15
   

Italian Cruise Ship Disaster

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 09:30 pm
@panzade,
And I'll reply also without rancor, Pan. The whole point is that the US constantly postures that it is better than this, that the US would never stoop so low. It's the subject of relentless propaganda, the subject of numerous movies, which are propaganda in and of themselves.

The Japanese paid for their war crimes, the Germans for theirs, others are routinely brought to justice for theirs - the US, every bit as evil, never.

Pointing to others evils shouldn't give anyone a pass on theirs, should it? The only time I know that this happened was in the Tokyo trials. As soon as it was pointed out that the US had done the same thing that a certain Japanese was charged with doing, the charges were dropped and the man was released.

Bad press isn't good for a successful propaganda program.

The US is thee only country that has ever been cited by the UN for terrorist actions. That was against Nicaragua, where 40,000 were slaughtered right under the knowing noses of the US and its media. Silence.

But those things are done. Iraq and Afghanistan are today's war crimes. Again, nothing despite the blatant nothingness that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of more innocents. You don't shock and awe the very people you make a pretense of trying to save.

Again, the silence is deafening. Afghanistan too!
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 09:36 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
A thread about some poor folk dying has become another political bunfight?

Good heavens.



Says the wabbit from her safe, warm and comfortable position.
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 09:39 pm
@dlowan,
I am now a person who regrets posting where I did not intend to, for personal reasons, or one more poster more or less..
Both of those takes are all about the diversion stuff.

This all balances on the balls of the captain.

0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 10:07 pm
@JTT,
You know nothing about my position.....and what has that to do with anything anyway?


I am happy to say I am not balancing on anyone's balls, though.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 10:07 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
You didn't nuke them until they surrendered. You nuked them until you ran out of bombs.


Wrong. When they surrendered, we were about a week away from dropping a third A-bomb on them (probably on Tokyo).

After that we would have produced three more A-bombs in September, four more in October, five more in November, and at least seven a month from December on.



JTT wrote:
The bombs were dropped because the US held highly racist views of the Japanese and the US wanted to impress upon the USSR just what a powerful weapon they had.


No, the bombs were dropped because Japan had not surrendered, and we were eager to change their minds.



JTT wrote:
They didn't want the USSR invading Japan.


Well, yes and no. Given the Soviet conquest going on in eastern Europe, it certainly was not our first choice.

But there is such a thing as a lesser of two evils. As distasteful as it was for the Soviets to grab more territory, we were really concerned over invading Japan and fighting one giant Okinawa down the entire length of Honshu.

So despite our misgivings, we made a deal with the Soviets that let them grab a lot of territory in exchange for joining the war against Japan.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 10:13 pm
@dlowan,
We could slip slide away.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 10:15 pm
@dlowan,
I know that you made light of people dying. Why?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 10:16 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
* In a 16 minute video film in which the crew of the Enola Gay are allowed to speak at length about why they believe the atomic bombings were justified, pilot Col. Paul Tibbits asserts that Hiroshima was "definitely a military objective." Nowhere in the exhibit is this false assertion balanced by contrary information.


Tibbits' assertion is not false. There is no "contrary information".



Quote:
Hiroshima was chosen as a target precisely because it had been very low on the previous spring's campaign of conventional bombing, and therefore was a pristine target on which to measure the destructive powers of the atomic bomb.[11]


In reality, Hiroshima was selected as an A-bomb target early in the conventional campaign, and was thereafter off limits to conventional bombing.



Quote:
Defining Hiroshima as a "military" target is analogous to calling San Francisco a "military" target because it has a port and contains the Presidio.


Hiroshima contained tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers and was the military headquarters in charge of repelling any invasion in the southern half of Japan.

How many soldiers are in San Francisco?



Quote:
James Conant, a member of the Interim Committee that advised President Truman, defined the target for the bomb as a "vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses."[12]


The Interim Committee dealt with planning for post-war nuclear issues, and was not involved with selecting A-bomb targets.

Their personal views on where to drop the A-bombs are interesting, but they had little to do with the real targeting process.



Quote:
There were indeed military factories in Hiroshima, but they lay on the outskirts of the city.


Hiroshima was not bombed because of military factories. It was bombed because it was a huge military center filled with tens of thousands of soldiers.

