Support NeoGAF

[Megalosaro]

What do you guys make of something like this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kōfu_in_World_War_II

80% of a city with no military targets was destroyed.

I think it's a dangerous idea to blame civillains for the atrocities of militaries. To say you have no sympathy for dead civilians be use of nanking opens up a bad precident. Our own military dots all sorts of bad shit abroad. Do you think the firebombing on a US city would be justified because of 100k dead civillains in Iraq? Because that's the same thought process.

 

[4Tran]

After hearing about the rape in Nanking about 9 years ago, no sympathy from me.

I sort of wish that people never heard about Nanking. There are some several hundred thousand deaths there, but some 20 million people ended dying during the Second Sino-Japanese War and nobody remembers them. Nanking is only where the Japanese atrocities in Asia started, and far from where they ended.

 

[WonkyPanda]

I sort of wish that people never heard about Nanking. There are some several hundred thousand deaths there, but some 20 million people ended dying during the Second Sino-Japanese War and nobody remembers them. Nanking is only where the Japanese atrocities in Asia started, and far from where they ended.

What’s even worse is how japan seems to gloss over this part of history.

 

[JettDash]

It's interesting that those who went through the American education system probably see it as a necessary evil (conventional war would have killed more, etc.). That's what your historians tell you I guess.

Other points of view indicate that Japan was in fact on the verge of surrender but the US wanted to drop the bombs to send a warning message to Stalin and the USSR.

How you see history depends on how it is told to you, and that changes depending on the interests of who is telling it (see Japan and how it systematically ignores their own atrocities in China to the point that young Japanese think it didn't happen).

Yeah, except for it is an outright lie that the Japanese were about to surrender unconditionally or anything close.

The US broke Japanese codes and intercepted messages where the Japaenese stated that unconditional surrender or anything close was not acceptable to them.

 

[Piecake]

Yeah. I mean I would like more people to engage with history and historians, but it's vitally important for me the we create a space in which they can engage with them that works within the parameters of the expert community.

I also see how most lay people, but as a social studies teach I think you would see it too, would miss the stakes involved. It's not just because I want people to trust me when I say things that I want to buttress up the legitimacy of the expert community of historians. I've received many many papers that GAF would certainly not approve of to put it lightly, including gems like comparing slavery to owning a refrigerator. A lot of these more actively damaging narratives take root and grow because historians have increasingly lost legitimacy in the exact same period where historical work has become significantly more nuanced and, at the risk of ironic whiggery, better. In fact, I'd wager part of the reason we've lost legitimacy is because our work is better now, and thus far more often in contention with various received narratives, than it was before.

Like I said in the why Clinton failed thread, successful politicians are people who propose simple solutions to complex problems that reflects the values and beliefs of voters, and do so in a charismatic and interesting way so that an emotional connection develops.

Historians are going to need to do something similar if they want their historically supported arguments to reach a wider audience. Changing people isn't going to work because people, in general, will always take the easy way out.

You aren't going to convince people by better and more nuanced arguments that are supported by facts because that isn't what changes people's minds. The only way you are going to change a person's mind on an argument is if you are able to convey a simple, but historically accurate argument in a way that also confirms their values and beliefs.

I'd also hazard a guess that the reason why historians have increasingly lost legitimacy is that the beliefs and values of people who are educated have become more fractured. I mean, I think there is a reason why that the Dunning School was the consensus for a long time, and that is because the vast majority of white people, historians and lay people, were perfectly fine with an interpretation that essentially supported racism and white supremacy. The few voices who disagreed could be either written off as crackpots or people not worth paying attention to (African Americans).

That obviously started to change in the 60s, but the beliefs and values of a lot of people didn't change and still hasnt changed. I'd guess that those people still want the great white man narrative in their history because it upholds their identity and values. If they don't get it from academic historians, they can easily find it in conservative 'popular' history works.

 

[Megalosaro]

Two books I urge everyone to read:


https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393320278/?tag=neogaf0e-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595589376/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Both are god tier reads

 

[Cocaloch]

Like I said in the why Clinton failed thread, successful politicians are people who propose simple solutions to complex problems that reflects the values and beliefs of voters, and do so in a charismatic and interesting way so that an emotional connection develops.

Sure, but being a successful politician means winning. It's not neccisarily doing good things.

Historians are going to need to do something similar if they want their historically supported arguments to reach a wider audience. Changing people isn't going to work because people, in general, will always take the easy way out.

Historians are quite aware of this, I mean that's what pop history is. But that's also why it's so contentious. In simplifying our historical arguments, we don't just lose complexity that is nice, we often lose what's actually going on. If we tell people what they want to hear at the expense of what good historical work is actually showing us , which would at least have to happen sometimes here, then we aren't doing anything but enabling people to believe what they already wanted to believe.

