Conference back40::soapbox

	I don't think it is in any particular poor taste. I think
they ran out of ideas. I would think their are better subjects
for stamps than atomic bombs.

    it's part of history.  'tis fak that the bombs hastened the end of the
    war.  people who refuse to learn from history - and REMEMBER the
    lessons - are ddomed to repeat it.

    ...bodes better than an airial photo of Hiro or Naga immediately
    after.
    
    Who cares if it's on the stamp. Another example of someone (or folks)
    with too much time on their hands.
    
    Chip
    
    

	I would agree with you if the stamp were part of a series.
Gun powder should rank up there too, don't you think. What about
mustard gas and other such items of mass destruction ??.

	Just think we could stress positives on stamps. How about
a series on what to do with a dead cat...??? %^)

    I always thought that since one licks stamps, there are any number of
    creative possibilities for what to put on them...
    
    
    I meant lollipops! Jeesh! :-)
    
    -b

    .4
    
    > I would agree with you if the stamp were part of a series.
    
    but it is!  there has been a whole 50th-anniversary series, issue begun
    in 1991, commemorating the events of wwii year by year.  this is not a
    single isolated stamp - and that's why i deem it appropriate.

	As usual Binder, I bow to the all knowing ........

    smile when yeh say that, pardnuh!
    
    :-)

    >it's part of history.
    
    Oh, then of course it can't be a tacky move.  Just invoke the mantle of
    history and make it all as dry as dust.
    
    Let's have a stamp commemorating the Trail of Tears next.  That was
    history, too.  Let's commemorate the WWII internment camps for people
    of Japanese descent.  Let's commemorate the Kent State shootings, and
    the beatings of civil rights protestors.  It's all just history.

    
    <---------
    
    
    Will they all fit on the stamps??
    
    

	rah man be right.

    In the kill-two-birds-with-one-stone department, so to speak, perhaps
    they could just put the pictures of disgruntled postal workers on the
    stamps.
    
    -b

    What about the gruntled ones?

	Sorry, I meant to but I hurt my head on the desk
when I was bowing.......%^0 %^).

             <<< KOLFAX::$1$DUS1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]JOYOFLEX.NOTE;2 >>>
                              -< The Joy of Lex >-
================================================================================
Note 991.17                     Fun with Phrases                        17 of 17
LJSRV2::KALIKOW "Brother, can youse paradigm?"       16 lines   5-DEC-1994 05:36
                         -< Exactly the wrong word... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This morning as I was listening to National Public Radio on my way to
    work, there was a piece about the current controversy surrounding the
    proposal for a new US Postage stamp, part of a 50th-anniversary-
    commemmorative series about WWII.  It features a depiction of the
    mushroom cloud over Hiroshima/Nagasaki with the caption "Atomic bombs
    hasten war's end".  Naturally this has caused a significant flap in
    Japanese-American relations.  According to NPR, one Hiroshima
    anti-nuclear organization, which had been asked by the Smisthonian
    Institution to supply museum exhibit materials on the effects of the
    bombs on the city's inhabitants --  such as scorched school lunchboxes
    and partially-burned school uniforms -- upon hearing news of the
    proposed stamp, became incensed.
    
    
    I nearly drove off the road...
    

    .9 ... Trail of Tears, etc.
    As noted in a previous reply this is part of a series about WW2 so
    those would not fit in. You seem to lean to the group who believe we
    should feel regrets (or apologize) for winning WW2 and/or using the 
    A-bomb. Once the Japanese apologize for Pearl Harbor and the atrocities 
    they committed in China, then we might consider such action but until
    that happens IMHO they can take their little offended sensibilities and
    do you know what. Wonder if there will be one on the Bataan Death
    March. Not being a stamp collector I really pay no attention to what
    particular stamps I use as long as they get the mail to its
    destination.

Here is what the Soviet historian N. N. Yakovlev (U. Moscow) has to say on
the matter:  (this is long but worth reading, even if you find, as I do,
the Soviet point of view to be twisted.)

	During the days when the world was celebrating the victory
	over the European Axis powers, Under Secretary of State
	Joseph Grew was convinced that "A future war with Soviet
	Russia is as certain as anything in this world can be certain.
	It may come within a very few years."  Secretary of the Navy
	James Forrestal considered that it would be better to fight
	the Soviets then than later.  President Truman gave considerable
	weight to this kind of advice.

