Hiroshima Survivors Upset Pilot Never Said Sorry
TOKYO, Nov 2 (AFP) Nov 02, 2007
Japanese survivors of the world’s first nuclear attack on Hiroshima voiced regret Friday that the American pilot of the plane that dropped the bomb died without saying sorry.
Paul Warfield Tibbets, Jr., whose B-29 bomber dubbed the Enola Gay dropped the 9,000-pound “Little Boy” bomb on August 6, 1945, died Thursday at his home in the midwest city of Columbus, Ohio. He was 92.
Tibbets never expressed regret for the bombing that led to the end of World War II but at a horrific price: 140,000 dead immediately and 80,000 other Japanese succumbing in the aftermath, according to Hiroshima officials.
“He did not apologise, arguing, like the American government, that the bombing saved millions of American and Japanese lives by ending the war,” said Nori Tohei, 79, who survived the bombing of the western Japanese city.
“But I wanted him to visit Hiroshima and take a direct look at what he did as a human being,” said Tohei, who co-chairs the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Suffers Organisations and now lives in Tokyo.
“He was following orders as a military man but I wanted him to recognise it (the bombing) was a mistake and apologise to those who were killed or were long suffering side effects,” Tohei told AFP.
Tohei turned 17 on August 9, 1945, three days after the Hiroshima blast and the day a second atomic bomb was dropped on the southern city of Nagasaki. The United States has never formally apologised for the attacks.
Although Tibbets saw little of the devastation wreaked on Hiroshima, he would walk the streets of Nagasaki a few weeks after the second atom bomb was dropped there.
“A couple of the streets we walked had swelled,” he told the Columbus Dispatch in 2003, as he described the buckling of the earth caused by the intensity of the blast. “Damnedest thing you’ve ever seen.”
He had been suffering from heart problems, manager and publisher Gerry Newhouse told AFP.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Apologize for what, you imperialists started it, us ‘mericans finished it. Bet that’s the last time you try that. The two bombs were great behavior modifiers.
I was very glad that Tibbetts said he never lost a night’s sleep.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 amNot sure if a man can apologize for doing his job. He probably would have if he thought he was doing the wrong thing, be he thought he was doing the right thing. History will decide.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:20 amnow he is meeting the 72 devils in heavens ?
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:26 amHaving known several American WWII vets, I imagine Brigadier General Tibbets would have considered apologizing if every citizen of Japan acknowledged the atrocities that were committed by its military in the Philippines, China, Southeast Asia, and upon the American men and women both military and civilian during the Second World War. That includes wonderful atrocities such as the Bataan death march, systematic torture and execution of prisoners (both military and civilian) and sadistic biological experiments performed upon the Chinese population as well as prisoners of war. Since, most of the Japanese public has been kept in the dark, or actively buries its head in the sand, I expect no apology would be forthcoming, and thus no loss of public face, eh? So, stick your expected apology where the sun don’t shine… Your country reaped the whirlwind mf.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:26 amReally? I want the japanese people to apology to me for killing my fellow country men and women and to being such insane hateful and violent savages that we had to release two nuclear weapons to force you to stop trying to kill us
screw you, you brought it on, you should have stayed on that side of the world and kept to enslaving and raping the koreans that you are so good at
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:35 amTerry and Steve pretty much said what can be said. Where are the apologies from all the Jap vets that attacked Pearl Harbor, killed Chinese and Okinawan civilians, tortured tens of thousands in camps before and during the war, set up rape factories called hospitality camps? The Japanese have the nerve to want an apology? They never paid war reparations, in fact none of our former enemies ever have, we the American people, and our forebears have paid for our defence, and then also paid for the reconstruction of our defeated enemies. How about we take the COLA adjusted costs of the war out of the trade deficits we have with Japan, Germany, France. We gave so much to China for their defense as well, lets do the same, hell we could probably wipe out the federal national debt and have a surplus!
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:59 amSpot on Brad W !
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:44 amYou reap what you sow. Your Imperial Japan went on a rampage starting with Korea, China, Indochina, Pearl Harbor, Philippines, Malaysia, Borneo,…and so on and so on. On top of that how many innocents souls have your Imperial Japanese military went on a rampage of rape and murder. And when we were on the verge of doing a land invasion on your corrupt country your pathetic leaders organize every men, Women and Child to defend Japan and your corrupt Emperor. Oh! by the way if what I read so far your country was trying to developed a crude atomic weapon! Luckily you did not have enough resources to complete it! So I am glad they were used to end that war and it did, DIDN’T IT! Because if they did not use it my Uncle, who fought in the Pacific, was slated for that land invasion and most likely would have been wounded or even killed and also MILLIONS OF JAPANESE would have been killed and all of Japan would have been a moon like landscape. Remember this again: You reap what you sow….
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 amI was stationed near Hiroshima, Nice job Paul, ended the war quickly and told the rest of the world not to fuck with us!
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:33 amJapan was never really held to account for the rape of Nanking or the Bataan death march or any number of other atrocities and they should have been. Emporer Hirohito should have been hanged but instead he was allowed to live out his natural days.
People don’t realize it but our soldiers fared far better in German camps than Jap camps. Approximately 10% of our soldiers died in German camps but over 50% and in some cases over 75% died at the hands of the Japs. All of my relatives who fought in WWII fought in the Pacific and it irks me as an American citizen that there wasn’t something similar to Nuremburg for the Emporer and his cohorts.
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:35 amThis is why Japan attacked the US on Dec, 7 1941.
Starting in the 1840’s England and Russia forced its way into China for trade purposes. They forcibly open trade routes thru China along the various rivers and along the coast. This was the time of the Manchu Dynasty. Foreign occupation and economic domination followed.
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:37 amFollowng this model in the 1880’s the US forced its way into Japan particularly Yokohama for its own exploitive economic purpose. Remember Japan like China was not modern.
Then in the following successive years England open bases in Singapore as well as Hong Kong to consolidate its and facilitate its Empire’s need for raw materials. These were completely one sided deals due to England military power.
The US following suit “annexed” (I always loved that word) aka stole Guam, The Philippenes, Samoa, Hawaii, Wake and Midway Islands. Various bases were also set up in Corrigidor and along the Coral Sea.
So now by the 1930’s Japan is basically at the mercy of England in Asia and the US in the Pacific. It is isolated. Militarism rose. Japan in the late 1930’struck back invading Manchuria and China to open those markets.
Japan then tried to work a deal with the US to trade for oil and raw materials in the Pacific side. Of course having fully known they provoked this action in Asia the US now went to the League of Nations to “protest Japanese aggresion in China and Manchuria”. Things worsened. (All this sound familiar gang aka Iran)
On December 7, 1941 Japan struck back. Attacking strictly military targets on a forward US base. Remember Hawaii was a stolen land not a State of the US.
THEN of course people forget this, Japoan attacked on Decmber 8, 1941 the Phillipines Wake Samo Guam and English bases in Southeast Asia. They routed the US forces in the Phillipines , Corrigidor, Guam etc. Routed the British eventually capturing the self proclaimed “impenetrable fortress of Singapore” from the British in June 1942. You all remember the coward MacArthur (Dugout Doug) scurrying off the Phillipines. The myth of I shall return was born out of a massive US loss and surrender.
Thats it folks there is the reasons for WW2 Pacific Theatre. The European theatre is my specialty but we will save that for another post.
Blo-chunks nippon man!
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:52 amconsider it a “devine wind”, American style.
Professer
They did have trials for Tojo I believe.
I can give you an answer about why we had a trial the size of Nuremberg but its not PC.
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:59 amIn the last couple months HBO ran a documentary titled “White Light, Black Rain” (I believe that’s what it was called). Since I was a child and had learned of the two A-bombings during the war I have always felt a certain compassion for those Japanese on the ground. (You aren’t human if you don’t, I guess. But you see, THAT is what has always separated this country in times of war from other countries … our conscience.) However, as I matured and learned more about war in general, and particularly WWII and the PTO I began to understand the tactical decisions involved in using these two ultimate weapons … on those two cities. And in the HBO program men from the planes (I don’t recall if Tibbets was among them) expressed a reverence for what they had been involved in. No bravado, and no gushing tearful regrets. Just a degree of pity, and a somber and silent understanding of what HAD TO BE DONE in order to take down, to break an enemy who was no where near relenting … and who was very close to completing the same damn weapon and planning on using it on our west coast (See: Japan’s Secret War).
However, having said that, not only has Japan refused to apologize for their horrific atrocities (the Baatan Death March, their experimenting and torture on our POWs, their soldiers literally cannibalizing our troops on those desolate Pacific islands for food, their torture and slaughter of the Filipinos, the rape and slaughter of Nanking …) but they refuse to even acknowledge their part in the war, so much so to the point of systematically erasing it from their historical account of the war. And from what I heard in the HBO program, many on the ground actually blamed their own government for bringing them to the brink of Hell those two days in August. Japan started the conflict, but has always demanded we apologize for fighting back for our lives with everything we had … on the battle front, and at home.
The is no hindsight … Most especially in war.
And I don’t know you, frenchies, but the “72 devils in heaven” comment is one of the more back-handed and classless I have read here in a while. Tibbets did his job, and then lived a quiet, non-boastful life. He did not thump his chest. He did not capitalize on it. And for you to equate him to men who strap on explosives and blow themselve up for the hell of it in order to kill as many innocent people as possible is … well, a steaming load of bullshit.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:03 amPS -
I wish peace for Tibbets. I am sure the man thought about this mission all the days of his life. It wasn’t his decision, it was his duty.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 amRe Paul Hauser,
Ah yes Japan was a victim of American Imperialism, thanks, I almost loved this country for a minute, gotta go back to college so I can get my mind right.
So Paul when you feel your being treated unjust do you rape women to make it better?
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:15 amDrillanwr
No doubt the Japs were a brutal army.
But you ignore why they did what they did. Certain countries like Japan and Germany felt that the world is/was broken up into spheres of influence.
From Japan and Germany’s perspective Germany’s sphere is Europe. Japan’s is Asia and part of the Pacific.
The US has plenty plenty of land form Maine to San Diego and Seattle to Miami. Plus its more than entitled to trade with Canada and Mexico as well as South America.
How much more do you need?
Why the concern with Japan and Germany’s areas?
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:20 amdrillanwr
it’s a bit provocative, I agree ;
but I can’t imagine that this man never had a kind of biterness in his stomach, even if he did have to make his job
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:29 amfranchie,
taking your words back is is a sign of being a p*ssy, don’t apologize for who you are and what you think when confronted
being passive and mocking those who have allowed you to live in freedom is disgusting
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:39 amsteve in NC, I can recall your goose step under the triumph arc, so you have no lesson to give
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:50 am“…72 devils…”
“steve in NC, I can recall your goose step…”
You’re a french asshole.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:57 amGuess that’s redundant though.
Mr. Hauser’s diatribe is a complete bastardisation of history. A big pile of bullshit is still bullshit. His ommission of Japan’s complacency with the Nazi’s is completely ignored, and the rationalization of geopolitical/economic history is biased heavily against the democratic governments of the time. This is a perfect example of what our college kids are getting at university, and what leads to the ignorance so often displayed by the left. This ignorance produces a cadre of people who spend their time attacking the defenders of this nation, during a just and valid war against radical Islam. I imagine Mr. Hauser is sympathetic to their cause, and enjoys this opportunity to disparage further his Nation.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:59 amFranchie remains a socialist French idiot who babbles on endlessly, no doubt dissapointed about the insignificance of her culture and Country.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:01 amSteve in NC
I am not being unpatriotic at all by explaining the background from Japan’s perspective. When America’s foreign policy record is presented in any different light than your ingrained mindset of nobility folks like you flip out.
The above perspective is based on what happened not some “left wing fantasy”. It is what I call Real History.
The Japanese were a brutal army at times. The rapes are completely inexcusable. However NOT every Japanese soldier was a wild animal with buck teeth and thick glasses beheading and raping.
Atrocity exaggerations are very much part of that war. The German army 1939-1945 was in my opinion the overrall best, most disciplined, most motivated army in the history of modern warfare. They were fighting for their survival against Stalin and Communism.
However the scorn heaped on those proud men in the Heer, Waffen SS, Kreigsmarine, Luftwaffe and Falschirmjager is total and utter bullshit.
I will be glad to send anyone on this site copies of the German Newsreel Die Wochenschau from the war to prove my point.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:05 amI was a victim of my german heritage, I cannot be blamed for my actions then!
Funny though I was not confronted, it must be accepted in Paris as part of it’s culture
care offer some more french whine?
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:16 amBrad W
Germany paid its way back 100 fold. You know how?
The technology that was taken by the US British and Soviets was the biggest technological grab in world history. Thank a German for getting to the moon. Thank a German for ICBMS.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:26 amThank a German for advanced Cancer and XRay technology.
The list is massive
I am 38 years old.
I went to University from 1987-1992
I CAN ASSURE YOU my analysis of the causes of WW2 are NOT mainstream academia in todays system. I would be kicked out of 99% of Universities if I repeated the above as fact.
You folks underestimating the patriotism on University campuses particularly in the Midwest and South.
My views on the European theathre are even more controversial.
My understanding of Japans position in no way means I am calling the US evil. I earn my daily bread here.
I just don’t have to wake up every morning and say we are the greatest to get motivated. That comes from my inner strength instilled in me by my beloved parents.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:35 amI do apologize for some typos.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:36 amHang in their Frenchie. You live in a wonderful country.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:37 ampaul hausser,
“Thank a German for advanced Cancer and XRay technology.”
would you care to expand on the experiments the Germans used to develop these technologies? and on whom they conducted those experiments?
