Best-Worst-Last-First-Whatever Lists

[Mayerling]

My S.H. list:

1-Arthur Wontner
2-Basil Rathbone
3-Jeremy Brett

Hi Stan,

Thanks for remembering Wontner - now somewhat overshadowed (despite playing Holmes in several films) by Rathbone.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

For me the definitive Holmes has always been Basil Rathbone. I have a fondness for the series of films he starred in even if dear old Nigel Bruce did play a buffoonish Watson. Many of the actors who portrayed Holmes though were really years too old to play Holmes in his prime. Wontner was in his mid-fifties, Rathbone late forties, for example.

We know that William Gillette played Sherlock Holmes on stage. Presumably Conan Doyle saw his performance at some time. I wonder whether he ever saw any Sherlock Holmes films, the silent 'The Return of Sherlock Holmes' with Clive Brook in 1929, for instance, and what his reaction would have been.

It's rather odd but none of us have mentioned John Barrymore's 1922 silent film portrayal in "Sherlock Holmes" with Roland Young as Dr. Watson. One of the villains is played by a just starting out young film actor named William Powell.

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.

There was also a series of silent films that Doyle did like with Elie Norwood playing the detective. Most have been lost.

Doyle was fascinated by film, and most enthusiastic about the 1925 production of "The Lost World", with Wallace Beery as "Professor George Challenger" and Lewis Stone as "Lord John Roxton". In fact Doyle actually tried to get into the film, pretending to be Challenger wearing a thick black "Assyrian - style" beard as the character is supposed to have (and as Beery does wear in the film), but the sequence was dropped (though there are still photos showing Doyle done up that way.

Jeff

[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.

[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]

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

[GUT]

Worst effort ever in a Cricket test?

Just think back a day or two.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.