That's a price a large number of historians, including myself, are not willing to pay.

It's difficult to change people, but nudging culture is a better direction is clearly possible even if that too is difficult. And epistemology is always heavily cultural.

I've always like the saying that history is the only field where the presenter, when moving to questions, will generally tell the speaker "thanks for complicating that for me". I don't think that's just a quirk of historians, I think it's actually a totally necessary outlook to do good work in the field.

You aren't going to convince people by better and more nuanced arguments that are supported by facts because that isn't what changes people's minds.

Right, and this is the argument for why we need to increase the sense that historians, as a community, have a privileged access to historical truth.

Because

The only way you are going to change a person's mind on an argument is if you are able to convey a simple, but historically accurate argument in a way that also confirms their values and beliefs.

inevitably means compromising on doing good work, for the sake of people accepting what we have to say. What's the point of getting people to accept what we have to say if it comes at the cost of saying what they want us to say? Received narratives generally at the very best contain a kernel of truth.

I'd also hazard a guess that the reason why historians have increasingly lost legitimacy is that the beliefs and values of people who are educated have become more fractured. I mean, I think there is a reason why that the Dunning School was the consensus for a long time, and that is because the vast majority of white people, historians and lay people, were perfectly fine with an interpretation that essentially supported racism and white supremacy. The few voices who disagreed could be either written off as crackpots or people not worth paying attention to (African Americans).

I'm sure there are a lot of things going on, and this could well be one of them. I do feel that scientism and positivism together are probably the biggest single source of anti-humanities and anti-social sciences sentiment though. Or at least it's the intellectual justification for a widespread anti-intellectualism that seems built into American culture to manifest itself against humanists and social scientists.

The thread about Roman Britain should demonstrate the importance of those two forces. Though in a British and not American context.

That obviously started to change in the 60s, but the beliefs and values of a lot of people didn't change and still hasnt changed. I'd guess that those people still want the great white man narrative in their history because it upholds their identity and values. If they don't get it from academic historians, they can easily find it in conservative 'popular' history works.

Yeah, I certainly agree that historians, and not just Americanists, increasingly moving away from received narratives damaged the appearance of their legitimacy.

But I think that if that legitimacy always depended on saying what people wanted to hear then it was never actually the legitimacy of the historical community. It was the legitimacy of the points being argued flowing to historians. Not the legitimacy of historians and their arguments flowing to whatever thesis they made.

 

[StayDead]

What’s even worse is how japan seems to gloss over this part of history.

It's the same way how Britain always glosses over the Empire, America always glosses over Vietnam and the firebombings. Countries do whatever they can to try and make people forget about the past.

 

[Piecake]

I've always like the saying that history is the only field where the presenter, when moving to questions, will generally tell the speaker "thanks for complicating that for me". I don't think that's just a quirk of historians, I think it's actually a totally necessary outlook to do good work in the field.

I would agree that complicating an issue and delving into more nuance is necessary to do good history. I would also argue that too much complexity and nuance will guaranty that it won't be popular and won't reach the popular consciousness.

I am not going to put forth an opinion on that choice, but it seems like the obvious consequences of historians continuing to do good history is that people will be continued to be influenced by popular history, not academic history.

inevitably means compromising on doing good work, for the sake of people accepting what we have to say. What's the point of getting people to accept what we have to say if it comes at the cost of saying what they want us to say? Received narratives generally at the very best contain a kernel of truth.

Not necessarily.

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/520737/a-better-way-to-argue-about-politics/

If moral foundation theory is correct (and I have no idea about its standing in academic circles), then you have to package your argument in the underlying values of liberals or conservatism to to reach that audience.

That does not mean that you parrot the already existing narratives that confirm their values. what you do is you change up how your proper historical argument is delivered to confirm the underlying values of the people you are trying to persuade without sacrificing your actual argument.

Its not changing to argument and evidence to fit the audience, it is changing how that argument and evidence is delivered.

Is that actually possible in this context? I admit, that I do not know.

 

[KillerMan91]

It's the same way how Britain always glosses over the Empire, America always glosses over Vietnam and the firebombings. Countries do whatever they can to try and make people forget about the past.

Yeah. Germany is pretty much the exception and even that is probably mostly because huge denazification efforts by allies during occupation of Germany (this really didn't happen to same degree in Japan).

 

[Piecake]

It's the same way how Britain always glosses over the Empire, America always glosses over Vietnam and the firebombings. Countries do whatever they can to try and make people forget about the past.

