Harry's Place

Wow he survived two genocides. He is actually quite lucky since he lived to be 93 and without painful cancer (or at least from what I know).

Genocides? Can you define that term. I am utterly opposed to the use of nuclear weapons, but I don’t think that their use against the Japanese can be described as genocide. Can someone elighten me.

poor man.

He must be the unluckiest man of the century.

Blackjack – don’t be silly. Good luck and best wishes to Yamaguchi-san, but don’t devalue the g-word. Japan had set out on a war of enslavement of its Asian neighbours, and was still fighting at the beginning of August 1945. Against the Hiroshima/Nagasaki death toll must be set the numbers who would have died if the bombs hadn’t been dropped – which has been estimated as up to a million. And perhaps you should ask pretty well anyone in China or South-East Asia what they think.

No – the bombs were horrific, but they weren’t illegitimate.

In the mid forties, burns to more than 20% of the skin surface were almost always fatal. So I suspect his immediate injuries were not as severe as the report would indicate. Indeed he would not have been in any fit state to travel home.

Having said that, his exposure to radiation would have been quite severe, so he did very well to survive and go on to this ripe old age.

The A-bomb attacks were ultimately justified. Prior to that, Japan would have fought on come hell or high water. Afterwards, they were utterly terrified.

“Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; ”

Intent: kill as many citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as possible
Execution: hundreds of thousands killed in a flash
Effect: Terrorize the rest of the population into surrendering.

Genocide and Terrorism.

Eddie: Don’t you mean ‘the luckiest man of the century’?

Wow he survived two genocides.

To judge by the number of Japanese living in Hiroshima last time I was there, not very effective genocides. Contrast with the Jewish population of Amsterdam, scene of an effective genocide.

Well said xyzzy. I ought at this point to declare an interest: for many years now I have had a drink to celebrate Hiroshima Day every 6th August.

sigh

“To judge by the number of Japanese living in Hiroshima last time I was there, not very effective genocides. Contrast with the Jewish population of Amsterdam, scene of an effective genocide.”

The second sentence is accurate. The first is problematic. The two examples do not make a contrast at all.

What separates genocide from an act of war is its characteristic, not the numbers that were killed or remained alive during and after the event. The Jews of Europe were not all exterminated as a result of acts of war such as aerial bombardments, but were separated from the rest of the population first. They were not killed overnight, but gradually as part of a deliberate and discriminate process of eradication and extermination.

Again, it’s the character, not the absolute numbers that defines a genocide. If the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be defined as genocide, then one might as well define every single act of warfare where civilians have been killed as genocide.

>> Wow he survived two genocides.

He was at least two of Korean or Chinese or Vietnamese or Indonesia or etc.? Wow.

Alternatively, we could simply doff our hats to this fantastic indivual without attempting to score a crude and ill-informed political point.

If the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be defined as genocide, then one might as well define every single act of warfare where civilians have been killed as genocide.

Which is my point. For clarity: in case the sarcasm wasn’t dripping enough, no matter one’s views of the right or wrong of the atomic strikes on western Japan — I’m with `right’, that it saved a great many more lives than it took, but that’s not the point right now — to describe it as a genocide is incorrect with respect to intent, method, scale and outcome. Anyone who believe that the US plan in August 1945 was to eliminate Japan as a race, culture or country is simply insane. Even if you believe the events of that month to be war crimes, hideous mistakes or otherwise wrong — I don’t, but the case is at least arguable — no-one rational believes that are genocides, actual or intended or even accidental.

I apologise, although I’m stunned to find it’s necessary, to anyone who got the impression that I thought genocide was a remotely accurate word. I’ll be more sarcastic next time.

Strange as it may seem, on this particular occasion I’ll quote Norman Geras:

Even if one thinks the calculation does convincingly establish how any US president would have acted, it doesn’t show that it wasn’t a war crime. It is not a legitimate act of war to save the lives of your own soldiers by the mass bombing of civilians, and to reason simply from the ‘realism’ of what was to be expected in the situation prevailing is to suggest that the laws of war only apply when it’s easy to uphold them, but otherwise must give way to utilitarian calculation. On that basis you might as well scrap those laws. It is true that Oliver also alludes to the possibility that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented 20 million Japanese casualties. This is a separate argument. But as Michael Walzer has pointed out, it is not clear even those (Japanese) casualties must be accepted without question as having been the unavoidable alternative to use of the atomic bomb. They were based on the assumption that America could accept nothing less than Japan’s unconditional surrender.

Way to go, Norm!

The A-bomb attacks were ultimately justified. Prior to that, Japan would have fought on come hell or high water. Afterwards, they were utterly terrified.

Crap. Japan was negotiating surrender with the only condition that they be allowed to retain their emperor. America wanted an unconditional surrender. The bombs were dropped, and America ended up accepting Japan’s condition, thus proving the pointlessness and perversity of the operation.

don’t devalue the g-word

A strange request coming from someone who has spent the last few weeks devaluing the A-S word on HP.

Sue R –

I think they could be. With a nuclear bomb the idea of military targetting becomes meaningless.

Whether use of the bombs had a beneficial pragmatic effect is irrelevant to their ethical status. I might benefit my local neighbourhood by murdering some of the tattooed devil dog loving thugs. However, that wouldn’t be an ethical act.

HB is full of crap as usual. Prior to the Atomic Bombs & Russia’s declaration of war, Japan wanted to retain the Imperial System, not just the Emperoer and not be occupied by the Allies. What that meant was the same pre-war system which the militarists had controled would continue to rule Japan. This was what happen, more or less, with Germany after the Great War and it had come back, more heavier armed and fanatical 20 years latter. The US was determined to avoid this with either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Both Axis powers must be totally defeated and occupied in order to purge their militaristic drives for conquest for good. It was only after the Atomic Bombs and Russia’s swift conquest of Manchuria that the Imperial govt. agreed to Unconditional Surrender. Even then there was an attempt by a group of die-hard extremists army officers to block the surrender by staging a coup.

“Which is my point. For clarity: in case the sarcasm wasn’t dripping enough…”

My apologies. I’m new in this neighbourhood. Still getting to know the locals.

“-I’m with `right’, that it saved a great many more lives than it took, but that’s not the point right now-”

Well, since the point has been raised, I’d like to register my agreement with you. But my agreement stems from an understanding that the use of nuclear weapons were not illegitimate for its time. Conventional bombing created as much havoc and caused as many deaths in Tokyo and Dresden as nuclear weapons did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nevertheless, I still have a problem with General Buck Turgidson-like numbers game (” no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops…”). I just wish the US detonated five bombs on the slopes of Mount Fuji, or some other sparsely populated area, and not in two major cities. The effect would have still terrified Japan into submission with even fewer casualties. But then again, those were not times for such niceties.

“Anyone who believe that the US plan in August 1945 was to eliminate Japan as a race, culture or country is simply insane.”

Agreed. The US could have begun carrying out a genocide in Okinawa, if they were so minded.

“Even if you believe the events of that month to be war crimes, hideous mistakes or otherwise wrong…”

As a youngster, I used to believe that. Not anymore, apart from the wishful thinking mentioned above.

“I apologise, although I’m stunned to find it’s necessary, to anyone who got the impression that I thought genocide was a remotely accurate word. I’ll be more sarcastic next time.”

I owe you an apology. I’m the newbie here. To figure out a sarcasm, one needs to know the politics of the person first. Also, although I quoted your words, my comments were directed at evryone, incloding Blackjack, who was the first to call the atomic bombing of the two cities as genocide.

Nice chatting with you.

I remember that post by Norm, and agree totally that on the legality of the bombs he’s right, but “legitimacy” is more vague in meaning, and more importantly none of us is having to fight World War Two.

Anyway, when you watch Return of the Jedi, do you bore people to fucking tears by claiming that blowing up the Death Star was a was crime?

Good one, Wardytron.

Crap. Japan was negotiating surrender with the only condition that they be allowed to retain their emperor. America wanted an unconditional surrender

As you say, HB, crap. Japan was considering surrender based on its pre-war territory (including Taiwan, Korea, Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands). The Cabinet rejected surrender after Hiroshima; the system it wanted retained was the Imperial system, meaning militaristic emperor-worship. Even after Nagasaki surrender was only achieved thanks to the decisive action of the Emperor. As David All says, even then there was an attempt to derail this by extremist officers.

So, HB comes out in favour of a fascistic militaristic regime with no concept of human rights that worships its leader. What a surprise.

I would like to be on the record as stating that had the Allies been able to defeat the Axis powers in the Second World War with the minimum loss of life then I would have been fully in favour of that. If Germany and Japan had been defeated by means of a good talking to then I would definitely have preferred that to all of the killing.

