re:japanese war crimes-- was hiroshima

[old hoodoo]

They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue. The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.

Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because they were undamaged cities... it had nothing to do with their military production capacity.

[Keith Willshaw]

"old hoodoo" > wrote in message
...

> They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
> The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.

Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

> Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted
> because they were undamaged cities... it had nothing to do
> with their military production capacity.


Your understanding is deficient

Hiroshima was the HQ and base for one of the major
armies tasked with defending Japan. At least 3 divisions
were in the area when the attacked happened and the
aiming point was the HQ building. Moreover Hiroshima
was a major naval base.

Nagasaki was one of the centres of the Japanese armaments
industry with major Mitsubishi aircraft and munitions
plants which were destroyed in the attack.

The instructions issued by Harry Truman were that the
targets were to be military targets.

Keith

[Marc Reeve]

Keith Willshaw > wrote:
> "old hoodoo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
> > The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.
>
> Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
> with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
> pratctise I'd say no we didnt.
>
> > Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted
> > because they were undamaged cities... it had nothing to do
> > with their military production capacity.
>
> Your understanding is deficient
>
> Hiroshima was the HQ and base for one of the major
> armies tasked with defending Japan. At least 3 divisions
> were in the area when the attacked happened and the
> aiming point was the HQ building. Moreover Hiroshima
> was a major naval base.
>
> Nagasaki was one of the centres of the Japanese armaments
> industry with major Mitsubishi aircraft and munitions
> plants which were destroyed in the attack.
>
> The instructions issued by Harry Truman were that the
> targets were to be military targets.
>
Neither of the cities bombed was "undamaged," either.

It is true that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki had been bombed for some
months (three?) before the atomic bombings. I vaguely recall reading
that there was a request for this so that the effects of the bombs could
be studied closely. But I may be talking through my hat.

And of course, from the coincidence file, the submarine that sank the
cruiser USS Indianapolis (*after* she delivered the bomb core for Little
Boy to Tinian) was homeported in Hiroshima.
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Cub Driver]

>Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because they were undamaged cities.

Read "Downfall". Increase your understanding. It won't take more than
a week of part-time study.

www.warbirdforum.com/downfall.htm

You won't gain a lot of understanding on the newsgroups. Lots of
intelligent stuff is posted here, but you have to know the background
before you are able to judge which to believe.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "old hoodoo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
> > The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.
>
> Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
> with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
> pratctise I'd say no we didnt.

No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
barbed wire at home.

> > Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted
> > because they were undamaged cities... it had nothing to do
> > with their military production capacity.
>
>
> Your understanding is deficient

True, many wanted Tokyo on the top of the list of 7 initial targets...
>
> Hiroshima was the HQ and base for one of the major
> armies tasked with defending Japan. At least 3 divisions
> were in the area when the attacked happened and the
> aiming point was the HQ building. Moreover Hiroshima
> was a major naval base.
>
> Nagasaki was one of the centres of the Japanese armaments
> industry with major Mitsubishi aircraft and munitions
> plants which were destroyed in the attack.
>
> The instructions issued by Harry Truman were that the
> targets were to be military targets.
>
> Keith

Note:

Nagasaki wasn't even the original target for the 2nd bomb. It was
Kokura but due to bad weather problems "Bock's Car" moved on to the
secondary target of Nagasaki.
The third bomb, of which components were on Tinian, lacked a plutonium
core and was stopped from recieving one (in transport) on Aug 11 by
military order. If a core had arrived, "Fat Man II" would have been
probably been dropped by the B-29 "Great Artiste" on a repeat mission
over Kokura around Aug 18-20, 1945.
So, I'd say Kokura was spared "twice". Lucky *******s.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> >
> > Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
> > with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
> > pratctise I'd say no we didnt.
>
> No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
> barbed wire at home.

Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.

As opposed to, say, the Germans and Japanese of the times, we were
practically saints.

Thanks for pointing that out for us.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "old hoodoo" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
> > > The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.
> >
> > Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
> > with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
> > pratctise I'd say no we didnt.
>
> No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
> barbed wire at home.
>

Yep and as cruel in many ways as that was they survived
they mostly survived the war, which wasnt true for millions
of those interned by the Japanese and Germans.

> > > Its my understanding that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted
> > > because they were undamaged cities... it had nothing to do
> > > with their military production capacity.
> >
> >
> > Your understanding is deficient
>
> True, many wanted Tokyo on the top of the list of 7 initial targets...
> >
> > Hiroshima was the HQ and base for one of the major
> > armies tasked with defending Japan. At least 3 divisions
> > were in the area when the attacked happened and the
> > aiming point was the HQ building. Moreover Hiroshima
> > was a major naval base.
> >
> > Nagasaki was one of the centres of the Japanese armaments
> > industry with major Mitsubishi aircraft and munitions
> > plants which were destroyed in the attack.
> >
> > The instructions issued by Harry Truman were that the
> > targets were to be military targets.
> >
> > Keith
>
> Note:
>
> Nagasaki wasn't even the original target for the 2nd bomb. It was
> Kokura but due to bad weather problems "Bock's Car" moved on to the
> secondary target of Nagasaki.

Quite so, Kokura was also a major centre for military
production with the Kokura Arsenal being a major production
centre for weapons and munitions including chemical weapons.

> The third bomb, of which components were on Tinian, lacked a plutonium
> core and was stopped from recieving one (in transport) on Aug 11 by
> military order. If a core had arrived, "Fat Man II" would have been
> probably been dropped by the B-29 "Great Artiste" on a repeat mission
> over Kokura around Aug 18-20, 1945.
> So, I'd say Kokura was spared "twice". Lucky *******s.

Perhaps but Yokohama was also on the target list

The memorandum from the targetting committee and their reasons
for selection are available online at

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/groves_project/text/bma13tx.htm

Kyoto was removed from the list due to its cultural significance even
though it had become a major industrial centre


Keith

[[email protected]]

(robert arndt) wrote:

>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
>> "old hoodoo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
>> > The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.
>>
>> Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
>> with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
>> pratctise I'd say no we didnt.
>
>No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
>barbed wire at home.
>

You absolute imbecile...how could you possibly equate these
deeds?...certainly shows your sense of fair play doesn't it?...
--

-Gord.

[Charles Gray]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:04:54 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>> >
>> > Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
>> > with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
>> > pratctise I'd say no we didnt.
>>
>> No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
>> barbed wire at home.
>
>Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.
>
>As opposed to, say, the Germans and Japanese of the times, we were
>practically saints.
>
>Thanks for pointing that out for us.


To be fair, you'd have to be pretty damned awful to *not* be a saint
compared to the German's and Japanese acts of WWII.
By the standards of our own democracy, the internment was a positive
wrong for the following reasons.

1. while it was true that many Japanese were not american citizens,
this was because by law, no Asian could be naturalized in the U.S.
2. The citizens were detained with no evidence of wrong doing or
potential wrong doing, and in fact the FBI opposed the move.
3. There was no such detention in the one U.S. possession most
exposed to potential invasion.
4. There was no protection of their goods and lands from
expropriation-- most of Orange County used to be owned by Nisie
families. (and given California popular agitation against Asian land
ownership, I cannot help but think that at least some people saw this
as a very happy outcome).
and 5. At a time when the 442nd should have proven their loyalty
beyond a shadow of a doubt, they were kept in the interment
facilities.

Now, how is this different from Hiroshima? THere *were* other
options. The FBI's assuarnce that it had the situation under control
could have resulted in a more targeted sereis of internments, focusing
on those who were most likely to provide support to the Japanese
empire. Those interned could have had their property protected.

But the historian in me wishes to point out that the nation was
different at the time. We *were* a racist nation-- lynching was going
on in the south, segregation was the unchallenged law of the land in
many parts of the U.S., and the idea of racial inequality was
enshrined in many peoples mind-- hell, it took the discovery of the
deathcamps-- the natural outcome of such doctrines, to shake things
loose. In that time, bad as it was, it could have been much worse.