America glosses over Vietnam? That hasn't been my experience

 

[4Tran]

Yeah, except for it is an outright lie that the Japanese were about to surrender unconditionally or anything close.

The US broke Japanese codes and intercepted messages where the Japaenese stated that unconditional surrender or anything close was not acceptable to them.

I think that some people are conflating Japanese feelers for conditional surrender that allow them to keep all of their conquests with the unconditional surrender that the Allies demanded. The former can be construed as a "surrender", but not in any functional way.

Like I said in the why Clinton failed thread, successful politicians are people who propose simple solutions to complex problems that reflects the values and beliefs of voters, and do so in a charismatic and interesting way so that an emotional connection develops.

Historians are going to need to do something similar if they want their historically supported arguments to reach a wider audience. Changing people isn't going to work because people, in general, will always take the easy way out.

You aren't going to convince people by better and more nuanced arguments that are supported by facts because that isn't what changes people's minds. The only way you are going to change a person's mind on an argument is if you are able to convey a simple, but historically accurate argument in a way that also confirms their values and beliefs.

There's only so much that legitimate methods can do to combat the effects of propaganda.

I'd also hazard a guess that the reason why historians have increasingly lost legitimacy is that the beliefs and values of people who are educated have become more fractured. I mean, I think there is a reason why that the Dunning School was the consensus for a long time, and that is because the vast majority of white people, historians and lay people, were perfectly fine with an interpretation that essentially supported racism and white supremacy. The few voices who disagreed could be either written off as crackpots or people not worth paying attention to (African Americans).

No, the reason why historians and other scientists have lost legitimacy is because the very value of knowledge has been degraded. What's happening is that people are lead to believe that their gut instinct is more important than the accumulated knowledge and analysis of experts. This leads to phenomenon like people hearing about the Rape of Nanking and thinking that they are knowledgeable about Japan in World War II. Anybody actually looking into the subject would realize that Western historiography on the entire subject of the Second Sino-Japanese War is extremely lacking.

 

[Pandora012]

America glosses over Vietnam? That hasn't been my experience

Yeah, they were thorough with that in my school. Though I don't remember much of the firebombings. It's hard to pinpoint what is taught in the US. It's pretty fractured, and depends on the state. Then the districts too.

 

[Cocaloch]

I would agree that complicating an issue and delving into more nuance is necessary to do good history. I would also argue that too much complexity and nuance will guaranty that it won't be popular and won't reach the popular consciousness.

I am not going to put forth an opinion on that choice, but it seems like the obvious consequences of historians continuing to do good history is that people will be continued to be influenced by popular history, not academic history.

Right, and that's the key calculation that stands behind most historians's view on the topic. That's why you have some historians who write popular histories, some who will personally attack anyone who has ever written a popular history, and a large number who are somewhere inbetween. I'd say I'm somewhere inbetween, but also that there are some very strong arguments that are necessarily so complicated they will never be popular by directly convincing people.

I think the best solution to the popular history problem is over the course of the next decades work as a community to more sharply delineate our boundaries and raise the popular understanding of our legitimacy. I do believe this can be done. Of course it will probably take quite some time. But historians better than anyone should know the importance of the longue duree.

Not necessarily.

I do think if we take making narratives that can convince the wider public to be more important than making narratives that we think are sufficiently historical we will necessarily sometimes do that. It wouldn't always happen, but it seems the inevitable consequence of prioritizing reaching the wider public over being as accurate as reasonably possible.

If moral foundation theory is correct (and I have no idea about its standing in academic circles), then you have to package your argument in the underlying values of liberals or conservatism to to reach that audience.

That does not mean that you parrot the already existing narratives that confirm their values. what you do is you change up how your proper historical argument is delivered to confirm the underlying values of the people you are trying to persuade without sacrificing your actual argument.

Its not changing to argument and evidence to fit the audience, it is changing how that argument and evidence is delivered.

Is that actually possible in this context? I admit, that I do not know.

I think the bolded is the problem, because there are large numbers of situations where this is incredibly difficult, and honestly where I think it would be fundamentally impossible to do in a epistemological satisfying way.

In my field teaching the emergence of party is quite difficult for this very reason. American students very strongly resist any interpretation other than the Whigs are Democrats and the Tories are Republicans, when that's actually an incredibly poor way to understand what was going on.

The core issue, and the issue with all expert communities, is that their very expertise means experts create knowledge in a different way than lay people. On some level that's what actually even makes them an expert.

Yeah, they were thorough with that in my school. Though I don't remember much of the firebombings. It's hard to pinpoint what is taught in the US. It's pretty fractured, and depends on the state. Then the districts too.

It also depends on the teacher. Big H history isn't really a thing.

