Ozone... here's a thought
 

"This year will go down in history- for the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient,
and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

ADOLPH HITLER, 1935



Way to go..... Eh?



CM

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:08:48 GMT, "Capt. Mooron"
scribbled thusly:

"This year will go down in history- for the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient,
and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

ADOLPH HITLER, 1935



Way to go..... Eh?



CM

Dunno Mooron, do you have any statistics that show it didn't work?

Um, how would one know? Statistics were meaningless, once The War began.
But I suspect it was completely successful. Own a gun, get eliminated by
the Gestapo. Simple.

Oh wait--you weren't advocating that here, were you???


Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message news:tTyLd.4397

Um, how would one know? Statistics were meaningless, once The War began.
But I suspect it was completely successful. Own a gun, get eliminated by
the Gestapo. Simple.

I got the impression that the idea was that, if you proliferate guns amongst
the populace, they think they can take over the world...

Max,
The statement said; "The rest of the world will follow our lead"

WW2 is the statistic that proves the statement wrong as can be!

Ole Thom

Max & Oz,

Wrong again guys. The US Wild West with its "Six Gun Justice" was just
a short moment in history.

Two case and both point to the error of either extreme. Common sense an
sane judgement is really the answer. Guns aren't the problem. Human nut
cases are.

Ole Thom

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:08:09 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

Um, how would one know? Statistics were meaningless, once The War began.
But I suspect it was completely successful. Own a gun, get eliminated by
the Gestapo. Simple.

Cool, so if you owned a gun the Govt would send someone around to sort
you out?

Oh wait--you weren't advocating that here, were you???

Maybe your fraidy cat police could learn from that.

Nah. I suspect Hitler had already followed Shakespeare's advice and killed
all the lawyers. Our "fraidy cat police" aren't afraid of perps, only
attorneys and liberal, activist judges.

Max

"Wally" wrote in message

"Maxprop" wrote in message news:tTyLd.4397

Um, how would one know? Statistics were meaningless, once The War began.
But I suspect it was completely successful. Own a gun, get eliminated by
the Gestapo. Simple.

I got the impression that the idea was that, if you proliferate guns
amongst
the populace, they think they can take over the world...

My understanding was the Nazi regime disarmed the public in order to prevent
an uprising and potential overthrow of the National Socialist gov't. Which
is probably what the founders of our Constitution had in the backs of their
minds when they penned the Second Amendment.

Max

OzOne wrote in message

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:50:52 -0800, (Thom Stewart)
scribbled thusly:

. Guns aren't the problem. Human nut
cases are.

Ole Thom

Then take away their access to guns.

Some of them have shown a preference for high-nitrate fertilizer and fuel
oil, rather than guns.

Max

"Donal" wrote in message


ADOLPH HITLER, 1935

What's your point? Are you suggesting that Hitler got nothing at all
right?

What about the economic successes ... the Autobahns ... the railways ...
the Space Race?

Some of us find it difficult to give the guy credit for anything positive in
light of the fact that he attempted to annihilate an entire ethnic
culture/race of people.

Max

Oz,

They hijack airliner using box knifes because the access to gun was
denied

Ole Thom


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsHomePage

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:A7xLd.90683$Ob.50554@edtnps84...
"This year will go down in history- for the first time, a civilized nation
has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more
efficient,
and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

ADOLPH HITLER, 1935

What's your point? Are you suggesting that Hitler got nothing at all
right?

What about the economic successes ... the Autobahns ... the railways ...
the Space Race?

Regards


Donal
--

OzOne wrote

. Guns aren't the problem. Human nut
cases are.

Ole Thom

Then take away their nuts.

Just might work.

OzOne wrote

Yep, haven't you instituted a register and strict controls on the
purchase of fertilizer?


that's bull ****!

OzOne wrote

A womans stiletto heel is wonderful , try one
on sometime.


Can't you e-mail Jon privately?

"Donal" wrote in message ...

The current success of the Cassini/Huygens mission is a direct result of
research that Hitler funded. Your attitude is a direct result of PC
thinking. Hitler was an evil man. That doesn't mean that everything that
he did was evil. The Pope is a Good man ... that doesn't mean that he has
never done anything that he would be ashamed of.