I do know we've gotten far, FAR better. When 9/11 hit, my first
thoughts were to bomb the SOB's who had done it. My second thoughts
were fearfully wondering if my Muslim and arab friends were going to
catch a backlash. Fortunately, for all my dislike of some of the Bush
administrations decisions, and with the misteps that ever government
makes, they came down firmly against any actions against American
Muslims/arabs as a whole, and those who decided to taket he law into
their own hands are now safe from Bin Laden, courtesy of hte Federal
and State Judiciary systems.

[Charles Gray]

An intersting point from the meetings before the dropping of the bomb:

THE PRESIDENT then asked the Secretary of War for his opinion.

MR. STIMSON agreed with the Chiefs of Staff that there was no other
choice. He felt that he was personally responsible to the President
more for political than for Military considerations. It was his
opinion that there was a large submerged class in Japan who do not
favor the present war and whose full opinion and influence had never
yet been felt. He felt sure that this submerged class would fight ant
fight tenaciously if attacked on their own ground. He was concerned
that something should be done to arouse them and to develop any
possible influence they might have before it became necessary to come
to grips with them.

THE PRESIDENT stated that this possibility was being worked on all the
time. He asked if the invasion of Japan by white men would not have
the effect of more closely uniting the Japanese.

MR.STIMSON thought there was every prospect of this. He agreed with
the plan proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as being the best thing
to do, but he still hoped for some fruitful accomplishment through
other means.

***

I find it interesting that there was a fear that should an invasion
occur, even those against the miltiarists might fight the U.S.

Thanks for that link, Keith--it's very interesting-- lots of stuff on
it.
The meeting was tkaen from this link:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/meeting_minutes/text/bmi11tx.htm

[Keith Willshaw]

"Charles Gray" > wrote in message
...
> An intersting point from the meetings before the dropping of the bomb:

>
> Thanks for that link, Keith--it's very interesting-- lots of stuff on
> it.
> The meeting was tkaen from this link:
>
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/meeting_minutes/text/bmi11tx.htm

Its a site well worth exploring and shows just how
seriously the issue was considered at the highest
levels. The simple fact is neither the Japanese nor the
Germans would have hesitated a heartbeat before
nuking Washington, London or New York.

Keith

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Chad Irby > wrote:

> In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> > >
> > > Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
> > > with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
> > > pratctise I'd say no we didnt.
> >
> > No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
> > barbed wire at home.

If you think the two approaches were even very roughly comparable, you
have some serious problems.

> Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.

As were the Canadians, around the same time, btw.

> As opposed to, say, the Germans and Japanese of the times, we were
> practically saints.
>
> Thanks for pointing that out for us.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Charles Gray > wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:04:54 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> >> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
> >> > with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
> >> > pratctise I'd say no we didnt.
> >>
> >> No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
> >> barbed wire at home.
> >
> >Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.
> >
> >As opposed to, say, the Germans and Japanese of the times, we were
> >practically saints.
> >
> >Thanks for pointing that out for us.
>
> To be fair, you'd have to be pretty damned awful to *not* be a saint
> compared to the German's and Japanese acts of WWII.
> By the standards of our own democracy, the internment was a positive
> wrong for the following reasons.
>
> 1. while it was true that many Japanese were not american citizens,
> this was because by law, no Asian could be naturalized in the U.S.

Depends on when they arrived. My wife's grandfathers were naturalized;
they arrived before the later laws that would have made it impossible.

I have friends who either spent the war at Manzanar and Tule Lake, or
their parents were interned there. The ones interned were citizens.

> 2. The citizens were detained with no evidence of wrong doing or
> potential wrong doing, and in fact the FBI opposed the move.
> 3. There was no such detention in the one U.S. possession most
> exposed to potential invasion.
> 4. There was no protection of their goods and lands from
> expropriation-- most of Orange County used to be owned by Nisie

Nisei.

> families. (and given California popular agitation against Asian land
> ownership, I cannot help but think that at least some people saw this
> as a very happy outcome).
> and 5. At a time when the 442nd should have proven their loyalty
> beyond a shadow of a doubt, they were kept in the interment
> facilities.
>
> Now, how is this different from Hiroshima? THere *were* other
> options. The FBI's assuarnce that it had the situation under control
> could have resulted in a more targeted sereis of internments, focusing
> on those who were most likely to provide support to the Japanese
> empire. Those interned could have had their property protected.
>
> But the historian in me wishes to point out that the nation was
> different at the time. We *were* a racist nation-- lynching was going
> on in the south, segregation was the unchallenged law of the land in
> many parts of the U.S., and the idea of racial inequality was
> enshrined in many peoples mind-- hell, it took the discovery of the
> deathcamps-- the natural outcome of such doctrines, to shake things
> loose. In that time, bad as it was, it could have been much worse.
>
> I do know we've gotten far, FAR better. When 9/11 hit, my first
> thoughts were to bomb the SOB's who had done it. My second thoughts
> were fearfully wondering if my Muslim and arab friends were going to
> catch a backlash. Fortunately, for all my dislike of some of the Bush
> administrations decisions, and with the misteps that ever government
> makes, they came down firmly against any actions against American
> Muslims/arabs as a whole, and those who decided to taket he law into
> their own hands are now safe from Bin Laden, courtesy of hte Federal
> and State Judiciary systems.
>

[robert arndt]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message >...
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> >> "old hoodoo" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > They were the bad guys, thats a given. That is not the issue.
> >> > The issue is, did we, the good guys, go down to the bad guys level.
> >>
> >> Given that we didnt tie wounded POW's to trees
> >> with barbed wire and use them for bayonent
> >> pratctise I'd say no we didnt.
> >
> >No, we just interned Japanese-Americans for years in camps behind
> >barbed wire at home.
> >
>
> You absolute imbecile...how could you possibly equate these
> deeds?...certainly shows your sense of fair play doesn't it?...

Yes it does because it points to the hypocrisy of the US morality of
the time that claimed that the US is for freedom and liberty for all.
That certainly wasn't the case if you were a Japanese-American after
Pearl Harbor. We showed how the Nazis put people in concentration
camps... yet we did the same thing. People died in those camps and we
robbed those Americans of their dignity, freedom, liberty, their
lives, their business', and the pursuit of happiness.
Furthermore, we did some other unspeakable things like preventing many
Jews from emigrating to the US before WW2 and when we learned of the
death camps deliberately chose not to bomb the rail lines or attack
that hellish system at all or rescue any of those people.
Meanwhile in the US we treated German POWs better than negro soldiers
in uniform. Those that did try to fly were investigated in an attempt
to prove that negros could not fly aircraft nor operate complex war
machines. Medical studies akin to the Nazis racial hygiene laws were
performed in the US. Thank God the Tuskegee airman proved those
rascist theories wrong.
No, don't talk about US morality in WW2. We didn't even "give" the
British anything under "give us the tools we'll do the job". The US
Govt confiscated all British assets in the US and even sent a warship
to South Africa to collect British gold in payment for the old Liberty
ships. British companies in the US taken and we even demanded that
Britain share all of its secrets- radar, jet aircraft technology,
computer tech, and its A-bomb project "Tube Alloys" which Britain in
desperation agreed to. What did they get for helping with the US
Manhatten Project- nothing. Britain had to build their own bomb years
later.
So get off your high horse and address the America of the '40s without
the rose colored glasses on.
We were racist, anti-semetic, and greedy. But patriotism covers a
multitude of sins, right?

Rob

[Cub Driver]

>Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.