	But the President had to take into consideration the fact that
	the conclusion of the war with Japan remained to be faced.
	The invasion of the Japanese islands, in the estimation of
	the American staffs, would have cost a million men, and the
	war in the Pacific would have continued for at least eighteen
	months after the V-Day in Europe.  The command of the American
	armed forces considered the participation of the USSR in the
	war absolutely necessary and informed the government accordingly.

	There was an additional consideration known only to the highest
	leaders in Washington -- work on an atomic weapon was being
	completed in the United States.  Henry Stimson adjured the
	President to postpone an "engagement" with the USSR until the
	moment when the atomic bomb, or, as the secretary called it,
	the "trump card," would be in the hands of the United States.
	And finally, an openly hostile policy toward the USSR at that
	time would not have had the support of the people of the United
***	States either.  It was no secret that is was precisely the Soviet
	Union that had rid the world of the Fascist plague.

	Also, the war in the Pacific was continuing.  Despite the loss of
	almost their entire fleet and grave losses of aircraft, Japanese
	resistance was not weakening.  The Japanese command used thousands
	of "kamikaze" suicide-pilots, who inflicted serious damage.  And
	on the Japanese islands in Asia there was an army of seven million
	that was taking almost no part in the Pacific war, which was being
	conducted mainly by the fleet and the air force.  The combat actions
	in the Pacific were being conducted and lost by the admirals, while
	the generals were burning with the desire to show what the emperor's
	army was capable of doing in the defense of its native islands.
	Under these circumstances an invasion would have taken the form of
	a monstrous slaughter on both sides.

***	The Soviet armed forces saved the peoples of Japan and the United
	States from a bloody epilogue.  On 8 August, faithful to its obli-
	gations as an ally, the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan.
	The operations unfolded in Manchuria, where the Kwantung Army,
	numbering 1,200,000 men, was positioned behind strongly fortified
	regions.  Although the Japanese forces were inferior to the Soviet
	army in both numbers and in the quality of their armament, smashing
	them was a difficult problem, for the crack divisions of the Japanese
	army were drawn up in Manchuria.

	The Soviet command brought into action against the Kwantung Army a
	formation totalling 1,500,000 men, with 5,500 tanks, 3,800 planes,
	and 26,000 pieces of ordnance.  In a lightning campaign, the Soviet
	troops broke the backbone of the Japanese forces.  The prisoners
	alone numbered 594,000 of the enemy soldiers and officers.  The utter
	defeat in Manchuria brought to nought Tokyo's plans to conduct a
	protracted war.  Despite the frenzied appeals of fanatics, the
	Japanese government was forced to proceed to unconditional surrender.

	During the days when the fate of Japan was decided, it was known in
	Washington that the USSR was entering the war in the Far East.  On
	Truman's orders, atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August
	and on Nagasaki three days later.  The use of the atomic weapon was
***	of no military significance; it had a different purpose -- to demon-
	strate it, and to try to intimidate the Soviet Union.  That is how
	American atomic blackmail had its start.

	Although Tokyo had alread declared its willingness to surrender
	unconditionally on 14 August and the Japanese troops had begun to
	give themselves up to the Americans, the Soviet armed forces had to
	continue fighting until the end of August, eliminating the last
	centers of resistance.  On 2 September 1945, on the deck of the
	Missouri, which had entered Tokyo Bay, the act of unconditional
	surrender by Japan was signed.  The Second World War had come to
	an end.

	Well I for one have to say I am glad for the Atomic Bomb.

	Somewhat selfish of course since it cost the lives of 
countless many. But, here's why.

	My father at the age of 16 lived in Indonesia during WWII.
After the Japanese captured it, they placed all foreignors in
labor camps. Pretty much the same as where they kept POW's with
the obligitory death marches and all.
	When the American's dropped the Bomb's they surrendered
and turned the camps over to local authorities. So if the Bomb's
haddened been dropped and the Japanese surrendered, my father
would have died there, hence no me.
	( I am sure this is considered regretable buy others )

  Well, I've never been one to be "pc", but I agree with .0





 Jim

    The "apologist" for the U.S. use of the atomic bomb on Japan claim that
    the war was near an end anyway and that we should not have used it.
    
    The U.S. suffered 20,000 casualties on the ground on Okinawa and 5,000
    casualties at sea (Kamikazee attacks) off the coast of Okinawa.  The
    battle for Okinawa ended just 6 weeks before we dropped the bomb.
     
