Salman Rushdie knighted, muslims threaten violence

Post Reply New Topic

And Eisenhower was involved in the decision to bomb Japan? He had an inside view of those deliberations?


Why? He was focused on doing his own job defeating the Nazis, he would not have had time to study events occurring on the opposite side of the world.


I agree Eisenhower was a man of great integrity, a remarkable general, and an excellent President. I certainly admire him, I just don't think he is a relevant authority to bring up here. His "deep background and understanding" is completely unrelated to whether Japan would have surrendered. Why would he necessarily have researched the subject in-depth before making such a statement? Honestly, the only Eisenhower quote I see cited on this subject was of him whining about nuking Japan going against the "American tradition of fair play" or some such nonsense, which really doesn't sound like someone who has thoroughly researched and thoughtfully examined the question but rather appears like more of a gut reaction.


I didn't ask you to accept my authority, Sand, and to claim that I did so is BS. I made an argument, citing a number of specific facts, and you have not attempted to rebut this argument with anything other than an argument from an irrelevant authority. The only conclusion I can reach at this point is that you have no idea what you're talking about and want to avoid the actual issues.

Just a thought... the a-bomb may well have scared the bejesus out of the Japanese government, but that was predominantly fear that Tokyo would be next. The Imperial Army was quite willing (if not totally able) to carry on fighting as long as they drew breath. It has to be remembered that due to the Allied control of the sea and air, and the American Island-hopping tactic, there were many garrisons of Japanese troops sitting on Islands almost completely unmolested. Further, many Imperial Japanese failed to give up even AFTER being told to surrender.. they simply refused to believe it, and carried on. They were still finding Japanese troops in obscure places in the early nineties, from what I recall.

So its just a wee bit of a fallacy to claim that it was the war-ending device everyone claims it to be. It was not as completely decisive as it might first appear.

It is not really import which colours are on a flag. It is much more important which kind of regime rules. The Palestinians have currently the choice between a corrupt party and a party of religious fanatics. If I would have such a choice, I would strongly prefer an Israeli military administration.

And what does it mean "restored"? Restored to the Roman Province of Syria with Aelia Capitolina as capital? Or to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem? Or to the Ottoman Empire? Or to whom?

---

Via this chap Germany or Italy would have at "Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem"-option a good stake:

Right, they surrendered out of fear that we had more nukes that we were going to use. The idea that they were about to capitulate without the nukes is just ridiculous, as even after we fried two major cities filled with civilians they weren't eager to give up.

Your "facts" boil down to what you think the attitudes of the Japanese authorities were at the time against what Eisenhower knew about their attitudes. Your claim that you know more about the situation than Eisenhower does not impress me and obviously your ego is at stake. I am not interested in playing that game.

Sand: I'm not interested in that game either, which is why I've already asked you, repeatedly, to drop it.

To reiterate in part: Before the A-bomb was dropped, Japan was preparing for a long war on their homeland. Women and children were preparing to use guerrilla tactics against us. Japan did not surrender after Hiroshima was destroyed. Japanese military leaders later said that the only reason they surrendered after Nagasaki was because they thought we had more nukes that we were going to drop.

Now stop trying to deflect. Argue the points if you argue anything, because repeated ad hominems aren't impressing anyone.

If you look into your history a bit more deeply you will see that the Japanese were offering surrender previous to the atomic bombing on the basis of not accepting unconditional surrender. Any country under approaching defeat will probably give wide public proclamation of indomitability for propaganda purposes but the actual military circumstances must certainly have been clear to Eisenhower in his high military position at the time. They did not want to give up their god-emperor. And in the end, even after the actual surrender, it proved worthwhile for MacArthur to keep the emperor. I have no ego stake in this. Merely a personal choice of who is in a superior position to judge.

That you incessantly insist that my choice of Eisenhower over you is insulting indicates you are emotionally involved.

Last edited by Sand on 11 Mar 2009, 2:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sorry for the duplicate post. It was a mechanical glitch, unintentional.

Last edited by Sand on 11 Mar 2009, 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

hum, double post...a bit..

restored to the Palestinians of course!! ! anyway this thread is about Rushdie not Palestine.

I must admit it isn't very clear why you cling to Eisenhower as an expert on the Far Eastern Theatre. Surely there are other closer witnesses to Japan's capabilities than the European Theatre commander that would make less.. arguable sources? You might just as easily have picked the Polish Interior minister of the government in exile (a man with theoretically access to high level information, who might have known about matters.. but probably didn't.) Surely a better source would be those fighting IN that arena?

Attitudes are revealed by doings. What the Jap Bastards did was fight to the last man, women and child on Okinowah. And of course the Kamikazes. There is the telling clue to the Jap attitude. Eisenhower's opinion does not count nearly as much as Tojo's.

The Japs would have done whatever their leaders told them to do. Such is the nature of the beast.

ruveyn

"Restored" means set in a former state. The Stuart Monarchy was restored in England in 1660, because they were earlier on the throne (1603-1649). The previous dynasty, the Tudor, were not restored in 1485 when the first Tudor, Henry VII, became king, because they never been before on the throne. The semantics of "restored" implements the restoration of a previous existing state.

The Palestinians never constituted them self as a state in the sense of international law. May I remind on the war of 1948. The UN-plan stipulated the creation of two states with complex, but reasonable rules and interactions. To the opposite of the Jews the Palestinians did not saw a need of declaring a state when in May 1948 the British mandate expired. The troops of the Arabic neighbours transformed the UN-plan into a merely historical document a few hours after Israel has been formally founded on 14 May 1948.

There was never a Palestinian State, therefore no one can be "restored".

---

The establishment of a state includes also automatically obligations against other states. One of the most import one is to keep order within the own borders. Lebanon has here already a problem, not able to control numerous armed groups, the recent history of the Palestinian administration not being able to impose the basic function to keep peace in the own territory, to stop rockets fired from Gaza or just to stop smuggling does not raise to much confidence than the Palestinian people in the current are in the position to fulfil the basic functions of a state.

I really do not know how a peace treaty could be concluded with Lebanon and any future Palestinian state, because both state are/would be not in the position to fulfil the obligations which are necessary for any peace treaty since 1648.

Ruveyn, do you even know the legend of the Kamikaze? (wind spirit / god)

I sure do. Kamikaze means Divine Wind and refers to a fortunate storm during the 1200's that aborted a Mongol invasion of Japan.

The use of suicide tactics shows that the Japs were nutsy fagin. They had plans for attacking U.S. troops (in case of an invasion) with sharpened bamboo pikes. Their game plan was not to end the war as much as it was to make Americans bleed for every square foot of ground. Truman did the only sensible thing. He green lighted the A-bomb and authorized the use of poison gas in case the A-bomb did not end the war.

Anyway nuking two Jap cities did the job. The Japs folded after Hirohito decided surrender was the best step and a peaceful occupation of Japan by U.S. troops ensued. Many allied lives were saved by using the nukes as well as many Jap lives.

ruveyn

Hrmph, you didn't need to add all this, i was mostly asking about the kamikaze. =/ And yes, that's mostly true. In any event, the Japanese were told that they could become a "divine wind" themselves and help push back the invaders that way (notice americans were also considered as trespassers / invaders as much as the Mongols were). I'm a bit disappointed Ruveyn, you seem pretty knowledgeable, but your view on things saddens me. =(