a different history

[Monte Davis]

It seems that Hersey's _Hiroshima_ might have been some karmic balancing
for The New Yorker...

<goog_1470817410>
https://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/a-reporter-at-wits-end-the-firebombing-of-japan-the-new-yorker-and-st-clair-mckelway

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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20150906/8ebbed03/attachment.html>