This is the time of year when I get harsh. Cry me a river, Mrs. Sakamoto. My father-in-law left an 18 year old wife and two kids in Shandong because you @#&*ers decided to screw with North Chinese politics. He has not seen them since 1948, and has no idea if they are alive or dead. He was 17 when he first had to kill another human being (with a knife) - a Japanese soldier. No one should have to live like that either. Yet he is still open-minded enough to talk to me in Japanese. I'm not sure I'd be as magnanimous.
Was Mrs. Sakamoto protesting Japanese militarism in 1945, or was she working in a school yard munitions factory or learning how to use a bamboo spear to repel invaders from Kyushu? Did she ever speak up against the use of Korean and POW slave labor in the coal mines of Kyushu? I'd really, really like to hear some honest answers there.
The Japanese were the schoolyard bullies of Asia in the 20s and 30s. They got their asses handed to them by Zhukov in '39, so they decided to go for easier pickings. But the Russians were even bigger bullies. Think Zhukov would have been any kinder in 1945 than in 1939? Think again - the Russians pushed the fighting in Manchuria and Sakhalin after they knew the armistice was signed, just to get a few more square miles. Let's look at the DPRK, let's think about a North Japan / South Japan scenario, and then let's talk about the bombs again, shall we?
Germany was castigated and had to reapply for admission to the human race in 1945. Sometimes I think that it was a grave mistake that the war crimes trials in Japan amounted to little more than MacArthur seeking vengeance on the generals who had bested him. Hirohito, at least, should have danced the hemp fandango.
I think it is good to take these few days to think about the special kind of destruction the atom bomb works: the point of no return is the split second it's dropped, and from that all resultant destruction flows. It's not like a ground siege, or even a conventional bombing, either of which can be suspended midway or adjusted somewhat in intensity. Point taken.
But as you say, people get awfully selective about what they wring their hands over.
Yeah, and the effects of an A-Bomb last a long, long time, too, making large areas dangerous or downright unihabitable. That's the real spectre of atomic war. It is good to reflect, I agree.
I get a little reflective around this time of year, too, but I reflect on a lot of different things, both the bombs and whether I should convince my father-in-law to go back to China with us to search out the fate of his kids.
It's best to be dispasionate about the bombs. I wonder if Japan would have surrendered with one bomb if we had given them more time, and I'm glad the crew of the Box Car screwed up the drop and didn't destroy the old city in Nagasaki. But I also wonder how much time it would have taken with just one bomb, and how much land Uncle Joe would have grabbed.
A hard strike at Japan was necessary, and indeed deserved. Aside from ignoring how much the Japanese brought on themselves and how much more they would have suffered under a bipartate occupation, the hand wringing seems to imply that the long term effects of radiation were conetmplated. We would not have exposed so many of our own soldiers in the tests if that had been true.
Was Mrs. Sakamoto protesting Japanese militarism in 1945, or was she working in a school yard munitions factory or learning how to use a bamboo spear to repel invaders from Kyushu? Did she ever speak up against the use of Korean and POW slave labor in the coal mines of Kyushu? I'd really, really like to hear some honest answers there.
The Japanese were the schoolyard bullies of Asia in the 20s and 30s. They got their asses handed to them by Zhukov in '39, so they decided to go for easier pickings. But the Russians were even bigger bullies. Think Zhukov would have been any kinder in 1945 than in 1939? Think again - the Russians pushed the fighting in Manchuria and Sakhalin after they knew the armistice was signed, just to get a few more square miles. Let's look at the DPRK, let's think about a North Japan / South Japan scenario, and then let's talk about the bombs again, shall we?
Germany was castigated and had to reapply for admission to the human race in 1945. Sometimes I think that it was a grave mistake that the war crimes trials in Japan amounted to little more than MacArthur seeking vengeance on the generals who had bested him. Hirohito, at least, should have danced the hemp fandango.
I think it is good to take these few days to think about the special kind of destruction the atom bomb works: the point of no return is the split second it's dropped, and from that all resultant destruction flows. It's not like a ground siege, or even a conventional bombing, either of which can be suspended midway or adjusted somewhat in intensity. Point taken.
But as you say, people get awfully selective about what they wring their hands over.
I get a little reflective around this time of year, too, but I reflect on a lot of different things, both the bombs and whether I should convince my father-in-law to go back to China with us to search out the fate of his kids.
It's best to be dispasionate about the bombs. I wonder if Japan would have surrendered with one bomb if we had given them more time, and I'm glad the crew of the Box Car screwed up the drop and didn't destroy the old city in Nagasaki. But I also wonder how much time it would have taken with just one bomb, and how much land Uncle Joe would have grabbed.
A hard strike at Japan was necessary, and indeed deserved. Aside from ignoring how much the Japanese brought on themselves and how much more they would have suffered under a bipartate occupation, the hand wringing seems to imply that the long term effects of radiation were conetmplated. We would not have exposed so many of our own soldiers in the tests if that had been true.