Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I am also reading Toland's book (still only in the pre-war stuff).

I think thus far (granted, I haven't gotten very far), it's a good book, if taken with all other material available.

While the write-up might try to call it "unbiased", I don't actually think that even Toland considers the book "unbiased". I think he considers it "from the Japanese point of view", and certainly -not- unbiased. Indeed, his wife is Japanese, which allowed him access many many veterans and documents that might not have been so easily available to a gaijin.

quote:

Again, I don't think it's supposed to be "unbiased". Toland says it's "from the Japanese perspective"; it is by definition, NOT unbiased, so just accept it as such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I am also reading Toland's book (still only in the pre-war stuff).

I think thus far (granted, I haven't gotten very far), it's a good book, if taken with all other material available. 

While the write-up might try to call it "unbiased", I don't actually think that even Toland considers the book "unbiased".  I think he considers it "from the Japanese point of view", and certainly -not- unbiased.  Indeed, his wife is Japanese, which allowed him access many many veterans and documents that might not have been so easily available to a gaijin.

But it's like that "Fortress Against the Sun" and "Shattered Sword" books everyone around here rants about as Bible.  They -are- *excellent* books.  But they're not Bible.  They should be taken amongst the greater body of works.  Some more credible than others (indeed FatS and SS are very credible).

But my advice on Tolands book (at least as how I'm reading it).  It probably -does- bring some differing insights to the table.  You (and I) don't have to agree to with them, and they might not even be correct.  But either way, the book brings -something- to table and does contribute to the greater body of knowledge. 

Again, I don't think it's supposed to be "unbiased".  Toland says it's "from the Japanese perspective"; it is by definition, NOT unbiased, so just accept it as such.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

quote:

Again, I don't think it's supposed to be "unbiased". Toland says it's "from the Japanese perspective"; it is by definition, NOT unbiased, so just accept it as such.

"Unbiased history" is an oxymoron. Never has been such. Historians write to make an argument, from Herodotus on down. Written history is a synthesis of primary sources. The very act of synthesis introduces bias. One could imagine primary sources photocopied and stapled together, leaving the "work" to the reader, but there would still be bias in what was stapled and what was left out. "Bias" really means "does not conform to my pre-concieved ideas, or those of an historian whose conclusions I agree with."

Using terms like "PC" to describe history is unproductive. If the primary sources aren't forged one part or point is about as relevant as any other. If you truly want non-bias you'd need to simultaneously load the entire human history into the brain at once. Good luck with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

I thought Letters was pretty good.  I liked it more than Flags of our Fathers, simply because it was more about the battle, than in Flags, half of it was about the demons they faced afterwards.  Not to minimize either of those points.  But I thought Letters was good, because it's -very- difficult to do a different perspective, no matter how hard you try. 

I think Eastwood actually did do a good job of creating (mostly) sympathetic characters.  My thought on it was, "You guys are bastages.  Your situation sucks.  And I understand that you're trying to live by that whole Code of Bushido thing.  But our guys aren't Code of BS, and if you look down on us for it, then so be it.  And when your world collapses on you, don't ask me for sympathy (and I understand you won't give me any either.  So that being the case, there is no "agree to to disagree" and our guys are just going to have to kill you.  Sucks to be you."

But from perspective, I think it did well as Japanese perception.  I also think it was valuable to raise awaremenss in Japan.  I actually found the commentary -after- the DVD very disturbing, that most of the actors and youth of Japan had no idea that there was even a war with the US.

-F-

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

If an event is directly related it's relevant. Directly is an admittedly subjective term, but for the comparison Nanking could be argued to be directly related to the US-Japan part of WW2 because the PH attack was part of an effort to 1) remove any threat from Japanese forces in obtaining resources in the SRA which were needed due to the US embargo of same, 2) establishment of the GEACPS and 3) solve the China problem, whereas including the war against Spain is more in six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon level.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

Do you agree that the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War led directly to Japan's efforts in the 1920s and 1930s that led to Nanking, Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima? Many historians more qualified than me do just that. And that war was only seven years after our own imperialistic love-fest with Spain, driven (IMO) by abberant Christianity feeding White Man's Burden, extra-continental Manifest Destiny, and, oh, yeah, a need for coaling stations.

Nations aren't "good" or "bad." They're bundles of self-interests colliding with each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

Do you agree that the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War led directly to Japan's efforts in the 1920s and 1930s that led to Nanking, Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima? Many historians more qualified than me do just that. And that war was only seven years after our own imperialistic love-fest with Spain, driven (IMO) by abberant Christianity feeding White Man's Burden, extra-continental Manifest Destiny, and, oh, yeah, a need for coaling stations.

Nations aren't "good" or "bad." They're bundles of self-interests colliding with each other.

To answer your question . . . no. However, if I did agree with them I would start that timeline with the Sino-Japanese War. In any event, I thought we were talking the Spanish-American War's relationship to good guy/bad guy status in WW2, which I still characterize as before. I would disagree with your characterization of the Spanish-American War as well.

As to historians and their qualifications, I am not one and don't have the other.

As to your last quote I'd generally agree; however, the actions of nations w/i certain time periods and in context of their relationship with each other can be defined as good or bad.

Edited to add stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Snowman999
....As to your last line, well, the victors write the history. I doubt Nat Turner, Sitting Bull, or the citizens of Dresden or Tokyo would think we we were all that good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

Do you agree that the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War led directly to Japan's efforts in the 1920s and 1930s that led to Nanking, Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima? Many historians more qualified than me do just that. And that war was only seven years after our own imperialistic love-fest with Spain, driven (IMO) by abberant Christianity feeding White Man's Burden, extra-continental Manifest Destiny, and, oh, yeah, a need for coaling stations.

