Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
August 12, 2005 Good morning. I have been forwarding information from the Biofuels email list to Dad to bounce ideas off of him. He is a retired chemist. He lent us Lifting theFog: the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a documentary. My wife and I didn't get a lot out of this documentary because of the way the directors used actors without explanation to represent historic figures. It put us off when we saw contrived historical footage with no validation of text documentation. Were these accurate quotes or was spin being put on history just to give the story more bite? I like a down and dirty war story entirely made up by Hollywood as well as the Saving Private Ryan genre, which is loosely based on history, but I dont know about this mixed up story. Dad disagreed, he said it showed the US government has been lying to American people for so long that they we take it for granted nowadays. That may be so, but it is not just the American government that has been lying. My wife and I had an hour to spend after work yesterday and while I ran software scans on a laptop, she found a PBS Frontline story titled Belsen: Remembering the Camps. Now this is actual footage, not Hollywood pap, showing the concentration camps in Germany as the liberating Allied (mainly British) troops found them. Documented footage of the starvation, dehumanization, and anhilation of prisoners by the SS Guards was horrendous. These unidentified people were taken from all over Europe, placed in the camps to die in the gas chambers, or left to die miserable protracted deaths by starvation and disease. As Allied troops advanced to liberate the camps, thousands of men, women, and children prisoners were rounded up into buildings and burned by the Nazi guards. Those that tried to escape the fire were shot. The footage graphically documented the brutallity. That was gruesome. Want to talk about Biofuels again? Brian Rodgers Was this documentary called Lifting of the fog: the Bombings of Hiroshima And Nagasaki? No. The documentary dealt specifically with Nagasaki. Two of the men onboard the "Bocks Car" B 29 were interviewed, as well as a number of Japanese who survived the ordeal and the usual "expert panel" that consisted of three or four people with opposing views. I don't remember the name of the film, but there was nothing more than a cursory mention of Hiroshima. robert luis rabello ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Brian Rodgers wrote: That was gruesome. Want to talk about Biofuels again? Sure! Let's do that. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
hi tom. yes, you have the right picture, though it actually went further. it wasn't just a matter of *trying* to reach consensus before acting. unanimous consensus was essentially mandatory (an artifact of their particular brand of imperial government perhaps: disharmony/discord could not be allowed?). this is how the hard-liners were able to drag the conflict out as long as they did. however, while the cabinet was empowered with setting policy, they were required to obtain the emperor's blessing for all their decisions. nor did this prohibit the emperor from taking things in hand, as when he initiated diplomatic efforts to seek a peace. he was very much up to speed on the affairs of government: the progress of the war and state of the military; the state of the economy; etc. now, the guy who wrote this piece in the standard (richard frank), he's simply trotting out the same old tired arguments and assertions. which he tries to lend a veneer of fresh originality by blowing a lot of hot air about all this compelling new evidence (it's been in the public domain going on nearly15 years now). but he backs up his premise with nothing but a bunch of data the better part of which could as easily be used to argue in the contrary. what is clear, and this is not a matter of interpretation, is that japanese peace efforts began at least as early as june of '45, by which time some 100 of their cities had been fire-bombed and their desperate, last-ditch attempt to blunt the american advance at okinawa had failed miserably. there could no longer be any doubt at this point about the inevitability of an invasion of japan itself. some interesting links which demonstrate how very selective frank is with his data: http://www.dailyvanguard.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/08/06/42f4f59f0b6fc http://www.vw.cc.va.us/vwhansd/HIS122/Hiroshima.html http://www.counterpunch.org/krieger08062003.html i especially liked the latter two. there were several others i ran across over the course of this debate, but i can't seem to find them at the moment (i found them all on google). anyway, always interesting, these discussions. -chris b. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
robert luis rabello wrote I just watched a documentary on the Nagasaki bombing a few nights ago. One of the points brought out in the film concerned the division within the "big 6", a council of Japanese military leaders, regarding the conditions for surrender. They knew their war had been lost, but three of them were seeking "peace with honor", while the allies were pushing for unconditional surrender. Was this documentary called Lifting of the fog: the Bombings of Hiroshima And Nagasaki? Brian Rodgers ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Brian Rodgers wrote: Was this documentary called Lifting of the fog: the Bombings of Hiroshima And Nagasaki? No. The documentary dealt specifically with Nagasaki. Two of the men onboard the Bocks Car B 29 were interviewed, as well as a number of Japanese who survived the ordeal and the usual expert panel that consisted of three or four people with opposing views. I don't remember the name of the film, but there was nothing more than a cursory mention of Hiroshima. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 19:39:25 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of HiroshimaHi Keith,You misinterpret my suspician. My suspician is that the site is blocked from me. I work at an embassy school and will try again at home.Sounds most improbable. Actually quite probable considering I was there as the school was built and the computing and telephone systems were put in. The embassy folks came in right after the normal lines were installed to place some additional equipment to the same lines. Neither I nor our computer systems person has any idea what that equipment does. Yet low and behold upon returning home I can access the site you mentioned. Big Brother is always watching. Tom Irwin I don't always evaluate newspapers just individual reporters.It depends which newspapers, and which reporters.I look for my U.S. news in British papers and my European news in certain American publications. Thanks for the new site and perspective on English newspapers.English newspapers? Whatever are you talking about? They're US anti-spin sites, as I said. You're not making a lot of sense Mr Irwin, and it's getting a little tiresome.KeithTom IrwinFrom: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:46:54 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of HiroshimaHi Keith,I can't read what will not come up on my computer screen. I have tried repeatedly to bring up that site and my computer just runs and runs. Suspicious for sureI think the suspicion is in the eye of the beholder, or perhaps his computer set-up - SourceWatch and PR Watch and the Center for Media and Democracy are excellent sources, thorough, reliable, authoritative. I haven't seen John Stauber or Sheldon Rampton get it wrong yet. To cast suspicion on an excellent anti-spin web resource because you can't raise it on your browser is ridiculous.but I'm merely ignorant not lazy.You're certainly lagging far behind if you haven't twigged the Weekly Standard yet.Tom IrwinNothing wrong with it that I can see, it's always accessible.Somebody quoted it as a source and I told him it's an anti-source. The links at the Weekly Standard entry at Disinfopedia unearth virtually the whole web of deceit:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Weekly_StandardWeekly Standard Magazine - SourceWatchOr just go to:http://www.sourcewatch.org/Scroll down to the search box on the left and enter "Weekly Standard" (including quotes).Or go to PR Watch and do the same:http://www.prwatch.org/search.htmlPR Watch: Search WebsiteOr go to any number of places that expose shills and spinners and liars. Just what sort of fine upholder of the 4th estate is the Weekly Standard should hardly be news by now.KeithHello TomHi folks,I hope everyone is reading all the attachments to articles on this topic.I'd hoped everyone would be reading the responses, but it seems not, in your case:Somebody quoted it as a source and I told him it's an anti-source. The links at the Weekly Standard entry at Disinfopedia unearth virtually the whole web of deceit:http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Weekly_StandardWeekly Standard Magazine - SourceWatchhttp://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/ 200 5-August/002200.html[Biofuel] Fw: [HDR] August 06, 2005 -- date of risk?I found the one in the Weekly Standard to be very credible.Sorry, but I think that's hilarious! The Weekly Standard credible! ROFLKeithThanks Greg and April for this information. Perhaps that´s my own personal bias. How would you attack this Chris B. and Hakan? More government propaganda?Why Truman Dropped the BombFrom the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision.by Richard B. Frank08/08/2005, Volume 010, Issue 44Tom IrwinFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:49:37 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshimadoug,*Part* of the Japanese government was trying to find a way to surrender,you've been misinformed. this is a misrepresentation of the facts. it washirohito himself, quite on his own, that asked the soviets to mediate a peace.later, the government junta voted unanimously in favor of sending an envoy tomoscow. the peace faction and the hardliners had their own reasons forsupporting the idea, but the point is that they took that action in the first placebecause hirohito wanted them to.these events transpired because the situation in japan was progressivelydeteriorating. there were growing fears that total social and economic collapse,and, therefore, most likely political collapse as well, were imminent.furthermore, it was not the united states' intent to force a quick surrenderby using the bombs. that simply did not enter into the calculus i.e. savingso many american or japanese lives was not the motivation for nuking japan. It's not clear that the U.S. population would
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hi Keith, You misinterpret my suspician. My suspician is that the site is blocked from me. I work at an embassy school and will try again at home. Sounds most improbable. Actually quite probable considering I was there as the school was built and the computing and telephone systems were put in. The embassy folks came in right after the normal lines were installed to place some additional equipment to the same lines. Neither I nor our computer systems person has any idea what that equipment does. Yet low and behold upon returning home I can access the site you mentioned. Big Brother is always watching. Tom Irwin Yes there has been quite a bit of dialog recently about this very thing going on in China where some form of censorship is being built into the service providers for the entire country. We were having a discussion about this very thing last night at the bar on campus where I get my WVO! Joe ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