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:44 amYou’re a french asshole.
Guess that’s redundant though.
c’est l’hôpital qui se fout de la charité
autrement dit :
I can recall you said you were a teacher of emphaesolosophia and semontica,
not bad badge for a bigger asshole
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:45 am“…His ommission of Japan’s complacency with the Nazi’s is completely ignored….”
Oh, it’s coming. The European theater is his “specialty”.
“…I imagine Mr. Hauser is sympathetic to their cause, and enjoys this opportunity to disparage further his Nation.”
Yep. That’s what it’s all about for these dipshits.
I imagine Hausser at home with a note to himself on his fridge (under a Wizard Of Oz/Dorothy magnet) that reminds him:
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:46 am- Boooosh is Hitler
- War of lies/War is lost
- America is evil
- Capitalism is bad
He probably believes he has that memorized but he feels all warm and fuzzy about how smart he is every time he sees it.
Hello Bashman.
Great posts!!!
We probably don’t agree politically on much but your profile is that of an interesting fellow. Old school American.
I like your elephant on acid post. Far out man!!!
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:46 amSteve, have a glass of wine then
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:50 am“The German army 1939-1945 was in my opinion the overrall best, most disciplined, most motivated army in the history of modern warfare.” —>> but they lost to a bunch of undisciplined American GI’s. What happened? A bunch of ignorant hayseeds were able to take down Wōđanaz?
As for your belief that I cannot see both sides, or many sides of events, you are wrong, it is just that I have chosen a side and am comfortable with it.
Simon Wiesenthal never found you huh?
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 amyes, a fine french wine sounds nice, with a glass raised in salut to Sarkozy! Bet he would have knocked me on my ass in Paris.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:57 amSully
Great stuff. Very funny.
Your points
Bush is no Hitler
This War was based on deception.
This War is NOT lost by any stretch. The US military will not lose to rag tag groups like AQI.
America is 80% Good
Capitalism is by and large an excellant system. However it has flaws.
By and large I have a photographic memory for faces, diagrams and formulas.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 amMaybe the Japs should apologize for the millions of people killed in the Forgotten Holocaust. It’s dishonest and cowardly that the Rape of Nanking and Forgotten Holocaust are rarely mentioned while thousands of Japanese schoolchildren visit ground zero at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese were not victims by any means. They started the war in the Pacifica and were responsible for millions killed and numerous atrocities. They were just reaping what they sowed.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:10 amSimon Wiesenthal never found you huh?
hehe, you look like a better candidate for him though !
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 amPaul Hausser,
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:13 amYour reasoning for the attack on Pearl is wrong. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to take out the USFleet as a first-strike against America because they needed Wake Island and the Phillipines to maintain their supply lines for their planned invasion if Burma. Japan planned to invade Burma so they could attack Chenkai Shek from the rear due to their stalled offensive around the Yangtze river in China. They invaded China because Chenkai Shek deposed the Manchurian puppet-King who was allied with the Japanese, providing much needed oil and food for the expanding Japanese Imperial machine. That’s the strategic answer. Bottom line is the Japanese were arrogant and foolish.
Steve in NC
The US Army was very good by 1945. Germany was worn out by March 1945.
Remember the US Army recieved plenty of help from the British Canadians and
Hey you listening Frenchie
Free French Army!!. They especially performed very well in Italy in 1944 and 1945!!!
Of course by and large Germany lost that war on the Eastern Front.
One final point on this … For Today.
It was not a requirement to be a memebr of the National Socilist party to be in the German Whermacht. Most soldiers were not Party memebers. SO to say the NAZI’s lost at normandy or Stalingrad is wrong
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:17 amEZRider.
What you say does not change why I said Japan started its aggression
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:42 amI would like to thank Paul Warfield Tibbets, Jr. and his crew for ending a brutal war started by the Japanese. It is too bad that they didn’t surrender sooner and had to bring such horrors upon their own citizens. I would also like to say to the Japanese that I forgive them for all the vicious atrocities they committed against other countries’ citizens (including women and children) as well as the inhumane and savage way they treated US prisoners. They are welcome, by the way, for the United States to be gracious enough to allow them to keep their Emporer, the borders of their country, and be their military, while they peacefully thrived as a nation. You’re welcome Japan.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:48 amPaul H,
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:19 amWhat’s wrong with a little world domination? The US is only trying to make the world a better place, is that so wrong? Inevitably, some eggs will have to be broken along the way in order to make our ‘Western omlette’. Why settle with Maine to San Diego when you can have everything else as well?
Eric
I agree
Too bad we didn’t back National Socialist Germany vis a vi the Soviet Union. Now that was an Reich (Empire!!!)
National Socialism was a bulwork against mad class struggle and Bolshevism
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 am“Why settle with Maine to San Diego when you can have everything else as well?”
Fuckin A Eric!!!
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:33 amOh wait. That was sarcasm from Kipps sister.
Communist twink.
Simon Weisenthal was to busy fudging the numbers
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:36 amPaul Hausser,
don’t wory with the prof, he’s been awake with a lime ; yeah, some kind of moon moods
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:49 amRe: Hausser,
38 y.o.–university,87–92. (enough said)
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:51 amGet your money back,Jack,— you were robbed.
Old school American is one thing you got right,you pseudo-intellectual twit.
I don’t recall the U.S. bombing a Japanese territory before Pearl Harbor. But, who cares about silly little details?
I converse with an Arab in Lebanon who was trying the moral equivalency BS that is prevalent in the hearts and minds of bleeding heart liberals and makes the liberal media reek with it daily. This Arab man was telling me that, look, Bin Laden only killed 3000 people and this guy killed so many more in Japan. Basically, his point was that we in the US shouldn’t be so upset and demonize bin Laden so much when this man killed so many more?
I had to first tell him that people in his part of the world know nothing about the history of the Pacific theater of WWII. Then I simply mentioned how the Japanese treatment of the citizens of conquered countries and the treatment of captured US military during WWII was at least as bad as today’s Al Qaeda.
This man dropping an atomic bomb (fission) helped to end a violent war we didn’t initiate with violence. Bin Laden initiated and violently started a war. The difference should be easy to see even for a bleeding heart liberal.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:51 amwhy I am laughing ?
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:51 amPaul,
Japanese militarism didn’t start “rising” in the 30s.
You left out the Ruso-Japanese war. And other important details…
The Japs would have had all the oil they wanted if they’d stopped their pillaging of China as we’d asked. Look at Japan now…
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:07 amCJWarner-
“This man dropping an atomic bomb (fission) helped to end a violent war we didn’t initiate with violence”
How did we initiate it then?
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 amAnd Paul, it really is inexcusable to leave Russia out of the equation in favor of talking about the pressure the Japanese felt from the UK and US…Japan signed the tripartite agreement specifically as an alliance formed against communism *read: USSR*. They wanted the whole eastern side of Asia, just divvy the world up with the German’s and Italians.
And finally, I can’t believe you included the Waffen SS units in a discussion of elite, “respectable” units like the Fallschirmjager.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:16 amEric said:
“How did we initiate it, then?”
I don’t usually chime in on debates here, but this particular subject is personal, and your statement is about the most ignorant fucking statement you have made yet.
Japan attacked the US, in a sneak attack on Pearl harbor. My Dad (age 4 then) and his brother and my grandparents and a lot of my family lived on Oahu at the time.
The Japanese initiated it, Eric.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:19 amHausser: Japanese apologist. Japan was offered several opportunities to end the war/surrender by Truman. All ignored/turned down. Truman had no choice–end the war with the bombs or invade Japan with hundreds of thousands of US casualties. Truman decided to save American lives first. I am glad, because my Dad was one of those scheduled to be first in, and I might not ever been born, and guess what–I enjoy life. Even after the first bomb was dropped, Japan still decided not to end the war/surrender, demonstrating extreme disregard for their citizens.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:30 amOH, and Eric: I think have shown your true colors. You aren’t anti-Iraq War, you are anti-US. Whatever warped history classes you took in school, those teacher should be fired immediately for malpractice.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:32 am“They wanted the whole eastern side of Asia, just divvy the world up with the German’s and Italians.”
the 2 bombs blown up in advancee because of that, Russia planed to invade Mandchouria the 12 th ; the bombs the 6th and 8th ; but the 2nd, apparently was an “accident” due to bad climatic conditions.
Anyway, the bombs were ment to impress Russia, and tha was the beginning of the “cold war”
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:37 amWell Franch-fry,
I think you’ve got a point. If we’d have stayed out of WWII, we could have saved the French nation so much trouble. The Nazis had it right anyway…and their death camps weren’t a bad idea either. In fact, Hitler was right (we just didn’t give him enough time).
At any rate, Americans had nothing to fear from Nazi Germany. Hitler was doing his humble best not to provoke the Americans. And who needed all those Jews? Not us….except for Einstein…he was pretty useful. And Brits? what the heck were they doing in all this? It was all Churchill’s fault! Anyway, the Czechs, Austrians, and Poles had it coming.
Oh heck, who are we kidding?! I’m sure the Nazis would have been glad to let your grandparents live. They needed someone to build their death camps and to work in their arms factories. Your grandparents would have had very little time to sip wine and nibble on cheese. We came over their to save your asses and in all frankness, BEGGARS CAN’T BE CHOOSERS!
If you have a problem with a few decisions we made in saving your asses, I’m sure you’d have felt better about us leaving you to the scrupulously ethical mercy of Adolph Hitler.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:39 am“Anyway, the bombs were ment to impress Russia, and tha was the beginning of the “cold war””
You are stunningly stupid.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:49 amReally.
Franchie “why I am laughing ?”
What do you expect from a culture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting against Disney World and Big Macs than against the Nazis?”
- Dennis Miller re the French
French military history:
Gaul vs. Julius Caesar - Gaul defeated by Rome circa 49 B.C. (Frenchies had to Hail Julius Caesar as their new leader)
Gaul vs. Franks - Gaul defeated by Franks (the ‘original’ French, replaced by the Franks *sigh*)
Franks vs. Huns - Huns sack Paris circa 450 A.D. (Huns finally defeated here - Attila’s ONLY defeat. Notice it was done by a German-Roman coalition, NOT the Franks)
Franks vs. Themselves - Clovis unites Franks into one kingdom around 511 A.D. He dies and the ‘kingdom’ falls apart at the seams.
Franks vs. Muslims - Charles Martel defeats a SMALL Muslim raiding party at the Battle of Tours in 732 A.D. Muslims lost interest so Charles claimed a ‘great victory’. Notice they didn’t follow up and kick the Muslims out of Spain though…..
Franks vs. Franks - Charlemagne crowned ‘Emperor of the Romans’, Christmas 800 A.D. Again this ‘empire’ fell apart by 840 A.D. -
Franks vs. Vikings - From 841 to 911 A.D. the Viking Warrior-Badasses mopped the Frankish countryside with Frank ass. France surrenders Normandy to Vikings 911 A.D.
Franks vs. Black Death - 1347 - 1350 A.D. Black Death kills Frenchies good. This plague was said to originate in Mongolia, from the vermin. BUT, some suspect french hygeine habits
France vs. England - 100 Years War 1337 - 1453 A.D. Battle of Crecy - 1337 A.D. (English hand the French their own asses in the start of the 100 Years War with the timely use of the longbow. French knights are mowed down like the cannon fodder they were.) Battle of Poitiers, 1356 A.D. - More of the same. Battle of Agincourt, 1415 A.D. - Henry V gets some French butt-whoopin’ action. Unfortunately, a heretic freak named Joan of Arc came along and united all the French Frogs and they managed to repel the English. And we all know where that got her….TOASTY.
Italian Wars - Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.
Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots.
France vs. France - 1572 A.D. St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre by Queen Catherine. She killed thousands of protestants and Jews. Hrm…that sounds really familiar - the FINAL SOLUTION ring any bells? Evidently these bastards were no better than Nazi Germany and yet they are proud of their heritage?
France vs. Europe - War of Spanish Succession 1648 A.D. (France tries to fight rest of Europe over Spain and looses to Frederick William of Germany)
France vs. Europe - 7 Years War or French Indian War 1756 A.D. (France gets beat up on 2 different continents by England and Germany plus the early Americans)
France vs. France - French Revolution 1789 - 1799A.D. (France kicks their own asses) Dr. Guillotine makes a handy invention that allows the Frenchies to chop off their own heads with amazing speed - thanks Jacobin Republicans!
France vs. Europe - Waterloo 1815 A.D. (Wellington delivers knockout to Napoleon - 2nd time. This comes AFTER the Russian Winter destroyed the largest army in the World and the U.S. conned old Nappy in the Louisiana Purchase - WHAT A BARGAIN!)
France vs. France - French Revolution (again) 1848 A.D. (France is still kicking their own asses on a smaller scale)
France vs. Mexico - late 1860s - early 1870s A.D. - France conquers Mexico. Wow! Amazing. What an accomplishment. Funny though, when the U.S. decided to enforce the Monroe Doctrine and in so many words told France to get the HELL out of our side of the world, they tucked tail and ran.
France vs. Prussia - Franco-Prussian War 1870 A.D. (William I of Germany kicks the teeth out of Napoleon III - good old Willy proclaims himself emperor of Germany at the Palace of Versailles - can you say bitchslap?) This all started because France opposed the unification of Germany - notice this starts a nasty chain of events that doesn’t end till 1945……seems to me we can almost chalk up WWI and II on the dumbass French.
France vs. Germany - WWI 1914-1918 A.D. (Germany beats the hell out of France - without the aid of USA, France would be speaking German. France only won because of Uncle Sam jumped in - then those dumbass sore-winners in France impose an incredibly harsh Treaty of Versailles to ‘punish’ the Germans. Notice the resulting conditions of this allowed the rise of an unknown Austrian named HITLER.
