Revisionist History-OT

Revisionist History-OT (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

tocaff -> Revisionist History-OT (8/5/2015 9:03:21 PM)
On Tinian Island on a fateful day in August 1945 my father and the rest of his crew were lazing around as they weren't scheduled to fly their B-29 anywhere. An officer appeared and told them to report to Operations. Once there they were told that they were a Super Dumbo, an observation plane, and would that they would also report any downed planes. They were issued dark goggles and told that there would be a bright flash that they weren't supposed to look at. Their plane was loaded with gas and that's it. They were part of a mission over Nagasaki. There would be a weather plane, 2 Super Dumbos, a plane with a bomb and later another plane for damage assessment. My father's bewildered crew boarded, took off from Tinian's North Field and tried to figure out what was going on. A single plane with one bomb? They witnessed the second A bomb used in anger. They were initially horrified by what they saw and on the way back to Tinian reported a downed P-47. By the time they landed they had realized that they had witnessed a chance to end the war. They wanted one of these bombs for every B-29 so that Japan could finally be defeated and then they could go home. Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong. Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no. I don't intend this to be a political football,

DD696 -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/5/2015 9:55:28 PM)
I, for one, firmly believe that the causalities incurred as a result of Little Man and Fat Boy would pale in light of what would have incurred if the Allies would have had to invade Japan. It was the only humane decision that could have been made at the time. You were a wise man, Harry S. Truman. In addition, the sixth of August is a sad day for me. My father served on board DD696 for it's entire war career. It wasn't much longer than a year, but a year of hell including kamikazes off Okinawa. He feared airplanes the rest of his life. However, he chose 6 August 1973 to put a rifle to his head and end it - just one week after I had returned from the Philippines and left after visiting for several days. I found out a week later when I reported for duty at Quantico, Virginia. Was the day significant for him? Or just a day chosen randomly? I still have two rifles brought back by him from Japan that he found in caves at a naval base. - Yokohama if I remember correctly. I honor him with my logon ID. Rest in peace out there in Arco, Idaho. Rest in peace, also, all those innocents who died so that the damnable war could finally end.

geofflambert -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/5/2015 10:48:34 PM)
I've always wondered what I'd do, not just about those but the firebombings in Japan and Germany as well. I've usually concluded I would have. They (the Axis) would have.

tocaff -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/5/2015 11:26:03 PM)
My father used to speak to veterans and civic groups and he always said that many more people perished in the firebombing raids than the A bombs killed. It's a little known fact that Japan's cities were 40% or more destroyed by the time the A bombs were used.

mind_messing -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/5/2015 11:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong. Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no. I don't intend this to be a political football, It may be impossible for us to put ourselves in the shoes of the men on the ground, but that is not a carte-blanche to excuse any historical criticism of the events of the war. The most relevant example is the American role in WW2. The traditionalist viewpoint has the American involvement in the war caused by Pearl Harbor, when sleeping America wakes up one Sunday and finds itself in the middle of the war. We all know that's not true, America had been involved with lend-lease and in pressuring Japan over China. Revisionist historians provide an alternative viewpoint to the traditional one. Some have even proposed (Beard, I think, was the first) that American strong-arm diplomacy with Japan prior to Dec 7th played a significant role in the Japanese decision to risk war. On the topic of atomic weapons, I'm quite fond of the revisionist viewpoint that the Soviet intervention in the war played more of a role in the Japanese decision to surrender than the atomic bombs. Yes, the bombs could wipe out whole cities, but so could firebombing raids, while the involvement of the Soviets represented the complete dismemberment of the Japanese empire and the last diplomatic door being slammed in the Japanese leaderships face. In short, depending entirely on "traditionalist" historical viewpoints is as stupid as completely disregarding revisionist viewpoints.

leehunt27@bloomberg.net -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 1:46:55 AM)
Its worth reading up on Curtis Le May (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay#World_War_II) to understand the bombing policy from above as well. We have to put ourselves in the shoes of the guys in the trenches and the men at the top under pressure to win quickly and with minimal blood & treasure.

