Untold History of the United States

[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.

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.

Ok, well I'll have to leave this issue unresolved for now. One day I'll eventually get around to reading some more detailed books. To be honest, though, I don't care that much about history, other than how it might affect the now and the future. I'm only engaging in it now as this thread came along. Once this thread dies down, I probably won't think about it again for another couple of years.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It shows.

[sandinista]

@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.

He can't debate, he's just a cranky old troll. Whaa whaaa USA number 1, please don't talk down bout my country! Oh my oh my, I think I may have lost credibility with ian and zilla, maybe even jimc and seth, what? What shall I do? I mean...oh no, how can I ever get over that? Lost my cred with larry curly and moe! For those of you I actually may care for your opinion, I never knew where that link came from, just a quick google search for something on the net and that popped up. I don't care much for internet links because they are all fucked and biased. I mean, look at some of the links provided by ces. I get my info from books. Some recommended reading regarding the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide ... 1567513743

http://www.amazon.com/Untold-History-Un ... ted+states

On August 14, 1945, Japan surrendered and World War II was over. American policy makers have argued that the atomic bombs were the precipitating cause of the surrender. Historical studies of the Japanese decision, however, reveal that what the Japanese were most concerned with was the Soviet Union’s entry into the war. Japan surrendered with the understanding that the emperor system would be retained. The US agreed to do what Truman had been advised to do before the bombings: it signaled to the Japanese that they would be allowed to retain the emperor. This has left historians to speculate that the war could have ended without either the use of the two atomic weapons on Japanese cities or an Allied invasion of Japan.

The US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that, even without the use of the atomic bombs, without the Soviet Union entering the war and without an Allied invasion of Japan, the war would have ended before December 31, 1945 and, in all likelihood, before November 1, 1945. Prior to the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US was destroying Japanese cities at will with conventional bombs. The Japanese were offering virtually no resistance. The US dropped atomic bombs on a nation that had been largely defeated and some of whose leaders were seeking terms of surrender.

Despite strong evidence that the atomic bombings were not responsible for ending the war with Japan, most Americans, particularly those who lived through World War II, believe that they were. Many World War II era servicemen who were in the Pacific or anticipated being shipped there believed that the bombs saved them from fighting hard battles on the shores of Japan, as had been fought on the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. What they did not take into account was that the Japanese were trying to surrender, that the US had broken the Japanese codes and knew they were trying to surrender, and that, had the US accepted their offer, the war could have ended without the use of the atomic bombs.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/db_ ... cle_id=381

[JimC]

sandinista, you are simply quoting specious left-wing propaganda, rather than serious historical documents or research...

As always...

[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.

He can't debate, he's just a cranky old troll.

Yeah, that's about the truth of it. I don't know why he gets into any topics other than social topics, if he either can't, or isn't willing to, debate.

[pErvinalia]

It shows.

Is that supposed to be an insult? I've never claimed to be an expert on history, and I'm more than happy for people to know i'm more concerned about the problems of NOW and the future as opposed to the past. You're going to have to think a little harder if you want to insult me on this point.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It shows.

Is that supposed to be an insult? I've never claimed to be an expert on history, and I'm more than happy for people to know i'm more concerned about the problems of NOW and the future as opposed to the past. You're going to have to think a little harder if you want to insult me on this point.

I'll leave the insulting you to you.

[sandinista]

sandinista, you are simply quoting specious left-wing propaganda, rather than serious historical documents or research...

As always...

Yah, I know you prefer liberal propaganda. If you want serious historical documents or research read some books, start with the first one I posted a link to.

[pErvinalia]

It shows.

Is that supposed to be an insult? I've never claimed to be an expert on history, and I'm more than happy for people to know i'm more concerned about the problems of NOW and the future as opposed to the past. You're going to have to think a little harder if you want to insult me on this point.

I'll leave the insulting you to you.

I'll only insult if someone has a go at me first. Keep that in mind for next time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You are a right righteous one, aren't you?

[sandinista]

[pErvinalia]

Yep. The irony in his post is fucking monumental.

[sandinista]

Yep. The irony in his post is fucking monumental.

ridiculous.

[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.

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.

He can't debate, he's just a cranky old troll. Whaa whaaa USA number 1, please don't talk down bout my country! Oh my oh my, I think I may have lost credibility with ian and zilla, maybe even jimc and seth, what? What shall I do? I mean...oh no, how can I ever get over that? Lost my cred with larry curly and moe! For those of you I actually may care for your opinion, I never knew where that link came from, just a quick google search for something on the net and that popped up. I don't care much for internet links because they are all fucked and biased. I mean, look at some of the links provided by ces. I get my info from books. Some recommended reading regarding the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide ... 1567513743

http://www.amazon.com/Untold-History-Un ... ted+states

On August 14, 1945, Japan surrendered and World War II was over. American policy makers have argued that the atomic bombs were the precipitating cause of the surrender. Historical studies of the Japanese decision, however, reveal that what the Japanese were most concerned with was the Soviet Union’s entry into the war. Japan surrendered with the understanding that the emperor system would be retained. The US agreed to do what Truman had been advised to do before the bombings: it signaled to the Japanese that they would be allowed to retain the emperor. This has left historians to speculate that the war could have ended without either the use of the two atomic weapons on Japanese cities or an Allied invasion of Japan.

The US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that, even without the use of the atomic bombs, without the Soviet Union entering the war and without an Allied invasion of Japan, the war would have ended before December 31, 1945 and, in all likelihood, before November 1, 1945. Prior to the use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US was destroying Japanese cities at will with conventional bombs. The Japanese were offering virtually no resistance. The US dropped atomic bombs on a nation that had been largely defeated and some of whose leaders were seeking terms of surrender.

Despite strong evidence that the atomic bombings were not responsible for ending the war with Japan, most Americans, particularly those who lived through World War II, believe that they were. Many World War II era servicemen who were in the Pacific or anticipated being shipped there believed that the bombs saved them from fighting hard battles on the shores of Japan, as had been fought on the islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. What they did not take into account was that the Japanese were trying to surrender, that the US had broken the Japanese codes and knew they were trying to surrender, and that, had the US accepted their offer, the war could have ended without the use of the atomic bombs.

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/db_ ... cle_id=381

Misuse of the self-serving* (and highly suspect) conclusions of the USSBS: check
Flagrant falsehoods (about supposed Japanese attempts to surrender): check

*Why were they self-serving? Because the US Air Force - still technically part of the Army - wanted to prove that it struck the final decisive blows in winning the war, and thus deserved to become and independent service. The conclusions are taken as gospel by those who agree with them, with no attempt to verify if the actual evidence presented in the survey (and all other evidence available at the time) actually supports the conclusions.

[Seth]

Okay... for a person to believe that the bombs were completely unnecessary and only done to scare the Soviets, one would have to ignore all sorts of historical facts. ...

...If you want to believe they were used to intimidate the Soviets, go right ahead. But that factor amounts to nothing more than a bonus, if it was a factor in Truman's decision-making at all.

The intimidation of the Soviets was just a bonus effect of crushing the Japanese. International geopolitics is a messy and complex business. That the beneficial side effect occurred (and was intended) doesn't mean we weren't fully justified in bombing Japan. We were.

Did you know that the resumption of hostilities with Iraq after the first cease-fire, which was justified by Saddam's refusal to abide by UN resolutions and his WMD shell-games, was ALSO intended to scare the piss out of Iran and North Korea by showing them our resolve and capabilities? It was a happy confluence of circumstances that GB took advantage of.

And it worked. Right up until Obama was elected and both North Korea and Iran restarted their nuke programs.