Propose a duel you would like to see!

[Elfdude]

Unfortunately my naturalist approach does not seem to disagree with your 'platonist' approach in any explicit way. I don't use such ambiguous terminology as naturalism or platonism because they don't truly describe anything meaningful in most cases about someone's theory but rather provide good arguments in of themselves for the creation of a theory of ethics. It's in identifying what these arguments we have chosen are and then elucidating their aggregate form that our position is known. Thus your statement that you are a platonist is as meaningless as saying you're a male or a female. This does not shed light on your position in the least although it gives a vague impression of what you're getting at. You call your approach antinaturalist but from my paradigm it's not at all, it's only from your side of the debate that the distinction exists and thus the debate would devolve into definitional semantics where you call something not naturalism that I at the same time call naturalism.

Although to be honest I would avoid calling anything naturalism or not naturalism in the first place because this is a distinction I do not recognize as valid. On the other hand the arguments that compose your position may be something we disagree upon. Alas with the better sense of your position you've given me it does not seem that we disagree on really anything except for semantics and I'm uninterested in a semantic debate. There's still a large portion of your position which seems ambiguous to me and may indeed be something I disagree with but I'm not going to strawman your position with assumption of what that interpretation is.

[Euphoric]

Populism vs. Meritocracy

Hell I'd love to get in on that debate myself.

[LillyanaKabal]

I would like to see a coherent argument about wither or not the bombing of Hirosima and Nagisaka where a required part of the war ending, or if it was simply the Americans throwing tantrums.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I would like to see a coherent argument about wither or not the bombing of Hirosima and Nagisaka where a required part of the war ending, or if it was simply the Americans throwing tantrums.

It was neither, but I will take you up on that anytime.

[Denny Crane!]

It was neither, but I will take you up on that anytime.

You know I ain't that familiar on it. But. I am hugely interested in the topic, well the situational aspects. I would happily take either position and pursue that debate to the end just as an exercise.

[GrnEyedDvl]

You know I ain't that familiar on it. But. I am hugely interested in the topic, well the situational aspects. I would happily take either position and pursue that debate to the end just as an exercise.

I would be good with that Denny, but I can sum up my opinion in a nutshell. The bombing of Japan was the beginning of the Cold War. You can list all sorts of reasons for it, but its really simple. Germany had just been defeated a few months before, and Russia had begun the process of controlling East Germany. The Potsdam Accord was signed on Aug 1st, with France signing on Aug 4th. None of the western nations liked it, but they were trying to prevent another war between Russia and the US/UK. Patton had already suggested invading Russia since the troops were already there, and Churchill had drawn up some plans. It was as tense a situation as there can be, so the accord was signed. Russia then declared war on Japan, they had been neutral towards each other up until this point though Stalin had agreed to declare war after Germany was defeated. He did as he promised, but Germany was defeated in April when Hitler was killed and officially surrendered on May 7 and he waited until he forced the other allies into giving up half of Germany before he committed to war in Japan.

On Aug 6th the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. They had already been planning a full scale invasion of Japan, with Russian help already promised. However the US, UK, and France were nervous as hell about Russian involvement after what happened in Germany. My opinion is that the bombs were dropped so that Japan would surrender to the US, and not to Russia. Technically they surrendered to the allies, but they did so before Russia could move troops across Manchuria and secure any of the Japanese held territory for their own.

It wasn't about the number of soldiers that would be saved trying to island hop across the Marianas, it was about ending the war as fast as possible to limit the spread of Soviet communism.

[Phier]

My grandfather was part of the invasion fleet as a marine. Glad that one worked out

My first term paper ever was on this subject.

[LillyanaKabal]

Well, he's good. Exactly what I asked for, a coherent argument about Hiroshima. Not exactly what I had thought, but well cleared up all the same. There could be no argument to this, because the Japanese where far to proud to be dissuaded from fighting with a mere threat of atomic destruction.

[Denny Crane!]

I'll do some background reading GED.

[pannonian]

I'll do some background reading GED.

Also watch The World at War, episode 24, "The Bomb". Several government officials/secretaries who were privy to the high level discussions among the American and Japanese governments were interviewed.