AW1Steve -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 1:47:37 AM)
When I worked at the Military museum on Guam , we used to have more Japanese visitors then Americans. I talked with all that I could , about every possible aspect of the war. I recall one elderly gentleman who had been in the IJA saying " as horrible as the bombs were , they saved me. And my country. It gave us "face". We would have never surrendered otherwise. You would have had to kill us all". Hirohito said Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.

mind_messing -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 2:25:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve When I worked at the Military museum on Guam , we used to have more Japanese visitors then Americans. I talked with all that I could , about every possible aspect of the war. I recall one elderly gentleman who had been in the IJA saying " as horrible as the bombs were , they saved me. And my country. It gave us "face". We would have never surrendered otherwise. You would have had to kill us all". Hirohito said Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. The bombs most significant contribution was in that it gave the Japanese leadership a convenient excuse to end the war, one that was palatable to their fighting rank-and-file. In terms of the actual impact on the Japanese leadership, the bombs didn't really register. Yes, an entire city had been turned to ash, but that was hardly a new phenomenon for the Japanese. The fact that the Soviets, the leaderships last straw for a negotiated surrender, had decided to tear up the Neutrality pact and turn on Japan was the real "We've lost the war" moment for the Japanese. You can see it in the Rescript sent to the troops. I see no mention of the atomic bomb. http://www.taiwandocuments.org/surrender07.htm

geofflambert -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 2:25:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong. Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no. I don't intend this to be a political football, It may be impossible for us to put ourselves in the shoes of the men on the ground, but that is not a carte-blanche to excuse any historical criticism of the events of the war. The most relevant example is the American role in WW2. The traditionalist viewpoint has the American involvement in the war caused by Pearl Harbor, when sleeping America wakes up one Sunday and finds itself in the middle of the war. We all know that's not true, America had been involved with lend-lease and in pressuring Japan over China. Revisionist historians provide an alternative viewpoint to the traditional one. Some have even proposed (Beard, I think, was the first) that American strong-arm diplomacy with Japan prior to Dec 7th played a significant role in the Japanese decision to risk war. On the topic of atomic weapons, I'm quite fond of the revisionist viewpoint that the Soviet intervention in the war played more of a role in the Japanese decision to surrender than the atomic bombs. Yes, the bombs could wipe out whole cities, but so could firebombing raids, while the involvement of the Soviets represented the complete dismemberment of the Japanese empire and the last diplomatic door being slammed in the Japanese leaderships face. In short, depending entirely on "traditionalist" historical viewpoints is as stupid as completely disregarding revisionist viewpoints. What I've heard (take that with a grain of salt, for instance I've heard Kirk is a fairy) is that the firebombing of Dresden was done to demonstrate to the Soviets what we (US) were capable of.

mind_messing -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 2:33:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong. Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no. I don't intend this to be a political football, It may be impossible for us to put ourselves in the shoes of the men on the ground, but that is not a carte-blanche to excuse any historical criticism of the events of the war. The most relevant example is the American role in WW2. The traditionalist viewpoint has the American involvement in the war caused by Pearl Harbor, when sleeping America wakes up one Sunday and finds itself in the middle of the war. We all know that's not true, America had been involved with lend-lease and in pressuring Japan over China. Revisionist historians provide an alternative viewpoint to the traditional one. Some have even proposed (Beard, I think, was the first) that American strong-arm diplomacy with Japan prior to Dec 7th played a significant role in the Japanese decision to risk war. On the topic of atomic weapons, I'm quite fond of the revisionist viewpoint that the Soviet intervention in the war played more of a role in the Japanese decision to surrender than the atomic bombs. Yes, the bombs could wipe out whole cities, but so could firebombing raids, while the involvement of the Soviets represented the complete dismemberment of the Japanese empire and the last diplomatic door being slammed in the Japanese leaderships face. In short, depending entirely on "traditionalist" historical viewpoints is as stupid as completely disregarding revisionist viewpoints. What I've heard (take that with a grain of salt, for instance I've heard Kirk is a fairy) is that the firebombing of Dresden was done to demonstrate to the Soviets what we (US) were capable of. My understanding of the issue of Dresden is that it was explained away as being targeted as a result of it's military and industrial value. The issue is that the bombing plans completely ignored the industry and military target (which were in the suburbs) and instead targeted the center of the city.

