"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.