    So much for the war winding down.
    
    If I had just suffered through Okinawa and thought that the invasion of
    Japan would be 10 times or 100 times worse, I would have appreciated
    the U.S. dropping the bomb and quickly ending the war and sparing the
    lives of countless thousands and thousands of others, both Japanese and
    Americans.
    
    By the way, the Japanese lost 100,000 killed at Okinawa.  If they were
    willing to sacrifice this many for a small island, think what they
    would have sacrificed for the home island.
    

    	Wasn't there a stamp commemorating the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

    	How is this stamp any different?
    
    	What were some of the other events depicted in the WWII stamp
    	series?

    A few years back I read a review of a book which had been published in
    Japan and caused quite a furor. I believe the review was in the Boston
    Globe and stated that it was not going to be published in the U.S. It
    was written by a Japanese guard who had worked at a death camp where
    the Japanese did medical experiments on Russian prisoners. He mentioned 
    the prisoners were called "logs" because one punishment was to saw the 
    prisoners in half with two man saws. The commandant of the medical
    death camp was later to become the head of the Green Cross of Japan and
    was the inventor of "green blood" which is an artificial substitute for
    whole blood and which requires no refrigeration or cross-matching. None
    of the death camp commandants were ever tried for war crimes and
    certainly not executed as we did with the Naziis. Wish I could have got
    a copy of that book. The point which has been made quite a few times is
    the amount of American and Japanese lives saved by dropping the bomb
    vs. an island invasion. This was Truman's belief and is well expressed
    in his biography by his daughter. My mom's cousin was on a ship hit by
    Kamikazes and lost all his friends on his gun crew. Luckily he happened
    to be on the bridge but still lived with seeing the plane come right
    into his battle station. He, and many others facing a potential
    invasion, are still very happy to this day, that the bomb was dropped.
    To judge those times and conditions while sitting in a nice safe
    postion is ludicrous. 

> None of the death camp commandants were ever tried for war crimes and
> certainly not executed as we did with the Naziis.

Are any of our WWII scholars able to present plausible rationales for this?

My suspicion would be that one of 'em was "We toasted them badly enough with
the bomb that we didn't need to pursue it any further."

That's not good enough for me, FWIW.

    
    there is evidence that the Japanese war crimes were not pursued
    as much because of the bad taste left in the mouths of our
    military prosecutors after the convictions and hangings of Gen. 
    Yamashita and Premier Tojo. also perhaps the politics of the
    day concerned as it was about the spread of socialism and communism
    and the desire to keep the Japanese people focused of rebuilding their
    economy and political systems according to the plan of the resident
    US First Consul, Gen MacArthur.
    
    

    Hey, they started it, tough poopies... 50+ years have passed and
    their government finally worked up enough dignity and character to 
    apologize for their heinous act.
    
    There was a series of stamps depicting all sorts of WWII activity
    and campaigns just a couple of years ago, e.g. Liberators on bombing
    runs, beach assualts, etc... Not a wimper about those.
    
    The simple fact that this debate is going on disgusts me.
    
    Chip

    The indisputable fact is that we dropped the bomb. What is misleading
    about the stamp is the "hastened the end of the war" comment as if it
    were an undisputed fact. Evidence was there all along that reputable
    contemporary military and civilian leaders thought it unnecessary, and
    that the estimates of time and lives saved were pulled out of thin air.
    
    For nearly two generations our "history" on the subject  was the party
    line. Now there are serious attempts to study what was really going on. 
    It may well be that the bomb *did* hasten the end of the war. Maybe
    we'll never know one way or another. But the recent controversy is a
    move away from history as indoctrination and toward history as
    understanding. That troubles some people, but it shouldn't.
    
    As for the morality of dropping the bombs, that discussion stands on its
    own, unrelated to the grievous atrocities of the Japanese against the
    Chinese and others.  The moral equivalency argument implied by pointing
    out those atrocities is distasteful, and insulting to this nation and
    what it stand for.
    
    Kit
    
      

>    That the war ended much faster than predicted is an undisputed,
>    undeniable fact.

If it were undisputed, no one would be disputing it, but they are.

I suspect it did end much faster, but there are those that claim
that simply the Soviet declaration of war which came about the same
time the bombs were dropped would have been sufficient to bring the
Japanese to surrender within a week or two of that which was accomplished
by the bombs.

