On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Eric Siegel wrote:
 
>           Wow, David, that was a pretty bluff posting. I don't have a
>           quote function on my email, but I think that you are rushing
>           to some conclusions that don't need to be made.
>
>           I'm sure that *many* people in America were pleased and
>           excited that the war was over. There were also probably alot
>           of people who reacted with the "Hooray, we blasted them"
>           comment that you (I assume with a little of your tongue in
>           your cheek) suggested. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of
>           Americans also were overwhelmingly relieved that they
>           wouldn't have to die in the Asian theatre.
 
Eric, I am not quite sure what sense a "bluff posting" is intended to
convey.
 
First, I did not use the "hooray, we blasted them" phrase except to repeat
it for reference.  It was used by another whose quote was contained in
my posting.  She set forth two apparently different points of view, and
the meaning I got from the "hooray.." phrase was not complimentary.
 
Since I did not originate the phrase and only responded to it, I must
report no tongue in cheek intention.  I merely expressed my opinion that
that point of view likely does exist and that I'd not care to either to
try to change it or disparage it.
 
Basically what you are saying here - if I understand it - is what I so
ineloquently tried to say: that neither side can be established as
correct and therfore neither side should be ridiculed as in "hooray..."
 
 
>           Putting aside what the Japanese might have thought of this
>           for a moment, there were also many thoughtful people in
>           America who questioned the wisdom of the decision to bomb
>           Nagasaki and Hiroshima, among these doubters were people who
>           contributed to the creation of the bomb.
 
I agree completely with your comment.  First, I'd not try to explain what
the Japanese people might have thought, nor would I try to exhibit it.
And yes, there were doubters in the ranks of the thoughtful who questioned
that decision.  I don't intend to belittle their opinions, either.  What I
see as fact is that the decision was made, the act was accomplished, and I
believe many Americans lived because of it.
 
It was a terrible thing!  I doubt that many of us would make the same
decision today.  But "then" wasn't today and we can't know all the
factors that weighed in.   It seems to me in poor taste to academically
re-think or re-play that decision, be critical of it, and assume
an apologetic stance to the world.
 
And no, I'm not saying we can't re-evaluate prior mistakes and successes
and learn from them.  I feel *this* issue is a very emotional one and no
good purpose will be served by "playing it again, Sam."  I would
personally prefer to state the facts and move on.  There were alternative
points of view.  One man was in charge.  He made his decision after
listening to those views.  I see no benefit in more discussion on this
one decision at this time.  Beating a dead horse?
 
>           I don't know enough about the texture and history of this
>           question; I have found, in general, that the rationale
>           behind demonized points of view and demonized groups become
>           much more complex and humanly comprehensible when they are
>           understood more fully. Therefore, I think that it is
>           worthwhile understanding the Japanese militarist point of
>           view, as well as the degree to which the Japanese in the
>           street suffered from the War.
 
I generally agree, Eric.   I specifically and strongly doubt that
the veterans' groups will desire to understand the Japanese militarist
point of view.  Had I been there, I would likely feel the same way.
Although I was too young, I still feel a profound gratitude to those
who participated and therefore I do not wish to press this discussion
upon them, especially using tax dollars to do it.
 
On the other hand, I was appalled at Newt Gingrich's act of "firing"
the newly hired House historian for having expressed both sides of an
issue in a previous matter.  (Inconsistent?  Maybe this Enola Gay is just
a hot button for me.)
 
Now to quietly leave my opinion lying there and slip out on a humorous
note!  When in Washington DC recently, I read an article in local media to
the effect that local citizens were somewhat uninformed about this issue
-- seems a poll had turned up folks who believed that Enola Gay stories
dealt with lesbian politics.
 
Oh well,
 
David
who has had enough of Enola Gay stories!