a different history

[John Bailey]

I guess most mass bombings are an attempt to cow the citizenry and
force a surrender by the powers that be. Very few aerial bombings in
history have probably *only* taken out something of strategic military
value. That Jacobin article Mark K posted makes a persuasive argument
about what makes the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki different (I'm
no scholar on any of this and the article has a clear bias but I don't
see any glaring flaws in it).

It suggests that while the US had already leveled dozens and dozens of
Japanese cities by that point, the use of atomic bombs was as much a
show of muscle to the rest of the world as well. The Japanese were
already pretty crushed and were secretly asking Russia to help
negotiate a surrender, but bringing an A-bomb to a firefight after
Germany had already surrendered was a way of ending the war that
ensured the US was not to be messed with ever again. A "FICKT NICHT
MIT DER RAKETEMENSCH" as it were. The world took note, although the
USSR got all chest-puffy and bicep-flexy at the challenge.

You could also contrast the firebombing of Dresden, which was more
about punishment than deterrence (is the generally agreed conclusion,
right?)

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:52 PM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
> We agree that the term, for countless reason, not the least of which is that
> it has recently taken on right wing connotations, is become a meaningless
> one.
>
> Also, I think that contrasting the US atomic bombings of Japan is more
> constructive than  comparing it with other bombings. How were these bombings
> so different from all others?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Mike Weaver <mike.weaver at zen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Terrorism in its broadest sense is the use of violence in the pursuit of
>> > political aims.
>>
>> I'm sorry but that is the right wing definition which is being used to
>> justify the demonisation of any political violence not sanctioned by those
>> who control the state. It is so broad as to be meaningless.
>>
>> I think before it was so appropriated it was used to describe acts of
>> (usually) political violence which aimed to install terror in the minds of
>> the civilian populations.
>>
>> The purpose of the redefinition has been to destroy, in the minds of
>> unpoliticised people, any distinction between 'freedom fighters' and
>> 'terrorists'. Just another tool of control.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ish Mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote :
>>
>> > Terrorism in its broadest sense is the use of violence in the pursuit of
>> > political aims. So, much as we bristle at the use of the loaded term, that
>> > carries, especially in the U.S. post 11 September,  to describe the bombings
>> > of Japan, it is, broadly accurate. In fact, it seems a term that those who
>> > support the US bombings might employ because it places emphasis on the
>> > political aims, that is, to force Japan to surrender and negotiate an end of
>> > war. That said, it's still rather counter productive to use the term, or
>> > to engage in easy, up on the high horse history, to conflate the bombings,
>> > thus diminishing them, making of the victims, and the all of the lessons we
>> > have and continue to take from them, silent slaughtered sheep. The facts are
>> > known and reasonable, moral people disagree about the decision to use the
>> > weapons, and, for those who condemn or condone the decision to use the
>> > weapons, still further disagreement exists about the targets selected. Two
>> > facts that should be considered when taking a position on the targets,
>> > irrespective of one's position on the use of the bombs, is that the
>> > decision makers wanted targets that had not been under significant  previous
>> > bombing attacks. It appalling, from our high horses of easy history, to
>> > reads that the decision makers wanted to target cities that would burn, but
>> > this strategy was employed with conventional bombs as well. The targeting of
>> > factories, working class neighborhoods, was the norm not the exception in
>> > WWII, a noted exception, of course, London.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l