a different history

[ish mailian]

I have no objection to the essay, but it teaches us nothing and it doesn't
argue anything, not with facts or reasoning. It's a screed, boring. I agree
that terrorizing citizens, noncombatants, those who are not involved but
may sympathize, may be critical of the establishment, of the military
industrial complex, of American hegemony...etc...flexing the guns, bullying
smaller, less developed nations, etc. positioning for empire...these are
what often motivate the use of weapons of mass destruction, mostly by the
US since WWII.

Yes, I think Dresden is always an excellent example to contrast with the
Atomic bombings of  Japan by the US. Of course, the bombing of Japanese
with non-atomic weapons by the US is another excellent contrast. The
bombings of London, Spain...etc.



On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 6:56 PM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150810/5f99990e/attachment.html>