On Nov 2, 1:59 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:38?pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:59 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...article=1&catn...

"...Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel.."

WOAH! I think he has the right idea over secrecy in his burial,
though.

Knowing what I know now, I don't know if I could have done his job or
not. Even though it was probablyt he right thing to do, I don't think
it would be a prideful act.

But I wasn't there either.

mixed emotions

We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.

Perhaps, but that wasn't guaranteed. And it wasn't a reason to delay
the A-bombs.



Truman felt it was neccessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of both
the uranium bomb (Hiroshima) and the plutonium bomb (Nagasaki) to
convince the Russians that we had the will and capability to react to
any threat "with extreme prejudice".

Perhaps to some extent, but Truman's main concern was convincing Japan
to surrender.

There was no desire to demonstrate different types of bombs. The only
reason two bombs were used is because Japan surrendered between the
second and third bombs. Had Japan surrendered between the third and
fourth bombs, they'd have been nuked three times.



I was also strategically critical
to end the Japanese war before our Russian "allies" marched in during
the mop up with possible plans for occupying some of the islands and
thereby establishing effective Naval bases in the Pacfic.

True. We definitely preferred keeping the Soviets out of Japan.

But on the other hand, the Soviets were coming in because we had
invited them. We didn't want to invade Japan without the Soviets
attacking Manchuria.



Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Nope. The death rate returned to normal a few months after the A-
bombs. There have only been a few thousand deaths attributed to A-
bomb radiation since 1945.



Many military leaders of the day disagreed with Truman's decision to
use the atomic bomb.

Maybe long after the war had ended. But there wasn't any great
groundswell of military disagreement during the war.



Dwight Eisenhower said that when he was infromed of Truman's decision
to use nuclear bombs, "I voiced my misgivings, first on the basis of
my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unneccesary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon who
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment,
seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face."

Yes, Ike was the one military leader who thought during the war that
the A-bombs were unnecessary.

But he never made much of a fuss about it. It's unlikely that Truman
even knew Ike had objected until Ike mentioned it in his post-
presidential memoirs.



Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Saff to Presidents Roosevelt and
Truman, said in his autobiography "It is my opinion that the use of
this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material
assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade
and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

Hindsight. All Leahy said about the A-bombs *during the war* was "I'm
an expert in explosives and I say these things will never work".



General MacArthur apparently did not voice any official support for or
opposition to the bombing in 1945, but his consultant Norman Cousins
wrote in 1987 that MacArthur's oft-stated private opinion was "The war
might have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it
later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

One thing MacArthur said just after Hiroshima was that he thought
Japan was nowhere near surrendering and we'd probably still have to
invade before they gave up.



Authors Robert Jay Lifton and
Greg Mitchell,
("Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denmial" published by Grossett/
Putnam in 1995), claim to have documentation that official US
estimates for the number of military deaths that would result from an
invasion of Japan would be between 20,000 and 63,000.

They seem to have missed the projections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
which pointed to 1,200,000 American casualties (including 267,000
dead) from Operation Downfall.

And how about the study the War Department had done that estimated
that invading Japan would cost 1,700,000 to 4,000,000 American
casualties (including 400,000 to 800,000 dead)?

On Nov 2, 11:23?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:59 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:





On Nov 1, 7:38?pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:59 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...article=1&catn...

"...Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel.."

WOAH! I think he has the right idea over secrecy in his burial,
though.

Knowing what I know now, I don't know if I could have done his job or
not. Even though it was probablyt he right thing to do, I don't think
it would be a prideful act.

But I wasn't there either.

mixed emotions

We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.

Perhaps, but that wasn't guaranteed. And it wasn't a reason to delay
the A-bombs.

Truman felt it was neccessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of both
the uranium bomb (Hiroshima) and the plutonium bomb (Nagasaki) to
convince the Russians that we had the will and capability to react to
any threat "with extreme prejudice".

Perhaps to some extent, but Truman's main concern was convincing Japan
to surrender.

There was no desire to demonstrate different types of bombs. The only
reason two bombs were used is because Japan surrendered between the
second and third bombs. Had Japan surrendered between the third and
fourth bombs, they'd have been nuked three times.