geofflambert -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 2:49:59 AM)
Can't argue with you as my only source is Schlachthoff F�nf and Vonnegut had no way to know the truth of it.

warspite1 -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 4:50:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DD696 I, for one, firmly believe that the causalities incurred as a result of Little Man and Fat Boy would pale in light of what would have incurred if the Allies would have had to invade Japan. It was the only humane decision that could have been made at the time. You were a wise man, Harry S. Truman. In addition, the sixth of August is a sad day for me. My father served on board DD696 for it's entire war career. It wasn't much longer than a year, but a year of hell including kamikazes off Okinawa. He feared airplanes the rest of his life. However, he chose 6 August 1973 to put a rifle to his head and end it - just one week after I had returned from the Philippines and left after visiting for several days. I found out a week later when I reported for duty at Quantico, Virginia. Was the day significant for him? Or just a day chosen randomly? I still have two rifles brought back by him from Japan that he found in caves at a naval base. - Yokohama if I remember correctly. I honor him with my logon ID. Rest in peace out there in Arco, Idaho. Rest in peace, also, all those innocents who died so that the damnable war could finally end. warspite1 I am sorry to hear that about your father DD696. Nice touch that you have your father's ship as your log-in name.

warspite1 -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 4:52:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong. Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no. I don't intend this to be a political football, It may be impossible for us to put ourselves in the shoes of the men on the ground, but that is not a carte-blanche to excuse any historical criticism of the events of the war. The most relevant example is the American role in WW2. The traditionalist viewpoint has the American involvement in the war caused by Pearl Harbor, when sleeping America wakes up one Sunday and finds itself in the middle of the war. We all know that's not true, America had been involved with lend-lease and in pressuring Japan over China. Revisionist historians provide an alternative viewpoint to the traditional one. Some have even proposed (Beard, I think, was the first) that American strong-arm diplomacy with Japan prior to Dec 7th played a significant role in the Japanese decision to risk war. On the topic of atomic weapons, I'm quite fond of the revisionist viewpoint that the Soviet intervention in the war played more of a role in the Japanese decision to surrender than the atomic bombs. Yes, the bombs could wipe out whole cities, but so could firebombing raids, while the involvement of the Soviets represented the complete dismemberment of the Japanese empire and the last diplomatic door being slammed in the Japanese leaderships face. In short, depending entirely on "traditionalist" historical viewpoints is as stupid as completely disregarding revisionist viewpoints. What I've heard (take that with a grain of salt, for instance I've heard Kirk is a fairy) is that the firebombing of Dresden was done to demonstrate to the Soviets what we (US) were capable of. warspite1 Why add the (US)? You know the RAF were there - and iirc - in greater numbers than the USAAF?