 

[Piecake]

I think the bolded is the problem, because there are large numbers of situations where this is incredibly difficult, and honestly where I think it would be fundamentally impossible to do in a epistemological satisfying way.

In my field teaching the emergence of party is quite difficult for this very reason. American students very strongly resist any interpretation other than the Whigs are Democrats and the Tories are Republicans, when that's actually an incredibly poor way to understand what was going on.

Well, that argument doesnt seem to be an argument based on values and beliefs. It seems more like a problem with people naturally connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge, and them not having enough prior knowledge about the subject. This results in them making a rather crude connection to what they do know to make sense of it all.

In this situation, I would first probably have the class brainstorm ideas on the board about what beliefs, values, and positions define a democrat and what defines a republican.

I'd then do an activity where I would have a bunch of beliefs, values, and positions from the whigs and torries (the students wouldn't know if it was a whig or tory position) on slips of paper, and have them stick that position under either democrat, republican or neither on a poster/paper or something

That way, the students are able to see for themselves that what they originally thought was incorrect.

Of course, that is very much a secondary school approach because I certainly never experienced an activity like that in college, so perhaps that might not work.

 

[Captain Tuttle]

It's the same way how Britain always glosses over the Empire, America always glosses over Vietnam and the firebombings. Countries do whatever they can to try and make people forget about the past.

I'm not saying America doesn't gloss over stuff but have you seen some of the Pulitzer Prize winning photos from the Vietnam War?

GRAPHIC
https://www.google.com/search?q=pul...L_zs3VAhWY2YMKHUF1BTgQsAQIJw&biw=1536&bih=735

These journalists were awarded for showing the truth to the American People

 

[petran79]

I'm not saying America doesn't gloss over stuff but have you seen some of the Pulitzer Prize winning photos from the Vietnam War?

GRAPHIC
https://www.google.com/search?q=pul...L_zs3VAhWY2YMKHUF1BTgQsAQIJw&biw=1536&bih=735

These journalists were awarded for showing the truth to the American People

I remember reading a quote by a Vietnamese that the US occupation was nothing when compared to the occupation by France, Japan and China

 

[Pandora012]

I remember reading a quote by a Vietnamese that the US occupation was nothing when compared to the occupation by France, Japan and China

Probably not what you are talking about. But here is a piece that talks more about their relationship with China. How they could in a sense forgive France and the US, but not China.

 

[Cocaloch]

Well, that argument doesnt seem to be an argument based on values and beliefs. It seems more like a problem with people naturally connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge, and them not having enough prior knowledge about the subject. This results in them making a rather crude connection to what they do know to make sense of it all.

In this situation, I would first probably have the class brainstorm ideas on the board about what beliefs, values, and positions define a democrat and what defines a republican.

I'd then do an activity where I would have a bunch of beliefs, values, and positions from the whigs and torries (the students wouldn't know if it was a whig or tory position) on slips of paper, and have them stick that position under either democrat, republican or neither on a poster/paper or something

That way, the students are able to see for themselves that what they originally thought was incorrect.

Of course, that is very much a secondary school approach because I certainly never experienced an activity like that in college, so perhaps that might not work.

That's not actually getting away from the root problem though, and it would also take quite a bit more time then I'd generally have. You still would have students seeing politics under a framework of policies democrats would have vs policies that republicans would have even if they come to understand that the parties don't corrospond one to one to modern American parities.

It's still projecting back a modern understanding of politics onto a period where that makes little sense.

Of course this is an incredibly difficult problem to deal with. Many historians today still struggle with Skinner's problem.

 

[4Tran]

I remember reading a quote by a Vietnamese that the US occupation was nothing when compared to the occupation by France, Japan and China

I'm not sure how bad the Japanese occupation was, but the French one was a lot longer than the American one, and the French had much more direct control over the people. The Chinese occupations were a long time ago, but they were far more brutal as well. Just counting the Ming-Annan Wars, Annan (currently northern Vietnam) lost somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 the population.

Probably not what you are talking about. But here is a piece that talks more about their relationship with China. How they could in a sense forgive France and the US, but not China.

It makes sense. The other powers are far away and have only had incidental contact with Vietnam. China is right next door and they've dominated Vietnam for thousands of years, often outright occupying large portions of the country.

 

[Piecake]

That's not actually getting away from the root problem though, and it would also take quite a bit more time then I'd generally have. You still would have students seeing politics under a framework of policies democrats would have vs policies that republicans would have even if they come to understand that the parties don't corrospond one to one to modern American parities.

It's still projecting back a modern understanding of politics onto a period where that makes little sense.

