Untold History of the United States

[pErvinalia]

see my edit. I want a direct rebuttal.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"want"?

[pErvinalia]

What's so funny? If it is as you claim that that narrative is clearly quotemined, then it should be easy for you to produce a counter-argument source.

[klr]

Oh, and that IHR "paper" contains several flagrant untruths, some concerning supposed peace overtures to MaCarthur, bogus secret memoranda, and so forth. It's all coming back ...

SNAP! Ian beat me to it.

Sandi's claim that the bombs were "indefensible in any way" only shows the intellectual level he's operating on. Which is to say that he believes what he wants to believe, and there's no way facts are going to convince him otherwise.

I'm still pages behind in this thread, so I don't know what has been said in the meantime.... But the video produces actual quotes from all the top people involved in the war as evidence for the claim that the bombs didn't need to be dropped. So it's not true to say he's ignoring facts. He's looking at a different set of facts to your facts. What i'd like to see from the defenders of the bomb is addressing those specific points raised in the episode.

No, he's ignoring lots of facts, and using others which are simply untrue, and therefore not facts at all. See above about the IHR article.

The odd thing about the whole debate nowadays is that - amongst serious historians at least - no meaningful dispute exists as to the salient facts, particularly about what the Japanese leadership was up to. This is the case regardless of where they sit on the ethics and morality of it all.

That IHR article would definitely seem to be the basis of episode 3. Very similar narrative. So the question is, do the documents and cables and intercepts that the IHR article refer to not exist? Or there some bias in their interpretation? Where can we find a rebuttal to those interpretations?

Cock and bull for the most part. For example. the idea that the Japanese would approach MacArthur during the war - possibly their most formidable foe - and make such proposals stretches credulity beyond all known limits. At that time, they would have not the slightest inkling about how magnanimously he would behave as leader of a peacetime occupation force. He moaned when the A-bombs were dropped, not because he thought them immoral, because they robbed him of the chance for further glory as commander of an invasion of Japan*. Had such approaches ever been made, then their being made public would have caused the biggest news sensation you ever saw (easy to guess why), and would be mentioned in every history book or general review of the Pacific War from then to the present day, not to mention in biographies of MacArthur. But beyond this IHR piece, the world seems either to not have heard about it, or just not bothered to take the news "article" seriously.

*The potential casualties for which he did his best to completely downplay, for fear it would be called off.

Some of the intercepts referred to did exist, but their meaning and significance has been twisted to present a completely misleading impression of the actual situation at the time. The large scale omission of "unfavourable" facts is also a factor, as is the selective use of what should be regarded as self-serving quotes made after the fact. I've seen all of these things before. As 'Zilla says, it's like Creationists Do History.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What's so funny? If it is as you claim that that narrative is clearly quotemined, then it should be easy for you to produce a counter-argument source.

I'd have to walk all the way over to that shelf there, the one by the front door. Not going to do that just so you can continue with a next level quibble.

[klr]

What's so funny? If it is as you claim that that narrative is clearly quotemined, then it should be easy for you to produce a counter-argument source.

I personally recommend this:

http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Impe ... 0141001461



It's also an excellent example of how history - especially "difficult" history - ought to be researched, assessed and written about. That is to say, properly.

[pErvinalia]

@G... So stay out of this particular debate if you're too lazy to contribute to it. I'll engage with KLR and others.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

@G... So stay out of this particular debate if you're too lazy to contribute to it. I'll engage with KLR and others.

How can I put this...

Fuck you.

Yeah, that works.

[pErvinalia]

What's so funny? If it is as you claim that that narrative is clearly quotemined, then it should be easy for you to produce a counter-argument source.

I personally recommend this:

http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Impe ... 0141001461



It's also an excellent example of how history - especially "difficult" history - ought to be researched, assessed and written about. That is to say, properly.

That's not going to help me out now, as even if I bought it it wouldn't arrive for weeks. And no, there's no libraries of any distinction anywhere near where I live. And even if I bought it, it would just get appended to the LONG queue of books i've got to read. Surely there is something on the net that addresses the claims made by the IHR? If not, perhaps you guys can address the point specifically with counter quotes?

[pErvinalia]

@G... So stay out of this particular debate if you're too lazy to contribute to it. I'll engage with KLR and others.

How can I put this...

Fuck you.

Yeah, that works.

Geez you're a sour old cunt. Why do you bother getting into certain debates if you are just going to get your panties in a twist? Go and preen your cat or something.

[klr]

@G... So stay out of this particular debate if you're too lazy to contribute to it. I'll engage with KLR and others.

Lazy? I've read several books directly related to this period, and lots more that touch on it. I've been reading about it for 30 years or more. Zilla has - I suspect - read many times more books about it than than me. It's very hard to communicate the amount of detailed knowledge that would be required to satisfy the most sceptical mind. Since I happened to be in deep on a similar debate a few years ago, many of the "good" debating/information points are easy to re-hash, but I know that there is much detail that I must leave out. On other occasions, I've just passed up the chance to debate, knowing it would take a lot of my time if I were to commit to it properly.

To understand an issue like this, you need to absorb a lot of knowledge. Even the best resources on the web are only going to give superficial coverage. You've really got to read books, such as those suggested. I would much prefer if you did that rather than take our limited information as being a correct and comprehensive presentation of the facts.

...
That's not going to help me out now, as even if I bought it it wouldn't arrive for weeks. And no, there's no libraries of any distinction anywhere near where I live. And even if I bought it, it would just get appended to the LONG queue of books i've got to read. Surely there is something on the net that addresses the claims made by the IHR? If not, perhaps you guys can address the point specifically with counter quotes?

No-one really bothers to address the claims of the IHR, because they are not worth addressing. Serious historians debate with each other, not with the likes of the IHR.

If understanding this is important to you, then you should be prepared to seek out some of the books we recommend, and put them at the top of your reading list. That's exactly what I did myself with the Frank book BTW. I don't know if it's available as an ebook BTW. I don't do ebooks myself, not yet anyway.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

@G... So stay out of this particular debate if you're too lazy to contribute to it. I'll engage with KLR and others.

How can I put this...

Fuck you.

Yeah, that works.

Geez you're a sour old cunt. Why do you bother getting into certain debates if you are just going to get your panties in a twist? Go and preen your cat or something.

You're the one in tantrum mode, child.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[klr]

Guys, please stop the name-calling, or I'll have to call in the mods - not me though, as I'm active in this thread.

[pErvinalia]

@G... So stay out of this particular debate if you're too lazy to contribute to it. I'll engage with KLR and others.

How can I put this...

Fuck you.

Yeah, that works.

Geez you're a sour old cunt. Why do you bother getting into certain debates if you are just going to get your panties in a twist? Go and preen your cat or something.

You're the one in tantrum mode, child.

Lol. Where have I had a tantrum?