The world isn't black and white. There are shades of grey.


Then, are you now going to be forced to admit George W. Bush
didn't lie?

CN

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...



"Donal" wrote in message
...

The current success of the Cassini/Huygens mission is a direct result of
research that Hitler funded. Your attitude is a direct result of PC
thinking. Hitler was an evil man. That doesn't mean that everything
that
he did was evil. The Pope is a Good man ... that doesn't mean that he
has
never done anything that he would be ashamed of.

The world isn't black and white. There are shades of grey.


Then, are you now going to be forced to admit George W. Bush didn't lie?

Heh wait a minute... that's streching the "grey" a bit far.... he not only
lied.. he lied badly and got caught at it.

CM

OzOne wrote in message

Yep, haven't you instituted a register and strict controls on the
purchase of fertilizer?

Sadly, yes. Seems a stretch to regulate the distribution and sale of cow
****.

Max

OzOne wrote in message

As opposed to dropping A bombs on cities "to save lives"

1. They started the war with us.
2. They vowed to fight to "the death of every Japanese man, woman, and
child," even when it was clearly obvious that they could not win.
3. We would have accomplished the same thing over a period of time with
conventional weapons, had the Japanese not surrendered, which was unlikely.
4. It had to happen. Nuclear weapons had been developed, initially by the
Germans and brought to fruition by the Americans. Someone at some time had
to use a nuke, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the world the
awesome destructive power of such weapons. The whole concept of MAD (mutual
assured destruction), which kept the cold war from heating up for nearly 40
years, would not have been realized had no one ever dropped "the bomb." It
was an inevitable step in the evolution of international relations, like it
or not.
5. The Japanese deserved it.

Max

"Donal" wrote in message

How hypocritical!

How unsurprising, coming from an America-hater, like yourself.

I bet that you are able to claim that you beat the Russians in the race to
the Moon.

Yes. It's true, after all.

Do you know the names of any of the scientists who developed your first
rockets?

Herr Doktor Werner von Braun, a German national.

IIRC, your leading scientist was a chap called Von Braun. You rescued him
from Hitler at the end of WW2 so that you could develop a space programme
based on German technology.

Yes. A lot of Americans had problems with the concept of using the German
scientists from Penemunde following the war. But then there were American
industrialists doing business with the Nazis during the war itself, so the
arguments were essentially moot.

The current success of the Cassini/Huygens mission is a direct result of
research that Hitler funded.

Bull****. You expect me, or anyone else for that matter, to believe that
the research since the 40s played anything but a 99% role in that mission.
LOL.

Your attitude is a direct result of PC
thinking.

Whatever.

Hitler was an evil man. That doesn't mean that everything that
he did was evil.

It's difficult to be accommodating to the accomplishments of such a man in
light of his *other accomplishments.* It's not an intellectual
position--it's visceral, and that makes it human. Like it or not, most
humans would rather Adoph Hitler had never been born.

The Pope is a Good man ... that doesn't mean that he has
never done anything that he would be ashamed of.

To compare the Pope with Hitler is inane. But that's something I've come to
expect from you.

The world isn't black and white. There are shades of grey.

Where Hitler and his regime are concerned, there is very little white
showing. You can laud the man for what you perceive as his praiseworthy
accomplishments. I'll just condemn him as one of the most evil men ever to
have lived. And we'll leave it at that.

Max

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Then, are you now going to be forced to admit George W. Bush didn't lie?

Bwahahahahahahaha. This is Donal you're asking. The most ardent
America-hater in this NG. He probably is one of those pseudointellectual
Europeans who believe W is more evil than Hitler.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Donal" wrote in message


ADOLPH HITLER, 1935

What's your point? Are you suggesting that Hitler got nothing at all
right?

What about the economic successes ... the Autobahns ... the railways
....
the Space Race?

Some of us find it difficult to give the guy credit for anything positive
in
light of the fact that he attempted to annihilate an entire ethnic
culture/race of people.

How hypocritical!

I bet that you are able to claim that you beat the Russians in the race to
the Moon.