I was also strategically critical
to end the Japanese war before our Russian "allies" marched in during
the mop up with possible plans for occupying some of the islands and
thereby establishing effective Naval bases in the Pacfic.

True. We definitely preferred keeping the Soviets out of Japan.

But on the other hand, the Soviets were coming in because we had
invited them. We didn't want to invade Japan without the Soviets
attacking Manchuria.

Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Nope. The death rate returned to normal a few months after the A-
bombs. There have only been a few thousand deaths attributed to A-
bomb radiation since 1945.

Many military leaders of the day disagreed with Truman's decision to
use the atomic bomb.

Maybe long after the war had ended. But there wasn't any great
groundswell of military disagreement during the war.

Dwight Eisenhower said that when he was infromed of Truman's decision
to use nuclear bombs, "I voiced my misgivings, first on the basis of
my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unneccesary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon who
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment,
seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face."

Yes, Ike was the one military leader who thought during the war that
the A-bombs were unnecessary.

But he never made much of a fuss about it. It's unlikely that Truman
even knew Ike had objected until Ike mentioned it in his post-
presidential memoirs.

Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Saff to Presidents Roosevelt and
Truman, said in his autobiography "It is my opinion that the use of
this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material
assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade
and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

Hindsight. All Leahy said about the A-bombs *during the war* was "I'm
an expert in explosives and I say these things will never work".

General MacArthur apparently did not voice any official support for or
opposition to the bombing in 1945, but his consultant Norman Cousins
wrote in 1987 that MacArthur's oft-stated private opinion was "The war
might have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it
later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

One thing MacArthur said just after Hiroshima was that he thought
Japan was nowhere near surrendering and we'd probably still have to
invade before they gave up.

Authors Robert Jay Lifton and
Greg Mitchell,
("Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denmial" published by Grossett/
Putnam in 1995), claim to have documentation that official US
estimates for the number of military deaths that would result from an
invasion of Japan would be between 20,000 and 63,000.

They seem to have missed the projections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
which pointed to 1,200,000 American casualties (including 267,000
dead) from Operation Downfall.

And how about the study the War Department had done that estimated
that invading Japan would cost 1,700,000 to 4,000,000 American
casualties (including 400,000 to 800,000 dead)?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://www.unm.edu/~abqteach/atomica...rica_cover.htm

On Nov 2, 11:23?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:59 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:


Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Nope. The death rate returned to normal a few months after the A-
bombs. There have only been a few thousand deaths attributed to A-
bomb radiation since 1945.


Not according to the cirriculum from a course called "Atomic America"
taught at the University of New Mexico:


"From three to thirty years after the bombing the number of cases of
leukemia in Hiroshima was fifteen times higher than that of the rest
of Japan (Shohno 62). Leukemia results when abnormal white blood cells
produce wildly; it is a type of blood cancer. The blue stigmata
(marks) that radiation victims exhibit are a symptom of leukemia. They
result from blood so filled with white cells that it loses its red
color. The white blood cells caused by leukemia tend to clump together
instead of fighting bacteria. Therefore, those with leukemia are very
susceptible to other infections. Usually they die from pneumonia that
their immune system cannot fight off.

Most cancers have a longer incubation period than does leukemia. At
Hiroshima fifteen years after the bomb, death by non-blood cancers
began to increase among survivors who had been exposed to more than
100 rads of radiation (Shohno 62). Lung cancer, breast cancer, and
thyroid cancer are all stimulated by high dosages of radiation.
Cancers of the colon, stomach, urinary organs, and blood marrow are
also probably linked to dosages of radiation. The uranium miners in
the United States who provided the raw material to fuel the nuclear
programs have reported much higher incidence of lung cancer than
normal (Justice)."

On Nov 3, 5:18 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 2, 11:23?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:59 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:

Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Nope. The death rate returned to normal a few months after the A-
bombs. There have only been a few thousand deaths attributed to A-
bomb radiation since 1945.