You neglected to mention that the internees were paid compensation and
given an apology. I don't recall that my friend Dick O'Kane got either
from the Japanese who starved and worked and beat him down to 98
pounds in one year.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message
>...
> > (robert arndt) wrote:
> >

> No, don't talk about US morality in WW2. We didn't even "give" the
> British anything under "give us the tools we'll do the job". The US
> Govt confiscated all British assets in the US and even sent a warship
> to South Africa to collect British gold in payment for the old Liberty
> ships.

This is utter ********.

Its true that prior to lend lease the neutrality act required all
purchases to be paid for in gold or US dollars but there
was no 'confiscation' of assets

The Liberty ships were new build ships delivered AFTER
lend lease and were NOT paid for in Gold

The 'old' ships supplied were the 40 Town class destroyers
and they werent paid for in gold either , they were part of the
ships for bases deal.

> British companies in the US taken and we even demanded that
> Britain share all of its secrets- radar, jet aircraft technology,
> computer tech, and its A-bomb project "Tube Alloys" which Britain in
> desperation agreed to.

More rubbish

The decision to pass the cavity magnetron data to the USA
was taken in 1940 because it was realised that Britain didnt have
the spare manufacturing or research capacity to put it into
production. The Tizard mission benefitted both nations, the
USA got a leg up in research and the UK got centimetric radar
in quantity before it could have otherwise done.

As for jet engine technology that was shared equally with
the Amricans and Soviets, or had you forgotten that the
Mig-15 flew with a british designed engine ?

The computer tech was NOT shared. Colossus remained
a top secret until

As for tube alloys once again it was recognised in britain that
we simply didnt have the resources to develop an atomic
weapon in time to affect the war. The recommendations
of the Maud committee set up in Britain to advise the government
was that the US and British programs should be pooled.

<Quote>
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
(i) The committee considers that the scheme for a uranium bomb is
practicable and likely to lead to decisive results in the war.

(ii) It recommends that this work be continued on the highest priority and
on the increasing scale necessary to obtain the weapon in the shortest
possible time.

(iii) That the present collaboration with America should be continued and
extended especially in the region of experimental work.

</Quote>

> What did they get for helping with the US
> Manhatten Project- nothing. Britain had to build their own bomb years
> later.

They got a LOT of knowledge from the British phyicists who returned
from Los Alamos and Oak Ridge.

> So get off your high horse and address the America of the '40s without
> the rose colored glasses on.
> We were racist, anti-semetic, and greedy. But patriotism covers a
> multitude of sins, right?
>

The US did not however murder 95% of the Japanese in North America

There are once more thriving Japanese communities in California.
How many jews live in Cracow, Warsaw or Berlin in comparison to
the communities of 1933 ?

The father of my best friend was briefly interned by the British
authorities in 1939. This was disgraceful however he would be the
first to point out that only one other member of his family
survived the war, they had the misfortune to be jewish and
even his father, an officer in the German Army in WW1 and
a winner of the Iron Cross was sent to the gas chambers.

No the US was not perfect and neither were Britain or Canada
but they were not genocidal maniacs either.

Keith

[Krztalizer]

>We showed how the Nazis put people in concentration
>camps... yet we did the same thing.

If you honestly believe that the holding facilities we used, in direct response
to an unprovoked attack upon us, is even remotely similar to the KZ werks,
designed specifically to KILL its inmates, you are irrational. That's the
equiv of saying giving kids detention afterschool is the same as sending them
to Attica and shoving a needle in their arm.

>People died in those camps

What, precisely, do you see the ratio as currently standing, Rob? How many
died in US camps vs German KZs? Tell us how close your analogy really is?

>...and we
>robbed those Americans of their dignity, freedom, liberty, their
>lives, their business', and the pursuit of happiness.

Absolutely. And it was a horrible injustice, but not remotely similar to the
practice of genocide practiced openly in Germany.


>Furthermore, we did some other unspeakable things like preventing many
>Jews from emigrating to the US before WW2 and when we learned of the
>death camps deliberately chose not to bomb the rail lines or attack
>that hellish system at all or rescue any of those people.

All, uniformly bad decisions. But since we have the benefit of 60 years of
hindsight, its not surprising that those of us around today would make
different choices than those made back then. That still doesn't get us lumped
in with the Nazis -- but if it does in your view, that's awful.

>Meanwhile in the US we treated German POWs better than negro soldiers
>in uniform.

You're going off on a tangent here, but yes, if you are trying to suggest that
we were still "making progress" back then, then I'd agree.

<snip OT Tuskeegee stuff>

>Medical studies akin to the Nazis racial hygiene laws were
>performed in the US.

Really? We killed anyone with birth defects? Rob, every country fails to live
up to their best ideals; the difference is that the Nazis set up a nationwide
system to murder everyone they felt needed killing - and then they streamlined
the process to

oh, whats the use - this isn't really a debate and you couldn't care less what
I think on the subject.

Bottom line, how many millions, or thousands, or even hundreds of Nisei were
murdered on US Government order?

>We were racist, anti-semetic, and greedy.

How many facilities did we produce specifically to murder jews?

>But patriotism covers a
>multitude of sins, right?

No, it doesn't. However, we participated in liberating dozens of countries in
WWII, allowing hundreds of millions of people, including yourself, to be born
into a better world than the one the Nazis envisioned. You and I have the
freedom of speech to argue about who what where; we wouldn't be having this
conversation in a postwar Nazi-controlled world. Big differences between
making mistakes and poor decisions and actively trying to eradicate a race.

Gordon

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message
> >...
> > > (robert arndt) wrote:
> > >
>
> > No, don't talk about US morality in WW2. We didn't even "give" the
> > British anything under "give us the tools we'll do the job". The US
> > Govt confiscated all British assets in the US and even sent a warship
> > to South Africa to collect British gold in payment for the old Liberty
> > ships.
>
> This is utter ********.
>
> Its true that prior to lend lease the neutrality act required all
> purchases to be paid for in gold or US dollars but there
> was no 'confiscation' of assets

Roosevelt stripped Britain of all her assets in the US after two years
of war. The British-owned Viscose Company worth 125 mil pounds was
liquidated for 87 mil pounds to pay for war debt while Britain's 1,924
mil pound investments in Canada were sold off to further pay off war
debt. To make sure Roosevelt got the money he dispatched the cruiser
"Loisville" to the South African naval base Simonstown to take
Britain's last gold assets- 42 mil pounds worth.
Not content with stripping Britain of its assets and gold, for 50 old
destroyers, Roosevelt made Britain transfer all her scientific and
technological secrets to the US. He also demanded leases on the
islands of Newfoundland, Jamaica,Trinidad, and Bermuda for the setting
up of US military and naval bases.
>
> The Liberty ships were new build ships delivered AFTER
> lend lease and were NOT paid for in Gold

You are correct, it was for the 50 old destroyers instead. My mistake.
>
> The 'old' ships supplied were the 40 Town class destroyers
> and they werent paid for in gold either , they were part of the
> ships for bases deal.

Refer to above.
>
> > British companies in the US taken and we even demanded that
> > Britain share all of its secrets- radar, jet aircraft technology,
> > computer tech, and its A-bomb project "Tube Alloys" which Britain in
> > desperation agreed to.
>
> More rubbish

Refer to above.
>
> The decision to pass the cavity magnetron data to the USA
> was taken in 1940 because it was realised that Britain didnt have
> the spare manufacturing or research capacity to put it into
> production. The Tizard mission benefitted both nations, the
> USA got a leg up in research and the UK got centimetric radar
> in quantity before it could have otherwise done.
>
> As for jet engine technology that was shared equally with
> the Amricans and Soviets, or had you forgotten that the
> Mig-15 flew with a british designed engine ?

The US got it first by demand. The Soviets bought theirs.
>
> The computer tech was NOT shared. Colossus remained
> a top secret until
>
> As for tube alloys once again it was recognised in britain that
> we simply didnt have the resources to develop an atomic
> weapon in time to affect the war. The recommendations
> of the Maud committee set up in Britain to advise the government
> was that the US and British programs should be pooled.