i think so as well, i'm afraid. if they can seriously pursue projects like Total Information Awareness without compunction, then filtering the telecommunications of a governmental property would be like, at the autonomic nervous system level. what do you do at the school, tom? teacher? administrator? -chris b. In a message dated 8/10/05 8:16:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Keith, You misinterpret my suspician. My suspician is that the site is blocked from me. I work at an embassy school and will try again at home. Sounds most improbable. Actually quite probable considering I was there as the school was built and the computing and telephone systems were put in. The embassy folks came in right after the normal lines were installed to place some additional equipment to the same lines. Neither I nor our computer systems person has any idea what that equipment does. Yet low and behold upon returning home I can access the site you mentioned. Big Brother is always watching. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hi Chris, This year I teach Environmental Science, Physical Science, Earth Science, Chemistry and Pre-Algebra. It's a small school so we all teach multiple subjects. Tom From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:03:53 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshimai think so as well, i'm afraid. if they can seriously pursue projects like Total Information Awareness without compunction, then filtering the telecommunications of a governmental property would be like, at the autonomic nervous system level.what do you do at the school, tom? teacher? administrator?-chris b.In a message dated 8/10/05 8:16:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Keith, You misinterpret my suspician. My suspician is that the site is blocked from me. I work at an embassy school and will try again at home. Sounds most improbable. Actually quite probable considering I was there as the school was built and the computing and telephone systems were put in. The embassy folks came in right after the normal lines were installed to place some additional equipment to the same lines. Neither I nor our computer systems person has any idea what that equipment does. Yet low and behold upon returning home I can access the site you mentioned. Big Brother is always watching. ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Greetings Chris, I can´t say for sure what the author´s intent actually was. From my limited experience, someWWII analysts thought that the Japanese discussed everything in detail and tried to come to a consensus before acting. It doesn´t seem too far fetched that even Hiroshima would take the Japanese military divided even minorly between surrender and fighting to the bitter end would take some time and discuss the alternatives. Can anyone else back up that idea on Japanese thinking? Tom Irwin From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 06:26:31 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshimatypical think-tank rubbish. an opinion piece masquerading as serious (and unimpeachable, of course!) historical analysis.the thing is, the piece is desperately short on analysis, though long on subtext. he rather selectively piles up a bunch of data about the tactical situation in the pacific. all more or less correct, but he frames it in a manner that is neither organic nor very coherent. most importantly, however, is that only a single sentence fragment (in parenthesis, to boot) in the entire piece directly addresses the question proposed in the title:"On August 7 (the day after Hiroshima, which no one expected to prompt a quick surrender). . . ."let me give that to you again, in case it flew by too fast (precisely the author's intent):". . .the day after Hiroshima, which no one expected to prompt a quick surrender. . . ."so then, why *did* truman drop the bomb?-chris b.In a message dated 8/8/05 6:25:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I found the one in the Weekly Standard to be very credible. Thanks Greg and April for this information. Perhaps that´s my own personal bias. How would you attack this Chris B. and Hakan? More government propaganda? ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Tom Irwin wrote: Greetings Chris, I can´t say for sure what the author´s intent actually was. From my limited experience, some WWII analysts thought that the Japanese discussed everything in detail and tried to come to a consensus before acting. It doesn´t seem too far fetched that even Hiroshima would take the Japanese military divided even minorly between surrender and fighting to the bitter end would take some time and discuss the alternatives. Can anyone else back up that idea on Japanese thinking? Tom Irwin I just watched a documentary on the Nagasaki bombing a few nights ago. One of the points brought out in the film concerned the division within the big 6, a council of Japanese military leaders, regarding the conditions for surrender. They knew their war had been lost, but three of them were seeking peace with honor, while the allies were pushing for unconditional surrender. After the Nagasaki bombing, the Japanese emperor is said to have called the council together for the sake of hearing their advice. When their division was presented to him, Emperor Hirohito agreed to surrender under the single condition that the institution of the Japanese royalty would be preserved. As I understand this, he got his way. Now, whether this was the result of the atomic bombings, the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, or a combination of both, the allied threat in July from Potsdam to wreak destruction from the air and utterly destroy Japan was not a bluff. We live in a very different world as a result. Let's work to prevent it from ever happening again, lest those who suffered, and those who STILL suffer, do so in vain. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hello Tom Hi folks, I hope everyone is reading all the attachments to articles on this topic. I'd hoped everyone would be reading the responses, but it seems not, in your case: Somebody quoted it as a source and I told him it's an anti-source. The links at the Weekly Standard entry at Disinfopedia unearth virtually the whole web of deceit: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Weekly_Standard Weekly Standard Magazine - SourceWatch http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 5-August/002200.html [Biofuel] Fw: [HDR] August 06, 2005 -- date of risk? I found the one in the Weekly Standard to be very credible. Sorry, but I think that's hilarious! The Weekly Standard credible! ROFL Keith Thanks Greg and April for this information. Perhaps that´s my own personal bias. How would you attack this Chris B. and Hakan? More government propaganda? Why Truman Dropped the Bomb From the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision. by Richard B. Frank 08/08/2005, Volume 010, Issue 44 Tom Irwin From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:49:37 -0300 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima doug, *Part* of the Japanese government was trying to find a way to surrender, you've been misinformed. this is a misrepresentation of the facts. it was hirohito himself, quite on his own, that asked the soviets to mediate a peace. later, the government junta voted unanimously in favor of sending an envoy to moscow. the peace faction and the hardliners had their own reasons for supporting the idea, but the point is that they took that action in the first place because hirohito wanted them to. these events transpired because the situation in japan was progressively deteriorating. there were growing fears that total social and economic collapse, and, therefore, most likely political collapse as well, were imminent. furthermore, it was not the united states' intent to force a quick surrender by using the bombs. that simply did not enter into the calculus i.e. saving so many american or japanese lives was not the motivation for nuking japan. It's not clear that the U.S. population would have accepted just hanging around fully mobilized at war waiting for six months or a year until the Japanese you're presenting kind of a worst case scenario of how a blockade strategy, as opposed to invading, might have unfolded. besides, the disposition of the american people is a red herring and highly speculative (another echo of the 'aussie gun control' argument). nor does it have any bearing on whether or not bombing hiroshima and nagasaki were inhumane. -chris b. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
typical think-tank rubbish. an opinion piece masquerading as serious (and unimpeachable, of course!) historical analysis. the thing is, the piece is desperately short on analysis, though long on subtext. he rather selectively piles up a bunch of data about the tactical situation in the pacific. all more or less correct, but he frames it in a manner that is neither organic nor very coherent. most importantly, however, is that only a single sentence fragment (in parenthesis, to boot) in the entire piece directly addresses the question proposed in the title: On August 7 (the day after Hiroshima, which no one expected to prompt a quick surrender). . . . let me give that to you again, in case it flew by too fast (precisely the author's intent): . . .the day after Hiroshima, which no one expected to prompt a quick surrender. . . . so then, why *did* truman drop the bomb? -chris b. In a message dated 8/8/05 6:25:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I hope everyone is reading all the attachments to articles on this topic. I found the one in the Weekly Standard to be very credible. Thanks Greg and April for this information. Perhaps that´s my own personal bias. How would you attack this Chris B. and Hakan? More government propaganda? ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
i forgot to mention, if you hadn't figured out what that weekly standard piece was all about by the time you'd reached the author's fifth coded reference to the pro-communist, pro-gay agenda, tree-hugging, tax-and-spend, anti-patriotic, anti-american, anti-life, terrorist-loving liberal elite, then the final sentence certainly should have tipped you off. -chris b. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hi Keith, I can't read what will not come up on my computer screen. I have tried repeatedly to bring up that site and my computer just runs and runs. Suspicious for sure but I'm merely ignorant not lazy. Tom Irwin ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hi Keith, I tried accessing that site repeatedly and my computer just churns and churns and never gets there. I've even done the usual stuff like truncating web site name down a bit and still it just churns. This is suspicious to be sure. I may be ignorant but I'm not lazy. Tom Irwin___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hi Keith, I can't read what will not come up on my computer screen. I have tried repeatedly to bring up that site and my computer just runs and runs. Suspicious for sure I think the suspicion is in the eye of the beholder, or perhaps his computer set-up - SourceWatch and PR Watch and the Center for Media and Democracy are excellent sources, thorough, reliable, authoritative. I haven't seen John Stauber or Sheldon Rampton get it wrong yet. To cast suspicion on an excellent anti-spin web resource because you can't raise it on your browser is ridiculous. but I'm merely ignorant not lazy. You're certainly lagging far behind if you haven't twigged the Weekly Standard yet. Tom Irwin Nothing wrong with it that I can see, it's always accessible. Somebody quoted it as a source and I told him it's an anti-source. The links at the Weekly Standard entry at Disinfopedia unearth virtually the whole web of deceit: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Weekly_Standard Weekly Standard Magazine - SourceWatch Or just go to: http://www.sourcewatch.org/ Scroll down to the search box on the left and enter Weekly Standard (including quotes). Or go to PR Watch and do the same: http://www.prwatch.org/search.html PR Watch: Search Website Or go to any number of places that expose shills and spinners and liars. Just what sort of fine upholder of the 4th estate is the Weekly Standard should hardly be news by now. Keith Hello Tom Hi folks, I hope everyone is reading all the attachments to articles on this topic. I'd hoped everyone