Do you know the names of any of the scientists who developed your first
rockets?

IIRC, your leading scientist was a chap called Von Braun. You rescued him
from Hitler at the end of WW2 so that you could develop a space programme
based on German technology.


The current success of the Cassini/Huygens mission is a direct result of
research that Hitler funded. Your attitude is a direct result of PC
thinking. Hitler was an evil man. That doesn't mean that everything that
he did was evil. The Pope is a Good man ... that doesn't mean that he has
never done anything that he would be ashamed of.

The world isn't black and white. There are shades of grey.


Regards


Donal
--




Max

OzOne wrote in message

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 05:13:10 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message

As opposed to dropping A bombs on cities "to save lives"

1. They started the war with us.
2. They vowed to fight to "the death of every Japanese man, woman, and
child," even when it was clearly obvious that they could not win.
3. We would have accomplished the same thing over a period of time with
conventional weapons, had the Japanese not surrendered, which was
unlikely.
4. It had to happen. Nuclear weapons had been developed, initially by
the
Germans and brought to fruition by the Americans. Someone at some time
had
to use a nuke, if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the world the
awesome destructive power of such weapons. The whole concept of MAD
(mutual
assured destruction), which kept the cold war from heating up for nearly
40
years, would not have been realized had no one ever dropped "the bomb."
It
was an inevitable step in the evolution of international relations, like
it
or not.
5. The Japanese deserved it.

Max


Max, have you ever heard anything about this
http://tinyurl.com/57pvh

"he first atomic bomb was exploded over Hiroshima on August 5, 1945;
the second was detonated over Nagasaki four days later. On August 8th,
the Soviet Union declared war on an already beaten Japan. But other
Japanese attempts to surrender had been coming fast and furious prior
to these historically important developments.

One of the most compelling was transmitted by General MacArthur to
President Roosevelt in January 1945, prior to the Yalta conference.
MacArthur's communiqué stated that the Japanese were willing to
surrender under terms which included:

. Full surrender of Japanese forces on sea, in the air, at home, on
island possessions, and in occupied countries.

. Surrender of all arms and munitions. · Occupation of the Japanese
homeland and island possessions by allied troops under American
direction.

. Japanese relinquishment of Manchuria, Korea, and Formosa, as well as
all territory seized during the war.

. Regulation of Japanese industry to halt present and future
production of implements of war.

. Turning over of Japanese which the United States might designate war
criminals.

. Release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan and in areas
under Japanese control.

Amazingly, these were identical to the terms which were accepted by
our government for the surrender of Japan seven months later. Had they
been accepted when first offered, there would have been no heavy loss
of life on Iwo Jima (over 26,033 Americans killed or wounded,
approximately 21,000 Japanese killed) and Okinawa (over 39,000 U.S.
dead and wounded, 109,000 Japanese dead), no fire bombing of Japanese
cities by B-29 bombers (it is estimated that the dropping of 1,700
tons of incendiary explosives on Japanese cities during March 9th-10th
alone killed over 80,000 civilians and destroyed 260,000 buildings),
and no use of the atomic bomb.

Countless thousands of Japanese civilians perished as a result of the
atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the world was
suddenly and violently brought into the atomic age."

Makes you think that the lives of all those, Japanese and Allies were
sacrificed because the bomb needed to be completed and tested.

Nice piece of revisionist history, Oz, but it won't fly.

On July 26, 1945 (it was 7/27 am in Tokyo) the Potsdam Proclaim was
broadcast in Japanese, demanding unconditional surrender. The Japanese
rejected it, complaining that no provision had been made to insure the
protection of Emperor Hirohito, whom they believed to be a god. At this
time Yoshijiro Umezu, Chief of Army General Staff, and a number of other
top-ranking officers, vowed to "fight to the death of every Japanese man,
woman, and child . . ." Soon thereafter American troop carriers, such as
the Indianapolis, were sunk, with substantial loss of life. On August 6,
1945, Hiroshima was bombed with a type of weapon previously unused in
combat. Nagasaki followed. On September 2, 1945, Japan surrendered
unconditionally, having indicated a desire to do so some three weeks
earlier.