Of course this is an incredibly difficult problem to deal with. Many historians today still struggle with Skinner's problem.

If you don't even have time to do that, then your problem seems impossible. You simply need a lot more time than you have for students to really understand the values and beliefs of a people to the point of understanding nuances and distinctions.

I think your job is made harder by Britain and America's historical ties and relationships. Students likely feel justified in making that connection. If you taught a course on Japanese history I doubt any student would think to make a connection like that.

Also, when I was talking about beliefs and values and changing the message, I was essentially referring to identity politics interfering with rational and logical thought.

Having students understand a new set of beliefs and values that are different from their own is a lot more time consuming and doesn't seem to be subject to people resisting the argument due to identity politics.

 

[duckroll]

It's the same way how Britain always glosses over the Empire, America always glosses over Vietnam and the firebombings. Countries do whatever they can to try and make people forget about the past.

No, not the same. Not by a long stretch. When the PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN talks about walking back on apologies to comfort women, and when prominent and successful Japanese like the COMPOSER OF THE DRAGON QUEST SERIES take out paid ads in American newspapers to REFUTE organizations and articles talking about comfort women, and this is normalized in Japan, it is not the same.

Also, last I checked, Britain and America don't have a shrine glorifying dead war criminals, which accepts donations every year from the Prime Ministers and many prominent government members.

Japan's conservative faction and revisionist history is probably only comparable to America's Southern attitudes towards the Civil War.

 

[Geno Breaker]

No, not the same. Not by a long stretch. When the PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN talks about walking back on apologies to comfort women, and when prominent and successful Japanese like the COMPOSER OF THE DRAGON QUEST SERIES take out paid ads in American newspapers to REFUTE organizations and articles talking about comfort women, and this is normalized in Japan, it is not the same.

Also, last I checked, Britain and America don't have a shrine glorifying dead war criminals, which accepts donations every year from the Prime Ministers and many prominent government members.

Japan's conservative faction and revisionist history is probably only comparable to America's Southern attitudes towards the Civil War.

Yeah it's pretty silly how people make false equivalences with Japan's war crimes and other countries. There's no excuse for it at all.

 

[chronic_archaic]

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.

It's so fucked up sadly.

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

Woah where's your avatar from?

These old Mario Quiz Cards. I actually own them myself---pretty wild as they cover a wide range of topics "unsuitable" for Mario such as Greenpeace (which this is from), Luigi reading a book about Hitler, Mario studying multiple religious texts, and other real-world elements that clash with Mario.

 

[ChainedMaster]

Yeah, except for it is an outright lie that the Japanese were about to surrender unconditionally or anything close.

The US broke Japanese codes and intercepted messages where the Japaenese stated that unconditional surrender or anything close was not acceptable to them.

No, the Japanese accepted surrender under the guarantee that the Emperor remains. Which ended up happening anyway.

Essentially, the conditional surrender the Japanese would have accepted are what the results ended up being. But anything to justify the bombs I guess.

 

[4Tran]

No, the Japanese accepted surrender under the guarantee that the Emperor remains. Which ended up happening anyway.

Essentially, the conditional surrender the Japanese would have accepted are what the results ended up being. But anything to justify the bombs I guess.

Wrong. There were several people who had input in the decision to surrender and they had different conditions that they wanted: to keep all of Japan's conquered possessions, to prevent any Allied soldiers from landing on the Japanese Home Islands, to keep the emperor as the head of state, and so on.

They eventually accepted unconditional surrender, and it meant that MacArthur had the authority to remove Hirohito and charge him with war crimes. That didn't end up happening, but the Americans ended up rewriting the Japanese constitution and removed the emperor from any role in the government. Even today, the Japanese Imperial family has no political power of any kind, and the emperor is a purely ceremonial position.

 

[Koppai]

I read that whole article and didn't even realize it was written in 1946. They had so much information even back then that I thought the average joe would not even know about. How awful, I wish this kind of thing never happened and now we have two idiots in the US and NK who wanna nuke each other. Let them go nuke each other in a desert far away and leave all of the rest of us out of their bullshit.

 

[FPS murderer]

Keep telling yourself that.

Indeed, biggest lie ever. There is a documentary on Natgeo about it. They had to do it, otherwise the USSR was coming the other way.

 

[reckless]

Indeed, biggest lie ever. There is a documentary on Natgeo about it. They had to do it, otherwise the USSR was coming the other way.

The USSR that we made promise to join the war against Japan, the USSR that the U.S gave 149 ships and trained 12,000 sailors expressly for amphibious invasions . And the USSR that still barely had the sea lift capability to maybe invade Hokkaido. They weren't going to invade Honshu or anything.