would be reading the responses, but it seems not, in your case: Somebody quoted it as a source and I told him it's an anti-source. The links at the Weekly Standard entry at Disinfopedia unearth virtually the whole web of deceit: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Weekly_Standard Weekly Standard Magazine - SourceWatch http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/200 5-August/002200.html [Biofuel] Fw: [HDR] August 06, 2005 -- date of risk? I found the one in the Weekly Standard to be very credible. Sorry, but I think that's hilarious! The Weekly Standard credible! ROFL Keith Thanks Greg and April for this information. Perhaps that´s my own personal bias. How would you attack this Chris B. and Hakan? More government propaganda? Why Truman Dropped the Bomb >From the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision. by Richard B. Frank 08/08/2005, Volume 010, Issue 44 Tom Irwin From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:49:37 -0300 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima doug, *Part* of the Japanese government was trying to find a way to surrender, you've been misinformed. this is a misrepresentation of the facts. it was hirohito himself, quite on his own, that asked the soviets to mediate a peace. later, the government junta voted unanimously in favor of sending an envoy to moscow. the peace faction and the hardliners had their own reasons for supporting the idea, but the point is that they took that action in the first place because hirohito wanted them to. these events transpired because the situation in japan was progressively deteriorating. there were growing fears that total social and economic collapse, and, therefore, most likely political collapse as well, were imminent. furthermore, it was not the united states' intent to force a quick surrender by using the bombs. that simply did not enter into the calculus i.e. saving so many american or japanese lives was not the motivation for nuking japan. >It's not clear that the U.S. population would >have accepted just hanging around fully mobilized at war waiting for >six months or a year until the Japanese you're presenting kind of a worst case scenario of how a blockade strategy, as opposed to invading, might have unfolded. besides, the disposition of the american people is a red herring and highly speculative (another echo of the 'aussie gun control' argument). nor does it have any bearing on whether or not bombing hiroshima and nagasaki were inhumane. -chris b. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hi Keith, You misinterpret my suspician. My suspician is that the site is blocked from me. I work at an embassy school and will try again at home. I don't always evaluate newspapers just individual reporters. I look for my U.S. news in British papers and my European news in certain American publications. Thanks for the new site and perspective on English newspapers. Tom Irwin From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:46:54 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hi Keith, You misinterpret my suspician. My suspician is that the site is blocked from me. I work at an embassy school and will try again at home. Sounds most improbable. I don't always evaluate newspapers just individual reporters. It depends which newspapers, and which reporters. I look for my U.S. news in British papers and my European news in certain American publications. Thanks for the new site and perspective on English newspapers. English newspapers? Whatever are you talking about? They're US anti-spin sites, as I said. You're not making a lot of sense Mr Irwin, and it's getting a little tiresome. Keith Tom Irwin From: Keith Addison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:46:54 -0300 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima Hi Keith, I can't read what will not come up on my computer screen. I have tried repeatedly to bring up that site and my computer just runs and runs. Suspicious for sure I think the suspicion is in the eye of the beholder, or perhaps his computer set-up - SourceWatch and PR Watch and the Center for Media and Democracy are excellent sources, thorough, reliable, authoritative. I haven't seen John Stauber or Sheldon Rampton get it wrong yet. To cast suspicion on an excellent anti-spin web resource because you can't raise it on your browser is ridiculous. but I'm merely ignorant not lazy. You're certainly lagging far behind if you haven't twigged the Weekly Standard yet. Tom Irwin Nothing wrong with it that I can see, it's always accessible. Somebody quoted it as a source and I told him it's an anti-source. The links at the Weekly Standard entry at Disinfopedia unearth virtually the whole web of deceit: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Weekly_Standard Weekly Standard Magazine - SourceWatch Or just go to: http://www.sourcewatch.org/ Scroll down to the search box on the left and enter Weekly Standard (including quotes). Or go to PR Watch and do the same: http://www.prwatch.org/search.html PR Watch: Search Website Or go to any number of places that expose shills and spinners and liars. Just what sort of fine upholder of the 4th estate is the Weekly Standard should hardly be news by now. Keith Hello Tom Hi folks, I hope everyone is reading all the attachments to articles on this topic. I'd hoped everyone would be reading the responses, but it seems not, in your case: Somebody quoted it as a source and I told him it's an anti-source. The links at the Weekly Standard entry at Disinfopedia unearth virtually the whole web of deceit: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Weekly_Standard Weekly Standard Magazine - SourceWatch http://sustainablelists.org/pipermail/biofuel_sustainablelists.org/ 200 5-August/002200.html [Biofuel] Fw: [HDR] August 06, 2005 -- date of risk? I found the one in the Weekly Standard to be very credible. Sorry, but I think that's hilarious! The Weekly Standard credible! ROFL Keith Thanks Greg and April for this information. Perhaps that´s my own personal bias. How would you attack this Chris B. and Hakan? More government propaganda? Why Truman Dropped the Bomb From the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision. by Richard B. Frank 08/08/2005, Volume 010, Issue 44 Tom Irwin From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:49:37 -0300 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima doug, *Part* of the Japanese government was trying to find a way to surrender, you've been misinformed. this is a misrepresentation of the facts. it was hirohito himself, quite on his own, that asked the soviets to mediate a peace. later, the government junta voted unanimously in favor of sending an envoy to moscow. the peace faction and the hardliners had their own reasons for supporting the idea, but the point is that they took that action in the first place because hirohito wanted them to. these events transpired because the situation in japan was progressively deteriorating. there were growing fears that total social and economic collapse, and, therefore, most likely political collapse as well, were imminent. furthermore, it was not the united states' intent to force a quick surrender by using the bombs. that simply did not enter into the calculus i.e. saving so many american or japanese lives was not the motivation for nuking japan. It's not clear that the U.S. population would have accepted just hanging around fully mobilized at war waiting for six months or a year until the Japanese you're presenting kind of a worst case scenario of how a blockade strategy, as opposed to invading, might have unfolded. besides, the disposition of the american people is a red herring and highly speculative (another echo of the 'aussie gun control' argument). nor does it have any bearing on whether or not bombing
RE: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
From the 16th century Japan (and long before) the Japanese establishment had looked on the world as a battleground of aggressive empires, Like Britton, France, Spain, and Portugal you mean. Chris. Wessex Ferret Club (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 07/08/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
*Part* of the German command was looking for a way out - look what happened to Rommel. Didn't change the war much. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Part* of the Japanese government was trying to find a way to surrender, before the atom bombs. Part of the U.S. Navy command held the view that no further military operations were necessary and Japan would be compelled to surrender if the Allies just waited. Most of the U.S. Army and government felt that an invasion was necessary. It's not clear that the U.S. population would have accepted just hanging around fully mobilized at war waiting for six months or a year until the Japanese government nd army *as a whole* concluded that it had no alternative to unconditional surrender. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Chris wrote: Japan was trying to surrender. The bomb wasn't for Japan, it was to send a message to the other superpower, the Soviet Union. It also was used in part to justify the largest military expense in the history of the nation. Chris K Cayce, SC ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
"*Part* of the German command was looking for a way out - look what happened to Rommel. Didn't change the war much." There are alot of "what if's" that can be discussed to exhaustion. It may seem like a waste of time. However, I'd prefer to do that than focus entirely on the outcome and say "look what happened". The combination of Hitler's physical dependence on amphetamines, the onset of ALS and the other plots to remove him from power might have taken Normandy off the minds of military strategists if the time line had onlychanged a little. Rommel was just a part of the story of how things were coming apart inside the Reich. Thereare similaritiesbetween how the war ended in both Japan and Germany. Both the incendiary attacks on Germany and the nuclear attacks on Japan (both of little military value) came at the end of the war, where there was a growing consensus in both theaters that the end was near and where the vast majority of deaths from those attacks were civilian. Mass murder for the sake of spreading fear in the minds of the enemy? I think Todd said it best: "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck..." MikeMike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *Part* of the German command was looking for a way out - look what happened to Rommel. Didn't change the war much.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:*Part* of the Japanese government was trying to find a way to surrender,before the atom bombs.Part of the U.S. Navy command held the view that no further militaryoperations were necessary and Japan would be compelled to surrender ifthe Allies just waited. Most of the U.S. Army and government felt that aninvasion was necessary. It's not clear that the U.S. population wouldhave accepted just hanging around fully mobilized at war waiting forsix months or a year until the Japanese government nd army *as a whole*concluded that it had no alternative to unconditional surrender.Doug WoodardSt. Catharines, Ontario, CanadaOn Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Chris wrote: Japan was trying to surrender. The bomb wasn't for Japan, it was to send amessage to the other superpower, the Soviet Union. It also was used in partto justify the largest military expense in the history of the nation.Chris KCayce, SC ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