Britain again had no choice but to give in, contributing 44 of their
scientists to the Manhatten Project.
>
> <Quote>
> 8. Conclusions and Recommendations
> (i) The committee considers that the scheme for a uranium bomb is
> practicable and likely to lead to decisive results in the war.
>
> (ii) It recommends that this work be continued on the highest priority and
> on the increasing scale necessary to obtain the weapon in the shortest
> possible time.
>
> (iii) That the present collaboration with America should be continued and
> extended especially in the region of experimental work.
>
> </Quote>
>
> > What did they get for helping with the US
> > Manhatten Project- nothing. Britain had to build their own bomb years
> > later.
>
> They got a LOT of knowledge from the British phyicists who returned
> from Los Alamos and Oak Ridge.

We should have gave them the bomb considering that the US could not
have had a D-Day invasion without launching it from that little
island. And no D-Day, no captured German technolgy, material or
documentation- that put the US far ahead of anyone else postwar.
Russia would have taken the continent and got it instead.
>
> > So get off your high horse and address the America of the '40s without
> > the rose colored glasses on.
> > We were racist, anti-semetic, and greedy. But patriotism covers a
> > multitude of sins, right?
> >
>
> The US did not however murder 95% of the Japanese in North America
>
> There are once more thriving Japanese communities in California.
> How many jews live in Cracow, Warsaw or Berlin in comparison to
> the communities of 1933 ?
>
> The father of my best friend was briefly interned by the British
> authorities in 1939. This was disgraceful however he would be the
> first to point out that only one other member of his family
> survived the war, they had the misfortune to be jewish and
> even his father, an officer in the German Army in WW1 and
> a winner of the Iron Cross was sent to the gas chambers.
>
> No the US was not perfect and neither were Britain or Canada
> but they were not genocidal maniacs either.

That doesn't excuse the illegality nor immorality of Allied actions
during the war.
>
> Keith

Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > (robert arndt) wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > No, don't talk about US morality in WW2. We didn't even "give" the
> > > British anything under "give us the tools we'll do the job". The US
> > > Govt confiscated all British assets in the US and even sent a warship
> > > to South Africa to collect British gold in payment for the old Liberty
> > > ships.
> >
> > This is utter ********.
> >
> > Its true that prior to lend lease the neutrality act required all
> > purchases to be paid for in gold or US dollars but there
> > was no 'confiscation' of assets
>
> Roosevelt stripped Britain of all her assets in the US after two years
> of war. The British-owned Viscose Company worth 125 mil pounds was
> liquidated for 87 mil pounds to pay for war debt while Britain's 1,924
> mil pound investments in Canada were sold off to further pay off war
> debt.

Roosevelt didnt make those decisions, Churchill did and
it was the isolationist US Congress that forced that
by passing the neutrality acts.


> To make sure Roosevelt got the money he dispatched the cruiser
> "Loisville" to the South African naval base Simonstown to take
> Britain's last gold assets- 42 mil pounds worth.

As usual you have this completely WRONG. The USS Louisville
was sent to Simonstown in 1940 at the request of the BRITISH government
to transport $148 million dollars of gold to the USA where
it was placed on deposit to be used by the British purchasing
commission. The reason for using a US cruiser was to ensure
it wouldnt be sunk by German U-Boats

This was not unique to the USA , HMS Edinburgh was sunk while
carrying large quantities of Soviet gold to pay for its purchase
from Britain and the USA


> Not content with stripping Britain of its assets and gold, for 50 old
> destroyers, Roosevelt made Britain transfer all her scientific and
> technological secrets to the US. He also demanded leases on the
> islands of Newfoundland, Jamaica,Trinidad, and Bermuda for the setting
> up of US military and naval bases.

You are conflating several quite separate issues and getting ALL
wrong. The gold had been spent BEFORE the 40 destroyers
ever became an issue.

The deal that saw the transfer of radar technlogy to the USA in
1940 was the result of a policy decision by the BRITISH
government who sent the Tizard mission to Washington
specifically to bartter know how for production. Both
nations won on this one.

The ships for bases deal was a way to
give the RN 40 ships for which it could not pay.

> >
> > The Liberty ships were new build ships delivered AFTER
> > lend lease and were NOT paid for in Gold
>
> You are correct, it was for the 50 old destroyers instead. My mistake.

They didnt pay gold for the destroyers either. The purchases
made with that money were largely aircraft and associated
weapons. It was that money that got the initial orders
placed for the P-51 for example.

> >
> > The 'old' ships supplied were the 40 Town class destroyers
> > and they werent paid for in gold either , they were part of the
> > ships for bases deal.
>
> Refer to above.
> >
> > > British companies in the US taken and we even demanded that
> > > Britain share all of its secrets- radar, jet aircraft technology,
> > > computer tech, and its A-bomb project "Tube Alloys" which Britain in
> > > desperation agreed to.
> >
> > More rubbish
>
> Refer to above.
> >
> > The decision to pass the cavity magnetron data to the USA
> > was taken in 1940 because it was realised that Britain didnt have
> > the spare manufacturing or research capacity to put it into
> > production. The Tizard mission benefitted both nations, the
> > USA got a leg up in research and the UK got centimetric radar
> > in quantity before it could have otherwise done.
> >
> > As for jet engine technology that was shared equally with
> > the Amricans and Soviets, or had you forgotten that the
> > Mig-15 flew with a british designed engine ?
>
> The US got it first by demand. The Soviets bought theirs.

No sir, the USSR and USA both got engine's as allied
nations, but the USA built its copies of the Nene engine
under license as the J-42. The Taylor Turbine Corporation
paid Rolls Royce a commercial license fee for the copies
and PURCHASED 6 engines, the Soviets purchased ONE
engine and then just ripped off the design. Note that Pratt
and Whitney later purchased that license and in collaboration
with Rolls Royce further developed the engine. Once again
a partnership not a ripoff.

> >
> > The computer tech was NOT shared. Colossus remained
> > a top secret until
> >
> > As for tube alloys once again it was recognised in britain that
> > we simply didnt have the resources to develop an atomic
> > weapon in time to affect the war. The recommendations
> > of the Maud committee set up in Britain to advise the government
> > was that the US and British programs should be pooled.
>
> Britain again had no choice but to give in, contributing 44 of their
> scientists to the Manhatten Project.

It was a British initiative, getting the US to agree to our idea
was scarcely giving in. You seem to have a real problem with
the notion of alliance, as did the Nazis of course.


> >
> > <Quote>
> > 8. Conclusions and Recommendations
> > (i) The committee considers that the scheme for a uranium bomb is
> > practicable and likely to lead to decisive results in the war.
> >
> > (ii) It recommends that this work be continued on the highest priority
and
> > on the increasing scale necessary to obtain the weapon in the shortest
> > possible time.
> >
> > (iii) That the present collaboration with America should be continued
and
> > extended especially in the region of experimental work.
> >
> > </Quote>
> >
> > > What did they get for helping with the US
> > > Manhatten Project- nothing. Britain had to build their own bomb years
> > > later.
> >
> > They got a LOT of knowledge from the British phyicists who returned
> > from Los Alamos and Oak Ridge.
>
> We should have gave them the bomb considering that the US could not
> have had a D-Day invasion without launching it from that little
> island. And no D-Day, no captured German technolgy, material or
> documentation- that put the US far ahead of anyone else postwar.
> Russia would have taken the continent and got it instead.

The payback for D-Day was ending the war. 2000 V-1's and
V-2's fell on London, only the invasion stopped them. You
insist on seeing an adversarial relationship were there
was an alliance.


