Oliver Stone

[Rich]

Sorry but if u think all warring states in WW 2 were fundamentally the same (as is the loose way genocide is defined here) that really is a stretch and I think a fundamental misunderstanding of legitimate historical criticism. 

rich


On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:

> 
> On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Joe Allonby wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Sometimes conflicting statements indicate deception or the search for an explanation that minimizes criticism.  
> 
> Also the target had to have been discussed and choosing civilian targets of no military importance puts the choices into the realm of terrorism and collective punishment even if the aim was to minimize american casualties and decisively end the war and warn the soviets all at the same time.  Part of the issue here is the the criticism of the axis powers for these same tactics. Oliver Stone is questioning the prevailing narrative and that is that we are fundamentally different than the axis powers, that our genocides were all behind us and were necessary for the vision of democracy to prevail.  
> 
> The largest reason we should not excuse Hiroshima Nagasaki now is that now we do have  "ICBMs tipped with fusion bombs and the threat of global thermonuclear war."
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>