara? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: >>>> Hi, >>>> I do not understand the meaning of the word: "buck" in the last [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> It was Harry Truman, as someone else has already mentioned. > That'll be good old Harry S Truman, where the S stands, not > for Shameful, but for nothing, who was responsible for > dropping not one, but two nuclear bombs on the citizens of > Japan in the closing months of World War II. I fervently hope nuclear weapons will never be used again but, if the US people had been asked to vote in 1945 on whether the atomic bomb should be used to prevent an estimated 500 000 US casualities in an invasion of Japan, I am pretty sure what would have been the answer. I'm not saying that I believe that estimate of US casualities was corrrect but it was the number predicted at the time. As it was, the total number of deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was about 250 000 and worldwide illnesses due to radiation should be added. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: >> That'll be good old Harry S Truman, where the S stands, not >> for Shameful, but for nothing, who was responsible for >> dropping not one, but two nuclear bombs on the citizens of >> Japan in the closing months of World War II. Some might argue that they were the "closing months of World War II" only because the bombs were dropped. OTOH, I agree that one bomb would have achieved the same result. I read somewhere that two different types of bomb were dropped to see which was more effective. > I fervently hope nuclear weapons will never be used again but, if the US > people had been asked to vote in 1945 on whether the atomic bomb should [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was about 250 000 and worldwide illnesses due > to radiation should be added. The other point is that, before the bomb was used, nobody really knew how destructive they would be. In the sense of "an ill wind", Hiroshima and Nagasake certainly added to the credibility of the nuclear deterrent. SignatureLes (BrE) >> Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Hiroshima and Nagasake certainly added to the credibility of the > nuclear deterrent. While being *relatively* small. I've often wondered what would have happened had they not been dropped, but it had become known during the next war that the US had had a weapon that would have made the Invasion of Japan unnecessary. The first one dropped on a city might well have been a hydrogen bomb. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Marge: You liked Rashomon. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Homer: That's not how *I* remember Palo Alto, CA 94304 | it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > next war that the US had had a weapon that would have made the > Invasion of Japan unnecessary. An invasion of Japan was unnecessary anyway. See <http://books.google.com/books?id=3MbPjwLTt8wC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=jap an+surrender+dulles&source=bl&ots=tfTmA0aFc5&sig=NRxp96NECN18v3MWgcGYTyE Ke2c&hl=en&ei=fX7ESfCCDZOD-AbF4dTlBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=res ult#PPA117,M1> for example. Page of <http://books.google.com/books?id=3MbPjwLTt8wC> The problem was the USA, (which was locked in its own propaganda) not Japan. One may argue for the opposite position: the war might have ended sooner without the bomb becoming available, for in that case the USA would have been forced to give more serious thought to the question of how to end the war. > The first one dropped on a city might > well have been a hydrogen bomb. That is quite unlikely. The USA developped hydrogen bombs in response to the Russians having the bomb too. By the time H-bombs could have been a deliverable weapons system (in sufficient quantity) MAD would have applied just as well. Jan > An invasion of Japan was unnecessary anyway. > See [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (which was locked in its own propaganda) > not Japan. Guys: It's boring enough for the rest of the world that every international newsgroup is used for current US political spats, but we try to tolerate it. Please, though, can you find somewhere else for refighting the 60 year-old ones? SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > > An invasion of Japan was unnecessary anyway. > > See [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > international newsgroup is used for current US political spats, but we > try to tolerate it. I didn't bring the subject up. Chuck Riggs (who may be an American) did. Others continued with direct references to Hiroshima before I posted anything. > Please, though, can you find somewhere else for > refighting the 60 year-old ones? In the long term it is the USA which has to come to terms with its past. It is way behind the British and the Germans in this respect. This is an American problem, and only the Americans can do something about it. WW II won't be really over, and relations between the USA and Japan can't be completely normal untill an American president can go to Hiroshima to lay a wreath and speak some appropriate words of regret. (diplomatically crafted for the occasion with great care of course) It will happen eventually, but count on another 30 years at least. Americans could do well to look for an example to Britain, which is more than halfway there with respect to 'Dresden'. Best, Jan >> > An invasion of Japan was unnecessary anyway. >> > See [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Others continued with direct references to Hiroshima >before I posted anything. He addressed "Guys". Which part of that did you think meant only you? >> Please, though, can you find somewhere else for >> refighting the 60 year-old ones? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >This is an American problem, >and only the Americans can do something about it. Oddly enough, I don't know anyone in this country that thinks we have something to come to terms with. Of clurse, I only knew a cvery, very small fraction of Americans, but I do read widely in current events and I see nothing there, either. >WW II won't be really over, >and relations between the USA and Japan >can't be completely normal >untill an American president can go to Hiroshima >to lay a wreath and speak some appropriate words of regret. That will probably happen sooner than the Japanese PM comes to Pearl Harbor and lays a wreath on the USS Arizona and speaks some appropriate words of regret. >(diplomatically crafted for the occasion with great care of course) >It will happen eventually, but count on another 30 years at least. Actually, relations between the USA and Japan are pretty normal now. >Americans could do well to look for an example to Britain, >which is more than halfway there with respect to 'Dresden'. I don't think we want to get into British examples about World War II. (I'm currently reading _The Drift to War 1922-39_, by Richard Lamb). Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> > An invasion of Japan was unnecessary anyway. >> > See [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Others continued with direct references to Hiroshima > before I posted anything. I never said you did. I addressed the newsgroup. Usage point: that's what "guys" means. > Americans could do well to look for an example to Britain, > which is more than halfway there with respect to 'Dresden'. I asked to take ancient US politics out of AUE. I *didn't* ask, and don't appreciate, an attempt to turn it into global politics. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > >> > An invasion of Japan was unnecessary anyway. > >> > See [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I never said you did. I addressed the newsgroup. Usage point: that's > what "guys" means. Nevertheless, you selected my posting for addressing the group, so I feel free to respond. > > Americans could do well to look for an example to Britain, > > which is more than halfway there with respect to 'Dresden'. > > I asked to take ancient US politics out of AUE. I *didn't* ask, and > don't appreciate, an attempt to turn it into global politics. You are being hypocritical. At least 90% of the volume of alt.usage.english is not related to English usage in a strict sense. You nerver complained, until Hiroshima came up, Jan >> I asked to take ancient US politics out of AUE. I *didn't* ask, and >> don't appreciate, an attempt to turn it into global politics. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You nerver complained, until Hiroshima came up, My God, how do you *walk* with that chip? Do you really believe that, or are you just trolling. Nick, wondering whether plonking a nutter is better than plonking a troll. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > >> I asked to take ancient US politics out of AUE. I *didn't* ask, and > >> don't appreciate, an attempt to turn it into global politics. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > My God, how do you *walk* with that chip? Do you really believe that, > or are you just trolling. You -do- read alt.usage.english? And can't you cook? Jan > > Please, though, can you find somewhere else for > > refighting the 60 year-old ones? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (diplomatically crafted for the occasion with great care of course) > It will happen eventually, but count on another 30 years at least. It would probably help towards that process if the Japanese government stopped sanctioning the rewriting of history books. DC -- >> An invasion of Japan was unnecessary anyway. >> See [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >try to tolerate it. Please, though, can you find somewhere else for >refighting the 60 year-old ones? I was thinking the same thing, and I'm a USAn. How in the hell did the meaning of buck turn into refighting WWII? > >> An invasion of Japan was unnecessary anyway. > >> See [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I was thinking the same thing, and I'm a USAn. How in the hell did > the meaning of buck turn into refighting WWII? Harry S Truman and 'the buck stops here'. Not that huge a jump. DC -- > >> An invasion of Japan was unnecessary anyway. > >> See [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I was thinking the same thing, and I'm a USAn. How in the hell did > the meaning of buck turn into refighting WWII? See this thread. And refighting isn't the point, which was that Americans must still come to terms with their role in it. An example of the American unease about it all occurred in 1994, when the Smithsonian thought that (50 years after) it would be a good idea to show Enola Gay, with some explanatory text putting what happened in a balanced historical context. All hell broke loose, with indignant veteran organizations making lots of noise about the presentation not presenting a one-sided American view, and mentioning Japanese casualties too much. In the end the reponsible director of the Smithsonian had to resign. I remember a cartoon from the period (in Nature?) showing a mummy dragging a curious kiddie past a plane. 'What's that Mummy?' 'Nothing special dear, just another aeroplane.' And that's just what happened aterwards. Enola Gay is on display, as 'just another aeroplane', [1] with no more explanation of what it is and was than just the technicalities. (like any other plane on view) The only (and largely invisible) difference with 'just another aeroplane' is said to be the extensive anti-vandalism protection. Best, Jan [1] At the National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, near Dulles International Airport, Washington, D.C. >And refighting isn't the point, >which was that Americans must still come to terms [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >about the presentation not presenting a one-sided American view, >and mentioning Japanese casualties too much. That response is common. It is not limited to presentations of the use of nuclear weapons. People who were in a battle of any size, large or small, can be upset at a two-sided depiction of it. This is totally understandable. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >And refighting isn't the point, > >which was that Americans must still come to terms [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > This is totally understandable. It is not the rule. In most museum-like presentations of battles the other side is usually praised for their courage, and braveness, which ultimately was of no avail, for of course our even braver soldiers beat them. You increase your own stature as winners by increasing that of your opponents who lost. The problem in the case of Hiroshima is that there were no opponents, only defenseless civilians being mass-murdered at the push of a button. The only skill that Paul Tibbets really needed was getting away from it as fast as possible, Jan >An example of the American unease about it all >occurred in 1994, when the Smithsonian thought that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >and mentioning Japanese casualties too much. >In the end the reponsible director of the Smithsonian had to resign. Nonsense. The fracas occured in 1994, Smithsonian Secretary Michael Heyman resigned in 1999. But Martin Harwit, director of te National Air and Space Museum did resign about a year later. The fracas was a result of making it appear that both the USA and Japan were equally immoral (or moral, depending on your point of view). Most of the protests originated with WW2 veterans groups. >I remember a cartoon from the period (in Nature?) >showing a mummy dragging a curious kiddie past a plane. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >than just the technicalities. >(like any other plane on view) I don't believe that's true. And the Smithsonian NASM web pages say that it was on exhibition "Enola Gay "This exhibition, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, told the story of the role of the Enola Gay in securing Japanese surrender. It contained several major components of the Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber used in the atomic mission that destroyed Hiroshima, Japan. The components on display included two engines, the vertical stabilizer, an aileron, propellers, and the forward fuselage that contains the bomb bay. "A video presentation about the Enola Gay's mission included interviews with the crew before and after the mission including mission pilot Col. Paul Tibbets. The exhibition text summarized the history and development of the Boeing B-29 fleet used in bombing raids against Japan. "Another portion of the exhibit detailed the painstaking efforts of Smithsonian aircraft restoration specialists who had spent more than a decade restoring parts of the Enola Gay for this exhibition. Museum specialists continued to restore the remaining components of the airplane, and after an additional nine years the fully assembled Enola Gay went on permanent display at the National Air and Space Museums Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in December 2003. "This exhibition was on display in Gallery 103 from June 28, 1995 to May 17, 1998" I don't see why you think tis makes the plane "invisible". See http://collections.nasm.si.edu/media/full/A19500100000cp07.jpg Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > I don't believe that's true. And the Smithsonian NASM web pages > say that it was on exhibition [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > aileron, propellers, and the forward fuselage that contains the > bomb bay." <snip> > I don't see why you think tis makes the plane "invisible". See > http://collections.nasm.si.edu/media/full/A19500100000cp07.jpg The reason only part of the airplane was displayed was simple lack of space at the downtown museum. The complete airplane is now on display at the huge new museum out near Dulles airport. Photo at http://web.me.com/john.varela/temp/20041226.jpg. Also visible: Hawker Hurricane, F6F Hellcat, P38 Lightning. I took this photo four years ago; there are a lot more airplanes in there now. It's a great museum if you like airplanes; doesn't amount to much if you don't. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>An example of the American unease about it all >>occurred in 1994, when the Smithsonian thought that [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > I don't see why you think tis makes the plane "invisible". See > http://collections.nasm.si.edu/media/full/A19500100000cp07.jpg The Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton Ohio has Bock's Car the plane that nuked Nagasaki on display. The AFM beats the A&S museum for collection and display of historic aircraft. >>> An example of the American unease about it all >>> occurred in 1994, when the Smithsonian thought that [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > The AFM beats the A&S museum for collection and display of historic > aircraft. 113KB clunky panorama showing some of the outdoor collection at March Field Air Museum http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/396104481_3aeca9b9d8_o.jpg Inside several hangars are exhibits of smaller aircraft, as well as a portion of a B-47 so you can try on a cockpit for size. There is a P-38 undergoing restoration, indoors. Nice place to spend an afternoon, if you're a 'plane fan. http://www.marchfield.org/ I'm going to miss the "SR-71 Blackbird weekend" March 28 and 29, although I'll be just down the road in Riverside. It's "Legends of Riverside International Raceway weekend" at the Riverside International Automotive Museum. http://www.riversideinternational.org/ http://www.legendsofriverside.com/contents.htm Has the thread drifted enough that we can close it now? SignatureFrank ess >>>> An example of the American unease about it all >>>> occurred in 1994, when the Smithsonian thought that [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >> The AFM beats the A&S museum for collection and display of historic >> aircraft. I've not been to the A&S yet, but I have been to the AFM and I'm trying to figure out a way to go again (it's not near anyplace I would normally travel) >113KB clunky panorama showing some of the outdoor collection at March >Field Air Museum [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Nice place to spend an afternoon, if you're a 'plane fan. >http://www.marchfield.org/ The Pima Air andSpace Museum in Tucson, which also operates the Titan Missile Museum further south, has become a uite awesom experience. Anyone visiting Tucson or passing through on I-10 might want to take a look. They also originate tours of the Boneyard, the final resting place of almost all military aircraft. http://www.pimaair.org/ >Has the thread drifted enough that we can close it now? WE haven't go to Godwin's limit yeat. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >An example of the American unease about it all > >occurred in 1994, when the Smithsonian thought that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Michael Heyman resigned in 1999. But Martin Harwit, director of > te National Air and Space Museum did resign about a year later. He wan't 'a director of the Smithsonian'? > The fracas was a result of making it appear that both the USA and > Japan were equally immoral (or moral, depending on your point of > view). Most of the protests originated with WW2 veterans groups. See <http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/enola/> for example for more. The site (and many others) state that Harwit resigned as a direct consequence of the fracas. (just two days before a senate hearing about it) > >I remember a cartoon from the period (in Nature?) > >showing a mummy dragging a curious kiddie past a plane. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in > December 2003. I already told you so, in a part of my posting you snipped. (and the controversy resurfaced in 2003, with the move) > "This exhibition was on display in Gallery 103 from June 28, 1995 > to May 17, 1998" > > I don't see why you think tis makes the plane "invisible". See > http://collections.nasm.si.edu/media/full/A19500100000cp07.jpg Your "" around 'invisible' are misplaced. I didn't use the word. What I said was that Enola Gay was exhibited with minimal explanation of its historical role. (and it still is) Americans still can't bear to hear a balanced view, Jan >> >> An invasion of Japan was unnecessary anyway. >> >> See [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > with 'just another aeroplane' is said to be > the extensive anti-vandalism protection. The alternative to the A-bombs was invasion. Invasion would have resulted in the anilhilation of the Japanese people. Look at what happened at Okinawa and Saipan when large amounts of civilians were involved. We owe Japan no appology. >> Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >achieved the same result. I read somewhere that two different types of bomb >were dropped to see which was more effective. I understand that there had been a suggestion that a bomb should be exploded somewhere harmless as a demonstration to the Japanese. This was rejected on the grounds that they would not react by surrendering. Part of the justification for using two bombs (one uranium and one plutonium) was apparently that the persuasive effect on the Japanese leaders would be much more than that of a single bomb. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > plutonium) was apparently that the persuasive effect on the Japanese > leaders would be much more than that of a single bomb. My guess is that the reaction to the first one would be expected to be "We took everything they could throw at us, and we survived." The second one said "... and we can keep on doing this as long as you like." Which, as I understand it, wasn't actually true, but the Japanese didn't know that at the time. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Politicians are like compost--they 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |should be turned often or they start Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to smell bad. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >plutonium) was apparently that the persuasive effect on the Japanese >leaders would be much more than that of a single bomb. Surrender was not forthcoming after the Hiroshima bomb, and much of the Japanese military establishment was opposed to surrender. The second bomb was kind of a clincher, especially for Hirohito, who broke protocol and demanded Japan surrender. Even then military diehards tried to preven his recorded surrender speech from being broadcast. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >achieved the same result. I read somewhere that two different types of bomb >were dropped to see which was more effective. They used Little Boy, a gun-type bomb, at Hiroshima because they were certain it would work even though the design had not been tested. Fat Man was an implosion bomb, and, although such a device worked at the test at Trinity, it was so complex a design that they were afraid it might fail at Hiroshima, leaving the US with nuclear egg on its face. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > achieved the same result. I read somewhere that two different types of bomb > were dropped to see which was more effective. None would have done as well. Japan had lost, and knew it. They had already indicated the wanted to talk about a surrender. The problem was that the USA wanted a surrender without any talking about it. > > I fervently hope nuclear weapons will never be used again but, if the US > > people had been asked to vote in 1945 on whether the atomic bomb should [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > destructive they would be. In the sense of "an ill wind", Hiroshima and > Nagasake certainly added to the credibility of the nuclear deterrent. Another one of 'any excuse will do'. After the Alamagordo test it was well known how destructive the nuclear bombs would be. Jan >> > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >The problem was that the USA wanted a surrender >without any talking about it. In what comic book did you find that revision? > >> > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > In what comic book did you find that revision? Allan Dulles didn't write comic books, afaik. And you might have noticed that I already gave a reference in another posting in this thread. More refs aren't very hard to find, Jan >> >> > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >More refs aren't very hard to find, I'm sorry I missed your previous reference. But it has been mentioned here before, ad nauseam, the Japanese weren't ready to surrender. Also, I'll put another historical perspective here. Truman, if anything, was a student of history. He and others felt that one main reason for a second war was that the Germans didn't admit to defeat in the first war. Also, Truman understood the history of Japan very well and was convinced extraordinary measures were necessary to get an unconditional surrender; there is a strong emphasis on "unconditional." Truman saw the huge estimated loss of life with an invasion of Japan as totally out of the question (ironically, the bomb may have saved more lives than the conventional methods). The bombs saved many American lives; that was their purpose and it worked. I have met many soldiers, who were scheduled for the invasion, who had nothing but praise for Truman's decision. The Japanese who committed war crimes as horrendous as the Germans require no apology from us for making them stop what they were doing. It is sad that the bombing happened, but there is no reason for America to feel guilt over the act. If anything, the Japanese owe everyone an apology for what they did. The Japanese have never apologised, and to this day, see no reason to do so. Jan, I don't expect any of this will change your opinion of the US, and I stopped taking issue with you over most of your, what I see as unfair, statements about the US. But there is the occasional statement that I see as so far from the truth that I must respond. The following is OT for AUE and a personal note to Jan: I have followed your problems in the sci.physics.research and sci.physics.foundations. I agree with your position completely. Your patience is exemplary. I long ago lost patience with those who claim to understand physics yet can't see the obvious. That's why I don't post too often in spr. I follow it as a pass-time not to be taken seriously. I, too, quit spf. My reasons were very similar to yours. I got really pissed-off at one moderator who is a mathematician and thinks Hilbert's joke, that physics is too important to be left to physicists, is to be taken seriously. This character firmly believes that progress depends on physics having a mathematically rigorous foundation. And as you noticed, the moderators do show considerable bias in what they allow posted. > >> >> > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I'm sorry I missed your previous reference. But it has been mentioned > here before, ad nauseam, the Japanese weren't ready to surrender. Different opinions exist, and historical evidence says otherwise. What you shouldn't forget is that Japan was placed in a position of 'we have no option but fighting on, with bamboo spears if need be' (which should be taken literally, for they had little else left) by the American attitude towards them. What the Japanese most of all wanted to talk about was the position of the emperor. > Also, > I'll put another historical perspective here. Truman, if anything, was a > student of history. He and others felt that one main reason for a second > war was that the Germans didn't admit to defeat in the first war. That's hardly an idea that is original with Truman. (he wasn't that original a thinker) The idea was quite appropriate for Germany, but less so for Japan. > Also, > Truman understood the history of Japan very well and was convinced > extraordinary measures were necessary to get an unconditional surrender; > there is a strong emphasis on "unconditional." Complete nonsense. There is no Japanese history to compare with. The only other time they had to face an invasion was aginst Ghenghis Khan, many centuries earlier. And they won that one. A better comparison would have been with Commodore Perry's visit to Tokyo a century earlier. He got what he wanted without firing a shot. He was willing to talk to the Japanese though. > Truman saw the huge > estimated loss of life with an invasion of Japan as totally out of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > scheduled for the invasion, who had nothing but praise for Truman's > decision. Yes, any excuse will do. No need to repeat the standard repertoire. > The Japanese who committed war crimes as horrendous as the Germans > require no apology from us for making them stop what they were doing. That's part of the usual propaganda. The Japanese weren't war criminals in the sense that the Nazis were. In particular Hirohito wasn't a baddie like Hitler. The problem was that American propaganda had cast him into that role, and there was no time for re-educating the American public. And when it was all over McArthur destroyed all moral justification America might have had by keeping on Hirohito anyway. As to your other point: Japan wasn't that bad, in comparison with other (colonial) wars of expansion, like the American treatment of the Indians for example. What the Japanese have always failed to understand (and still fail to understand) is why things that routinely occur in the expansion of Western powers (like the Dutch in the Moluccans, to take another example) are suddenly inexcusable horrendous crimes when they did it. (in short, why isn't Japan allowed to behave as Western powers do) > It > is sad that the bombing happened, but there is no reason for America to > feel guilt over the act. If anything, the Japanese owe everyone an > apology for what they did. The Japanese have never apologised, and to > this day, see no reason to do so. Sure, they were beaten up, so they shouldn't complain. > Jan, I don't expect any of this will change your opinion of the US, and > I stopped taking issue with you over most of your, what I see as unfair, > statements about the US. This isn't about my opinions about the USA. It is about a particular episode in history in which America didn't live up to it's own ideals of how they should behave. And there are Americans who see that, beginning with J. Robert Oppenheimer for example. > But there is the occasional statement that I > see as so far from the truth that I must respond. There is no permanent truth in history. Each generation must remake its own. America still has a lot of rethinking to do, Jan >That's part of the usual propaganda. >The Japanese weren't war criminals in the sense that the Nazis were. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >And when it was all over McArthur destroyed all moral justification >America might have had by keeping on Hirohito anyway. This is a view you'll get no agreement from the Chinese or Koreans. The Japanese "medical" experiments were far more deliberate, horrendous and at a greater scale than the Germans produced. And how quickly you can forget the Rape of Nanking. This isn't propaganda; it's history. The Japanese were as deliberate in killing civilians as the Germans and were even more deliberate in killing POWs--something the Germans weren't quite as willing to do. Hirohito knew about everything. Yes, he was a baddie whose neck was saved by MacArthur for political reasons. To this day the Japanese still officially overlook this little artifact of history. I guess your right, Japan owes no one an apology. > >That's part of the usual propaganda. > >The Japanese weren't war criminals in the sense that the Nazis were. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > even more deliberate in killing POWs--something the Germans weren't > quite as willing to do. Sure, nobody said the Japanese (in their imperial phase) were nice guys. No imperial nation bent on conquest ever is. > Hirohito knew about everything. That is a view you'll not get much serious agreement on. > Yes, he was a baddie whose neck was saved by MacArthur for political > reasons. America has a problem with unconditional surrender. The problem is failing to understand that if you destroy the power structure of a country it becomes your responsibility to replace it with something else. So in Germany they had to keep on most of the nazis, in Japan they had to keep Hirohito in order to keep the rest of the power structure intact. And when invading Iraq they still hadn't learned the lesson, with chaos as the result. > To this day the Japanese still officially overlook this little > artifact of history. I guess your right, Japan owes no one an apology. Where did you see me say so? What I said is the the USA has little room for a 'holier than thou' attitude, Jan >> >That's part of the usual propaganda. >> >The Japanese weren't war criminals in the sense that the Nazis were. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Sure, nobody said the Japanese (in their imperial phase) were nice guys. >No imperial nation bent on conquest ever is. That's being rather flip. I recall you saying somewhere that the Japanese weren't war criminals in the sense that the Nazis were. There is ample evidence to show they were every bit bad as the Nazis. >> Hirohito knew about everything. > >That is a view you'll not get much serious agreement on. There is much written about Hirohito's knowledge of how the war was conducted and his specific approval of events. >> Yes, he was a baddie whose neck was saved by MacArthur for political >> reasons. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that if you destroy the power structure of a country >it becomes your responsibility to replace it with something else. The US understood that quite well. It was for that reason Hirohito's neck wasn't stretched. [...] >Where did you see me say so? >What I said is the the USA has little room >for a 'holier than thou' attitude, It is you who sees the holier-than-thou attitude. What you said was the US was wrong to use the nuclear bombs. What you met with were reasons why it was justified to use the bombs. The "holier than thou" attitude is taken by some US critics. >Sure, nobody said the Japanese (in their imperial phase) were nice guys. >No imperial nation bent on conquest ever is. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Yes, he was a baddie whose neck was saved by MacArthur for political >> reasons. >America has a problem with unconditional surrender. >The problem is failing to understand [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in Japan they had to keep Hirohito in order to keep >the rest of the power structure intact. First you call it a "problem", then you tell us why it was a smart thing to do. >And when invading Iraq they still hadn't learned the lesson, >with chaos as the result. Couldn't agree more. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [...] >> The Japanese who committed war crimes as horrendous as the Germans >> require no apology from us for making them stop what they were doing. > > That's part of the usual propaganda. > The Japanese weren't war criminals in the sense that the Nazis were. [...] WHAT??? That's loony talk. If you don't trust white men and women on the subject, ask a few Chinese. SignatureMike. > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > WHAT??? That's loony talk. If you don't trust white men and women on the > subject, ask a few Chinese. Or any other group that suffered badly under some imperialism taking over their country, Jan > [...] > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > WHAT??? That's loony talk. If you don't trust white men and women on the > subject, ask a few Chinese. Lodder's a fool. I wish everyone would just ignore him. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > > J. J. Lodder wrote:w > > [...] [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Lodder's a fool. I wish everyone would just ignore him. The best argument so far, Jan >> >> >> > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >(which should be taken literally, for they had little else left) >by the American attitude towards them. That was apparently the idea of the high-ranking Japanese admiral who wanted to create a force of some 20,000,000 human kamikazes. He proposed this four days after Nagasaki was bombed. >What the Japanese most of all wanted to talk about >was the position of the emperor. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >That's hardly an idea that is original with Truman. >(he wasn't that original a thinker) Nobody is, actually, save for the Einsteins and Newtons. >The idea was quite appropriate for Germany, but less so for Japan. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Complete nonsense. There is no Japanese history to compare with. Of course there was: 1931 through 1945. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [second reply, to the OT part] > The following is OT for AUE and a personal note to Jan: > > I have followed your problems in the sci.physics.research and > sci.physics.foundations. Correction: I have seen any problems in sci.physics.research , the group which has problems is sci.physics.foundations. > I agree with your position completely. Your > patience is exemplary. I long ago lost patience with those who claim to > understand physics yet can't see the obvious. That's why I don't post > too often in spr. I follow it as a pass-time not to be taken seriously. > > I, too, quit spf. My reasons were very similar to yours. It takes people of extraordinary quality and intellectual integrity to moderate a newsgroup properly. (in particular when the moderators themselves contribute much) sci.physics.research is all right in this respect as far as I am concerned, sci.physics.foundations on the other hand is a miserable failure, with moderation that has degenerated into censorship, and threads that have degenerated into sometimes ludicrous nonsense. > I got really pissed-off at one moderator who is a mathematician and thinks > Hilbert's joke, that physics is too important to be left to physicists, is > to be taken seriously. It wasn't a joke. Hilbert tried very hard to steal the general theory of relativity from Einstein, to the point of falsifying his preprints. Einstein was furious at the time, but he couldn't do a thing about it. > This character firmly believes that progress depends on > physics having a mathematically rigorous foundation. And as you noticed, > the moderators do show considerable bias in what they allow posted. An old professor who taught me some of these things once said: 'Only naive people believe that a science is built on its foundations'. It may have been a quote. Best, Jan >[second reply, to the OT part] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Correction: I have seen any problems in sci.physics.research , >the group which has problems is sci.physics.foundations. My mistake. I wrote that improperly. I know the problem was only with spf. >> I agree with your position completely. Your >> patience is exemplary. I long ago lost patience with those who claim to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >with moderation that has degenerated into censorship, >and threads that have degenerated into sometimes ludicrous nonsense. You get a high-five from me. Only, my opinion is lower than yours. >> I got really pissed-off at one moderator who is a mathematician and thinks >> Hilbert's joke, that physics is too important to be left to physicists, is >> to be taken seriously. > >It wasn't a joke. I know, but it is looked on more kindly today as a joke. >Hilbert tried very hard to steal the general theory of relativity >from Einstein, to the point of falsifying his preprints. >Einstein was furious at the time, but he couldn't do a thing about it. But Hilbert did concede that the sole credit for GR belongs to Einstein. >> This character firmly believes that progress depends on >> physics having a mathematically rigorous foundation. And as you noticed, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >'Only naive people believe that a science is built on its foundations'. >It may have been a quote. You have just given the major reason why Usenet physics groups aren't taken seriously by me. The participants too often confuse physics with math, and it's almost unknown to get an answer to the simplest of questions that offers any physical insight. The hapless questioner often gets answers that are dressed in abstract mathematics meant to impress and blow smoke; e.g., the poor newbie who asked about the speed of light in media and got an answer involving photon scattering and other high-brow formalisms, when a simple physical models exists that gives the correct answer. Which brings me to another reason why I don't take these ngs seriously. I have the distinct impression that many of the talkers aren't doers; i.e., they can't apply their knowledge to solving real-world physical problems and thereby show that they have a real understanding of the subject. When I want to get involved with science in a more serious way, I use the more traditional route; i.e., societies and their publications. As I said, these ngs are a pass-time. >> > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >After the Alamagordo test it was well known >how destructive the nuclear bombs would be. "Well known" by who? The people who needed to know the power of the atomic bombs were the Japanese. I don't think I've read any reports of Japanese political, military and scientific observers being present at Alamagordo. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >> > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > > "Well known" by who? By those responsible for their use. > The people who needed to know the power of the atomic bombs were the > Japanese. I don't think I've read any reports of Japanese political, > military and scientific observers being present at Alamagordo. Ah, I see. So bombing Hiroshima was a purely educational exercise. If that is the case then the USA certainly can be blamed for using a more destructive educational method than necessary for the purpose. Jan > I fervently hope nuclear weapons will never be used again but, if the US > people had been asked to vote in 1945 on whether the atomic bomb should [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was about 250 000 and worldwide illnesses due > to radiation should be added. The invasion of Okinawa cost over 12,000 Americans killed and 36,000 wounded. "Japanese human losses were enormous: 107,539 soldiers killed and 23,764 sealed in caves or buried by the Japanese themselves; 10,755 captured or surrendered...US Army figures for the 82 day campaign showed a total figure of 142,058 civilian casualties, including those killed by artillery fire, air attacks and those who were pressed into service by the Japanese army." -- http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm The Japanese dead in Okinawa were about the same as from the two atomic bombs. Okinawa was nothing compared to what would have happened in an invasion of the larger islands. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > total number of deaths in Nagasaki and Hiroshima was about 250 000 > and worldwide illnesses due to radiation should be added. My father and five uncles all fought in WW2, including Uncle Frank who was captured at Singapore and returned from a prisoner of war camp four years later weighing around 60 pounds. All of them vehemently supported the bombings, and as far as I know the one left with us still does. DC -- > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > dropping not one, but two nuclear bombs on the citizens of > > Japan in the closing months of World War II. Of course, hurry in the second one before they had a chance to consider to say surrender. > I fervently hope nuclear weapons will never be used again but, if the US > people had been asked to vote in 1945 on whether the atomic bomb should > be used to prevent an estimated 500 000 US casualities in an invasion of > Japan, I am pretty sure what would have been the answer. Another one in the category 'any excuse will do'. > I'm not saying > that I believe that estimate of US casualities was corrrect but it was > the number predicted at the time. That's what experts are for: to give you the estimates you need to justify what you are going to do anyway. Jan > > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: [ ... ] > > > That'll be good old Harry S Truman, where the S stands, not > > > for Shameful, but for nothing, who was responsible for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Of course, hurry in the second one > before they had a chance to consider to say surrender. Japan had three days after the Hiroshima bomb to surrender. If they had surrendered on August 7 or 8 there would have been no Nagasaki bomb on August 9. There had already been considerable debate among the emperor and the top leaders over whether to surrender. They chose to keep going, and Truman chose to hit them again. There are lots of disputable points about the use of the two bombs, but to say that three days is "no chance to consider to say surrender" is absurd. That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air this topic on this newsgroup? SignatureBob Lieblich Who hopes to refuse all further bait Robert wrote on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:01:31 -0400: > >> Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > >> > [ ... ] > > >> That'll be good old Harry S Truman, where the S stands, > > >> not for Shameful, but for nothing, who was responsible [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Of course, hurry in the second one >> before they had a chance to consider to say surrender. > Japan had three days after the Hiroshima bomb to surrender. > If they had surrendered on August 7 or 8 there would have been [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > about the use of the two bombs, but to say that three days is > "no chance to consider to say surrender" is absurd. > That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air > this topic on this newsgroup? I'll agree it's a bit OT but it is a natural progression from "buck" and rumor that Harry S Truman's middle inititial meant "shameful". SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Robert wrote on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:01:31 -0400: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >I'll agree it's a bit OT but it is a natural progression from "buck" and >rumor that Harry S Truman's middle inititial meant "shameful". "Shameful" had OT and OTT written all over it. I wrote it, so I know. The subject of Truman's "immoral" decision never fails to rile a member or two, Bob Lieblich most especially. I claim that the action was immoral because, while no one can know exactly what would have happened had he not made the decision to roast hundreds of thousands of civilians, he understood the consequences quite well. He was playing God with thousands of civilian lives, both of the current generation and future ones, which is immoral even if the impact of radiation on future generations was not well understood at the time. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland Chuck wrote on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:32:05 +0000: > "Shameful" had OT and OTT written all over it. I wrote it, so > I know. The subject of Truman's "immoral" decision never fails [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ones, which is immoral even if the impact of radiation on > future generations was not well understood at the time. -- Knowing what we do now, many would agree with you but it does not alter the case that Truman's action was in accord with the sentiments of a great majority of the US public *at the time*. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Chuck wrote on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:32:05 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the case that Truman's action was in accord with the sentiments of a >great majority of the US public *at the time*. There's no question about that, but leaders who lead gain my respect, not leaders who follow. If a leader consistently makes poor decisions, toss him out through the democratic process, but while he is the leader, I want him to lead. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland Chuck wrote on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:50:26 +0000: >> Chuck wrote on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:32:05 +0000: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> the sentiments of a great majority of the US public *at the >> time*. > There's no question about that, but leaders who lead gain my > respect, not leaders who follow. If a leader consistently > makes poor decisions, toss him out through the democratic > process, but while he is the leader, I want him to lead. A leader may gain respect but he's going to have to be pretty eloquent to be continued in office if he ignores the will of the majority. Edmund Burke said, to his constituents in Bristol, that what he owed them was not obedience to their desires, but the free exercise of his judgment. He soon lost his seat in Parliament. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Chuck wrote on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:50:26 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > what he owed them was not obedience to their desires, but the free > exercise of his judgment. He soon lost his seat in Parliament. That's what all politicians offer. Burke just shouldn't have let on about it. DC -- > Chuck wrote on Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:50:26 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >not obedience to their desires, but the free exercise of his judgment. >He soon lost his seat in Parliament. Then I think you'll agree with me that listening to your followers is part of good leadership. Having said that, a leader must retain control if chaos is not to result. There is always a balance to be struck. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > >A leader may gain respect but he's going to have to be pretty eloquent > >to be continued in office if he ignores the will of the majority. Edmund [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > control if chaos is not to result. There is always a balance to be > struck. Who was it that said (I'm paraphrasing here) that the secret of leadership is to figure out which way they are headed and then get out in front of them? Another good management axiom is that, to get action, one must create chaos and then lead them out of it. Or create a crisis and ditto. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >A leader may gain respect but he's going to have to be pretty eloquent >> >to be continued in office if he ignores the will of the majority. Edmund [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >leadership is to figure out which way they are headed and then get >out in front of them? Just what I had in mind, John. I don't know who said that first. >Another good management axiom is that, to get action, one must >create chaos and then lead them out of it. Or create a crisis and >ditto. While with the Navy, I found that the crises that arose without anyone's help were enough to keep us on the ball. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > >Who was it that said (I'm paraphrasing here) that the secret of > >leadership is to figure out which way they are headed and then get > >out in front of them? > > Just what I had in mind, John. I don't know who said that first. The other way round it became a part of Marxist folklore. With their ridiculous way of making an -ism out of everything they used a word that translates literally into tailism. (no joke, 'chvostizm') This occurs when the party (which of course, and by definition, is the leadership of the proletariat) is hobbling along behind events. (as happened frequenly enough to merit a word for it) Best, Jan > > Chuck wrote on Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:32:05 +0000: > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > toss him out through the democratic process, but while he is the > leader, I want him to lead. Unfortunately the American democratic process lacks the means to do that. The means available (impeachment) are much too heavy to be of practical usability. In more democratic systems of governement leaaders can be ousted by simple majority vote in parliament. Makes no difference though in this case, for it is most unlikely indeed that this would have happened to Truman over the use of nuclear weapons. Best, Jan [ ... ] > Unfortunately the American democratic process > lacks the means to do that. > The means available (impeachment) are much too heavy > to be of practical usability. > In more democratic systems of governement leaaders can be ousted > by simple majority vote in parliament. See what I mean, Jan. While making one point, about which I have no comment, you take a gratuitous swipe at the American form of government, which you declare "less democratic" than parliamentary systenms. Now it is certainly possible to engage in a reasoned discussion of whether the US government really is "less democratic" than that of, say, the Netherlands, but I do not intend to engage you on that topic. I'm simply pointing out that this sort of conduct lends such credence to my suspicion that you are an Ameriphobe as to rule out any effort to engage you on *any* topic respecting the United states. I plan to keep reading your posts for a while, and if I detect you saying anything nice about the US I will bring it to your attention and that of anyone else deluded enough to read what I post. Until then, I consider you incapable of seeing the United States objectively and unworthy of credence. SignatureBob Lieblich Or, in one word, FEH! > [ ... ] Misplaced snip. It was about removing US presidents from power for consistently making the wrong decisions. Removing all context before a quote is demagogic discussion tactics. > > Unfortunately the American democratic process > > lacks the means to do that. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > government, which you declare "less democratic" than parliamentary > systenms. No, I don't. I do see that you are not trying to engage in serious discussion. To he point: What's gratuitous about it? It is a simple statement of fact. And elective monarchies being less democratic than parliamentary systems is obviously an opinion of mine. (with which you can equally obviously disagree) Not specifically American btw: France shares (since De Gaulle) a similar system. And Russia has one too. > Now it is certainly possible to engage in a reasoned > discussion of whether the US government really is "less democratic" > than that of, say, the Netherlands, but I do not intend to engage you > on that topic. Indeed, off-topic, and off-topic discussion rarely occurs in aue, as every participant here knows. So a summary only. Understanding of 'democracy' differs fundamentally between those countries. Americans feel they have a democracy when they can elect their bosses every once in a while. (yes, there is more to it) To the Dutch an essential aspect of democracy is that no one should ever be allowed to be that bossy. > I'm simply pointing out that this sort of conduct > lends such credence to my suspicion that you are an Ameriphobe as to > rule out any effort to engage you on *any* topic respecting the United > states. Why? We could, if we wanted, discuss the merits and demerits of different democratic systems of government. In fact, I did so already recently in another thread, with some Americans participating. > I plan to keep reading your posts for a while, and if I detect you > saying anything nice about the US I will bring it to your attention > and that of anyone else deluded enough to read what I post. Until > then, I consider you incapable of seeing the United States objectively > and unworthy of credence. Shooting at the messenger is always the easiest solution. I won't do that. I'll read anything you might write about the Netherlands with great interest, realizing that you are totally objective in your considerations. Best, Jan [ ... ] > "Shameful" had OT and OTT written all over it. I wrote it, so I know. > The subject of Truman's "immoral" decision never fails to rile a > member or two, Bob Lieblich most especially. Thank you, Chuck, but I must share that honor with several others (whom I will not name, for fear of omitting still more). > I claim that the action > was immoral because, while no one can know exactly what would have > happened had he not made the decision to roast hundreds of thousands > of civilians, he understood the consequences quite well. It was a war. People would die, probably in the hundreds of thousands, whether he dropped the bombs or not. He chose to incinerate Japanese in the hope that he would not have to lose Allied lives in an invasion. We'll never know what would have happened had he not dropped the bombs, but the most likely outcome -- the one staring him in the face -- was a prolonged and vastly destructive invasion. Sure, the Japanese might have decided to surrender anyway, but it seemed improbable then, and for all the revisionism since, I remain persuaded that it would have been Germany all over again -- hard fighting and utter destruction all the way to the national capital. By the classic definition of "dilemma," it's hard to imagine a tougher one than what Truman was faced with. > He was > playing God with thousands of civilian lives, both of the current > generation and future ones, I'm not sure of the "playing God" bit, but yes, he was deciding within a large if limited sphere of action who would live and who would die. Anyone who thinks he didn't take that seriously is not a serious person. > which is immoral even if the impact of > radiation on future generations was not well understood at the time. What of the impact on the US of all those people who would never have come back because they died in the invasion of Japan? Was Truman "right"? It all depends on what the meaning of "right" is. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich When I'm right, I'm right. Am I right? Who knows? >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >Was Truman "right"? It all depends on what the meaning of "right" is. Speaking of people I have known, but people who aren't around anymore, I don't remember ever coming across a WWII veteran or immediate family-member of a WWII veteran, who didn't feel that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a necessary choice. Not a wonderful thing, but a necessary choice. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >[ ... ] > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a necessary choice. Not a wonderful > thing, but a necessary choice. Have you ever met any veteran capable of viewing the conflict he was engaged in with any degree of objectivity? They do exist, but they are rare indeed, Jan >> >[ ... ] >> > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >Have you ever met any veteran capable of viewing the conflict >he was engaged in with any degree of objectivity? They are as objective as you are in your views. >They do exist, but they are rare indeed, > >Jan SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>[ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a necessary choice. Not a wonderful >thing, but a necessary choice. I don't suppose there were there many Japanese veterans or their immediate family members in your sample group. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >>Speaking of people I have known, but people who aren't around >>anymore, I don't remember ever coming across a WWII veteran or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't suppose there were there many Japanese veterans or their > immediate family members in your sample group. His may not have had many, but As one might expect, the few surviving crew members of the B-29s bombers Enola Gay and Bock's Car are interviewed each August by reporters from around the world, who invariably ask them the same question with mind-numbing familiarity: "Do you have any regrets?" In response to this question, Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, recently issued this statement: ... I have been thanked as well by Japanese veterans and civilians who would have been expected to carry out suicidal defense of their homelands. Combined with the efforts of all Americans and our allies, we were able to stop the killing. It is a sentiment upon which the surviving crewmen are unanimous. http://tinyurl.com/cebf8a <URL:http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/ no_more_selfflagellation_on_hi.html> Not specifically on Hiroshima, but: "The bomb was unfortunate, but it was the only means to bring Japan to a surrender," argues Sadao Asaa, a historian at Doshisha University in Kyoto. Professor Asada cites Japanese archival evidence that military officials were likely to fight on, furiously, until the end. "Sacrifice 20 million Japanese lives," a senior navy official urged in August 1945, with tears in his eyes, as he proposed a huge suicide attack on the Allies. The Prime Minister at the time, Kantaro Suzuki, later described the atomic bomb as "an extremely favorable opportunity," and suggested that conventional bombs would not have been enough. The Japanese navy minister described the atomic bomb as a "gift from heaven" and the Emperor's top adviser said that the peace faction had been "assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." The Japanese documents also reveal a little-known factor that may have played a role in ending the war. An American pilot named McDila was shot down on Aug. 8 and lied to his Japanese interrogators, saying that the United States had 100 more atomic bombs, and that the next target would be Tokyo. This was immediately relayed to the war minister and shook up a cabinet meeting in Tokyo the next day. _NY Times_, 8/6/1995 SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking |on the bright side, the catastrophe kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |is still there. (650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > I don't suppose there were there many Japanese veterans or their > immediate family members in your sample group. Since it was required by the Japanese military code of honor to fight to the death, as demonstrated many times during the island campaigns and most recently on Okinawa, it seems likely that at least the conscripts were more than happy to see the war ended. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> I don't suppose there were there many Japanese veterans or their >> immediate family members in your sample group. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >campaigns and most recently on Okinawa, it seems likely that at >least the conscripts were more than happy to see the war ended. Since they did surrender, it is obvious that the Japanese military code contains some flexibility. Naturally it would, the Japanese being as intelligent as they are. Whatever their code, though, it is our codes we were discussing, not theirs. We, the Americans, broke all codes of conduct and morality when we killed civilians by the tens, or was it hundreds, of thousands using a weapon no one clearly understood. We don't understand its long term effects to this day. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > >> I don't suppose there were there many Japanese veterans or their > >> immediate family members in your sample group. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Since they did surrender, it is obvious that the Japanese military > code contains some flexibility. They surrendered only because Hirohito ordered them to. Even so, some military leaders chose suicide. Those leaders would have readily scrificed the lives of whole armies and the civilian population. Evan has posted quotations to support that assertion. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >> I don't suppose there were there many Japanese veterans or their >> >> immediate family members in your sample group. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >readily scrificed the lives of whole armies and the civilian >population. How can anyone, the Japanese people included, know what the Japanese leaders would do? The Allies, on the other hand, had a good idea what the two bombs would do. > Evan has posted quotations to support that assertion. Those quotations, based on scholarly supposition after the fact, are not guarantees of what would happen. Truman, on the other hand, knew what would happen when the two bombs were dropped, as I've pointed out repeatedly. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland [ ... ] > Those quotations, based on scholarly supposition after the fact, are > not guarantees of what would happen. Truman, on the other hand, knew > what would happen when the two bombs were dropped, as I've pointed out > repeatedly. Well, no, Chuck, he did not know what would happen when the two bombs were dropped. You have yourself made that very point, stating that the full effects of the bombs are not yet known. If we don't know them now, how can you say that Truman knew them even before dropping them? That debating point aside, what you're basically saying is that Truman should have risked something far worse than the consequences of the two bombs because he wasn't positive what would happen if he didn't drop them. That's a hell of an algorithm for decision making: I know Choice A is bad, and I know Choice B may be worse, but there is a chance that Choice B may also be better, so I have to take Choice B. What explanation do you give if Choice B turns out worse -- which it might well have done? History can't run lab experiments. Truman made his choice and lived with it. Would you have done better in his position? We'll never know. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich Recommending that Chuck never drop this topic into a thread ever again > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > them now, how can you say that Truman knew them even before dropping > them? There can be no dispute, I think, that Truman was well aware of the immediate physical effects of dropping a nuclear weapon: about 0.1 megadead, Jan <snip> >Bob Lieblich >Recommending that Chuck never drop this topic into a thread ever again Did I invent this conundrum for the world to consider? I did not. Am I the only AUE member who has begun a discussion of it? I am not. Am I alone in hoping this thread will soon end? I hope not. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > >> I don't suppose there were there many Japanese veterans or their > >> immediate family members in your sample group. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > code contains some flexibility. Naturally it would, the Japanese being > as intelligent as they are. Japan had it hawks and doves just like any other country. Hiroshima didn't create a flock of doves out of nothing. It merely (with Hirohito now supporting them) gave them the upper hand. > Whatever their code, though, it is our > codes we were discussing, not theirs. We, the Americans, broke all > codes of conduct and morality when we killed civilians by the tens, or > was it hundreds, of thousands using a weapon no one clearly > understood. We don't understand its long term effects to this day. To put things in perspective, it was known in Washington in July 1945 that Japan wanted to surrender. (and not just grom informal contact, like with Dulles) Japanese codes had been broken, and the USA was able to intercept and decrypt Japanese diplomatic trafic. In particular the Japanese envoy in Moscow was instructed to try to get the Sovjet Union (still neutral wrt Japan) to act as mediator in surrender negotiations. The question was not if Japan was going to surrender, but how. And Washington knew it. Best, Jan > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > By the classic definition of "dilemma," it's hard to imagine a tougher > one than what Truman was faced with. All of which, and the magnitude of that decision, makes the sign on Truman's desk all the more apposite. > What of the impact on the US of all those people who would never have > come back because they died in the invasion of Japan? And for those who've suggested this discussion is simply a rehashing of ancient US politics... my own father was in the RN Fleet Air Arm, serving in the Solomon Islands at the time of the bombings. Had an invasion of Japan gone ahead he would almost certainly have been involved, and gone in relatively early. Given how colossally bloody such an invasion would have been, chances are he wouldn't have made it and I wouldn't be here. I'm sure many other AUErs could recount something similar. DC -- >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >and I wouldn't be here. I'm sure many other AUErs could recount >something similar. One of my uncles was in the Australian Army. He served in New Guinea. He would very possibly have been involved in an Allied invasion of Japan. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> [ ... ] >>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > He would very possibly have been involved in an Allied invasion of > Japan. Same here. And we just don't want to contemplate what would have happened to me and my mother if the Japanese had invaded. SignatureMike. >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >such an invasion would have been, chances are he wouldn't have made it >and I wouldn't be here. Without thinking of any individual, is an AUEer worth more than an AUJer? >I'm sure many other AUErs could recount >something similar. Yes, with the differences being it was the US Army for mine and my stab at his chances, were I to make one, would be considerably more optimistic than yours. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>And for those who've suggested this discussion is simply a rehashing >>of ancient US politics... my own father was in the RN Fleet Air Arm, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Without thinking of any individual, is an AUEer worth more than an > AUJer? For me, I think that the main point is that the Allies were expecting to lose between a quarter and a half a million soldiers and *win*, which implies that the Japanese would have suffered considerably larger losses. And, indeed, the Japanese military was talking about suicide attacks involving *twenty million* Japanese soldiers. I would guess that the invasion would have prevented far more AUJers than AUEers. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take |something and not pay for it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >For me, I think that the main point is that the Allies were expecting >to lose between a quarter and a half a million soldiers and *win*, >which implies that the Japanese would have suffered considerably >larger losses. And, indeed, the Japanese military was talking about >suicide attacks involving *twenty million* Japanese soldiers. You mean "soldiers"; they didn't have that many real soldiers. The 20m was to include civilians. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>And for those who've suggested this discussion is simply a rehashing >>>of ancient US politics... my own father was in the RN Fleet Air Arm, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >larger losses. And, indeed, the Japanese military was talking about >suicide attacks involving *twenty million* Japanese soldiers. Wouldn't the Japanese people revolt before they would allow their generals to lose even half that number of young men? After all, a boy's life is as valuable to a Japanese mother as it is to an American one. >I would guess that the invasion would have prevented far more AUJers >than AUEers. Since an AUJer is as important as an AUEer, including in times of war, rules of engagement must be honoured by both sides. Even when the other side breaks a rule, as in the Kamikaze attacks or the many German atrocities, that gives no one the right to break one of theirs, whether those rules are internationally acknowledged or not. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > What of the impact on the US of all those people who would never have > come back because they died in the invasion of Japan? And, as I pointed out elsethread, the number of Japanese dead in the invasion of Okinawa was comparable to the total killed by both atomic bombs. The Japanese military again and again had fought to the death, resulting in grossly unbalanced casualty numbers in the Pacific war. The Japanese military seemed to believe their own propaganda and sometimes killed their own citizens to save them from the horrors of capture by the Allies. Surely everyone here has seen the movies of Japanese women jumping from a cliff to avoid capture. The number of Japanese deaths in an invasion of Japan would have been unimaginable. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> What of the impact on the US of all those people who would never have >> come back because they died in the invasion of Japan? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Japanese deaths in an invasion of Japan would have been >unimaginable. From what I've read, seen in movies and heard from Navy personnel who were there, the USN was kicking a.s in the Pacific towards the end of WWII. Instead of dropping two nuclear bombs on civilians, we could have built more ships, if needed, for conventional force was clearly winning the war in the Pacific without nuclear weapons. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> What of the impact on the US of all those people who would never have >>> come back because they died in the invasion of Japan? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >have built more ships, if needed, for conventional force was clearly >winning the war in the Pacific without nuclear weapons. Kicking a.s *at sea*. My understanding (admittedly not based on detailed study) is that the Japanese were not expect to surrender even if every ship, rowing boat and raft in their fleet had been sunk. That would not have been in accord with their fight-to-the-death-and-to-the-last-man-woman-and-child mentality. A ground invasion would have been necessary. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >My understanding (admittedly not based on detailed study) is that the >Japanese were not expect to surrender even if every ship, rowing boat >and raft in their fleet had been sunk. That would not have been in >accord with their fight-to-the-death-and-to-the-last-man-woman-and-child >mentality. A ground invasion would have been necessary. The battle for Okinawa was a pretty good clue as to how an invasion of Honshu might have gone. From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/okinawa-battle.htm "More people died during the Battle of Okinawa than all those killed during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." That included 100,000 civilians. Okinawa had about 300,000 civilians at the time. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> What of the impact on the US of all those people who would never have >>>> come back because they died in the invasion of Japan? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >accord with their fight-to-the-death-and-to-the-last-man-woman-and-child >mentality. A ground invasion would have been necessary. Clearly not. Like anyone they had a breaking point, for they quickly surrendered after the dropping of the bombs. If we'd sunk all their ships, as we were well on our way of doing, they'd have had no choice but surrender. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>My understanding (admittedly not based on detailed study) is that >>the Japanese were not expect to surrender even if every ship, rowing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ships, as we were well on our way of doing, they'd have had no > choice but surrender. Of course they would have had a choice: they could fight until the last one of them died, even when it was a foregone conclusion. There's honor in that. There's no honor in just sitting there and being slaughtered by massive bombs that you can't fight against. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I am ever forced to make a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |choice between learning and using Palo Alto, CA 94304 |win32, or leaving the computer |industry, let me just say it was kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |nice knowing all of you. :-) (650)857-7572 | Randal Schwartz http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>My understanding (admittedly not based on detailed study) is that >>>the Japanese were not expect to surrender even if every ship, rowing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >There's honor in that. There's no honor in just sitting there and >being slaughtered by massive bombs that you can't fight against. That's the crux of this argument and we've been here before. One side says that the Japanese would/might have surrendered, the other says they wouldn't. I have seen convincing arguments on both sides. We don't know. Some minds are clearly closed to the other point of view and it seems to be impossible to argue this one dispassionately. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. [ ... ] > > Clearly not. Like anyone they had a breaking point, for they quickly > > surrendered after the dropping of the bombs. If we'd sunk all their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There's honor in that. There's no honor in just sitting there and > being slaughtered by massive bombs that you can't fight against. Remember the Alamo. Which is my oblique way of agreeing with Evan. SignatureBob Lieblich Who lived only a few miles from the Alamo for about eight years >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Remember the Alamo. That is a poor analogy since both sides, within the confines of the fort, fought to the end. That a group of men will fight to the "finish" is no indication an entire people would do so. No entire people has ever self-destructed to my knowledge. >Which is my oblique way of agreeing with Evan. I think we ought to get back to English usage before this argument gets nasty. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>Remember the Alamo. > >That is a poor analogy since both sides, within the confines of the >fort, fought to the end. That a group of men will fight to the >"finish" is no indication an entire people would do so. No entire >people has ever self-destructed to my knowledge. Are the Zealots within the scope of your knowledge? More to the point, Okinawa showed the Allies to what extreme ends the civilian population would go rather than be captured. >>> Remember the Alamo. >> That is a poor analogy since both sides, within the confines of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Okinawa showed the Allies to what extreme ends the civilian population > would go rather than be captured. Do you regard the Zealots as an "entire people" From my reading, they were only a small extremist sect. Fran > >>> Remember the Alamo. > >> That is a poor analogy since both sides, within the confines of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do you regard the Zealots as an "entire people" From my reading, they > were only a small extremist sect. Maybe not "entire pepoles", but there are examples of whole fortified towns acting as the Zealots did at Masada. In Book XXVIII of "The War With Hannibal", Livy tells of the destruction of the city of Astapa, Spain, in 206 BCE: "Then came the action at Astapa; Astapa had always stood by the Cartaginians, but more annoying than its allegiance to Carthage was the personal hatred, beyond what was justified by the exigencies of war, which the inhabitants felt for the Romans. ..." [An overwhelming Roman army surrounds the town.] "Then the gates were flung open and they rushed out with a great roar and trampling of feet....There was a battle of sorts...A little later the legionaires took the offensive...and finally surrounded their opponents. The circle gradually closed in, until every man of them was killed. "This bloody business was, at least, all in the normal process of war: the incensed Romans were fighting an armed enemy, capable of resistance. But far more horrible was the scene in the town itself, where hundreds of weak and defenceless women and children were being slaughtered by their own friends. A fire had been kindled in the market-place, and the bodies, often still breathing, were flung into the flames, which were almost extinguished by the rivers of blood. Finally the appointed slaughterers, exhausted by their pitiful work, themselves leapt, sword in hand, into the fire. When the Romans appeared the butchery was complete." SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> > Are the Zealots within the scope of your knowledge? More to the >> > point, Okinawa showed the Allies to what extreme ends the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Maybe not "entire pepoles", but there are examples of whole > fortified towns acting as the Zealots did at Masada. It wasn't the Zealots. It was the Sicarii. A radical splinter group from the Zealots, if you can imagine such a thing. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take |something and not pay for it. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> > Are the Zealots within the scope of your knowledge? More to the > >> > point, Okinawa showed the Allies to what extreme ends the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It wasn't the Zealots. It was the Sicarii. A radical splinter group > from the Zealots, if you can imagine such a thing. Under the circumstances you don't need to be a religious fanatic to make the same choice. Being captured alive by the Romans under the circumstances meant crucifixion at best. Less extreme, and back to the subject: being captured by the invading Americans may well have seemed as bad to the Okinawans (given the information they had at the time) as being taken by the advancing Russians seemed to the Prussians in 1944-45. The Prussians had the advantage that they could flee west, the Okinawans were trapped on their island. There is no need to postulate excessive fanatism to explain their fierce resistance. If Americans are ever to be caught in similar circumstances the same kind of behaviour might well be seen. (and it probably was seen in their expansion West into Indian land) It would of course be called heroism in that case, Jan > > >>> Remember the Alamo. > > >> That is a poor analogy since both sides, within the confines of the [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > themselves leapt, sword in hand, into the fire. When the Romans > appeared the butchery was complete." The alternative (if not murdered) was being sold into slavery. How would an average 20th century American woman react to a certain future of her husband and baby being killed, and she herself being sold to be a sex slave in a foreign land? It would often be suicide too, I guess, Jan >>>> Remember the Alamo. >>> That is a poor analogy since both sides, within the confines of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Do you regard the Zealots as an "entire people" From my reading, they >were only a small extremist sect. Hence our understanding today that a zealot is a nutcase. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> Are the Zealots within the scope of your knowledge? More to the >>> point, Okinawa showed the Allies to what extreme ends the civilian [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hence our understanding today that a zealot is a nutcase. You have to be careful about such inferences, though. A good friend of mine, a preacher's kid, learned "pharisee" as an insult as a kid. After all, they were the bad guys in the bible. She found it quite a shock to learn as an adult that the Pharisees of the bible were the group that turned into modern rabbinical Judaism. Quite often, how a group's name is used depends on who writes the history. Had the revolt of 66-73 AD been successful, it seems quite likely that the term "zealot" would have different connotations. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Are you okay?" 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"I'm made of felt....Add by dose |cubs off." kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >>> Are the Zealots within the scope of your knowledge? More to the > >>> point, Okinawa showed the Allies to what extreme ends the civilian [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > history. Had the revolt of 66-73 AD been successful, it seems quite > likely that the term "zealot" would have different connotations. Like the term Yankee, had the revolution failed, Jan >> You have to be careful about such inferences, though. A good >> friend of mine, a preacher's kid, learned "pharisee" as an insult [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Like the term Yankee, had the revolution failed, Possibly, though it's not clear to me that "Yankee" was seen, either by the British or the Americans, as identifying the group of colonists that supported revolution. Certainly not those in the South. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |barbarian and thinks that the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |customs of his tribe and island are |the laws of nature. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | George Bernard Shaw http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >> You have to be careful about such inferences, though. A good > >> friend of mine, a preacher's kid, learned "pharisee" as an insult [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > by the British or the Americans, as identifying the group of colonists > that supported revolution. Certainly not those in the South. I learned long ago that it was originally a term of derision, (used by the English) that was proudly taken over, Jan PS The same happened in Dutch history with the term 'Geus, Geuzen' from 'Ce ne sont que des geux' (they are nothing but beggars) The Geuzen became an armed faction in the Dutch revolution. >> >> Quite often, how a group's name is used depends on who writes >> >> the history. Had the revolt of 66-73 AD been successful, it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I learned long ago that it was originally a term of derision, > (used by the English) that was proudly taken over, In that case it would have been sort of the opposite, a term of derision that changed to have positive connotations as opposed to a self-identifying name that changed to have negative conotations. Looking at the OED, though, the first citation for "Yankee" is from 1765 and describes the term, spelled "Yankey" as "a name of derision ... given by the Southern people on the Continent, to those of New-England". So even early on it was regional rather than political--loyalists in Boston were "Yankees" just as much as those that supported revolution (not that there were any that early) and the Virginians who wrote the documents that declared independence weren't. The OEDs first hit for its use to refer to Americans in general isn't until ca. 1784. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little |practice, writing can be an kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog! (650)857-7572 | Calvin http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan wrote on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:26:26 -0700: >> >>> Quite often, how a group's name is used depends on who >> >>> writes the history. Had the revolt of 66-73 AD been [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> I learned long ago that it was originally a term of derision, >> (used by the English) that was proudly taken over, > In that case it would have been sort of the opposite, a term > of derision that changed to have positive connotations as > opposed to a self-identifying name that changed to have > negative conotations. > Looking at the OED, though, the first citation for "Yankee" is > from 1765 and describes the term, spelled "Yankey" as "a name [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > declared independence weren't. The OEDs first hit for its use > to refer to Americans in general isn't until ca. 1784. There is a line in "Yankee Doodle": "He stuck a feather in his hat and called him macaroni" and this fits with the story that the words were made up by regular army officers in derision of their colonial militia colleagues. The earliest OED reference for "macaroni" as a fop or dandy is given as 1764 H. WALPOLE Letter to Earl of Hertford SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Evan wrote on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:26:26 -0700: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >colleagues. The earliest OED reference for "macaroni" as a fop or dandy >is given as 1764 H. WALPOLE Letter to Earl of Hertford How has the Doodle been explained? SignatureJames James wrote on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:50:38 +0000: >> Evan wrote on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:26:26 -0700: >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> OED reference for "macaroni" as a fop or dandy is given as >> 1764 H. WALPOLE Letter to Earl of Hertford > How has the Doodle been explained? I refuse to personally submit "Yankee Doodle" to close textual analysis. That, I will leave to others better qualified but I remember long ago wondering what "macaroni" meant in context. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Evan wrote on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:26:26 -0700: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > colleagues. The earliest OED reference for "macaroni" as a fop or > dandy is given as 1764 H. WALPOLE Letter to Earl of Hertford Wiki goes into some detail about the origins of the song. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_doodle And it quotes the lyric as "He stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni" which is how I remember the lyric - as 'it' and 'cap' rather than 'him' and 'hat'. 'Doodle', enquired about elsethread, is defined in OED as . 1. A silly or foolish fellow; a noodle. with a [cf LG. dudeltopf, -dop, simpleton, noodle, lit. night-cap.] by way of etymology. Uncle Cecil has a dissertation: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1870/whats-the-song-yankee-doodle-all-about including "Now for the misconception. A popular story has it that the term "macaroni" in the verse we know best today ("stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni") was intended to poke fun at the unsophisticated colonials. In the early 1700s, the term "macaroni" was applied derisively to English dandies who affected foreign mannerisms and fashions, particularly French or Italian, which most British regarded as outlandish. Associating the term with the American colonists was a double insult. Not only were the Yankees putting on airs, they thought the way to do it was to put feathers in their caps, the rubes! Just one problem. We are far from certain when Yankee Doodle first came riding on his pony (rhymes with macaroni). That version didn't appear in print until 1842. Sonneck wrote that in the heyday of Oliver Cromwell (early 1640s to 1658), there was a ditty called "The Roundheads and the Cavaliers" that resembled "Yankee Doodle" in words and meter though not in tune: Nankee Doodle came to town Upon a little pony With a feather in his hat Upon a macaroni. Did "macaroni" mean "fop" in this context? Beats me. But if Sonneck is to be believed, the pony/macaroni thing was around long before wiseguy Brits began writing smart aleck lyrics about their American cousins." And the Library of Congress also has info: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/apr19.html#yankee SignatureJohn Dean Oxford John wrote on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:55:47 -0000: . >> There is a line in "Yankee Doodle": "He stuck a feather in >> his hat and called him macaroni" and this fits with the story >> that the words were made up by regular army officers in >> derision of their colonial militia colleagues. The earliest >> OED reference for "macaroni" as a fop or dandy is given as >> 1764 H. WALPOLE Letter to Earl of Hertford > Wiki goes into some detail about the origins of the song. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_doodle [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with a [cf LG. dudeltopf, -dop, simpleton, noodle, lit. > night-cap.] by way of etymology. > Uncle Cecil has a dissertation: > http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1870/whats-the-song-yankee-doodle-all-about > including "Now for the misconception. A popular story has it > that the term "macaroni" in the verse we know best today > ("stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni") was I think the Wikipedia article and Cecil are wrong. The OED lists "macaroni" as "dandy" only from 1746 and "called him" has been used many times to mean "called himself", which would not scan. The song, as I recall its history, was originally not anything but poking rather self-satified fun at allegedly unsophisticated colonials. "Yankee-Doodle" was visiting London in the song. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > John wrote on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:55:47 -0000: >>> There is a line in "Yankee Doodle": "He stuck a feather in >>> his hat and called him macaroni" and this fits with the story >>> that the words were made up by regular army officers in >>> derision of their colonial militia colleagues. The earliest >>> OED reference for "macaroni" as a fop or dandy is given as >>> 1764 H. WALPOLE Letter to Earl of Hertford >> Wiki goes into some detail about the origins of the song. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_doodle [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> that the term "macaroni" in the verse we know best today >> ("stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni") was > I think the Wikipedia article and Cecil are wrong. The OED lists > "macaroni" as "dandy" only from 1746 and "called him" has been used > many times to mean "called himself", which would not scan. The > song, as I recall its history, was originally not anything but > poking rather self-satified fun at allegedly unsophisticated > colonials. "Yankee-Doodle" was visiting London in the song. But the canonical version, as UC has it, is "called *it* Macaroni". I wonder if it was possible at that date to use "his" as the genitive of "it" -- in mockery of the Doodle's backwardness, perhaps. Or else the pony could have been called both "he"and "it" indifferently. That way, the feather goes in the pony's hat, between the ears. Macaroni the pony, in his Easter bonnet. Hosanna! ObSomethingcompletelydifferent: What about cockadoodledoo? Eh? CDB wrote on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:42:51 -0400: >> John wrote on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:55:47 -0000: >>>> There is a line in "Yankee Doodle": "He stuck a feather in >>>> his hat and called him macaroni" and this fits with the >>>> story that the words were made up by regular army officers in >>>> derision of their colonial militia colleagues. The >>>> earliest OED reference for "macaroni" as a fop or dandy is given as >>>> 1764 H. WALPOLE Letter to Earl of Hertford >>> Wiki goes into some detail about the origins of the song. >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_doodle [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >>> that the term "macaroni" in the verse we know best today >>> ("stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni") was >> I think the Wikipedia article and Cecil are wrong. The OED >> lists "macaroni" as "dandy" only from 1746 and "called him" has been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> at allegedly unsophisticated colonials. "Yankee-Doodle" was visiting >> London in the song. > But the canonical version, as UC has it, is "called *it* > Macaroni". I wonder if it was possible at that date to use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > goes in the pony's hat, between the ears. Macaroni the pony, in his > Easter bonnet. Hosanna! Swift might have enjoyed these serious discussions and proclamations of "canonical versions". Talk abour Littlendians and Bigendians! SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not [mountains in labour] > Swift might have enjoyed these serious discussions and > proclamations of "canonical versions". Talk abour Littlendians and > Bigendians! Beats working, though, eh? Happy Earth Hour, everyb >> John wrote on Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:55:47 -0000: >>> Uncle Cecil has a dissertation: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > between the ears. Macaroni the pony, in his Easter bonnet. > Hosanna! I've always taken it as a description of the hat. Like "called it high fashion". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |quite another to be willfully Palo Alto, CA 94304 |ignorant | Cecil Adams kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>> Quite often, how a group's name is used depends on who writes >>>>> the history. Had the revolt of 66-73 AD been successful, it >>>>> seems quite likely that the term "zealot" would have different >>>>> connotations. >>>> Like the term Yankee, had the revolution failed, [...] >> I learned long ago that it was originally a term of derision, >> (used by the English) that was proudly taken over, > In that case it would have been sort of the opposite, a term of > derision that changed to have positive connotations as opposed to a > self-identifying name that changed to have negative conotations. AOL. I wondered what was behind the Greek word. You know all this stuff, no doubt, but I didn't, in any detail, and maybe some others don't (Wikip, and rather sketchy, sorry): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanai_(Judaism) > [Yankeys] > >> >> Quite often, how a group's name is used depends on who writes > >> >> the history. Had the revolt of 66-73 AD been successful, it [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > derision that changed to have positive connotations as opposed to a > self-identifying name that changed to have negative conotations. Had the revolution failed it might still be in use as a general term of derision. And derivations like 'yankee ingenuity' would probably be absent. > Looking at the OED, though, the first citation for "Yankee" is from > 1765 and describes the term, spelled "Yankey" as "a name of derision [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The OEDs first hit for its use to refer to Americans in general isn't > until ca. 1784. Dutch has a very similar sounding name: Jan Doedel. (syn Jan Joker; Jan Jurk; Jan Lul) [1] The meaning is 'Sukkel' (not quite sucker, but close) Also in 'voor Jan Doedel' -> for nothing. It definitely is a term of derision. I have no idea if there is a relation with Yankee Doodle, Jan [1] Dutch 'oe' and english 'oo' are very close in pronunciation. > Dutch has a very similar sounding name: > Jan Doedel. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I have no idea if there is a relation with Yankee Doodle, The Dipsy Doodle's the thing to beware The Dipsy Doodle will get in your hair And if it gets you, it couldn't be worse The things you say will come out in reverse (-Larry Clinton)-- RegardsJohnfor mail: my initials plus a u eat tpg dot com dot au >>> You have to be careful about such inferences, though. A good >>> friend of mine, a preacher's kid, learned "pharisee" as an insult [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >by the British or the Americans, as identifying the group of colonists >that supported revolution. Certainly not those in the South. I found this interesting: http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/yankee.html SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>> You have to be careful about such inferences, though. A good >>>> friend of mine, a preacher's kid, learned "pharisee" as an insult [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >http://www.yourdictionary.com/library/yankee.html Interesting, but I wouldn't trust anything Dr Himes writes if her last two linguistic comments are anything to go by: "A'ridin'"and "a-givin'" are described as "part of the Scottish-Irish dialect, ... a leftover particle from verb formation in Gaelic languages." This isn't Gaelic influence, it was found all over English. The "a-" is a worn-down form of "on". In Ulster English this "a-" is used only for the passive construction, "the house is a-building", meaning "the house is being built". "I guess there was a million - "Was" misused as a past tense of "to be" is, like "seen" for "saw," substandard English, but not uncommon in American dialects." That nonsensical comment would only be relevant if the verse had read "I guess there been a million". SignatureJames >>>> Are the Zealots within the scope of your knowledge? More to the >>>> point, Okinawa showed the Allies to what extreme ends the civilian [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You have to be careful about such inferences, though. I do? From the COD10: zealot n. 1 a fanatical and uncompromising follower of a religion or policy. 2 (Zealot) a member of an ancient Jewish sect aiming at a world Jewish theocracy and resisting the Romans until AD 70. I was using meaning 1. If we're to accept this dictionary, it was correct to call them nutcases, I believe. >A good friend >of mine, a preacher's kid, learned "pharisee" as an insult as a kid. >After all, they were the bad guys in the bible. Being self-righteous, I imagine they were even more obnoxious than zealots. BTW, I also had a good friend who was a preacher's kid. Although she was very intelligent, she was one mixed-up kid. I doubt if she and her equally frightened brother ever recovered to live halfway normal lives after a childhood with their implacable father. >She found it quite a >shock to learn as an adult that the Pharisees of the bible were the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >history. Had the revolt of 66-73 AD been successful, it seems quite >likely that the term "zealot" would have different connotations. If pigs had wings... SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>> Are the Zealots within the scope of your knowledge? More to the >>>>> point, Okinawa showed the Allies to what extreme ends the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I was using meaning 1. If we're to accept this dictionary, it was > correct to call them nutcases, I believe. What I was objecting to was the "hence". It's true that that's the primary meaning today, but the fact that they were an extremist sect doesn't mean that the word was going to wind up with negative connotations. I don't know all that much about the sect, but that "aiming at a world Jewish theocracy" sounds both a bit off the mark and way more than they would have been worrying about. Their concern was ending the Roman occupation of Judea. >>A good friend of mine, a preacher's kid, learned "pharisee" as an >>insult as a kid. After all, they were the bad guys in the bible. > > Being self-righteous, I imagine they were even more obnoxious than > zealots. (Being a careful writer, you may want to take another look at that sentence. Or did you mean it that way?) What, other than the same early Christian writings, would lead you to the belief that they were particularly self-righteous? They appear to have placed a bit more emphasis on it being everybody's responsibility to uphold the laws in daily life, and they believed that, while people had free will, God knew what was going to happen. Also that there would be an eventual bodily resurrection of the dead. >>Quite often, how a group's name is used depends on who writes the >>history. Had the revolt of 66-73 AD been successful, it seems quite >>likely that the term "zealot" would have different connotations. > > If pigs had wings... Well, it had worked 200 years before, in 164 BC., when the Maccabees drove out the Greeks. The independence then lasted for about a hundred years. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"You can't prove it *isn't* so!" is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |as good as Q.E.D. in folk logic--as Palo Alto, CA 94304 |though it were necessary to submit |a piece of the moon to chemical kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |analysis before you could be sure (650)857-7572 |that it was not made of green |cheese. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Bergen Evans >>>>>> Are the Zealots within the scope of your knowledge? More to the >>>>>> point, Okinawa showed the Allies to what extreme ends the [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >(Being a careful writer, you may want to take another look at that >sentence. Or did you mean it that way?) It looks OK to me. >What, other than the same early Christian writings, would lead you to >the belief that they were particularly self-righteous? They appear to >have placed a bit more emphasis on it being everybody's responsibility >to uphold the laws in daily life, and they believed that, while people >had free will, God knew what was going to happen. Also that there >would be an eventual bodily resurrection of the dead. "Pharisee", from the COD10: n. 1 a member of an ancient Jewish sect, distinguished by strict observance of the traditional and written law, and commonly held to have pretensions to superior sanctity. 2 a self-righteous person. >>>Quite often, how a group's name is used depends on who writes the >>>history. Had the revolt of 66-73 AD been successful, it seems quite [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >drove out the Greeks. The independence then lasted for about a >hundred years. Ho-hum. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland On 28 Mar 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >>>>>>> Are the Zealots within the scope of your knowledge? More >>>>>>> to the point, Okinawa showed the Allies to what extreme [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > It looks OK to me. The first phrase -- "Being self-righteous" -- is modifying the following "I", not the subsequent "they". What you presumably intended was "Being self-righteous, they were, I imagine, even more obnoxious...". Your version reads as "I, being self-righteous, imagine they were even more obnoxious..." SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 28 Mar 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] >I imagine, even more obnoxious...". Your version reads as "I, >being self-righteous, imagine they were even more obnoxious..." Whoops. Thanks for the explanation, Harvey. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>What, other than the same early Christian writings, would lead you to >>the belief that they were particularly self-righteous? They appear to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > observance of the traditional and written law, and commonly held to > have pretensions to superior sanctity. That just reinforces Evan's point. "Commonly held" is a terse and polite way of saying "widely and unthinkingly believed by ignorant people whose only source of information is the unflattering portrail of the Pharisees in the New Testament, written by members of another (or a splinter) sect that was hardly lacking in its own pretensions to superior sanctity." > 2 a self-righteous person. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>My understanding (admittedly not based on detailed study) is that >>>the Japanese were not expect to surrender even if every ship, rowing [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Of course they would have had a choice: they could fight until the >last one of them died, even when it was a foregone conclusion. If we were to assume they are a subhuman species, yes. Otherwise, your supposition is ridiculous. >There's honor in that. They clearly didn't think so, nor do I, nor has any other group of people I've ever heard of. >There's no honor in just sitting there and >being slaughtered by massive bombs that you can't fight against. It is unrealistic to expect them to be able to understand the effects of weapons even the Allies didn't understand, as I keep pointing out. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>My understanding (admittedly not based on detailed study) is that >>>>the Japanese were not expect to surrender even if every ship, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If we were to assume they are a subhuman species, yes. Otherwise, > your supposition is ridiculous. Not a subhuman species, just brought up to be motiviated by different factors than the people you're more familiar with. >>There's honor in that. > > They clearly didn't think so, nor do I, nor has any other group of > people I've ever heard of. Nobody's ever been willing to fight to the last man against an invader? Oh, sure, at some point the Allies would have succeeded in taking Tokyo, after which we would have seen whether the honorable thing to do would have been to continue the resistance, accept the outcome, or commit suicide. (Doubtless different groups would have come to different decisions.) >>There's no honor in just sitting there and being slaughtered by >>massive bombs that you can't fight against. > > It is unrealistic to expect them to be able to understand the > effects of weapons even the Allies didn't understand, as I keep > pointing out. I'd say that a first level understanding of the effects is pretty straightforward. "Bomb explodes, city essentially destroyed, tens of thousands dead". They saw it happen, they got information that there were at least a hundred more, then they saw it happen again, corroborating the information. And in neither case was there a single enemy casualty. You don't need to understand about fallout and radiation poisoning to do the math and realize that there won't be much left. The boom itself is enough, when multiplied out. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I am ever forced to make a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |choice between learning and using Palo Alto, CA 94304 |win32, or leaving the computer |industry, let me just say it was kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |nice knowing all of you. :-) (650)857-7572 | Randal Schwartz http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > > There's honor in that. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nobody's ever been willing to fight to the last man against an > invader? Ahem: "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." Not that that's necessarily what would have happened, though. That last bit give pause for thought, too... DC, just passing through -- >>>> There's honor in that. >>> They clearly didn't think so, nor do I, nor has any other group of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Not that that's necessarily what would have happened, though. That > last bit give pause for thought, too... Ah, who can forget that great statesman Norman Shelley? SignatureDavid > > > > > There's honor in that. > > > > They clearly didn't think so, nor do I, nor has any other group [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Ah, who can forget that great statesman Norman Shelley? Absolutely. Who? (Googles) Freddie Danby *and* Winnie the Pooh? Do the umrats speak of this? DC -- >>>>>> There's honor in that. >>>>> They clearly didn't think so, nor do I, nor has any other group [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > (Googles) Freddie Danby *and* Winnie the Pooh? Do the umrats speak of > this? Actually, no, that's just ordinary general knowledge. I suppose they should. SignatureDavid > > > > There's honor in that. > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Not that that's necessarily what would have happened, though. That > last bit give pause for thought, too... Britain wasn't bankrupt enough yet at that particular moment. Jan > > > > There's honor in that. > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue > and the liberation of the old." > DC, just passing through. More memorable when translated into American: "Nuts!", Jan > >>> What of the impact on the US of all those people who would never have > >>> come back because they died in the invasion of Japan? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > accord with their fight-to-the-death-and-to-the-last-man-woman-and-child > mentality. A ground invasion would have been necessary. You do need oil, coal, iron, etc. to keep an arms industry going, if you want to oppose a modern army. Japan depended on imports (which had been effectively blocked) for all essentials. Bamboo spears (or even heirloom swords) are of little use against machine guns and tanks, Jan > >> What of the impact on the US of all those people who would never have > >> come back because they died in the invasion of Japan? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > have built more ships, if needed, for conventional force was clearly > winning the war in the Pacific without nuclear weapons. There wasn't any great need for more ships. The ones that there were (in particular the USN subs) had already done almost all that was necessary. In contrast to Germany (which lost its U-boot war) the US Navy had won its. They succeeded in blocking shipping to and from Japan almost completely, thereby bringing the Japanese industry nearly to a standstill. History has been unkind to these men. Because the role of nuclear weapons must be overplayed to appease the American conscience the importance of conventional naval warfare has been downplayed. The reality was that Japan had (by mid 1945) almost no industrial capacity left to defend itself. Jan >> >> What of the impact on the US of all those people who would never have >> >> come back because they died in the invasion of Japan? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >to appease the American conscience >the importance of conventional naval warfare has been downplayed. What rubbish. >The reality was that Japan had (by mid 1945) >almost no industrial capacity left to defend itself. That didn't stop them from promising to fight to the death. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >> >> What of the impact on the US of all those people who would never have > >> >> come back because they died in the invasion of Japan? [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > What rubbish. You really have no arguments left? Jan PS And for the 'first prove that you love us' school here: Yes, the American forces (and their allies) are praised here for having won their war against Japan by July 1945. Claiming that the nukes won the war does them grave unjustice. >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >incinerate Japanese in the hope that he would not have to lose Allied >lives in an invasion. A little perspective. Estimates of the dead in two nuclear raids: Hiroshima: 140K Nagasaki: 80K Estimates of the dead in "conventional: raids, i.e., firebombing Tokyo: 83K Kobe: 80K Hamburg: 50K Dresden: 25K The Hiroshima death toll was the largest, but the other raids left tolls in the same ballpark, and I see little reason to damn the nuking of Nagasaki while the firebombing of Tokyo was a bit worse. All this tells us about morality is that war is hell and we'd be damn fools to do it again. Once Hahn, Fritsch and Meissner showed the possibility of nuclear fission, the eventual development of a fission bomb was almost inevitable. >We'll never know what would have happened had >he not dropped the bombs, but the most likely outcome -- the one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >hard fighting and utter destruction all the way to the national >capital. On 13 August 1945, four days after The Bomb fell on Ngasaki, the vice-commander of the Japanese navy suggested a "sure fire" winning strategy: train 20,000,000 human kamikazis. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >[ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Thank you, Chuck, but I must share that honor with several others >(whom I will not name, for fear of omitting still more). I agree. ObAUE: As I used the expression, "a member or two" is a lighthearted way of referring to an unspecified number of members, in the vicinity of half a dozen members or more. >> I claim that the action >> was immoral because, while no one can know exactly what would have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >hard fighting and utter destruction all the way to the national >capital. He could have invited a team of Japanese representatives to one of our tests of the bomb. I believe there were two. If we were planning to drop it on them anyway, no secrets would have been divulged they wouldn't have an intimate knowledge of, soon enough. The destructive power of the thing was barely known to us and was totally unknown to the enemy, so how could America realistically, for the enemy didn't understand it, and humanely, for there are rules to war, threaten its use? >By the classic definition of "dilemma," it's hard to imagine a tougher >one than what Truman was faced with. Instead of being on two horns of a dilemma he had a third way, as I have outlined above. >> He was >> playing God with thousands of civilian lives, both of the current [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Anyone who thinks he didn't take that seriously is not a serious >person. Any moral person would take the decision seriously, but morality and capability are entirely different qualities. >> which is immoral even if the impact of >> radiation on future generations was not well understood at the time. > >What of the impact on the US of all those people who would never have >come back because they died in the invasion of Japan? No one knows how many would have died, for Japan might have surrendered without the Bomb soon after Germany did. Given the strength of America's military, Japan was going to surrender. >Was Truman "right"? It all depends on what the meaning of "right" is. You know what morality is and so do I, but if we introduce questions about a nebulous "right" or "wrong", this thread will last forever, God forbid. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >He could have invited a team of Japanese representatives to one of our >tests of the bomb. I believe there were two. There was only one. The Trinity test. >If we were planning to >drop it on them anyway, no secrets would have been divulged they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >understand it, and humanely, for there are rules to war, threaten its >use? A demonstration was suggested by some of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project, but it was considered and rejected as a probable waste of time. Not to mention that we didn't have enough bombs to both make demonstrations and use them as weapons. There were only two plutonium bombs, and one was exploded at Trinity, the other went to Tinian to join the uranium bomb. A third plutonium bomb was being hastily assembled to use on Tokyo if the first two didn't bring surrender. The only uranium bomb was used at Hiroshima. [...] >No one knows how many would have died, for Japan might have >surrendered without the Bomb soon after Germany did. Given the >strength of America's military, Japan was going to surrender. That is an unsupportable claim. All historical evidence indicates the Japanese, military and civilian, were largely pumped up to fight to the death. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the Japanese, military and civilian, were largely pumped up to >fight to the death. Not all evidence points the same way. Murray Sayle's "Myth of Hiroshima" is compelling. [I have only heard summaries and an interview.] SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. [snappage] > >No one knows how many would have died, for Japan might have > >surrendered without the Bomb soon after Germany did. Given the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the Japanese, military and civilian, were largely pumped up to > fight to the death. Complete nonsense, or equivalently, more justificationism. Japan had its hawks and doves as well. The internal problem was that the hawks were in power, and the doves had to move very carefully to avoid beign eliminated on treason charges. Best, Jan > >[ ... ] > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Instead of being on two horns of a dilemma he had a third way, as I > have outlined above. The horns of the dilemma are mostly a later invention. Truman hardly gave the matter of nuking Japan a thought. It was accepted as a matter of course. Truman had a more urgent problem on his mind: How to explain to Congress (and to the American public) that over two billion dollars had been spent in secret (a huge sum at the time, not merely a few hours of deficit buildup like today) on a futuristic weapon system that wasn't used after all? His second concern was Stalin. He wanted the Sovjet Union to declare war on Japan without paying too high a price for it in terms of a permanent Russian presence in Japan. Jan > > Robert wrote on Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:01:31 -0400: > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > generation and future ones, which is immoral even if the impact of > radiation on future generations was not well understood at the time. If you understand a 'terrorist act' as the mass murder of civilians, without any conceivable military usefulness, for some purely political end, then Hiroshima was one. Americans can't rightfully complain about the immorality of terrorist acts against them, while being unwilling to face the moral aspects of their own. Jan > If you understand a 'terrorist act' as the mass murder of civilians, > without any conceivable military usefulness, for some purely > political end, That's a mighty big "if" you've got there. But at least it brings the discussion back on-topic. > then Hiroshima was one. Only if neither "demonstrating the power of a previously unknown weapon to the enemy" and "bringing a rather swift end to the war by convincing the enemy to surrender" can't conceivably be considered to have "military usefulness" during a declared war. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If you think health care is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |expensive now, wait until you see Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > > If you understand a 'terrorist act' as the mass murder of civilians, > > without any conceivable military usefulness, for some purely > > political end, > > That's a mighty big "if" you've got there. But at least it brings the > discussion back on-topic. But you decline to discuss. Then what do you think 'terrorist act' should mean? > > then Hiroshima was one. > > Only if neither "demonstrating the power of a previously unknown > weapon to the enemy" and "bringing a rather swift end to the war by > convincing the enemy to surrender" can't conceivably be considered to > have "military usefulness" during a declared war. 'Military' in the above should be understood in a strict sense. As war fighting, or affecting war fighting capability. The shifting meaning of 'military' is discussed in for example Rhodes, The making of the Atomic Bomb. Rhodes shows how the term evolved from meaning personal battle between professional soldiers (like knights in armour) to ever more massive killings, of ever less war-fighting relevance, untill at last the mass murder of innocent civilians by pressing a button came to be a military action. I think it is better to take a step back, and to call mass murder of civilians a terrorist act, or a war crime instead, if you insist on emphasizing the in war context, Jan >> > If you understand a 'terrorist act' as the mass murder of >> > civilians, without any conceivable military usefulness, for some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But you decline to discuss. Then what do you think 'terrorist act' > should mean? I'd say that it's an action (which may not involve any deaths) whose primary goal is to disrupt a civilian population by putting them in fear ("terror") of *future*, perhaps more damaging, attacks at unpredictable times and to cause them to take action (e.g., by leaving or pressuring their government to give in to demands) to lessen the likelihood of such future attacks. For the bomb in Hiroshima to be a terrorist attack in that sense, the US would have had to have the aim of causing the Japanese people to revolt out of fear of future attacks and force the military to back down. Which would have been pretty stupid and which I've seen no evidence for. >> > then Hiroshima was one. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > meaning of 'military' is discussed in for example Rhodes, The making > of the Atomic Bomb. If you're going to use it in a (somewhat unusual) strict sense, you probably should say so. Even so, I would think that convincing the enemy army that you have such superior weaponry that they can't possibly win and might as well give up would count. (Much the same as in older times bringing a vastly disproportionate army.) You can disagree, but I think we're clearly out of "any conceivable" territory. > Rhodes shows how the term evolved from meaning personal battle > between professional soldiers (like knights in armour) to ever more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > civilians a terrorist act, or a war crime instead, if you insist on > emphasizing the in war context, I have no problem with an argument that it was a war crime. Not that I buy it, but I think that it's the right charge to be brought. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | is chaunge Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Withinne a thousand yer, and wordes | tho kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |That hadden prys now wonder nyce and (650)857-7572 | straunge |Us thenketh hem, and yet they spake http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | hem so | Chaucer >If you understand a 'terrorist act' >as the mass murder of civilians, >without any conceivable military usefulness, >for some purely political end, >then Hiroshima was one. "Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln" (War is a continuation of politics by other means." -Carl von Clausewitz One man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary hero. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >If you understand a 'terrorist act' > >as the mass murder of civilians, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (War is a continuation of politics by other means." > -Carl von Clausewitz I don't think you can invoke good old Claus here. The corrolary of his maxim is of course that ending wars is also a matter of politics. This is precisely what the USA did not want to do. They had locked themselves into a 'we don't talk with you' attitude. And also in: we won't listen to anything you may say, unless it is 'we surrender unconditionally'. It seems likely that the war could have ended sooner, had America be willing to listen, and to talk about surrender. The Japanese did try to make informal openings, several even, for they knew the war was over, and that they had lost it. This rigid American attitude was reinforced by the idea that 'we will soon nuke them anyway', Jan >> >If you understand a 'terrorist act' >> >as the mass murder of civilians, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >And also in: we won't listen to anything you may say, >unless it is 'we surrender unconditionally'. Uh, yeah. And....? >It seems likely that the war could have ended sooner, >had America be willing to listen, and to talk about surrender. The US said what they wanted. And one thing they wanted was a definite, final end that would prevent Japan ever trying it again, just as they did with Germany. The period between WW1 and WW2 showed what could happne if a nation didn't feel like it had really, really been whipped. Now if you want to go back to the days before 1941 there's a good argument that the USA was responible for the war with Japan by having embargoed oil. I think everyone agrees taht racsim played a part in the runup to Pearl Harbor. >The Japanese did try to make informal openings, several even, >for they knew the war was over, and that they had lost it. Some Japanese made such overtures through third party nations. >This rigid American attitude was reinforced by the idea >that 'we will soon nuke them anyway', Nonsense. Until July 1945 no one knew if the damn thing would work. And up until then hardly anyone, even in the military, even knew about The Bomb. If that had been the idea we would have skipped a few of the bloody battles in the islands, and we certainly could have done without the Battle of Okinawa. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >> >If you understand a 'terrorist act' > >> >as the mass murder of civilians, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > having embargoed oil. I think everyone agrees taht racsim played > a part in the runup to Pearl Harbor. A good point. Most Americans are content with a cry of 'infamy' here. What they don't consider is how it came to be that the Japanese leadership, which consisted of sane, intelligent and calculating men mostly, came to the conclusion that a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor (a huge gamble of course) was the best option they had left. That said, one may note that American and Japanese perceptions about the war differed enormously. To Japan, it was a 'we fight for oil' kind of war. (as Americans are becoming familiar with in the meantime) To the Americans it became a battle between pure Good (us whites) and pure Evil (them yellow slit eyes) Just look at the kind of propaganda the US was producing at the time. > >The Japanese did try to make informal openings, several even, > >for they knew the war was over, and that they had lost it. > > Some Japanese made such overtures through third party nations. And without them knowing it their diplomatic correspondence was read in Washington too. Jan SignatureI may come back to this, if time permits > >This rigid American attitude was reinforced by the idea > >that 'we will soon nuke them anyway', [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > skipped a few of the bloody battles in the islands, and we > certainly could have done without the Battle of Okinawa. [snip]> > That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air this > topic on this newsgroup? > Bob Lieblich > Who hopes to refuse all further bait And who hasn't got a cat in hells... SignatureRay UK > That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air this > topic on this newsgroup? I recently switched to a different news reader, which caused me to lose all my filters. Time to put Lodder back where he belongs. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air this >> topic on this newsgroup? > > I recently switched to a different news reader, which caused me to > lose all my filters. Time to put Lodder back where he belongs. And the horse he rode in on. SignatureFrank ess > > That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air this > > topic on this newsgroup? > > I recently switched to a different news reader, which caused me to > lose all my filters. Time to put Lodder back where he belongs. Sure, put your head solidly in the sand. America has never done anything wrong, will never do anything wrong, and can't possibly do anything wrong. And anyone suggesting otherwise is guilty of anti-Americanism. Good luck to you, Jan > > > That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air this > > > topic on this newsgroup? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And anyone suggesting otherwise > is guilty of anti-Americanism. If you want some credibility, Jan, list a few things America has done that were right. > > > > That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air this > > > > topic on this newsgroup? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If you want some credibility, Jan, list a few things America has done > that were right. In this particular episode? America owes an immense debt of gratitude to Henry Stimson, secretary of state, and to FDR for backing him up. He singlehandly prevented the USA from commiting the ultimate act of barbarity: nuking Kyoto, Jan SignatureStimson: General, you just can't bomb Kyoto. It would be like bombing Florence. Groves: Florence Who? (anecdote invented after the fact) [ ... [ > > If you want some credibility, Jan, list a few things America has done > > that were right. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from commiting the ultimate act of barbarity: > nuking Kyoto, That's it. We could have done worse but didn't? Faint praise indeed. Care to try again? Name just a few things we did (not didn't do) that were right? If you can't come up with any, then your view is that the United States never gets anything right. People already accuse you of taking that view. It allows them to disregard your comments as those of one who never has anything good to say. I'm offering you a chance to rebut them. How about it? > [ ... [ > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That's it. We could have done worse but didn't? Faint praise indeed. THe best there is, in this particular situation. > Care to try again? Name just a few things we did (not didn't do) that > were right? If you can't come up with any, then your view is that the > United States never gets anything right. No, I am not going to fight your straw men. > People already accuse you of > taking that view. It allows them to disregard your comments as those > of one who never has anything good to say. They'll say that anyway. It's part of the standard 'head in the sand' reaction. > I'm offering you a chance to rebut them. I don't need your chances. > How about it? I don't accept your 'you can only say something we don't want to hear if you also say something that pleases us at the same time'. Do Americans really need to have all pills sugared? There is enough in other things I wrote, if only you want to see it. It's not me who is biassed. It's Americans who have an automatic 'anti-Americanism' defence mechanism, Jan >> [ ... [ >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >It's Americans who have an automatic 'anti-Americanism' >defence mechanism, Jan, you may be too close to this to see it. An ideology often takes on a religious fervor; any contradictory evidence is ignored or rationalized as invalid. Bob asked a reasonable question. Ask yourself why this is so difficult to answer. I'm not trying to provoke you. I'm asking you to apply scientific objectivity. > >> [ ... [ > >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > a religious fervor; any contradictory evidence is ignored or > rationalized as invalid. Your 'must be anti-Americanism' reflex again. You automatically assume that my supposed anti-Americanism must be based on an ideology. And BTW, it isn't me who has changed, it is you. I don't know if you remember, but in the past your reactions to whatever I wrote here used to be very hostile, and that right from the start. (and even before anything specific to America came up) I have no idea what made you change your mind. (but it is a good thing that you did) > Bob asked a reasonable question. Our opinions differ here. > Ask yourself why this is so difficult to answer. It is not difficult at all. It's just that I don't think that I should be doing what he wants. > I'm not trying to provoke you. I believe you in that. I am not trying to provoke you either. > I'm asking you to apply scientific objectivity. A bit difficult, on a subject of history. As you may know or suspect, there is a huge literature on the subject. (and as it happens, I have read some of it) Most of what I have seen (also from American sources) gives little support for the commonly heard justifications. Best, Jan >> Jan, you may be too close to this to see it. An ideology often takes on >> a religious fervor; any contradictory evidence is ignored or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that my supposed anti-Americanism >must be based on an ideology. You are making assumptions about my motives. This is dangerous. As far as ideology is concerned, I hope you noticed that there is very little that is favorable about Americans that you have written (I'm hard pressed to think of any kind words, at all). It is difficult not to conclude that there is an anti-American bias in your reasoning. You fight tooth and claw to defend your stance, and, to my memory, have never modified a stance regardless of the evidence provided. >And BTW, it isn't me who has changed, it is you. >I don't know if you remember, >but in the past your reactions to whatever I wrote here >used to be very hostile, and that right from the start. I remember it quite well. My reaction to you was your less than tactful and impolite way you disagreed with people. The problem was never so much in what you said but in the way you said it. At first I assumed (it's a hazard to assume), it was your lack of experience with the idiom that made some of your replies abrasive. It was only after reading your posts over time that I concluded the abrasiveness was intentional. My response was, either right or wrong, tit for tat. There is no useful purpose served in rehashing this past. >(and even before anything specific to America came up) >I have no idea what made you change your mind. >(but it is a good thing that you did) See the above for what I saw as less than tactful. I didn't change my mind. I simply found no useful purpose in continuing the pursuit of being clever in reproof. What you may not know is that I don't hold grudges and refuse to stay angry. Again, it serves no useful purpose. > >> Jan, you may be too close to this to see it. An ideology often takes on > >> a religious fervor; any contradictory evidence is ignored or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You are making assumptions about my motives. This is dangerous. Well, I explicitly said that I don't understand you. > As far > as ideology is concerned, I hope you noticed that there is very little [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fight tooth and claw to defend your stance, and, to my memory, have > never modified a stance regardless of the evidence provided. You are reading selectively. And anyway, coming from you this is at best a pot and kettle. I never saw you admit to having been wrong either. > >And BTW, it isn't me who has changed, it is you. > >I don't know if you remember, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I remember it quite well. My reaction to you was your less than tactful > and impolite way you disagreed with people. Yes, I told you that you had blundered on physics subjects on several occasions. On a least one of those occasions I did give you a hint first to allow you a face saving recovery, to no avail. In my perception you had started hostilities, and I saw no reason to walk softly after that. > The problem was never so > much in what you said but in the way you said it. At first I assumed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > response was, either right or wrong, tit for tat. There is no useful > purpose served in rehashing this past. Agreed. And for other posters here too: Despite the friendliness and helpfullness of some, alt.usage.english as a whole is often rather unfriendly to newcomers, in particular when these are non-native speakers who do more than ask questions. (I have seen it happen in other cases as well) Not every alt.usage.english regular is aware of this I think, for it is most notable when you stray in. > >(and even before anything specific to America came up) > >I have no idea what made you change your mind. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > being clever in reproof. What you may not know is that I don't hold > grudges and refuse to stay angry. Again, it serves no useful purpose. I see. I also saw that it took you a long time to realize that and to put it into practice. Jan >> >> Jan, you may be too close to this to see it. An ideology often takes on >> >> a religious fervor; any contradictory evidence is ignored or [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >In my perception you had started hostilities, >and I saw no reason to walk softly after that. I said a rehash serves no useful purpose. Your recollection and mine differ. Do you honestly think it matters who is right or wrong? No one else cares. Do you want your epitaph to read "I knew I was right"? >> The problem was never so >> much in what you said but in the way you said it. At first I assumed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Not every alt.usage.english regular is aware of this I think, >for it is most notable when you stray in. Yes, first impressions are important. And here, where the usage of the language is taken seriously, nuance is almost never overlooked. Many newcomers don't read the FAQ, a very big mistake. It is also a mistake to think a newcomer should be treated as a guest. Jumping into an argument with both feet, with language that is blunt and abrasive, will leave a newcomer wondering why the walls fell in on him (as Truly said, there be dragons here). There is a klatch element here. It takes time time to know who people are and what to expect. A newbie entering a discussion is often looked on in the same way as a person taking a job interview. Whether one likes it or not, that is the tradition of this group. That is why it important to read the AUE FAQ, probably the best FAQ of any ng. >> >(and even before anything specific to America came up) >> >I have no idea what made you change your mind. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I see. I also saw that it took you a long time >to realize that and to put it into practice. It was much earlier than you judge. I hope you can put your anger aside, too. > I said a rehash serves no useful purpose. We agree there. [snippage] > Yes, first impressions are important. And here, where the usage of the > language is taken seriously, nuance is almost never overlooked. Overlooking not is not enough, one should apply nuance as well. > Many > newcomers don't read the FAQ, a very big mistake. It is also a mistake > to think a newcomer should be treated as a guest. That is a 'mistake' some of the regular here certainly don't make. Fortunately some other regulars do make it quite regularly. When the hostility of some posters here got out of hand I received some encouring private mail from others along the lines of: 'don't take them too seriously. It's only .... ' > >I see. I also saw that it took you a long time > >to realize that and to put it into practice. > > It was much earlier than you judge. I hope you can put your anger aside, > too. Quit possible. It was a gradual change. And what gives you the idea that I might be angry? Jan >> > > > That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air this >> > > > topic on this newsgroup? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >from commiting the ultimate act of barbarity: >nuking Kyoto, Um. FDR died months before the Trinity test, so how could Stimson have prevented FDR from nuking anyplace at all? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >> > > > That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air this > >> > > > topic on this newsgroup? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Um. FDR died months before the Trinity test, so how could Stimson > have prevented FDR from nuking anyplace at all? Targetting was discussed long before use. Stimson had a quarrel with Gen. Groves over bombing Kyoto. Groves wanted to, thereby destroying much of Japan's cultural heritage (UNESCO world heritage site by now) Stimson said he shouldn't, and effectively vetoed it. FDR backed Stimson. (iirc, I don't have my sources at hand) Stimson and FDR set the line that has been US policy ever since: Nuclear targetting and any decision of use is the exclusive responsibility of the US president, not of the military. [1] Truman could have reversed the decision, but he didn't. I don't know if the question was put to him at all. Best, Jan [1] Again iirc the Sovjet Union followed the precedent, with control over nuclear weapons being with the Central Committee, through the KGB, not with the military. >> >America owes an immense debt of gratitude to Henry Stimson, >> >secretary of state, and to FDR for backing him up. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Groves wanted to, thereby destroying much of Japan's cultural heritage >(UNESCO world heritage site by now) Do you have a cite for that? Groves had nothing to do with targetting; he was in charge of the industrial side. The Air Force included Kyoto in its list of suggested targets, but Groves was in the Army Corps of Engineers. He had previously commanded he construction of the Pentagon. You really should read Richard Rhode's _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_. >Stimson said he shouldn't, and effectively vetoed it. >FDR backed Stimson. (iirc, I don't have my sources at hand) FDR was dead before any nuclear bombing began. Was there such a discussion with Truman? >Stimson and FDR set the line that has been US policy ever since: >Nuclear targetting and any decision of use >is the exclusive responsibility of the US president, >not of the military. [1] The President is the military: he is the Commander in Chief. All presidents have the option to choose or forbid certain targets. >Truman could have reversed the decision, but he didn't. >I don't know if the question was put to him at all. See Truman's memoirs, which I cited in another post. I can't find anything about Stimson specifically quashing Kyoto as a target. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >disputable points about the use of the two bombs, but to say that >three days is "no chance to consider to say surrender" is absurd. The Japanese had no way to debate this question before the dropping of the first bomb since they did not understand its ferocity and no time to debate surrender after the dropping of the first bomb, before the dropping of the second. News in 1945 did not travel at even half the rate it travels today, so allowing them only three days was heartless. >That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air this >topic on this newsgroup? Certainly not, but would you have us discuss something as difficult as English usage when it is so much easier to shoot the sh.t about Truman and the Bomb? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland > >> > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > dropping of the second. News in 1945 did not travel at even half the > rate it travels today, so allowing them only three days was heartless. One must also consider the logistics of the situation. Hiroshima is at somewhat over 800 km from Tokyo. At Hiroshima and around chaos must have reigned. Taking stock of the situation cannot have been easy. In between communication (in a thoroughly bombed out country) was difficult. And (as any military man should know) moving information upwards through the channels takes time, even in the best of circumstances. And of course decision making takes time too, especially when it is a difficult and unprecedented decision. First news of Nagasaki arrived in Tokyo when understanding of what had happened at Hiroshima was emerging and discussion of what to do about it was going on. So, sound bluffing tactics perhaps, but that's about the best that can be said for it. > >That said, I agree with Nick. Is it really necessary to air this > >topic on this newsgroup? > > Certainly not, but would you have us discuss something as difficult as > English usage when it is so much easier to shoot the sh.t about Truman > and the Bomb? Or any of the other strictly off-topic threads that comprise the volume of alt.usage.english. Those longish threads that make up most of the posting volume are almost never strictly on-topic for most of their length. Finally, (as Evan noted) none of the complainers about OT tried to go back on topic in some way or other, I did, Best, Jan > > > Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > disputable points about the use of the two bombs, but to say that > three days is "no chance to consider to say surrender" is absurd. Standard justificationist folklore. As it happened, there never was a second decision about Nagasaki. There was a single decision to use both the bombs available, and to use them as soon as possible. The timing was a matter of American logistics only. It is a natural error to make though. One naturally assumes that America would have said: here you have a city nuked, do you want to surrender, (with a time limit) or do you want us to nuke the next one? It didn't happen that way. Jan >> Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Of course, hurry in the second one >before they had a chance to consider to say surrender. Knowing what we now know about the events occuring in Tokyo after the Hiroshima bomb it seems to me pretty unlikely the Japanese would have surrendered without the Nagasaki bomb. >> I fervently hope nuclear weapons will never be used again but, if the US >> people had been asked to vote in 1945 on whether the atomic bomb should [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >to give you the estimates you need >to justify what you are going to do anyway. Who would you suggest asking? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > >> Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the Hiroshima bomb it seems to me pretty unlikely the Japanese > would have surrendered without the Nagasaki bomb. They were considering what to do when news of Nagasaki arrived. Good bluffing tactics perhaps, but that's about the best that can be said for it. See also my reply to Riggs for more on this point. > >> I fervently hope nuclear weapons will never be used again but, if the US > >> people had been asked to vote in 1945 on whether the atomic bomb should [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Who would you suggest asking? Had Truman wanted to consider the matter seriously (there are no indications that he ever did) he could have asked for an independent second opinion. Like you may do when your doctor tells you that you must make s difficult choice. Ask Eisenhower for example, who was against using nuclear weapons because he considered deliberate mass murder of civilians both distasteful and militarily unnecessary for winning the war, both in Europe and in Japan. Best, Jan >> >> Chuck wrote on Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:34:26 +0000: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >They were considering what to do when news of Nagasaki arrived. >Good bluffing tactics perhaps, I just checked in Richard Rhodes' book, _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_ and he observes, as others have, that the Japanese High Command was opposed to surrender after Hiroshima, and remained adamantly opposed to surrender even after Nagasaki. A third plutonium bomb had been built and was on its way to Tinian to be used on Tokyo itself but after Nagasaki, but not until then, the Emperor did something non-protocol and stated that he prefered surrender. Just in time to stop the tranport of the third bomb to Tinian. >but that's about the best that can be said for it. >See also my reply to Riggs for more on this point. I think I'll rely on history books instead of your word. >> >> I fervently hope nuclear weapons will never be used again but, if the US >> >> people had been asked to vote in 1945 on whether the atomic bomb should [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >(there are no indications that he ever did) >he could have asked for an independent second opinion. He had plenty of second opinions, including that of a large number of the scientists who developed and built the bomb and who coirculated a petitions about it. You know, there are some pretty interesting moral questions about the use of The Bombs, but it helps a lot if you first find out what really happened. You would know all this if you made an effort to know what you're talking about. In _Memoirs by Harry S Truman, Volume 1, Year of Decisions_ Truman describes the advisory committee he appointed to make recommendation as to the use of the bomb. The committee consisted of eight prominet Americans led by Henry Stimson, and advised by four sceintists, Oppenheimer, Compton, Lawrence and Fermi. "It was their recommendation that the bomb be used against the enemy as soon as it coulde be done. They recommended further that is should be used without specific warning and against a target that would clearly show its devastating strength." >Like you may do when your doctor tells you >that you must make s difficult choice. > >Ask Eisenhower for example, You mean hold a sceance? >who was against using nuclear weapons >because he considered deliberate mass murder of civilians >both distasteful and militarily unnecessary for winning the war, >both in Europe and in Japan. That must have been his thinking later, since he didn't know about The Bomb until the war in Europe, and probably not until after Hiroshima. In any case, Eisenhower was the one who authorized the carrying of H-bombs and atomic bombs in B-36s and B-52s and authorized the continuing existence of the Strategic Air Command. He may have been reluctant, but he certainly wasn't opposed to the use of nuclear weapons. The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction came largely out ot the Eisenhower years. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>Ask Eisenhower for example, > >You mean hold a sceance? Nice word, but it can only be used about contacting dead scientists. SignatureJames |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.