Hiroshima: 57 years

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 07 2002,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 07 2002,12:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I recently watched a documentary that said the Atom Bomb was used to intimidate the Soviet Union, and not infact to end they war. It is even said that the scientists on the Manhatten project were worried that the war was going to end before it could be used.<span id='postcolor'>

I said it already 3 times, please read my posts too even if you think I am mentally disabled and stoned!  

It is shocking to read the history of the development. oppenheimer was so obsessed with what he had created there (also the generals) that this bomb was like a toy waiting to be played with.

But Stalin wasnt intimidated, at this time he was already well informed and had already started his own programm.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry Albert! I missed it! I did try to read the lot.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 07 2002,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who are we to say that something that is bad, shouldn't have happened?

The Great fire of london allowed the metropolis to be rebuilt and revolutionised, the second world war got penecillin recoginsed and mass produced etc. etc.

The bombing of the Japanese cities may have saved the lives of many more Japanese civillians and Allied soldiers and Japanese troops. It may have also prevented the expansion of the Soviet Union in Europe, another terrible war.

One can't always take the simplistic and rather naive view that bad things are always totally avoidable and never neccessary.<span id='postcolor'>

Your logic sais that you have to pay a price for everything, and a war is the hurtful step before a new beginning. I agree to a certain extent. But what did the Atomic-bomb do that was necessary. Well hiroshima is still an unusable spot, so there your logic doesnt grip, I see no Hiroshima being more beautyful than the old one before the 1940ies!

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 07 2002,12:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 07 2002,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Who are we to say that something that is bad, shouldn't have happened?

The Great fire of london allowed the metropolis to be rebuilt and revolutionised, the second world war got penecillin recoginsed and mass produced etc. etc.

The bombing of the Japanese cities may have saved the lives of many more Japanese civillians and Allied soldiers and Japanese troops. It may have also prevented the expansion of the Soviet Union in Europe, another terrible war.

One can't always take the simplistic and rather naive view that bad things are always totally avoidable and never neccessary.<span id='postcolor'>

Your logic sais that you have to pay a price for everything, and a war is the hurtful step before a new beginning. I agree to a certain extent. But what did the Atomic-bomb do that was necessary. Well hiroshima is still an unusable spot, so there your logic doesnt grip, I see no Hiroshima being more beautyful than the old one before the 1940ies! <span id='postcolor'>

I mean that the bomb may have prevented a war with Russia the west couldn't have managed, and may have saved lives (including civillians) in Japan and the Allies.

History may have recorded worse things without it, while it was horrible it may have been neccessary. It is quite childish to say "it was bad and shouldn't have happened".

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

In any corporate meeting you ask yourself: what could we have done better? In the case of Hiroshima we dont know what would happened if not the atomic-bomb would have been used, but what we know is that an entire city was blown to dust and sealed for decades. You are simply stating a thesis: "it could have turned worse otherwise" but fact is "the solution wasnt optimal"

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 07 2002,13:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In any corporate meeting you ask yourself: what could we have done better? In the case of Hiroshima we dont know what would happened if not the atomic-bomb would have been used, but what we know is that an entire city was blown to dust and sealed for decades. You are simply stating a thesis: "it could have turned worse otherwise" but fact is "the solution wasnt optimal"<span id='postcolor'>

I'm saying that we are in no position to say that it would have been better. History moves on, and this kind of world changing event can't be called totally wrong. The world we live in today is the result of a cold peace betwene to rival super-powers, without the Atomic bomb I can't imagine how peace would have been preserved.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 07 2002,13:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 07 2002,13<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In any corporate meeting you ask yourself: what could we have done better? In the case of Hiroshima we dont know what would happened if not the atomic-bomb would have been used, but what we know is that an entire city was blown to dust and sealed for decades. You are simply stating a thesis: "it could have turned worse otherwise" but fact is "the solution wasnt optimal"<span id='postcolor'>

I'm saying that we are in no position to say that it would have been better. History moves on, and this kind of world changing event can't be called totally wrong. The world we live in today is the result of a cold peace betwene to rival super-powers, without the Atomic bomb I can't imagine how peace would have been preserved.<span id='postcolor'>

That is a very apathic world view. That's not how we play it. If 1->2->3->....->n and we can't predict beyond 2 then we say if 1 leads to 2 and 2 is bad then 1 is was a wrong decision regardles if it is good at the n:th step or not.

