From: tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 03:43:11 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Sometines ya just gotta nuke em-and nuke em again
Message-ID: <199602041921.OAA19675@pipe8.nyc.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


"Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union 
into the war forced Japan's surrender. She was defeated before 
either of these events took place." 
 
     General of the Army Douglas MacArthur 
 
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material success 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. ... My own feeling 
was that in being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical 
standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." 
 
     Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
 
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to 
hit them with that awful thing... I hated to see our country be 
the first to use such a weapon." 
 
     General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower 
 
These statements by the Allied military commanders were not 
deeply buried in graduate school libraries or military archives. 
They were widely printed and discussed in the media during last 
year's discussion over the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian 
Museum. 
 
Now the mere fact that the Allied military commanders all agreed 
that the nuclear bombings were unnecessary does not automatically 
mean that the commanders were correct. Theoretically, J.A. Donald 
and T.C. May might have a greater understanding. But both Donald 
and May must justify this hypothesis with evidence and logic, not 
mere assertion. 
 
Thus, J.A. Donald was perfectly free to write in Message-Id: 
<199602040622.WAA07274@shell1.best.com> on Feb. 03 22:20 that: 
 
"Paralax does not know shit from beans.  He presumably imagines 
that Tim is 'embarrassed' because Tim's knowledge of the 
historical facts differs from those facts dreamed up by the usual 
crew of apologists for totalitarian terror." 
 
In what way and to what extent did General of the Army MacArthur, 
the senior Allied commander in the Pacific Theater not "know shit 
from beans?" 
 
In what way and to what extent was MacArthur one of the "usual 
crew of apologists for totalitarian terror?" 
 
In what way and to what extent did Chief of Staff Leahy not know 
"shit from beans?" 
 
In what way and to what extent was Leahy one of the "usual crew 
of apologist for totalitarian terror?" 
 
In what way did General Eisenhower especially not know "shit from 
beans" about this issue, given his access to all available 
information when he was President? 
 
In what way and to what extent was President Eisenhower one of 
the "usual crew of apologists for totalitarian terror?" 
 
J.A. Donald seems particularly taken with the originality and 
accuracy of the phrase "shit for beans" to reflect certain states 
of philosophical and historical knowledge for he repeated it in 
his next message Message-Id: 
<199602040611.WAA18584@blob.best.net> on Feb. 3, 22:09 where he 
wrote: 
 
"SCHOLARLY RESEARCH!!!! 
 
"You do not know shit from beans:  Alperovitz is no more a 
scholar  than Zundel is:  He is a historical revisionist who lies 
even more crudely than the holocaust revisionists. 
 
"It is clear that in the opinion of the high command, the 
decision to  surrender after they were nuked was a dramatic and 
radical change of  position.  Alperovitz says otherwise, thus he 
is either grotesquely  ignorant or, more likely simply 
dishonest." 
 
In what way was General MacArthur an "historical revisionist" and 
in what way did he "lie even more crudely than the holocaust 
revisionists?" In what way was he "grotesquely ignorant or, more 
likely simply dishonest?" 
 
In what way of Chief of Staff Leahy? or President Eisenhower? 
 
One does not normally find J.A. Donald's phrases in civilized or 
cultured discourse over political and historical issues. His 
language is that of the demagogue, not the scientist. But he is 
entitled to use the language he wishes, just as other people have 
a similar right to examine his behavior and motivation in terms 
of identical language. 
 
We know, for example, that the pickpocket when caught may point 
to an innocent person and loudly cry "stop thief" in an effort to 
mislead the public by denouncing an innocent person for the very 
behavior for which the pickpocket is guilty. 
 
J.A. Donald voluntarily choose to present the dispute in terms of 
people who "don't know shit for beans," who are "apologists for 
totalitarian terror," who are "historical revisionists," who are 
"grotesquely ignorant or, more likely simply dishonest." 
 
Given the respective lineup of sources, what information and 
analysis would J.A. Donald present to us to lead us to conclude 
that his characterizations accurately reflect General MacArthur, 
Chief of Staff Leahy, and General Eisenhower rather than, like 
the pickpocket, J.A. Donald himself? 
 
T.C. May, while arguing essentially the same historic view as 
J.A. Donald (or rather vice versa) approaches the issue in a 
fundamentally different manner. T.C. May uses logic where J.A. 
Donald uses demagogic rhetoric. (I do not here refer to T.C. 
May's characterization of other racial/ethnic/national groups 
about which others on the list have posted.) 
 
When I read the first post by T.C. May on the mass nuclear 
bombings of civilians I thought his post was: a) off-topic for 
the cypherpunks list and; b) wrong. 
 
At that time I dismissed the idea of a public reply, thinking 
that he may have had a bad day, misunderstood the issue, or any 
of a thousand other reasons that have led me and indeed all of us 
to behave in a similar fashion at one time or another. 
 
But he re-posted on the thread in Message-Id: 
<ad392186040210048141@[205.199.118.202]> on Feb 3, 15:54 where he 
wrote: 
 
"(I've also received several long articles from people who seemed 
outraged that I was belittling the dropping of the bomb. I wasn't 
belittling it. Far from it. The Japs surrendered after the second 
bomb, so it was obviously not a trivial matter to them.)" 
 
I think his logic is at fault here in several ways. 
 
First, I think his logic is invalid because it is a "non 
sequitur." That is the statement that the Japanese did not take 
the bombing as trivial is true but not related to the argument. 
"2 + 2 = 4" is similarly true but unrelated; and I know of no 
group of people who, whatever their politics, consider mass 
nuclear bombings of civilians to be a "trivial matter." 
 
Second, I think his logic is invalid because it commits the "post 
hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy that goes, in essence "after this, 
therefore because of this." 
 
"The Japanese surrender came after the bomb, therefore it came 
because of the bomb" is the invalid argument. One could, to use a 
"reductio ad absurdum" counter argument, saying with equal 
(in)validity that John Smith ate a bowl of beans, took a shit, 
and the next day the Japanese surrendered, therefore the 
surrender occurred because of the beans and the shit." 
 
Indeed the Japanese surrendered, but the evidence by three top 
(THE three top?) Allied commanders show that the surrender was 
not produced by either bombs, shit, or beans.