Nations aren't "good" or "bad." They're bundles of self-interests colliding with each other.

To answer your question . . . no. However, if I did agree with them I would start that timeline with the Sino-Japanese War. In any event, I thought we were talking the Spanish-American War's relationship to good guy/bad guy status in WW2, which I still characterize as before. I would disagree with your characterization of the Spanish-American War as well.

As to historians and their qualifications, I am not one and don't have the other.

As to your last quote I'd generally agree; however, the actions of nations w/i certain time periods and in context of their relationship with each other can be defined as good or bad.

Edited to add stuff.

The Sino-Japanese War didn't spring forth from nothing. It was part of a continuum. I'd say mid-19thC when Japan opened to the West after 400 years is a better starting point than the 1930s for the inception of Japan's imperial program.

As to the S-A War, it led to American interests in the Pacific where they had not existed before. The Russo-Japanese War showed Japan for the first time that they could compete and win with the West and taking the right side in WWI got them Pacific possessions of their own. We were going to tussle, and FDR knew it. He just didn't know how and when.

I characterized the S-A War as "bad" because it was a war of choice for the USA, much like the Mexican War. We clothe our imperialism, either military, economic, or cultural, in a lot of bushwa about spreading democracy and God's will, but we're no different at base than Japan was. Just trying to make our way in the world. We have our own continuum.

As to your last line, well, the victors write the history. I doubt Nat Turner, Sitting Bull, or the citizens of Dresden or Tokyo would think we we were all that good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Snowman999
....As to your last line, well, the victors write the history. I doubt Nat Turner, Sitting Bull, or the citizens of Dresden or Tokyo would think we we were all that good.

I am sure Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo were upset with the U.S. too. They are probably all together griping about how mean and unfair the U.S. was to them, and having a chat with this fellow --> . My heart breaks just thinking about it.

Regards,
Feltan

quote:

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was speaking of the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese war. A blue-print for taking advantage of a situation and obtaining territory with little international repercussions . . . very similar to the S-A war. I disagreed with your characterization of it because of all of these other elements that you brought into it. 'Feeding on a carcass' is more apt. You do seem to agree that there are good wars and bad wars, does this now mean there are good sides and bad?

Losers and disaffected victors write history as well. It just depends on whether you read it and which you believe. Each can have an agenda.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

I take your meaning and somewhat agree, although I don't believe in a Satan (by whatever name.)

My overall point was merely a cautionary tale about nations getting so full of their own hubris and "goodness" that they forget their real self-interested reasons for sometimes acting as right bastids. I love my country, volunteered to die for her on command, but I was also once a History major. I wish our national leaders had read as much Roman history as I did. THERE was a culture with hubris. We could learn from their mistakes. (Oh, and Japan's too . . .)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan

I somewhat agree with your opinion too, to a point.

Every nation has miscreants in their population, and every nation has had dark chapters. I think that is a given.

However, I also think it is intellectually lazy to say everything is relative. It isn't. When one country's policy is to mistreat POW's and slaughter civilians and offend the norms of civilized behavior measured by the peer nations at the time -- I have no problem calling them evil.

Regards,
Feltan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Er, comparing the Rape of Nanking to the Battle of Berlin is not valid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Snowman999

quote:

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was speaking of the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese war. A blue-print for taking advantage of a situation and obtaining territory with little international repercussions . . . very similar to the S-A war. I disagreed with your characterization of it because of all of these other elements that you brought into it. 'Feeding on a carcass' is more apt. You do seem to agree that there are good wars and bad wars, does this now mean there are good sides and bad?

Losers and disaffected victors write history as well. It just depends on whether you read it and which you believe. Each can have an agenda.

Ah. I confess I'm not up on that war. So many, so little time . . .

I suspect, given the time period of both your S-J War and the S-A War, that technology in the form of poor comms and slow transport made them both more likely than either would have been by 1920. The world had a lot more dark corners in the 19th C. than even a few decades after.

On "good" wars I know that's been a theological debate since . . . huh. St. Francis? Not up on my saints either. Good is relative. As an American and a lover of representative democracy and civil rights I think WWII absolutely had to be fought, but I can also understand that the Japanese and German populations, not just their leaders, could see us as mean, nasty party-crashers on their inherent "right" to spread their brand of cultural goodness.

On the last, maybe it wold be better to generalize to "history is written by the survivors." Lots of dead Japanese and German leaders who might have written historical tomes disagreeing with Toland et al, but didn't get the chance. What I believe, I suppose, is what's supported with better primary sources and decent connect-the-dots. As I've gotten older I've dropped a lot of the filters I had as a young man re American "goodness." The world gets more complex and interesting as you age, if you let it. I think it's a sign of a mature culture to self-examine and self-criticize, but as I'm on the verge of a current-politics rant that would be against forum rules I'll stop here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Even Letters can't get away from making the main character "unrealistic".

Really, what some 200ish out of 20k soldiers were taken prisoner, but we get a main character that is one of the 200 and not one of the other 19800 soldiers - and the ones that commit suicide are the flag waving patriots?

It presents an inaccurate portrayal of the soldier. Good movie in general, but yet another typical hollywood US War Movie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
If you want to tell a story to the end, then it needs to be through the eyes of someone who was there to the end. That's not "Hollywood Horshsh-t", that's just drama.