France vs. Germany - Rise of Hitler 1933-1939 A.D. (Germany bullies France into letting them take more territory - the wussies wouldn’t even fight over it - they adopted a policy of ‘appeasement’ - can you say SCARED?)
France vs. Germany Round II - WWII June 22, 1940 A.D. (France surrenders to Hitler at Compiegne after putting up a fight that made Polish Army look good. Notice Vichy France who quickly jumped ship to be friends with the Germans. And once again without the help of good old Uncle Sam the Atlantic Wall would never have been penetrated - France would either be a part of the 3rd Reich or a satellite country of Communist Russia under Uncle Joe Stalin)
France vs. Vietcong - Vietnam 1954 A.D. (French Army at Dien Bien Phu surrender to Ho Chi Minh)
Algerian Rebellion - Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; “We can always beat the French.” This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.
War on Terrorism - France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald’s.
Let’s face it. When it comes to war, France gets rolled more often than a Parisian prostitute with a visible mustache.
one more!
Once Upon A Time…
Once upon a time in a nice little forest, there lived an orphaned bunny and an orphaned snake. By a surprising coincidence, both were blind from birth.
One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was slithering through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake and fell down. This, of course, knocked the snake about quite a bit.
“Oh, my,” said the bunny, “I’m terribly sorry. I didn’t mean to hurt you. I’ve been blind since birth, so, I can’t see where I’m going. In fact, since I’m also an orphan, I don’t even know what I am.”
“It’s quite OK,” replied the snake. “Actually, my story is much the same as yours. I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew my mother. Tell you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and work out what you are, so at least you’ll have that going for you.”
“Oh, that would be wonderful” replied the bunny. So the snake slithered all over the bunny, and said, “Well, you’re covered with soft fur; you have really long ears; your nose twitches; and you have a soft cottony tail. I’d say that you must be a bunny rabbit.”
“Oh, thank you! Thank you,” cried the bunny, in obvious excitement. The bunny suggested to the snake, “Maybe I could feel you all over with my paw, and help you the same way that you’ve helped me.”
So the bunny felt the snake all over, and remarked, “Well, you’re smooth and slippery, and you have a forked tongue, no backbone and no balls. I’d say you must be French”.
Now, we’re all laughing!!
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:53 amMy grandfather was shipped from France to a German labor camp and survived. So, I had alot of vested interest in Germany and Japan’s defeat. I had “skin in the game” on both fronts, and I am very, very happy that the good guys won. Thank you very much. Tibbets was a hero and I am so happy he never lost a wink of sleep over his mission.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pmSully instead of insulting like a child, try to make your point, I have some references for what I said, and I generally don’t show off if I don’t know anything on the subject
(1) Voir les archives publiques de la présidence Public Papers of the Presidents : Harry S. Truman, Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1965.
(2) Harry S. Truman, Mémoires, Years of Decision, vol. 1, Doubleday, New-York, 1955.
(3) Dudley Saward, Bomber Harris : The Authorized Biography, Cassell, Londres, 1984.
(4) Voir The New York Times, 4 août 1989. L’étude, découverte dans un dossier du ministère de la guerre, sur “Les conversations américano-britanniques”, avait été élaborée au début de 1946 par les spécialistes du renseignement de la division des opérations, qui constituait alors l’échelon suprême de la planification dans l’armée de terre.
(5) William D. Leahy, I Was There, McGraw Hill, New-York, 1956.
(6) Patrick M. Blackett, Fear, War and the Bomb : Military and Political Consequences of Atomic Energy, Turnstile Press, Londres, 1948.
(7) Gar Alperowitz, Atomic Diplomacy : Hiroshima and Potsdam : The Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with the Soviet Power, Secker and Warburg, Londres, 1965.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Voir Fraser Harbutt, The Iron Curtain : Churchill, America and the Origins of the Cold War, Oxford University Press, 1986.
and humble, if your really such humble you should shut the f u, because I would not like have person alike you to save my country
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 pmsteve m PROUT
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:07 pmLOL…
steve m
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:09 pmWhats the matter LocnLoad or is it Bashman scared to keep posting my comments. Sheisskopf.
The psuedo is your arguments and analysis.
I assume a Jew collects your money
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:12 pmSteve M.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:18 pmre: French history lesson
BRAVO!!, well done!
” try to make your point, I have some references for what I said, and I generally don’t show off if I don’t know anything on the subject…”
Why bother? It sails completely over your head.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:19 pmC’mon frog… you never actually read a WHOLE book let alone any of those books.
Cuttin’ and pastin’ a Wikipedia bibliography ain’t the equivalent to “KNOW anything”.
Humility aside, I still made my point: our methods may not always have been agreeable to everyone’s sensitivities but they were infinitely more pleasant and ethical than those of our opposition. And once again…beggars can’t be choosers. And if you think otherwise, perhaps we should have given you a chance to prove your French manhood against the Teutonic horde.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:23 pmbelieve what please you,
it’s not because you wrote myriads of books on mental masturbation (that nobody read either)that make a person intelligent of you
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:24 pmDespite the liberal revisionist rhetoric, and flat out innacuracies from our leftist posters, Mr. Tibbets memory survives as an American Hero. Neither he, nor the US need appologize for using the atomic bomb(s) to end the war with Japan. Like Blair and Beauchamp, Mr Hausser is a fabulist, Eric, Kipp and Franchie, his nursing whelps. Perhaps a job with the New Republic awaits them all.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 pmRanger
The Waffen SS is the only reason the Communist Soviet Union didn’t reach Normandy before June 6, 1944. The II SS Panzer Corp (Leibstandarte, Das Reich and Totenkopf Divisons combined) were defeating multiply Soviet ARMIES in 1943 and 1944. Unheard of gang. Sorry Marines.
These were men of unparalled bravery and loyalty to Germany. They were intelligent well disciplined and classy.
Your Marine uniform and style of today are copies.
You owe many many of your battlefield tactics to them.
I speak for them because in this cowardly PC America they are roundly mocked as war criminals. So untrue.
They represented soldiers from all over Europe. 38 Divisions in all fighting to the end.
Read Wenn Alle Bruder Schweigen- “When all are brothers are silent” forward by Generaloberst de Waffen SS-Paul Hausser
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmC’mon frog… C’me on rooster…
you don’t have the monopole of culture, you didn’t invent the “fil à couper le beurre” , one would know it over here !
and I repeat, no sane argumentation
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pmpolitical fish, no thank you
I don’t want to fight with wind mills
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:43 pm@Frenchie
“the 2 bombs blown up in advancee because of that, Russia planed to invade Mandchouria the 12 th ; the bombs the 6th and 8th ; but the 2nd, apparently was an “accident” due to bad climatic conditions.
Anyway, the bombs were ment to impress Russia, and tha was the beginning of the “cold war””
You think that’s what the planners cared about, and not preventing Okinawa x 1,000?
The real “scandal” afterwards was precisely that: that we didn’t invent it soon enough and thereby save all those lives on Okinawa. The whole “it was to scare the Russians thing” is vastly overplayed.
Oh, and don’t think ALL Americans have forgotten about Vichy. Yea that’s right, there were plenty of French Nazis too.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:47 pmIt was French soldiers gunning Americans down in Morocco and North Africa.
November 2nd, 2007 at 12:48 pmFranchie:
Blah, Blah, Blah…
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pmGarcon! Garcon! …Check please!
“believe what please you”
Uh… that’s your M.O. frog. (M.O. is modus operandi… there, saved you summore google time
)
Apparently not just moral equivalency but educational as well? Wow.
“you don’t have the monopole of culture, you didn’t invent the “fil à couper le beurre” , one would know it over here”
There is no “culture” in France. That is an arrogant myth to hide the lack of culture. As is French arrogance come to think of it.
Present a “sane” argument, i.e., one NOT based upon socialist moral equivalence and we can begin.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pmFranchie,
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 pmHaving references, and knowing how to use them are clearly two different things.
Why we dropped the bomb.
On the morning of August 6, 1945, the American B-29 Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later another B-29, Bock’s Car, released one over Nagasaki. Both caused enormous casualties and physical destruction. These two cataclysmic events have preyed upon the American conscience ever since. The furor over the Smithsonian Institution’s Enola Gay exhibit and over the mushroom-cloud postage stamp last autumn are merely the most obvious examples. Harry S Truman and other officials claimed that the bombs caused Japan to surrender, thereby avoiding a bloody invasion. Critics have accused them of at best failing to explore alternatives, at worst of using the bombs primarily to make the Soviet Union “more manageable” rather than to defeat a Japan they knew already was on the verge of capitulation.
By any rational calculation Japan was a beaten nation by the summer of 1945. Conventional bombing had reduced many of its cities to rubble, blockade had strangled its importation of vitally needed materials, and its navy had sustained such heavy losses as to be powerless to interfere with the invasion everyone knew was coming. By late June advancing American forces had completed the conquest of Okinawa, which lay only 350 miles from the southernmost Japanese home island of Kyushu. They now stood poised for the final onslaught.
Rational calculations did not determine Japan’s position. Although a peace faction within the government wished to end the war-provided certain conditions were met-rnilitants were prepared to fight on regardless of consequences. They claimed to welcome an invasion of the home islands, promising to inflict such hideous casualties that the United States would retreat from its announced policy of unconditional surrender. The militarists held effective power over the government and were capable of defying the emperor, as they had in the past, on the ground that his civilian advisers were misleading him.
Okinawa provided a preview of what invasion of the home islands would entail. Since April I the Japanese had fought with a ferocity that mocked any notion that their will to resist was eroding. They had inflicted nearly 50,000 casualties on the invaders, many resulting from the first large-scale use of kamikazes. They also had dispatched the superbattleship Yamato on a suicide mission to Okinawa, where, after attacking American ships offshore, it was to plunge ashore to become a huge, doomed steel fortress. Yamato was sunk shortly after leaving port, but its mission symbolized Japan’s willingness to sacrifice everything in an apparently hopeless cause.
The Japanese could be expected to defend their sacred homeland with even greater fervor, and kamikazes, flying at short range promised to be even more devastating than at Okinawa, The Japanese had more than 2,000,000 troops in the home islands, were training millions of irregulars, and for some time had been conserving aircraft that might have been used to protect Japanese cities against American bombers.
Reports from Tokyo indicated that Japan meant to fight the war to a finish. On June 8 an imperial conference adopted “The Fundamental Policy to Be Followed Henceforth in the Conduct of the War,” which pledged to “prosecute the war to the bitter end in order to uphold the national polity, protect the imperial land, and accomplish the objectives for which we went to war.” Truman had no reason to believe that the proclamation meant anything other than what it said.
Against this background, while fighting on Okinawa still continued, the President had his naval chief of staff, Adm. William D. Leahy, notify the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and the Secretaries of War and Navy that a meeting would be held at the White House on June IS. The night before the conference Truman wrote in his diary that “I have to decide Japanese strategy-shall we invade Japan proper or shall we bomb and blockade? That is my hardest decision to date. But I’ll make it when I have all the facts.”
Truman met with the chiefs at three-thirty in the afternoon. Present were Army Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall, Army Air Force’s Gen. Ira C. Eaker (sitting in for the Army Air Force’s chief of staff, Henry H. Arnold, who was on an inspection tour of installations in the Pacific), Navy Chief of Staff Adm. Ernest J. King, Leahy (also a member of the JCS), Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy. Truman opened the meeting, then asked Marshall for his views. Marshall was the dominant figure on the JCS. He was Truman’s most trusted military adviser, as he had been President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s.
Marshall reported that the chiefs, supported by the Pacific commanders Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Adm. Chester W. Niniitz, agreed that an invasion of Kyushu “appears to be the least costly worthwhile operation following Okinawa.” Lodgment in Kyushu, he said, was necessary to make blockade and bombardment more effective and to serve as a staging area for the invasion of Japan’s main island of Honshu. The chiefs recommended a target date of November I for the first phase, code-named Olympic, because delay would give the Japanese more time to prepare and because bad weather might postpone the invasion “and hence the end of the war” for up to six months. Marshall said that in his opinion, Olympic was “the only course to pursue.” The chiefs also proposed that Operation Comet be launched against Honshu on March 1, 1946.
Leahy’s memorandum calling the meeting had asked for casualty projections which that invasion might be expected to produce. Marshall stated that campaigns in the Pacific had been so diverse “it is considered wrong” to make total estimates. All he would say was that casualties during the first thirty days on Kyushu should not exceed those sustained in taking Luzon in the Philippines-3 1,000 men killed, wounded, or missing in action. “It is a grim fact,” Marshall said, “that there is not an easy, bloodless way to victory in war.” Leahy estimated a higher casualty rate similar to Okinawa, and King guessed somewhere in between.
King and Eaker, speaking for the Navy and the Army Air Forces respectively, endorsed Marshall’s proposals. King said that he had become convinced that Kyushu was “the key to the success of any siege operations:’ He recommended that “we should do Kyushu now” and begin preparations for invading Honshu. Eaker “agreed completely” with Marshall. He said he had just received a message from Arnold also expressing “complete agreement.” Air Force plans called for the use of forty groups of heavy bombers, which “could not be deployed without the use of airfields on Kyushu.” Stimson and Forrestal concurred.
Truman summed up. He considered “the Kyushu plan all right from the military standpoint” and directed the chiefs to “go ahead with it.” He said he “had hoped that there was a possibility of preventing an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other,” but “he was clear on the Situation now” and was “quite sure” the chiefs should proceed with the plan. Just before the meeting adjourned, McCloy raised the possibility of avoiding an invasion by warning the Japanese that the United States would employ atomic weapons if there were no surrender. The ensuing discussion was in- conclusive because the first test was a month away and no one could be sure the weapons would work.
