[EyeBrock]

Yea. Ok.

So shall we move on?

[Mustang1]

jeff744 jeff744:

What does the fact it was a sneak attack matter? Are you another of those that believe that all wars are fought in a clean and tidy manner under a set of rules where everyone gets 24 hours notice and then duke it out on a single field of battle? Sneak attacks always have been and always will be a legitimate war tactic for defeating an enemy that may otherwise cause far more trouble.

Why does a sneak attack matter? Are you kidding? It's an act of waging aggressive war! Weren't you the wiki scholar trying to bluff his way through "war crimes" nonsense against the United States and now you sluff off a war crime? Get some history.

$1:

Which country left the war and continued on to invade one that had been fighting for independence and then later used a chemical weapon that even today severely cripples most born in the area (Agent Orange). I never said Japan was not guilty however the US is no angel, they used nuclear weapons, firebombed, stripped civilians of land and rights and locked up in camps simply due to their race, then in peace time they proceeded to de-industialize Japan until it hit the standard of living from the early 30's, they allowed the Russians to claim the Kuril islands which resulted in the expulsion of a further 400,000 Japanese, the soviets were allowed to continue their invasion even after peace terms as well.

Who "left" the war? Japan? And if you mean they were getting their collective asses handed to them by the "Sleeping Giant" as "leaving", then on an amateurish level, sure, they "left".

Instead of being a Japan-apologist, why ignore their Sino Wars, aggression against the USSR, belligerence against the British Empire, disgusting treatment of civilians and soldiers alike, and their fateful American sneak attack against Pearl Harbor? This happened BEFORE they aggressively engaged in a sneak-attack (and just to kick back your silly logic, if a sneak attack is fair game, then so is an A-bomb) against the United States.

$1:

The Chief of Staff under Truman did not want to use the nukes.

$1:

    "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarious weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender ...

    "My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Quote-mining. More wiki?

$1:

Guess what? he was right. The emperor was already well on the way to surrendering, in the end all the nuking did was cause mass casualties so that Truman could show that the US had the fancy new weapons to the Soviets. It was a political move, not military which brings it into the realm of being a war crime.

Guess what? If the Emperor was allegedly on his way to surrendering, why didn't he do it immediately after Hiroshima? Or Leyte Gulf? Or Okinawa? You're full of it.

It was a fair military target by contemporaries and historians proceeding them. Deal with it.

$1:

Oh the irony of that advice. You attack Japan for attacking Pearl harbor but say that nuking a primarily civilian location is justified. Japan killed all of 57 civilians in Pearl, 70-90,000 died instantly in Hiroshima alone, including ~90% of their doctors and nurses.

No...i correctly labeled the sneak attack as an act of waging aggressive war. It was. Your "statistics" are laughable as it doesn't alter the definition nor does even compare to the tens of millions the Japanese (and don't forget that nasty POW statistics) killed in their imperialistic endeavors.

Take your revisionist ahistorical junk to your little highschool buddies as i'm not interested.

$1:

And on the note of starting wars it can't finish, how about 1812, Korea, Drugs, and Iraq?

Immaterial.

[Mustang1]

jeff744 jeff744:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Oh stop being a plonker jeff. You are talking to people who quite obviously know a lot more about this subject than you.

Go read a few real history books from all sides and come back in a couple of years or so with an educated opinion. The stuff you are posting just isn't up to snuff mate.

I have read both sides of the nuclear weapons attacks, Japan was on the way to surrender shortly after the firebombing of Tokyo where the emperor saw the damage. The US Chief of Staff and other members were against using the nukes, the bombers crews could not believe what they had dropped onto the city, Roosevelt was unwilling to use them on Japan, Truman wanted to show off for the Soviets.

I'm calling this one out. What books did you read? Specifically, what primary sources did you comb for contemporary mindsets regarding the issue?

[GreenTiger]

We were at war with Japan. They were not beaten and a land invasion of Japan would have cost millions of more lives. They were the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor.

In today's world you can look at a situation and determine the proper ordinance to use. In those days you had to hit them with everything you got and PRAYED that that was enough. Japan was beaten, but they were going to fight on. Forgive me for being politically incorrect but as George Patton put put it "you won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country".

Yes it is a horrible weapon and I hope it never gets used again, but in that case I believe a lot more lives on all sides were saved.

[commanderkai]

Mustang, just out of curiosity, how well known were the side effects of nuclear radiation during World War II? Like, when did said side effects actually become understood by scientists?

[jeff744]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

jeff744 jeff744:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Oh stop being a plonker jeff. You are talking to people who quite obviously know a lot more about this subject than you.