In a message dated 8/6/05 10:31:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think that you are looking at the picture in the same light as the planners were. Actually greg, we haven't been talking about what was in the minds of the planners. The subject has been the wholly abitrary statements which were made, post-war, to justify the bombs. (snip) Yes, Omaha beach was bad.But lets look at more realistic numbers that planners from the invasion were looking at: (snip) (snip) Over 26,000 Allied causalities and over 21,800 Japanese causalities for an island less than 8 sq miles in size, in little over 1 month.The name of that island - Iwo Jima. (snip) No, not more realistic. Iwo Jima saw a very high fatality rate for american forces of 10%. However, in reality, this battle was highly anomalous for a whole number of reasons. No reasonalbe strategist would factor this event into his/her force requirement or casualty estimates in planning for another campaign. In 2 months 38,000 Americans wounded, 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 enemy killed, and perhaps 100,000 civilians perished, in the invasion of a tiny little island called Okinawa.( That is more causalities than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - an estimated 103,000 ) You forgot to mention that some 30+ american fighting forces were involved. In other words, the rate of fatalities was some 4%. In absolute terms, only slightly higher than omaha beach, despite the kamakazi tactics employed by the japanese. It should be noted that Okinawa had very important elements in common with Iwo Jima. Yet, the fatality rate was significantly lower. A clear indicator both of the exceptional nature of the battle at Iwo Jima, and of the fact that the american forces had adapted well to the new tactical situation. So, basically, there is nothing 'more realistic' about these numbers. And even if you were to assume that there were, you'd still be talking about a combat force of some 2500 personnel. It was with these casualty numbers, that the planners were figuring 1,000,000 from the off shore bombardment to the final surrender. Again, NOT! We've been talking about post-war assertions made to justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of the earliest and most famous of which is now known to have been an entirely arbitrary figure. I also must stress, that these 'sound bite' type of comments are heavily loaded. The public does not tend to think of military actions in terms of wounded or missing (wounded normally account for around 80% or more of casualties). Casualty figures morph into body counts, so that the common perception is that a million american lives were at stake. As far as what was actually anticipated, the top planners' casualty estimates (i.e. total wounded, dead and missing) varied widely, ranging anywhere from around 100,000 on the low end to a million on the high end (this was the single highest estimate, almost twice as high as all others). -chris b. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Greetings, I will agree that there are many factors that were not made public at the time of the bombing that did allow the myths to grow. I wonder though, how can any nation call themselves moral and strong when they do not want their people to know what has been done in their name? If the US had really believed they were justified in dropping the bombs, then why censor the pictures of what they have done? I have always heard the bombs referred to as 'necessary evil' and if this was the case, why would they feel the need to hide what they did? To me, the fact that the US censored the pictures tells me that it was not necessary. Honest actions do not need to hide. Why did the rest of the world allow this censorship? Surely Canada and Britain had pictures, since we were all allies. Why were these pictures never shown? No wonder most so-called adults in North America and elsewhere are spoilt children, they have been treated as children for too many years. Adults face up to what they have done, the good, the bad and the ugly. Bright Blessings, Kim ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
doug, *Part* of the Japanese government was trying to find a way to surrender, before the atom bombs. you've been misinformed. this is a misrepresentation of the facts. it was hirohito himself, quite on his own, that asked the soviets to mediate a peace. later, the government junta voted unanimously in favor of sending an envoy to moscow. the peace faction and the hardliners had their own reasons for supporting the idea, but the point is that they took that action in the first place because hirohito wanted them to. these events transpired because the situation in japan was progressively deteriorating. there were growing fears that total social and economic collapse, and, therefore, most likely political collapse as well, were imminent. furthermore, it was not the united states' intent to force a quick surrender by using the bombs. that simply did not enter into the calculus i.e. saving so many american or japanese lives was not the motivation for nuking japan. It's not clear that the U.S. population would have accepted just hanging around fully mobilized at war waiting for six months or a year until the Japanese you're presenting kind of a worst case scenario of how a blockade strategy, as opposed to invading, might have unfolded.besides, the disposition of the american people is a red herring and highly speculative (another echo of the 'aussie gun control' argument). nor does it have any bearing on whether or not bombing hiroshima and nagasaki were inhumane. -chris b. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hi folks, I hope everyone is reading all the attachments to articles on this topic. I found theone in the Weekly Standard to be very credible. Thanks Greg and April for thisinformation. Perhaps that´s my own personal bias. How would you attack this Chris B. and Hakan? More government propaganda? Why Truman Dropped the Bomb From the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision. by Richard B. Frank 08/08/2005, Volume 010, Issue 44 Tom Irwin From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:49:37 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshimadoug,*Part* of the Japanese government was trying to find a way to surrender,you've been misinformed. this is a misrepresentation of the facts. it was hirohito himself, quite on his own, that asked the soviets to mediate a peace. later, the government junta voted unanimously in favor of sending an envoy to moscow. the peace faction and the hardliners had their own reasons for supporting the idea, but the point is that they took that action in the first place because hirohito wanted them to.these events transpired because the situation in japan was progressively deteriorating. there were growing fears that total social and economic collapse, and, therefore, most likely political collapse as well, were imminent.furthermore, it was not the united states' intent to force a quick surrender by using the bombs. that simply did not enter into the calculus i.e. saving so many american or japanese lives was not the motivation for nuking japan.It's not clear that the U.S. population wouldhave accepted just hanging around fully mobilized at war waiting forsix months or a year until the Japaneseyou're presenting kind of a worst case scenario of how a blockade strategy, as opposed to invading, might have unfolded. besides, the disposition of the american people is a red herring and highly speculative (another echo of the 'aussie gun control' argument). nor does it have any bearing on whether or not bombing hiroshima and nagasaki were inhumane.-chris b.___Biofuel mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
I found the one in the Weekly Standard to be very credible. No references or no book in the offing or in print citing reference one to back their article, with the authors being party and parcel to numerous positions contrary to common, economic and environmental sense, stubborn to the point of ignoring what is knocking at the door or preparing to bite them on their [rusty dusty] or [whatever], and you find it/them to be very credible. Getting a grasp of your general philosophy is just too easy Tom. Something tells me I'd have to sacrifice a 4.0 in one of your classes. Perhaps that´s my own personal bias. You said it. The rest of us just sat back and observed it. More government propaganda? Well, actually Tom, in the immortal words of proficienados such as Donald Rumsfeld? Why that's just silly. See how easy that works? Just offer denial and whallah! Anything of merit isn't worthy of any more consideration. 'Course, on the other hand, we all know why Rumsfeld popped up in Iraq last week. He was leading a ground search for all those WMDs he knows are somewhere around Tikrit. I guess he should know. Or was that just propaganda? Todd Swearingen Tom Irwin wrote: Hi folks, I hope everyone is reading all the attachments to articles on this topic. I found the one in the Weekly Standard to be very credible. Thanks Greg and April for this information. Perhaps that´s my own personal bias. How would you attack this Chris B. and Hakan? More government propaganda? Why Truman Dropped the Bomb From the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision. by Richard B. Frank 08/08/2005, Volume 010, Issue 44 Tom Irwin *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Sent:* Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:49:37 -0300 *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima doug, *Part* of the Japanese government was trying to find a way to surrender, you've been misinformed. this is a misrepresentation of the facts. it was hirohito himself, quite on his own, that asked the soviets to mediate a peace. later, the government junta voted unanimously in favor of sending an envoy to moscow. the peace faction and the hardliners had their own reasons for supporting the idea, but the point is that they took that action in the first place because hirohito wanted them to. these events transpired because the situation in japan was progressively deteriorating. there were growing fears that total social and economic collapse, and, therefore, most likely political collapse as well, were imminent. furthermore, it was not the united states' intent to force a quick surrender by using the bombs. that simply did not enter into the calculus i.e. saving so many american or japanese lives was not the motivation for nuking japan. It's not clear that the U.S. population would have accepted just hanging around fully mobilized at war waiting for six months or a year until the Japanese you're presenting kind of a worst case scenario of how a blockade strategy, as opposed to invading, might have unfolded. besides, the disposition of the american people is a red herring and highly speculative (another echo of the 'aussie gun control' argument). nor does it have any bearing on whether or not bombing hiroshima and nagasaki were inhumane. -chris b. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org javascript:kh6k0(new,Biofuel@sustainablelists.org) http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
RE: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