In his memoirs Truman claimed that using atomic bombs prevented an invasion that would have cost 500,000 American lives. Other officials mentioned the same or even higher figures. Critics have assailed such statements as gross exaggerations designed to foreswear scrutiny of Truman’s real motives. They have given wide publicity to a report prepared by the Joint War Plans Committee (JWPC) for the chiefs’ meeting with Truman. The committee estimated that the invasion of Kyushu, followed by that of Honshu, as the chiefs proposed, would cost approximately 40,000 dead, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing in action for a total of 193,500 casualties.
That those responsible for a decision should exaggerate the consequences of alternatives is commonplace. Some who cite the JWPC report profess to see more sinister motives, insisting that such “low” casualty projections call into question the very idea that atomic bombs were used to avoid heavy losses. By discrediting that justification as a cover-up, they seek to bolster their contention that the bombs really were used to permit the employment of “atomic diplomacy” against the Soviet Union.
The notion that 193,500 anticipated casualties were too insignificant to have caused Truman to resort to atomic bombs might seem bizarre to anyone other than an academic, but let it pass. Those who have cited the JWPC report in countless op-ed pieces in newspapers and in magazine articles have created a myth by omitting key considerations: First, the report itself is studded with qualifications that casual- ties “are not subject to accurate estimate” and that the projection “is admittedly only an educated guess.” Second, the figures never were conveyed to Truman. They were excised at high military echelons, which is why Marshall cited only estimates for the first thirty days on Kyushu. And indeed, subsequent Japanese troop buildups on Kyushu rendered the JWPC estimates totally irrelevant by the time the first atomic bomb was dropped.
Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman’s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral’s memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had “said up to the last that it wouldn’t go off.”
Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. “This sounds fine’ ” he told the courier, “but this is only February. Can’t we get one sooner?” Nimitz later would join Air Force generals Carl D. Spaatz, Nathan Twining, and Curtis LeMay in recommending that a third bomb be dropped on Tokyo.
Only Dwight D. Eisenhower later claimed to have remonstrated against the use of the bomb. In his Crusade in Europe, published in 1948, he wrote that when Secretary Stimson informed him during the Potsdam Conference of plans to use the bomb, he replied that he hoped “we would never have to use such a thing against any enemy’ ” because he did not want the United States to be the first to use such a weapon. He added, “My views were merely personal and immediate reactions; they were not based on any analysis of the subject.” . . .
The best that can be said about Eisenhower’s memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time. Stimson was in Potsdam and Eisenhower in Frankfurt on July 16, when word came of the successful test. Aside from a brief conversation at a flag-raising ceremony in Berlin on July 20, the only other time they met was at Ike’s headquarters on July 27. By then orders already had been sent to the Pacific to use the bombs if Japan had not yet surrendered. Notes made by one of Stimson’s aides indicate that there was a discussion of atoniic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower’s part. Even if there had been, two factors must be kept in mind. Eisenhower had commanded Allied forces in Europe, and his opinion on how close Japan was to surrender would have carried no special weight. More important, Stimson left for home immediately after the meeting and could not have personally conveyed Ike’s sentiments to the President, who did not return to Washington until after Hiroshima.
On July 8 the Combined Intelligence Committee submitted to the American and British Combined Chiefs of Staff a report entitled “Estimate of the Enemy Situation’ ” The committee predicted that as Japan’s position continued to deteriorate, it might “make a serious effort to use the U.S.S.R. [then a neutral] as a mediator in ending the war.” Tokyo also would put out “intermittent peace feelers” to “weaken the determination of the United Nations to fight to the bitter end, or to create inter- allied dissension’ ” While the Japanese people would be willing to make large concessions to end the war, “For a surrender to be acceptable to the Japanese army, it would be necessary for the military leaders to believe that it would not entail discrediting warrior tradition and that it would permit the ultimate resurgence of a military Japan.”
Small wonder that American officials remained unimpressed when Japan proceeded to do exactly what the committee predicted. On July 12 Japanese Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo instructed Ambassador Naotaki Sato in Moscow to inform the Soviets that the emperor wished to send a personal envoy, Prince Fuminaro Konoye, in an attempt “to restore peace with all possible speed.” Although he realized Konoye could not reach Moscow before the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and Foreign Minister V.M. Molotov left to attend a Big Three meeting scheduled to begin in Potsdam on the fifteenth, Togo sought to have negotiations begin as soon as they returned.
American officials had long since been able to read Japanese diplomatic traffic through a process known as the MAGIC intercepts. Army intelligence (G-2) prepared for General Marshall its interpretation of Togo’s message the next day. The report listed several possible constructions, the most probable being that the Japanese “governing clique” was making a coordinated effort to “stave off defeat” through Soviet intervention and an “appeal to war weariness in the United States’ ” The report added that Undersecretary of State Joseph C. Grew, who had spent ten years in Japan as ambassador, “agrees with these conclusions.”
Some have claimed that Togo’s overture to the Soviet Union, together with attempts by some minor Japanese officials in Switzerland and other neutral countries to get peace talks started through the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), constituted clear evidence that the Japanese were near surrender. Their sole prerequisite was retention of their sacred emperor, whose unique cultural/religious status within the Japanese polity they would not compromise. If only the United States had extended assurances about the emperor, according to this view, much bloodshed and the atomic bombs would have been unnecessary.
A careful reading of the MAGIC intercepts of subsequent exchanges between Togo and Sato provides no evidence that retention of the emperor was the sole obstacle to peace. What they show instead is that the Japanese Foreign Office was trying to cut a deal through the Soviet Union that would have permitted Japan to retain its political system and its prewar empire contact. Even the most lenient American officials could not have countenanced such a settlement.
Togo on July 17 informed Sato that “we are not asking the Russians’ mediation in anything like unconditional surrender [emphasis added].” During the following weeks Sato pleaded with his superiors to abandon hope of Soviet intercession and to approach the United States directly to find out what peace terms would be offered. “There is … no alternative but immediate unconditional surrender,” he cabled on July 3 1, and he bluntly informed Togo that “your way of looking at things and the actual situation in the Eastern Area may be seen to be absolutely contradictory.” The Foreign Ministry ignored his pleas and continued to seek Soviet help even after Hiroshima.
“Peace feelers” by Japanese officials abroad seemed no more promising from the American point of view. Although several of the consular personnel and military attaches engaged in these activities claimed important connections at home, none produced verification. Had the Japanese government sought only an assurance about the emperor, all it had to do was grant one of these men authority to begin talks through the OSS. Its failure to do so led American officials to assume that those involved were either well-meaning individuals acting alone or that they were being orchestrated by Tokyo. Grew characterized such “peace feelers” as “familiar weapons of psychological warfare” designed to “divide the Allies.”
Some American officials, such as Stimson and Grew, nonetheless wanted to signal the Japanese that they might retain the emperorship in the form of a constitutional monarchy. Such an assurance might remove the last stumbling block to surrender, if not when it was issued, then later. Only an imperial rescript would bring about an orderly surrender, they argued, without which Japanese forces would fight to the last man regardless of what the government in Tokyo did. Besides, the emperor could serve as a stabilizing factor during the transition to peacetime.
There were many arguments against an American initiative. Some opposed retaining such an undemocratic institution on principle and because they feared it might later serve as a rallying point for future militarism. Should at happen, as one assistant Secretary of State put it, “those lives already Vent will have been sacrificed in vain, and lives will be lost again in the future. “Japanese hard-liners were certain to exploit an overture as evidence that losses sustained at Okinawa had weakened American resolve and to argue that continued resistance would bring further concessions. Stalin, who earlier had told an American envoy that he favored..abolishing the emperorship because the ineffectual Hirohito might be succeeded by “an energetic and vigorous figure who could cause trouble,” was just as certain to interpret it as a treacherous effort to end the war before the Soviets could share in the spoils.
There were domestic considerations as well. Roosevelt had announced the unconditional surrender policy in early 1943, and it since had become a slogan of the war. He also had advocated that peoples everywhere should have the right to choose their own form of government, and Truman had publicly pledged to carry out his predecessor’s legacies. For him to have formally guaranteed continuance of the emperorship, as opposed to merely accepting it on American terms pending free elections, as he later did, would have constituted a blatant repudiation of his own promises.
Nor was that all. Regardless of the emperor’s actual role in Japanese aggression, which is still debated, much wartime propaganda had encouraged Americans to regard Hirohito as no less a war criminal than Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. Although Truman said on several occasions that he had no objection to retaining the emperor, he understandably refused to make the first move. The ultimatum he issued from Potsdam on July 26 did not refer specifically to the emperorship. All it said was that occupation forces would be removed after “a peaceful and responsible” government had been established according to the “freely expressed will of the Japanese people. When the Japanese rejected the ultimatum rather than at last in- quire whether they might retain the emperor, Truman permitted the plans for using the bombs to go forward.
Reliance on MAGIC intercepts and the “peace feelers” to gauge how near Japan was to surrender is misleading in any case. The army, not the Foreign Office, con- trolled the situation. Intercepts of Japanese military communications, designated ULTRA, provided no reason to believe the army was even considering surrender. Japanese Imperial Headquarters had correctly guessed that the next operation after Okinawa would be Kyushu and was making every effort to bolster its defenses there.
General Marshall reported on July 24 that there were “approximately 500,000 troops in Kyushu” and that more were on the way. ULTRA identified new units arriving almost daily. MacArthur’s G-2 reported on July 29 that “this threatening development, if not checked, may grow to d point where we attack on a ratio of one (1) to one (1) which is not the recipe for victory.” By the time the first atomic bomb fell, ULTRA indicated that there were 560,000 troops in southern Kyushu (the actual figure was closer to 900,000), and projections for November 1 placed the number at 680,000. A report, for medical purposes, of July 31 estimated that total battle and nonbattle casualties might run as high as 394,859 for the Kyushu operation alone. This figure did not include those men expected to be killed outright, for obviously they would require no medical attention. Marshall regarded Japanese defenses as so formidable that even after Hiroshima he asked MacArthur to consider alternate landing sites and began contemplating the use of atomic bombs as tactical weapons to support the invasion.
The thirty-day casualty projection of 31,000 Marshall had given Truman at the June 18 strategy meeting had become meaningless. It had been based on the assumption that the Japanese had about 350,00 defenders in Kyushu and that naval and air interdiction would preclude significant reinforcement. But the Japanese buildup since that time meant that the defenders would have nearly twice the number of troops available by “X-day” than earlier assumed. The assertion that apprehensions about casualties are insufficient to explain Truman’s use of the bombs, therefore, cannot be taken seriously. On the contrary, as Winston Churchill wrote after a conversation with him at Potsdam, Truman was tormented by “the terrible responsibilities that rested upon him in regard to the unlimited effusions of American blood.”
Some historians have argued that while the first bomb might have been required to achieve Japanese surrender, dropping the second constituted a needless barbarism. The record shows otherwise. American officials believed more than one bomb would be necessary because they assumed Japanese hard-liners would minimize the first explosion or attempt to explain it away as some sort of natural catastrophe, precisely what they did. The Japanese minister of war, for instance, at first refused even to admit that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic. A few hours after Nagasaki he told the cabinet that “the Americans appeared to have Ae hundred atomic bombs … they could drop three per day. The next target might well be Tokyo.”
Even after both bombs had fallen and Russia entered the war, Japanese rnilitants insisted on such lenient peace terms that moderates knew there was no sense even transmitting them to the United States. Hirohito had to intervene personally on two occasions during the next few days to induce hard-liners to abandon their conditions and to accept the American stipulation that the emperor’s authority “shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers.” That the militarists would have accepted such a settlement before the bombs is farfetched, to say the least.
Some writers have argued that the cumulative effects of battlefield defeats, conventional bombing, and naval blockade already had defeated Japan. Even without extending assurances about the emperor, all the United States had to do was wait. The most frequently cited basis for this contention is the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, which stated that Japan would have surrendered by November I “even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.” Recent scholarship by the historian Robert P. Newman and others has demonstrated that the survey was “cooked” by those who prepared it to arrive at such a conclusion. No matter. This or any other document based on information available only after the war ended is irrelevant with regard to what Truman could have known at the time.
What often goes unremarked is that when the bombs were dropped, fighting was still going on in the Philippines, China, and elsewhere. Every day that the war continued thousands of prisoners of war had to live and die in abysmal conditions, and there were rumors that the Japanese intended to slaughter them if the home- land was invaded. Truman was Commander in Chief of the American armed forces, and he had a duty to the men under his command not shared by those sitting in moral judgment decades later. Available evidence points to the conclusion that he acted for the reason he said he did: to end a bloody war that would have become far bloodier had invasion proved necessary. One can only imagine what would have happened if tens of thousands of American boys had or been wounded on Japanese soil and then it had become known that Truman had chosen not to use weapons that might have ended the war months sooner.
Rob’t James Maddox.
Vincit omnia veritas!
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm“Oh, and don’t think ALL Americans have forgotten about Vichy. Yea that’s right, there were plenty of French Nazis too.”
yeah, of course Roosvelt dealed with them till 1943
“there, saved you summore google time”
There is no “culture” in France. That is an arrogant myth to hide the lack of culture. As is French arrogance come to think of it.
one NOT based upon socialist moral equivalence and we can begin.
time for each thing : Time for reading history books, time for gogoole, time for reflexion… and time to fight the “bastards”
Political fish, I agree, but I don’t actually see lots of persons with that vertue on board
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 pmI think Steve has a special word for Franchie imported from his own native country: Touché!