BattleMoose -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 5:25:57 AM)
This has come up before, and the idea that we are using today's values to judge historic actions. But it should be okay to judge historic actions with historic values, and the historic values were certainly a respect for the protection of non-combatants in war. There was outrage in WWI, regarding German treatment of Belgium citizens (perceived Guerrilla fighters). The treatment of Boer civilian populations by the British in the Anglo-Boer war was regarded as a moral wrong. There was moral outrage at the sinking of the Lusitania, killing many civilians, American civilians, moral outrage, even though she was a valid target and carrying war munitions. Didn't stop the moral outrage of killing civilians. From the 1907 Hague convention. quote: Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited. Article 26: The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities. Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes. It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.[2] While these clauses relate to land and naval bombardment, the moral understanding of the appropriate behavior of bombarding (aerial or otherwise) is absolutely there. quote: After World War II, the judges of the military tribunal of the Trial of German Major War Criminals at Nuremberg Trials found that by 1939, the rules laid down in the 1907 Hague Convention were recognised by all civilised nations and were regarded as declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Under this post-war decision, a country did not have to have ratified the 1907 Hague Convention in order to be bound by them. The judges at Nuremberg found it appropriate to apply the rules laid down in the Hague Convention to everyone, not limited to those who ratified it. The moral understanding of the appropriate use of bombardment was there. The Fourth Geneva convention, specifically on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War was adopted in 1949! Verily, after world war 2 concluded, but as a direct outcome from WWII. The understanding that the rules of law where insufficient to protect civilians was clearly there, by those who where there and lived through WWII. The moral need to enforce the protection of civilians during war time was there.

warspite1 -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 5:34:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: tocaff Revisionist history would tell us another story. It is impossible for us, today to put ourselves into the shoes of the men fighting against Japan in 1945 as the values were totally different due to the monumental struggle that had been going on for years. To judge another time by the values of today is flat out wrong, just as judging one culture by another culture's standards is wrong. Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no. I don't intend this to be a political football, The most relevant example is the American role in WW2. The traditionalist viewpoint has the American involvement in the war caused by Pearl Harbor, when sleeping America wakes up one Sunday and finds itself in the middle of the war. We all know that's not true, America had been involved with lend-lease and in pressuring Japan over China. Revisionist historians provide an alternative viewpoint to the traditional one. Some have even proposed (Beard, I think, was the first) that American strong-arm diplomacy with Japan prior to Dec 7th played a significant role in the Japanese decision to risk war. warspite1 We've recently had this debate in the World In Flames forum. The subject of America and the embargo against the Japanese came up. One opinion was expressed that stated it was quite simple: if America had not taken this action there would have been no War in the Pacific. What made this opinion so difficult to stomach is that the same forumite also believed that Versailles and later, appeasement, caused WWII in Europe. So in other words: - The French and British caused WWII in Europe because they appeased Germany (in a bid to avoid war). - The US caused the Pacific War because the US did not appease Japan (in a bid to end the war in China). So it seems the Western Powers can all be wrong � whatever they did � even if one did the very opposite of the other!! Double standards per chance? Those that believe the US were guilty of �forcing� Japan to war for their own nefarious ends (Roosevelt twirls (non-existent) moustache in malevolent fashion before launching into an equally evil mwhahahahahahahahaha) is that (as is all too common) people forget or choose to forget what the circumstances were that faced political and military leaders at the time. So when America took action against Japan in the summer of 1941 � what was the position that Roosevelt faced? Western Europe was largely under the jackboot. France had been beaten and the UK, ejected from the continent. In the east, all considered military thinking was that the Soviets were beaten and her conquest was a matter of months if not weeks away. This would have given Germany rule over Europe � and, with the USSR defeated, the UK would have been next. Meanwhile in the US backyard, the Japanese, shortly to be free of threat from the USSR could turn the Kwantung army on China. So, as can be seen, given the above it doesn�t take a huge leap of imagination to see that by sometime in 1942 the might of the Wehrmacht is to be thrust upon the UK and Egypt. French, Dutch and British possessions in the Far East are ripe for the taking and China is on the brink. Where does that leave the US exactly? America left Japan with no choice but to go to war? No, sorry not true. The US took action appropriate to the time. They left Japan with a choice � Japan chose war. Back to the OP. The OP asked does the US owe Japan an apology? - The atomic bombs brought the war to an end with less casualties (Japanese and US) than would otherwise be the case. - The atomic bombs (terrible as they were) served as a useful and timely warning to Stalin - Most important of all, the atomic bombs served as a warning to future generations; this weapon is real, this is what it does, we really don�t want to go there again do we? - Can you imagine a time in history when two blocs such as the west and the communist bloc were stood facing each other for almost 50 YEARS � and no war ensued? Well the cold war never became hot because of nuclear weapons. The atomic bombs were � are � terrible weapons. Thousands of civilians died as a result � both directly due to the bomb and for some time after because of its lasting effects. It would be wonderful to think that they had not been necessary and the bombs had never been dropped. But it was and they were and the answer to the OP�s question is a very definite no.