Go read a few real history books from all sides and come back in a couple of years or so with an educated opinion. The stuff you are posting just isn't up to snuff mate.

I have read both sides of the nuclear weapons attacks, Japan was on the way to surrender shortly after the firebombing of Tokyo where the emperor saw the damage. The US Chief of Staff and other members were against using the nukes, the bombers crews could not believe what they had dropped onto the city, Roosevelt was unwilling to use them on Japan, Truman wanted to show off for the Soviets.

I'm calling this one out. What books did you read? Specifically, what primary sources did you comb for contemporary mindsets regarding the issue?

Heh, full titles, I read most of them ~4 years ago when I was more interested in the bombings (I have moved on to more of a 1000-1600 year interest since), all I remember about them is what they were about (list me every history related book title you have read in the past 3 years without looking at a bookshelf and you can have the point on my memory failing).

One was on the use of the nukes from a supportive view where they were used to end a war before a land invasion began. Another was a more objective view on the necessity of using them, it largely pointed out how Truman wanted to have leverage on the Soviets. The Japan one was a chapter in a larger book about the end of the war where its main point was about how the emperor had been to Tokyo and working towards surrender (the military hated him for it and planned to kill him).

I have also read various internet sources that would talk about the nukings from both positive, neutral (the best ones imo) and negative views.

[Mustang1]

jeff744 jeff744:

Heh, full titles, I read most of them ~4 years ago when I was more interested in the bombings (I have moved on to more of a 1000-1600 year interest since), all I remember about them is what they were about (list me every history related book title you have read in the past 3 years without looking at a bookshelf and you can have the point on my memory failing).

One was on the use of the nukes from a supportive view where they were used to end a war before a land invasion began. Another was a more objective view on the necessity of using them, it largely pointed out how Truman wanted to have leverage on the Soviets. The Japan one was a chapter in a larger book about the end of the war where its main point was about how the emperor had been to Tokyo and working towards surrender (the military hated him for it and planned to kill him).

I have also read various internet sources that would talk about the nukings from both positive, neutral (the best ones imo) and negative views.

Yep...just what i thought.

[Mustang1]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Mustang, just out of curiosity, how well known were the side effects of nuclear radiation during World War II? Like, when did said side effects actually become understood by scientists?

Certainly not at the time was this a major area of concern nor was it a calculated side-effect of the weapon. From a historiographicaly standpoint, this became a rallying point for certain critics in the 50s and 60s and today's revisionists.

[jeff744]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

jeff744 jeff744:

Heh, full titles, I read most of them ~4 years ago when I was more interested in the bombings (I have moved on to more of a 1000-1600 year interest since), all I remember about them is what they were about (list me every history related book title you have read in the past 3 years without looking at a bookshelf and you can have the point on my memory failing).

One was on the use of the nukes from a supportive view where they were used to end a war before a land invasion began. Another was a more objective view on the necessity of using them, it largely pointed out how Truman wanted to have leverage on the Soviets. The Japan one was a chapter in a larger book about the end of the war where its main point was about how the emperor had been to Tokyo and working towards surrender (the military hated him for it and planned to kill him).

I have also read various internet sources that would talk about the nukings from both positive, neutral (the best ones imo) and negative views.

Yep...just what i thought.

What? that I don't have a photographic memory that is able to list every book and site I have read on the subject from 3 years ago? Most of the books I read came from a library. Next time I'll be sure to write down every source I read just for you.

I do love that classic argument to discredit another person though, haven't seen it in a while as it always works out the exact same way.

[Mustang1]

jeff744 jeff744:

What? that I don't have a photographic memory that is able to list every book and site I have read on the subject from 3 years ago? Most of the books I read came from a library. Next time I'll be sure to write down every source I read just for you.

I can remember a litany of books, authors and sources from a myriad of topics due largely to the fact that i read them. You made the claim, i called you on it, so why so defensive?

$1:

I do love that classic argument to discredit another person though, haven't seen it in a while as it always works out the exact same way.

Do ya'? That's precious. I love the classic bluff that tries to hide in the periphery instead of addressing the salient points. In history, sources can be evaluated, and if you don't like it, don't do history. I won't apologize for sticking to the orthodox methodology.

[jeff744]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

jeff744 jeff744:

What? that I don't have a photographic memory that is able to list every book and site I have read on the subject from 3 years ago? Most of the books I read came from a library. Next time I'll be sure to write down every source I read just for you.

I can remember a litany of books, authors and sources from a myriad of topics due largely to the fact that i read them. You made the claim, i called you on it, so why so defensive?