 

[MisterFalcon]

The USSR that we made promise to join the war against Japan, the USSR that the U.S gave 149 ships and trained 12,000 sailors expressly for amphibious invasions . And the USSR that still barely had the sea lift capability to maybe invade Hokkaido. They weren't going to invade Honshu or anything.

Russia is so Stronk that they can invade the Japanese homelands with a fraction of the landing craft, no aircraft carriers, no battleship fire support and barely any experience in landings across open water. The terrain in Hokkaido is also extremely rough and 70 years later has just a few roads across the island but again, no one considers this a problem for Russia. For the 'America dropped the bomb to prevent an imminent Soviet invasion that conquers Japan' argument to work that invasion has to be a walk in the park and all practical reasons why this invasion could not have happened for a very long time are ignored.

 

[aliengmr]

No, the Japanese accepted surrender under the guarantee that the Emperor remains. Which ended up happening anyway.

Essentially, the conditional surrender the Japanese would have accepted are what the results ended up being. But anything to justify the bombs I guess.

There is more to accepting an unconditional surrender than the outcome. Japan was in no position to dictate the terms of their surrender.

People keep saying they should've been allowed to dictate terms, why? Japan was out of fucking control fanatically slaughtering people to the last man.

Like, everyone knows the Nazis were bad right? Would anyone accept anything less than an unconditional surrender from Germany?

Why does Japan always get a pass when they were just as savage (I would argue moreso) as the Nazis?

The fact is that, the single notable revolt within the leadership of Japan came just before the surrender and was opposed to that surrender. That is the Japan you are dealing with, the one that, after Hiroshima and the Russian threat, attempts a coup to not fucking surrender. If ever there was a textbook example of "nations you force to surrender unconditionally or you will suffer the consequences" it was Japan in WW2. The war could not be more clearly over for them, there was nothing left.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Two books I urge everyone to read:


https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393320278/?tag=neogaf0e-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595589376/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Both are god tier reads

thanks for the tips.

There is more to accepting an unconditional surrender than the outcome. Japan was in no position to dictate the terms of their surrender.

People keep saying they should've been allowed to dictate terms, why? Japan was out of fucking control fanatically slaughtering people to the last man.

Like, everyone knows the Nazis were bad right? Would anyone accept anything less than an unconditional surrender from Germany?

Why does Japan always get a pass when they were just as savage (I would argue moreso) as the Nazis?

The fact is that, the single notable revolt within the leadership of Japan came just before the surrender and was opposed to that surrender. That is the Japan you are dealing with, the one that, after Hiroshima and the Russian threat, attempts a coup to not fucking surrender. If ever there was a textbook example of "nations you force to surrender unconditionally or you will suffer the consequences" it was Japan in WW2. The war could not be more clearly over for them, there was nothing left.

well stated.

 

[petran79]

Russia is so Stronk that they can invade the Japanese homelands with a fraction of the landing craft, no aircraft carriers, no battleship fire support and barely any experience in landings across open water. The terrain in Hokkaido is also extremely rough and 70 years later has just a few roads across the island but again, no one considers this a problem for Russia. For the 'America dropped the bomb to prevent an imminent Soviet invasion that conquers Japan' argument to work that invasion has to be a walk in the park and all practical reasons why this invasion could not have happened for a very long time are ignored.

From article I posted

The impact of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different, however. Once the Soviet Union had declared war, Stalin could no longer act as a mediator - he was now a belligerent. So the diplomatic option was wiped out by the Soviet move. The effect on the military situation was equally dramatic. Most of Japan's best troops had been shifted to the southern part of the home islands. Japan's military had correctly guessed that the likely first target of an American invasion would be the southernmost island of Kyushu. The once proud Kwangtung army in Manchuria, for example, was a shell of its former self because its best units had been shifted away to defend Japan itself. When the Russians invaded Manchuria, they sliced through what had once been an elite army and many Russian units only stopped when they ran out of gas. The Soviet 16th Army - 100,000 strong - launched an invasion of the southern half of Sakhalin Island. Their orders were to mop up Japanese resistance there, and then - within 10 to 14 days - be prepared to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan's home islands. The Japanese force tasked with defending Hokkaido, the 5th Area Army, was under strength at two divisions and two brigades, and was in fortified positions on the east side of the island. The Soviet plan of attack called for an invasion of Hokkaido from the west.

It didn't take a military genius to see that, while it might be possible to fight a decisive battle against one great power invading from one direction, it would not be possible to fight off two great powers attacking from two different directions. The Soviet invasion invalidated the military's decisive battle strategy, just as it invalidated the diplomatic strategy. At a single stroke, all of Japan's options evaporated. The Soviet invasion was strategically decisive - it foreclosed both of Japan's options - while the bombing of Hiroshima (which foreclosed neither) was not.