mind_messing -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 10:59:47 AM)
quote: We've recently had this debate in the World In Flames forum. The subject of America and the embargo against the Japanese came up. One opinion was expressed that stated it was quite simple: if America had not taken this action there would have been no War in the Pacific. That's perhaps very likely. The American embargoes were going to cripple the Japanese economy in the long run, and short of a complete 180 degree turn on ten years of aggressive foriegn policy in the region, there was nothing Japan could do to stop it short of war. quote: So in other words: - The French and British caused WWII in Europe because they appeased Germany (in a bid to avoid war). - The US caused the Pacific War because the US did not appease Japan (in a bid to end the war in China). I prefer: - The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40. - The US caused the Pacific War because they backed Japan into a corner where the only two options were war or a complete abandonment of their gains in China. Considering the blood they had spilled for it, this was unlikely. Unlike the Germans, the Japanese had the military power to defy the Americans - as they did. quote: So it seems the Western Powers can all be wrong � whatever they did � even if one did the very opposite of the other!! Double standards per chance? I think you'll agree that British/French and American diplomacy left a significant deal to be desired in the run up to the war. It is fair to level criticism at it. quote: Those that believe the US were guilty of �forcing� Japan to war for their own nefarious ends (Roosevelt twirls (non-existent) moustache in malevolent fashion before launching into an equally evil mwhahahahahahahahaha) is that (as is all too common) people forget or choose to forget what the circumstances were that faced political and military leaders at the time. So when America took action against Japan in the summer of 1941 � what was the position that Roosevelt faced? The American people were, in general, disinterested in the war in Europe before Dec 7th. The isolationist lobby was strong. While I don't proscribe to the theories that Roosevelt "knew" about Pearl Harbor or such, there can be no denying that the Japanese attack certainly gave him a free hand to become involved in Europe. quote: America left Japan with no choice but to go to war? No, sorry not true. The US took action appropriate to the time. They left Japan with a choice � Japan chose war. Is a choice between one unacceptable option and war a real choice? The American embargoes essentially presented Japan with an ultimatum - end your war in China or we shut down your economy. That's bad diplomacy. Would the Japanese have embarked on their southern conquests if the Americans hadn't instated their embargoes? quote: The atomic bombs were � are � terrible weapons. Thousands of civilians died as a result � both directly due to the bomb and for some time after because of its lasting effects. It would be wonderful to think that they had not been necessary and the bombs had never been dropped. But it was and they were and the answer to the OP�s question is a very definite no. I'll disagree. Let me repost that rescript from the Emperor... TO THE OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE IMPERIAL FORCES: Three years and eight months have elapsed since we declared war on the United States and Britain. During this time our beloved men of the army and navy, sacrificing their lives, have fought valiantly on disease-stricken and barren lands and on tempestuous waters in the blazing sun, and of this we are deeply grateful. Now that the Soviet Union has entered the war against us, to continue the war under the present internal and external conditions would be only to increase needlessly the ravages of war finally to the point of endangering the very foundation of the Empire's existence With that in mind and although the fighting spirit of the Imperial Army and Navy is as high as ever, with a view to maintaining and protecting our noble national policy we are about to make peace with the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union and Chungking. To a large number of loyal and brave officers and men of the Imperial forces who have died in battle and from sicknesses goes our deepest grief. At the same time we believe the loyalty and achievements of you officers and men of the Imperial forces will for all time be the quintessence of our nation. We trust that you officers and men of the Imperial forces will comply with our intention and will maintain a solid unity and strict discipline in your movements and that you will bear the hardest of all difficulties, bear the unbearable and leave an everlasting foundation of the nation. Emphasis mine. No mention of the atomic bombs, but the Soviet invasion is explicitly mentioned. As terrible as the atomic bombs were, they represented to the Japanese leadership merely a more efficient method of firebombing.