The location of any military factories is superfluous.



Quote:
Nevertheless, the Enola Gay bombardier's instructions were to target the bomb on the center of this civilian city.


Pretty silly to refer to a huge military center filled with tens of thousands of soldiers as a civilian city.



JTT wrote:
The conventional bombing was a series of war crimes as evil as the A bombs. Firebombing, aimed precisely at civilians.


No. The conventional bombing was mostly to destroy their war industry.

Civilians were given leaflet warnings giving them plenty of time to flee the cities before bombing commenced (just as with the A-bombs).
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 10:25 pm
Actually, the thread balances on whether there are takeovers.
Nothing to do with conversation.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 10:52 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Civilians were given leaflet warnings giving them plenty of time to flee the cities before bombing commenced (just as with the A-bombs).


You are such a liar, Oralboy, and you're not even a good liar.

Quote:
In yet another label, the Smithsonian asserts as fact that "Special leaflets were then dropped on Japanese cities three days before a bombing raid to warn civilians to evacuate." The very next sentence refers to the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, implying that the civilian inhabitants of Hiroshima were given a warning. In fact, no evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was "that we could not give the Japanese any warning."[10]


[bold added by jtt]

Here we have a list of historians, mostly US historians, providing clear refutations, with source material, of your miserable little attempts to pass off this propaganda that was developed, as it always is, to fuel the lies that the US is kind and benevolent, to allow Americans to feel good about themselves while their government spreads murder and mayhem among the poor of the world.

And then we have Oralboy, dribbling out falsehoods, and you think just because you repeat them over and over they are true.


Quote:
ENOLA GAY EXHIBIT

THE HISTORIANS' LETTER TO THE SMITHSONIAN

Mr. I. Michael Heyman
Secretary
The Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D.C. 20560
July 31, 1995

Dear Secretary Heyman:

Testifying before a House subcommittee on March 10, 1995, you promised that when you finally unveiled the Enola Gay exhibit, "I am just going to report the facts."[1]

Unfortunately, the Enola Gay exhibit contains a text which goes far beyond the facts. The critical label at the heart of the exhibit makes the following assertions:

* The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "destroyed much of the two cities and caused many tens of thousands of deaths." This substantially understates the widely accepted figure that at least 200,000 men, women and children were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Official Japanese records calculate a figure of more than 200,000 deaths--the vast majority of victims being women, children and elderly men.)[2]

* "However," claims the Smithsonian, "the use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands." Presented as fact, this sentence is actually a highly contentious interpretation. For example, an April 30, 1946 study by the War Department's Military Intelligence Division concluded, "The war would almost certainly have terminated when Russia entered the war against Japan."[3] (The Soviet entry into the war on August 8th is not even mentioned in the exhibit as a major factor in the Japanese surrender.) And it is also a fact that even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed, the Japanese still insisted that Emperor Hirohito be allowed to remain emperor as a condition of surrender. Only when that assurance was given did the Japanese agree to surrender. This was precisely the clarification of surrender terms that many of Truman's own top advisors had urged on him in the months prior to Hiroshima. This, too, is a widely known fact.[4]

* The Smithsonian's label also takes the highly partisan view that, "It was thought highly unlikely that Japan, while in a very weakened military condition, would have surrendered unconditionally without such an invasion." Nowhere in the exhibit is this interpretation balanced by other views. Visitors to the exhibit will not learn that many U.S. leaders--including Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower[5], Admiral William D. Leahy[6], War Secretary Henry L. Stimson[7], Acting Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew[8] and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy[9]--thought it highly probable that the Japanese would surrender well before the earliest possible invasion, scheduled for November 1945. It is spurious to assert as fact that obliterating Hiroshima in August was needed to obviate an invasion in November. This is interpretation--the very thing you said would be banned from the exhibit.

