a different history

[Mark Kohut]

To be too close is to lie.

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems that Hersey's _Hiroshima_ might have been some karmic balancing for
> The New Yorker...
>
> 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
>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l