The most tasteless and insensitive museum exhibit ever.

[Kuciwalker]

We allowed them to keep their Emperor as a figurehead, IIRC.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by skywalker
We allowed them to keep their Emperor as a figurehead, IIRC.

Key term, you allowed after occupation.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Pat, well, in the end, we did accept a conditional surrender because despite all we did the Japanese STILL would not surrender unconditionally.

No, the Japanese surrender was fully unconditional. However, the U.S. subsequently decided to let Hirohito remain anyway.

[Ned]

"The Japanese surrender offer put before Truman on August 10th, still insisted on retention of the emperor. Only Secretary of State Byrnes was reluctant to accept it. Truman opted for a response asserting that the Japanese message met American terms with the understanding that the emperor would be subject to the Allied supreme commander. At a Cabinet meeting, he declared there would be no more atomic bombings. Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace recorded his attitude: 'He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, "all those kids"'.

The Allies gave their approval to American terms. Japan remained silent. On August 13th, Truman authorised one last terrible 1,000-plane raid on Tokyo. Presiding over a final meeting of his War Council, Hirohito demanded acceptance of the United States offer. Within twenty-four hours die-hard army officers attempted a coup d'etat that was barely suppressed. On August 14th, late in the afternoon, the United States received Japanese acceptance of American surrender terms. That evening, Truman announced that the Second World War was over and declared a two-day holiday. For a moment it was possible to hope that the destruction of the enemy meant the birth of a hopeful new world."

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m...le.jhtml?term=

[Frankychan]

Man, this plan on display is another typical example of American arrogance.

Shoot, my granddad died because of cancer (he was from Hiroshima, then moved to Hawaii). Don't get me wrong, I love America, but sometimes some of those "mainlanders" can be insensitive jerks.

[Patroklos]

My Grandfather died from a bullet, and my great uncle starved to death in the Phillipines. You deserve no sympathy. Citizens of modern countries are responsible for what there countries do, either by your action or your inaction. In the case of WWII Japanese, you condemeed yourself on both counts. Doing everything you could to support the war effort, and obviously doing nothing to keep your country from pursueing the course they did. That might seem like asking two much, bust so us asking America to sacrafice 2 million of our number to save 140,000 of yours.

Some of you islanders have very selective memories

-Pat

[Frankychan]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.....I didn't say anything about NOT caring about Allied people who died. Secondly, please don't blame ME for stuff that Imperialist Japan did.

If you thought I was taking a pro-Japan attitude in my previous post, ok it's my fault on that. I know that Japan wasn't innocent, but to have absolutely NO sympathy for those victims of the nuclear explosion (and I DO have sympathy for those Allied soldiers who were interned by the Japanese) is just wrong.

There are many Japanese people who know that those actions were wrong and many of "us" side with Allied thoughts about the wrongfulness of attacking Pearl Harbor the way the military did, but I think most citizens want to see some kind of understanding that hey, maybe nuking you guys was really horrible-instead of just poo-pooing it.

[Cyclotron]

A plane on display in an Air and Space Museum is "arrogance?" Did I miss something? If it was in a WWII memorial museum, sure, but an A&S museum should probably be value neutral, and that's what the plaque is.

Survivors are disappointed the plane is being displayed with no reference to casualty figures at Hiroshima.

This certainly is an odd way to express dissapointment. I would qualify it as blind, unreasoning rage.

I think the biggest problem here is the guy who threw the bucket at it. I say a jail term for damaging important historical artifacts.

[Frankychan]

Let's see.......that plane delivered a device that changed the world by causing an atrocity and you think that not mentioning it is ok? Hmmmm..........

but I think that guy who threw the stuff should get punished tho.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Frankychan
Let's see.......that plane delivered a device that changed the world by causing an atrocity and you think that not mentioning it is ok? Hmmmm..........

It's all about context. I'ts a science museum, not a memorial. I see no reason to mention it; the plaque says it dropped the atomic bomb. I don't think that any other planes in the museum have casualty rates on their plaques, why should this one be different?

[Frankychan]

Well, I would think that when you exterminate a large population...there should be at least a footnote.....(sarcasm)

[Ned]

I think it is more than high time that we stopped lying to ourselves about the necessity of using the bomb to end the war -- in this regard we are no better than the Japanese who do not acknowledge their own attrocities -- and formally apologize to the Japanese for the two major attrocities that we ourselves committed against them.

Nothing the Japanese did during the war, not even Pearl Harbor, justified those actions. Nothing.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Frankychan
Well, I would think that when you exterminate a large population...there should be at least a footnote.....(sarcasm)

Larger populations were exterminated in that war by the bombers that carried out the firebombings of Tokyo and other cities, but I doubt seriously that they have footnotes. It is a museum about aircraft technology.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
Nothing the Japanese did during the war, not even Pearl Harbor, justified those actions. Nothing.

I'm not sure it was about justifying vengeance. I was under the impression the bombs were dropped in an effort to end the war quickly. Now, debate that how you will, it's certainly an open question of whether they were neccessary for that, but I don't think war works on an "eye for an eye" basis as you seem to suggest.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nothing the Japanese did during the war, not even Pearl Harbor, justified those actions. Nothing.

Bull... ask Chinese and Koreans if the Japanese deserved it, but that isn't the point. The point was that it ended the war unconditionally quickly.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Key term, you allowed after occupation.