* In yet another label, the Smithsonian asserts as fact that "Special leaflets were then dropped on Japanese cities three days before a bombing raid to warn civilians to evacuate." The very next sentence refers to the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, implying that the civilian inhabitants of Hiroshima were given a warning. In fact, no evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was "that we could not give the Japanese any warning."[10]

* In a 16 minute video film in which the crew of the Enola Gay are allowed to speak at length about why they believe the atomic bombings were justified, pilot Col. Paul Tibbits asserts that Hiroshima was "definitely a military objective." Nowhere in the exhibit is this false assertion balanced by contrary information. Hiroshima was chosen as a target precisely because it had been very low on the previous spring's campaign of conventional bombing, and therefore was a pristine target on which to measure the destructive powers of the atomic bomb.[11] Defining Hiroshima as a "military" target is analogous to calling San Francisco a "military" target because it has a port and contains the Presidio. James Conant, a member of the Interim Committee that advised President Truman, defined the target for the bomb as a "vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses."[12] There were indeed military factories in Hiroshima, but they lay on the outskirts of the city. Nevertheless, the Enola Gay bombardier's instructions were to target the bomb on the center of this civilian city.

The few words in the exhibit that attempt to provide some historical context for viewing the Enola Gay amount to a highly unbalanced and one-sided presentation of a largely discredited post-war justification of the atomic bombings.

Such errors of fact and such tendentious interpretation in the exhibit are no doubt partly the result of your decision earlier this year to take this exhibit out of the hands of professional curators and your own board of historical advisors. Accepting your stated concerns for accuracy, we trust that you will therefore adjust the exhibit, either to eliminate the highly contentious interpretations, or at the very least, balance them with other interpretations that can be easily drawn from the attached footnotes.

Sincerely,

Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin
Co-chairs of the Historians' Committee for Open Debate on Hiroshima

(see the attached sheet for additional signatories)


References

1. "Enola Gay Exhibit to 'Report the Facts,'" Washington Times, March 11, 1995.

2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings, (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p. 364.

3. "Memorandum for Chief, Strategic Policy Section, S&P Group, OPD, Subject: Use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan," April 30, 1946, ABC 471.6 Atom (17 August 1945) Sec 7, Entry 421, Record Group 165, National Archives.

4. Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era: A Diplomatic Record of Forty Years 1904-1945, Vol. II (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1952), pp. 1406-1442; U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Japan's Struggle to End the War (Washington, July 1946); Gar Alperovitz, "Hiroshima: Historians Reassess," Foreign Policy, Summer 1995, pp. 15-34; and, Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and the Origins of the Arms Race, rev. ed. (New York, Random House, 1987), p. 225.

5. See "Notes on talk with President Eisenhower," April 6, 1960, War Department Notes envelope, Box 66, Herbert Feis Papers, Library of Congress Manuscript Division; and, Gen. Andrew Goodpaster, "Memorandum of Conference with the President, April 6, 1960," April 11, 1960, "Staff Notes--April 1960," Folder 2, DDE Diary Series, Box 49, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library; and also, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.), pp. 312-313.

6. William D. Leahy, I Was There: The Personal Story of the Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, Based on His Notes and Diaries Made at the Time, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950), p. 441. See also his private diary (in particular the June 18, 1945 entry) available at the Library of Congress Manuscript Division.

7. Henry L. Stimson and McGeorge Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and War (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947, 1948), pp. 628-629.

8. Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era, pp. 1406-1442; Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, p. 225.

9. See John J. McCloy interview with Fred Freed for NBC White Paper, "The Decision to Drop the Bomb," (interview conducted sometime between May 1964 and February 1965), Roll 1, p. 11, File 50A, Box SP2, McCloy Papers, Amherst College Archives.

10. Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed, see Appendix L, "Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, May 31, 1945," p. 302.

11. The papers of Gen. Leslie R. Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, are filled with his statements to the effect that he wanted a virgin target large enough so that the effects of the bomb would not dissipate by the time they reached the edge of the city. See for example the letter from Groves to John A. Shane, 12/27/60 on target selection, in the Groves Papers, Record Group 200, National Archives. See also, Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, pp. 229-230.

12. Martin J. Sherwin, A World Destroyed, see Appendix L, "Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting, May 31, 1945," p. 302.