wegman58 -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 12:27:43 PM)
I have been of the view that IF the atomic bomb was NOT used on Japan (which showed the destructiveness of the weapon) there would have been SOMETHING in Europe, and the bomb would have been used there. And considering the leaps and bounds of the technology in the late 1940s and through the 1950s the results would have been worse. WW I showed the horror of chemical weapons; no major war has seen them used since - barbarian savages have but not the major powers. NO ONE has used nuclear weapons since then. But if they hadn't been used in Japan bigger ones would have probably been used later - with greater loss of life. Even a conventional war between the West and the Soviets would have killed more than the bombs.

BattleMoose -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 12:42:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wegman58 WW I showed the horror of chemical weapons; no major war has seen them used since - barbarian savages have but not the major powers. If they were particularly effective, use would have continued. Truth of the matter is that, they just weren't very effective.

Trugrit -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 1:26:57 PM)
Harry Truman � My father, who was with the 38th ID in the Philippines in 1945, has thanked you; and I thank you. Rest in peace my beloved father and rest in peace Harry Truman and thanks again to both of you for my life and my freedom. At the risk of being political I�ve always liked the Bill Whittle Video about this: http://www.pjtv.com/series/afterburner-with-bill-whittle-56/jon-stewart-war-criminals--the-true-story-of-the-atomic-bombs-1808/ That said; it is sometimes better to let the really nasty sleeping dogs of history sleep; lest they wake and bite us again.

oaltinyay -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 1:47:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve When I worked at the Military museum on Guam , we used to have more Japanese visitors then Americans. I talked with all that I could , about every possible aspect of the war. I recall one elderly gentleman who had been in the IJA saying " as horrible as the bombs were , they saved me. And my country. It gave us "face". We would have never surrendered otherwise. You would have had to kill us all". Hirohito said Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. The bombs most significant contribution was in that it gave the Japanese leadership a convenient excuse to end the war, one that was palatable to their fighting rank-and-file. In terms of the actual impact on the Japanese leadership, the bombs didn't really register. Yes, an entire city had been turned to ash, but that was hardly a new phenomenon for the Japanese. The fact that the Soviets, the leaderships last straw for a negotiated surrender, had decided to tear up the Neutrality pact and turn on Japan was the real "We've lost the war" moment for the Japanese. You can see it in the Rescript sent to the troops. I see no mention of the atomic bomb. http://www.taiwandocuments.org/surrender07.htm This is my understanding as well. I am on a holiday right now so I cant quote sources but this is stated so in a few places. For japanese it was another bomb...loss of lives. However Russian invasion was a disaster since it could change the 'japanese way of life'.