[pannonian]

I would be good with that Denny, but I can sum up my opinion in a nutshell. The bombing of Japan was the beginning of the Cold War. You can list all sorts of reasons for it, but its really simple. Germany had just been defeated a few months before, and Russia had begun the process of controlling East Germany. The Potsdam Accord was signed on Aug 1st, with France signing on Aug 4th. None of the western nations liked it, but they were trying to prevent another war between Russia and the US/UK. Patton had already suggested invading Russia since the troops were already there, and Churchill had drawn up some plans. It was as tense a situation as there can be, so the accord was signed. Russia then declared war on Japan, they had been neutral towards each other up until this point though Stalin had agreed to declare war after Germany was defeated. He did as he promised, but Germany was defeated in April when Hitler was killed and officially surrendered on May 7 and he waited until he forced the other allies into giving up half of Germany before he committed to war in Japan.

IIRC Yalta committed the Soviets to entry into the war against Japan 3 months after the defeat of Germany. The Soviet offensive in Manchuria began 3 months and a day after Germany surrendered. Say what you want about Stalin and the post-VE day actions, but it was the Anglo-Americans who had second thoughts about the agreement with the Russians, rather than the Russians waiting to commit against Japan.

[GrnEyedDvl]

IIRC Yalta committed the Soviets to entry into the war against Japan 3 months after the defeat of Germany. The Soviet offensive in Manchuria began 3 months and a day after Germany surrendered.

May surrender, June, July, August... Your timing matches mine.

Say what you want about Stalin and the post-VE day actions, but it was the Anglo-Americans who had second thoughts about the agreement with the Russians, rather than the Russians waiting to commit against Japan.

What I said was it took them 3 months to declare war, to state their intentions publicly. Taking 3 months to actually get involved is a different story as there are lots of logistics involved in rerouting everything from one side of Russia to the other. That could easily take 3 months or even more.

And it was definitely Americans (and everyone else) who had second thoughts on the agreement with Russia. As I said I think that's the entire reason for dropping the bombs and ending it quickly. Not sure where we are disagreeing here at all.


EDIT: Maybe we should move this to a 3 way thread for you and Denny and I instead of hijacking this one.

[Denny Crane!]

That World at War series is very interesting. I remember when it came out years ago but I never paid that much attention. Bit like McDonalds, half an hour later I am wanting to watch another one.

I'll happily take part in a threesome I'd be curious on your joint impressions of the viability of "operation downfall" though it'll probably be less a debate and more me asking some pointed questions and accepting the answers. Previously I've been very ethnocentric in my knowledge on World War 2, I actually had no idea that at the time of the bomb being dropped America had achieved total air and naval superiority and had Japan blockaded. Nor that in one night of low level incendiary bombing they killed more than in the entire bombing campaign on London by the Nazis.

[Lord Rahl]

If I may: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwXF6UdkeI4#t=33m45s I recommend the documentary, by the way. I also recommend reading Max Hastings' Retribution about the later stages of the Pacific War. What most people don't realize is that the targets of the atomic bombs, including those not actually bombed, were going to be firebombed if nukes weren't used. Nuking a city takes one bomb and one mission. Firebombing, and this was the case with the infamous Tokyo firebombing of "Operation Meetinghouse" (March 9-10, 1945), including multiple raids on the same target. Tokyo was hit more than once. So, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all the other cities spared conventional bombing because they were potential nuke targets would, I would argue, have suffered more casualties if they were conventionally bombed. Another tidbit most don't realize is that we kept bombing Japan even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. Japan was going to be burned to the ground whether or not "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were dropped or not.

[Denny Crane!]

Thanks Rahl insomnia struck tonight so I'm watching now. I read quite a bit more tonight.

[conon394]

On Aug 6th the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. They had already been planning a full scale invasion of Japan, with Russian help already promised. However the US, UK, and France were nervous as hell about Russian involvement after what happened in Germany. My opinion is that the bombs were dropped so that Japan would surrender to the US, and not to Russia. Technically they surrendered to the allies, but they did so before Russia could move troops across Manchuria and secure any of the Japanese held territory for their own.

It wasn't about the number of soldiers that would be saved trying to island hop across the Marianas, it was about ending the war as fast as possible to limit the spread of Soviet communism.

Except of course the USSR faced a gutted Manchurian army and had no way intimidate Japan directly, Wallowing around in China would have a logistical nightmare one the Soviets were not really likely to be able to manage and Japanese troops still controlled larger amount Burma and Indonesia etc.

But in any case this debate already exist in detain in both the VV and Ethos archives

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...e-do-you-Stand

or

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-Weapons/page7

I think really the revisionist, revised moderate view, the It was Manchuria/Russia view and the traditionalist view are pretty much all there backed with well documented posts often several times over and that only the first two threads I could find. Sans any new lit reviews, memoirs, declassified documents or new books I am not sure there is much to add.