Page 2 of 2

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:31 am
by Gawdzilla Sama
Major Malfunction wrote:There's evidence Polynesians made it to South America 18k ya. And Europeans a steady influx to North America over millennia.

I don't count failed expedition that had no impact.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:36 am
by Major Malfunction
DNA has an impact. Especially on these who discovered what arguments.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:07 pm
by Gawdzilla Sama
Major Malfunction wrote:DNA has an impact. Especially on these who discovered what arguments.

Seriously? My DNA is 99.9% Irish/English.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:43 pm
by Major Malfunction
Incest will do that.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:08 pm
by Gawdzilla Sama
Major Malfunction wrote:Incest will do that.

Must be popular, 23andMe says I have 1165 member in my DNA family, that they know of.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:33 pm
by Nikki Nyx
xouper wrote:If I answer your questions and observations the way I would like to answer them, I foresee a confrontation coming.

So I will just back away. I am not interested in fighting about this.
Nor am I, xouper. But this issue is, largely, a matter of opinion based on whether you feel that the US has reason to honor Columbus for his accomplishments as they relate to US History, and whether you feel his actions were morally repugnant.

On the former, his actions did, eventually, lead to the settlement of the continent, so you could make the argument that he was one of the human race's pioneers...even though he did not directly "discover America."

On the latter, you could say that he was a product of his era, as we all are. Note that de la Casas was also a product of that era, and was repulsed by the Spaniards' treatment of the indigenous peoples of the Americas...but that he also advocated for African slavery.

So, you see, regardless of how I feel about the situation, I'm still capable of analyzing it logically. My conclusion is that we should teach the facts of history, not gloss over the ugly parts...but that we should also put them into context. 1492 is not 2017, and if you judge Columbus' actions from the perspective of 2017, then you're not being a historian (something my mother, who was a historian, taught me).

"Heroes" are still human, have human foibles, and are products of their culture. We should recognize their accomplishments without elevating them to sainthood. Have I better explained my viewpoint?

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:36 pm
by Nikki Nyx
Gord wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Why does Stalin and Mao not get the same rap as Hitler? They both killed more people (?).
They do get the same rap, IMO. As do Pol Pot, Mussolini, Suharto, Tito, Pinochet, Leopold II, and countless others. I'm not sure why we always seem to use Hitler as the litmus test.

I think some people cut them more slack because they are perceived to have "won". Same thing with Alexander the Great (although he may not have been considered that "great" by the people he conquered). On the other hand, Napoleon "lost" so his crimes are heightened by history. If Hitler had won, Churchill would be a great villain for his war crimes.

The actions they've taken are often viewed with leniency towards the victors. They're given a pass because, well, "they had to do it to achieve their goals". Despite the adage that the ends do not justify the means, we tend to justify the means exactly that way for the perceived "winners". That's why attitudes often change when we reinspect the past.

That makes a lot of sense, Gord. "The end justifies the means" is always wrong, IMO...but history will treat you more kindly, apparently, if you win.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:38 pm
by Nikki Nyx
Abdul Alhazred wrote:Columbus wasn't the first to discover America,
he was the one who discovered America and made it stick. :pr:

https://youtu.be/uEx5G-GOS1k

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:44 pm
by xouper
Nikki Nyx wrote:. . . this issue is, largely, a matter of opinion based on whether you feel that the US has reason to honor Columbus for his accomplishments as they relate to US History, and whether you feel [some of his other] actions were morally repugnant.


Why can't I do both?

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:17 pm
by TJrandom
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:. . . this issue is, largely, a matter of opinion based on whether you feel that the US has reason to honor Columbus for his accomplishments as they relate to US History, and whether you feel [some of his other] actions were morally repugnant.


Why can't I do both?


You can do both - but most people cannot, simply because both are not taught in childhood history classes or even discussed when the date rolls around. Much like Japan only teaching WW2 victimhood - quite a surprise awaits the HS exchange student to the US who finds that Japan actually attacked the US at one time. It happens; it shouldn`t.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:26 pm
by bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Nikki Nyx wrote: "The end justifies the means" is always wrong, IMO...but history will treat you more kindly, apparently, if you win.

You can't imagine a single end that is not justified by some means? What "category" of examples are you totally excluding.

You could set an alarm for whenever using "absolutist" terms in your thinking. Absolute is rare. More a function of knowledge base, memories and values..... as opposed to the actual fact of the matter.