AW1Steve -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 3:08:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oaltinyay quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve When I worked at the Military museum on Guam , we used to have more Japanese visitors then Americans. I talked with all that I could , about every possible aspect of the war. I recall one elderly gentleman who had been in the IJA saying " as horrible as the bombs were , they saved me. And my country. It gave us "face". We would have never surrendered otherwise. You would have had to kill us all". Hirohito said Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers. The bombs most significant contribution was in that it gave the Japanese leadership a convenient excuse to end the war, one that was palatable to their fighting rank-and-file. In terms of the actual impact on the Japanese leadership, the bombs didn't really register. Yes, an entire city had been turned to ash, but that was hardly a new phenomenon for the Japanese. The fact that the Soviets, the leaderships last straw for a negotiated surrender, had decided to tear up the Neutrality pact and turn on Japan was the real "We've lost the war" moment for the Japanese. You can see it in the Rescript sent to the troops. I see no mention of the atomic bomb. http://www.taiwandocuments.org/surrender07.htm This is my understanding as well. I am on a holiday right now so I cant quote sources but this is stated so in a few places. For japanese it was another bomb...loss of lives. However Russian invasion was a disaster since it could change the 'japanese way of life'. You gentlemen may "see no bomb" or see the atomic bombs as "just another bomb" , but the effects speak otherwise. There is a Committee for Nuclear disarmament. Perhaps you've heard of it? There is a "Peace memorial" at Hiroshima. There is a "doomsday" clock. Presidents and political leaders have been defeated and made on the "nuclear issue". I have never seen a a "Russian invasion" memorial. I'm not familiar with the "Stop Russian invasions " movement (Although if there had been a ghost of a chance of it working , Reagan and Thatcher would have thrown everything into it). The point is atomic weapons changed the world , good or bad , in a way that no one ever would have visualized. But the Japanese high command had a ring side seat at that change in August 1945. And it scared the hell out of them (and the rest of the world). And "it's just another bomb" kind of invalidates the "War crimes" aspect of this discussion , doesn't it. It's not a "Tall boy" or a "Grand slam" were are discussing here. The problem with this discussion is it's less of a "circular argument" and more of a "circular firing squad". [:D] The atomic bomb=BAD! No one disputes that. War=BAD. No one disputes that either. But the atomic bomb escalated BAD to a whole new metric, and by it's very menace raised WAR to the same metric. May I point out that "the balance of terror" prevented any war in Europe from 1945 till 1991. There is no similar conditions since the Pax Romani. The very terror of nuclear war kept both sides , if not exactly honest , relatively well behaved. So I might answer the original question about war crimes with a couple of questions. 1) did Truman have any realistic alternative? 2) did Hirohito have any realistic alternative? 3) What , in 1945 , was a war crime? Not today , not tomorrow, but in 1945. 4) in reality does the term have any real meaning? Or is it in fact constantly changing? And is "fair" to judge our predecessors by todays standards?

mind_messing -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 3:37:20 PM)
quote: You gentlemen may "see no bomb" or see the atomic bombs as "just another bomb" , but the effects speak otherwise. There is a Committee for Nuclear disarmament. Perhaps you've heard of it? There is a "Peace memorial" at Hiroshima. There is a "doomsday" clock. Presidents and political leaders have been defeated and made on the "nuclear issue". I have never seen a a "Russian invasion" memorial. I'm not familiar with the "Stop Russian invasions " movement (Although if there had been a ghost of a chance of it working , Reagan and Thatcher would have thrown everything into it). The point is atomic weapons changed the world , good or bad , in a way that no one ever would have visualized. But the Japanese high command had a ring side seat at that change in August 1945. And it scared the hell out of them (and the rest of the world). And "it's just another bomb" kind of invalidates the "War crimes" aspect of this discussion , doesn't it. It's not a "Tall boy" or a "Grand slam" were are discussing here. We're discussing the immediate impact of the bomb on the Japanese leadership, which was nowhere near as significant as the impact of the Russian invasion. If anyone wants to build an accurate memorial to the end of the Pacific War, it should be a memorial to August Storm. However, it makes better reading that a fantastically deadly wonder weapon won the war for America, rather than Russian involvement forcing the Japanese to realize that they were out of options. Good reading, but poor history. As for the atomic bomb being "just another bomb" invalidating the war crimes discussion, I disagree. What, in terms of results, were the difference between the firebombing raids and the atomic bombs? Outside of the radiation, was there any? The role of the atomic bomb versus Russian involvement is actually a good case study in traditionalist vs revisionist history. The traditional view is that American use of the atomic bomb cowed the Japanese leadership into submission, whereas the revisionist view examines the importance of the Soviets in the Japanese leaderships fantasy plans to negotiate a reasonable surrender, and how the shattering of those plans brought about the surrender. quote: May I point out that "the balance of terror" prevented any war in Europe from 1945 till 1991. There is no similar conditions since the Pax Romani. The very terror of nuclear war kept both sides , if not exactly honest , relatively well behaved. Sure, it stopped the war in Europe, but merely pushed it abroad. Asia, South America, Africa... quote: So I might answer the original question about war crimes with a couple of questions. 1) did Truman have any realistic alternative? 2) did Hirohito have any realistic alternative? 3) What , in 1945 , was a war crime? Not today , not tomorrow, but in 1945. 4) in reality does the term have any real meaning? Or is it in fact constantly changing? And is "fair" to judge our predecessors by todays standards? 1) Yes, assess the impact of Russian involvement on Japanese leadership before dropping the bombs. The Americans were reading the Japanese diplomatic efforts, they knew the Japanese wanted to use the Russians as a way out. 2) Yes, started negotiations earlier. By the time the Japanese decided that it might be an idea to end the war, America was out for blood. 3) Deliberate targeting of civilians or civilian areas with no military value. 4) No, a war crime is a war crime. There's military personal and military targets, and there's civilians and civilian targets.