Nice work Steve!
Franchie, in the meantime, needs to stop using Babelfish so we can at least understand his grammatical constructions.
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm@Steve M
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:52 pmOutstanding post! the truth revealed is an awsome tool. That is a reference well selected and used.
@Franchie, Paul, fuck you.
Hey I have responses to all of your posts but hey the 1st Amendement went out with 9/11 right.
Ranger I would have liked to talk with you. You sound like a good fellow who likes to kick it around.
Frenchie these people are just jealous of France.
Eric good luck.
Try this one out for size.
No American presidents war record comes close to Adolph Hitler.
42 months strait of front line duty. 36 major battles. Iron Cross 1st Class. Survived massive offensives on both sides.
Survived Mustard Gas attack in 1918 and returned to fight again.
Took a 12 memember part in 1920 and created a movement that shook the foundations of this planet.
“Failed artist” yeah right. Pull up a picture of Hitler’s paintings. One in million would be lucky to paint so well. That dirtbag Churchill tried to paint. What a joke. Where was he in WW1. His “bankers” in 1937 had to bail that bum out of debt. Then in return his paymasters ordered him to switch and turn on Germany. More Real History.
How about Roosevelt counting the money he made off the depression and inflation. Never served either.
The current US “leaders” couldn’t organize a Chinese fire drill compared to that man.
The NSDAP makes the current US political parties look like the Cub Scouts. Both parties are a joke. Wake up Gang.
See ya later coward who blocked me.
Pat no problem with you man. You digg?
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:54 pm“TOUS les chercheurs sérieux savaient que les chiffres de Truman étaient fantaisistes, mais une étude des services secrets américains, découverte en 1988 dans les archives nationales des Etats-Unis, en apporte la confirmation. Ce document est certainement l’une des évaluations les plus étonnantes qui soient parues après la fin de la guerre. On y découvre que l’invasion de la principale île de l’archipel japonais, Honshu, avait été jugée superflue. L’empereur, observe le rapport, avait décidé, dès le 20 juin 1945, de cesser les hostilités. A partir du 11 juillet, des tentatives pour négocier la paix avaient été effectuées par le biais de messages à Sato, ambassadeur japonais en Union soviétique. Le 12 juillet, le prince Konoye avait été désigné comme émissaire pour demander à Moscou d’utiliser ses bons offices afin de mettre un terme à la guerre”
and Political fish s’conclusion will also be mine
Mr. Tibbets memory survives as an American Hero. Neither he, nor the US need appologize for using the atomic bomb(s) to end the war with Japan.
Ok
November 2nd, 2007 at 1:55 pmHumble - Nazdrowie! I can’t help myself!!I have to do one more - don’t encourage me!….
The following advisory for American travelers heading for France was compiled from information provided by the U.S. State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Disease Control and some very expensive spy satellites that the French don’t know about. It is intended as a guide for American travelers only and no guarantee of accuracy is ensured or intended.
General Overview
France is a medium-sized foreign country situated on the continent of Europe, and is for all intensive purposes fucking useless. It is an important member of the world community, although not nearly as important as it thinks. It is bounded by Germany, Spain, Switzerland and some smaller nations of no particular consequence or shopping opportunities. France is a very old country with many treasures such as the Louvre and EuroDisney. Among its contributions to Western civilization are champagne, Camembert cheese, the guillotine, and body odor. Although France likes to think of itself as a modern nation, air conditioning is little used and it is next to impossible to get decent Mexican food. One continuing exasperation for American visitors is that the people willfully persist in speaking French, although many will speak English if shouted at repeatedly.
The People
France has a population of 54 million people, most of whom drink and smoke a great deal, drive like lunatics, are dangerously oversexed and have no concept of standing patiently in a line. The French people are generally gloomy, temperamental, proud, arrogant, aloof and undisciplined; those are their good points. Most French citizens are Roman Catholic, although you’d hardly guess it from their behavior. Many people are Communists and topless sunbathing is common. Men sometimes have girls’ names like Marie and they kiss each other when they hand out medals. American travelers are advised to travel in groups and to wear baseball caps and colorful pants for easier mutual recognition. All French women have little tits, and don’t shave their armpits.
Safety
In general, France is a safe destination, although travelers are advised that France is occasionally invaded by Germany. By tradition, the French surrender more or less at once and, apart from a temporary shortage of Scotch whiskey and increased difficulty in getting baseball scores and stock market prices, life for the visitors generally goes on much as before. A tunnel connecting France to Britain beneath the English Channel has been opened in recent years to make it easier for the French government to flee to London.
History
France was discovered by Charlemagne in the Dark Ages. Other important historical figures are Louis XIV, the Huguenots, Joan of Arc, Jacques Cousteau and Charles de Gaulle, who was President for many years and is now an airport. The French armies of the past have had their asses kicked by just about every other country in the world.
Government
The French form of government is democratic but noisy. Elections are held more or less continuously and always result in a run-off. For administrative purposes, the country is divided into regions, departments, districts, municipalities, cantons, communes, villages, cafes, booths and floor tiles. Parliament consists of two chambers, the Upper and Lower (although, confusingly, they are both on the ground floor), whose members are either Gaullists or communists, neither of whom can be trusted. Parliament’s principal pre occupations are setting off atomic bombs in the South Pacific and acting indignant when anyone complains. According to the most current State Department intelligence, the current President is someone named Jacques. Further information is not available at this time.
Culture
The French pride themselves on their culture, although it is not easy to see why. All of their songs sound the same and they have hardly ever made a movie that you want to watch for anything except the nude scenes. Nothing, of course, is more boring than a French novel (except perhaps an evening with a French family.)
Cuisine
Let’s face it, no matter how much garlic you put on it, a snail is just a slug with a shell on its back. Croissants, on the other hand, are excellent although it is impossible for most Americans to pronounce this word. American travelers are therefore advised to stick to cheeseburgers at McDonald’s or the restaurants at the leading hotels such as Sheraton or Holiday Inn. Bring your own beer, as the domestic varieties are nothing but a poor excuse for such.
Economy
France has a large and diversified economy, second only to Germany’s economy in Europe, which is surprising since people hardly ever work at all. If they are not spending four hours dawdling over lunch, they are on strike and blocking the roads with their trucks and tractors. France’s principal exports, in order of importance to the economy, are wine, nuclear weapons, perfume, guided missiles, champagne, high-caliber weaponry, grenade launchers, land mines, tanks, attack aircraft, miscellaneous armaments and cheese.
Conclusion
France enjoys a rich history, a picturesque and varied landscape and a temperate climate. In short, it would be a very nice country if French people didn’t inhabit it, and it weren’t still radioactive from all the nuclear tests they run. The best thing that can be said for it is that it is not Spain. Remember no one ordered you to go abroad. Personally, we always take our vacation in Miami Beach and you are advised to do the same. Thank you and good luck.
Taken from an anonymous forward I received a while back…author unknown.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pmsteve m
ask the professor to endorse your source
political fish
(short indeed)
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:27 pmFranchie - All tounge in cheek, don’t forget your sense of humor
mon peu Français grenouille. acheter les voie , Californie vin êtes supérieure , femmes trop de!
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pmSteve M: Thanks for the good reading material. I enjoyed the article by Rob’t James Maddox quite a bit. I also enjoyed the informative chronology you put together of France’s military conquests.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:44 pmThey got what they had coming. nuff said.
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:44 pm@Franchie,
November 2nd, 2007 at 2:46 pmWhile our opinions differ, and arguments are fierce, I must say I love Paris, and the French people. My wife and I honeymooned there in 1999, did a walking tour of the ‘backstreets’. Have to admit I will always have a place in my heart for your country, if nothing else, it is ROMANTIC.
Oh…and don’t interpret this as a sign of weakness!!!
Sigh, back on topic…………
Tibbets never apologized because he did the right thing.
The Purple Hearts the military bought preparing for the invasion of Japan may have just been exhausted this year.
Approximately 500,000 medals were purchased for the invasion.
These medals lasted through the Korean Conflict, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Gulf War I, and the worst part of the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The taking of Japan militarily would’ve required the near annihilation of the Japanese people, as happened on Iwo Jima.
It was also to try to get the Japanese to surrender before the Soviet Union could lay any claim upon the island and devide it as they did post WWII Europe.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:03 pmer Okinawa
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 pmNewest Medal of Honor Recipients:
Everyone knows at least one Veteran, but not everyone knows his story. When my Grandfather was alive his stories of fighting and pain frightened me. But looking back I’m glad I got to hear the struggles he dealt with, especially in today’s world when we’re at war yet so far from the danger. On the week of November 5th NBC Nightly News is airing a series profiling recipients of the Medal of Honor and it’s something I wish my Poppy could be a part of.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:39 pmNightly is outlining their stories by collecting interviews with them, their families, and comrades. Their stories will also be complimented by the interviews with personal photographs, newsreel and archival footage and stills. If there’s a special Veteran in your life who can’t talk to anymore, definitely check this out @: http://www.methodshop.com/index.shtml
Yeah… back on topic……….
““He did not apologise, arguing, like the American government, that the bombing saved millions of American and Japanese lives by ending the war,” said Nori Tohei, 79, who survived the bombing of the western Japanese city.”
Be happy you survived.
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:47 pmYou weren’t supposed to.
Paul Hausser ===neville chamberlain
November 2nd, 2007 at 3:51 pmThese kinds of ruminations never fail to startle me because of what they really do lack in hindsight, which is the reality on the ground at the time the events unfolded. How can anyone whose sworn duty it is to direct the armed forces of the United States of America essentially tell tens of thousands of guys in their late teens and early twenties that they are dead meat, that, yes, we do have a weapon that could remove the necessity of invading Japan which will absolutely make you dead meat, but we don’t want to use it because it’s going to set off decades of criticism and all manner of diplomatic difficulties, so, fuck you, too bad, you’re cannon fodder no matter what. You have no future, end of story.
And how is it anyone else’s problem but Japan’s that it is they who agreed to be, day after day, hour after hour, over a long period of years, essentially a slave to a goddamn man parading around as a god? And agreeing to and accepting a totally militarized economy, educational system, and way of life? Nobody, not one single nation on this planet forced the Japanese into that type of existence. That was entirely within their own scope of power. It is absurd to say that the use of those two terrible bombs didn’t bring an end to a level of suffering and misery unmatched in human history! It had to stop sooner rather than later. Jesus Christ, all the coulda shoulda woulda arguments are empty. Why should one more Japanese family have had to endure the stupidity of a suicidal leadership? Please someone explain this to me. Why should one more very young American man, or ANY man have had to lose life or limb so that some idiot within the Japanese military leadership could continue propagating a lie, a vicious, disgusting lie? The Japanese military had every reason to comprehend that their expeditions in the Pacific and Southeast Asia were over by the end of the battle of Midway, hell, even right after the attack on Pearl Harbor! They overreached! Their reach exceeded their grasp! Say it any way you want to say it, the result would have been the same. Enough already!
The apologies should have been forthcoming long before the two atomic bombs were dropped. And they should have come from Japan’s emperor! It never had to get so foul, so filthy, so cruel. All of it unnecessary. Every last bit of it the sum total of really bad, off-the-fucking-charts ideas.
If they don’t have to or want to kiss our butts then we sure as hell don’t have to apologize for what was a most unpleasant reality.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:07 pmUh..sorry guys, give me a break, it was ten years ago!
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:11 pmYou gotta be shittin me!! Apologize?!?!? Never!!!
So Fuck You SLOPE.
Get over it.
We did after you surrendered.
PS SteveM Helluva post.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm“But I wanted him to visit Hiroshima and take a direct look at what he did as a human being,” said Tohei, who co-chairs the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Suffers Organisations and now lives in Tokyo.”
He should never have been recognized as the pilot in the first place. That should have stayed confidential
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:30 pmHauser:
You’re about a sorry motherfucker. Next to you frenchie actually sounds intelligent.
We tried diplomacy with Japan prior to WWII. That’s what the oil embargo was all about. The Japanese answer was the invasion of China..and the murder of 200,000 Chinese men, woman and children, the rape and murder or enslavement of 20,000 Chinese woman, and the enslavement of 100,000 Korean “comfort women”.
Paul Tibbets saved the lives of 1 million Americans and probably 2 million Japanese… My dad was on a troop ship headed to the mainland of Japan when the “bomb” was dropped.
Those stats were given to him.
The Japanese had 6 months to surrender..the US send many a cable to the Japanese government demanding their surrender prior to the dropping of the A-bombs. Japan refused to reply to those cables. Even after the first A-bomb was dropped, the Japanese refused to surrender.
It was estimated at the time that it might take 2 years to conquer just the mainland of Japan at a cost of 500,000 KIA and the same number of wounded US troops.
The A-bombs ended the war at least two years early.
Japan got what they deserved. Unit 721, Unit 100, Bataan death march, rape of nanking, rape of the Phillipeans, Singapore, Death ships, Death railway…etc, etc….
Payback was a motherfucker.
I suppose we should thank the Japanese for their fine germ warfare experiments on live prisoners. Yeah, nothing like slicing up a human being without anethethic to see waht germs do to the human organs (sracasm intended).
Let’s not forget to thank the Germans too. For: Bergen-Belsen, Bergamore, Auchwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenburg, Esterwegen, Ravensbruk, Mauthausen,Therasianstadt and let’s not forget the 20,000 prisoners who died at Peenemünde. I’m sure the 6 million Jews and the 2 million Russians that died in WWII would love to give a hail and hardy Nazi salute to the German people. (more sarcasm).