That's how society works, and that is the only way it could work since we would otherwise have to wait for an infinite time before we could pass judgement. If you kill somebody, the law says that it is bad regardless of the possible future consequences.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 07 2002,13:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 07 2002,13:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Aug. 07 2002,13<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In any corporate meeting you ask yourself: what could we have done better? In the case of Hiroshima we dont know what would happened if not the atomic-bomb would have been used, but what we know is that an entire city was blown to dust and sealed for decades. You are simply stating a thesis: "it could have turned worse otherwise" but fact is "the solution wasnt optimal"<span id='postcolor'>

I'm saying that we are in no position to say that it would have been better. History moves on, and this kind of world changing event can't be called totally wrong. The world we live in today is the result of a cold peace betwene to rival super-powers, without the Atomic bomb I can't imagine how peace would have been preserved.<span id='postcolor'>

That is a very apathic world view. That's not how we play it. If 1->2->3->....->n and we can't predict beyond 2 then we say if 1 leads to 2 and 2 is bad then 1 is was a wrong decision regardles if it is good at the n:th step or not.

That's how society works, and that is the only way it could work since we would otherwise have to wait for an infinite time before we could pass judgement. If you kill somebody, the law says that it is bad regardless of the possible future consequences.<span id='postcolor'>

True, but unlike the holocaust, the Atom bomb may have saved lives. The judgement can't be so easily past over this issue I think.

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 07 2002,13:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">True, but unlike the holocaust, the Atom bomb may have saved lives. The judgement can't be so easily past over this issue I think.<span id='postcolor'>

Then you can justify any political murder, e.g. JFK or Rabin.

Who knows, maybe it will arise something good out of it, or it made something bad not to happen...

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the case of Hiroshima we dont know what would happened if not the atomic-bomb would have been used, but what we know is that an entire city was blown to dust and sealed for decades.<span id='postcolor'>

Hiroshima was "blown to dust and sealed for decades"? If you believe that, I can't but wonder precisely what planet you're living on...

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is the most elementary strategy there is: Avoid engaging the enemy and encircle him instead. Then you just sit it out. This is the way to avoid casualties.<span id='postcolor'>

Now explain how you're supposed to "sit it out" when your navy is being decimated by kamikaze attacks? And then explain how you'd tell the population at home that you know they've been fighting a total war for years and are tired of the whole thing, you know their husbands, brothers, fathers and sons are being killed daily in the Pacific, but you've decided to sit and wait for as long as neccesary because it would be awful to use nuclear weapons on the cities which are building the weapons being used against you.

It's also worth remembering that shortly before the bombs were dropped the US or Canadian navy captured a U-boat on its way to Japan with a cargo of radioactive materials (the full details have never been officially released, so there's still a lot of debate as to what exactly it was), which apparently scared the hell out of the US military chiefs. Knowing that, why would any rational leader sit and wait for the Japanese to use nuclear weapons (either actual fission bombs or simpler radiation weapons) against them?

[DarkLight 0]

Damn, this post is starting to look like the mid east thread, all those hard words. *sigh*

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Aug. 07 2002,14:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now explain how you're supposed to "sit it out" when your navy is being decimated by kamikaze attacks? And then explain how you'd tell the population at home that you know they've been fighting a total war for years and are tired of the whole thing, you know their husbands, brothers, fathers and sons are being killed daily in the Pacific, but you've decided to sit and wait for as long as neccesary because it would be awful to use nuclear weapons on the cities which are building the weapons being used against you.

It's also worth remembering that shortly before the bombs were dropped the US or Canadian navy captured a U-boat on its way to Japan with a cargo of radioactive materials (the full details have never been officially released, so there's still a lot of debate as to what exactly it was), which apparently scared the hell out of the US military chiefs. Knowing that, why would any rational leader sit and wait for the Japanese to use nuclear weapons (either actual fission bombs or simpler radiation weapons) against them?<span id='postcolor'>

U.S. navy was not being "decimated" by kamikaze attacks, since these attacks were rarely succesfull. And it would have been very easy to sit it out by enforcing a naval blockade with minimal casualties. How long do you think those japs would have been able to sit in their island inside a naval blockade? How many long range kamikaze planes do you think they could have built before running out of ball bearings, aviation fuel, aluminium sheeting, etc.?

The truth is that you had to go for a quick victory in order to please the voting masses back home. A few hundred thousand dead slit-eyes is a small price to pay for popularity figures.

Anyway, good intentions NEVER have justified anything. So we should remove the a-bombing from the context of avoiding allied deaths and just consider it as a simple act: Killing 100s of thousands of civvies with nukes is an atrocity, whatever the justification. When you realize the horror of this act, you should feel for the victims and keep in your mind what your nation has done and maybe you'll just keep the lid of that nuclear trigger under a bigger lock, instead of nuking everybody who pisses into your apple pie.

[Benze 0]

One word. SAIPAN.

Take the time, and emulate the fear, horror, shock, and digust, and utter disbelief of the Marines and Corpsmen, as hundreads of civillians, men, women, children, jumped to their deaths rather than surrender. That's what would have happened on Japan, friends. Guess what they told the civillians to do? Get sharpened bamboo, make traps, just get ready to fight. Trained boys early as 8 in coastal defense. Delivered ceramic grenades for civillians to use on themselves and enemies. I listened to one mans speech. I listened, on how he was trusted in the chore of killing his entire family as the Marines stormed his island. First he took a big rock and smashed his sister's and mother's head open. Then he took it to his father. He was just about to kill himself when he was found and restrained. THAT WAS THE JAPANESE MINDSET. NO SURRENDER.