look, this whole thing about an invasion of japan costing a million american lives is utterly ridiculous. What puzzles me is that America had planned the invasion of the Japanese islands as far back as 1920. Why? What did they have that the US wanted? That’s probably the reason they did not want the Russians moving into that territory and moved quickly to end the war. Chris. Wessex Ferret Club (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 07/08/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hi All, All right Todd, if you want to deal in semantics let me rephrase, It is my opinion that I would not be here today if the bombs had not been dropped. Now I am an environmental scientist but I´m also a closet historian. Before moving to Uruguay I had a considerable library on military history ( close to 400 volumes). I had read each of those at least once some many more times. No I have no idea of the true mindset of the Japanese military government because I´ve never spoke with any of them directly. But these were the same folks that used biological weapons in Manchuria, turned captured women into sex slaves, thought of themselves as being superior to most other asians, had an estimated (low) 100,000 asian civilians, British, Canadian and Australian POW´s die while under their "management" building the the railroad that the film Bridge Over the River Kwai made famous and whose forceshad something called the banzai charge.Now their leaders MAY have beeen willing to surrender but not without terms like no warcrime trials and we get to stay in control. But they probably were not willing to accept unconditional surrender terms. As for those guys who dropped the bombs I can understand if their minds wish to alter the chronology of the leaflets. It must still weigh heavily on the minds that they individually were responsible for so much death and destruction. As to the leaflets I agree with what you have said. They were dropped after the bomds to convince the population and the government to surrender. It was a useful tactic considering we only had two bombs at the time and had just used them up. I would not shed too many tears for old Oppy. There were plenty of well respected scientists who told him what he was doing was wrong. He did it anyway. He was the one in charge. It was his ego that fueled its building.I too, would like to know what went on at the Potsdam conference. I believe it was mostly a British and Soviet agenda that was agreed too as Roosevelt was jsut abou dead. What I really would like to know for sure is if Roosevelt knew of the Pearl Harbor attack. I have a strong suspician he did. I´m fairly certain that Churchill did as they had broken the Japanese naval code. Did Churchill tell his biggest financer, weapons producer, and ally of the upcoming attack? Interesting stuff, no?! Tom Irwin From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:53:38 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima But the truth be told, I'm here today because they were used and we haven't had a world war since thier invention.Using the logic you initiated prior to that statement Tom, that we really have no idea of the mindset of Japan's WWII governmentit's a bit of a reach that you can declare your existance to be a pure product of the use of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs.If, as you say, we don't know their mindset, then you cannot say that they wouldn't have surrendered upon the very same day that they did.My tendency is to believe that more discovery should be conducted on the events at Potsdam, and the mindsets of those participants before, during and after, in order to come to a better understanding of what direction peace talks were headed and what window may have been on the event horizon.Rather funny this. I was listening to NPR yesterday and two of the crew members of the Enola Gay were being interviewed. One stated that he had no remorse and used the dropping of warning leaflets in advance of the bombing as part of his justification rationale.Yet the authors of "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer," declare those leaflet droppins as non-events until after both bombs had been dropped. If something so simple can be twisted into a falsehood of long historical standing, it's more than probable that there remain a number of other myths and fabrications that lend long shadow to the truth.My guess is that the book is one of those "must reads" if a person is expected to achieve a "fair and balanced" perspective, or at least a more apprised perspective, of what honestly took place in that time period.What's the adage? Those who win the wars write the history books?Todd SwearingenTom Irwin wrote: Hi All, Although I'm in agreement about the Enola Gay exhibit, I will have to disagree about the use of the bombs. As slightly more modern barbarians we really have no idea of the mindset of Japan's WWII government. Perhaps Keith can give his insights since he lives close by. My reading of that history is that Japan's military had a stranglehold on the government. That their way was the Bushido way. There's a lot of death before dishonor in that line of thinking. My father related many stories to me of the kamakazi attacks during the invasion of Okinawa. That they were ineffective does not discount their willingness to die. There were a lot fewer p
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
( That is more causalities than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - an estimated 103,000 ) Playing a little loose with the facts Greg? Official Japanese figures at the time put the death toll at 118,661 civilians. But later estimates suggest the final toll was 140,000 of Hiroshima's 350,000 population, including military personnel and those who died later from radiation. Many have also suffered long-term sickness and disability. Nagasaki: Nearly 74,000 were killed and a similar number injured. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/6/newsid_3602000/3602189.stm or http://titan.iwu.edu/~physics/Hiroshima/ Just where is it that you derived your estimate from? Todd Swearingen Greg and April wrote: I don't think that you are looking at the picture in the same light as the planners were. Yes, Omaha beach was bad.But lets look at more realistic numbers that planners from the invasion were looking at: In 2 months 38,000 Americans wounded, 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 enemy killed, and perhaps 100,000 civilians perished, in the invasion of a tiny little island called Okinawa.( That is more causalities than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - an estimated 103,000 ) Over 26,000 Allied causalities and over 21,800 Japanese causalities for an island less than 8 sq miles in size, in little over 1 month.The name of that island - Iwo Jima. It was with these casualty numbers, that the planners were figuring 1,000,000 from the off shore bombardment to the final surrender. Greg H. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 14:30 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima look, this whole thing about an invasion of japan costing a million american lives is utterly ridiculous. that would be four times the american combat deaths in the entire war. the landing at omaha beach is usually described as one of the most horrifically deadly battlefield environments of the conflict, because of the difficult terrain and the very dense defenses. roughly a thousand american soldiers were killed, just shy of 3% of the forces that landed there which is pretty high. if you were to assume similarly difficult conditions for an invasioin of japan (which is by no means a given), more than 30 million troops would have to be involved. . . . -chris b. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Japan was trying to surrender. The bomb wasn't for Japan, it was to send a message to the other superpower, the Soviet Union. It also was used in part to justify the largest military expense in the history of the nation. Chris K Cayce, SC - Original Message - From: Greg and April [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima I don't think that you are looking at the picture in the same light as the planners were. Yes, Omaha beach was bad.But lets look at more realistic numbers that planners from the invasion were looking at: In 2 months 38,000 Americans wounded, 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 enemy killed, and perhaps 100,000 civilians perished, in the invasion of a tiny little island called Okinawa.( That is more causalities than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - an estimated 103,000 ) Over 26,000 Allied causalities and over 21,800 Japanese causalities for an island less than 8 sq miles in size, in little over 1 month.The name of that island - Iwo Jima. It was with these casualty numbers, that the planners were figuring 1,000,000 from the off shore bombardment to the final surrender. Greg H. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 14:30 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima look, this whole thing about an invasion of japan costing a million american lives is utterly ridiculous. that would be four times the american combat deaths in the entire war. the landing at omaha beach is usually described as one of the most horrifically deadly battlefield environments of the conflict, because of the difficult terrain and the very dense defenses. roughly a thousand american soldiers were killed, just shy of 3% of the forces that landed there which is pretty high. if you were to assume similarly difficult conditions for an invasioin of japan (which is by no means a given), more than 30 million troops would have to be involved. . . . -chris b. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
*Part* of the Japanese government was trying to find a way to surrender, before the atom bombs. Part of the U.S. Navy command held the view that no further military operations were necessary and Japan would be compelled to surrender if the Allies just waited. Most of the U.S. Army and government felt that an invasion was necessary. It's not clear that the U.S. population would have accepted just hanging around fully mobilized at war waiting for six months or a year until the Japanese government nd army *as a whole* concluded that it had no alternative to unconditional surrender. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Chris wrote: Japan was trying to surrender. The bomb wasn't for Japan, it was to send a message to the other superpower, the Soviet Union. It also was used in part to justify the largest military expense in the history of the nation. Chris K Cayce, SC ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Sorry Tom. I don't deal in semantics. Glad to hear that you're confident in how you came into being. Couple that one incident with a few million other random happenings and you might be spot on. Then again, maybe lighting can strike twice in the same place. Environmental Scientist, eh? Wonder who's serial number is on the time clock you punch. As for biological weapons, superiority, slavery? You don't really think that the US or any of its citizenry has the right to point fingers at others, considering our illustrious history in the same realms, do you? I know. I'm taking things out of context. What's a little smallpox among friends? Or burning of crops and routing of villages in the fall to bring on starvation throughout a winter. As for leaflet dropping? I don't think anyone has to take anything into consideration other than what happened and when. It's not just the gentlemen who manned the planes that have it confused. The traditionalist American view has for decades. I guess it's one of those instances where if you tell a story long enough or tall enough, or both, everyone begins to believe it. As for tears for Oppenheimer? Nobody is getting syrupy over his sentiments, understandings and concerns. Just acknowledging them. It would be interesting to see the statements of those peers whom you've said forewarned him though. As for Churchill and Roosevelt having pre-knowledge of Pearl Harbor? A lot of people will be dead and buried before that one is ever discerned accurately, if ever. Todd Swearingen Tom Irwin wrote: Hi All, All right Todd, if you want to deal in semantics let me rephrase, It is my opinion that I would not be here today if the bombs had not been dropped. Now I am an environmental scientist but I´m also a closet historian. Before moving to Uruguay I had a considerable library on military history ( close to 400 volumes). I had read each of those at least once some many more times. No I have no idea of the true mindset of the Japanese military government because I´ve never spoke with any of them directly. But these were the same folks that used biological weapons in Manchuria, turned captured women into sex slaves, thought of themselves as being superior to most other asians, had an estimated (low) 100,000 asian civilians, British, Canadian and Australian POW´s die while under their management building the the railroad that the film Bridge Over the River Kwai made famous and whose forces had something called the banzai charge. Now their leaders MAY have beeen willing to surrender but not without terms like no warcrime trials and we get to stay in control. But they probably were not willing