Crap. Japan was negotiating surrender with the only condition that they be allowed to retain their emperor. America wanted an unconditional surrender

As you say, HB, crap. Japan was considering surrender based on its pre-war territory (including Taiwan, Korea, Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands). The Cabinet rejected surrender after Hiroshima; the system it wanted retained was the Imperial system, meaning militaristic emperor-worship. Even after Nagasaki surrender was only achieved thanks to the decisive action of the Emperor. As David All says, even then there was an attempt to derail this by extremist officers.

So, HB, if you are unhappy with unconditional surrender, can you tell me this: which of the slave labour camps, “pleasure stations” of “comfort women,” and human experimentation camps would you have wanted the Japanese to keep?

So, HB comes out in favour of a fascistic militaristic regime with no concept of human rights that worships its leader. What a surprise.

Dropping five atom bombs on Mt. Fuji sounds good, but were there five to drop? The first three atom bombs ever built were exploded at Los Alamos, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and I have read that the fourth one wasn’t finished until well into 1946. Two bombs were barely enough to convince the emperor and prime minister to surrender, over the objections of 2/3s of the cabinet and most of the generals, so wasting even one on a demonstration would have meant a longer war, with many more dead soldiers and sailors on both sides and many more dead civilians in Japan and the countries it was still occupying. It seems to me that what was done was in fact the least bad of all the very bad options. (I believe I read this in Commentary 15-20 years ago, though I’m too lazy to try to track down the article. I hadn’t previously heard that the U.S. was bombless for roughly six months after Nagasaki, but of course that would have been well worth concealing at the time.)

93? See, I always said nukes were harmless and here’s the proof. I bet he smokes too.

sHx –

to understand the context: they didn’t have that many bombs. In fact I think they only had 2-4 after H and N. It had taken a huge effort to produce what they had.

That limited the extent to which they could use demonstration detonations. That said, I agree that a demonstration site should have been chosen. Maybe somewhere with historical significance.

I will never again complain about being “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

While we’re about it, two genocides? Are the peoples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki different races?

While Hiroshima was a legitimate military target (the 5th army was stationed there), at least as legitimate, as say Tokyo or Osaka where more people were actually killed there are, for me, nagging doubts about the possibility that there was something a little experimental in all this.

Of course, the effect was to terrify the Japanese into submission, adn this was a brutal and horrific war, but the fact is Hiroshima, Nagasaki and a few other cities were spared conventional bombing to test out the effects of a single bomb. In fact, two different kinds of bomb, Fat Man and Little Boy.

Perhaps it is acceptable to experiment on people this way if it happens to coincide with the primary objective of defeating the enemy and its cruel empire, but it does leave a bad taste in the mouth.

(Oh hi there sHx. Yes, as far as I know the US did only have two bombs – five on Mount Fuji would have been impossible and may even have been more destructive given that Mount Fuji is a volcano and the full potential of an atomic bomb was still unknown).

How can one not describe any war as a series of genocidal acts? Historians often lament the twentieth-century as the time in which mankind invented wars against civilians, ignoring, for example, Caesar’s epic genocide against the Gauls and the countless invasions of the Middle East and Eastern Europe after the first millennium in which entire national groups were nearly rubbed out. Was not the mass slaughter of people in Nanking even more genocidal than the slaughter of civilians in Nagasaki?

It is a sort of false consciousness to imagine that some people are natural perpetrators of these acts while others are natural victims. All cultures, inasmuch as people in all times and places tend to nurture absurd stereotypes of others, are potentially genocidal given the right circumstances. Is not a sober and objective acceptance of the permanence of humankind’s lurking sadism and irrationality the surest way to the avoidance of more mass slaughters?

Thank you Joanne for taking us back to the topic instead of this dreadful rehash.

Two forces, the Yanks and the Japs, engagd in war in which neither would have hesitated to use the Bomb against the other.

Whats the beef that the one that had it used it?

Colin, don’t forget to add the British, Germans and Soviets.

Pierrot – But they weren’t consulted – and why should they they have been?

way off topic here, (and I’ve passed this item directly to harryblog@gmail.com) but see this Jerusalem Post account regarding recent allegations that the IDF intentionally targeted Palestinian civilians:

IDF source: Charges of civilian shootings false

Mar. 25, 2009
Yaakov Lappin , THE JERUSALEM POST

Allegations that IDF soldiers deliberately shot and killed Palestinian civilians in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead have been found to be categorically untrue in official army investigations, an IDF source told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

The source spoke on condition of anonymity because the results of the investigations have not yet been officially released to the public. He stressed, however, that the investigations were close to completion.