And of course let’s also thank Vichy France for:
Abadla, Ain el Ourak, Bechar, Berguent, Bogari, Bouarfa ,Djelfa ,Kenadsa ,Meridja, Missour, Tendrara .
So you holocaust deniers and zinnian phreaks go on back to your delluded existences.
Germany got what they deserved and so did Japan. Too many of the leaders from those countries either escaped or were allowed to “slide”.
And if we had half the balls that we had back in WWII we could end the GWOT the same way. In a space of 4 days World War II ended. We could do the same with the Islamofacists and achieve the same result…if the world would unite as it did in WWII.
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:01 pmPaul Hausser
I think the biggest mistake you’re making is one of moral equivalence between Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and the USA. Clearly there is no equivalence in moral standing between a free democracy and two totalitarian dictatorships where free speech and the free exercise of religion were forbidden and punishable by death. Both Japan and Germany were bent on splitting the world into two spheres of influence and each would control one of those spheres. There was no reason for Germany to invade Africa other than a quest for world domination.
I will agree that the German Army was a good one but they lost so overall we cannot say they were superior. In addition to scientific advances, I am a scientist by education and yes we owe a lot to several scientists from that era but had they not chased the Jews out of Germany due to some insane superiority complex they might have developed the a-bomb first. That was a very stupid tactical error by Germany. Fact is they did and we leap froged ahead due to the Jewish brain drain. In addition you must remember how young the US was relative to Germany. We are an immigrant nation, a conglomeration of people. And at that time we were coming out the depression and were not yet coming into our own so to imply that Germany was somehow superior is an apples to oranges comparison.
Regarding Emperor Hirohito, he was not executed and lived out his days in peace, not in a prison cell and the number of Japanese soldiers and officers executed for war crimes is negligible. It’s insignificant when compared to the crimes they committed against innocent civilians and humanity. Frankly I think Japan deserved at least 10 more atomic bombs. Make no mistake about it, it was necessary to teach the Japanese and German societies a lesson to never again allow that type of homicidal dictator to gain power.
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:31 pmNo apology.
The bombs were dropped to humble the Japanese. They are lucky; we had planned to drop one every ten days till they gave up. Only Kyoto would have been spared. Did they apologize for the biological attacks they hoped would work on civilians Washington State? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Paul, didn’t the peaceful Japanese destroy the Russian pacific fleet in 1905? And what about first Sino-Japanese War in 1894, in which , the Japanese used our technology to expand their empire in Korea? Guam and the Philippines were spoils from the Spanish-American War. Hawaii, hmmm, I ‘d have to say Hawaii fell to a bunch colonist who then created the Republic of Hawaii and then joined the United States. Not really stealing is it.
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:00 pmObviously, you do have a BullShit degree. 3-
Paul Hauser:
So who were your professors in school? Zinn and Chompsky?
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:08 pmYou don’t know squat about history fool. How’s your boyfriend these days? C’mon admit you’re gay.
Hey Frenchie:
I see I’m not the only one who knows that what we say here is always “over your head”. Give it up woman. You’re never going to win an argument here, at least not until you study history. And don’t tell me you have. No, you have not.
Otherwise, you are just going to keep sounding like a damn fool. And BTW the it’s you that needs to STFU and read more.
If you do that, your postings might be worth consideration.
At the moment, you’re just not very bright…cousin…
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:59 pmPaul Tibbets is and will remain an American hero. No matter how many liberal profs and writers try to remake history, Tibbets will be forever remembered as the pilot who helped end a long and bloody war with Japan.
He owes Japan nothing. It is Japan that owes him…because without the bomb, a minimum of 2 milllion Japanese would have died in the invasion of Japan. Along with them at least 1 million US casulties would not have been averted.
I had three uncles and my dad who were on troop ships on their way to Japan. They survived the war in my opininion, because they DID NOT have to invade Japan, thanks to then Col Tibbits, his crew on the Enola Gay, and the crew of “Bockscar”.
Otherwise that war would have gone on for at least another two bloody years and my dad, and my uncles might not have made it back home…And two million Japanese soldiers and civilians would have been killed in the invasion.
Rest in peace Gen. Tibbits.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:13 pmMr. Tibbets is undeniably an American hero. My grandfather was stationed in San Diego in 1945 and was preparing to ship out when the bomb was dropped. It’s hard to say whether he wouold have died or not (he was a tail gunner), but the fact that he did not die is the reason I’m here.
On the subject of who is right about the history of WWII. Both of the sides have some valid points to them. Now, before anyine attacks me for what I’m about to say, I am a history major at Liberty University (Jerry Falwell’s school in Lynchburg, VA), which makes me about as conservative as they come.
Yes, the US did drop the bomb to impress the Russians, but it was a very minimal part of the decision. Truman did it to save US lives. Anyone who says that is not the case is a poor historian at best. Also, the German army was most likely the best military force at the time. Until Hitler did the idiotic move of attacking Russia before he had finished off Britain, the Germana army was almost unstoppable. It’s hard to say whether a completely conquered Europe would have been able to be freed by American forces. America, once it got its superior manufacturing going, was very close to the Germans in terms of skill. The Germans were fighting a two front war though in 1944-45 which is tough for any force to win (note the Americans did just this which makes me say the forces were close in strengthif not equal). In my opinion the Germans were a 10, and the Americans were a 9.5, but what do I know.
I almost in no way can agree with what Frenchie has said throughout this post. The worldview she is coming from is so messed up its not even funny. When you get the type of indoctrination that the socialists give its hard to come to terms with the truth (aka. the Biblical worldview). I do have a question though for you Frenchie. I would assume you prescribe to the belief that the world evolved into what it was instead of beind created, and that the creatures on earth have survived due to survival of the fittest. How then can you say the US is wrong for dropping the A-bomb or for that matter Hitler’s killing of the Jews, Poles, Slavs, gypsies, etc.? It’s just survival of the fittest. (Darwinism sucks when taken to its natural conclusion.) Hitler’s Germany was the manifestation of a Darwinian worldview. Once you remove God from the scene, it’s hard to come up with a reason for condemning brutal acts. There is no possible way from a secular worldview to condemn the Third reich.
So the last paragraph was a little off topic, but I can’t understand how liberals can live when they don’t hold consistent worldviews. If you can, please enlighten me Frenchie. If you want to know the truth though, try opening the Bible.
Again, Thankyou to Mr. Tibbits and all those who laid down their lives for the freedom of this nation. And the same goes to you guys who are still serving us today. You guys are the true Amricans, and no matter what anyone says to or about you, they can’t take that away.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:42 pmI think Paul Hausser == Nazi lover/Jew hater. Calling Churchill a dirtbag? I feel sick.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:19 pmMN Conservative:
Welcome to “Dollard Nation”. You lucky dog you. I’d kill to get into Liberty. But it is real expensive…as you well know…That’s a fine university, where history is the truth, rather than that watered down marxist drivel that the “progressives” teach.
The world view of Europeans, and other leftists is colored by their hatred for America…and their embrace of such liars as Chomsky and Zinn. A lot more Woodsonian history is called for.
Fortunately, there are many of us left who know history. History is not about spin and opinion. It’s about facts.
Spinning facts isn’t history…it’s bullcrap.
Like Cicero said: “Who does not know that the first law of historical writing is the truth.”
Good post.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 pmMN Conservative:
“Yes, the US did drop the bomb to impress the Russians, but it was a very minimal part of the decision. Truman did it to save US lives. Anyone who says that is not the case is a poor historian at best.”
Please explain where you found that the U.S. “did drop the bomb to impress the Russians” (that was Franchies original position BTW) and where it was a consideration by Truman at all.
Do you hold that Truman would have dropped the bomb if the loss of life from an invasion of Japan would NOT have been an ‘issue’?
“Once you remove God from the scene, it’s hard to come up with a reason for condemning brutal acts. There is no possible way from a secular worldview to condemn the Third reich.”
I find it quite easy to condemn brutality and the Third Reich without ever bringing my faith to bear. Secularism does not demand nihilism (although the reverse is true) no matter how much Falwell wished it were so. (Do they teach Jefferson at all at your school?)
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:53 pmBut, as you say, that is another topic altogether.
Sometimes silly people say silly things simply to get a reaction out of people, ie. saying that Churchill is a dirtbag. Saying something like that is juvenile sophistry at its best.
Regarding history, I always read a historical book or biography with a raised eyebrow and a skeptical look. History is one of the most distorted, biased disciplines in higher learning. It’s very difficult sometimes to prove exactly who is right unless there is incontrovertible evidence that an event took place for the reasons given. And unfortunately as time grows between the event and the present the tendency is for more speculation and opinion.
When an individual goes to grad school to get a doctorate in history or some such discipline they are looking to put their mark on the world and often times that includes reinterpretation of events and the rewriting of history. The atomic bomb was dropped to kill a lot of Japanese people. PERIOD. This notion of impressing the Russians, I’m skeptical. They knew we had the bomb thanks to the Rosenbergs and they knew we would use it. They are so many different theories, and that’s what they are, theories, regarding everything from prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor to weather or not the Rosenbergs were really guilty.
At the end of the day I tend to look at the source of a piece of writing. Anything by Nom Chomsky doesn’t get a second look. However anything by Victor Davis Hansen and Bruce Thornton is outstanding and there are others as well but so much writing today that’s passed of as scholarly work today is equivalent to a Ward Churchill Chomsky diatribe attempting to rewrite history.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:07 pmDan (The Infidel),
Thanks. That sucks that you couldn’t afford Liberty. I got lucky and got some scholarships. I’m sure you would have enjoyed coming here.
Sully,
I definately think that Truman dropped the bomb to stop American men from dying. That was the main reason that he dropped the bomb (probably 90 % of the reasoning). But there were other advantages to dropping the bomb. The Russians were looking to move into Asia like they had in Eastern Europe and by dropping the bomb, the US was able to show the Soviets we had more might than they did. But, if I had to give one reason for the bomb, it would have to be to save lives. Like I said, to deny that this was Trumans main reason would be bad history. Impressing the Russians was more of an extra benfit than anything else.
I didn’t mean to imply that secularism automatically means nihilism, but there is no basis in a secular worldview to condemn someone with. Everything is relative, which is why liberals are so big on tolerance. I would argue that the feeling of disgust is based on the fact that there is Natural Law in the universe. I would point to Romans 2:14-16 which talks about how God wrote His law on the hearts of men and that they thus uphold parts of the law by their very nature. Every sane person believes murder is wrong, but once you adopt ideologies that have no ultimate authority for morals, it becomes hard to judge peoples actions. What is right in one person’s eyes is wrong in another’s. You can trace the Natural Law theories back to the Founding Fathers (Justice Joseph Story has some good writings on this) and the men they get most of their political ideology from (English Common Law theorists Edward Coke and William Blackstone). While they do teach a little bit of Jefferson here (What good Virginia school wouldn’t!), there is much more of an emphasis on men like James Madison.
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 pmMN Conservative
I almost agree at what you say, except for the Bible or God inspiration for one’s moral choice ;
dunno if Darwin is the alone explanation, but it isn’t a day we can read results of researches on animals behaviour : the natural common sense of compassion and of what we can call “moral” is well shared among the mammalians.
It is obvious we have not exactly the same vision on these evenments, due to our different geographical situations : we are not implied at the same level on them ; so our opinion is not based on emotion, just on historical perspective. It is communly admited here that the bombs were written in the “cold war” concurrence on the arms, as well as the opportunity to drop the bombs or not was discussed in the president and army councils : one of the reasons was that so much money had been spent on the project, it was an absolute necessity to test the “prototypes”, and the occurence of making Japan surrender quicklier fall on the table and was the definitive choice.
and Professor Bill has the point
my “cousin”, I understand your “big brother” view on me, I know how it started with good intentions
I recall you that our both nations never went at war against each other though : biquerings are the elements of a life partnership, they make one progress and show that we are alive
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:55 amMN Conservative,
Thank you for the reply.
Regarding Truman… I asked if you had any basis for your apparent ‘belief’ that spooking the Russians was any part of Trumans deliberations on the decision to drop the bomb. Since you maintain that it was 10% of the decision, I ask again.
Regarding “a secular worldview”…. Wow. Where to begin?
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:06 pmI admit to being no fan of Falwell and no matter how much he expounded on the ‘concept’, “secular” is not the moral equivalent of “atheist”.
And although you may not have meant to “imply secularism automaticaly means nihilism”, you continue it in your second post when you say: “there is no basis in a secular worldview to condemn someone with”. It is the logic trail that you put upon me. If, as you state, a secular worldview creates difficulty with condemnation it follows that it would also create difficulty with value. Yes?
This is not a religious forum and I assume we are both Christian and would agree far more than disagree. My primary difficulty with your post is your use of the word “secular” which I happen to believe is not ‘necessarily’ a bad thing. Will you reconsider your use of it?
One last thing. “Natural Law” goes back MUCH further than the Founding Fathers of our great secular republic. Even further than ROMANS.
And it would be worthwhile IMHO for you to spend some time with the correspondences between Jefferson and Madison regarding the Constitution while Jefferson was Secretary of State. It’s a shame that you apparently do not get enough exposure to all of history at your school.
Sully,
I don’t have the exact cites for the information that the US saw the bombing as a message to Russia with me (They arer at my home in Minnesota, but I can try to find them). I also wouldn’t say that the Russia thing was 10 % of the reasoning. There were other fctors such as explaining to Congress why they had spent so much money on the project and not used it, etc. But I digress.
