Oliver Stone

[Joe Allonby]

So there's this: http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html


Truman himself gave so many conflicting statements on the choice of
Hiroshima that I suspect that even he wasn't sure of the reasons for
the choices of targets.


On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Joe Allonby <joeallonby at gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) Truman was a politician, not a soldier. His understandable
> deference to the generals at the time helped create the problem that
> he had to deal with later in MacArthur. I'm looking around for
> evidence that Truman said "Drop these here two big bombs on those
> there cities."
>
> 2) Again, did anyone who was not a physicist or advanced chemist
> understand what went down at Alamogordo? Or did they just think BIG
> FUCKING BOMB?
>
> 3) I think we're in agreement here.
>
> I really don't know the answer to 1 & 2, but I'm going to spend some
> time today between football coverage looking into it.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:59 PM,  <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
>> 1.  You think Truman gave A bombs to generals to use at their discretion
>> and, if they felt like dropping one on a Japanese city, that was up to them?
>>
>> 2.  Destructive power?  The bomb was tested ...
>>
>> 3.  Can't say, but I strongly suspect the answer is no.
>>
>> Did Truman give specific orders for the use of A-bombs at Hiroshima
>> and Nagasaki? Or did he simply give the weapons to generals who then
>> did what generals do?
>>
>> Were any of the people making political decisions and calculations at
>> the time aware of the destructive power and potential threat of these
>> new weapons that had never been used before?
>>
>> Did people flying in propeller planes envision ICBMs tipped with
>> fusion bombs and the threat of global thermonuclear war?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Allonby <joeallonby at gmail.com>
>> To: malignd <malignd at aol.com>
>> Cc: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> Sent: Thu, Jan 17, 2013 10:45 am
>> Subject: Re: Oliver Stone
>>
>> Did Truman give specific orders for the use of A-bombs at Hiroshima
>> and Nagasaki? Or did he simply give the weapons to generals who then
>> did what generals do?
>>
>> Were any of the people making political decisions and calculations at
>> the time aware of the destructive power and potential threat of these
>> new weapons that had never been used before?
>>
>> Did people flying in propeller planes envision ICBMs tipped with
>> fusion bombs and the threat of global thermonuclear war?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:10 PM,  <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
>>> My memory of the facts as presented in that book were that the Japanese
>>> were
>>> looking to negotiate a peace and that this was communicated through the
>>> Russians, who had still not declared war on Japan, but were going to.  The
>>> US knew of this (as I recall) both through diplomatic traffic from Russia
>>> and from our own intelligence.  The timing of the bombing then (given that
>>> Russia was about to become a declared adversary) was to keep Russia away
>>> from the negotiating table once surrender was taken.  I'm simplifying, but
>>> the book is rich in this sort of thing and well documented.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com>
>>> To: malignd <malignd at aol.com>
>>> Cc: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>> Sent: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 9:27 am
>>> Subject: Re: Oliver Stone
>>>
>>> interesting. i'll have to read that one.  I'm curious though whether
>>> Truman and Co. had irrefutable proof of a impending Japanese
>>> surrender. If memory serves there was still no inkling of such after
>>> Hiroshima. Maybe some of the scientists who worked on the bomb had
>>> reservations but from all I've read about the event there was still
>>> many die hards in Japan who wanted to fight to the end.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM,  <malignd at aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Suggested reading is Martin Sherwin's excellent book on the bombing of
>>>> Japan, A World Destroyed.  Very strong argument that there was little
>>>> moral
>>>> hand-wringing.  from the get-go, the idea was to drop a bomb for
>>>> geopolitical reasons:  to bring the USSR to bay in the post-war era, for
>>>> which purpose it failed.
>>>>
>>>> Original research at the time the book was written, benefiting from
>>>> Carter's
>>>> Freedom  of Information act.
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
>>>> To: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>> Sent: Tue, Jan 15, 2013 10:02 am
>>>> Subject: Re: Oliver Stone
>>>>
>>>> On 1/15/2013 9:29 AM, rich wrote:
>>>>> there's plenty enough legitimate exposes to go around without the
>>>>> moronic Oliver Stone getting involved. what sort've moral blindness
>>>>> does it take to praise Joseph Stalin. wtf
>>>>>
>>>>> Dropping the A bomb--not an easy issue to say yea or nay--it's been
>>>>> debated again and again. think you have to consider the mood at the