The Soviet declaration of war also changed the calculation of how much time was left for maneuver. Japanese intelligence was predicting that U.S. forces might not invade for months. Soviet forces, on the other hand, could be in Japan proper in as little as 10 days. The Soviet invasion made a decision on ending the war extremely time sensitive.


And Japan's leaders had reached this conclusion some months earlier. In a meeting of the Supreme Council in June 1945, they said that Soviet entry into the war "would determine the fate of the Empire." Army Deputy Chief of Staff Kawabe said, in that same meeting, "The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is imperative for the continuation of the war."

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

I found it! It was from the 70 year thread. It was better than I remembered.

I remember that post and every time this has come up since I think back to it. Amazing...

Has anyone explained why a demonstration of power was off the table instead of killing civilians outright? "Look at what we've made, the next one is on your head if you don't stop".

You don't fire off a warning shot when you only have two bullets.

America glosses over Vietnam? That hasn't been my experience

I assume they meant Korea.

 

[Hermii]

Why are some people being so defensive about this? Hundred of thousands, majority civilians, died and it was a horrible tragedy. The fact that it happened in a war full of horrible tragedies doesn't change this.

RIP to the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Japanese Wartime Atrocities in the 1940s:

Nanjing Massacre
"Comfort Women" - sex slaves
Japanese-run Internment Camps
Forced Labor Railway Slaves
Unit 731 Human Experimentation
Bataan Death March
Soldier contests to kill 100 people with a sword
Bangka Island Massacre
Sandakan Death March
Alexandra Massacre
Palawan Masacre
Nauru Island Occupation
Sook Ching Massacre
Manila Massacre
Pig Basket Massacre
Port Blair Massacre
Manchuria Civilian Bombings
Andaman Island Massacre
Hong Kong Starvation

...and oh yea, the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor

Roughly 1 million victims, mostly civilians or prisoners of war, in a 6 year period along the Pacific.

They committed more death and torture than both the A-Bombs combined.

You will get no sympathy from me.

If you're going to point a righteous finger at " improper targets" concerning the Empire of Japan in the 1940s, you've already lost your case and your cause.

What did the people who died and suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki have to do with any of that?

 

[MisterFalcon]

Why are some people being so defensive about this? Hundred of thousands, majority civilians, died and it was a horrible tragedy. The fact that it happened in a war full of horrible tragedies doesn't change this.

RIP innocent people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



What did the people who died and suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki have to do with any of that?

The 5th division who were stationed in Hiroshima were very involved in the atrocities in China.

 

[DieNgamers]

Why are some people being so defensive about this? Hundred of thousands, majority civilians, died and it was a horrible tragedy. The fact that it happened in a war full of horrible tragedies doesn't change this.

RIP innocent people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



What did the people who died and suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki have to do with any of that?

Probably nothing. Which is why in war there should be no "right" to kill so many innocent people. The bombs were a mistake and a terrible tragedy for countless families.

It forever changed a nation that did horrible stuff mith their military, yeah. You could argue that a monster was killed by another monster.

 

[duckroll]

I will never say that civilians deserve to die in war, but I think using the word innocent to describe civilians in war is an oversimplification of what war is and why it is terrible. Especially in aggressor nations, nationalism is a huge thing. Being a civilian hardly means a person has nothing to do with the war. From grassroots to being supportive of family members serving in the army to civilian contractors working on military bases. War furvor is something that consumes national identity.

 

[kingkaiser]

The Firebombing of Tokyo still is one of the worst war crimes ever commited, yet few in the United States are aware that the attack even took place.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/tokyo-firebombing-world-war-ii/

 

[Weckum]

I will never say that civilians deserve to die in war, but I think using the word innocent to describe civilians in war is an oversimplification of what war is and why it is terrible. Especially in aggressor nations, nationalism is a huge thing. Being a civilian hardly means a person has nothing to do with the war. From grassroots to being supportive of family members serving in the army to civilian contractors working on military bases. War furvor is something that consumes national identity.

Also realise that World War II was a total war for all countries involved. That means that everyone was working for the war effort.

Think of it like this: were the women working in the factories that produced stuff for the war in the US innocent or not? I'm not saying there's a definitive answer, but war is never black and white. Always varying shades of grey.

 

[acm2000]

i guess the good that did come out of it is that it shocked the world enough that no one has dared launch a nuke since, well, so far....

 

[MC Safety]

Also realise that World War II was a total war for all countries involved. That means that everyone was working for the war effort.