> >
> > > So get off your high horse and address the America of the '40s without
> > > the rose colored glasses on.
> > > We were racist, anti-semetic, and greedy. But patriotism covers a
> > > multitude of sins, right?
> > >
> >
> > The US did not however murder 95% of the Japanese in North America
> >
> > There are once more thriving Japanese communities in California.
> > How many jews live in Cracow, Warsaw or Berlin in comparison to
> > the communities of 1933 ?
> >
> > The father of my best friend was briefly interned by the British
> > authorities in 1939. This was disgraceful however he would be the
> > first to point out that only one other member of his family
> > survived the war, they had the misfortune to be jewish and
> > even his father, an officer in the German Army in WW1 and
> > a winner of the Iron Cross was sent to the gas chambers.
> >
> > No the US was not perfect and neither were Britain or Canada
> > but they were not genocidal maniacs either.
>
> That doesn't excuse the illegality nor immorality of Allied actions
> during the war.

It does however serve to put them in perspective.

Illegal imprisonment is a crime but murder is a more serious one.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Charles Gray]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:36:18 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.
>
>You neglected to mention that the internees were paid compensation and
>given an apology. I don't recall that my friend Dick O'Kane got either
>from the Japanese who starved and worked and beat him down to 98
>pounds in one year.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Or the Korean "comfort women", or the Korean slave workers, or the
American and British Civilians...or the literally tens of millions of
Chinese, filipino's and other's who had the misfortune to be
"liberated" by the Japanese.
Japan, with some exceptions (mostly personal, not governmental) has
a very large policy of forgetfulness with those actions...and in other
cases continues to try to justify them.
Especially egregious is the lawsuits that are dropped because you
cannot get compensation because "it was already settled" in
peacetreaties that never brought the matter up.

I believe that the internment camps were a disgrace, and an
unamerican act, especially as the 442nd was proving its loyalty in
blood.
But to imagine for the slightest moment that that injustice
compares-- can even be compared-- to the wholesale slaughter of
Germany and Japan's brutal occupations and death camps would be absurd
if it wasn't so popular a point of view.
The internment WASN'T comparable to those acts-- but it was a dark
moment in U.S. history because we are, and should be, judged to a
higher standard than the governments that only worshipped brute force.

I would also mention, that although I think the apology did come
too late, it was an act of congress, signed into law by the
president-- so it wasn't simply an apology by any single group, it was
an apology on behalf of the United States, and its' citizens, from our
elected leaders.

[B2431]

>From: Charles Gray

>
>On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:36:18 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:
>
>>
>>>Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.
>>
>>You neglected to mention that the internees were paid compensation and
>>given an apology. I don't recall that my friend Dick O'Kane got either
>>from the Japanese who starved and worked and beat him down to 98
>>pounds in one year.
>>
>>all the best -- Dan Ford
>>email:
>>
>>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>
> Or the Korean "comfort women", or the Korean slave workers, or the
>American and British Civilians...or the literally tens of millions of
>Chinese, filipino's and other's who had the misfortune to be
>"liberated" by the Japanese.
> Japan, with some exceptions (mostly personal, not governmental) has
>a very large policy of forgetfulness with those actions...and in other
>cases continues to try to justify them.
> Especially egregious is the lawsuits that are dropped because you
>cannot get compensation because "it was already settled" in
>peacetreaties that never brought the matter up.
>
> I believe that the internment camps were a disgrace, and an
>unamerican act, especially as the 442nd was proving its loyalty in
>blood.
> But to imagine for the slightest moment that that injustice
>compares-- can even be compared-- to the wholesale slaughter of
>Germany and Japan's brutal occupations and death camps would be absurd
>if it wasn't so popular a point of view.
> The internment WASN'T comparable to those acts-- but it was a dark
>moment in U.S. history because we are, and should be, judged to a
>higher standard than the governments that only worshipped brute force.
>
> I would also mention, that although I think the apology did come
>too late, it was an act of congress, signed into law by the
>president-- so it wasn't simply an apology by any single group, it was
>an apology on behalf of the United States, and its' citizens, from our
>elected leaders.
>

The U.S. DID do medical experiments on par with the Nazis. Think of the black
men in the syphilis experiments who were deliberately left untreated as an
example. In several states "mentally deficient" people were forcibly
sterilized. Maybe the U.S. didn't do these sorts of things to as many people,
but we did do it.

Antisemitism WAS rampant in many parts of the U.S. and was one of the reasons
FDR never included saving Jews in Nazi occupied territories. He was afraid he
would lose support for the war.

Having said all this the comparison between Nazi concentration camps and the
Japanese, Italian and German internment camps in the U.S. is uncalled for. For
one thing German internees were allowed to hang up pictures of Hitler. The
inmates of the Nazi camps weren't allowed to post pictures of Churchill, Stalin
or FDR.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[John Keeney]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> The U.S. DID do medical experiments on par with the Nazis. Think of the
black
> men in the syphilis experiments who were deliberately left untreated as an
> example. In several states "mentally deficient" people were forcibly
> sterilized. Maybe the U.S. didn't do these sorts of things to as many
people,
> but we did do it.

No, neither of those things is "on par with the Nazis" human experiments.
The Nazis did things like throw prisoners into ice water to see how
long they could survive.

[The CO]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Yep. We were pretty darned nice, for the times.
>
> You neglected to mention that the internees were paid compensation and
> given an apology. I don't recall that my friend Dick O'Kane got either
> from the Japanese who starved and worked and beat him down to 98
> pounds in one year.

Not to mention the treatment of Brit/Aussie POW's on the Burma Railway
and
Changi to mention but a couple. Some that survived were later shipped
(virtually as
freight) to Japan and put to work in the coal mines. Some survived it
all somehow.
A pretty good accounting is found in the memoirs of Sir Edward 'Weary'
Dunlop, who was a
POW doctor on the Burma Railway.

The CO

[John Mullen]

John Keeney wrote:

> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The U.S. DID do medical experiments on par with the Nazis. Think of the
>
> black
>
>>men in the syphilis experiments who were deliberately left untreated as an
>>example. In several states "mentally deficient" people were forcibly
>>sterilized. Maybe the U.S. didn't do these sorts of things to as many
>
> people,
>
>>but we did do it.
>
>
> No, neither of those things is "on par with the Nazis" human experiments.
> The Nazis did things like throw prisoners into ice water to see how
> long they could survive.
>
>

How about the time they injected plutonium into hospital patients to see
what would happen? That comes pretty close IMO

John

[Cub Driver]

>Not to mention the treatment of Brit/Aussie POW's on the Burma Railway

They weren't alone! Charlie Mott of the AVG Flying Tigers worked on
the railroad. He built a radio transmitter which he hid in a
pipe-tobacco can, and with it got in touch with the OSS. He broke out,
helped build a jungle airstrip, and the first plane that landed there
brought him the news that the Japanese had surrendered. So he spent
more than three years in the Japanese holiday camps.

Actually, many more Malayans and other Asians were slave laborers on
the railroad than the Caucasian prisoners, and a greater percentage of
them died, because they didn't have the military discipline and
medical skills of the PWs.

Here are the numbers of the Caucasians who built the railroad:

30,000 British

18,000 Dutch

13,000 Australian

650 American

Nobody has a count of the "romusha" because nobody cared, least of all
the Japanese. Gavan Daws gives the figure of 250,000, many of whom
were children.