I think they are wrong.  But we'll never know whether the Japanese wouldn't
have immediately surrendered in November when the invasion actually began.

/john

	Please remember folks we are talking about the Japanese.
For these people surrender was the unthinkable. Saving face and
honor was far more important than the lives of mere mortals.

	

    .30
    
    > the Soviet declaration of war...
    
    ...happened because it became obvious to the soviets, after we dropped
    the first bomb, that they'd better get in there if they wanted a piece
    of the pie when it was over, and that it was about to be over.  had we
    not dropped the bomb, the soviets might well not have gotten in at all
    until much later.
    
    as for the possibility of japanese surrender in november, BWAHAHAHAHA!

    re: .31
    
    This, of course, is part of the myth perpetrated in the version of
    history that accepted uncritically the view, ex post facto, that the
    bombs shortened the war.
    
    The Japanese often fought past any reasonable chance of success.
    However, let me assure you, the final surrender after the bombs was not
    the first surrender of Japanese troops.
    
    As a pre-emptive strike against being misunderstood, let me say, again,
    that I do not know whether or not the bombs hastened the end of the war
    or saved lives. I know only that the version of history we were taught
    in school, and at our parents' knees, was edited to blank out facts and
    points of view that were known at the time. 
    
    (And I do mean, literally, at our parents' knees -- both of my parents
    were WWII veterans, and my father was one of the first troops to land
    in the Japanese homeland at the close of the war.)
    
    Kit
    
    

    re: .32
    
    This, of course, has always been seen as the second most important
    reason for dropping the bombs -- the rush to finish before the USSR
    jumped in and then would demand joint occupation, land, etc.
    
    This argument, like the argument about saving lives, operated from the 
    assumption that dropping the bombs would shorten the war.
    
    Kit

    
    the roots of the Korean conflict stem from this invitation
    to the Soviets to join the war against Japan. it was under
    that umbrella under which they entered NK to accept the 
    surrender of occupying Japanese forces and set up a occupation
    of their own.

	Well I don't think any of us really know. History
has played it self out and we don't know what would have 
happened, only what could have.

	I deplore the Bomb and all the politics that are
associated with the "true" reasons for using it. I can't
help but feel that if Japan did not surrender when it did
and the war had lasted only one more year, that my father
would be dead and hence I would never have been born.

	Please don't missunderstand my statement regarding
surrender. I have great respect for the Japanese culture.
I do believe that surrender would not have been considered
unless the home land was in irreversable peril.

    
    .24's last sentence says it best...
    
    >To judge those times and conditions while sitting in a nice safe 
    >postion is ludicrous.

    I always thought the Russians actively reneged on their promise
    to fully engage in the Pacific theater once the European campaign
    was closed.
    
    And... didn't McArthur literally kick the Russian delegation of the
    Japanese mainland after the occupation?
    
    Just asking...
    
    Chip

 >   .24's last sentence says it best...
 >   
 >   >To judge those times and conditions while sitting in a nice safe 
 >   >postion is ludicrous.
  
    Washing one's hands like this will not absolve one of examining
    history. We must be ever mindful of how much more difficult the
    decisions are in the heat of the historical moment. But we must also be
    willing later to examine more carefully the historical circumstances
    for all kinds of reasons.  In this case it is even more appropriate
    because what we are re-examining is *contemporanous* evidence of
    differing points of view about the advisability of dropping the bombs
    -- evidence that was later dropped (pushed aside, suppressed -- what
    have you) in support of a single official version of history.
    
    Kit

    RE: .39
    
    Kit.... could you explain to me how you equate "judge" with "washing one's
    hands"???

>              <<< Note 141.41 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "grep this!" >>>
>
>    RE: .39
>    
>    Kit.... could you explain to me how you equate "judge" with "washing one's
>    hands"???
    
    I mean that we have the right, and the duty, to judge a particular
    decision from our perspective, based on our values and beliefs, ever
    mindful of the luxury that distance gives us.  And that saying that we
    *shouldn't* judge the past is not only intellectually dishonest (if not
    downright impossible), but constitutes washing our hands of the
    responsibility to think seriously about the past, other times, other
    cultures, etc, and to apply what we learn to our own circumstances.
    
    I mean it's ok to say, for example, that a particular decision was
    mistaken in that:
    
    1. They didn't have all the facts (whether or not they could have)
    2. They didn't anticipate the consequences (whether or not they could  have)
    3. They ignored important facts in favor of less important ones
    4. They reacted too strongly, or not strongly enough, in the midst of
       crisis
    
    etc, etc.
    