List of Signatories

Kai Bird, co-chair of the Historians' Committee for Open Debate on Hiroshima

Martin Sherwin, co-chair of the Historians' Committee for Open Debate on Hiroshima

Walter LaFeber, Professor of History, Cornell University

Stanley Hoffman, Dillon Professor, Harvard University

Mark Selden, Chair, Department of Sociology, State University of New York at Binghamton

Jon Wiener, Professor of History, University of California, Irvine

William O. Walker III, Ohio Wesleyan University

Dr. E.B. Halpern, Lecturer in American History, University College London

John Morris, Professor, Miyagi Gakuin Women's Junior College, Sendai, Japan

Gar Alperovitz, historian and author of The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb

Stanley Goldberg, historian of science and biographer of Gen. Leslie Groves

James Hershberg, historian and author of James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age

Greg Mitchell, author of Hiroshima in America

Gaddis Smith, Professor of History, Yale University

Barton J. Bernstein, Professor of History, Stanford University

Michael J. Hogan, Professor of History, Ohio State University

Melvyn P. Leffler, Professor of History, University of Virginia

John W. Dower, Professor of History, MIT

Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Author and Fellow of the Russian Research Center, Harvard University

Bob Carter, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Worcester College of Higher Education, England.

Douglas Haynes, Associate Professor of History, Dartmouth College

Bruce Nelson, Department of History, Dartmouth College

Walter J. Kendall, III, The John Marshall School of Law, Chicago

Patricia Morton, Assistant Professor, University of California, Riverside

Michael Kazin, Professor of History, American University

Gerald Figal, Asst. Professor of History, Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon

R. David Arkush, Professor of History, University of Iowa, Iowa City

Barbara Brooks, Professor of Japanese and Chinese History, City College of New York

Dell Upton, Professor, University of California, Berkeley

Eric Schneider, Assistant Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania

Janet Golden, Assistant Professor of History, Rutgers, Camden

Bob Buzzanco, Assistant Professor of History, University of Houston

Lawrence Badash, Professor of History of Science, University of California, Santa Barbara

Kanno Humio, Asociate Professor of Iwate University, Japan

Robert Entenmann, Associate Professor of History, St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN

Mark Lincicome, Assistant Professor, Department of History, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA

Kristina Kade Troost, Duke University, Durham NC

Peter Zarrow, Assistant Professor of History, Vanderbilt University

Michael Kucher, University of Delaware

Lawrence Rogers, University of Hawaii at Hilo

Alan Baumler, Piedmont College

Timothy S. George, Harvard University

Ronald Dale Karr, University of Massachusetts, Lowell

Kikuchi Isao, Professor of Japanese History, Miyagi Gakuin Women's College, Sendai, Japan

Ohira Satoshi, Associate Professor of Japanese History, Miyagi Gakuin Women's College, Sendai, Japan

Inoue Ken'Ichiro Associate Professor of Japanese Art History, Miyagi Gakuin Women's College, Sendai, Japan

Yanagiya Keiko, Associate Professor of Japanese Literature, Siewa Women's College, Sendai, Japan

Sanho Tree, Research Director, Historians' Committee for Open Debate on Hiroshima

Eric Alterman, Stanford University

Jeff R. Schutts, Georgetown University

Gary Michael Tartakov, Iowa State University

W. Donald Smith, University of Washington, currently at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo


JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 11:00 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Tibbits' assertion is not false.


Tibbits was doing what all Americans do to try to cover their perfidy, their extreme moral cowardice, their evil crimes - they grasp onto the flimsiest of notions and defend them by stamping their feet and yelling.

Do you actually think that the top brass would take this dumb grunt into their confidence? You are way dumber than you normally appear.

I just love your sources, Oralboy. They are soooooo peachy keen.
ossobuco
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 11:03 pm
Christ, can not you all shut up?

We are talking about a boat.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 11:34 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:
My father took Enola Gay back to Washington with the film from the baker bikini bomb test, as head of photography. My father's view of the atom bomb was no doubt complex; he was in on some or many manhattan project meetings, knew Oppenheimer, etc. I'd have to search but sure he was at Trinity.

Don't flick Enola Gay at me, David. I have a photo of him at a dc meeting, with him rubbing his eyes. I don't care who you were honored to meet.
I 'd have been honored to meet your father.
I wish that had happened.
Please thank him for his contributions.





David
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 11:46 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I cheerfully stand by what I wrote.


Meaning in Negative Yes/No Questions

http://able2know.org/topic/184560-1
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 11:53 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
He died long ago. I am not him, but I try not to misrepresent him, he was very patriotic. Also questioning later. Thanking him is nowhere, he would be a hundred and six.

