[Regina]

Lemmy Lemmy:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

The thing is, he's NOT a history professor.

So what? I'm not a history professor either. But I've published historical papers. My MA thesis was on labour force participation in the 19th century (using the 1871 census, as I discussed elsewhere). My dissertation is on the economic history of Singapore. How do you draw the line between history, economics and political economy? You can't because they're all intertwined. I've peer reviewed plenty of papers by people who work in departments of economics, politics, political economy, history, mathematics, agricultural economics, etc, etc. It was an ill-informed point when Regina made it earlier. I let it go then, but enough's enough.

I have no doubt he is a very smart man but his education and his teaching credits do not lend itself to the topic which he make accusations that go against all logic. His detractors such as Maddox are indeed history professors and historians who found fault with his work, with the omission of fact being the front runner.
To me Alperovitz made up his mind when the war was over and based his conclusions as to why the bomb was dropped using his own timeline and loose definition of the word surrender. He saw a mention of surrender as a victory when in fact the surrender terms we for "unconditional surrender" only. The obvious example of surrender can be found only a month or so earlier with Germany, yet Alpervitz ignores those terms, which were met. Anything less than "unconditional" would have meant the Japanese Military could remain whole. It is also abundantly clear that this group within the Japanese war machine had no intention of giving up and it's well documented there were no less than three separate coup attempts by senior Japanese officers to try to prevent the surrender.

History professor Robert James Maddox wrote:

"Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so. None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had 'said up to the last that it wouldn't go off.'
Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs. When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward. Nimitz, from whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. 'This sounds fine,' he told the courier, 'but this is only February. Can't we get one sooner?'
The best that can be said about Eisenhower's memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time.
Notes made by one of Stimson's aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower's part."
Maddox also wrote, "Even after both bombs had fallen and Russia entered the war, Japanese militants insisted on such lenient peace terms that moderates knew there was no sense even transmitting them to the United States. Hirohito had to intervene personally on two occasions during the next few days to induce hardliners to abandon their conditions." "That they would have conceded defeat months earlier, before such calamities struck, is far-fetched to say the least."



The rest is as they say............. history.

[Canadian_Mind]

Thanos Thanos:

Gar Alperovitz is about as legitimate a source for actual information on WW2 as the jerk-off who wrote the book claiming that Eisenhower and Churchill deliberately starved 2 million German POW's to death is. Nothing Alperovitz ever claimed has been backed up by any other legitimate historian. He's a historical revisionist with a grudge against the United States who's been thoroughly debunked ever since he put that POS book of his out. You'd get more real information out of a Pat Buchanan or David Duke historical tome than you ever would out of Alperovitz.

One of the great losses to this board has been that Mustang never posts any more. This sucks because if he saw Alperovitz' name being used as a credible source Mustang would have flipped out on this thread and not stopped until everyone had been reliably re-educated.

tried to plus 5... couldn't.

[Lemmy]

Regina Regina:

I have no doubt he is a very smart man but his education and his teaching credits do not lend itself to the topic which he make accusations that go against all logic. His detractors such as Maddox are indeed history professors and historians who found fault with his work, with the omission of fact being the front runner.

That’s what academics do, find fault with one anothers’ work. But your attempt to paint Alperovitz as somehow “less” of a historian than those criticizing his work is incorrect. It’s an appeal to authority fallacy made even more illogical in that it’s based on a false premise (that Alperovitz isn’t a historian). Nonetheless, I’m not now (nor was I earlier) contending that Alperovitz necessarily got everything correct. But the sources he used (declassified White House memos) speak for themselves. If you want to disagree with Alperovitz’ conclusions, fine. I disagree with many of them also. But if you’re denying what the memos say that’s a different matter. The memos make it abundantly clear that the Japanese were seeking surrender. Let’s read your next point before we go into that a little more.

Regina Regina:

To me Alperovitz made up his mind when the war was over and based his conclusions as to why the bomb was dropped using his own timeline and loose definition of the word surrender. He saw a mention of surrender as a victory when in fact the surrender terms we for "unconditional surrender" only. The obvious example of surrender can be found only a month or so earlier with Germany, yet Alpervitz ignores those terms, which were met. Anything less than "unconditional" would have meant the Japanese Military could remain whole. It is also abundantly clear that this group within the Japanese war machine had no intention of giving up and it's well documented there were no less than three separate coup attempts by senior Japanese officers to try to prevent the surrender.