    In fact, we judge history all the time, as well we should.
    
    Kit
    

    
    You may "judge" history, if you like.  I elect not.
    
    I care not one whit whether Henry VI, say, was "bad".
    
    Nor do I care if dropping the bomb was "morally justifiable".  What
    do you expect to do with this info - unbomb them ?
    
    What a sophomoric way to view the past.  But it is your right.
    
      bb

                             
    Given the atrocities that both the Nazis and the Japanese committed
    during WWII ask yourself the question.......If either of them had
    possessed nuclear weapons does anyone honestly believe that either of them
    would have thought twice about using them at any stage of the war? Does
    anybody out there really believe that the citizens of either Germany or
    Japan would have raised questions about the morality of using such a
    weapon at any time during the war? Had they used such a bomb and defeated 
    the western nations does anyone have any illusions about whether the
    Japanese would now bemoan their decision to do so let alone issue a
    stamp.
    
    Further, had we not chosen to use the A-bomb, delivered by a single plane, 
    is anyone convinced that the alternative of continuing mass bombing raids 
    with conventional bombs and incendaries did not and would not kill even 
    greater numbers of Japanese until extinction became a real possibility?
    
    Does anyone believe that the United States would have reached a point
    where we merely blockaded the Japanese homeland without a invasion
    because the killing required to do so would have produced enourmous
    casualties on both sides?
    
    And just to head off that sorry little argument that we shouldn't stoop
    to the level of using weapons of mass destruction just because we have
    a higher sense of morality may I remind everyone we were engaged in a
    war where the enemy considered the lives of their civilians, troops and
    prisoners expendable right down to the last man, woman and child. The 
    bomb demonstrated that we had the power to do that while denying the
    Japanese the ability to exact an equally significant number of casulties 
    on their opponents. All thru history man has invented weapons to accomplish
    that objective from a simple club that extended the reach and stiking power
    to an adversary, to the long bow that slaughtered armored knights
    before they could reach close quarters with their enemies, to artillary
    that had greater range than the opponents.
    
    I suggest that it matters little whether the bomb was used to save
    lives, end the war sooner or demonstrate it to the Russians. Fact is
    that every thing we did collectively led the Japanese leadership to see
    that to continue the fight would be extermination of the Japanese
    empire. Ultimately, that is why they surrendered.                      
    
    It's easy to monday morning quarterback those decisions now especially
    if you were born any number of years after WWII ended. As for the
    stamp, the moralists out there can boycott use of the stamp. I for one
    will use it to pay the postal service for transporting mail from point
    A to B

    re: .43 
    
    The way to puncture this vacuous view of history is not to cite an
    incident which you have likely judged as "good" or a politician
    so remote to you that you have no possible opinion (Henry VI), but to
    say something like:
    
    "Well, Stalin was faced with some pretty tough choices there, what with
    all Old Bolsheviks who thought he was headed the wrong way, and what
    with the desparate need to build an industrial base, and what with the
    looming rise of fascism in Europe, so I certainly wouldn't want to
    judge his mass murders of his people -- who am I to judge from my easy
    chair in comfortable modern America?"
    
    
    Utterly absurd.
    
    Kit  

    
    My take on History?
    
    Read it....
    
    Understand it....
    
    Learn from it...
    
    Don't repeat it...
    

    How devastating were those incindiary raids on Tokyo?  800K people
    killed in one raid?
    
    This whole deal is an excersise in political korrectness.

    <- Exactly... The Tokyo and Dresden bomings were far more lethal.
    
       Chip

    
    
    Oh!! But we must be outrayged!!!
    

    Re: .43
    
    >You may "judge" history, if you like.  I elect not.
    
    How about understanding it, then?
    
    >What do you expect to do with this info - unbomb them ?
    
    Learn from experience, for one thing.

    > Oh!! But we must be outrayged!!!
    
    No, we must somehow be "victyms".

    Re: .16
    
    >You seem to lean to the group who believe we should feel regrets (or 
    >apologize) for winning WW2 and/or using the A-bomb.
    
    For winning?  No.  For using the A-bomb?  Yes, we should regret it,
    just as we regret any act of war.  War is regrettable.
    
    >Once the Japanese apologize for Pearl Harbor and the atrocities they 
    >committed in China, then we might consider such action but until that 
    >happens IMHO they can take their little offended sensibilities and do 
    >you know what.
    