Not according to the cirriculum from a course called "Atomic America"
taught at the University of New Mexico:

"From three to thirty years after the bombing the number of cases of
leukemia in Hiroshima was fifteen times higher than that of the rest
of Japan (Shohno 62). Leukemia results when abnormal white blood cells
produce wildly; it is a type of blood cancer. The blue stigmata
(marks) that radiation victims exhibit are a symptom of leukemia. They
result from blood so filled with white cells that it loses its red
color. The white blood cells caused by leukemia tend to clump together
instead of fighting bacteria. Therefore, those with leukemia are very
susceptible to other infections. Usually they die from pneumonia that
their immune system cannot fight off.

Most cancers have a longer incubation period than does leukemia. At
Hiroshima fifteen years after the bomb, death by non-blood cancers
began to increase among survivors who had been exposed to more than
100 rads of radiation (Shohno 62). Lung cancer, breast cancer, and
thyroid cancer are all stimulated by high dosages of radiation.
Cancers of the colon, stomach, urinary organs, and blood marrow are
also probably linked to dosages of radiation. The uranium miners in
the United States who provided the raw material to fuel the nuclear
programs have reported much higher incidence of lung cancer than
normal (Justice)."

That quote does not contradict the fact that there were only a few
thousand deaths due to A-bomb radiation after 1945.

It is true that a few hundred of those deaths were Leukemia though.

On Nov 3, 2:43 pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:23:57 -0700, Hiroshima Facts
wrote:

There was no desire to demonstrate different types of bombs. The only
reason two bombs were used is because Japan surrendered between the
second and third bombs. Had Japan surrendered between the third and
fourth bombs, they'd have been nuked three times.

Rewriting history ?

Nope. Just a straightforward statement of the facts.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 1, 7:38?pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:59 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...article=1&catn...

"...Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel.."

WOAH! I think he has the right idea over secrecy in his burial,
though.

Knowing what I know now, I don't know if I could have done his job or
not. Even though it was probablyt he right thing to do, I don't think
it would be a prideful act.

But I wasn't there either.

mixed emotions

We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.

The nuke was only one of several options available for ending the war.
We know that it worked, there's probably no way to know whether it was
the best options available, and opinions at that time were most
decidedly mixed.

Truman felt it was neccessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of both
the uranium bomb (Hiroshima) and the plutonium bomb (Nagasaki) to
convince the Russians that we had the will and capability to react to
any threat "with extreme prejudice". I was also strategically critical
to end the Japanese war before our Russian "allies" marched in during
the mop up with possible plans for occupying some of the islands and
thereby establishing effective Naval bases in the Pacfic.

Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Many military leaders of the day disagreed with Truman's decision to
use the atomic bomb.

Dwight Eisenhower said that when he was infromed of Truman's decision
to use nuclear bombs, "I voiced my misgivings, first on the basis of
my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unneccesary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon who
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment,
seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face."

Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Saff to Presidents Roosevelt and
Truman, said in his autobiography "It is my opinion that the use of
this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material
assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade
and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

General MacArthur apparently did not voice any official support for or
opposition to the bombing in 1945, but his consultant Norman Cousins
wrote in 1987 that MacArthur's oft-stated private opinion was "The war
might have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it
later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Historic footnote: The "we dropped it to save American Lives"
rationale didn't begin gathering a lot of traction until 1958- the
year that Truman convened a news conference to defend his decision to
drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The news conference was
precipitated, in part, by a letter from the Hiroshima City Council
asking Truman if, all those years later, he had any regrets or was
inclined to apologize for the decision. Authors Robert Jay Lifton and
Greg Mitchell,
("Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denmial" published by Grossett/
Putnam in 1995), claim to have documentation that official US
estimates for the number of military deaths that would result from an
invasion of Japan would be between 20,000 and 63,000.

So, yes, RIP Paul Tibbets. He was a brave and dutiful airman, simply
doing his job. Opinions will vary enormously whether there is any
guilt to bear over the manner in which we chose to end WWII, but the
heroes of the hour (or the villians, depending on ones' point of view)
will be found among the decision makers of the day- not down among the
ranks of those who simply upheld their oath to follow orders.


You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after
watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the
tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you to
the conclusion that they would surrender?Personally I am thankful that we
didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go participate,
since the war in Europe was over.

And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing during
this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't
"divine"?

