Repulsive, and a shame to find it here.

Now to the Kyushu invasion. I was only pointing out that it wasn’t a myth and yes you were wrong, and it makes your conclusions erroneous also because it being a myth was central to your beliefs regarding why we dropped the bombs. I don’t believe that it actually had any impact on you, as your sarcasm clearly illustrates.

In the context of WWII, where the land war in Europe was lost (and almost lost again in 1944), the Soviet Union was supplying Nazi Germany and both were dividing up Europe (until Operation Barbarossa 1940), British cities were being bombed, Japan had taken most of Asia so the land war was pretty much lost there also (the Soviets had an Armistice with the Japanese) and were doing things even the Nazis found reprehensible; yes, bombing first their infrastructure and war-making facilities, then their cities was the right course. Again, in the context of the times. The rape of Nanking, and other cities, the systematic killing of Jews and Gypsys and Slavs, were not.

Again in the context of the times, the bombing of two Japanese cities to end the war was the right course. Their only other choices were: blockade (if I remember correctly they expected a million or so deaths from that) for up to two years; Kyushu (the Japanese already showed their response on Saipan and Okinawa, the Americans expected a fight to the death which was confirmed later with the release of info on how far the militarization of the CIVILIAN population had gone) with millions dead; or the conditional surrender which was never considered real (it was only one faction and could have been a stall). Also, by doing that and having the power we kept the Soviets from partitioning Japan ala Germany. This is what they had to go by then, and they can only be judged by that. Not your moral outrage 50 some odd years later. How many millions more would you have preferred dead to maintain moral purity at that juncture?

Personally, I like the Japanese people, and I’m predominately Germanic, so I would have preferred that WWII would not have gone the way it did. But the Allies were fighting for their lives and really didn’t know they were going to win. Hindsight is such a wonderful thing for fueling certainty and outrage..

Actually, I’ve avoided insults pretty much throughout, and stupid was not one of them nor was “dumb ass”. I don’t view your weltangschaung as valid, nor your method of interpreting history and therefore most if not all of your conclusions regarding events. I think you have moved from one extreme, Bircher, to another extreme, anarchist, and neither group has a valid dialectic. That doesn’t mean you can’t make valid points, but taken as whole, your conclusions won’t be.

I doubt that either clarity or agreement is possible, which makes further conversation pointless.

Kyushu invasion, huge casualties predicted, millions. I see my mistake and admit that I was wrong. In light of this change of heart, I have altered my “Rules to Live By” list:

I have changed “It is wrong to target civilians during war” to “It is wrong to target civilians during war except when it’s right.”

See? I’m a reasonable person. Now you have said that you are “not stupid enough to believe that war is always avoidable.” I believe that too, war is not always avoidable (I don’t know you, so I can’t comment on the stupid part). I assume that you think the Iraq/AfPak wars were not avoidable, but looking back, neither you nor anyone else has said why this is so. There’s talk of “The Mission,” “Victory,” etc. but not much else.

So, be fair. Avoiding all insults, tell me why these wars are necessary.

You ignored this “If pushed hard, I would likely have gone with the father’s wishes, in both cases of Janie #76.” The push is to overcome the tear I feel between the First Amendment and the father’s wishes, knowing the pain it would spare him. It essentially makes your first paragraph of outrage meaningless. I explained the difference in the larger context, but I did not ignore either families’ pain and would side with them. How is it that you cannot see a difference in two acts taking place in two vastly different situations?

One of the problems with taking the quote from one and then claiming it represents all, “the REAL difference”, is that it’s unreasonable and unreasoning. TV networks showed those videos, and they weren’t doing so to fuel the “warrior spirit”.

However, it certainly fueled outrage around the world. I think the Italian died well, don’t you? Do I need to write that I wished he did not have to take his stand that day?

Your last paragraph puzzles me. Obviously, you set up a strawman so you could express outrage again. But why set up one so transparent? I never wrote or even implied “the ones killing Marines are NOT fanatics furthering a religio-political agenda”. The very word “Taliban” is synonymous with religio-political fanatics. Had the picture been of a Talibani murdering a fallen soldier, I would have written differently.

