Untold History of the United States

[pErvinalia]

Well, you can't have read that many if you don't know that there is variation in interpretation and choice of information presented.

Check out "the history wars" that happened in Australia for a decade or two. I'd describe it, but I'm not here to do your work for you...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, you can't have read that many if you don't know that there is variation in interpretation and choice of information presented.

Yep, I managed to avoid that while getting my Masters in History from Purdue. I should write a book on how I did it. Undergrads would eat it up.

[pErvinalia]

So, if you know that, why are you pretending that it doesn't exist?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, if you know that, why are you pretending that it doesn't exist?

Exactly when did I say that? Or more correctly, when did you misinterpret what I said?

[pErvinalia]

Here:

eRv, I won't do the work for you.

As Sandi said, all history is babble to a degree. History is massively laden with interpretation. Hearing different interpretations is a good thing, not a bad thing.

If you don't get your facts straight it certainly is babble, isn't it?

You're saying that it's a simple matter of availing oneself of the "facts". Lol. As I said, Historical "facts" are not the same as scientific facts. Historical facts, in absence of primary sources, are interpretations. And as I said, biases result in people presenting some facts and leaving others out. It's not a matter of just grabbing the "facts" as you ridiculously assert. History isn't science.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Here:

eRv, I won't do the work for you.

As Sandi said, all history is babble to a degree. History is massively laden with interpretation. Hearing different interpretations is a good thing, not a bad thing.

If you don't get your facts straight it certainly is babble, isn't it?

You're saying that it's a simple matter of availing oneself of the "facts". Lol. As I said, Historical "facts" are not the same as scientific facts. Historical facts, in absence of primary sources, are interpretations. And as I said, biases result in people presenting some facts and leaving others out. It's not a matter of just grabbing the "facts" as you ridiculously assert. History isn't science.

Ah, so that's the misinterpretation you put on what I said. Thanks.

[pErvinalia]

[pErvinalia]

As I said, check out the "history wars" in Australia for an example of how much of a joke history can become when zealots get involved.

[FBM]

Yeah, I was intentionally skipping over the part where the Japanese would be fighting the Red Army while trying to survive Siberia. Like Zilla said, they tried and couldn't do it.

The point is that the Germans weren't full on assaulting the ruski's in the west at the same time as the japs were having a crack (if i remember the timeline correctly).

I think that's a good point. When the Japs were giving it a go in the east, they weren't coordinating with what was going on in the west. I seem to recall from the documentary that only much later when the Germans were threatening the oil fields in the south, a large number of forces could be brought in from the east because the Japanese had just decided to move south instead of north, after having met Red Army resistence. My question is, even if the Reds hadn't been there to resist them, would the Japanese have been able to cross Siberia, given their unfamiliarity with the harsh conditions, the demands on supply logistics, etc? I don't think the Japanese were outfitted for that kind of winter weather and am not sure they could have supplied a sufficiently massive force with food and fuel for such a campaign, especially that late in the war when they had the US on their backs. If they had coordinated with the Germans to attack at the same time that the Germans made their initial assault on the Soviet western border, the Japanese would have had to fight the Red Army from the outset. That may have allowed the Germans to get to the southern oilfields, but that's not guaranteed. There was a lot of time for strategizing and politics in the interim. If the Allies had seen the USSR under attack from both sides, they may have summoned the will to give assistance earlier. Tough one. So many variables.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Japanese would have taken a decade or more to start exploiting the Siberian resources to an extent that would have benefited them in the war in China. This is by their own estimation and one of the prime reasons they chose to attack the "Southern Resources Area" vice the "Northern Resources Area." Another was the Red Army, of course.

[pErvinalia]

What about the stuff he said about the US aiding Franco over the commies in Spain? How does that comport with what is widely known?

[FBM]

The Japanese would have taken a decade or more to start exploiting the Siberian resources to an extent that would have benefited them in the war in China. This is by their own estimation and one of the prime reasons they chose to attack the "Southern Resources Area" vice the "Northern Resources Area." Another was the Red Army, of course.

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier, they conscripted a bunch of Koreans to work in timber and mines up there, but it didn't produce much and they abandoned the whole gig when the shit started getting thick elsewhere.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What about the stuff he said about the US aiding Franco over the commies in Spain? How does that comport with what is widely known?

"The only thing new is the history you don't know yet." That's from the century before last IIRC. I used to correct my history teacher in High School because he hadn't read as much as I had on WWII. Not that he had the time, of course.

You can focus on any obscure facts and say "ah ha! Didn't know this, did you!" I'll be into my fiftieth year of studying WWII in a few months, and I don't know near what I would like to know about it.

I give you this: You have events in your own past that you haven't shared on the forum, correct?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Japanese would have taken a decade or more to start exploiting the Siberian resources to an extent that would have benefited them in the war in China. This is by their own estimation and one of the prime reasons they chose to attack the "Southern Resources Area" vice the "Northern Resources Area." Another was the Red Army, of course.

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier, they conscripted a bunch of Koreans to work in timber and mines up there, but it didn't produce much and they abandoned the whole gig when the shit started getting thick elsewhere.

They were interested in a quick fix to the "China Incident". (Anybody know what they didn't call it a war? Why China didn't declare war on the invader until Dec. 8th, 1941, local time?) They had been telling Showa the Incident would be over in a year since 1937. They were like the guys that keep buying self-help books they never read.

[pErvinalia]

What about the stuff he said about the US aiding Franco over the commies in Spain? How does that comport with what is widely known?

"The only thing new is the history you don't know yet." That's from the century before last IIRC. I used to correct my history teacher in High School because he hadn't read as much as I had on WWII. Not that he had the time, of course.

You can focus on any obscure facts and say "ah ha! Didn't know this, did you!" I'll be into my fiftieth year of studying WWII in a few months, and I don't know near what I would like to know about it.

I give you this: You have events in your own past that you haven't shared on the forum, correct?

Yeah. What's that got to do with the subject?