$1:

I do love that classic argument to discredit another person though, haven't seen it in a while as it always works out the exact same way.

Do ya'? That's precious. I love the classic bluff that tries to hide in the periphery instead of addressing the salient points. In history, sources can be evaluated, and if you don't like it, don't do history. I won't apologize for sticking to the orthodox methodology.

I wrote a paper on Savonarola and yet I cannot remember the titles of the books I read on him or their authors, what I can remember are the general details of every book I used and the conclusion it lead me to. Peoples memories work differently and you used an argument that is designed to discredit everyone that does not memorize everything about a book they read (I remember details of a book which I cannot control).

[Mustang1]

jeff744 jeff744:

Mustang1 Mustang1:

jeff744 jeff744:

What? that I don't have a photographic memory that is able to list every book and site I have read on the subject from 3 years ago? Most of the books I read came from a library. Next time I'll be sure to write down every source I read just for you.

I can remember a litany of books, authors and sources from a myriad of topics due largely to the fact that i read them. You made the claim, i called you on it, so why so defensive?

$1:

I do love that classic argument to discredit another person though, haven't seen it in a while as it always works out the exact same way.

Do ya'? That's precious. I love the classic bluff that tries to hide in the periphery instead of addressing the salient points. In history, sources can be evaluated, and if you don't like it, don't do history. I won't apologize for sticking to the orthodox methodology.

I wrote a paper on Savonarola and yet I cannot remember the titles of the books I read on him or their authors, what I can remember are the general details of every book I used and the conclusion it lead me to. Peoples memories work differently and you used an argument that is designed to discredit everyone that does not memorize everything about a book they read (I remember details of a book which I cannot control).

Any good student of history always remembers the historians that they read. Always. It's a fundamental component of historical inquiry - in fact, it's so important, that there is an entire branch of intellectual study - the historiography - that seeks to establish how history (from sources, to schools of thoughts, to temporal context, to historians) is written. Again, that's the way it works.

[jeff744]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

Any good student of history always remembers the historians that they read. Always. It's a fundamental component of historical inquiry - in fact, it's so important, that there is an entire branch of intellectual study - the historiography - that seeks to establish how history (from sources, to schools of thoughts, to temporal context, to historians) is written. Again, that's the way it works.

So every history student has photographic memory? gotcha. What I remember are historians that discuss things I am interested in reading about for more than a single paper, after several years you forget things (I know people that were fully fluent in a second language, after a few year of no use it was largely forgotten), you are expecting something most people would be hard pressed to do.

I also read the books at a time when I burned through one every few days, the title and author were the last thing that I worried about, I was more concerned with the content of the book itself instead of the name.

[Mustang1]

jeff744 jeff744:

So every history student has photographic memory? gotcha. What I remember are historians that discuss things I am interested in reading about for more than a single paper, after several years you forget things (I know people that were fully fluent in a second language, after a few year of no use it was largely forgotten), you are expecting something most people would be hard pressed to do.

"Photographic memory"? Nope, but the competent ones do have an excellent ability for recall which often times translates into superior arguments. This is a basic intellectual requirement, i'm not about to lower the bar.

$1:

I also read the books at a time when I burned through one every few days, the title and author were the last thing that I worried about, I was more concerned with the content of the book itself instead of the name.

Then you conducted crappy history. The author is paramount in constructing a historical narrative - history 101. And how exactly did you evaluate the content without assessing the author? Again, rudimentary history.

[jeff744]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

jeff744 jeff744:

So every history student has photographic memory? gotcha. What I remember are historians that discuss things I am interested in reading about for more than a single paper, after several years you forget things (I know people that were fully fluent in a second language, after a few year of no use it was largely forgotten), you are expecting something most people would be hard pressed to do.

"Photographic memory"? Nope, but the competent ones do have an excellent ability for recall which often times translates into superior arguments. This is a basic intellectual requirement, i'm not about to lower the bar.

$1:

I also read the books at a time when I burned through one every few days, the title and author were the last thing that I worried about, I was more concerned with the content of the book itself instead of the name.

Then you conducted crappy history. The author is paramount in constructing a historical narrative - history 101. And how exactly did you evaluate the content without assessing the author? Again, rudimentary history.

I do read the bio on the author using whatever the internet would tell me on them. I don't try to remember most of the stuff I did in the first year as it was not what interested me (other than reading Admiral Nelsons letters, those were cool). I rarely bothered to memorize the names of authors until this semester because I was studying something because there was a poor selection, the upcoming one has a far better selection.