I had another take, but it would require viewing you as truly warped, so I declined it.

How are you doing on understanding the “saved lives” through avoiding the Kyushu invasion?

Have a good night.

And not the REAL difference as quoted above, “…once again, if seeing these videos helps fuel the warrior spirit which is required, then that’s reason enough to help make them available.”

Okay, so, so, let me get this straight. The ones doing the beheadings were “furthering the purpose of a religio-political agenda,” but the ones killing Marines are NOT fanatics furthering a religio-political agenda? Oh, my God.

I’m still going to reply while not quoting your comment question. I think the difference between Berg and the dying Marine is the realization that the depravity of killing a truly innocent man, Jew or not (although he was killed in part because he was a Jew), was in their twisted minds furthering the purpose of a religio-political agenda, a typical sickness of the Utopian fanatic. Something we seem to not be reminded of often enough, and forget too soon.

The dying Marine however much illustrating the pain of war illustrates only that, and inflicts needless pain on his family. I’ve seen archival films of the trench-to-trench charges of Tommys and AEF against the equivalent of 50-caliber machine guns. They crumpled and died. Truly horrifying.

I have to hold back the tears watching Omaha Beach in “Saving Private Ryan”, a most realistic portrayal of that day. I can only imagine what that father has to do when he sees the picture of his dying Marine. But it has so many times been seen before…and is less, I believe, forgotten. I am making sure my children don’t.

Janie #76,

Have you consider that moving from one extreme to another is neither a good intellectual nor life choice? Have you really changed?

Utopias are based on harmony; the only way to achieve that goal is to remove the disharmonious. There is enough fictional, from Zamyatin’s “We” to Huxley’s “Brave New World”, as well as experiential (the New Communist Man) to illustrate the dangers of Utopianism. But then, its always the other guy that has to change, isn’t it?

I leave you to the issue with Pacifists, extreme or moderate. Kitty Genovese would be just as dead if it had been extreme Pacifists watching from the windows instead of apathetic cowards.

Top #77,

I am rather torn on this, but do agree with you regarding sanctimony. I have experienced first hand the “higher duty” of a newspaper (front-page quote-mine with my name in print and a misleading picture and caption right next to it).

If pushed hard, I would likely have gone with the father’s wishes, in both cases of Janie #76. One caveat though, Berg’s film illustrated the depravity of one more Utopian movement (a religio-political one) while the dying Marine needlessly illustrated the pain and tragedy of one family. However callous this may sound, that picture of a dying Marine adds nothing new to the dialog.

It was published of a dying Marine against his fathers express request and wishes.

Speaking of sanctimonious see the above posts about how this was just a fulfillment of a higher duty, a blow against government censorship, etc.

Concerning the subject of this post, the sanctimonious outcry that a photo was published of a dying American soldier, I got these two quotes from the internet:

“Following the first execution of Paul Berg, beheadings, with shocking and bewildering regularity, have proliferated, their numbers now in the hundreds. Each story – a precious life extinguished, in violent circumstance, and published to the world in pictures…”

I don’t remember an outcry from the pro-war-any-war crowd. I wonder why? Oh, here’s the answer:

“And once again, if seeing these videos helps fuel the warrior spirit which is required, then that’s reason enough to help make them available.”

WWI impacted many because, as bad as WWII was technologically, WWI was the worst as far as its impact on those who suffered it, soldier or civilian, parent or child. Kipling’s turn is understandable. The “Lost Generation” is an apt phrase.

Just to let you know, my “parents” were born before the Spanish-American War, the Titanic, and the Armistice. I wasn’t raised by one set or by “moderns”. I consider the early part of the 20th Century as much my home as the latter. I just wish I could forget “mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy”. And yes, I was taught the Charleston.

I was also taught that, for different reasons, Pacifists and Utopians are dangerous people. And nothing I have learned since has dissuaded me from that lesson.