    I wonder if you're one of those people who are astonished and affronted
    by modern blacks being resentful of slavery.  Their grudge is some 130
    years old, yours is 50.  Is there some time limit, after which it's no
    longer okay to be resentful?
    
    The atomic bomb stamp isn't just about Japan.  It's about the beginning
    of the nuclear era, a potential for Armageddon that has cast a shadow
    over two generations.

    
    OK - the decision was Truman's.  It was his alone, he knew it was,
    he gathered the information and did what he thought best.  Since he
    became president without being elected anywhere but Missouri (and
    that by the Pendergast machine) and the fiat of FDR, there is no
    point in any guilt, since none of us have any no matter how bad a
    decision Harry made.
    
    He defended it to his death with never a wavering moment, and he heard
    all the arguments presented here, and more.  They moved him not one
    jot.  "The Japs deserved it, and I stuck it to them," was his view.
    
    I think I understand this incident very well, but am willing to learn
    more.  Truman is dead and will be judged in the beyond.  And there will
    never be a similar situation in my life, where the USA was attacked
    without warning, and found itself in the position of possessing all
    the nuclear weapons in the world, and an opponent who could not be
    expected to believe anything we told them.  So we can learn nothing
    from this incident which would help us in any future nuclear decision.
    
      bb

    
    if its so desirable to commemorate the a bombing, it would have
    been better had the stamp expressed some regret and sorrow. 
    
    no blame, no attempts to justify, as the debate is pointless now.

    "Atomic bombs hasten end of the war"
    
    that is a bald statement of what is believed by the majority of
    historians to be fact.  it does not glorify the bombs, neither does it
    bewail them.
    
    pc-ness is all, i spose.

    <--------
    
    Too bad our government can't do the same...
    

    
.16
    
>    those would not fit in. You seem to lean to the group who believe we
>    should feel regrets (or apologize) for winning WW2 and/or using the 
>    A-bomb. Once the Japanese apologize for Pearl Harbor and the atrocities 
>    they committed in China, then we might consider such action but until
>    that happens IMHO they can take their little offended sensibilities and
>    do you know what. 
    
    
    I don't know about China but they did recently apologize for Pearl
    Harbor. 
    
    

.56
>    "Atomic bombs hasten end of the war"
    
>    that is a bald statement of what is believed by the majority of
>    historians to be fact.  it does not glorify the bombs, neither does it
>    bewail them.
    
     A bold statement. Considering all the flak that the Smithonian
    institute is getting by Historians for bowing to pressure of Vets and
    not telling the 'whole truth'.
    
    While I'd be hard pressed to argue that it didn't hasten the war.
    Were cities humane targets? Was the bomb dropped to see what it would
    do to a city?
    
    
        

    "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is,
    the sooner it will be over."
    

    RE: .60
    
    >Were cities humane targets?
    
    
    Much of Japan's industry, during the latter part of the war, was moved
    into residential areas due to the fact that most factories had the snot
    bombed out of them...
    
    One reason why Tokyo had a large proportion of incendiary devices
    dropped on them with spectacular results!

    
    "Humane" targets ?  Um, in which war were you ?
    
      bb

    
    
    .61, .62 and .63. Agreed, agreed and agreed.
    
    Still, considering how much more powerful the weapon was.
    Would anything less than the population of two cities have given the
    same result?  When you drop conventional bombs on factorys your not 
    trying to hit peoples homes. Its...'Collatoral damage'. 
    There is no veil like that with atomics. It's everything.
    
    I don't think something this big could be be summed up in four words.
    
    "It hasten the war." - end of story.
                                                             

    re: Japan apologizing for Pearl Harbor
    
    I'd read an editorial on that, stating that the apology was in fact
    not an apology to the United States, but rather an apology from the
    government of Japan to its own people.  The editorial made the point
    that an apology from Japan to the United States has still not happened,
    and would be appreciated, and so on.  I didn't completely understand
    this, since I didn't follow the "apology" story from the beginning.
    
    Does anyone know any further details and/or interpretation of the
    apology?
    
    Chris

    .64
    
    > When you drop conventional bombs on factorys your not
    > trying to hit peoples homes.
    
    as has been pointed out, at the time the atomic bombs were dropped,
    home == factory.
    
    to accomplish the same destruction of war production capacity with
    conventional weapons in nagoya and tokyo required several flights of
    between 300 and 600 b-29s with full crew and attendant crew loss as
    planes were shot down or went down due to failures.  in this light, the
    use of the a-bomb as a measure for reducing damage to the delivery
    system personnel was justifiable militarily.