I am chary re fulgent takes on the past.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 11:54 pm
@ossobuco,
Where'd the boat get to, Osso?
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 11:56 pm
@JTT,
I think it's still on the shelf.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 11:57 pm
@ossobuco,
Bravo
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 12:14 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
You are such a liar, Oralboy, and you're not even a good liar.


Funny how you've never once been able to show me to be factually incorrect on any issue.



JTT wrote:
Quote:
In yet another label, the Smithsonian asserts as fact that "Special leaflets were then dropped on Japanese cities three days before a bombing raid to warn civilians to evacuate." The very next sentence refers to the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, implying that the civilian inhabitants of Hiroshima were given a warning. In fact, no evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was "that we could not give the Japanese any warning."[10]


[bold added by jtt]


The pretend historians are being very dishonest here.

The leaflets dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only warned that the cities faced imminent destruction by large-scale bombing. The leaflets did not specify A-bombs.

So by proclaiming that there were no leaflets "that warned of atomic attack", the pretend historians believe they can get away with lying.

The fact remains though, the civilians were warned by leaflet to flee the cities because we were coming to bomb them. And they knew from the conventional incendiary raids that it was no idle threat.

The Interim Committee dealt with planning for post-war nuclear issues. Their views are interesting, but they had little to do with planning the use of the A-bombs against Japan.



JTT wrote:
Here we have a list of historians, mostly US historians, providing clear refutations, with source material,


The so-called "clear refutations" are outright lies, and they are sourced in other outright lies.

Nice try though.



JTT wrote:
And then we have Oralboy, dribbling out falsehoods, and you think just because you repeat them over and over they are true.


Again I point out your perpetual inability to point out even a single minor error on my part.



Quote:
ENOLA GAY EXHIBIT

THE HISTORIANS' LETTER TO THE SMITHSONIAN


I hope they aren't trying to pass themselves off as representing all historians.

Because the historians who actually study this topic would be absolutely appalled to have such lies attributed to them.



Quote:
And it is also a fact that even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed, the Japanese still insisted that Emperor Hirohito be allowed to remain emperor as a condition of surrender. Only when that assurance was given did the Japanese agree to surrender. This was precisely the clarification of surrender terms that many of Truman's own top advisors had urged on him in the months prior to Hiroshima. This, too, is a widely known fact.[4]


Wow! So many outright lies in one small paragraph. Where to begin.

First, what Japan asked was that Hirohito retain all his prerogatives as Japan's sovereign ruler. Those prerogatives included unlimited dictatorial power as Japan's living deity.

Second, the US did not give them that assurance. What the US did was tell Japan that Hirohito was going to be made subordinate to MacArthur, and then we made ready to nuke Tokyo if they didn't accept.

Third, the clarification that some of Truman's advisors had suggested, was that we guarantee that Hirohito's dynasty be allowed to remain as a constitutional monarch. Note that this clarification, if it had been adopted, would have allowed us to depose Hirohito in favor of his son. It would also have contradicted Japan's request that the Emperor retain unlimited dictatorial power. In any case, it was one suggestion out of many, and it was never adopted.

The same people who made that suggestion, BTW, were the first people to oppose Japan's request for unlimited dictatorial powers for Hirohito.

All in all, that one tiny paragraph proves pretty conclusively that the authors of this letter haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about. You should have got something written by real historians. But then again, all a real historian would do is agree with what I've posted on this subject, so I guess you're out of luck on the history front.



Quote:
* The Smithsonian's label also takes the highly partisan view that, "It was thought highly unlikely that Japan, while in a very weakened military condition, would have surrendered unconditionally without such an invasion." Nowhere in the exhibit is this interpretation balanced by other views. Visitors to the exhibit will not learn that many U.S. leaders--including Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower[5], Admiral William D. Leahy[6], War Secretary Henry L. Stimson[7], Acting Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew[8] and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy[9]--thought it highly probable that the Japanese would surrender well before the earliest possible invasion, scheduled for November 1945.


Nope. Aside from Ike, not one of those people said anything of the sort. (Note the claim is about views expressed before the bombs were dropped. Views expressed only ten years after the end of the war hardly count.)