I define secularism as “Religious skepticism or indifference.” This is what most people mean by secular, but if you have a differnet definition, I’d love to hear it. I know you say that I’m misusing the word, but I don’t see how. If you can prove to me I am, I would change my stance. Maybe the term that would better fit what I think you are trying to say would be liberal, which in it’s 17th and 18th century context can be considered a good thing. I still maintain that a worldview without any sort of appeal to a higher absolute authority ends in moral relativism and a lack of being able to condemn someone’s actions. Who’s to say someone is right or wrong if the authority on right and wrong is different from person to person.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:14 pmI’m also very aware that Natural Law goes way back past the founding fathers. It can be traced all the way back to the ancient Hebrew polity, since of course that law is from God. I just mentioned Romans as it is the most common reference for that. I wasn’t sure how much you knew, so I stuck with the founding fathers and their influences. I think my education has also been sufficient so far. Jefferson wasn’t even in the United States when the Constitution was being hashed out; he was in France so Madison had a better perspective on the intent of the Constitution than Jefferson would have. Yes, I’m aware he was in connection with Madison during these debates, but I would still say that Madison had more of an influence on the Constitution than Jefferson did. Madison did resurrect Jefferson’s freedom of religion bill that passed the Virginia state legislature in 1786, so I never would say that Jefferson had no influence or little influence on early American thinking. I just think with essays like the one on Property, his Federalist Papers, and his Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison is a better authority to look to for Constitutional thinking. I still like Jefferson though.
On a seperate note, why do you not like Falwell? I am not a cult like follower of his as I didn’t agree with everything he said, but you have to admit that he did a lot of good in his lifetime.
We’ll apologize for blowing you fuckers to hell when you apologize for your own atrocities, including (but certainly not the only offense!) the unprovoked attack on us.
November 4th, 2007 at 1:31 amyeah, definitely, you, guis, made
Much Ado About Nothing (source : Shakespeare, in case)
There were other fctors such as explaining to Congress why they had spent so much money on the project and not used it
so ?
see why you will lose the “global Society” challenge, because of your fairness
November 4th, 2007 at 5:00 am@Sully, MN Conservative:
November 4th, 2007 at 9:33 amWithin the theological(apologetics) debate, ’secularism’ usually refers to ’secular humanism’, that is that man is an end unto himself, or the belief that, in reference to God, ‘there is nothing there’, as opposed to ‘there is something there’, or further still the belief that God does not exist, as opposed to the belief that God does exist. The secular humanist, if he/she is consistant with his/her belief, has no basis upon which to discern ‘right’ from ‘wrong’, and is left only with moral/ethical relativism.
In regard to the founding fathers, the humanistic left, I think takes the debate out of context concerning the religiosity of the founders. While not all were stated christians, they all were working within the judeochristian context, and the concern over inclusion of religeous references was not an argument over the existance of God, but a concern over the influence the ‘church’ would have over government. This fear having evolved from the experience in Great Britian.
MN Conservative,
Thank you for the reply. I got back in late last night but I’m glad I waited until this morning, after church, to respond.
In your reply you said: “I also wouldn’t say that the Russia thing was 10 % of the reasoning.”
In a previous post you said: “That was the main reason that he dropped the bomb (probably 90 % of the reasoning).”
100 - 90 = 10 yes?
You do not have to go looking for cites for me. I’m not new to history and I agree with Professor Bill… “The atomic bomb was dropped to kill a lot of Japanese people. PERIOD.” No conspiracy. No nuance. As W.T. Sherman observed, “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is the sooner it will be over.”
Having read many of the writings of Truman and other leaders during WWII, I think Truman saw a way to make it less cruel and used it.
As for our religious ‘debate’, why not just use a dictionary definition of “secular”? Here’s the Merriam-Webster take on it:
1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal b: not overtly or specifically religious c: not ecclesiastical or clerical
2: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation
See? No “skepticism”. No “indifference”.
This portion of our ‘talk’ started with a simple observation by me that I do not find it necessary to appeal to a higher power or authority in order to “condemn” brutality or to comprehend and condemn moral relativity and/or equivalence. I do not hold a “secular worldview” but I know many that do and I do not find a great deal of difference in many of our views. Even those evil atheists that have been raised that way since birth much like we’d imagine a child raised by wolves.
When you say that you “maintain that a worldview without any sort of appeal to a higher absolute authority ends in moral relativism and a lack of being able to condemn someone’s actions”, you also are de facto saying that they have no basis for being able to find ‘value’. That is nihilism and “secular” is not the moral equivalent of nihilism or. In fact, I often argue that religious fervor in its extreme forms as we see in radical Islam leads to a nihilistic worldview; most notably in Ahmadinejad. I use the term ‘theocratic nihilism’.
I love this country; in no small way for the foresight of the Founding Fathers to acknowledge that ‘government’ is a human invention. Those that participate in it can certainly have their religious views inform and even inspire that participation but no ‘religious test’ was to be any part of it. As Justice Story wrote:
“It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject.”
Which brings me to your question re Falwell. I had the opportunity on several occasions to hear the man speak and I found him to be ambitous, bigoted, prideful, intolerant and in no small way sophist. So I admit surprise when you cite Justice Story as a favorite on the Constitution. It is clear (to me anyway) that he took a great deal of his own inspiration and jurisprudence from both Madison and Jefferson.
November 4th, 2007 at 10:25 am“see why you will lose the “global Society” challenge”
November 4th, 2007 at 10:37 amfrom a country that has already lost it.
As I’ve said, I do not hold a “secular worldview”.
As a result, I am not the best person to be arguing for secular humanism but I do find the characterizations you’ve made about their views to be more the assertions we make about their position rather than their actual position.
“…no basis upon which to discern ‘right’ from ‘wrong’, and is left only with moral/ethical relativism.”
That view does not end at moral relativism. It ends at nihilism. Not able to find truth or value.
I do not find the views of humanists to be nihilistic. On the contrary, we are far more likely to find a nihilistic worldview among theologians.
“In regard to the founding fathers, the humanistic left, I think takes the debate out of context concerning the religiosity of the founders….”
Both sides tend toward the extreme when pushed to justify a position.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pmIt is true that many living within the moral relatively framework are not nihilistic, but that is because they do not take their own worldview to its logical conclusion. They are quite comfortable living without restraint. The fact that we point to the moral relativity issue is that this is the level of debate they (leftist) are operating within. At some point in the debate, regardless of worldview, you have to establish the basis upon which your argument is made. You have to answer the question, “Why is your answer right”. The JudeoChristian argues from the position of thesis/antithesis (truth is absolute). The moral relativist argues from the position of synthesis (truth is relative). Thus, the debate continues add infinitum/nauseum. The JudeoChristian derives the basis of all values, morals, and truth of what is right and wrong on the belief in a living God, who is absolute, and who exhibits truth about himself through what is observable in nature, the universe and revelation (scripture). Ultimately, a decision has to be made, if you (we) do not believe ’something is there’ there is no basis for debate because all is arbitrary. This is why you (we) can only get so far in a purely secular (as you define it) debate. A great example of this is that the further we get from the JudeoChristian basis within the rule of law, the more arbitrary the law becomes. Likewise in our educational system. An excellent resource for this discussion comes from the works of Francis Schaeffer, David Barton, and C.S. Lewis.
November 4th, 2007 at 3:09 pma 4 cents moral : do as we say, don’t look at what we do
November 4th, 2007 at 5:21 pmsully (va voir maman, papa travaille)
@Franchie:
Really, you must learn more about the life of Christ.
November 4th, 2007 at 7:00 pmPolitical fish
I have had a severe christian education, therefore I know all about Christ, but my faith didn’t resist to my “philosophical” questions, plus I know a bit about other cults, yes, “histoire des civilisations and religions” ; if I would be a religious person by now, I’ll be at the “cromagnon” style, revere the “sun”, the mother “nature”, for the rest, they are social codes or rules, (these were developped in each tribes), nothing to do with “God” or “global” moral ; the way you bias “truth” and treat persons who don’t follow blindly your visions, don’t give me the envy to adhere your “moral” standards ; and I suppose 3/4 of the humanhood think the same
November 5th, 2007 at 1:20 amI have been excessive in my last statment, it appears that I can say the same for our different political parts here too : seems each one is persuaded to detain the “truth”
Chinese proverb: Heresy stops in front of the wise.
and de Gaulle said that “the frenchs are calfs”, but it could be applied to any other country too.
there isn’t much persons who want to forge their personnal way of thinking
November 5th, 2007 at 6:51 am@political.fish
You: “This is why you (we) can only get so far in a purely secular (as you define it) debate.”
Me: In an interview, the author Philip K. Dick remarked…”The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.”
This is why we can only get so far in this debate. The *use* of the word “secular”. It was not ‘as I define it’. It is as Merriam-Webster defined it. And how it has been used in all debate, correspondences and instruments on the subject of religious *tolerance* when it has been taken up by government in this country since the late 1700s including the Constitution. At least until the last 20 years or so.
That is my (remaining) objection to the post by MN Conservative. I suspected that *his* definition and use of the word “secular” would include “skepticism” and “indifference” and it did. This is not just a ‘philosophical’ difference. It is an attempt to alter reality.
The rest of the discussion IS mostly philosophical.
You: “It is true that many living within the moral relatively framework are not nihilistic, but that is because they do not take their own worldview to its logical conclusion.”
Me: You misunderstood what I wrote or I mis-stated what I meant. Moral relativism is A *symptom* of a nihilistic worldview. Unable to find ‘objective’ truth or value. Somebody exhibiting moral relativism is already nihilistic.
Most ’secular humanists’, agnostics, atheists et al would argue that an ‘objective’ truth can be one arrived at through reason, concensus and/or scientific inquiry.
You: “They are quite comfortable living without restraint.”
Me: That’s called anarchy and is also a symptom of a nihilistic worldview.
You: “The fact that we point to the moral relativity issue is that this is the level of debate they (leftist) are operating within.”
Me: I’m no friend of the ‘left’ but framing them ALL as moral relativists cannot be helpful. Although it (moral relativism) is MUCH more prevalent today than it ever has been.
You: “At some point in the debate, regardless of worldview, you have to establish the basis upon which your argument is made. You have to answer the question, “Why is your answer right”.”
Me: The debate between “is” and “ought” has been going on for quite some time. Thousands of years.
You: “The JudeoChristian argues from the position of thesis/antithesis (truth is absolute). The moral relativist argues from the position of synthesis (truth is relative). Thus, the debate continues add infinitum/nauseum. ”
Me: Well, I would say that many of the religious argue that since their “truth is absolute” that it is the only ‘objective’ truth. Been that way for thousands of years.
You: “The JudeoChristian derives the basis of all values, morals, and truth of what is right and wrong on the belief in a living God, who is absolute, and who exhibits truth about himself through what is observable in nature, the universe and revelation (scripture).”
Me: I agree. I would only add that He is also personal. I have felt that force in my own life. My only motivation for continuing this discussion is that one day I might not be found to be the “right kind” of Christian. I reject religious extremism in every form it may take.
You: “Ultimately, a decision has to be made, if you (we) do not believe ’something is there’ there is no basis for debate because all is arbitrary.”
Me: There may be no basis for debate but there remains a basis for tolerance. As I said in my first post, I do not find people of little or no faith to be unable to condemn brutality, etc.. Neither do I find them to all have morally relative views. It is painting with way too wide a brush to make that assertion.
Islam is another matter altogether. I find it not be theology at all but a political ideology. Mohammed included scripture and prayer because, as Napoleon observed many years later, ‘Religion can be just the right thing to keep the common people quiet.’ But that’s just my humble opinion.
You: “This is why you (we) can only get so far in a purely secular (as you define it) debate.”
Me: See top of my post.
You: “A great example of this is that the further we get from the JudeoChristian basis within the rule of law, the more arbitrary the law becomes. Likewise in our educational system.”
Me: I agree with that. I would only re-iterate that the Founding Fathers NEVER took a “skeptical” or “indifferent” view toward religion but a ‘tolerant’ one.
They recognized that government is a human invention but that at least at some level all humans were spiritual. They never willed that spiritual views shouldn’t inform and inspire government, just that government should not have any ‘religious test’ barring participation. A good many people have taken the term ‘religious test’ way farther than it was intended in my opinion.
You: “An excellent resource for this discussion comes from the works of Francis Schaeffer, David Barton, and C.S. Lewis.”
Me: I’m familiar with them. Thanks.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:30 am@ Sully,
Thanks for your response.
I only meant by ‘(as you define it)’ to mean, ‘according to the definition you sourced’, nothing more.
I don’t think MN Conservative was trying to “alter reality”, using some form of linguistic manipulation, he was speaking conotatively regarding the difference between those who believe in a moral absolute, and those who don’t. He is correct in his assertions.
I never said all leftists are moral relativists, nor do I paint them with a wide brush.
I think we generally agree, the rest is just splitting hairs.
@Franchie:
So your a Pantheist…yeah well…good luck with that.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pm“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words”
I suppose you tried that with me, but it could not work, not because I am kinda victim of
“Moral relativism is A *symptom* of a nihilistic worldview. Unable to find ‘objective’ truth or value. Somebody exhibiting moral relativism is already nihilistic.
Most ’secular humanists’, agnostics, atheists et al would argue that an ‘objective’ truth can be one arrived at through reason, concensus and/or scientific inquiry.