They died at approximately these rates:

20 percent of the PWS

50 percent of the romusha

Thus, more prisoners died building the railroad than were killed at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Charles Gray]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:01:12 +0000, John Mullen >
wrote:

>John Keeney wrote:
>
>> "B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>The U.S. DID do medical experiments on par with the Nazis. Think of the
>>
>> black
>>
>>>men in the syphilis experiments who were deliberately left untreated as an
>>>example. In several states "mentally deficient" people were forcibly
>>>sterilized. Maybe the U.S. didn't do these sorts of things to as many
>>
>> people,
>>
>>>but we did do it.
>>
>>
>> No, neither of those things is "on par with the Nazis" human experiments.
>> The Nazis did things like throw prisoners into ice water to see how
>> long they could survive.
>>
>>
>
>How about the time they injected plutonium into hospital patients to see
>what would happen? That comes pretty close IMO
>
>John

I think it comes very close-- in the sense the crimes were
committed. Nobody's saying the U.S> was perfect, and in fact I
consider it a great wrong that when these expiriments were revealed,
the surviving doctors and administrators (and since they were done in
the 30's, there would be some), were not prosecuted for their crimes.

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>
<snip>

>That doesn't excuse the illegality nor immorality of Allied actions
>during the war.
>>

>
>Rob
>


War itself is immoral. I remind you it was your hero who started it in Europe.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Regnirps]

(B2431) wrote:

>War itself is immoral. I remind you it was your hero who started it in Europe.


Defending oneself against someone who initiates the use of force is never
immoral. Illegal in some places like England, but not immoral.

-- Charlie Springer

[L'acrobat]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Not to mention the treatment of Brit/Aussie POW's on the Burma Railway
>
> They weren't alone! Charlie Mott of the AVG Flying Tigers worked on
> the railroad. He built a radio transmitter which he hid in a
> pipe-tobacco can, and with it got in touch with the OSS. He broke out,
> helped build a jungle airstrip, and the first plane that landed there
> brought him the news that the Japanese had surrendered. So he spent
> more than three years in the Japanese holiday camps.
>
> Actually, many more Malayans and other Asians were slave laborers on
> the railroad than the Caucasian prisoners, and a greater percentage of
> them died, because they didn't have the military discipline and
> medical skills of the PWs.
>
> Here are the numbers of the Caucasians who built the railroad:
>
> 30,000 British
>
> 18,000 Dutch
>
> 13,000 Australian
>
> 650 American
>
> Nobody has a count of the "romusha" because nobody cared, least of all
> the Japanese. Gavan Daws gives the figure of 250,000, many of whom
> were children.
>
> They died at approximately these rates:
>
> 20 percent of the PWS
>
> 50 percent of the romusha
>
> Thus, more prisoners died building the railroad than were killed at
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

For sheer percentage of murdered prisoners, try looking at the Sandakan
death march.

2345 Australian and British prisoners of the Japanese in Borneo were taken
from Sandakan to Ranau in 1945 .

Of the 2345 men, only six survived. Of those who died, most were never
found.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:


>
> The U.S. DID do medical experiments on par with the Nazis. Think of the
> black
> men in the syphilis experiments who were deliberately left untreated as
> an
> example.

You are correct that the US, before WWII, did some long-term medical
studies that definitely violated the Helsinki Declaration of Human
Rights (circa 1952, from memory), written in large part due to Nazi
actions called medical experiments [1]. By modern standards, I consider
the long-term syphilis observation study an utter violation of medical
ethics.

But medical ethics evolve. It's relatively recent that controlled
double-blind studies finally gave up, for ethical reasons, a placebo
control arm guaranteed to be of no benefit to the patient. The current
ethical standard in clinical trials is that the control arm (or arms) is
the best accepted current treatment. Depending on the study design and
the ethical review and approval of at least an Institutional Review
Board and possibly other authorities, the experimental arm(s) of a
treatment [2] protocol uses an experimental therapy that has a
reasonable chance of at least equivalent results, or possibly a
combination of standard and experimental therapy.

[1] Most of what were termed Nazi medical experiments focused on
pseudo-science, racial theory justification, or evaluations of
treatments not reasonably expected to be equivalent to accepted therapy,
At the conclusion of many of these experiments, the subjects were
killed, either for autopsy or simply because they were inconvenient.

A small fraction of Nazi (and Japanese) experiments, while still
absolutely unethical, were of sufficiently careful design that their
results may have at least statistical validity. Last year, IIRC, the
issue reopened again in the New England Journal of Medicine, probably
the most prestigious medical publication. A researcher, with full
condemnation of the Nazi work, asserted that using the results of
certain experiments (e.g., anoxia and hypothermia) for legitimate
treatment-oriented research was at least some ethical recompense that
the victims hadn't died completely in vain.

Other researchers and ethicists maintain that the data from these indeed
murderous experiments should never be used in any further research. A
related question came during the Korean War, where the ONLY data
available on certain hemorrhagic fevers came from involuntary Japanese
BW studies.

In standard pharmacology textbooks, one will find papers on the effect
of cyanides on the heart, with data that came from legal execution.
There's no indication of the condemned agreed to be studied. Indeed,
there is a continuing controversy if physicians may be involved at all
in legal execution -- several state medical associations have forbidden
their members to participate in any aspect, some allow very restricted
participation.

The situation remains other than black and white. Without getting into
details well outside the scope of this discussion, there are very
ethical physicians who maintain the exact informed consent approach used
in the US is culturally inappropriate for their societies -- which have
different decision-making structures (e.g., let the family, not the
patient worry) that are benign in intent. No simple answers.

[2] Not all approved research studies necessarily benefit the patient.
Phase I drug trials most often involve administering single, or small
doses of drug to healthy volunteers in order to evaluate its
distribution in the body, side effects, etc. There are also Phase I
trials for patients with diseases with no known treatment, where the
experimental agent MIGHT do some good. A third category is pure
research, not necessarily clinically oriented at all, or used to get
statistical information on diagnostic information in large populations.

I participate in several such long-term statistical studies at NIH
Clinical Center, where I also volunteer for various experimental cardiac
imaging studies. These studies do not necessarily benefit me, although I
definitely receive an overall benefit from continuing clinical review
and recommendation by top-flight cardiologists. To help keep me stable
as a reference, I also get free regular cardiac medication from them.

>In several states "mentally deficient" people were forcibly
> sterilized. Maybe the U.S. didn't do these sorts of things to as many
> people,
> but we did do it.
>
> Antisemitism WAS rampant in many parts of the U.S. and was one of the
> reasons
> FDR never included saving Jews in Nazi occupied territories. He was
> afraid he
> would lose support for the war.

Indeed that may have been a decision factor. There were also practical
limitations. While resistance groups and governments in exiles requested
the Allies bomb the death camps in Poland, the flight paths would have
been such that available bombers did not have the range to attack them
without a refueling stop in the USSR. The Soviets refused permission.

>
> Having said all this the comparison between Nazi concentration camps and
> the
> Japanese, Italian and German internment camps in the U.S. is uncalled
> for. For
> one thing German internees were allowed to hang up pictures of Hitler.
> The
> inmates of the Nazi camps weren't allowed to post pictures of Churchill,
> Stalin
> or FDR.

More to the point, no US camp routinely executed groups, or subjected
them to conditions that would reasonably be expected to produce a high
death rate.

[Cub Driver]

>A researcher, with full
>condemnation of the Nazi work, asserted that using the results of
>certain experiments (e.g., anoxia and hypothermia) for legitimate
>treatment-oriented research was at least some ethical recompense that
>the victims hadn't died completely in vain.

That certainly makes sense to me. How can we possibly justify throwing
away knowledge because we don't like the way in which it was attained?

When we start making judgment calls like this, we could, for example,
demand that the U.S. dismantle its nuclear plants on the ground that
they would not exist if the Manhattan Engineer District hadn't set out
to build the bomb that killed the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Cub Driver
> wrote:

> >A researcher, with full
> >condemnation of the Nazi work, asserted that using the results of
> >certain experiments (e.g., anoxia and hypothermia) for legitimate
> >treatment-oriented research was at least some ethical recompense that
> >the victims hadn't died completely in vain.
>
> That certainly makes sense to me. How can we possibly justify throwing
> away knowledge because we don't like the way in which it was attained?