Think of it like this: were the women working in the factories that produced stuff for the war in the US innocent or not? I'm not saying there's a definitive answer, but war is never black and white. Always varying shades of grey.

The civilian population makes the war effort possible. The civilian population replenishes the military. The Japanese mainland produced the food the troops ate; provided the materials for war; housed the factories, training centers, and research facilities; and generated the strategies the troops used.

There is no divorcing the civilian population from the military. All of Japan was the target.

And, of course, people here bleat about invasion being somehow preferable. Had troops (either American or Russian) forced landings, the civilian population would have been hurled at the invaders. In addition to facing starvation and disease, they would have been massacred by well-armed troops by the hundreds of thousands. And for what? The aim was to achieve a surrender in which Japan could negotiate conditions.

 

[teruterubozu]

The civilian population makes the war effort possible. The civilian population replenishes the military. The Japanese mainland produced the food the troops ate; provided the materials for war; housed the factories, training centers, and research facilities; and generated the strategies the troops used.

There is no divorcing the civilian population from the military. All of Japan was the target.

And, of course, people here bleat about invasion being somehow preferable. Had troops (either American or Russian) forced landings, the civilian population would have been hurled at the invaders. In addition to facing starvation and disease, they would have been massacred by well-armed troops by the hundreds of thousands. And for what? The aim was to achieve a surrender in which Japan could negotiate conditions.

Well that's very simplistic. Okinawa, for example, was very anti-emperor and did not share the nationalistic sentiments of the rest of Japan. In fact many islands that were involved in the Pacific front resented Japanese imperialism. The US estimates that almost 140,000+ civilians were killed in the Battle of Okinawa.

 

[DieNgamers]

The civilian population makes the war effort possible. The civilian population replenishes the military. The Japanese mainland produced the food the troops ate; provided the materials for war; housed the factories, training centers, and research facilities; and generated the strategies the troops used.

There is no divorcing the civilian population from the military. All of Japan was the target.

And, of course, people here bleat about invasion being somehow preferable. Had troops (either American or Russian) forced landings, the civilian population would have been hurled at the invaders. In addition to facing starvation and disease, they would have been massacred by well-armed troops by the hundreds of thousands. And for what? The aim was to achieve a surrender in which Japan could negotiate conditions.

However, wouldn't the bomb have had a similar impact if less civilians were targeted? Who knows but it's a possibilty. Just because war feeds off the population it doesn't mean the people should be an acceptable target.

The majority on every side was hyped for war back then. Doesn't make them all criminals...My grandmother was in Nazi Germany in her youth (she was 17 when the war ended in 1945) but she never killed anyone. Still she regretted a lot of early life-choices and made a 180° turn after that. The way I see it (depending on the government) the american civilization would have been just as capable of dirty war crimes. Humans aren't that different but still...Nobody deserves an atomic bomb being dropped on their heads. Or fire bombs.

Tokyo, Dresden and the nuclear bombings were terrible disasters and very questionable decisions...

 

[MC Safety]

Well that's very simplistic. Okinawa, for example, was very anti-emperor and did not share the nationalistic sentiments of the rest of Japan. In fact many islands that were involved in the Pacific front resented Japanese imperialism. The US estimates that almost 140,000+ civilians were killed in the Battle of Okinawa.

Not sure what you're trying to say. Maybe you could clarify.

However, wouldn't the bomb have had a similar impact if less civilians were targeted? Who knows but it's a possibilty. Just because war feeds off the population it doesn't mean the people should be an acceptable target.

The majority on every side was hyped for war back then. Doesn't make them all criminals...My grandmother was in Nazi Germany in her youth (she was 17 when the war ended in 1945) but she never killed anyone. Still she regretted a lot of early life-choices and made a 180° turn after that. The way I see it (depending on the government) the american civilization would have been just as capable of dirty war crimes. Humans aren't that different but still...Nobody deserves an atomic bomb being dropped on their heads. Or fire bombs.

Tokyo, Dresden and the nuclear bombings were terrible disasters and very questionable decisions...

You have the luxury of being divorced from the proceedings by 70-plus years. You make a fine and noble stump speech, but it's not in line with the way things work, or the way World War II worked.

 

[teruterubozu]

Not sure what you're trying to say. Maybe you could clarify.

I guess it's mutual then.

 

[Sophist]

When you see what Japan has become after that, maybe Truman should have nuke Korea too.

 

[Takyon]

When you see what Japan has become after that, maybe Truman should have nuke Korea too.

no

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Not sure what you're trying to say. Maybe you could clarify.

The US had a third bomb they dropped on Okinawa?

I dunno. Pretty sure he's just babbling in the hopes you stop responding so he can "win".