to accept unconditional surrender terms. As for those guys who dropped the bombs I can understand if their minds wish to alter the chronology of the leaflets. It must still weigh heavily on the minds that they individually were responsible for so much death and destruction. As to the leaflets I agree with what you have said. They were dropped after the bomds to convince the population and the government to surrender. It was a useful tactic considering we only had two bombs at the time and had just used them up. I would not shed too many tears for old Oppy. There were plenty of well respected scientists who told him what he was doing was wrong. He did it anyway. He was the one in charge. It was his ego that fueled its building. I too, would like to know what went on at the Potsdam conference. I believe it was mostly a British and Soviet agenda that was agreed too as Roosevelt was jsut abou dead. What I really would like to know for sure is if Roosevelt knew of the Pearl Harbor attack. I have a strong suspician he did. I´m fairly certain that Churchill did as they had broken the Japanese naval code. Did Churchill tell his biggest financer, weapons producer, and ally of the upcoming attack? Interesting stuff, no?! Tom Irwin *From:* Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Sent:* Fri, 05 Aug 2005 15:53:38 -0300 *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima But the truth be told, I'm here today because they were used and we haven't had a world war since thier invention. Using the logic you initiated prior to that statement Tom, that we really have no idea of the mindset of Japan's WWII government it's a bit of a reach that you can declare your existance to be a pure product of the use of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. If, as you say, we don't know their mindset, then you cannot say that they wouldn't have surrendered upon the very same day that they did. My tendency is to believe that more discovery should be conducted on the events at Potsdam, and the mindsets of those participants before, during and after, in order to come
RE: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
In 1920 both the U.S. and Japanese militaries considered that a war between the two countries was possible, and many thought it ultimately probable. For some time a major part of the Japanese government, establishment and armed forces had been dedicated to building an empire by force. A large part of the Japanese reaction to Commodore Perry, including the Meiji revolution, involved being the hammer instead of the anvil, and doing it to the other guys instead of being the victim. From the 16th century Japan (and long before) the Japanese establishment had looked on the world as a battleground of aggressive empires, with some justice. With the policy of isolation they tried to opt out, but in 1854 the world came after them, so they felt obliged to participate. The notion of a world of peaceful democracies as a desirable pattern of organization was one to which Japanese society was less receptive than some foreign countries. It was not universally popular elsewhere. In 1898 or thereabouts a U.S. writer commented: The taste of empire is in the mouths of the people, even as the taste of blood in the jungle. By 1920, Taiwan, Korea and the German Pacific possessions had been annexed. There is a book on U.S. war plans regarding Japan between the world wars, War Plan Orange which I have not yet read. Presumably plans included a final invasion of Japan if war came, and regardless of who started it. To the military mind it would have been the natural final step. One thing the U.S. wanted was that China should remain independent and open to American trade. See American Diplomacy 1900-1950 by George Kennan, for more on the U.S. China policy. The direction of Japanese policy was toward Japanese dominance over China, including its trade and other aspects of its wealth. If Japan had succeeded in incorporating China into its empire, ultimately Japan would have had the economic strength to support a navy competitive with and perhaps superior to that of the U.S. That prospect alarmed U.S. strategists. It would have alarmed me too, given the structure of Japanese society and its ambitions at the time and until 1945. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Chris Lloyd wrote: What puzzles me is that America had planned the invasion of the Japanese islands as far back as 1920. Why? What did they have that the US wanted? That?s probably the reason they did not want the Russians moving into that territory and moved quickly to end the war. Chris. Wessex Ferret Club (http://www.wessexferretclub.co.uk) ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hey- Let's all hope the day never comes where our emporer has to be dug out of his fortified underground bunker by the Asian-Russian liberators. D.- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 6:33 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima Far from hating the United States, it appears that the Russian people were very favourably disposed toward the U.S. at the end of World War II. Allied aid, mostly from the U.S., was a crucial factor in enabling the U.S.S.R. to stay in the war and defeat the Germans. Thousands of Russian soldiers drove American trucks to supply the Red Army's offensive, for example. I believe that Russians got to eat quite a lot of Spam. George Kennan in his memoirs described a massive spontaneous demonstration of friendship in front of the American embassy in Moscow at the end of the war in Europe and speculated that it must have been very disconcerting for Stalin and his henchmen. The Japanese government was successful in making the surrender stick after the atom bombs, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. It would have been very hard without the bombs. My guess is that in an invasion the Allied dead might have been only 100,000 or 150,000 or so, but the losses among Japanese soldiers and civilians would have been several times that number. It's clear that in August 1945 the Japanese would ultimately have been compelled to surrender if the Allies had just waited, for perhaps a year. But the civilians would have been extremely unwilling to wait, and the Russians might have found the temptation to mount their own invasion irresistible. A Russian invasion would likely have killed many more than the atom bombs. The deaths among Japanese civilians on Okinawa caused basically by Japanese forces in the grip of the Bushido cult were considerable. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings Tom, Yes, many of us would not be here. Canadian forces were also training for that invasion. I was always taught that it was the code of death before dishonor that made the bombing necessary. I am not saying that is correct, but I wonder how scared of Russia anyone would have been by that time in the war. As I understand it, one of the things the Russian people hated America for was the long wait before they joined, which allowed Russia to be seriously depleted. I do understand that the Japanese were already commandeering cooking pots etc. for metal to make weapons, so they must have known the end was in sight, but that had been going on for long enough to scare many people into believing they would not surrender, period. It is easy to start myths during war time, people are so scared and the average person is not told much of the truth for good reasons, many times. I see it today, so many people are so scared of terrorism and have no idea of how it started. How does one educate a population that is now in it's second or third generation of ignorance of history, science, math, philosophy and common sense? Bright Blessings, Kim [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
look, this whole thing about an invasion of japan costing a million american lives is utterly ridiculous. that would be four times the american combat deaths in the entire war. the landing at omaha beach is usually described as one of the most horrifically deadly battlefield environments of the conflict, because of the difficult terrain and the very dense defenses. roughly a thousand american soldiers were killed, just shy of 3% of the forces that landed there which is pretty high. if you were to assume similarly difficult conditions for an invasioin of japan (which is by no means a given), more than 30 million troops would have to be involved. . . . -chris b. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
I don't think that you are looking at the picture in the same light as the planners were. Yes, Omaha beach was bad.But lets look at more realistic numbers that planners from the invasion were looking at: In 2 months 38,000 Americans wounded, 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 enemy killed, and perhaps 100,000 civilians perished, in the invasion of a tiny little island called Okinawa.( That is more causalities than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - an estimated 103,000 ) Over 26,000 Allied causalities and over 21,800 Japanese causalities for an island less than 8 sq miles in size, in little over 1 month.The name of that island - Iwo Jima. It was with these casualty numbers, that the planners were figuring 1,000,000 from the off shore bombardment to the final surrender. Greg H. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 14:30 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima look, this whole thing about an invasion of japan costing a million american lives is utterly ridiculous. that would be four times the american combat deaths in the entire war. the landing at omaha beach is usually described as one of the most horrifically deadly battlefield environments of the conflict, because of the difficult terrain and the very dense defenses. roughly a thousand american soldiers were killed, just shy of 3% of the forces that landed there which is pretty high. if you were to assume similarly difficult conditions for an invasioin of japan (which is by no means a given), more than 30 million troops would have to be involved. . . . -chris b. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
[Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story The myths of Hiroshima By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, published earlier this year by Knopf. SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate. The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 — just five days after the Nagasaki bombing — Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even saving a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan. This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war. But although /patriotically/ correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs caused many tens of thousands of deaths and that Hiroshima was a definite military target. Americans were also told that use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, Racing the Enemy — and many other historians have long argued — it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final shock that led to Japan's capitulation. The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed. The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on an essentially defeated enemy. President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State James Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the Soviets from sharing in the occupation of Japan. And they used it on Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among themselves as they returned home from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were looking for peace. These unpleasant historical facts were censored from the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit, an action that should trouble every American. When a government substitutes an officially sanctioned view for publicly debated history, democracy is diminished. Today, in the post-9/11 era, it is critically important that the U.S. face the truth about the atomic bomb. For one thing, the myths surrounding Hiroshima have made it possible for our defense establishment to argue that atomic bombs are legitimate weapons that belong in a democracy's arsenal. But if, as Oppenheimer said, they are weapons of aggression, of surprise and of terror, how can a democracy rely on such weapons? Oppenheimer understood very soon after Hiroshima that these weapons would ultimately threaten our very survival. Presciently, he even warned us against what is now our worst national nightmare — and Osama bin Laden's frequently voiced dream — an atomic suitcase bomb smuggled into an American city: Of course it could be done, Oppenheimer told a Senate committee, and people could destroy New York. Ironically, Hiroshima's myths are now motivating our enemies to attack us with the very weapon we invented. Bin Laden repeatedly refers to Hiroshima in his rambling speeches. It was, he believes, the atomic bombings that shocked the Japanese imperial government into an early surrender — and,