I already forged my conception of values,
which doesn’t include “brain-washing”, but empathy ; that means intuition or instinct of what is “moral” for my surviving in a given society. I understand some come to that conclusion with a scientific inquiry ; I don’t think they feel in symbiose in a alone cartesian world though ; I tend to think that a moral system based on logic, has no borders : it can be pushed to the extrem, then we get a system alike that Nazy Germany has generated.
what is making to me a sort of astonishment, I feel some kind of same prescience of going to the extrem with the goals of America’s nowadays “moral” system.
to bring something in the debate, hope I don’t get back bansterings, that would only prove that I am right about my prescience
November 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pmSo your a Pantheist…
too intellectual
not that I can’t put a “controlled” word about it, but I don’y like the sound of “pantheist”, it’s more primitiv… “barbaric”, that’s it
November 5th, 2007 at 2:17 pm@political.fish:
“I only meant by ‘(as you define it)’ to mean, ‘according to the definition you sourced’, nothing more.”
OK.
“I don’t think MN Conservative was trying to “alter reality”, using some form of linguistic manipulation, he was speaking conotatively regarding the difference between those who believe in a moral absolute, and those who don’t. He is correct in his assertions.”
Ah but his alma mater does.
I’ve been in ‘arguments’ with graduates who have not hesitated for a nanosecond to take any and every church/state seperation argument by a Founding Father or a Supreme Court Justice completely out of context. (Justice Story, whom MN Conservative named, included.)
I’ve been told I was not the “right kind” of Christian before. If “religious skepticism” is a part of your definition of secular then that is at best a “linguistic manipulation”. He asserted that his definition was correct when I asked him to reconsider so, no, he is not correct in his assertions.
“I never said all leftists are moral relativists, nor do I paint them with a wide brush.”
No? Well then I apologize for taking the inference.
“I think we generally agree, the rest is just splitting hairs.”
I agree with that. If it hadn’t been for the mis-use of the word secular I never would have bothered to begin with. Ours is a secular goverment. Finding a way to ‘tolerate’ all manners of religious belief has been an enormous contribution to this nation.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pm“…that means intuition or instinct of what is “moral” for my surviving in a given society.”
Oh. Like in a ’society’ run by NAZIs.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:16 pmSo, in other words…. you’re french.
@Sully:
I cannot speak for MN Conservative, nor can I speak to your experience with the Falwell crowd. I think that the thorn in the debate between the two of you comes down to the connotative vs. denotative definitions of the word ’secularism’. I could be wrong. But omitting the term from the discussion, either one accepts the notion of a moral absolute (truth can be known), or having denied the notion, removes any basis for discerning right from wrong(truth is relative). This is the crux of the difference between those who believe in God and those who don’t. Remember, those who reject a moral absolute can still condemn brutality/cruelty by name, they just have no logical basis for doing so. This point, which you have made yourself, is the very inconsistency which defeats the contention that ‘everything is relative’. Brutality matters because of the existence of a moral absolute. Truth is like that.
@franchie:
Uh..OK
November 5th, 2007 at 7:27 pm@political.fish:
“I cannot speak for MN Conservative,…”
That’s OK. You’re doin’ better than him.
“…nor can I speak to your experience with the Falwell crowd.”
Water under the bridge.
“comes down to the connotative vs. denotative definitions of the word ’secularism’”
HUH? If I ask him to *define* the word “secular” as he was using it, and he did, that eliminates any connotative vs. denotative ‘discrepancy’ of *usage*.
“This is the crux of the difference between those who believe in God and those who don’t. Remember, those who reject a moral absolute can still condemn brutality/cruelty by name, they just have no logical basis for doing so.”
No it isn’t. Have you or do you debate this much? The claim that there is a God has far more “logical” issues than any claim made by non-believers. That is why it is called ‘faith’.
“This point, which you have made yourself…”
I did? I do recall saying that I have a belief in God because I have felt the effect ‘personally’ in my life. I really do not recall saying those able to condemn brutality have no “logical basis” for doing it.
“…is the very inconsistency which defeats the contention that ‘everything is relative’. Brutality matters because of the existence of a moral absolute. Truth is like that.”
There are other ways to defeat moral relativism. The most obvious is to point it out when you witness it. Brutality matters because brutality matters. The notion that the human species cannot be empathetic without believing in God is not a correct belief IMO. Hell, elephants have been shown to be empathetic.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:40 pmAnd not just when they’re doin’ acid.
political fish
I love the fishes, Did I already told you that ?
Sully your an old enharshed, with ressentments against women, and “emphasized”, if they are french ; you look like a “teuton” with your manners, with your determination to show your the best on the subject ; (I’ll make a portrait of you with a “teuton collar”, you’ll have to check though :lol:) may-be in your college your appreciated, but in communication, you don’t want to leave space to the others ;
IT happens that I know a few faculties profs, physic, history… funny how they all think they are a genius ; we can support them in an opened society though, who gives credit to the knowledge, but if you were living in a third world country, you’ll be an “handicaped”, because you can’t adapt ;
for me only persons who can adapt are “intelligent”, they will survive !
and as “french”, our mental ability to understand the mobiles of other people, our flexibility, makes that we’ll survive dispite all the religious threats upon us
November 6th, 2007 at 1:55 amin google image you’ll be the “aiglon”
November 6th, 2007 at 11:15 am@sully:
Re:connotation vs. denotation, it was only my initial impression when the debate of the term began, I said I could be wrong, I was. I cede the point.
You: No it isn’t. Have you or do you debate this much? The claim that there is a God has far more “logical” issues than any claim made by non-believers. That is why it is called ‘faith’.
Me: You miss the point, twice:
1). The crux of the issue is , and remains, whether one believes in absolute truth/morals (God), or whether one believes that truth/morals is/are relative(no God). Like it or not that is the difference between believers and nonbelievers.
2). Faith is not the ‘putty’ that fills a logic gap in Biblical Christianity. Faith is justified by the reasonable supposition that God exists, such that, God is infinite, and man, being created, is finite, thus, it is reasonable to assume we cannot know all things exhaustively and must, therefore, have faith that the God who is powerful enough to have created us (and all things), has knowledge superior to ours about things we do not know, or understand. The belief in God is the only reasonable answer to life’s questions, and holds second place to no claim made by nonbelievers. A belief in God is perfectly reasonable.
You:I did? I do recall saying that I have a belief in God because I have felt the effect ‘personally’ in my life. I really do not recall saying those able to condemn brutality have no “logical basis” for doing it.
Me: Again the point is missed. I was referring to your earlier statement, “As I said in my first post, I do not find people of little or no faith to be unable to condemn brutality, etc..” This observation is the inconsistency within the moral relativists worldview that defeats the claim that all is relative. I made the assertion that moral relativists who condemn brutality have no logical basis for doing so.
You: There are other ways to defeat moral relativism.
Me: I agree.
You: Brutality matters because brutality matters.
Me: That is a nonsense statement.
You: The notion that the human species cannot be empathetic without believing in God is not a correct belief IMO.
Me: I never made this claim, and agree with your assertion. The debate has been about having a logical basis upon which to discern ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, in the context of a moral absolute vs. moral relativism.
You: Hell, elephants have been shown to be empathetic.
And not just when they’re doin’ acid.
Me: LOL
, Good Show! On to inter-species relativism! You, Sir, have my esteem and respect, I’ve enjoyed the debate..see you on the board!!
November 6th, 2007 at 9:14 pmThe absolute moral vs The relativity,
I am afraid that this debat is over since 2 centuries by us : that was during the enlightment century ;
you could say that we opted for the “relativity” with the revolution ; our moral became of social inspiration and no more of “god” or divine inspiration (that “men” say anyway) ; our moral codes and rules are written in our constitution ; Chirac added (before he left) that genocides (holocaust and armenian) are facts that none could deny.
I wonder, if you’ll dare to do the same, because last time it was question of armenian genocide, that was not the right time, that was a century ago…
so, you make me laugh with your princips of absolute moral ;
it is alike we return to the “absolutism” in EU with Frederic II of Preussen or Metternich… that can’t work for the whole planet, it is also “relativ” because it’s mainly developped by philosophs of your country ;
the problem with such an absolute moral, it makes you think that some wars are moral, but groundly, they are like other wars, will of preeminence, supervision of the economy… that some people with a disguish of moral exploit with no shame ;
as a “relativ moralist”, I would say, and I am honest, that we do not go at war for moral princips, but to protect our welfare or people ;
November 7th, 2007 at 2:28 amthe absolute portrait
it’s funny, I could only work out the “nice” aspects of it, at least your not a desesperate case
November 7th, 2007 at 3:32 amThe issue was settled when Christ arrived. Yes, after your revolution your countrymen opted for the ‘humanism’ side of the moral issue.
I can’t speak to the Armenian issue as I simply have not studied the history.
The assumption that all war is immoral is simply false. You oversimplify the issue, and omit any sound reason for war. This is also reflected in the current conflict. In your mind it is ‘unjust’, ‘immoral’ and ‘wrong’. I disagree. I am not a Christian Pacifist, nor do my beliefs require inaction in regard to self-preservation either personally, or Nationally.
You contradict yourself, first you say that ‘absolutism’ wrongly justifies war on moral grounds. Then you say that moral relativist don’t go to war for moral issues, but to protect your ‘welfare’, or ‘people’. These are moral justifications for war, but as a moral relativist, all morals are relative, so such judgements are impossible to make logically.
Finally, all your propositions are inconsistent with being a ‘Barbaric’ character!
PS This string has run its course..see you elsewhere on the board!!
November 7th, 2007 at 9:10 ampolitac fish,
Finally, all your propositions are inconsistent with being a ‘Barbaric’ character
not at all, only that there isn’t a religious of what is good or what is evil aspect on our moral ; just that we ought to keep the wise regard on things and weight what is in our possibilities or not
November 7th, 2007 at 9:51 amYou contradict yourself, first you say that ‘absolutism’ wrongly justifies war on moral grounds. Then you say that moral relativist don’t go to war for moral issues, but to protect your ‘welfare’, or ‘people’. These are moral justifications for war, but as a moral relativist, all morals are relative, so such judgements are impossible to make logically.
our kings made wars on religious moral grounds, remember, France was the “elder Church daughter” … and our king Louis the XVIth help you in the independance war, was it morally justified by a religious moral meaning ? your the first to say that wasn’t for your sake but to undermine UK, so , the real reason though is in both attitudes :empathy for your movement, Benjamen Franklin was very seductive and convincing for sure ; englishs were our ennemies on the ground.
Idem for your country when you came to save us from nazy and communism hegemony : the both alternatives have been weight by your government, leave us with Vichy was the first choice though ; so were is your moral regard in that very case ? it was only when it was avered that Stalin could win that war that your government changed his goals… idem as the atomic bombs prevented from more american soldiers would have died in the conflict, I must say that your intervention in 1944 prevented from more frenchs civils and resistants died in an endlesss guerilla
I am afraid, there isn’t any logic in the decision of making a war, depends on the men in charges, depends on intendance, depends on money availibility, depends on the goals,and what kind of policicy will result…
November 7th, 2007 at 10:37 amSorry it’s taken me so long to respond. Busy with school and work.
Sully,
You can basically take political.fish’s argument’s (thankyou very much by the way for keeping the debate alive while I was busy) as an extension of mine as to answer your questions. I can agree to use your definitions of secular and still make the claims that I do. Your definitions, while not using the words skeptical or indifferent, do say that it is not religious. I am saying that unless appealing to an absolute you can not make an absolute judgment. When people who do not have an absolute authority they point to (like God, Allah, etc.) they are making a relative claim. Unless you want to say that the law is absolute, in which case you are essentially saying that the people who craft the law have absolute knowledge of what is right and wrong. Or maybe you say they can cite Natural Law, but the naturl law was put in place by God, thus they are appealing to religion.
As to Liberty grads skewing the Church/State debate I have no idea what others may say about it. I think you were right when you said the founding fathers knew everyone was religios in some aspect and thus they allowed for religious people to be in office. There was no test because they did not want a state sponsered religion like the Anglicans in England (but I think you and I agree on this and the reasoning behind it). If a Liberty grad has said that only a Christian of their belief is allowed to be in office or that their religious denomination should be the state religion, then I would agree that you are correct. If they merely stated however that Christians can play a role in politcs and can vote along their reilgious convictions, then they are right. You will have to give me a specific example of distortion to tell you whether or not I agree with them. It wouldn’t surprise if someone from LU did destort the facts as there are some people here that don’t think about what they are saying.
Yes, I do think that Story is a good reference to look to for Constitutional interpretation, which I don’t see why you see this as surprising. He also got many of ideas from Marshall and how he interpretted the Constitution.
I want to touch on one more thing. namely what you said about Falwell: “I had the opportunity on several occasions to hear the man speak and I found him to be ambitous, bigoted, prideful, intolerant and in no small way sophist.”
November 7th, 2007 at 2:52 pmAgain I would like to know in what specific way he would be considered intollerant and bigoted. I don’t know all that much about all of his history as like I said I’m not a Falwell cultist, but I think you are greatly misrepresenting the man. Since we are both Christians and we look to the Scriptures as the literal Word of God, point to a passage that proves Falwell was intollerant and bigoted. If you are talking about what he said about homosexuals and the like, then I think you are wrong as he has a Biblical reason for condemning it just like he condemned adultery. And as for the Sophistry claim, we take the Bible literally when it was intended to be taken literally (ie not parables or other metaphors) so i don’t think he was sspinning the Bible. If you don’t mind my asking (and I know this is a political not religios site), but what are your beliefs about the inerrancy of the Bible or the diety of Christ. Your views on this will affect how you se Falwell and they could be the reason why you didn’t like all of Falwell’s claims. Or maybe soem of LU’s grads were just poor examples of Christians towards you, in which case I’m sorry you had to experience non Christlike actions that were perpetrated by someone who claimed to follow Him.
History is written by the victors, so is this even an accurate representation of the events.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:53 am