The best independent (read: non-government) experts on WWII, South Pacific
Theater, are convinced that the war would have lingered for another 6 months
to a year, had the bombs not been used. Only the anti-US revisionists
believe otherwise. I have no doubt on which side of the issue you fall.

Max

1. They started the war with us.

Yep. It made sense, from their point of view, at the time. Japan in the
late 1920s and the 1930s headed down the same track that the U.S. is on
now ie gov't closely aligned with military industries.

2. They vowed to fight to "the death of every Japanese man, woman, and
child," even when it was clearly obvious that they could not win.

Also true, although it's hard to say wether every single Japanese man,
woman, and child, would have agreed.

3. We would have accomplished the same thing over a period of time with
conventional weapons, had the Japanese not surrendered, which was
unlikely.

We definitely could have accomplished the same thing over a longer
period of time.

4. It had to happen. Nuclear weapons had been developed, initially by
the
Germans and brought to fruition by the Americans.

Utter nonsense.

"It _had_ to happen" ??!?!!

The German nuclear research projects underway in the late 1930s was hurt
by the flight of some of their best scientists, most notably of course
Einstein, and most of the scientists remaining (while probably capable
of building a bomb, or at least radiation enhanced weapons) despised the
Nazis and would never have built such weapons for Hitler.

Remember, the fascist (or Bushist) state distrusts & shackles science,
sneers at intellect, and stamps out open enquiry.



It
was an inevitable step in the evolution of international relations, like
it
or not.

Jingoistic malarkey

5. The Japanese deserved it.

Possibly. But would you agree that had the Japanese developed the bomb
first (and they were closer than a lot of people think), tied one to one
of their strategic balloon bombers, and nuked the U.S. mainland, that we
"deserved it"?

Max, have you ever heard anything about this
http://tinyurl.com/57pvh

"he first atomic bomb was exploded over Hiroshima on August 5, 1945;
the second was detonated over Nagasaki four days later. On August 8th,
the Soviet Union declared war on an already beaten Japan. But other
Japanese attempts to surrender had been coming fast and furious prior
to these historically important developments.

There was no communication between the U.S. and Japanese gov'ts. There
were some attempts made by indirect channels to open negotiations, most
notably right after Pearl Harbor and early 1945. IIRC most of these
attempts went through Dutch colonial offices. The U.S. gov't rejected
these attempts to open negotiations, partly because there was no point
in negotiating peace when you're on the verge of victory (kind of like a
sports team down XXX to 0 in the last minute, offering a tie) and partly
because of commitments to the other Allies.



Amazingly, these were identical to the terms which were accepted by
our government for the surrender of Japan seven months later.

That is simply not true. The terms offered by the U.S. later in 1945
were rejected because we demanded that they give up the Emperor. Dozens
of historians, notably Shirer, have covered this point.


Makes you think that the lives of all those, Japanese and Allies were
sacrificed because the bomb needed to be completed and tested.


There was some motivation toward that by the military industrialists,
but I don't think it was the over riding factor at all. For one thing,
Truman became Vice President and then President because he had uncovered
the Manhatten Project in his Senate investigation of Army finances, and
he never considered *not* dropping the bomb.

Maxprop wrote:
Nice piece of revisionist history, Oz, but it won't fly.

On July 26, 1945 (it was 7/27 am in Tokyo) the Potsdam Proclaim was
broadcast in Japanese, demanding unconditional surrender.

I don't think the entire proclamation was broadcast, but that's a
quibble. More to the point, how good a translation do you think it was?
Possibly a bit like those garbled instruction manuals, hmm?


... The Japanese
rejected it, complaining that no provision had been made to insure the
protection of Emperor Hirohito, whom they believed to be a god.

Hmmph. You really swallow the whole package, don't you Max? The Japanese
revered the Emperor, in the same way that many in the U.S. revere
President Bush. However nobody seriously thought he was a god. Bear in
mind also that the military junta in charge of Japan used reverence for
the Emperor as a political tool, and juiced it all they could.

In short, lots of error and wishful thinking on both sides. No decision,
next inning please.