    
    .24, .25:
    
    I seem to remember reading something about this, and if I recall
    correctly, the medical experimentation camps had accumulated a lot
    of data regarding human endurance to `adverse' conditions.  I think
    that many of the staff were spared prosecution in order to gather 
    information from them regarding their `research' and its results.
    
    Not that I agree with the reasoning or anything...
    
    jc
    

    RE:.65
    
    As you note the Japan government apolgy was to there own people and not
    the US.  I believe the  Japanese government apologized for not declaring 
    war on the US before attacking Pearl Habor. They stated that it was a
    dishonorable start of the war or something to this nature. 

    I really don't think we need to give a damn about how the Japanese
    "feel" about one of our postage stamps.
    
    Period.

    Tell me, to you think you need to give a damn about how you get along
    with your neighbors?
    
    When the US has no foreign interests and no presence in foreign
    countries, _then_ it can stop giving a damn about getting along with
    its global neighbors.

  what about how _we_ feel about it?

    .71
    
    It's a postage stamp!  
    
    

    I feel good about it.

    	From an avid stamp collector I have received a list of some of the
    	events/items commemorated (or scheduled to be commemorated) by this
    	series of stamps.
    
    	JOE --
    
	SOME OF THE OTHER TOPICS THAT HAVE APPEARED ON PREVIOUS STAMPS IN THE 
SERIES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
	1941  BURMA ROAD
	PEACETIME DRAFT
	LEND LEASE ACT
	ATLANTIC CHARTER
	AMERICA, ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY
	CIVIL DEFENSE
	1ST LIBERTY SHIP
	JAPANESE BOMB PEARL HARBOR
	SINKING OF THE REUBEN JAMES DESTROYER
	US DECLARES WAR ON JAPAN
	1942   B25 RAID ON TOKYO
	RATIONING
	BATTLE OF CORAL SEA
	CORREGIDOR FALLS TO JAPAN
	JAPANESE INVADE ALEUTIANS
	ALLIES DECIPHER SECRET ENEMY CODES
	YORKTOWN CARRIER LOST AT MIDWAY
	WOMEN JOIN WAR EFFORT
	MARINES LAND ON GUADALCANAL
	ALLIES LAND IN N. AFRICA
	1943:  ALLIES BATTLE U-BOATS
		MEDICS TREAT WOUNDED
		SICILY ATTACKED BY ALLIES
		B-24'S HIT PLOESTII REFINERIES
		V-MAIL FROM HOME
		INVASION OF ITALY BY ALLIES
		BONDS FOR WAR EFFORT
		WILLIE&JOE(ARMY CARTOON)
		GOLD STAR MOTHERS
		BATTLE OF TARAWA
	
	1944:   ALLIES RETAKE NEW GUINEA
		P-51'S ESCORT B-17'S
		ALLIES IN NORMANDY
		AIRBORNE UNITS SPEARHEAD ATTACKS
		SUBS SHORTEN WAR
		ALLIES FREE ROME & PARIS
		US TROOPS CLEAR SAIPAN
		RED BALL EXPRESS
		BATTLE OF LEYTE GULF
		BATTLE OF THE BULGE(BASTOGNE)

	1945:   MARINES RAISE FLAG ON IWO JIMA
		FIERCE FIGHTING AT BRIDGE
		OKINAWA, LAST BIG BATTLE, JUNE '45
		MARINES BUILD BRIDGES OVER RIVERS
		ALLIES LIBERATE HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS
		GERMANY SURRENDERS
		WWII UPROOTED MILLIONS
	      * A-BOMBS HASTEN WAR'S END
		JAPAN SURRENDERS, AUG '45
		RETURNING VETERANS HONORED
		
	      *POSSIBLY TO BE CHANGED

    
    it should be noted that stamps are a USPS profit center and
    the greater the furor the more collectors are likely to 
    purchase sheets of them.
    
    

    The proposed stamp is being dropped, and will be replaced with a picture
    of Truman preparing to announce the surrender of Japan.

	really??  cool.

    
    if they really want to offend the Japanese they could have
    one of the actual surrender ceremony depicting the Foreign
    Minister and Army CoS bowing as they present themselves on
    the deck of USS Missouri.