While some of the argument against it is pure condemnation of the
physicians involved -- we cast you out of our consideration (indeed, a
later Nuremburg trial cast several by the neck until dead, while others
committed suicide), a more mainstream argument is that they don't ever
want to leave a loophole by which some future researcher might do work
with involuntary subjects, and damage them.

It's not a simple situation, with many ramifications beyond what I've
described. Some researchers feel it is totally impossible to get truly
independent consent from prisoners.

An unfortunate reality, however, is that prison medical care can be very
bad outside research trials -- which have separate funding and
personnel. I recently went through some expert testimony in a suit
regarding close to 100 deaths, relatively recently, in a US state
prison. Most of these -- not associated with a research trial -- could
either have been prevented with proper care, or at least have been much
more comfortable and dignified deaths than lying on the floor outside
the prison infirmary.


>
> When we start making judgment calls like this, we could, for example,
> demand that the U.S. dismantle its nuclear plants on the ground that
> they would not exist if the Manhattan Engineer District hadn't set out
> to build the bomb that killed the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>

I can't really give you a reasoned reply to that other than a gut
feeling that such an argument is farther from the specifics than of the
research studies. There's no question that the research subjects of
Siegfried Rascher and his ilk (especially known for anoxia, but also
hypothermia experiments) were not in any sense licit volunteers. The
problem in the other argument is that the residents of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki may have been licit collateral victims of a lawful attack.

There's a lot of professional nervousness about "medicalizing" things
that don't have a pure medical quality. These range from forcibly
treating a psychotic criminal [1] with medications to render them sane,
to some of the truly bizarre features of an execution by lethal
injection [2]. There are questions about whether it is constitutional to
rely on psychiatric testimony to confine a prisoner who completed the
court-ordered sentence. I have no simple answers.

[1] My gut reaction here is that it can be reasonable to medicate a
prisoner so they are not a danger to themselves or others. It can be
reasonable to medicate them so they can participate in their defense,
although if it's necessary to medicate them for that purpose, it seems
you've made the case for hospitalization rather than prison. It gets
very messy if the mental illness developed after the crime, so you can't
really use an insanity defense.
Medicating someone simply to let them understand they are being
executed, however, strikes me as cruel and unusual punishment.

[2] The apparently universal protocol used for lethal injection simply
doesn't make much sense. It uses three drugs in succession, the only
rationale for this is that it essentially duplicates the procedure used
for stopping the heart for open heart surgery -- which I have had.
In the lethal injection protocols I've first drug injected, an
ultrashort acting barbiturate, differs in the quantity that would be
given in surgery. The protocols note that a lethal dose is given.
Short and ultrashort acting barbiturates are the drugs used in
veterinary and legal human (Dutch, for example) euthanasia. That drug
would suffice, unless someone has a bizarre desire to make it more of a
standard medical procedure.
Using an alcohol swab, ostensibly to prevent infection, on someone
who will be dead in an hour seems to speak for itself. Ironically,
European practice is generally not to use alcohol rubs for normal
injection. At best, in normal practice, a quick rub does some cleaning,
but clearly does not disinfect. Alcohol must be in continuous contact
with the surface for at least 2 minutes for even low-level disinfection,
and 10 minutes for greater surety.

[Cub Driver]

> Using an alcohol swab, ostensibly to prevent infection, on someone
>who will be dead in an hour seems to speak for itself

Well, perhaps it's for the sake of the doctor, either to reassure him
that what he's doing is a normal medical procedure, or perhaps only so
he won't get out of the habit of disinfecting when he's dealing with
people he's trying to save!

Thank you, Howard, for a sane and reasoned take on a difficult
subject.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Cub Driver
> wrote:

> > Using an alcohol swab, ostensibly to prevent infection, on someone
> >who will be dead in an hour seems to speak for itself
>
> Well, perhaps it's for the sake of the doctor, either to reassure him
> that what he's doing is a normal medical procedure, or perhaps only so
> he won't get out of the habit of disinfecting when he's dealing with
> people he's trying to save!
>
> Thank you, Howard, for a sane and reasoned take on a difficult
> subject.

The subject gets truly weird at times. One anti-lethal-injection legal
campaign, rejected by the courts, pointed out that thiopental sodium,
pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride had not been given an FDA
"safe and effective" approval for the indication of execution.

It turns out that the FDA does, in fact, approve drugs for the specific
purpose of veterinary euthanasia, and, in keeping with the regulations
on drug approvals, designates them "safe and effective" for the marketed
purpose.

Think about that one for a while. Moderate consumption of ethanol, in
your choice of flavor, is usually safe and effective for the resulting
brain tilt.

[Cub Driver]

>It turns out that the FDA does, in fact, approve drugs for the specific
>purpose of veterinary euthanasia,

Isn't that sodium pentathol? (I'm not sure about the spelling.) We
once put down a St Bernard who weighed almost as much as I do, and at
the time I marveled what an easy death that was.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Stephen Harding]

Cub Driver wrote:

> Isn't that sodium pentathol? (I'm not sure about the spelling.) We
> once put down a St Bernard who weighed almost as much as I do, and at
> the time I marveled what an easy death that was.

I've done the "final visit to the vet" on several occasions. It's
the downside of the wonderful experience of owning a pet [dog].

The end comes so quickly and quietly, it really makes me wonder.
Is it "inhumane" to apply on humans? Would it really be "unethical"?

As opposed to often months of watching someone you care for die
with the aid of "advanced medicine".

Sometimes "ethical" and "humane" seem antagonistic.


SMH

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Cub Driver
> wrote:

> >It turns out that the FDA does, in fact, approve drugs for the specific
> >purpose of veterinary euthanasia,
>
> Isn't that sodium pentathol? (I'm not sure about the spelling.) We
> once put down a St Bernard who weighed almost as much as I do, and at
> the time I marveled what an easy death that was.

The standard used to be sodium pentabarbitol (Nembutal), although
thiopental would work in lower dose, it is more expensive. My
understanding is that some veterinarians use barbiturates specifically
compounded for euthanasia, rather than a standard drug.

The amount of overdose (corrected for the particular drug) and the speed
with which it's injected may have as much to do with the soeed of effect
in veterinary use. I've seen cats have their life functions stop almost
instantaneously from a large intravenous dose of pentobarbital. In
general medical practice where death is not desirable, you wouldn't give
it that fast. Pentothal and related ultrashort acting drugs like
brevital naturally act extremely fast when being dripped in at a slower
rate, which is probably safer for anesthesia.

In anesthesia, if something goes wrong, you don't want instantaneous
onset -- you want something slow enough such that if something goes
wrong, the anesthesiologist has time to react.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

> Cub Driver wrote:
>
> > Isn't that sodium pentathol? (I'm not sure about the spelling.) We
> > once put down a St Bernard who weighed almost as much as I do, and at
> > the time I marveled what an easy death that was.
>
> I've done the "final visit to the vet" on several occasions. It's
> the downside of the wonderful experience of owning a pet [dog].
>
> The end comes so quickly and quietly, it really makes me wonder.
> Is it "inhumane" to apply on humans? Would it really be "unethical"?
>
> As opposed to often months of watching someone you care for die
> with the aid of "advanced medicine".
>
> Sometimes "ethical" and "humane" seem antagonistic.
>

It's a terribly difficult question. I did feel a deep emotional bond
with my last cat to die, who seemed to tell me when he still wanted to
go on -- and there were, indeed, treatment options for his bladder
cancer. He wound up not being euthanized but dying at home. Before he
died, he spent a long time in my arms, and I'd swear we agreed that it
was OK for him to go. To my surprise, as opposed to my other cat, be
chose not to die with me holding him. I had fallen asleep from sheer
exhaustion, but I (and my ex-wife) sat bolt awake at the same moment,
which probably was close to what we can reconstruct was the time of
death.