DSK

Max,

I do believe our friend has to be reminded that the recovery of EUROPE
was master-minded by Marshall & Truman. Also, He needs the look at the
recovery of Japan today. Done without the belief of the Emperor being a
God

Ole Thom


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsHomePage

It is still bull ****.

Scotty


OzOne wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 07:20:12 -0500, "Scott Vernon"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote

Yep, haven't you instituted a register and strict controls on the
purchase of fertilizer?


that's bull ****!

It was a question!
But I found the answer,
http://tinyurl.com/4rbjo

"Only two states - South Carolina and Nevada - require ID and track
purchases of ammonium nitrate.

In the rest of the country, a voluntary fertilizer industry safety
program warns sellers to beware of a customer who "avoids eye
contact"
or "doesn't know much about farming." Mixell said the ATF helped
develop the program. "

You're welcome!


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Oz,

When the AXIS powers were winning the war they started, it was decided
that they would be beaten to a Unconditional Surrender. This was
approved by a mass majority of the people living under Allied Nations.
That meant NO TERMS!! That is what they got. They got to feel the HORROR
they dealt out to others. They deserved to feel the Bombing, the
occupation, the despair of defeat they had done to other. It was
decide;- NO DEALS! That is what they got.

Germany, Italy and Japan were taught the full weight of DEFEAT that
they deserved

Ole Thom


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsHomePage

Doug,

An awful lot I don't agree it but I certainly disagree about not
believing the emperor a God. They believed it. He was a God on a White
Horse. He had to issue a written statement to his people that he wasn't
a God.

Sorry Buddy, You're way off on that one

Ole Thom


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsHomePage

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/NutsysTelescopic

Thom Stewart wrote:
Doug,

An awful lot I don't agree it but I certainly disagree about not
believing the emperor a God. They believed it. He was a God on a White
Horse. He had to issue a written statement to his people that he wasn't
a God.

Sorry Buddy, You're way off on that one


Why are you so eager to believe that other people are stupid?

Would *you* believe the Emperor is a god?

The Japanese nation is (and was at the time) one of the best educated
people on the planet. They didn't build some of the most advanced
weapons of the time (and build all sorts of high tech gizmos since) by
believing in a lot of superstitious clap-trap.

Sorry buddy, I'm not off at all on this one. Think about it.

DSK

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Oz,


Germany, Italy and Japan were taught the full weight of DEFEAT that
they deserved

Ole Thom


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsHomePage


Problem with "collective guilt" is that it lets the real perpetrators hide
behind their country, and it allows for the indiscriminate slaughter of
civilians. Think 9-11.

John Cairns

OzOne wrote

Yep, did those hundreds of thousands of people whose Govt had taken
them to war desrve to be incinerated, and suffer the effects of
radiation even today?


Did we deserve Pearl Harbor?

Look at it this way Ozzy, the bomb saved a lot of Aussies, and USA got
the blame.

OzOne wrote

Yep, the bomb's' stopped the war....I don't think they saved any
lives.


My Dad was in the Navy in '45. That alone, to me makes it all
worthwhile.

SV

Doug,

You think about it! They were educated to believe in the Emperor God,
Sintoizm, Hari Kari, Kamikazi (Devine Wind of Deliverance) They were a
rather poorly educated chaste society in the 1930 & 1940. The commoner
were educated like trained animals. They were a very nice people but at
that time highly educated they weren't. The Elite did not want them
fully educated.

Doug I knew them. I seen the masses really blossom under Democratic
Life. They were not STUPID; they were held back!

Ole Thom


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsHomePage

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/NutsysTelescopic

Thom Stewart wrote:
Doug,

You think about it!

I have.

I have also avoided being indoctrinated with a lot of propaganda about
how those inscrutable little yellow devils are all ancestor-worhipping
dunces.

... They were educated to believe in the Emperor God,
Sintoizm, Hari Kari, Kamikazi (Devine Wind of Deliverance)

Bull****.

Shintoism is quite simple and direct. It is a natural expression of the
human belief that there is more going on in the world than meets the eye.