I'll start: Killing innocent populations of uninvolved civilians is justified by bringing a closely called WAR to an end---or even a WAR already won. I think thats even a most popular example?===Atom bombs and all.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:34 pm
by xouper
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:. . . this issue is, largely, a matter of opinion based on whether you feel that the US has reason to honor Columbus for his accomplishments as they relate to US History, and whether you feel [some of his other] actions were morally repugnant.


Why can't I do both?


You can do both - but most people cannot, simply because both are not taught in childhood history classes or even discussed when the date rolls around.


So, rather than use Columbus Day as an excuse opportunity to teach both, better to simply do away with Columbus Day altogether?

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:39 pm
by TJrandom
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:. . . this issue is, largely, a matter of opinion based on whether you feel that the US has reason to honor Columbus for his accomplishments as they relate to US History, and whether you feel [some of his other] actions were morally repugnant.


Why can't I do both?


You can do both - but most people cannot, simply because both are not taught in childhood history classes or even discussed when the date rolls around.


So, rather than use Columbus Day as an excuse opportunity to teach both, better to simply do away with Columbus Day altogether?


Why not add that question to an honest attempt to know both?

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:48 pm
by bobbo_the_Pragmatist
I'll say again: THAT particular Columbs Statue was put up NOT to honor/mark/commemorate the finding of America but rather to note the pride and humanity of Italian Immigrants to America some 400 years later.

Symbols are like that. They mean what people say they mean. Ha, ha......... ATLEAST "the truth" about the statue ought to be taught as well? Reminds me of the Nazi Swastika in use for 2000 years prior to Adolph. No one cares about that truth either.

Its a MOB MENTALITY I tells ya............. maybe that should be taught at the drop of a feathered cap as well?

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:22 pm
by Nikki Nyx
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:. . . this issue is, largely, a matter of opinion based on whether you feel that the US has reason to honor Columbus for his accomplishments as they relate to US History, and whether you feel [some of his other] actions were morally repugnant.
Why can't I do both?
I see no reason why you can't. Not all of our pioneers were exemplary humanists. But the celebration (a federal holiday) is out of proportion to his accomplishment in relation to US History, IMO. And his lack of humanism is not taught in US schools, and it should be.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 3:26 pm
by Nikki Nyx
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote: "The end justifies the means" is always wrong, IMO...but history will treat you more kindly, apparently, if you win.

You can't imagine a single end that is not justified by some means? What "category" of examples are you totally excluding.

You could set an alarm for whenever using "absolutist" terms in your thinking. Absolute is rare. More a function of knowledge base, memories and values..... as opposed to the actual fact of the matter.
You have a valid point, bobbo, and I don't usually trip over these kinds of things. I know better than to spout generalizations, especially absolutist ones.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I'll start: Killing innocent populations of uninvolved civilians is justified by bringing a closely called WAR to an end---or even a WAR already won. I think thats even a most popular example?===Atom bombs and all.
For your example, I would need more details before agreeing or disagreeing. To provide examples, I would need more coffee than is currently in my bloodstream. :mrgreen: But I will give the matter thought.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 4:42 pm
by bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Nikki Nyx wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I'll start: Killing innocent populations of uninvolved civilians is justified by bringing a closely called WAR to an end---or even a WAR already won. I think thats even a most popular example?===Atom bombs and all.
For your example, I would need more details before agreeing or disagreeing. To provide examples, I would need more coffee than is currently in my bloodstream. :mrgreen: But I will give the matter thought.

It came up a decade or two ago when the Smithsonian wanted to install the Enola Gay as an exhibit saying it ended WW2. Lots of pushback that the use of Nukes was so terribly bad, such a horrible means, that no honor should be given to the used of Nukes. Enough WW2 vets were around to counter that the Nukes did end WW2 without the death of more Americans, Japan started it, FUG EM was the attitude. I have a dim memory that the Enola Gay did get installed, as it should, and maybe I even looked at it?,...but I find it an engaging recognition: WAR. It does set up the argument: how many Allied Soldiers lives would it have been "worth" to avoid killing how many thousands of innocent enemy civilians in the mix of "to the death" warrior patriot shop keepers?

I know you know this one as well as anyone.............its just the coffee. Good thing there is coffee. How many innocent Bolivian farm workers should be allowed to die to keep production costs low rather than given them a living wage?

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 5:23 pm
by Nikki Nyx
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I'll start: Killing innocent populations of uninvolved civilians is justified by bringing a closely called WAR to an end---or even a WAR already won. I think thats even a most popular example?===Atom bombs and all.
For your example, I would need more details before agreeing or disagreeing. To provide examples, I would need more coffee than is currently in my bloodstream. :mrgreen: But I will give the matter thought.

