Best-Worst-Last-First-Whatever Lists

[Shaggyrand]

I have heard that recently someone found the long missing silent film version of "Sherlock Holmes" that starred Gillette. But I don't know how true this is.

Late to it- but the found Gillette Sherlock Holmes is very real. Getting a blu-ray release on October 20th.

[sdreid]

If there was a time machine and we could have them all in their prime; My All Time Rock And Roll Band:

1-Drums-John Bonham(Led Zeppelin)
2-Keyboards-Jerry Lee Lewis
3-Bass-Jack Bruce(Cream)
4-Guitar-Pete Townshend(The Who)
5-Vocals-Richard Ashcroft(The Verve)


Until the time machine is invented, this is the best we have right now(Full screen, full volume and headphones recommended!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4rvJQUvZDo

[GUT]

The only two women executed here in Illinois:

1-Elizabeth Reed-Executed by hanging in 1845 for the poisoning murder of her husband

2-Marie Porter-Executed in the electric chair in 1938 for hiring a hit man to kill her brother

Only 2 that seems very low.

[sdreid]

The only two women executed here in Illinois:

1-Elizabeth Reed-Executed by hanging in 1845 for the poisoning murder of her husband

2-Marie Porter-Executed in the electric chair in 1938 for hiring a hit man to kill her brother

[sdreid]

On the other hand, the second bomb apparently had some different technical elements to the first and scientists involved in the project were anxious to see whether it would work . So the dropping of the second on Nagasaki has that air of scientific experimentation about it that is horrible in the circumstances.

The first weapon was a gun type uranium 235 device while the second was an implosion type plutonium 239 bomb. It, the latter, was very much like the original test device detonated in New Mexico so I don't think there was much new to test other than maybe aerodynamics and a few minor tweaks.

I agree, because it saved many lives, both American and Japanese, that Truman made the right decision, as I expect FDR would also have done.

[Mayerling]

After the bomb dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese government was given three days to respond. They didn't, apparently because key military elements in the Government argued that the U.S. had shot its bolt and had only the one bomb. They seemingly argued that even if the U.S. did have another they wouldn't use it because of public opinion. Nagasaki proved them wrong.

On the other hand, the second bomb apparently had some different technical elements to the first and scientists involved in the project were anxious to see whether it would work . So the dropping of the second on Nagasaki has that air of scientific experimentation about it that is horrible in the circumstances.

Hi Rosella,

Yeah it is horrible, and one can't be glib about it. Still measuring about 60, 000 lives lost in two detonations against something like two or three million lost in an intensely fought campaign (or series of campaigns) in Japan (at least half being Americans) I opt for the smaller losses. One can't argue against the detonations because of blundering by the same cliques of militarist nitwits who were running Imperial Japan since about 1934 (and running it on a terror basis by killing anyone, including Prime Ministers, who were not militant enough). It seems just (in the long run) that a number of these fellows (including Tojo) were hanged as war criminals. Ironically now, especially with the antics of post "Communist" China there may be a resurgence of Japan's dormant militarism again, only now for self-defense.

Truman learned of the Manhattan Project only after April 12, 1945, and then learned of the successful Los Alamos test while at Potsdam. Potsdam was in July 1945. Should he have sat on it, tried out an invasion, and then saw the casualties mount? I suppose somebody may suggest he could have offered the Japanese a way to surrender without losing face (we were seeking unconditional surrender) but those same militarists would have suspected this was a sign of our weakness and they could still win. Also, I don't think the local electorate here would have preferred 150,000 or 200,000 killed wounded and missing in the initial "probing" invasion of 1945-46 (I certainly wouldn't have - my father was in Hawaii and getting ready for such an invasion - in fact I might not even be here). Truman did the best he could, and I suspect he did rightly. His own comment when someone did chide him about the losses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, "What about those boys on the "Arizona"? " referring to the losses due to Japan's sneak attack of 1941. Interestingly that point is usually lost in the argument - probably due to the relative small loss in a sneak attack (about 2200 men lost on Dec. 7, 1941, half on the "Arizona") and the 60,000 vaporized or burned or left to fall apart due to the two A-bombs.

It is a real horrendous issue question - and while I know where I usually stand on it I know it is not an easy one for all to share my point of view.

Jeff

[Rosella]

After the bomb dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese government was given three days to respond. They didn't, apparently because key military elements in the Government argued that the U.S. had shot its bolt and had only the one bomb. They seemingly argued that even if the U.S. did have another they wouldn't use it because of public opinion. Nagasaki proved them wrong.

On the other hand, the second bomb apparently had some different technical elements to the first and scientists involved in the project were anxious to see whether it would work . So the dropping of the second on Nagasaki has that air of scientific experimentation about it that is horrible in the circumstances.

[GUT]

It's the old debate isn't it? Was it ethical to drop those two bombs (in the process killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians) when the U.S. doing so probably prevented the slaughter of hundreds of thousands more in a military invasion of Japan. It's an awful dilemma, especially when Japan may well have capitulated anyway in a few months. IMO it was the correct decision, though. It shortened the war and ultimately saved lives.

The second bomb worries me more than the first.

[Rosella]

It's the old debate isn't it? Was it ethical to drop those two bombs (in the process killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians) when the U.S. doing so probably prevented the slaughter of hundreds of thousands more in a military invasion of Japan. It's an awful dilemma, especially when Japan may well have capitulated anyway in a few months. IMO it was the correct decision, though. It shortened the war and ultimately saved lives.

[GUT]

I will state here...for what it's worth, as an ethno-historian of little to no to ill-repute. During that time, during those circumstances, rightly or wrongly, the U.S. Government believed the ONLY way to win the war was through the bomb. With no one understanding the long-term effects of radiation.

Yep... and it worked.

[Rosemary]

US

I will state here...for what it's worth, as an ethno-historian of little to no to ill-repute. During that time, during those circumstances, rightly or wrongly, the U.S. Government believed the ONLY way to win the war was through the bomb. With no one understanding the long-term effects of radiation.

[GUT]

Worst effort ever in a Cricket test?

Just think back a day or two.

[sdreid]

The five believed intentional uses of weapons of mass destruction in WWII and related conflicts. To note, although contemplated, there were no known uses of radiological weapons during this time period.:

Biological weapons-

1-Japan against China+1940-42+Anthrax/Glanders/Plague

Chemical weapons-

2-Italy against Ethiopia+1935-36+Mustard gas

3-Japan against China+1937-44+Lewisite/Mustard gas

4-Germany against Soviet Union+1942+Phosgene

Nuclear weapons-

5-United States against Japan+1945+Fission bombs

[sdreid]

The three times deadly chemical weapons were believed to have been intentionally used in WWII and related conflicts:

1-Italy against Ethiopia+1935-36+Mustard gas

2-Japan against China+1938-44+Mustard gas/Lewisite

3-Germany against Soviet Union+1942+Phosgene

[sdreid]

Anna May Wong played a femme fatale assistant to Dinehart.

Yes, she's outstanding in her part which is totally unlike her usual stereotypical "oriental" woman roles.