IIRC, when one surrenders unconditionally the victor is allowed to set conditions.

[Cyclotron]

Have any of you ever been to the atomic bomb museum in Hiroshima? I have, and it doesn't say a whole lot about the Enola Gay. I think it might have named the plane, but that's about it. There was certainly no mention of the technical specs of the plane or anything even remotely close to that.

I come up with two conclusions from that:

One, it is the bomb, not the plane, that matters,

And two, that just as technical specs do not belong in an atomic bomb memorial museum, memorials do not belong in an air and space museum.

[Asher]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Have any of you ever been to the atomic bomb museum in Hiroshima? I have, and it doesn't say a whole lot about the Enola Gay. I think it might have named the plane, but that's about it. There was certainly no mention of the technical specs of the plane or anything even remotely close to that.

I come up with two conclusions from that:

One, it is the bomb, not the plane, that matters,

And two, that just as technical specs do not belong in an atomic bomb memorial museum, memorials do not belong in an air and space museum.

Well said.

The problem is, those of us unfortunate enough to be whimsical social science people don't understand why we have technical museums.

Much like I don't expect any computer museum hosting the ENIAC to go into a large political tirade about its use...but you just know some thick-black-wire-frame-glassic baret-wearing wingnut will protest and cry out "Oh the humanity, this is shameful!" just so somebody thinks he is useful.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

IIRC, when one surrenders unconditionally the victor is allowed to set conditions.

Thanks, I think that was my point, except not conditions. They are allowed to do as they see fit. McCarther and the US administration did as they saw fit and allowed the Emperor to continue as a figure head.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, there was an Egyptian mummy displayed in my university's museum. However, it said nothing about the Egyptian pharoah's enslaving the Jews to build the pyramids. How insensitive .

[Oerdin]

The plane is a piece of history and it should be displayed. People can bicker about the specifics of the display but this isn't as big an issue as some whiners wish it was.

[Dis]

I like it- magnificent plane

[Ned]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


I'm not sure it was about justifying vengeance. I was under the impression the bombs were dropped in an effort to end the war quickly. Now, debate that how you will, it's certainly an open question of whether they were neccessary for that, but I don't think war works on an "eye for an eye" basis as you seem to suggest.

There are many here who justify and have justified the refusal to apologize because of Japan's own war crimes. I say, two wrongs do not make a right. But even if Japan's actions against us were war crimes, they certainly did not justify the scale of response we gave in return.

The bombs certainly were effective in ending the war. This does not mean they were necessary to end the war.

After being sickened by what he was doing, Truman finally accepted the Japanese offer of conditional surrender. He could have accepted it as early as June (IIRC), the date the offer was first made through the Russians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are many here who justify and have justified the refusal to apologize because of Japan's own war crimes.

And there are many who feel we have no need to apologize because it was a legitimate military weapon in a total war.

Truman finally accepted the Japanese offer of conditional surrender.

Can you not read, Ned? The Japanese UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDERED!

[notyoueither]

Why do you keep saying conditional surrender, Ned?

[laurentius]

IMO The plane should be destroyed.

[Dis]

in no way should the plane be destroyed.

would you rather erase unpleasant historical fact? I think it is better to display them as a reminder to future generations. If we start erasing our history, we will begin to repeat it.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Asher
The problem is, those of us unfortunate enough to be whimsical social science people don't understand why we have technical museums.

Much like I don't expect any computer museum hosting the ENIAC to go into a large political tirade about its use...but you just know some thick-black-wire-frame-glassic baret-wearing wingnut will protest and cry out "Oh the humanity, this is shameful!" just so somebody thinks he is useful.

Well, it's impossible to disconnect things entirely from their moral worth. Clearly, nobody who sees the Enola Gay is going to think "hmm, nice plane" and then keep walking without thinking about the atomic bomb, and quite possibly about the people who died.

The idea is that, while we have to accept you can't make everything perfectly value neutral in any circumstance, we should at least not try to import further moral judgement into a place that is not intended for that purpose. We can't see memorials everywhere we go; that's just dwelling on the past, and its unfair to people who come for the technology exhibited, not the moral judgements.

Ned:

There are many here who justify and have justified the refusal to apologize because of Japan's own war crimes. I say, two wrongs do not make a right. But even if Japan's actions against us were war crimes, they certainly did not justify the scale of response we gave in return.

You are missing the point that I am making. War does not work like this: I bomb you, so you bomb me in a fair manner relative to my action, then it proceeds *** for tat until somebody has enough.

No. When you are at war, the objective is not to exchange equal blows, but to utterly defeat the enemy, which requires that you use as unequal a blow as you can. Whatever you think about the morality of dropping the A-bombs, you cannot say that it was "unjustified," as we were in a state of total war.

Of course, people who refuse to apologize because of Japan's badness are making the same error as you, so I agree with you that they are off target too.

The bombs certainly were effective in ending the war. This does not mean they were necessary to end the war.

See, now you're getting it. I've said that in war everyone tries to use unequal force, but it's debatable whether the force was too unequal for the situation. "Could a lesser blow have worked" is a valid question, but also an overdone one, so I say we let it rest here.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by laurentius
IMO The plane should be destroyed.

Good idea. Then we can destroy the Nazi concentration camps, while we're at it, and forget that all of this **** ever happened.

[laurentius]

To honour the victims yes - they should both be destroyed and levelled