Hari Kari is a vulgar term for suicide, which is properly termed
seppuku. The cultural belief in honorable suicide is basically the
ultimate in "death before dishonor." Think about where else you might
have heard that...

Kamikaze is two words: Kami = spirit and Kaze = wind. Often translated
as "divine wind," the word originally meant the typhoon which destroyed
Kublai Khan's invasion fleet and saved Japan. This was an actual
historical event and is well documented.

.... They were a
rather poorly educated chaste society in the 1930 & 1940.

More bull****. The Japanese were a feudal society in 1870, and by 1900
had adopted *all* the technological advances Europe and America could
teach them. You claim that two generation later, they were backwards &
ignorant? Sorry, you're still looking at comic books, not reality.


Doug I knew them. I seen the masses really blossom under Democratic
Life. They were not STUPID; they were held back!

Thom, the Japanese adopted a parliamentary democracy under a monarchy,
which they still have, in 1876. If you saw them blossom under democracy,
then you're a heck of a lot older than I thought!!

Regards
Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message

The German nuclear research projects underway in the late 1930s was hurt
by the flight of some of their best scientists, most notably of course
Einstein, and most of the scientists remaining (while probably capable of
building a bomb, or at least radiation enhanced weapons) despised the
Nazis and would never have built such weapons for Hitler.

Is this History 101 According to Doug? The Germans were on the verge of
completing a crude nuclear device when the war ground to a halt in Europe.
They had huge stocks of heavy water, they had fissionable material, somewhat
enriched, and they had the equipment to do the job. That it didn't happen
had more to do with timing than with any particular antipathy toward Hitler
and the Nazis. The Nazis had rather well-known means of *encouraging*
others to do their bidding. Those scientists may have claimed to have
stalled the process, but had the European war continued for another year,
most of them would have been killed, had they not created a nuclear weapon.

Jingoistic malarkey

How then do you explain 40 years of *cold* war? You seem to have all the
answers. Wrong ones, but answers, nonetheless. It's highly doubtful that
either the USA or the USSR would have been restrained by mutual assured
destruction had the devastating effects of atomic weapons not been
witnessed.

Possibly. But would you agree that had the Japanese developed the bomb
first (and they were closer than a lot of people think), tied one to one
of their strategic balloon bombers, and nuked the U.S. mainland, that we
"deserved it"?

Hmmm. Let's see: The Japanese had joined forces ideologically with Germany
and the Axis powers to achieve world domination under a dictator or group of
dictators. The Japanese sneak attacked us, knowing we wouldn't stand by
forever while they occupied more and more of the south Pacific and
ultimately parts of Asia. We, OTOH, retaliated, and fought against the sort
of despotic tyranny that an Axis victory would have wrought. No, I don't
think we would have deserved to be nuked. I'm glad we weren't.


There was no communication between the U.S. and Japanese gov'ts. There
were some attempts made by indirect channels to open negotiations, most
notably right after Pearl Harbor and early 1945. IIRC most of these
attempts went through Dutch colonial offices. The U.S. gov't rejected
these attempts to open negotiations, partly because there was no point in
negotiating peace when you're on the verge of victory (kind of like a
sports team down XXX to 0 in the last minute, offering a tie) and partly
because of commitments to the other Allies.

There was another aspect--the Japanese would not consider any form of
unconditional surrender. The Allies all felt that only after an
unconditional surrender, following which the Japanese would dismantle their
entire war-making machine, including disbanding the army, navy, etc. and
destroying all small arms and other ordnance, would a lasting peace be
possible. There was a substantiated fear that Japan might once again become
a formidable opponent. The Japanese rejected the Potsdam Proclaim less than
a month before the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. IF they truly had
been desirous of a surrender, they would at least have suggested talks. The
PP was met with silence from Japan.


I don't think the entire proclamation was broadcast, but that's a quibble.
More to the point, how good a translation do you think it was? Possibly a
bit like those garbled instruction manuals, hmm?

One of Hirohito's own secretaries reported, after the war, that the Potsdam
Proclaim was understood clearly by the Japanese government at the time it
was broadcast. They discussed it for days, but the military leaders were
intractable. They wanted to fight to the bitter end.

