RE: Words Matter
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Hi Alex,
Ah...the bomb. I was a history major, mostly American history, in the early sixties. At the time there were a lot of so-called revisionists writing. One of the loudest voices was Gar Alperowitz. The revisionists contended that dropping the bomb (especially the second bomb) was less about ending the war with Japan and more about posturing for a post-war world in which the USSR would be an arch rival. The bomb (these writers believe) was a demonstration project for the USSR. Not only did it send a signal but it also forestalled their advance into Japan. We (according to these historians) had to end the war quickly to keep the USSR out.
Are the revisionists correct? What is certain is that consideration of the USSR was part of the discussion.
Was the bomb inevitable? I think that ship had sailed once the atom was split. There is a kind of classic Greek tragedy element to this. Inexorably, humanity moved toward this knowledge that may in the end be its doom.
I'm glad you liked the juxtaposition. Letting people speak for themselves is the best way to make a point, I think.
Have a great weekend.
If I'm not mistaken, the Japanese did not surrender after the first atomic bomb. They surrendered 3 days later, after the second bomb. The second bomb moved the Japanese Emperor to surrender publicly via a radio broadcast, while a group of junior officers was fighting the Japanese military who was trying to stop their Emperor from surrendering.
And here Russia (I try to avoid terms like "Soviets" since that's just a front, in reality is was Russia moving all the strings) saw an opportunity to attack a weakened Japan, and launched an invasion against it. They took the Kuril Islands, which they hold to this day. The Kuril Islands are the reason WWII is not over yet, since Russia and Japan haven't signed.
Many people like to talk about WWIII, but actually what we're seeing in Europe right now is simply the continuation of WWII: it literally never ended, and one of the protagonists is the same one who, together with Germany as its de facto ally, launched WWII with the express purpose of conquering the world (it was believed that Communism was scientifically proven to be inevitable, and Russia simply happened to be at the helm of that inevitability; it wasn't like Russia wanted to conquer the world, it was imply that it had no choice but to do so by following the natural laws as described by the "science" of Communism).
Or at least that's as far as my knowledge of history got me!
Your reading of history mirrors what I have read. The thing about the second bomb...there is a strong case for the argument that it may have hastened the end by a few days but that all those lives lost-- it is estimated that by the end of the year 64,000 people in Nagasaki had died from the bomb. Those casualties don't figure in long-term effects. I think in the case of Nagasaki it truly was atomic diplomacy and the ethics (morality?) of the Nagasaki detonation is highly
questionable.
You're right. WWII never ended. Neither did WWI. Neither did the U. S. Civil War. What does a war resolve? One side, the loser, retreats, but do the issues evaporate?