Untold History of the United States

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm going to Indigo Montoya you on that "genocide".

[pErvinalia]

Are we or are we not the good guys? ARE WE OR ARE WE NOT THE FUCKING GOOD GUYS? If we're not the good guys, then take the goddamn Constitution and the Bill of Rights and throw them in the fucking trash because they're worthless.

Stop whining and give us a reasonable alternative that would've ended the war quicker.

The alternative proposed by episode 3 of Stone's thing, was that the Japanese were ready to surrender, as long as they could retain the emperor. That was what they feared most, the removal/murder of the emperor. The US didn't want to retain the emperor as they saw that as being part of the imperialism problem. So the Japanese were ready to fight to the last child to protect the emperor. But in the end, the emperor was retain anyway. It would be good if some people actually watched the vids and commented directly on the evidence presented in them.

[pErvinalia]

Revisionist literature aside, the Japanese were not interested in surrender. It was dangerous even to speak of it.

So why were a number of top US generals and advisors saying they were?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Are we or are we not the good guys? ARE WE OR ARE WE NOT THE FUCKING GOOD GUYS? If we're not the good guys, then take the goddamn Constitution and the Bill of Rights and throw them in the fucking trash because they're worthless.

Stop whining and give us a reasonable alternative that would've ended the war quicker.

The alternative proposed by episode 3 of Stone's thing, was that the Japanese were ready to surrender, as long as they could retain the emperor. That was what they feared most, the removal/murder of the emperor. The US didn't want to retain the emperor as they saw that as being part of the imperialism problem. So the Japanese were ready to fight to the last child to protect the emperor. But in the end, the emperor was retain anyway. It would be good if some people actually watched the vids and commented directly on the evidence presented in them.

eRv, you think Stone's work is at all original? This had been hashed over countless times before him. And it comes out the same. "Surrender and you'll better off. "

BTW, do you have a transmission from the Japanese saying "If we get to keep the Emperor, we'll surrender right now!"?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Revisionist literature aside, the Japanese were not interested in surrender. It was dangerous even to speak of it.

So why were a number of top US generals and advisors saying they were?

Because they had their own opinions? Because they were for the most part uninformed opinions? Because they just didn't like HST? Whatever their motivations, Truman made the call and made it based on the best information available.

[klr]

Are we or are we not the good guys? ARE WE OR ARE WE NOT THE FUCKING GOOD GUYS? If we're not the good guys, then take the goddamn Constitution and the Bill of Rights and throw them in the fucking trash because they're worthless.

Stop whining and give us a reasonable alternative that would've ended the war quicker.

The alternative proposed by episode 3 of Stone's thing, was that the Japanese were ready to surrender, as long as they could retain the emperor. That was what they feared most, the removal/murder of the emperor. The US didn't want to retain the emperor as they saw that as being part of the imperialism problem. So the Japanese were ready to fight to the last child to protect the emperor. But in the end, the emperor was retain anyway. It would be good if some people actually watched the vids and commented directly on the evidence presented in them.

No, right to the bitter end, the key Japanese leaders also wanted things like no occupation, no trials of war criminals, no dissolution of the armed forces, etc. Not that they ever bothered to try and seriously negotiate with the allies, or otherwise communicate with them.

What the Japanese leadership actually wanted was to inflict such massive losses* during the allied invasion of Kyushu (which everyone knew was in the works), that the Allies would be prepared to meet the Japanese on such agreeable terms.

*The Japanese losses would have been many times greater.

[Ian]

Are we or are we not the good guys? ARE WE OR ARE WE NOT THE FUCKING GOOD GUYS? If we're not the good guys, then take the goddamn Constitution and the Bill of Rights and throw them in the fucking trash because they're worthless.

Stop whining and give us a reasonable alternative that would've ended the war quicker.

The alternative proposed by episode 3 of Stone's thing, was that the Japanese were ready to surrender, as long as they could retain the emperor. That was what they feared most, the removal/murder of the emperor. The US didn't want to retain the emperor as they saw that as being part of the imperialism problem. So the Japanese were ready to fight to the last child to protect the emperor.

I think that's partly true, at least about the emperor. I also don't think that for the Allies accepting surrender without any mention of the future role of the emperor was much of a reasonable alternative. The emperor since 1945 is only a figurehead; I'd say the British monarch has more power and influence over the UK's government, and that isn't saying much. Demanding that the emperor go was more than a bit reasonable for the Allies - Japan's continuance of the war into 1945 didn't have to happen if Hirohito had decided otherwise, and in the end it was in fact he who stopped it, and only after so much destruction. Viewing him as an imperialism problem seems about right to me. After years of occupation and the US-supervised re-writing of Japan's constitution, then that was no longer the case.

[pErvinalia]

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.

Which "top people"? I know Leahy guaranteed it wouldn't work. Eisenhower waffled.

In other words, quote mining.

I think they have all been mentioned in the thread so far. How do you know they are quote mines if you haven't watched the episode?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

Which "top people"? I know Leahy guaranteed it wouldn't work. Eisenhower waffled.

In other words, quote mining.

I think they have all been mentioned in the thread so far. How do you know they are quote mines if you haven't watched the episode?

Because Stone would have used the popular ones. And probably not all of those. The idea that he found new material just makes me He isn't up to that.

[pErvinalia]

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?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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?

The IHR has no credibility. It's the "Creation Science Institute" of History.

[pErvinalia]

So it shouldn't be hard for you to link to a cogent rebuttal of their points.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So it shouldn't be hard for you to link to a cogent rebuttal of their points.

I have 27 books here. Try Truman and the Hiroshima Cult for starters.

[pErvinalia]

Something on the net, man. And something that actually addresses the claim that that IHR stuff is quotemines or outright fabrications. I don't want an alternative narrative. I want that article rebutted.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/