It came up a decade or two ago when the Smithsonian wanted to install the Enola Gay as an exhibit saying it ended WW2. Lots of pushback that the use of Nukes was so terribly bad, such a horrible means, that no honor should be given to the used of Nukes. Enough WW2 vets were around to counter that the Nukes did end WW2 without the death of more Americans, Japan started it, FUG EM was the attitude. I have a dim memory that the Enola Gay did get installed, as it should, and maybe I even looked at it?,...but I find it an engaging recognition: WAR. It does set up the argument: how many Allied Soldiers lives would it have been "worth" to avoid killing how many thousands of innocent enemy civilians in the mix of "to the death" warrior patriot shop keepers?
I'll be honest; I don't have an answer for this one because I have a great deal of difficulty coming to a conclusion that THIS group of innocent lives is worth more than THAT group of innocent lives. At the same time, I would be more likely to respect the opinions of WWII veterans than of people not directly involved. My great uncle was a WWII vet...an incredibly lucky one. An anti-personnel mine went off between his legs. It was so close to him that it merely blew one of his legs off rather than killing him. At the time of his death, 60-something years later, shrapnel was still periodically coming to the surface of his body. Were he still alive, I would ask his opinion...and I'm pretty sure I know what he would say.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I know you know this one as well as anyone.............its just the coffee. Good thing there is coffee. How many innocent Bolivian farm workers should be allowed to die to keep production costs low rather than given them a living wage?
IMO? None. I'll scrimp elsewhere and pay more for coffee. This is a different situation from the first one. Here, it's a choice between people and profits, so I have no problem with the choice.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:16 pm
by xouper
Nikki Nyx wrote:
xouper wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:. . . this issue is, largely, a matter of opinion based on whether you feel that the US has reason to honor Columbus for his accomplishments as they relate to US History, and whether you feel [some of his other] actions were morally repugnant.
Why can't I do both?
I see no reason why you can't. Not all of our pioneers were exemplary humanists. But the celebration (a federal holiday) is out of proportion to his accomplishment in relation to US History, IMO. And his lack of humanism is not taught in US schools, and it should be.


I get the point you are making. Thanks.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:44 pm
by bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Nikki Nyx wrote:I'll be honest; I don't have an answer for this one because I have a great deal of difficulty coming to a conclusion that THIS group of innocent lives is worth more than THAT group of innocent lives. At the same time, I would be more likely to respect the opinions of WWII veterans than of people not directly involved.

Interesting you would give people "involved" in some manner with an incident more credibility than those who are not? And after doing so, still absent you from what you know would be their opinion?

Innocent. .......... I thought the sarcasm was evident? They started it?? THEY were going to fight to the last man in defense of their homeland and God on Earth Emperor??? I actually only used innocent in the sense they weren't wearing a uniform and actively engaged at the moment....and like most hooman beings, if not pushed by the powers that be only want a happy family to share tea with. but the Japanese were full of powers that be pushing them to make war against all others. Seems to me any skepticism or doubt should be applied to considering what innocent means?

So.............here is the interesting hypo for means vs ends: The WAR can end NOW with zero additional American deaths but with One Million Japanese Dead............or it can end 3 weeks from now with no risk at all to US losing the WAR, but it will involve the death of 12 more Allied troops. What would YOU do?...................... I agree with your Uncle. Fug Em (The phrase used by Norman Mailer in his celebrated book.)

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:24 pm
by TJrandom
I do believe the analysis was that the bombs would save lives on both sides - just not those it the two cities.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:42 pm
by Gawdzilla Sama
TJrandom wrote:I do believe the analysis was that the bombs would save lives on both sides - just not those it the two cities.

Gen. Anami, the War Ministers and Army Chief, states that "we will give one hundred million dead to save the Empire." Japan had seventy million at the time, so the Allies would have had to pick up the slack. Anami went from the hardline camp to the surrender camp after getting details of the damage at Nagasaki. One bomb, a fluke. Two bomb, Yamoto* is doomed. They were concerned the next one would be on Tokyo and the Emperor would be in danger. Couldn't have that.


*Yamato: The spirit of Japan, the national polity as expressed in the Emperor.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:47 pm
by Gawdzilla Sama
BTW, there were to be an additional ten atomic bombs available to Gen. Marshall for use against 'hard points' of Japanese resistance. The plan was to drop the bombs and wait thirty minutes then march our troops through. The number of "atomic veterans" would have been very much higher.

