There are 156 comments.

1. Member
   Wolfsheim

   @Wolfsheim

   10:55 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 5, 2020

   I for one welcomed the discussion about Truman, but then I live in Japan and so may have a greater interest in the subject than many or most…I had been already here for many years before I first went to Hiroshima–at the urging of a visiting German friend. Some schoolchildren approached us in the famous Peace Park, together with their teacher. My friend appeared to be filled with the thoughts and emotions that, it could be said, one is “supposed” to have. I interpreted for him, and when in the course of the conversation a parallel was drawn between the atomic bombing and Auschwitz, his mood abruptly changed. “Nein!” he said quite indignantly…I remember going through the museum with mixed and, indeed, troubled feelings. Some years later, my friend was here again, this time with his wife, and together we went to Nagasaki…Over time, it seems (my impression is admittedly subjective) that terrible time in August, 1945, has come to be viewed with much less of an ideological or political agenda.

   Yes, it was total war, with each side demonizing and dehumanizing the other. I have written before about an old friend, now nearing 90, who lost a cousin in the bombing of Hiroshima. A devout Lutheran, she says that as a schoolgirl she was, together with her classmates, practicing to fight the invaders with rakes and hoes and to die for the emperor. The bomb, she says, rightly or wrongly, ended all of that nonsense.

   The Japanese are fundamentally no fanatics; indeed, they are a remarkably practical people. I once asked my mother-in-law how she felt when, living in a city devastated by bombing from the sea, with her soldier husband in Manchuria, about to be taken prisoner by the Russians, she heard that the war was over over and that Japan had surrendered. Her simple reply was: “Hotto shita.” (‘I felt  relieved.’) 

    

    

2. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   11:23 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 5, 2020

   Wolfsheim (View Comment):

   I for one welcomed the discussion about Truman, but then I live in Japan and so may have a greater interest in the subject than many or most…I had been already here for many years before I first went to Hiroshima–at the urging of a visiting German friend. Some schoolchildren approached us in the famous Peace Park, together with their teacher. My friend appeared to be filled with the thoughts and emotions that, it could be said, one is “supposed” to have. I interpreted for him, and when in the course of the conversation a parallel was drawn between the atomic bombing and Auschwitz, his mood abruptly changed. “Nein!” he said quite indignantly…I remember going through the museum with mixed and, indeed, troubled feelings. Some years later, my friend was here again, this time with his wife, and together we went to Nagasaki…Over time, it seems (my impression is admittedly subjective) that terrible time in August, 1945, has come to be viewed with much less of an ideological or political agenda.

   Yes, it was total war, with each side demonizing and dehumanizing the other. I have written before about an old friend, now nearing 90, who lost a cousin in the bombing of Hiroshima. A devout Lutheran, she says that as a schoolgirl she was, together with her classmates, practicing to fight the invaders with rakes and hoes and to die for the emperor. The bomb, she says, rightly or wrongly, ended all of that nonsense.

   The Japanese are fundamentally no fanatics; indeed, they are a remarkably practical people. I once asked my mother-in-law how she felt when, living in a city devastated by bombing from the sea, with her soldier husband in Manchuria, about to be taken prisoner by the Russians, she heard that the war was over over and that Japan had surrendered. Her simple reply was: “Hotto shita.” (‘I felt relieved.’)

   It seems like there might be some kind of fundamental difference regarding war/fighting when the people are convinced that their side is super-human/invincible for some reason, as with the Emperor supposedly being divine, the Thousand Year Reich supposedly being superior and hence unstoppable, and even now you find some islamists claiming that Bin Laden did not attack or create the attack on or whatever, the US.  Because, they say, Bin Laden is (was) such a powerful man that if he had attacked the US, there would be nothing left but smoking rubble.  Therefore, Bin Laden did not attack the US.  QED.  (I suppose they also don’t believe Bin Laden is dead.  But I also don’t care about that.)  And much of Iran probably believed Soleimani could not be killed either…

3. Member
   Wolfsheim

   @Wolfsheim

   11:43 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 5, 2020

   The day before the debacle, Andrew Klavan began his show with a (prophetic) spoof about how the media might declare “Biden the winner of tomorrow’s debate.” Donald Trump surely knew what he was up against, including a “moderator” who was hardly neutral. A display of presidential dignity, even in the face of Joe Biden’s prevarications and outright falsehoods, might have been far more effective than efforts to score points. For Never-Trumpers, it’s, of course, no mystery: the leopard does not change his spots. 