It is too bad that the Japanese became expansionist. They were already
racist.

On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Nov 1, 7:38?pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:59 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...article=1&catn...

"...Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel.."

WOAH! I think he has the right idea over secrecy in his burial,
though.

Knowing what I know now, I don't know if I could have done his job or
not. Even though it was probablyt he right thing to do, I don't think
it would be a prideful act.

But I wasn't there either.

mixed emotions

We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.

The nuke was only one of several options available for ending the war.
We know that it worked, there's probably no way to know whether it was
the best options available, and opinions at that time were most
decidedly mixed.

Truman felt it was neccessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of both
the uranium bomb (Hiroshima) and the plutonium bomb (Nagasaki) to
convince the Russians that we had the will and capability to react to
any threat "with extreme prejudice". I was also strategically critical
to end the Japanese war before our Russian "allies" marched in during
the mop up with possible plans for occupying some of the islands and
thereby establishing effective Naval bases in the Pacfic.

Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Many military leaders of the day disagreed with Truman's decision to
use the atomic bomb.

Dwight Eisenhower said that when he was infromed of Truman's decision
to use nuclear bombs, "I voiced my misgivings, first on the basis of
my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unneccesary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon who
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment,
seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face."

Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Saff to Presidents Roosevelt and
Truman, said in his autobiography "It is my opinion that the use of
this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material
assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade
and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

General MacArthur apparently did not voice any official support for or
opposition to the bombing in 1945, but his consultant Norman Cousins
wrote in 1987 that MacArthur's oft-stated private opinion was "The war
might have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it
later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Historic footnote: The "we dropped it to save American Lives"
rationale didn't begin gathering a lot of traction until 1958- the
year that Truman convened a news conference to defend his decision to
drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The news conference was
precipitated, in part, by a letter from the Hiroshima City Council
asking Truman if, all those years later, he had any regrets or was
inclined to apologize for the decision. Authors Robert Jay Lifton and
Greg Mitchell,
("Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denmial" published by Grossett/
Putnam in 1995), claim to have documentation that official US
estimates for the number of military deaths that would result from an
invasion of Japan would be between 20,000 and 63,000.

So, yes, RIP Paul Tibbets. He was a brave and dutiful airman, simply
doing his job. Opinions will vary enormously whether there is any
guilt to bear over the manner in which we chose to end WWII, but the
heroes of the hour (or the villians, depending on ones' point of view)
will be found among the decision makers of the day- not down among the
ranks of those who simply upheld their oath to follow orders.

You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after
watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the
tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you to
the conclusion that they would surrender?


Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials,
including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy. Somehow I think they
probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any
of us can have more than 60 years after the fact.

Much of the information released to the public during any war is pure,
unadulterated BS manipulation. The government can influence, if not
entirely control, what it wants the populace to think. Top military
leaders get a more accurate picture, as they need to deal with the
reality of a situation and not the political posturing. Consider the
internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry that occured in
the western US (and in Canda as well). The government convinced
everybody that these "little yellow people" couldn't be relied upon to
be loyal to the US, even those who were 2nd and 3rd generation
Americans, had never been to Japan, and didn't speak, read or write
Japanese. Funny thing of course is that we didn't round up everybody
named Schwartz or DiMaggio, even though we were also at war with
Germany and Italy. Only a few people remain who will voice
enthusiastic support for the internment, but at the time the sales job
had been thorough enough that a majority of Americans felt it was a
good idea.


Personally I am thankful that we
didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go participate,
since the war in Europe was over.

And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing during
this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't
"divine"?


According to General Douglas MacArthur, (another individual in a
position to know what was going on at the time), the Japanese were
willing to surrender as soon as we agreed to allow the Emperor to
remain on his throne.



It is too bad that the Japanese became expansionist. They were already
racist.