>>>>> time--two bloody battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. am i glad we dropped
>>>>> it. no. who would be. but real life is complicated. and yeah, it
>>>>> would've been my dad and uncles on the front line if the war was
>>>>> extended. has japan ever questioned officially its many war crimes in
>>>>> China and southeast asia? no. maybe stone mentioned it. but he was
>>>>> never interested in nuance.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Rich, for something that needed saying.
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> rich
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks for this well-balanced critique of this interesting show.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Alice said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [insert your choice here, but please no Howard Zinn or Oliver
>>>>>>> Stone ;-)]?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, Alice, Alice, you brought it upon yourself!  I was looking for
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> gratuitous opening to bring up Oliver Stone's new series:The Untold
>>>>>>> History
>>>>>>> of the United States, and you supplied it.  Now before you start
>>>>>>> beating
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> me, I'll say that it's a pretty flawed documentary.  One device he
>>>>>>> uses
>>>>>>> that's both dishonest and annoying is to have actors recite quotes
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> various personages, making it seem as if we're listening to a historic
>>>>>>> oration, rather than a reenacted reading of someone else's written or
>>>>>>> spoken
>>>>>>> words.  He's weak on attributing sources, uses way too much Hollywood
>>>>>>> footage to make rhetorical points (as opposed to using it to show the
>>>>>>> mentality of the particular time), and gets over-zealous in praising
>>>>>>> various
>>>>>>> personages (as various as Henry Wallace and Stalin), to the point
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> so-called documentary devolves to overt propaganda of Fox-level
>>>>>>> intensity.
>>>>>>> The worst part of this is that, in doing so, he drives away mainstream
>>>>>>> viewers who could actually be enlightened by some of the things he has
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But he still makes some good points, and asks questions that are
>>>>>>> rarely
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> ever asked on such a mainstream venue as Showtime.  In last week's
>>>>>>> episode,
>>>>>>> by way of discussing Bushes senior and junior, he brought up the
>>>>>>> shameful
>>>>>>> history of Prescott Bush and other American industrialists who
>>>>>>> supported
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Nazi regime (something that we discuss all the time here, by way of
>>>>>>> GR).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I particularly liked the episode that covered Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
>>>>>>> wherein he tackled the standard orthodoxy:  By dropping the bomb, we
>>>>>>> saved x
>>>>>>> number of lives.  This passionately defended point has been the
>>>>>>> endless
>>>>>>> fodder for Thanksgiving dinner fights with in-laws, etc., with
>>>>>>> countless
>>>>>>> (always male)defenders shrieking variations of (naively confident that
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> one will make the obvious, hostile rejoinder): "Hey my [father,
>>>>>>> grandfather]
>>>>>>> was stationed in the Pacific.  If we hadn't dropped the bomb
>>>>>>> [incinerated
>>>>>>> small children], he would have had to invade Japan, and I would never
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> been born!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Stone episode brings up some convincing evidence that Japan,
>>>>>>> afraid
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> an impending invasion by the Soviet army, was ready to capitulate, but
>>>>>>> Truman stalled any negotiations, and convinced the Soviets not to
>>>>>>> invade, so
>>>>>>> the "tests" could be run.  Stone also provides a nice montage showing
>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>> the variable x in "we saved x number of lives" increased steadily over
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>> I suspect there are plenty on this list who are devoted to the
>>>>>>> bomb-saved-lives orthodoxy.  I'm glad Stone questions it, if only on
>>>>>>> subscriber cable TV.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Jan 14, 2013 5:49 AM
>>>>>>>> To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Pauper and Sweatshop Fallacies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would I deny it? Why would anyone who knows a bit of history, who
>>>>>>>> reads the newspapers, who has read One Hundred Years of Solitude,
>>>>>>>> M&D...any decent narrative about colonialism, orientalism, a but of
>>>>>>>> Said or [insert your choice here, but please no Howard Zinn or Oliver
>>>>>>>> Stone ;-)]?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> www.innergroovemusic.com
>>>>