Text 37491, 125 rader
Skriven 2006-08-25 14:33:00 av LEE LOFASO (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ROY WITT
Ärende: CELEBRATION!
====================
Hello Roy,

>HN>Sure it might have saved many allied troops when they had
>HN>to invade Japan, but that cannot be an argument for
>HN>celebrating the nukes in WWII.

>BK>While there is no reason to celebrate the deaths of so many, it
>BK>probably saved a lot of Japanese troops and civilians also.

>LL>Face it, Bob.  Harry S Truman was a mass murderer.

>RW>Which would put him in a class with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin,
>RW>Churchill and Tojo...although, might makes right in this case.

>LL>Might makes right?

RW>In some cases. The Allies' was, the rest weren't.

Nazi Germany was invading countries left and right.
The Empire of Japan was invading countries left and right.
Fascist Italy invaded countries left and right.
Rather than invading countries left and right, the Allies
chose to defend what remained, and sought to defeat the
powers that had invaded so many independent countries.
Fortunately for the world, the Allies won.

IOW, might never makes right.  But it can set things right.

>LL>To the victor go the spoils?

RW>In some instances...not ours of course. We always give aid to the
RW>defeated, which is why there's a very strong economic Germany and Japan
RW>today.

We have not always given to the defeated.  And we do not always give
to the defeated.  After all, the Taliban will never receive any help
from us.  And neither will al-Qaeda.

>LL>Peace through strength?

RW>If necessary.

I much prefer the philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt, who once said "Speak
softly, but carry a big stick."  Rather than using the Big Stick to
bully others into submission, Roosevelt chose to keep the Big Stick
handy in case of need, as a means of protection for America and others.

>LL>No country has the right to invade another country and to claim that
>LL>territory as its own.

RW>That depends on your point of view, that is, if you're not a victim. It
RW>was quite ok for Japan to do that, as it was also ok for Germany. But the
RW>rest of the world thought differently.

Nazi Germany thought it was fighting a defensive war.
The Empire of Japan thought it was fighting a defensive war.
Fascist Italy thought it was fighting a defensive war.
IOW, those nations thought of themselves as being the victim.

>LL>No country has the right to bomb another country that is basically
>LL>defenseless, either.

RW>That also depends. If they refuse to eject terrorists and allow them to
RW>even participate in that country's government, it's the only thing to do.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  Prior to Israel's
bombardment of Lebanon, most Lebanese considered Hezbollah as being a
horrible terrorist group.  But today, the same Lebanese people look at
Hezbollah as being defenders of Lebanon, rather than a terrorist group.

>LL>The Japanese high command had offered to surrender a full month
>LL>*before* the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>RW>Yeah! On their terms.

>LL>Nope.  Not by a long shot.

RW>By a very long shot.

On better terms than they would have gotten with an unconditional
surrender.

>LL>An unconditional surrender would have meant no leverage at all for
>LL>the Japanese high command,

RW>Which is why they were refused. They were guilty of war crimes and an
RW>conditional surrender would have given them immunity to prosecution.

Nope.  Even a conditional surrender would not have guaranteed them
immunity to prosecution.  And who says that all of them were "guilty
of war crimes"?  Some of them were.  But not all.  In any event, the
real reason why the Japanese were refused the option of a conditional
surrender had nothing to do with who was guilty of war crimes, but
rather of Truman's wish to demonstrate to the world his willingness
to atomize populated civilian centers, namely Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As such, who was really guilty of having committed war crimes or
crimes against humanity or <gasp> genocide?

>LL>meaning their own death.

RW>Many of them knew the consequences of thier crimes. They just didn't
RW>believe they'd lose the war, which is typical of all monsters who engage
RW>in such atrocitys.

The Japanese knew the war was lost, long before the atomic bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>LL>A conditional surrender would have given the Japanese high command
>LL>some leverage, although not much, in regards to saving their own
>LL>skin.

RW>See above. What they finally agreed to was an unconditional surrender, one
RW>that didn't even protect their precious Emperor.

The unconditional surrender meant surrender under terms of the Potsdam
Agreement.  As for the status of Hirohito, a "secret deal" was made
between President Harry S Truman and Hirohito, thus allowing the Emperor
to keep his head.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * My reality check just bounced.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)