They were going to fight to the death. They were going to kill themselves rather than surrender. By dropping the bombs, we saved both US AND JAPANESE lives. This is war. It is not pretty.

Denoir, I have a hard time believeing that this topic was for "remembering." Just look at your topic post. Look at it. You can sit there and be elitist, or you can understand, how my friend's grandfather cried with joy and pain when he learned he wasn't going to be sent in. I was over at his house. My friend something to the effect, "Those bombs never should have been dropped. They should have just invaded it normally."

His grandfather looked over, and I could see the tears coming up in his eyes. "Aaron. Aaron, listen to me. I cried for hours that day when I learned that I wasn't going to be sent in. I was going to die, Aaron. Look at me. I was going to die. By dropping those bombs, hundreads of thousands of lives were saved, despite having some took. You owe your existance to those bombs and so do thousands of other young men just like yourself in both here and Japan."

He then cupped his hands over his face and gently sobbed.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Benze @ Aug. 07 2002,15:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">His grandfather looked over, and I could see the tears coming up in his eyes. "Aaron. Aaron, listen to me. I cried for hours that day when I learned that I wasn't going to be sent in. I was going to die, Aaron. Look at me. I was going to die. By dropping those bombs, hundreads of thousands of lives were saved, despite having some took. You owe your existance to those bombs and so do thousands of other young men just like yourself in both here and Japan."

He then cupped his hands over his face and gently sobbed.<span id='postcolor'>

Wow. What utter fascist propaganda. I can't believe you postet that

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U.S. navy was not being "decimated" by kamikaze attacks,<span id='postcolor'>

Conceded up to a point, as I've been checking the dates on the web, and most of the attacks were over by August; presumably because the fleet was far enough offshore that they couldn't be reached by anything that was an effective weapon.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">since these attacks were rarely succesfull.<span id='postcolor'>

That, however, is silly: in June alone they sunk 30-odd ships and damaged hundreds more. Sure, they had only about a 10% success rate in attacks, but they were probably the single most effective anti-ship weapon the allies faced during the whole of WWII.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How long do you think those japs would have been able to sit in their island inside a naval blockade?<span id='postcolor'>

A long time, while building up their weapons ready for an invasion. Certainly longer than the allied forces could maintain a naval blockade when the population wanted their sons, fathers, brothers and husbands home.

I don't think you have any idea of the mindset of the Japanese at the time; which is hardly surprising when the allied troops who fought them could barely understand it themselves... most would rather die than surrender unconditionally.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The truth is that you had to go for a quick victory in order to please the voting masses back home.<span id='postcolor'>

Uh, yes. What else did you expect them to do?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A few hundred thousand dead slit-eyes is a small price to pay for popularity figures.<span id='postcolor'>

The choice was not nuclear attack or life; the choice was death by nuclear attack or death by conventional attack. Even if the US government had decided not to use nukes, there's no way they would have stopped conventional attacks prior to an invasion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Killing 100s of thousands of civvies with nukes is an atrocity, whatever the justification.<span id='postcolor'>

Why? Those people were building the weapons which would have been used against allied forces, and would have done whatever they could to kill those forces themselves in the event of an invasion; the distinction between 'soldier' and 'civilian' is a minor one in a total war like WWII.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Aug. 07 2002,14:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the case of Hiroshima we dont know what would happened if not the atomic-bomb would have been used, but what we know is that an entire city was blown to dust and sealed for decade.<span id='postcolor'>

Hiroshima was "blown to dust and sealed for decades"? If you believe that, I can't but wonder precisely what planet you're living on...<span id='postcolor'>

About 68 percent of Hiroshima were completely destroyed by the bombing, another 24 percent were damaged. The Supreme Allied Headquarters reported that 129,558 people were killed, injured, or missing and 176,987 were made homeless. (Source: Microsoft Encarta 98)

About 280,000 civilians and 40,000 soldiers were living in Hiroshima when "Little Boy" struck the city with a force of 20,000 tons of TNT. Approximately 100,000 people died immediately in the blast or in the fire, many other died weeks, month, or years later. Hiroshima had about 80,000 buildings at the time, 48,000 were completely destroyed, another 22,000 seriously damaged

50% blast, destroying the buildings and killing people

35% heat, starting fires burning people

15% radiation, causing the long term effects

--------------------------------------------------------

On August 8, two days after Hiroshima the Soviet Union declared war on Japan.