Lecivius -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 4:01:54 PM)
This is gonna get political, if it isn't already [:-]

warspite1 -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 4:17:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius This is gonna get political, if it isn't already [:-] warspite1 Maybe. But until that happens - if it happens - let's all just continue being grown ups and enjoy a sensible, grown-up debate. Nothing wrong so far.

AW1Steve -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 4:17:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius This is gonna get political, if it isn't already [:-] Yep. "I see the train a coming , it's coming round the bend, and we've not seen a train wreck since I don't when"...what , last week? [:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 4:20:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius This is gonna get political, if it isn't already [:-] warspite1 Maybe. But until that happens - if it happens - let's all just continue being grown ups and enjoy a sensible, grown-up debate. Nothing wrong so far. True. But your new here , aren't you? [:D][:D][:D] Seriously , you've seen the record. You really HOPE that the adults will have a reasonable , informative , and productive discussion of great significant value. But......do.....you....seriously......believe? [X(][8\|][:(][:D]

warspite1 -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 4:23:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius This is gonna get political, if it isn't already [:-] warspite1 Maybe. But until that happens - if it happens - let's all just continue being grown ups and enjoy a sensible, grown-up debate. Nothing wrong so far. True. But your new here , aren't you? [:D][:D][:D] Seriously , you've seen the record. You really HOPE that the adults will have a reasonable , informative , and productive discussion of great significant value. But......do.....you....seriously......believe? [X(][8\|][:(][:D] warspite1 Yes I do - we have one of the reasons to doubt that belief now removed from the forum so that bodes well A couple more yet to turn up I suspect could cause an issue but hey - hope springs eternal Baldrick! [:D]

mind_messing -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 5:01:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Lecivius This is gonna get political, if it isn't already [:-] warspite1 Maybe. But until that happens - if it happens - let's all just continue being grown ups and enjoy a sensible, grown-up debate. Nothing wrong so far. True. But your new here , aren't you? [:D][:D][:D] Seriously , you've seen the record. You really HOPE that the adults will have a reasonable , informative , and productive discussion of great significant value. But......do.....you....seriously......believe? [X(][8\|][:(][:D] Seeing as Symon's taken his hemlock, I for one see a brighter future.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 5:38:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing I prefer: - The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40. Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

BattleMoose -> RE: Revisionist History-OT (8/6/2015 5:41:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing I prefer: - The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40. Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s. This. It was obvious at the time too. After the Treaty of Versailles Ferdinand Foch said "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years".

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.953125