Ike only told his misgivings to a single person (Stimson). When Stimson called him an idiot, Ike did not bother to tell a second person.

Stimson as well did not feel the conversation was worth repeating. And in any case, Ike voiced his view to Stimson only shortly before Hiroshima, when there was no time to change course and stop the bombing.

There was nothing even mildly partisan about the exhibit accurately portraying what was the actual mindset of the US government when the bombs were dropped.



Quote:
It is spurious to assert as fact that obliterating Hiroshima in August was needed to obviate an invasion in November. This is interpretation--the very thing you said would be banned from the exhibit.


Talk about a bait and switch. The pretend historians started off talking about an accurate claim about "what the US government believed at the time". Now they are suddenly blaming the exhibit for the possibility that the government's beliefs may have been mistaken???



Quote:
* In yet another label, the Smithsonian asserts as fact that "Special leaflets were then dropped on Japanese cities three days before a bombing raid to warn civilians to evacuate." The very next sentence refers to the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, implying that the civilian inhabitants of Hiroshima were given a warning. In fact, no evidence has ever been uncovered that leaflets warning of atomic attack were dropped on Hiroshima. Indeed, the decision of the Interim Committee was "that we could not give the Japanese any warning."[10]


The pretend historians are being very dishonest here.

The leaflets dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only warned that the cities faced imminent destruction by large-scale bombing. The leaflets did not specify A-bombs.

So by proclaiming that there were no leaflets "that warned of atomic attack", the pretend historians believe they can get away with lying.

The fact remains though, the civilians were warned by leaflet to flee the cities because we were coming to bomb them. And they knew from the conventional incendiary raids that it was no idle threat.

The Interim Committee dealt with planning for post-war nuclear issues. Their views are interesting, but they had little to do with planning the use of the A-bombs against Japan.



Quote:
* In a 16 minute video film in which the crew of the Enola Gay are allowed to speak at length about why they believe the atomic bombings were justified, pilot Col. Paul Tibbits asserts that Hiroshima was "definitely a military objective." Nowhere in the exhibit is this false assertion balanced by contrary information.


It is not a false assertion. Nor is there contrary information.

Hiroshima was a huge military center filled with tens of thousands of soldiers.



Quote:
Hiroshima was chosen as a target precisely because it had been very low on the previous spring's campaign of conventional bombing, and therefore was a pristine target on which to measure the destructive powers of the atomic bomb.[11]


Nope. Hiroshima was chosen as a target very early in the campaign of conventional bombing, and was thereafter off limits to conventional bombing.



Quote:
Defining Hiroshima as a "military" target is analogous to calling San Francisco a "military" target because it has a port and contains the Presidio.


Hiroshima held tens of thousands of soldiers. How many soldiers does San Francisco hold?



Quote:
James Conant, a member of the Interim Committee that advised President Truman, defined the target for the bomb as a "vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses."[12]


The Interim Committee had interesting views, but their job was planning for post-war nuclear issues. They were not involved with choosing the targets for the A-bombs.



Quote:
There were indeed military factories in Hiroshima, but they lay on the outskirts of the city.


Hiroshima was not bombed because of factories. It was bombed because it contained tens of thousands of soldiers, and also because it was the military headquarters in charge of repelling any invasion of the southern half of Japan.

Any factories were superfluous.



Quote:
Nevertheless, the Enola Gay bombardier's instructions were to target the bomb on the center of this civilian city.


Pretty silly to refer to a huge military center filled with tens of thousands of soldiers as "civilian".



Quote:
The few words in the exhibit that attempt to provide some historical context for viewing the Enola Gay amount to a highly unbalanced and one-sided presentation of a largely discredited post-war justification of the atomic bombings.


Nothing even remotely unbalanced about it. It was just a straightforward presentation of facts.

The pretend historians may wish they had discredited the truth. But fortunately they have not.



Quote:
Such errors of fact and such tendentious interpretation in the exhibit are no doubt partly the result of your decision earlier this year to take this exhibit out of the hands of professional curators and your own board of historical advisors.


When a pretend historian spews a lie, that does not mean that reality becomes an error of fact.
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2012 12:19 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Thanks, but..
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 07:44:30