In the end, the bombs saved more Japanese lives than American, but we have to keep in mind that Anami had ordered the death of every Allied POW, man, woman, or child, in Japanese custody when the first Allied boot touched the Home Islands. Greater than 140,000 MORE dead.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:00 am
by Major Malfunction
Scary {!#%@}. Let's never go down that path again. And that's why we say LEST WE FORGET.

It concerns me when ideological mobs start tearing down statues and burning museums without ever understanding the lessons the artefacts represent.

The quote by Merlin in the movie Excalibur comes to mind, "For it is the doom of Men that they forget".

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:14 am
by Abdul Alhazred
I detect perhaps something like the Jewish attitude toward certain Biblical figures.

Honored as ancestors, but please don't act like them. ;)

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:19 am
by Major Malfunction
Moses was a {!#%@} psychopath! He made his soldiers murder all their own family so they would serve only him with unquestioning loyalty.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:29 pm
by Gawdzilla Sama
Major Malfunction wrote:Moses was a {!#%@} psychopath! He made his soldiers murder all their own family so they would serve only him with unquestioning loyalty.

Luckily for the families he never actually existed.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:22 pm
by Abdul Alhazred
I was thinking more of Lot, but OK. :mrgreen:

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 5:22 pm
by Nikki Nyx
Fair warning: This is a pre-coffee, insufficient sleep post.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:I'll be honest; I don't have an answer for this one because I have a great deal of difficulty coming to a conclusion that THIS group of innocent lives is worth more than THAT group of innocent lives. At the same time, I would be more likely to respect the opinions of WWII veterans than of people not directly involved.
Interesting you would give people "involved" in some manner with an incident more credibility than those who are not? And after doing so, still absent you from what you know would be their opinion?
I give more credence to the opinions of WWII veterans because they were there. They had a dog in the fight...their lives. I've never served, so I have no idea what combat is like and don't pretend I can imagine it. I can't.

Also, I have no idea what options were available at that time; military history is not my forté. I'm not trying to avoid making a decision, only saying that I wouldn't want to be the one forced to make it. But if I was, I'd want to be damn sure I had all the relevant information.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Innocent. .......... I thought the sarcasm was evident? They started it?? THEY were going to fight to the last man in defense of their homeland and God on Earth Emperor???
I wasn't using the word sarcastically. I haven't approved of any of the wars my government has decided to start, using "start" to mean "not defending the homeland, but actively aggressing." Most of the politics involved had nothing to do with me, nor were the decisions made by politicians for whom I voted. I was a child when the OPEC deal was made, and I wasn't even born when the West divided up the Middle East like a chessboard with too many kings. Does that not make me innocent in the context of US aggressions in the Middle East?

What if we reverse the situation? Given the factual history of US involvement in the Middle East—our repeated unilateral aggressions, forcible regime changes, arms deals to both countries and "rebel" groups (including terrorists), and "punishing" of any country that dared defy IMF policy or our deal with OPEC—did we "deserve" 9/11 by the same "they started it" argument you claim the Japanese "deserved" Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:08 pm
by bobbo_the_Pragmatist
TJrandom wrote:I do believe the analysis was that the bombs would save lives on both sides - just not those it the two cities.

Well TJ....we can form a hypo where that is certainly the case........but its not the issue put forth by my hypo.

It could be rephrased: how many of our soldiers should we sacrifice to avoid killing how many of the enemy solidiers and their associated civilian support? My answer in every hypothetical would be ZERO.

Now, "if" we had started the war...I might back off on that jingoistic point. But having not started the War...i see no justification for mercy for the enemy.

..........and while I agree your point is true and valid, I doubt that part of the equation was ever considered at all.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:12 pm
by bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Nikki: ((Edit: EVERY opinion you have involves other people closer to the issue than you are....save the very few issues you think you are involved in. Why should dropping the NUKE deserve any special reservation????) You said ends don't justify the means. .......... Just admit you are wrong.... before or after your next cup of coffee.

........and "of course" USA "deserved" the 911 attack. Now, the concept of deserving doesn't really fit WAR....but I can go with it. Retaliation, blow back, fighting back with what they have, guerilla warfare, third column movement, sabotage...etc all closer to the mark.

Its not a tea party.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:26 pm
by Nikki Nyx
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Nikki: You said ends don't justify the means. .......... Just admit you are wrong.... before or after your next cup of coffee.
I already said that making such a generalization was incorrect. Don't you read my responses to your posts?
Nikki Nyx wrote:You have a valid point, bobbo, and I don't usually trip over these kinds of things. I know better than to spout generalizations, especially absolutist ones.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:........and "of course" USA "deserved" the 911 attack. Now, the concept of deserving doesn't really fit WAR....but I can go with it. Retaliation, blow back, fighting back with what they have, guerilla warfare, third column movement, sabotage...etc all closer to the mark.
Interesting. Does the concept of deserving fit if we don't define an aggressive military attack without just cause as "war?"