Most of the world remains highly racist. I don't think the Japanese
had any unique claim in that category. Many of our official government
policies during the war (such as the internment) don't make any sense
in retrospect unless viewed through the lens of racism. While American
citizens of Japanese ancestry were in prison camps in the Rockies and
the midwest, the farms, homes, factories, fishing boats, and small
businesses they owned were confiscated by tax authorities. (Pretty
hard to pay taxes on the farm when you're not allowed to work it.) It
was considered shrewd business at the time to buy up property
"confiscated from the Japs", and most of the internees had to start
over again, completely from scratch, after they were released. Once
again, Americans whose ancestry was German or Italian were not subject
to the same treatment- at least they "looked like real Americans."

As racist as some Americans remain, I think that in general the
mixture of cultures and races in the US has done much to reduce
racism. As a society we are probably more inclusive than most, but we
still have a ways to go and some of the individual exceptions are
almost Neanderthalic.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...


As racist as some Americans remain, I think that in general the
mixture of cultures and races in the US has done much to reduce
racism. As a society we are probably more inclusive than most, but we
still have a ways to go and some of the individual exceptions are
almost Neanderthalic.



Most, if not all, nations have remained highly nationalistic by culture. An
exception is the United States. We are one of the few successful nations on
earth that can withstand the constant negative analysis and bad image
promoted by some of her own citizens.


Eisboch

Chuck Gould wrote:

Most of the world remains highly racist. I don't think the Japanese
had any unique claim in that category. Many of our official government
policies during the war (such as the internment) don't make any sense
in retrospect unless viewed through the lens of racism. While American
citizens of Japanese ancestry were in prison camps in the Rockies and
the midwest, the farms, homes, factories, fishing boats, and small
businesses they owned were confiscated by tax authorities. (Pretty
hard to pay taxes on the farm when you're not allowed to work it.) It
was considered shrewd business at the time to buy up property
"confiscated from the Japs", and most of the internees had to start
over again, completely from scratch, after they were released. Once
again, Americans whose ancestry was German or Italian were not subject
to the same treatment- at least they "looked like real Americans."

As racist as some Americans remain, I think that in general the
mixture of cultures and races in the US has done much to reduce
racism. As a society we are probably more inclusive than most, but we
still have a ways to go and some of the individual exceptions are
almost Neanderthalic.

There was even talk of internment camps in WW1 which would of course
been disasterous.

My great uncle Fritz Schnautz , was a second generation immigrant
from Germany and could speak German and English very fluentl. From
what I gather, his service was invaluable in many case's as an
interpreter.

Same with my Uncle Geo. Lichner in WWII, He was raised in Chicago and
only had a 6th grade education, but in service in Germany and Italy,
he was put in the I-Corps, and used as in interpreter, because being
raised in the melting pot of Chicago, he could speak and make his way
though centeral european languages including most
slavic dilects, because of his Bohemian background.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote:
snip
You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after
watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the
tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you
to
the conclusion that they would surrender?


Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials,
including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy. Somehow I think they
probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any
of us can have more than 60 years after the fact.

Much of the information released to the public during any war is pure,
unadulterated BS manipulation. The government can influence, if not
entirely control, what it wants the populace to think. Top military
leaders get a more accurate picture, as they need to deal with the
reality of a situation and not the political posturing. Consider the
internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry that occured in
the western US (and in Canda as well). The government convinced
everybody that these "little yellow people" couldn't be relied upon to
be loyal to the US, even those who were 2nd and 3rd generation
Americans, had never been to Japan, and didn't speak, read or write
Japanese. Funny thing of course is that we didn't round up everybody
named Schwartz or DiMaggio, even though we were also at war with
Germany and Italy. Only a few people remain who will voice
enthusiastic support for the internment, but at the time the sales job
had been thorough enough that a majority of Americans felt it was a
good idea.

Sure, it was a disgraceful thing. Not nearly as bad as the Japanese
actions in China however. Not even close.


Personally I am thankful that we
didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go
participate,
since the war in Europe was over.

And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing
during
this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't
"divine"?


According to General Douglas MacArthur, (another individual in a
position to know what was going on at the time), the Japanese were
willing to surrender as soon as we agreed to allow the Emperor to
remain on his throne.


Ah, so all we had to do was go along with the "divine emperor" remaining
in charge and retain his claim of divinity and they would have
surrendered. Were there any other conditions? Would it have been hard
to reform the government with the "divine emperor" on his throne?


snip