The investigations examined claims made by graduates of the Rabin Pre-military Academy during a conference held last month, which were later written up and printed in an academy pamphlet. Some Israeli media outlets, including Haaretz, then seized on the claims, and the allegations went on to make headlines around the world.

During the conference, one soldier claimed a marksman opened fire on a mother and two of her children, after a squadron commander told them to walk into a no-entry zone.

“All of the soldiers who were involved in the conference were questioned – not as a punishment – but in order to understand whether they had witnessed these things. From all of the testimonies we collected, we can safely conclude that the soldiers who made the claims did not witness the events they describe,” the source said.

“All of it was based on rumors. In the incident of the alleged shooting of the mother and her children, what really happened was that a marksman fired a warning shot to let them know that they were entering a no-entry zone. The shot was not even fired in their general direction,” the source said.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237727539851&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

No Colin, I mean they [British, etc] possibly would have done the same: drop the bomb that is.

The problem with blogging is that there is always some moron who starts the ball rolling on the same tired old debate – on almost every issue – so no progress is ever made and no new angles are ever explored. It really pisses me off.

I was on the ghost version of Operation Zipper and I died there!

Cipriano:
Well said xyzzy. I ought at this point to declare an interest: for many years now I have had a drink to celebrate Hiroshima Day every 6th August.

—

I say, Kamm old stick, how’s the hedge fund business holding up?

Cipriano’s comment is just ghoulish (if not trollish). I can understand the idea of someone drinking to celebrate the end of a war, but drinking to celebrate the instantaneous vaporisation of tens of thousands of men, women and children, and drinking to celebrate an event which subjected tens of thousands more to a cancerous death is obscene.

The staunchest supporters of the bombing will defend it from the point of view of necessity. Those who revel in it are not supporters but sadists.

Yes, I suppose such a deliberately provocative post approaches the borders of trolldom. I assure you that it is the end of the war and the thorough defeat of Imperial Japan which I am celebrating, not the instantaneous vaporisation etc.

But I stick to my guns. You can’t will the ends without willing the means. Hiroshima and Nagasaki undoubtedly saved more lives than they cost. Perhaps it would be more tasteful to celebrate VJ Day on the 15th. But I can’t help feeling that that would be rather weaselly and evasive. What ended the war was the shock value and scale of the atom bombs.

Or maybe I’ve just spent too long living in East Asia, where virtually everybody takes the view that Japan had it coming. Not to mention having read a lot of wartime history of that region, which explains why.

As Wardytron posted somewhere yesterday, we’d all have much preferred it if Germany and Japan could have been defeated by giving them a good talking-to.

But I stick to my guns. You can’t will the ends without willing the means.

Well then, this would condone anything and everything in pursuit of victory.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki undoubtedly saved more lives than they cost.

I take it you mean bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives than they cost. Why take that into consideration anyway? You’ve already said that willing the ends means willing the means, you have already dispensed with any utilitarian calculations by implying that killing more people than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which are places not bombs) is justified if it brings about the final result. This hedging of your bets is far more weasly than accepting it was a horrendous but necessary thing to do.

Or maybe I’ve just spent too long living in East Asia, where virtually everybody takes the view that Japan had it coming.

Nobody cares how long you have lived in East Asia and how it has furnished you with either some kind of argumentum ad populum “virtually everyone” agrees with me excuse for the bombing. You wouldn’t accept anything similar if I said, “I drink a toast on September 11th. Having lived in the Middle East for years virtually everyone there takes the view that the US had it coming.” Such an argument forgets the fact that the Imperial Army were hardly the only victims of the bombing, that men, women and children who had nothing to do with the decisions of the war, not to mention Korean slaves who were taken to work in the factories received no positive discrimination by the atomic bomb.

Not to mention having read a lot of wartime history of that region, which explains why.

Good for you!

As Wardytron posted somewhere yesterday, we’d all have much preferred it if Germany and Japan could have been defeated by giving them a good talking-to.

No doubt, but the strawman that suggests I think Japan and Germany should have been given nothing whatsoever stronger than a good talking to conceals the fact that this wasn’t the issue I raised with you. I said it was ghoulish to drink a toast to the dropping of the atomic bomb, not that it shouldn’t have been dropped so either you aren’t clear about what we are talking about by mentioning whatever it was wardytron said or you’re just blustering to hide the fact you think the dropping of atomic bombs are worth celebrating.