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Its not a tea party.
It certainly isn't. Hence the reason why I can't cavalierly choose who should die. However, I accept that it's sometimes a necessity. In the example you offered, based on what Gawd posted (since he's a WWII expert), I would have to agree that the bombings were necessary.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:34 pm
by bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Nikki Nyx wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Nikki: You said ends don't justify the means. .......... Just admit you are wrong.... before or after your next cup of coffee.
I already said that making such a generalization was incorrect. Don't you read my responses to your posts?

Indeed you said, and I remembered, that. but you "backtracted" somewhat in saying the following: "I'll be honest; I don't have an answer for this one because I have a great deal of difficulty coming to a conclusion that THIS group of innocent lives is worth more than THAT group of innocent lives. /// But that is the context of most decisions/judgements/evaluations.

as well as "I'm not trying to avoid making a decision, only saying that I wouldn't want to be the one forced to make it. But if I was, I'd want to be damn sure I had all the relevant information." /// A dodge as this is a discussion forum and no one is making any decision at all, and one never has all the relevant information on any subject.

I could have phrased it better. There is some point remaining however.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:48 pm
by Nikki Nyx
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Nikki: You said ends don't justify the means. .......... Just admit you are wrong.... before or after your next cup of coffee.
I already said that making such a generalization was incorrect. Don't you read my responses to your posts?

Indeed you said, and I remembered, that. but you "backtracted" somewhat in saying the following: "I'll be honest; I don't have an answer for this one because I have a great deal of difficulty coming to a conclusion that THIS group of innocent lives is worth more than THAT group of innocent lives. /// But that is the context of most decisions/judgements/evaluations.
Often, there is a moral or ethical compromise that must be made when making decisions. Unrelated, but it's the best example I can think of at the moment: Is it better to discipline your child, however unpleasant the task is to you, or to refrain and end up with not only a spoiled child, but an adult with a bad case of entitlement?

Refraining is the easier, more selfish choice...in the short-term. In the long-term refraining will also bite YOU in the ass, never mind damaging your child and anyone s/he might come into contact with for the rest of his/her life. It's not enjoyable to discipline your child, and it always feels repugnant, as if you're hurting someone you love. But it's necessary nonetheless. (I'm not referring to corporal punishment; I don't believe that it's necessary if you take the time to teach your child from the moment s/he is capable of learning.)

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:as well as "I'm not trying to avoid making a decision, only saying that I wouldn't want to be the one forced to make it. But if I was, I'd want to be damn sure I had all the relevant information." /// A dodge as this is a discussion forum and no one is making any decision at all, and one never has all the relevant information on any subject.
Perhaps. I try to refrain from formulating opinions on topics about which I'm ignorant, so I was speaking more to that. Gawd's posts provided me with sufficient information to answer you. But it's not really "my" opinion; it's a conclusion based on another's expertise rather than my own research. So, while I was able to give you an answer, I don't really feel it in my gut, if that makes sense.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:53 pm
by bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Certain subjects are uncomfortable to people. never wrong to notice that and step back. We don't need to have an opinion on everything on call. I would hope this forum is a good place to formulate opinions on uncomfortable subjects. Its good practice for when an opinion actually matters.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:57 pm
by bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Regarding what I think is a true fact of a legitimate concern regarding the wholesale killing of thousands of allied troops and citizens upon the invasion of Japan........ the majority Alt Hist of Bombing Japan was to explode a Nuke or Two out at Sea and to wait for Japan to surrender when they made up their own sweet mind to do so. net result: very low loss of life to either side. Very humanitarian.

Would this alternative been worth the loss of ONE Allied Troop?.............I say no.

Re: About that statue of Columbus

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:10 pm
by TJrandom
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: ..........and while I agree your point is true and valid, I doubt that part of the equation was ever considered at all.


Well, you would be wrong on that point. The numbers who would be killed was indeed estimated and considered.

And btw - the bombing of these two cities did kill US combatants - POWs under labor there. So `not even one` is off base, but rather how many is accepatable for either choice.

And in ending a war, I don`t think who started it much matters. Some even say the US started it by blockaiding Japan, which I do believe is accepted an act of war in these times, but possibly not then.