It was much more difficult with my mother, although there were
significant differenes. She had metastatic breast cancer in 1975, and,
while she was in active treatment, I wound up in role beyond the usual
surrogate responsibility -- a fair bit of the staff didn't tell her
things but would want me to break news and get decisions.

She phoned me at one point, telling me that the nurses were annoying
her, asking her to put in several IVs to "build up your strength, dear."
It fell to me to tell her the truth: that the IVs were very
specifically to counter a drug reaction that would, untreated, kill her
painlessly in 48-72 hours. I felt I had to give her the options --
there was one more treatment that might have any hope, although the
chance of it working was low. I explicitly told her I would suppport her
decision either way, and didn't consider it cowardly if she chose to
refuse the immediate treatment.

The long-term outcome was bad. She did respond to the immediate
treatment, but the new treatment was ineffective. She was then
transferred to a VA hospital (she had retired medically from the Army
Reserve), and the VA staff was far less willing to accept any input from
someone even named in an advanced directive. She crumbled for several
months, including a phase of brain metastasis where she felt her
consciouness and memory slipping away. At that point, I told her staff
comfort measures only -- do not attempt to cure potentially fatal
complications such as pneumonia. They refused, and, indeed, insisted on
intense life support even when she certainly was no longer conscious,
and was not going to wake up.

[Charles Gray]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:22:44 -0500, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

>Cub Driver wrote:
>
>> Isn't that sodium pentathol? (I'm not sure about the spelling.) We
>> once put down a St Bernard who weighed almost as much as I do, and at
>> the time I marveled what an easy death that was.
>
>I've done the "final visit to the vet" on several occasions. It's
>the downside of the wonderful experience of owning a pet [dog].
>
>The end comes so quickly and quietly, it really makes me wonder.
>Is it "inhumane" to apply on humans? Would it really be "unethical"?
>
>As opposed to often months of watching someone you care for die
>with the aid of "advanced medicine".
>
>Sometimes "ethical" and "humane" seem antagonistic.
>
>
>SMH

I have problems with actual termination of humans-- it opens so many
cans of worms, legal and ethical alike.
But...
I've seen friends and family kept alive long past the point where
they woudl naturally die. Long past the point where there was any
hope that they would get better-- in extreme cases where you just had
a mindless husk being kept alive by machines.
I think the problem is that the idea that the doctor will do
everything to keep you alive has ignored the fact that we *are* going
to die at some point, and that as medical technology gets more
advanced that point that be delayed long past where it should happen.
But on the other hand, that's a terrible decision to make-- and there
have been cases of criminal or ethical charges being brought against
doctors who have done so, even with the cooperation of the family.
Dr. Kevorkians antics didn't help the debate any either, of cousre.

[Stephen Harding]

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

> It's a terribly difficult question. I did feel a deep emotional bond
> with my last cat to die, who seemed to tell me when he still wanted to
[...]

Definitely the tough side of having a pet.

> It was much more difficult with my mother, although there were
> significant differenes. She had metastatic breast cancer in 1975, and,

[...]

> consciouness and memory slipping away. At that point, I told her staff
> comfort measures only -- do not attempt to cure potentially fatal
> complications such as pneumonia. They refused, and, indeed, insisted on
> intense life support even when she certainly was no longer conscious,
> and was not going to wake up.

Sounds like you've been through the wringer. Been there myself so I
can sympathize.

Problem is, medical people are trained to "keep people alive". You
know, "do no harm", at least in a physical sense.

Technology can drive a glimmer of hope in immortality. "It's not
*fair* to die; we can *fix* it!" We all know we die. We just
don't believe it.

Death is natural. But sometimes, it seems the medical community,
and the consumer of medical services, looks upon it as a cop out
or a failure.

Irrespective of our feelings, eventually, it's simply time to go!


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Charles Gray wrote:

> I have problems with actual termination of humans-- it opens so many
> cans of worms, legal and ethical alike.

Definitely so. It should always be difficult concept to wrestle with,
or we've gone terribly wrong.

> I think the problem is that the idea that the doctor will do
> everything to keep you alive has ignored the fact that we *are* going
> to die at some point, and that as medical technology gets more
> advanced that point that be delayed long past where it should happen.
> But on the other hand, that's a terrible decision to make-- and there
> have been cases of criminal or ethical charges being brought against
> doctors who have done so, even with the cooperation of the family.
> Dr. Kevorkians antics didn't help the debate any either, of cousre.

Totally agree.

There may have once been a time when a physician, in agreement with
patient or family, would quietly "speed" the process of dying.

But litigation, a looser bond between patient and physician (no more
Dr. Welby's it seems), and grandstanders like Kevorkian haven't helped
in the debate.


SMH

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, Stephen Harding
> wrote:

> Charles Gray wrote:
>
> > I have problems with actual termination of humans-- it opens so many
> > cans of worms, legal and ethical alike.
>
> Definitely so. It should always be difficult concept to wrestle with,
> or we've gone terribly wrong.
>
> > I think the problem is that the idea that the doctor will do
> > everything to keep you alive has ignored the fact that we *are* going
> > to die at some point, and that as medical technology gets more
> > advanced that point that be delayed long past where it should happen.
> > But on the other hand, that's a terrible decision to make-- and there
> > have been cases of criminal or ethical charges being brought against
> > doctors who have done so, even with the cooperation of the family.
> > Dr. Kevorkians antics didn't help the debate any either, of cousre.
>
> Totally agree.
>
> There may have once been a time when a physician, in agreement with
> patient or family, would quietly "speed" the process of dying.

To say something of a middle ground, which I think is perfectly ethical
medicine -- and I can point to such things as extensive supporting
writings by Catholic theologians steeped in right-to-life -- is what St.
Thomas Aquinas called "the principle of double intent', and has all
sorts of applications and misapplications in medicine.

We have a political environment that says "narcotics (an imprecise
term)" are EEEEVIL. Yet there are chronic pain states where long-term
use of incredibly high dosages can return someone to normal enjoyment of
life, without sedation, cravings, etc. Perhaps the most dramatic
personal experience I have had is a woman with severe sickle cell
disease, which can be incredibly painful.

To a person with no acquired tolerance, a lethal dose of injected
morphine can start at around 200 mg and is pretty certain at about 600
mg. She has a surgically implanted pump that delivers, hourly, over 1000
milligrams of morphine, bypassing the blood-brain barrier so greatly
increasing the effective dose. If I were to be given that dose in a
vein, much less in the spinal fluid, I'd probably be dead before the
needle could be removed. In her case, very careful adjustment of the
dose let her go back to full intellectual capacity and workload as a
chemical engineer, wife and mother, active in her community and church,
etc.

On the other hand, in, say, a pain crisis in terminal cancer, it has
been understood there is no absolute maximum dose as long as pain
exists. If you bring up the dose quickly in a debilitated patient,
however, morphine is going to interfere with breathing. It may be
possible to compensate for some of these side effects, but at some
point, that may mean intubating the patient and making them respirator
dependent. The reality is that in certain pain management situations,
absolutely ethical and humane medicine will do things that hasten death,
but improve the quality of remaining life.
>
> But litigation, a looser bond between patient and physician (no more
> Dr. Welby's it seems), and grandstanders like Kevorkian haven't helped
> in the debate.

Don't be so sure some of the Welby tradition doesn't endure, if in
changed form. Balancing grandstanders like Kevorkian are thoughtful
physicians like Timothy Quill. Some searches are useful -- Quill,
clearly from the heart, wrote an extensive article on how he had chosen,
after long reflection and consultation, to provide the means of assisted
suicide to a long term patient. This patient was not terminal, but had
made a quality-of-life decision that she didn't want aggressive
treatment for her leukemia. An academic physician (SUNY Albany, IIRC),
he's a very respected speaker in ethics discussions, recognizing the
answers are not clear-cut.