Truman's directive of July 24 had authorized the U.S. military to use Atomic Bombs against Japan and there was still an Atomic Bomb left. Military leaders choose Nagasaki, a town in the South of Japan. The inhabitants were warned of the possibility of an Atomic attack; however, since the Japanese government did not publish any reports from Hiroshima the warning were widely ignored.

On August 9, "Fat Man" destroyed Nagasaki, killing 70,000 people. On August 10, Japan offered to surrender under certain condition. The U.S. responded that Japan would have accept the Potsdam declaration.

The Los Alamos team expected a third Atomic Bomb to be ready on August, 17. Meanwhile Truman ordered bombing of Japanese cities using conventional fire bombs. On August 14, the largest air raid of war was started. About 828 B-29 bombers attacked Tokyo, Japans capital. That day Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam declaration and surrender unconditionally.

If you question that the radiation contamination of the bomb was not so strong because this bomb wasnt big then you are wrong! If you want the percise stats  The effect of radiation on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

BTW: if you look for a site that questions the usefulness of the bomb go here:

Was is useful?

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What utter fascist propaganda. I can't believe you postet that<span id='postcolor'>

That you regard such comments as "fascist propaganda" says more about your mindset than about the person who posted it; why do you hate the allied troops so much that you'd like to have seen hundreds of thousands of them killed in an invasion?

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About 68 percent of Hiroshima were completely destroyed by the bombing, another 24 percent were damaged.<span id='postcolor'>

And that relates to your claim that it was "blown to dust and sealed for decades", how exactly? Do you really believe that no-one was allowed back in Hiroshima for decades after the attack?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Aug. 07 2002,15:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What utter fascist propaganda. I can't believe you postet that<span id='postcolor'>

That you regard such comments as "fascist propaganda" says more about your mindset than about the person who posted it; why do you hate the allied troops so much that you'd like to have seen hundreds of thousands of them killed in an invasion?<span id='postcolor'>

A soldier who is happy to live at the expense of murdering civilians is only worth my utter contempt.

This little "story" could have easily been replaced of a German grandfather who is telling his grandchild how good it was that so many Russian civilians were massacred because otherwise he might have been forced to go to the eastern front and would probably have been killed there.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Well yes, I think if 65% (or whatever) is plane flat of such a large city then in fact yes I call it "blown to dust" and if the population is heavily diminished and intoxicated then I called it sealed. But that is the problem when using such imagery, it can easily be misinterpreted, but hey, now we got straight facts, those I meant!

[MrLaggy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A soldier who is happy to live at the expense of murdering civilians is only worth my utter contempt<span id='postcolor'>

You, of course, would have volunteered to be the first off the boats for the invasion?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This little "story" could have easily been replaced of a German grandfather who is telling his grandchild how good it was that so many Russian civilians were massacred because otherwise he might have been forced to go to the eastern front and would probably have been killed there.<span id='postcolor'>

If you can't see the difference between a war of aggression by Germany and a largely defensive war by the allies, well...

[bn880 5]

Well denoir I think your thread of rememberance is better than you wished for. All these people discussing and remembering the past can only lead to actually learning from it, which is 10 times better than a moment of silence and bagpipes.

The only thing I am currenly interested in from this thread is how to convince people that starting wars in 2002 and beyond is a big mistake. One big problem in current conflicts is one or sometimes both sides are asking too much from a peace deal, and some sides never ask "what do you want from us" publicly (to let their citizens hear the answer of the other side).

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrLaggy @ Aug. 07 2002,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A soldier who is happy to live at the expense of murdering civilians is only worth my utter contempt<span id='postcolor'>

You, of course, would have volunteered to be the first off the boats for the invasion?<span id='postcolor'>

No, but had I been ordered, I would have done it period. Death by the hands of the enemy is an occupational hazard in the military. You have to accept that or you will be a worthless soldier.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This little "story" could have easily been replaced of a German grandfather who is telling his grandchild how good it was that so many Russian civilians were massacred because otherwise he might have been forced to go to the eastern front and would probably have been killed there.<span id='postcolor'>

If you can't see the difference between a war of aggression by Germany and a largely defensive war by the allies, well...<span id='postcolor'>

Nuking cities can hardly be described as "defensive". And don't try to trivialize the issue by saying that I hate the allies. We all know that the axis powers were the bad guys and comitted far worse atrocities.

That however does not say automatically that anything that the allied did was good as you are trying to put it. That is an extremely naÄf view of the world you have.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 07 2002,09:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A soldier who is happy to live at the expense of murdering civilians is only worth my utter contempt.<span id='postcolor'>

Any soldier who is happy is only worth my utter contempt. (I'm not talking about draftees)

[Longinius 1]

"They were going to fight to the death. They were going to kill themselves rather than surrender. By dropping the bombs, we saved both US AND JAPANESE lives. This is war. It is not pretty."

Then why didnt all Japanese people kill themselves after a surrender was a fact?