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Hi All, Although I'm in agreement about the Enola Gay exhibit, I will have to disagree about the use of the bombs. As slightly more modern barbarians we really have no idea of the mindset of Japan's WWII government. Perhaps Keith can give his insights since he lives close by. My reading of that history is thatJapan's military had a stranglehold on the government. That their way was the Bushido way. There's a lot of death before dishonor in that line of thinking. My father related many stories to me of the kamakazi attacks during the invasion of Okinawa. That they were ineffective does not discount their willingness to die. There were a lot fewer prisoners taken in the Pacific war. Some of that was certainly racism on our side but a fairly good piece of it wasn't. I've spoken with many veterans from that campaign. Many reasonable men told me quite frankly that the Japanese would rather die than surrender. If they could die taking a few of their enemy with them all the better. If this willingness to die was prevelent in their armed forces I think one can make the jump that if the home islands were attacked that our casualties would be very high. Perhaps not the million so often quoted but if it was only a quarter of that, many of us who are currently alive would never have been born. My father was in training for the invasion when the bombs were dropped. He told me everyone on board his troop transport breathed a sigh of relief when they realized they would not have to invade. I personally have no use for nuclear technology or nuclear weapons and am fully against them. But the truth be told, I'm here today because they were used and we haven't had a world war since thier invention. my two cents for the day, Tom Irwin From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:21:01 -0300Subject: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshimahttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story The myths of HiroshimaBy Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer," published earlier this year by Knopf.SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate.The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 — just five days after the Nagasaki bombing — Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even "saving" a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan.This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war.But although /patriotically/ correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs "caused many tens of thousands of deaths" and that Hiroshima was "a definite military target."Americans were also told that use of the bombs "led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands." But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, "Racing the Enemy" — and many other historians have long argued — it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final "shock" that led to Japan's capitulation.The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that "special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities" warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed.The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson.The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Greetings Tom, Yes, many of us would not be here. Canadian forces were also training for that invasion. I was always taught that it was the code of death before dishonor that made the bombing necessary. I am not saying that is correct, but I wonder how scared of Russia anyone would have been by that time in the war. As I understand it, one of the things the Russian people hated America for was the long wait before they joined, which allowed Russia to be seriously depleted. I do understand that the Japanese were already commandeering cooking pots etc. for metal to make weapons, so they must have known the end was in sight, but that had been going on for long enough to scare many people into believing they would not surrender, period. It is easy to start myths during war time, people are so scared and the average person is not told much of the truth for good reasons, many times. I see it today, so many people are so scared of terrorism and have no idea of how it started. How does one educate a population that is now in it's second or third generation of ignorance of history, science, math, philosophy and common sense? Bright Blessings, Kim At 01:23 PM 8/5/2005, you wrote: Hi All, Although I'm in agreement about the Enola Gay exhibit, I will have to disagree about the use of the bombs. As slightly more modern barbarians we really have no idea of the mindset of Japan's WWII government. Perhaps Keith can give his insights since he lives close by. My reading of that history is that Japan's military had a stranglehold on the government. That their way was the Bushido way. There's a lot of death before dishonor in that line of thinking. My father related many stories to me of the kamakazi attacks during the invasion of Okinawa. That they were ineffective does not discount their willingness to die. There were a lot fewer prisoners taken in the Pacific war. Some of that was certainly racism on our side but a fairly good piece of it wasn't. I've spoken with many veterans from that campaign. Many reasonable men told me quite frankly that the Japanese would rather die than surrender. If they could die taking a few of their enemy with them all the better. If this willingness to die was prevelent in their armed forces I think one can make the jump that if the home islands were attacked that our casualties would be very high. Perhaps not the million so often quoted but if it was only a quarter of that, many of us who are currently alive would never have been born. My father was in training for the invasion when the bombs were dropped. He told me everyone on board his troop transport breathed a sigh of relief when they realized they would not have to invade. I personally have no use for nuclear technology or nuclear weapons and am fully against them. But the truth be told, I'm here today because they were used and we haven't had a world war since thier invention. my two cents for the day, Tom Irwin From: Appal Energy [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:21:01 -0300 Subject: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story The myths of Hiroshima By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, published earlier this year by Knopf. SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate. The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 just five days after the Nagasaki bombing Radiadio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even saving a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan. This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war. But although /patriotically/ correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
But the truth be told, I'm here today because they were used and we haven't had a world war since thier invention. Using the logic you initiated prior to that statement Tom, that we really have no idea of the mindset of Japan's WWII government it's a bit of a reach that you can declare your existance to be a pure product of the use of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. If, as you say, we don't know their mindset, then you cannot say that they wouldn't have surrendered upon the very same day that they did. My tendency is to believe that more discovery should be conducted on the events at Potsdam, and the mindsets of those participants before, during and after, in order to come to a better understanding of what direction peace talks were headed and what window may have been on the event horizon. Rather funny this. I was listening to NPR yesterday and two of the crew members of the Enola Gay were being interviewed. One stated that he had no remorse and used the dropping of warning leaflets in advance of the bombing as part of his justification rationale. Yet the authors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, declare those leaflet droppins as non-events until after both bombs had been dropped. If something so simple can be twisted into a falsehood of long historical standing, it's more than probable that there remain a number of other myths and fabrications that lend long shadow to the truth. My guess is that the book is one of those must reads if a person is expected to achieve a fair and balanced perspective, or at least a more apprised perspective, of what honestly took place in that time period. What's the adage? Those who win the wars write the history books? Todd Swearingen Tom Irwin wrote: Hi All, Although I'm in agreement about the Enola Gay exhibit, I will have to disagree about the use of the bombs. As slightly more modern barbarians we really have no idea of the mindset of Japan's WWII government. Perhaps Keith can give his insights since he lives close by. My reading of that history is that Japan's military had a stranglehold on the government. That their way was the Bushido way. There's a lot of death before dishonor in that line of thinking. My father related many stories to me of the kamakazi attacks during the invasion of Okinawa. That they were ineffective does not discount their willingness to die. There were a lot fewer prisoners taken in the Pacific war. Some of that was certainly racism on our side but a fairly good piece of it wasn't. I've spoken with many veterans from that campaign. Many reasonable men told me quite frankly that the Japanese would rather die than surrender. If they could die taking a few of their enemy with them all the better. If this willingness to die was prevelent in their armed forces I think one can make the jump that if the home islands were attacked that our casualties would be very high. Perhaps not the million so often quoted but if it was only a quarter of that, many of us who are currently alive would never have been born. My father was in training for the invasion when the bombs were dropped. He told me everyone on board his troop transport breathed a sigh of relief when they realized they would not have to invade. I personally have no use for nuclear technology or nuclear weapons and am fully against them. But the truth be told, I'm here today because they were used and we haven't had a world war since thier invention. my two cents for the day, Tom Irwin *From:* Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Sent:* Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:21:01 -0300 *Subject:* [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story The myths of Hiroshima By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, published earlier this year by Knopf. SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate. The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 — just five days after the Nagasaki bombing — Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even saving a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S
[Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story August 5, 2005 latimes.com : Opinion : Commentary The myths of Hiroshima By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, published earlier this year by Knopf. SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate. The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 - just five days after the Nagasaki bombing - Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even saving a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan. This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war. But although patriotically correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs caused many tens of thousands of deaths and that Hiroshima was a definite military target. Americans were also told that use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, Racing the Enemy - and many other historians have long argued - it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final shock that led to Japan's capitulation. The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed. The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on an essentially defeated enemy. President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State James Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the Soviets from sharing in the occupation of Japan. And they used it on Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among themselves as they returned home from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were looking for peace. These unpleasant historical facts were censored from the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit, an action that should trouble every American. When a government substitutes an officially sanctioned view for publicly debated history, democracy is diminished. Today, in the post-9/11 era, it is critically important that the U.S. face the truth about the atomic bomb. For one thing, the myths surrounding Hiroshima have made it possible for our defense establishment to argue that atomic bombs are legitimate weapons that belong in a democracy's arsenal. But if, as Oppenheimer said, they are weapons of aggression, of surprise and of terror, how can a democracy rely on such weapons? Oppenheimer understood very soon after Hiroshima that these weapons would ultimately threaten our very survival. Presciently, he even warned us against what is now our worst national nightmare - and Osama bin Laden's frequently voiced dream - an atomic suitcase bomb smuggled into an American city: Of course it could be done, Oppenheimer told a Senate committee, and people could destroy New York. Ironically, Hiroshima's myths are now motivating our enemies to attack us with the very weapon we invented. Bin Laden repeatedly refers to Hiroshima in his rambling speeches. It was, he believes, the atomic bombings that shocked the Japanese
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Today, in the post-9/11 era, it is critically important that the U.S. face the truth about the atomic bomb. For one thing, the myths surrounding Hiroshima have made it possible for our defense establishment to argue that atomic bombs are legitimate weapons that belong in a democracy's arsenal. But if, as Oppenheimer said, "they are weapons of aggression, of surprise and of terror," how can a democracy rely on such weapons? Thanks for posting this. Excellent food for thought. Brian Rodgers ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Far from hating the United States, it appears that the Russian people were very favourably disposed toward the U.S. at the end of World War II. Allied aid, mostly from the U.S., was a crucial factor in enabling the U.S.S.R. to stay in the war and defeat the Germans. Thousands of Russian soldiers drove American trucks to supply the Red Army's offensive, for example. I believe that Russians got to eat quite a lot of Spam. George Kennan in his memoirs described a massive spontaneous demonstration of friendship in front of the American embassy in Moscow at the end of the war in Europe and speculated that it must have been very disconcerting for Stalin and his henchmen. The Japanese government was successful in making the surrender stick after the atom bombs, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. It would have been very hard without the bombs. My guess is that in an invasion the Allied dead might have been only 100,000 or 150,000 or so, but the losses among Japanese soldiers and civilians would have been several times that number. It's clear that in August 1945 the Japanese would ultimately have been compelled to surrender if the Allies had just waited, for perhaps a year. But the civilians would have been extremely unwilling to wait, and the Russians might have found the temptation to mount their own invasion irresistible. A Russian invasion would likely have killed many more than the atom bombs. The deaths among Japanese civilians on Okinawa caused basically by Japanese forces in the grip of the Bushido cult were considerable. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings Tom, Yes, many of us would not be here. Canadian forces were also training for that invasion. I was always taught that it was the code of death before dishonor that made the bombing necessary. I am not saying that is correct, but I wonder how scared of Russia anyone would have been by that time in the war. As I understand it, one of the things the Russian people hated America for was the long wait before they joined, which allowed Russia to be seriously depleted. I do understand that the Japanese were already commandeering cooking pots etc. for metal to make weapons, so they must have known the end was in sight, but that had been going on for long enough to scare many people into believing they would not surrender, period. It is easy to start myths during war time, people are so scared and the average person is not told much of the truth for good reasons, many times. I see it today, so many people are so scared of terrorism and have no idea of how it started. How does one educate a population that is now in it's second or third generation of ignorance of history, science, math, philosophy and common sense? Bright Blessings, Kim [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
So just out of curiosity Doug, What are you basing all your guesswork on? Relative to invade or not invade and casualty counts it sounds very much like the historical American mantra of how things would have unfolded if this or if that. Doesn't it make some sense to review those facets outside the party line before repeating what the masses have been regurgitating for decades now? Todd Swearingen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Far from hating the United States, it appears that the Russian people were very favourably disposed toward the U.S. at the end of World War II. Allied aid, mostly from the U.S., was a crucial factor in enabling the U.S.S.R. to stay in the war and defeat the Germans. Thousands of Russian soldiers drove American trucks to supply the Red Army's offensive, for example. I believe that Russians got to eat quite a lot of Spam. George Kennan in his memoirs described a massive spontaneous demonstration of friendship in front of the American embassy in Moscow at the end of the war in Europe and speculated that it must have been very disconcerting for Stalin and his henchmen. The Japanese government was successful in making the surrender stick after the atom bombs, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. It would have been very hard without the bombs. My guess is that in an invasion the Allied dead might have been only 100,000 or 150,000 or so, but the losses among Japanese soldiers and civilians would have been several times that number. It's clear that in August 1945 the Japanese would ultimately have been compelled to surrender if the Allies had just waited, for perhaps a year. But the civilians would have been extremely unwilling to wait, and the Russians might have found the temptation to mount their own invasion irresistible. A Russian invasion would likely have killed many more than the atom bombs. The deaths among Japanese civilians on Okinawa caused basically by Japanese forces in the grip of the Bushido cult were considerable. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings Tom, Yes, many of us would not be here. Canadian forces were also training for that invasion. I was always taught that it was the code of death before dishonor that made the bombing necessary. I am not saying that is correct, but I wonder how scared of Russia anyone would have been by that time in the war. As I understand it, one of the things the Russian people hated America for was the long wait before they joined, which allowed Russia to be seriously depleted. I do understand that the Japanese were already commandeering cooking pots etc. for metal to make weapons, so they must have known the end was in sight, but that had been going on for long enough to scare many people into believing they would not surrender, period. It is easy to start myths during war time, people are so scared and the average person is not told much of the truth for good reasons, many times. I see it today, so many people are so scared of terrorism and have no idea of how it started. How does one educate a population that is now in it's second or third generation of ignorance of history, science, math, philosophy and common sense? Bright Blessings, Kim [snip] ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Because of the sheer number of people involved and the secrecy at the time and after it is hard to put into perspective the thinking that went into the decision to use the atomic bomb. There appeared to be no question that the Truman government was convinced that an invasion would be necessary if the bomb was not used. Both the Army and Navy were convinced from their experience on Okinawa that the fighting would be bitter and involve high casualties. In his book Japan's Imperial Conspiracy David Bergamini, using material from diaries and interviews only available long after the end of the war, concludes that, despite the terror bombing of cities by Curtis Lemay, the emperor did not believe that the Japanese people were ready to accept surrender and would feel betrayed as they had in 1905 after the peace with Russia. Despite what we might think of the military situation 60 years later the players on both sides at the time had to deal with their perceptions of the reality. There was likely no one factor that served as the basis for the decision. Military contingencies and post war global politics were all involved. In addition there was the matter of domestic politics. In Truman and the Bomb, a collection of papers related to Truman's decision to use the bomb, there is a note about a meeting between secretary of state James Byrnes and Truman in which Byrnes asks Truman what he will say at his impeachment hearing when the American people find out after an invasion that costs thousands of American lives that he had a weapon that could have made that invasion unnecessary and refused to use it. Rick Appal Energy wrote: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story The myths of Hiroshima By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, published earlier this year by Knopf. SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate. The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 — just five days after the Nagasaki bombing — Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even saving a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan. This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war. But although /patriotically/ correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs caused many tens of thousands of deaths and that Hiroshima was a definite military target. Americans were also told that use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, Racing the Enemy — and many other historians have long argued — it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final shock that led to Japan's capitulation. The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed. The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on an essentially defeated enemy. President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State