   I’ll confess that I tune in every week to the magnificent three with somewhat the feeling of Scrooge talking to Marley: “Speak comfort to me, Jacob!” Rob Long, like Marley, clearly has none to give and shouldn’t be blamed for that, though I too feel exasperated at the negativity. Andrew Klavan manages to be quite honest and realistic about Donald Trump’s manifold faults, while making it clear that the alternative is a nightmare.

   I recall that Rob Long seemed to suggest a week or so ago that we should give up on Trump and simply hope that the Senate does not fall to the Democrats. (Apologies in advance if I misunderstood.) I can’t hold a candle to any of the commentators when it comes to political knowledge, but my guess is that if American voters are foolish enough to vote for the basement puppet and his ideologically loony running mate, they will just as easily turn the entire Congress over to the left.

   In my foolish youth, I was among those who reviled Richard Nixon. That too was a dreadfully “polarizing” time, and dreadful things were said on all sides. But I don’t remember George McGovern ever referring to the president of the republic as a “racist” or a “clown.” It’s all most disheartening.

4. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   11:50 PM EDT ⋅ Oct 5, 2020

   Wolfsheim (View Comment):
   But I don’t remember George McGovern ever referring to the president of the republic as a “racist” or a “clown.” It’s all most disheartening.

   Maybe that’s because, back then, there wasn’t all the projection that we have now.  Even then, the Democrats were the party of actual racists, as had been then demonstrated far more recently.  But I guess it hadn’t yet occurred to them to start accusing the Republicans of what the Democrat party was actually guilty of.

5. Inactive
   Jon1979

   @Jon1979

   4:18 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 6, 2020

   kedavis (View Comment):

   Wolfsheim (View Comment):
   But I don’t remember George McGovern ever referring to the president of the republic as a “racist” or a “clown.” It’s all most disheartening.

   Maybe that’s because, back then, there wasn’t all the projection that we have now. Even then, the Democrats were the party of actual racists, as had been then demonstrated far more recently. But I guess it hadn’t yet occurred to them to start accusing the Republicans of what the Democrat party was actually guilty of.

   There was some of that in the deepest of the Deep Blue areas — certainly the far left in New York had no problem declaring Nixon (and LBJ before him) as a war criminal. But with the limited bandwidth access for both television and radio, the already-underway consolidation of U.S. newspapers in media markets (with the afternoon papers falling first to evening TV news shows)  the fact Al Gore’s Internet was still in it’s v1.01.2 Beta stage, and the presence of the FCC Fairness Doctrine to contend with, you had a situation where the networks and the biggest of the big city newspapers were hostile to Nixon, but also were wary of stepping too far over the line.

   As a result, they acted as gatekeepers in limiting conservative voices, but they also felt duty-bound (or with broadcast, legally bound) to also serve as gatekeepers to make sure the angriest and most batshirt-crazy people on the left didn’t have unfettered access to the main media outlets. That’s why things like alternative weeklies such as The Village Voice, or the non-commercial/non-profit Pacifica radio stations popped up on the FM dial, because the far left 50 years ago were irked that outlets like The New York Times, WaPo, NBC, CBS and ABC weren’t progressive enough.

   Those outlets were self-satisfied when Nixon went down, but all that started to change at the end of the 80s, after two straight wins by Reagan, followed by Bush’s win over Dukakis.

6. Coolidge
   kedavis

   @kedavis

   9:41 AM EDT ⋅ Oct 6, 2020

   But of course, as with their sainted JFK, I doubt that Dukakis could make a successful run for any democrat party office these days.