    
    <--------
    
    Oh Gosh!! Then we won't be able to sing... "Won't you be my neighbor"!
    

    Anent .81: You yanked our chains too hard.  No one could be such a
    fool.

    Oh well...A for Effort?!?  :")

    That should be... "It's a stamp, stupid!"
    
    Re; Neighbors and foreign interests... :-pppppppppppppppp's
    
    The Japanese owe us (U.S.) everything. They'd be 3rd world nation
    if it weren't for our destroy and rebuild policies. 
    
    Chip

	No stamp will be issued!  It reminds me of a shirt someone showed me in
a catalog. It had the mushroom cloud, on top of it it stated:

			Made in USA

	On the bottom of it it stated:

			Tested in Japan


	Didn't the stamp really say the same thing?

    I think the real problem is that you could interpret the stamp's message
    across a wide spectrum, even with the "...hastening..." caption.
    
    Chip

    
    RE: .82
    
    You're right....
    
    It's enough for me to see the groveling and humiliation in all the WWII
    history books I have and have seen...
    
      I'd like to see some statistics as to how many busted blood vessels
    and coronaries there were among the Japanese just before/during/after
    the unconditional surrender...
    

    Book scheduled for publication this month says that on July 3, 1945,
    COS George Marshall received decrypted copies of intercepted Japanese
    communications indicating that Japan was ready to make a deal with the
    Soviet Union rather than submit to unconditional surrender.  Such a
    deal would have radically altered the balance of power in the Pacific,
    i.e., the USSR would have become the enemy of the Allied Powers.  On
    July 4, the US and Britain decided that the atomic bomb was necessary.

>    Book scheduled for publication this month says that on July 3, 1945,
>    COS George Marshall received decrypted copies of intercepted Japanese
>    communications indicating that Japan was ready to make a deal with the
>    Soviet Union rather than submit to unconditional surrender.  Such a
>    deal would have radically altered the balance of power in the Pacific,
>    i.e., the USSR would have become the enemy of the Allied Powers.  On
>    July 4, the US and Britain decided that the atomic bomb was necessary.

3rd Meeting Minutes of Combined Policy Committee Meeting that was held at 
the Pentagon on July 4, 1945:  In the meeting, Britain _agreed_ the use of 
A-Bomb aginst Japan, based on a year ago's "Hyde Park Memorandum" - the 
aidememorie of conversation between the President and the Prime Minister at 
Hyde Park, September 18, 1944.  The Hyde Park Memorandum shows that Japan 
would be a possible target of Tube Alloys (that was a Britain code name for 
A-bomb).

There is also a memorandum by the special assistant to the secretary of state
(Bohlem) written on March 28, 1960, on the Meeting of President Truman with 
generalissimo Starlin at Starlin's Villa on July _18_, 1945.  
There, Starlin mentioned that USSR had recieved a messasge from Japan, and 
he handed to Truman the message and a copy of a letter from Sato, who was the 
Japanese Ambassador to USSR.  They agreed to turn down the Japan's request 
by giving a vague answer to it.  

(source: a book titled "Manhattan Project" which is a collection of memorandums
 letters and notes.)

If memory serves me right, the US and Britain had already known in Yalta 
conferrence that USSR would enter WWII.

_Tak

> There is also a memorandum by the special assistant to the secretary of state
> (Bohlem) written on March 28, 1960, on the Meeting of President Truman with 
> generalissimo Starlin at Starlin's Villa on July _18_, 1945.  
> There, Starlin mentioned that USSR had recieved a messasge from Japan, and 
> he handed to Truman the message and a copy of a letter from Sato, who was the 
> Japanese Ambassador to USSR.  They agreed to turn down the Japan's request 
> by giving a vague answer to it.  
    
    The book indicates specifically that the Americans had knowledge, from
    decrupted communications, of Japan's intention before the Soviets saw
    fit to reveal it.
    
    Allies don't always share ALL the information at their disposal, and
    the USA and the USSR were allies only from necessity.  Neither nation
    fully trusted the other, and Stalin's choice to spill the beans was
    made only because Stalin figured that it would turn out advantageously. 
    Which is almost certainly true, given that the USA and Britain could
    have defeated both Japan and the USSR if necessary.  The war would have
    been terribly protracted, and tens of millions more lives would have
    been lost, but the eventual outcome would not have involved the defeat
    of the Western Allied Powers.