Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Latest Media Alert - Part 2

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The Editors
Guest





Post Post subject: Latest Media Alert - Part 2 Reply with quote

available under 'latest'.

Best wishes

The Editors
Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:16 am
Back to top
Sue S



Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 72
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Re: Latest Media Alert - Part 2 Reply with quote

The Editors wrote:
available under 'latest'.

Best wishes

The Editors


The link for those who, like me, can't be bothered to go back to the home page.

http://www.medialens.org/blog/index.htm

Sue Smile
Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:25 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael



Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 59
Location: here!

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

That's the spirit Sue S!
Show'em how it works!!

Regards
Laughing
Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:28 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sue S



Joined: 15 Jan 2004
Posts: 72
Location: UK

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Michael wrote:
That's the spirit Sue S!
Show'em how it works!!

Regards
Laughing


Twisted Evil

Laughing

Sue,
Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:32 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wolfywits



Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 5
Location: Europe

Post Post subject: The historical justification for the use of A-bombs Reply with quote

Dear David

On the question of whether Japan was ready to come to terms before the use of the A-bombs, I wonder if the historical context fully supports your argument.

The Allies had recent experience of a similar scenario in relation to the Nazis. In April 1945 Himmler, who had recently been promoted by Hitler to be supreme commander of the Volkssturm, and could therefore be seen as the second most powerful man in the 3rd Reich, approached the Allies through the Swedish, in particular Count Folke Bernadette de Wisborg, proposing surrender. Hitler subsequently called for his arrest. Obviously, the proposal came to nothing.

So, a very high level call for capitulation had proved, at best, unreliable, only a few months before the decision to use the two bombs to ensure surrender. The Japanese approaches to the Allies in 1945 must at least be viewed within that context. It may well be that Japan would indeed have surrendered without the use of the bombs, but I'd suggest that the Allies' reasons for proceeding in any event were somewhat more complex than your article suggests. We should remember to judge, as opposed to assess, history by reference to the contemporary evidence, rather than to sources that became available later.

I don't for a moment seek to condone the use of the A-bombs, or to argue that further attempts to secure Japan's surrender before their use should not have been made. In the spirit of your determination that the most accurate historical picture possible should be presented, however, I offer this as a further, potentially significant, factor to be taken into account. Remember that historians always have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Of course, none of this detracts from your admirable critique of the programme. As you point out, it pretty much ignored the entire issue.

By the way, previous posts on the old message board raised questions about why the US used 2 different types of bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm given to understand that they actually had only 2 bombs - one of each type. So they used them both.

Regards

Wolfywits
Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:19 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wolfywits



Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 5
Location: Europe

Post Post subject: OOps! Reply with quote

Sorry, I've just realised that I've posted in the wrong place (it should have been a response to the latest NS article).

Oh dear, I am manifestly confused by the shiney new forum. Still, at least it provides an opportunity to use one of those little faces for the first time. I think this one will do: Embarassed

Wolfywits
Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:23 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
finn mccool



Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 86
Location: Helsinki

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

You know if it bothered you, you could have deleted your post... And you can still edit it. Just some of the wonders of the new forum.

from the FAQ:

Quote:
How do I edit or delete a post?

Unless you are the board admin or forum moderator you can only edit or delete your own posts. You can edit a post (sometimes for only a limited time after it was made) by clicking the edit button for the relevant post. If someone has already replied to the post, you will find a small piece of text output below the post when you return to the topic that lists the number of times you edited it. This will only appear if no one has replied; it also will not appear if moderators or administrators edit the post (they should leave a message saying what they altered and why). Please note that normal users cannot delete a post once someone has replied.
Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:52 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
eelpie



Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 26
Location: London, England

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Further to your examples of Logical Media Lunacy:

The Washington correspondent of C4 News summed up his report by stating emphatically that "Gore was after all the man who lost to George Bush". (Reporting the endorsement of Howard Dean by Al Gore).

The well-known fact is that Gore received about half a million more votes than Geo W Bush, but that it took so long to establish the fact, that Bush was able to get a Supreme Court decision in his own favour before the facts came out.

The short way to say this is that Bush userped the Presidency, but could a moderator of C4 News actually pick up his corr on this point and state the unstateable, that George Bush had stolen the office he occupied?

In short, never! So, although there was a collective gasp across the nation as this heretical statement passed by without comment from the anchorman's desk, nothing remained said, and for a moment Logical Media Lunacy prevailed.
Sun Jan 18, 2004 11:16 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David Edwards
Guest





Post Post subject: Thanks Wolfywitz Reply with quote

I agree, there's plenty to debate. The point I was making was that this is the case - the BBC gave the impression that there was no debate.

Best wishes

DE
Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:48 pm
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker