Quote :

"Your inability to read rather impressive."

Your inability type impressive too.

Ah, a survey of literature. So basically he looked at a number of books and walked away with whatever conclusion he wanted to. How can I argue with that?

You present a few unrealistic numbers and scenarios that go against every cultural and social aspect of Imperial Japan, and when that doesn't work you find a historian who supports your naive opinion and immediately begin felating him.

Quote :

"That's only because he doesn't tell you what you want to hear."

So I should put people who tell me what I want to hear on a higher plane than all others while ignoring evidence to the contrary? Brilliant.

Seriously, go sharpen your swords and fight some produce because historical analysis is obviously beyond your grasp.

9/28/2006 7:09:21 PM

The allies won, because we fought produce with sharpened swords to improve our combat abilities.

9/28/2006 7:24:09 PM

Quote :

"Ah, a survey of literature. So basically he looked at a number of books and walked away with whatever conclusion he wanted to. How can I argue with that?"

If you read the survey, you'd see that it's a hotly debated issue. This counters your assertion that the traditionalist point of view is the only one out there.

Quote :

"You present a few unrealistic numbers and scenarios that go against every cultural and social aspect of Imperial Japan,"

The estimates I quoted came from U.S. military planners. They are the best estimates available to historians.

And you can wank to cultural and social aspects all you want, but the Japanese were still just humans, like the rest of us. They weren't 00b3r ninja and samurai who'd all fight to the death.

Quote :

"So I should put people who tell me what I want to hear on a higher plane than all others while ignoring evidence to the contrary? Brilliant."

Obviously, I don't need to tell you to do this.

Quote :

"The allies won, because we fought produce with sharpened swords to improve our combat abilities."

No, that would be the Japanese. They didn't win.

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 8:13 PM. Reason : swords]

[Edited on September 28, 2006 at 8:13 PM. Reason : grammar ninja]

9/28/2006 8:12:10 PM

Somebody fails at comedy, but I won't say who.

9/28/2006 8:27:42 PM

I'm not entirely certain the Japanese attack produce with their swords, though they probably did.

I know they did much crazier things, such as striking pieces of metal. They broke a lot of swords.

9/28/2006 8:32:58 PM

Quote :

"This counters your assertion that the traditionalist point of view is the only one out there."

Only one out there? No, but it is the one generally agreed upon in historian circles.

Quote :

"The estimates I quoted came from U.S. military planners. They are the best estimates available to historians."

Yes, they are the conservative estimates from the summer of 1945 before military planners had any idea that there were over 1 million japanese soldiers digging in on Kyushu.

Quote :

"And you can wank to cultural and social aspects all you want, but the Japanese were still just humans, like the rest of us. They weren't 00b3r ninja and samurai who'd all fight to the death."

Your assumption of parity is a tremendous error. To think that the Imperial Japan that existed following the Meiji reforms is anything similar to America, now or then, is ludicrous. Maybe you should read some books.

Quote :

"Obviously, I don't need to tell you to do this."

Who have I put on a higher plane? Oh, I get it, this is one of those "I know you are, but what am I" responses. Brilliant.

9/28/2006 8:58:28 PM

Quote :

"Only one out there? No, but it is the one generally agreed upon in historian circles."

As I have shown, that's complete bullshit. It's certainly not the point of view I've heard from any history professor here at State.

Quote :

"Yes, they are the conservative estimates from the summer of 1945 before military planners had any idea that there were over 1 million japanese soldiers digging in on Kyushu."

Better than numbers from theoretical studies with ridiculous assumptions. And, as I've said, not all troops are created equal. The troops added to Kyushu probably would folded quickly. Japanese soldiers certainly surrendered to Soviet troops.

Quote :

"Your assumption of parity is a tremendous error. To think that the Imperial Japan that existed following the Meiji reforms is anything similar to America, now or then, is ludicrous. Maybe you should read some books."

So you're saying they were 00b3r ninja and samurai? Believe what you want, but public support for the government was falling.

Besides, they wouldn't have been very successful trying to kill Americans with edged weapons. In general, WWII-era Japanese sucked with their swords.

Quote :

"Who have I put on a higher plane? Oh, I get it, this is one of those "I know you are, but what am I" responses. Brilliant."

Traditionalist historians. Folks like Sadao Asada and so on.

9/29/2006 10:36:57 AM

Quote :

"As I have shown, that's complete bullshit."

Pardon me, but where have you shown jack squat?

Quote :

"Better than numbers from theoretical studies with ridiculous assumptions."

Theoretical studies? Like your estimates from military planners? What ridiculous assumptions were present?

Quote :

"The troops added to Kyushu probably would folded quickly. Japanese soldiers certainly surrendered to Soviet troops."

Just like the troops on Okinawa and Iwo Jima that quickly folded? Oh wait, those were horrific blood baths mere months before the invasion was set to begin.

Quote :

"So you're saying they were 00b3r ninja and samurai?"

So I mention the Imperial Japan that existed following the Meiji reforms, and you respond with a weak sarcastic remark about ninjas. If you want to have a serious discussion, feel free to begin making intelligent comments rather than sounding like some jerk off who has no clue what he is talking about.

Quote :

"Believe what you want, but public support for the government was falling."

Another claim that revisionists love to point out. You ignore the fact that the Japanese public had been taught that the emperor was god's representative on earth, the vast majority held this to be true. You ignore the fact that a corruption of bushido had been ingrained into the japanese people since childhood for decades. You ignore the fact that japanese elementary schools were modeled after boot camps, with every topic being devoted to a separate facet of warfare, and children receiving blows if they looked away during class or failed to salute their teacher. You ignore the popular motto "Ten million die for the emperor" and "The time for the bamboo spear has come". You also ignore that public support is irrelevant in totalitarian governments. You ignore the fact that the military, not the government, held power in 1945. Your own ignorance is the key to your opinion.

Quote :

"Besides, they wouldn't have been very successful trying to kill Americans with edged weapons. In general, WWII-era Japanese sucked with their swords."

Are you retarded? Seriously, get yourself tested.

The japanese had streamlined weapon production. If you look at rifles from the latter part of the war (last ditch rifles), you will see that they are little more than a block of wood with a barrel lashed to it that were ready to be distributed to civil defense forces. You've also conveniently forgotten the fact that there were well over a million japanese soldiers digging in on Kyushu.

The japanese had received jet and rocket technology from the germans prior to their surrender. They had begun to manufacture jet fighters and rocket powered kamikaze aircraft. The had done studies on how to best destroy the allied invasion fleet with kamikaze aircraft, they were capable of destorying a third of the troop ships before they even landed.

I don't know where you got the childish idea that the defense of japan would be made up of people with swords. However, if you want to point out that the japanese were bad with edged weapons, I'd suggest that you tell that to the families of the troops who were impaled on bayonets during banzai charges -although this tactic was abondoned by 1945, as it resulted in high losses to the japanese. By that point in the war, they had realized that they could inflict much higher losses by digging in away from the beaches and waging slow battles of attrition from tunnels.

Quote :

"Traditionalist historians. Folks like Sadao Asada and so on."

Where? Oh, I get it, this is one of those "I know you are, but what am I" responses. Brilliant.

[Edited on September 29, 2006 at 6:26 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2006 6:26:23 PM

Quote :

"Pardon me, but where have you shown jack squat?"

As before, search for posts by GoldenViper. During the course of the argument, I've come up with names of numerous historians who don't agree with you. I'll name them, along with some new ones: Walker, Bernstein, Hagesawa, Zinn, Alperovitz, Skates, and so on.

The traditionalist point of view is not generally agreed upon by historians.

Quote :

"Theoretical studies? Like your estimates from military planners?"

Not, not at all. I'm thinking of Shockley's study. The one you got those insane casualty figures from.

Quote :

"Just like the troops on Okinawa and Iwo Jima that quickly folded? Oh wait, those were horrific blood baths mere months before the invasion was set to begin."

Obviously, not all Japanese troops were of the same quality.

Quote :

"Another claim that revisionists love to point out."

Yes, we're big on truth.

Quote :

"You ignore the fact that the Japanese public had been taught that the emperor was god's representative on earth, the vast majority held this to be true."

So what? That doesn't mean they all would have fought to death for him. That was one motivation, to be sure, but not the only one. They still cared about everyday concerns, such as living a decent life and not dying.

Quote :

"Are you retarded? Seriously, get yourself tested."

Read this. The WWII-era Japanese were surprisingly bad with their blades.

https://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?file=eo20031229hs.html

I've also read accounts of them having trouble executing captured Americans with their swords.

Quote :

"I don't know where you got the childish idea that the defense of japan would be made up of people with swords."

It generally wouldn't be, obviously. There was, however, some talk of civilians fight Americans with bamboo spears. Mainly, I just felt like attacking the myth of Japanese martial superiority. Not completely on topic, I agree.

Hand-to-hand combat did occur in WWII, though, as I'm sure you know. As I understand it, however, Americans and Austrailians tended to have the advantage against Japanese soldiers.

Quote :

"Where? Oh, I get it, this is one of those "I know you are, but what am I" responses. Brilliant."

Go read the old thread again.

[Edited on September 30, 2006 at 10:55 PM. Reason : proof]

[Edited on September 30, 2006 at 10:57 PM. Reason : up]

9/30/2006 10:54:32 PM

Quote :

"During the course of the argument, I've come up with names of numerous historians who don't agree with you. I'll name them, along with some new ones: Walker, Bernstein, Hagesawa, Zinn, Alperovitz, Skates, and so on."

6 people. That sure is a tremendous slice of the historian community.

Quote :

"The traditionalist point of view is not generally agreed upon by historians."

If you continue repeating it, do you expect it to come true?

Quote :

"Not, not at all. I'm thinking of Shockley's study. The one you got those insane casualty figures from."

I cited a number of studies, several of them from military planners who had better intelligence than the ones that you choose to listen to.

Quote :

"Obviously, not all Japanese troops were of the same quality."

What exactly does that mean? The troops were the same, but the tactics were different. Instead of building fortifications on the beaches that would be quickly destroyed by naval bombardment and using bonzai attacks to kill americans, the Japanese realized that they could inflict much higher casualties and drag out the battle much longer by digging in and fortifying inland from the invasion beaches.

Iwo Jima was an 8 square mile island where ~7,000 american troops were killed over 3 months because the Japanese used this strategy (prior to the invasion it was estimated that it would take 3 weeks to secure the island). The same strategy was used again on Okinawa with even more efficiency. These were the same type of troops and the same type of tactics that would have been used in the defense of the home islands.

Quote :

"Yes, we're big on truth."

Really? Why haven't you provided any evidence of your truth?

Quote :

"So what? That doesn't mean they all would have fought to death for him. That was one motivation, to be sure, but not the only one."

No, not all, but a solid majority would have. Feel free to try to prove me wrong.

Quote :

"I've also read accounts of them having trouble executing captured Americans with their swords."

I never said that japanese were good with swords, primarily because that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. However, I've read first hand accounts of the "courage test" for green junior officers in occupied China. They were forced to decapitate chinese prisoners in front of their superiors. Enlisted men used live prisoners for bayonet practice. Their superiors even drew chalk circles around the hearts of the prisoners and told the men not to stab there, that way they could use the live prisoners for practice repeatedly. The japanese accounts explicitly say that it was an effective way to remove any remorse that they would feel when killing civilians.

Quote :

"Go read the old thread again."

Feel free to cite something.

9/30/2006 11:20:16 PM

Quote :

"6 people. That sure is a tremendous slice of the historian community."

Please. The decision to drop the atomic bomb is one of the biggest historical controversies out there. Claiming that it's no longer a point of contention is ridiculous.

Quote :

"If you continue repeating it, do you expect it to come true?"

I'm trying to see if you understand bolded text.

Quote :

"I cited a number of studies, several of them from military planners who had better intelligence than the ones that you choose to listen to."

You unqestionably cited Shockley. He's who I object to the most. Yes, an extended invasion of Japanese might have gotten up to few hundred thousand U.S. casualties. That's possible. However, Japan almost certainly would have surrendered before then. They could well have surrendered before any invasion took place, given the importance of the Soviet Union's declaration of war.

Quote :

"These were the same type of troops and the same type of tactics that would have been used in the defense of the home islands."

I'll quote Walker again on that matter: "Futhermore, the number of Japanese troops disclosed nothing about their combat experience, morale, or the quality of their training, equipment, and leadership. Indications are that they were less formidable than the Japanese forces that defended Okinawa and other islands."

Quote :

"However, I've read first hand accounts of the "courage test" for green junior officers in occupied China."

Yeah, I've read the same accounts. There's no doubt the Japanese were complete bastards in China. They did kill thousands upon thousands of Chinese civilians.

9/30/2006 11:34:22 PM

Quote :

"Claiming that it's no longer a point of contention is ridiculous."

Do you even remember what we are talking about?

Quote :

"I'm trying to see if you understand bolded text."

If you continue bolding it, do you expect it to come true?

Quote :

"Yes, an extended invasion of Japanese might have gotten up to few hundred thousand U.S. casualties. That's possible."

Didn't you say that it would have only cost ~25,000 KIA?

Quote :

"However, Japan almost certainly would have surrendered before then. They could well have surrendered before any invasion took place, given the importance of the Soviet Union's declaration of war."

Neato, you finally made it back to topic. Now please dig up something that proves that the Soviet Union's declaration of war was more important than the atomic bomb.

Quote :

"Futhermore, the number of Japanese troops disclosed nothing about their combat experience, morale, or the quality of their training, equipment, and leadership. Indications are that they were less formidable than the Japanese forces that defended Okinawa and other islands."

What indications? Bunkers and machine guns are force multipliers. It really takes very little to man one. Many of the troops on Iwo and Okinawa were green, yet still managed to inflict horrendous casualties. This was more an issue of leadership. By 1945 there were quite a few experienced japanese officers and NCOs.

9/30/2006 11:43:07 PM

Quote :

"Do you even remember what we are talking about?"

Yes. Your odd claim that the traditionalist point of view is "generally agreed upon in historian circles."

Quote :

"If you continue bolding it, do you expect it to come true?"

As it's already true, there's no need for that.

Quote :

"Didn't you say that it would have only cost ~25,000 KIA?"

Early estimates are that low, yes. However, I believe that was for only the first 30, or perhaps 60, days. Not an extended operation.

Quote :

"Now please dig up something that proves that the Soviet Union's declaration of war was more important than the atomic bomb."

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HASRAC.html?show=reviews

The next contains a bit of Hasegawa's evidence. Page 13-15 might interest you:

http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables/PDF/Hasegawa-response.pdf#search=%22tsuyoshi%20hasegawa%20%2B%20invasion%20%22

9/30/2006 11:58:59 PM

Quote :

"Yes. Your odd claim that the traditionalist point of view is "generally agreed upon in historian circles.""

Actually, its your unsubstantiated claim that the use of nuclear weapons did little to influence the surrender of Japan.

Quote :

"As it's already true, there's no need for that."

I'm one of those weird people that needs some sort of historical evidence (rather than sarcasm) to be convinced. Feel free to continue running in circles.

Quote :

"Early estimates are that low, yes. However, I believe that was for only the first 30, or perhaps 60, days. Not an extended operation."

As I recall, you touted that number and said that it would take very little time to quell the japanese following an invasion.

Quote :

"http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HASRAC.html?show=reviews"

Reviews of a book count as proof these days? Bridges of Madison County must be one of the most historically accurate books ever.

Quote :

"The next contains a bit of Hasegawa's evidence. Page 13-15 might interest you:"

Back to felating Hasegawa...

Quote :

"http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables/PDF/Hasegawa-response.pdf#search=%22tsuyoshi%20hasegawa%20%2B%20invasion%20%22"

Hasegawa makes a big deal out of Hirohito's surrender rescript to troops and the fact that it mentions Soviet involvement. However, he completely ignores the surrender respcript that Hirohito made to the population of Japan, which made explicit mention of the atomic bombings, yet made absolutely no references, even in passing, to Soviet actions.

Out of curiosity, what are Hasegawa's opinions on Japanese war crimes?

10/1/2006 12:27:39 AM

Quote :

"Actually, its your unsubstantiated claim that the use of nuclear weapons did little to influence the surrender of Japan."

Perhaps I haven't be as clear as I should have been. I do believe the bombs significantly influence the specifics of Japan's surrender. However, without them, I don't see the overall result of WWII being at all different. Therefore, I don't believe the nukes don't explain why the Allies won WWII.

Quote :

"I'm one of those weird people that needs some sort of historical evidence (rather than sarcasm) to be convinced. Feel free to continue running in circles."

There is, in fact, a great deal of historical evidence for there being controversy over Truman's decision to drop the bomb. I've shown some you of it. I've listed some of the historians involved in the debate. I've linked a partial survey of the debate.

Hell, just google the word "decision." The first site that comes up is about Truman's choice.

Quote :

"As I recall, you touted that number and said that it would take very little time to quell the japanese following an invasion."

Yes, the Japanese might well have surrendered quickly after an invasion of Kyushu. However, I can also imagine an extended campaign. I don't consider it likely.

Quote :

"Reviews of a book count as proof these days?"

I'm suggesting that you read the book.

Quote :

"Back to felating Hasegawa..."

Absolutely.

Quote :

"Hasegawa makes a big deal out of Hirohito's surrender rescript to troops and the fact that it mentions Soviet involvement. However, he completely ignores the surrender respcript that Hirohito made to the population of Japan, which made explicit mention of the atomic bombings, yet made absolutely no references, even in passing, to Soviet actions."

As I understand, his contention is that both event influenced Japanese leaders, but that the Soviet entry was more important. I'm not sure I agree, but I do think Soviet entry was key. At least roughly equal to the two nukes.

Quote :

"Out of curiosity, what are Hasegawa's opinions on Japanese war crimes?"

He paints all sides as flawed. I can't think of any specifics. Perhaps you should zip him an e-mail.

10/1/2006 12:42:56 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps I haven't be as clear as I should have been. I do believe the bombs significantly influence the specifics of Japan's surrender. However, without them, I don't see the overall result of WWII being at all different. Therefore, I don't believe the nukes don't explain why the Allies won WWII."

Perhaps I haven't been as clear as I need to be with you, the topic is your unsubstantiated claim that Japan surrendered without an invasion because of Russian actions in Manchuria and not because of the new US policy of destroying japanese cities with atomic weapons.

Quote :

"There is, in fact, a great deal of historical evidence for there being controversy over Truman's decision to drop the bomb. I've shown some you of it. I've listed some of the historians involved in the debate. I've linked a partial survey of the debate. Hell, just google the word "decision." The first site that comes up is about Truman's choice."

When was Truman's decision to drop the bomb ever the topic?

Quote :

"Yes, the Japanese might well have surrendered quickly after an invasion of Kyushu. However, I can also imagine an extended campaign. I don't consider it likely."

Your initial contention was that an invasion wasn't necessary; that the Japanese would surrender unconditionally as soon as it looked like an invasion might happen.

Quote :

"As I understand, his contention is that both event influenced Japanese leaders, but that the Soviet entry was more important. I'm not sure I agree, but I do think Soviet entry was key. At least roughly equal to the two nukes."

Your initial contention was that the Russian involvement was a bigger factor than the use of atomic weapons.

Quote :

"He paints all sides as flawed. I can't think of any specifics. Perhaps you should zip him an e-mail."

His focus is Japanese-Soviet relations, do you think that could influence his opinion regarding the importance of the Soviets at the close of the war?

10/1/2006 1:03:12 AM

Quote :

"Perhaps I haven't been as clear as I need to be with you, the topic is your unsubstantiated claim that Japan surrendered without an invasion because of Russian actions in Manchuria and not because of the new US policy of destroying japanese cities with atomic weapons."

There's plenty evidence to lead to that conclusion, as we've gone over. Like it or not, Soviet entry played a major role, as shown by Hasegawa. Diplomacy, also, could have lead to Japan surrendering without an invasion, though perhaps no unconditionally. Japan already knew they'd lost. It was simply at matter of what type of terms they'd surrender under. Japanese leaders were looking for a way out.

Quote :

"When was Truman's decision to drop the bomb ever the topic?"

It's all related. Whether Japan would have surrendered without an invasion or the use of atomic bombs is a key part of the debate.

Quote :

"Your initial contention was that an invasion wasn't necessary; that the Japanese would surrender unconditionally as soon as it looked like an invasion might happen."

I don't remember saying anything about them surrendering unconditionally. Without the bomb, the threat of U.S. invasion would have been a factor, but Soviet entry was a bigger one.

Quote :

"Your initial contention was that the Russian involvement was a bigger factor than the use of atomic weapons."

No, that's Hasegawa's contention. His evidence is quite solid, though.

Quote :

"His focus is Japanese-Soviet relations, do you think that could influence his opinion regarding the importance of the Soviets at the close of the war?"

Are you equally suspiciously of U.S. military historians giving primary place to the bomb?

10/1/2006 1:16:44 AM

Quote :

"Like it or not, Soviet entry played a major role, as shown by Hasegawa."

It played a role, however the notion that it played a larger role than the systematic destruction of Japanese cities via atomic weapons is relatively unsuported.

Quote :

"Diplomacy, also, could have lead to Japan surrendering without an invasion, though perhaps no unconditionally."

None of the allied nations would have accepted an unconditional surrender, and, personally, I don't blame them. A conditional surrender would have been more akin to a cease fire and would have left the world in a similar state in which it had been following WWI.

Quote :

"Japan already knew they'd lost. It was simply at matter of what type of terms they'd surrender under."

The Japanese planned to inflict horrendous casualties on any invasion, exaust allied patience and resources, and then pursue a conditional cease fire - their last bargaining chip was their ability to hold out and inflict casualties. As I have stated, this was unnacceptable.

Quote :

"Japanese leaders were looking for a way out."

Prior to the bombing they were still preparing for defense of the home islands. You forget that the military held power and they clung to the corruption of bushido on a fanatical level.

Quote :

"It's all related. Whether Japan would have surrendered without an invasion or the use of atomic bombs is a key part of the debate."

Not this debate, kemosabi.

Quote :

"I don't remember saying anything about them surrendering unconditionally."

Search for posts by GoldenViper.

Quote :

"Without the bomb, the threat of U.S. invasion would have been a factor, but Soviet entry was a bigger one."

Again, you are side stepping. Your contention is that Soviet entry was a bigger factor than the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese cities.

Quote :

"No, that's Hasegawa's contention. His evidence is quite solid, though."

The same Hasegawa that you have been felating for pages. It is your contention as well.

Quote :

"Are you equally suspiciously of U.S. military historians giving primary place to the bomb?"

Back to "I know you are, but what am I".

The difference is that my point of view is not held exclusively by U.S. military historians.

10/1/2006 1:37:10 AM

Quote :

"It played a role, however the notion that it played a larger role than the systematic destruction of Japanese cities via atomic weapons is relatively unsuported."

See Hasegawa's work for support.

Quote :

"A conditional surrender would have been more akin to a cease fire and would have left the world in a similar state in which it had been following WWI."

Not automatically. After all, we left the emperor around in end anyway.

Quote :

"You forget that the military held power and they clung to the corruption of bushido on a fanatical level."

Actually, I'm well aware of that. However, other elements existed inside the Japanese government.

Quote :

"Not this debate, kemosabi."

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Quote :

"Search for posts by GoldenViper."

Feel free to quote me.

Quote :

"The same Hasegawa that you have been felating for pages."

I think "fellating" is the word you're looking for.

Quote :

"It is your contention as well."

No, my contention is that Soviet entry was roughly equally important.

Quote :

"The difference is that my point of view is not held exclusively by U.S. military historians."

Nor is Hasegawa's. He has plenty of fans.

That aside, are you ignore military historians on the matter?

Anyways, it's at least as reasonable to assume that Hasegawa's focus on Japanese-Soviet relations gives him greater insight into the matter and allows him to see what others have missed. It spins both ways, bub.

10/1/2006 1:49:16 AM

So is this going anywhere, or is every response you make going to be along the lines of "No, it isn't" or "Read Hasegawas book"?

10/1/2006 1:54:06 AM

Quote :

"See Hasegawa's work for support."

Feel free to cite it.

Quote :

"Not automatically. After all, we left the emperor around in end anyway."

The conditional surrender that they had in mind inclued many more provisions than just keeping an emperor. I'm sure that your research has told you that though.

Quote :

"Actually, I'm well aware of that. However, other elements existed inside the Japanese government."

Too bad those other elements were irrelevant.

Quote :

"I have no idea what you're trying to say here."

This discussion is about the importance of the atomic bombing versus the importance of Soviet entry into the war, not about Trumans decision to drop the bomb.

Quote :

"Feel free to quote me."

Feel free to remember what you are talking about.

Quote :

"No, my contention is that Soviet entry was roughly equally important."

Feel free to back it up with more than "read hasegawa!"

Quote :

"That aside, are you ignore military historians on the matter?"

I'm not ignoring anyone, be they miltary, traditionalist, or revisionist historians.

Quote :

"Anyways, it's at least as reasonable to assume that Hasegawa's focus on Japanese-Soviet relations gives him greater insight into the matter and allows him to see what others have missed. It spins both ways, bub."

Well no shit. Feel free to answer my question.

10/1/2006 2:01:46 AM

Whatever.

I'm just glad you've stopped claiming most historians agree with you.

For that, at least, I can be proud.

[Edited on October 1, 2006 at 2:07 AM. Reason : or not... ah well]

10/1/2006 2:02:32 AM

Well, most do.

10/1/2006 2:04:44 AM

Quote :

"Too bad those other elements were irrelevant."

Not at all. They played an active role.

Quote :

"This discussion is about the importance of the atomic bombing versus the importance of Soviet entry into the war, not about Trumans decision to drop the bomb."

Sure.

Quote :

"Feel free to back it up with more than "read hasegawa!""

You've seen the evidence he gave in the link I provided. I'm assuming you have the ability to read.

Maybe it is too great of an assumption. For example, there's no evidence the Japanese government accepted Potsdam before the Soviet attack. The Japanese government continued to try to end the war through the Soviets after the bombing of Hiroshima. An aide said Hiroshima didn't seem to influence the emperor's views.

Quote :

"I'm not ignoring anyone, be they miltary, traditionalist, or revisionist historians."

So you won't ignore Hasegawa simply because he focues on Japanese-Soviet relations?

[Edited on October 1, 2006 at 2:21 AM. Reason : Hasegawa]

10/1/2006 2:07:21 AM

Quote :

"Not at all. They played an active role."

The military held power at the end of the war. They had even begun the steps to impose martial law following the bombing of Hiroshima.

Quote :

"Sure."

Cute. Are we talking about Truman?

Quote :

"You've seen the evidence he gave in the link I provided. I'm assuming you have the ability to read."

I assume that you're cool with Hasegawa ignoring any evidence to the contrary when forming conclusions. One the key pieces of his argument was the emperors surrender rescript to troops and the fact that it mention Soviet involvement. However, he conveniently ignores the emperors surrender rescript to all of Japan, in which he explicitly mentions atomic weapons, yet says nothing about the Soviets.

Quote :

"So you won't ignore Hasegawa simply because he focues on Japanese-Soviet relations?"

Thats what I said. I'm assuming you have the ability to read.

[Edited on October 1, 2006 at 2:16 AM. Reason : .]

10/1/2006 2:16:12 AM

Quote :

"However, he conveniently ignores the emperors surrender rescript to all of Japan, in which he explicitly mentions atomic weapons, yet says nothing about the Soviets."

And you conveniently ignore the other evidence backing up his thesis.

Quote :

"I'm assuming you have the ability to read."

Assumptions are always dangerous.


[Edited on October 1, 2006 at 2:27 AM. Reason : danger]

10/1/2006 2:27:01 AM

Quote :

"And you conveniently ignore the other evidence backing up his thesis."

No, I just give well developed theories more weight than underdeveloped ones.

Quote :

"Assumptions are always dangerous."

Thats right, Iceman.

10/1/2006 2:36:59 AM

Quote :

"No, I just give well developed theories more weight than underdeveloped ones."

I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, lol. I think there's something to be said for the most recent scholarship.

Quote :

"Thats right, Iceman."

10/1/2006 1:19:22 PM

Quote :

"I'll guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, lol. I think there's something to be said for the most recent scholarship."

Fair enough.

As far as recent scholarship, just be weary of the revisionist stuff coming out of Japan right now that whitewashes japanese attrocities in China and paints the Empire of Japan as the victim of the Pacific war. Not to say that Hasegawa has anything to do with that, its just rather prevalent over there and (in my opinion) is very much akin to Holocaust denial.

10/1/2006 3:54:35 PM

Quote :

"Not to say that Hasegawa has anything to do with that"

Yeah, I checked up on that. He's not one of the whitewashers. He fully recongizes Japan as responsible for all sorts of war crimes.

The Empire of Japan unquestionalby committed a multitude atrocities, killing millions of people in Asia.

10/1/2006 4:15:45 PM

The allies were as evil as the axis, to some regard, but not as evil. This makes them "more good". This is why they won.

10/12/2006 2:14:21 PM

^ Well geez, who can argue with that?

10/12/2006 4:52:00 PM