... The Japanese rejected it, complaining that no provision had been
made to insure the protection of Emperor Hirohito, whom they believed to
be a god.


Hmmph. You really swallow the whole package, don't you Max?

No more than you swallow what you choose to believe. Which, incidentally,
is generally liberal revisionist history. Neither you nor I were alive
then, so we must depend upon others for the information. Who is correct?
We may never know.

The Japanese revered the Emperor, in the same way that many in the U.S.
revere President Bush. However nobody seriously thought he was a god.

My statement was probably not quite correct. They believed Hirohito to be
"like a god." They believed he had to be protected at ANY cost.

Bear in mind also that the military junta in charge of Japan used
reverence for the Emperor as a political tool, and juiced it all they
could.

In short, lots of error and wishful thinking on both sides. No decision,
next inning please.

Jesus, Doug, no war is perfect in its planning and execution. Errors are
made on both sides constantly. And the variables are infinite. The side
that makes the fewer errors generally wins. I personally believe the US and
the Allied forces were on the right side, and Japan was on the wrong side.
But I don't care to get into a philosophical argument over this point. My
contention stands: Japan deserved what it got. Most recently the prime
minister of Japan apologized for his country's aggression toward the US at
Pearl Harbor. I accept his apology, but make no apology for dropping two
nukes on his homeland.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message

Thom Stewart wrote:
Doug,

An awful lot I don't agree it but I certainly disagree about not
believing the emperor a God. They believed it. He was a God on a White
Horse. He had to issue a written statement to his people that he wasn't
a God. Sorry Buddy, You're way off on that one


Why are you so eager to believe that other people are stupid?

Would *you* believe the Emperor is a god?

This clearly demonstrates your arrogance and inability to be open-minded.
There were myriad cultural differences between the Japanese and Americans.
There still are today. Just because they believed their leader to be a god
doesn't make them stupid--just different, and with a different set of
beliefs. I suppose you believe Native Americans and Australian Aborigines
to be stupid because they believe that gods control much of their lives and
destinies?


The Japanese nation is (and was at the time) one of the best educated
people on the planet. They didn't build some of the most advanced weapons
of the time (and build all sorts of high tech gizmos since) by believing
in a lot of superstitious clap-trap.

Sorry buddy, I'm not off at all on this one. Think about it.

You're way off, but your ego and your arrogance prevents you from realizing
it.

Max

wrote in message

Doug,

You are confusing logic with emotion. There are plenty of examples of
highly
educated and intelligent people who believe in god, or playing the
lottery, or
all sorts of other superstitious nonsense. Albert Einstein believed
fervently in
god, despite his highly developed intellectual abilities. There are people
in
this newsgroup who believe everything in the bible literally happened. The
US is
a very technically advanced country, yet look at who is in the White
House,
spouting creationism. The Japanese culture is incredibly different from
ours. I
do not find it at all incongruous for them to be technically advanced, and
at
the same time very backwards or even foolishly dogmatic in another area.
They
believe in living manifestations of god. You don't.

Well said.

Max

... The Japanese culture is incredibly different from
ours. I
do not find it at all incongruous for them to be technically advanced, and
at
the same time very backwards or even foolishly dogmatic in another area.
They
believe in living manifestations of god. You don't.

Maxprop wrote:
Well said.


In other words, you and BittyBill-Bob want to think those clever little
Nips are still quite doofusses, so you can keep your sense of racial
superiority intact.

The universe is what it is, not what you wish it to be.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

Not at all. I can be wrong, but I'm not this time.

Yeah Yeah Yaeh... that's what you say all the time... but you have never
admitted to being wrong ... even when _I_ proved you wrong!! Which I have
done countless times.

I on the other hand am never wrong..... I may have been given erroneous
info.. but I'm never wrong.

CM

wrote in message
...
Please explain precisely what the logic is for WASP England to maintain a
Queen
and Royal family. Why doesn't every democracy have the same?

If you think England is WASP then you have not visited lately. Parts of some
cities have become no-go areas for WASP's.
And you certainly haven't been watching any BBC news bulletins.