I agree with most of that. Of course there were elements on the Japanese side who wanted to hold out. But the continuation of the war beyond the spring of ‘45 was still, IMO, mostly because it’s what the Americans wanted, not what the Japanese wanted. “Unconditional Surrender” isn’t much different than “Surrender where we get to keep our Emperor”, is it? But what we do know, with little room for interpretation, was that a significant part of the Japanese leadership was seeking an end to the war after the liberation of Europe. Those White House memos prove that and we don’t need Alperovitz to make that determination for us. We have the primary documents that prove it.

Never have I said that dropping the bombs wasn’t the right thing to do. If I were in Truman’s shoes, I’d likely have done the same. Dropping the bombs to show Russia the USA’s power and to position itself for the post-war period, while cruel, is a justifiable military objective, IMO. My contention is just that the Grade 10 textbook conclusion that the bombs were dropped to save lives is simplistic dumbing down, at best, and incorrect at worst.

So let me ask a few general questions and we’ll see where that leaves us.

1. Do you acknowledge that White House memos show that the Japanese were seeking terms for surrender in the spring of ‘45?

2. Do you agree that, despite some hold-outs in the Japanese military, the Japanese mostly knew the were defeated by the spring of ‘45? Likewise, the Americans mostly knew that as well?

3. Do you agree that it was the American insistence that the surrender be “unconditional” that was the main reason the war continued through the summer of ‘45?

If you agree, in general, with those three statements, doesn’t it follow that a ground invasion of Japan likely wasn’t necessary? That’s not to say that the Americans wouldn’t have done it anyway, but they certainly wouldn’t have had to. Because they didn’t have to make that invasion, the a-bombs didn’t save lives. Employing the common sense to not invade did. Of course that’s just academic because they went ahead with the nuking anyway but, for me, the only way you can conclude that the bombs saved American servicemen is to conclude that the Americans would have been foolish enough to have attempted a needless invasion on mainland Japan. To draw the conclusion that the bombs saved marines is to, likewise, conclude that the American military planners were idiots. Such a mission would have had little to no military purpose. Then again, there were lots of hawks on their side too, like LeMay, who wanted a lot more than unconditional surrender. They wanted unconditional destruction. That opinion is supported by MANY historians, as well as military leaders such as MacArthur and Kenney. It’s also McNamara’s Rule #5: Proportionality should be a guideline in warfare.

Finally, just for shits and giggles, I walked down a few floors to the History department and knocked on the doors of some of my colleagues here. I asked them to give me the simplest, one sentence answer to “Why did the US drop the a-bombs on Japan?”. I couldn’t find any professional historians here who don’t conclude that the primary purpose in dropping the bombs was to demonstrate American power. So whatever criticisms there are of Alperovitz’ conclusions, I’m comfortable with my original assertion: that the bombs were not dropped to save American marines.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I’m comfortable with my original assertion: that the bombs were not dropped to save American marines.

And I'm comfortable saying that you've reinforced my long-held assertion that academics have a nasty tendency to sympathize with the enemies of our societies.

[Lemmy]

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote. There's no sympathy on my part. As I said, I'd have dropped the bombs to show Stalin their power. I think it was strategically and tactically the right thing to do. I'd just prefer to admit the real reason for it rather than conjuring up a bullshit reason for the benefit of the weak-kneed.

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But the continuation of the war beyond the spring of ‘45 was still, IMO, mostly because it’s what the Americans wanted, not what the Japanese wanted. “Unconditional Surrender” isn’t much different than “Surrender where we get to keep our Emperor”, is it?

Yeah, right up there with the Germans will surrender, but Hitler stays on as Fuhrer,
with zero changes in government.

No, it is A HELL OF A LOT DIFFERENT.

Sorry you can't see that, you must be blind.

$1:

So let me ask a few general questions and we’ll see where that leaves us.

1. Do you acknowledge that White House memos show that the Japanese were seeking terms for surrender in the spring of ‘45?

I'll buy your house for 50 dollars.
Do we have terms ?
Do we have an agreement ?
Do we have a serious negotiation ?

No, I don't think so. Seeking terms, their terms, was not a serious endeavour.
The Germans were trying for peace in 1916, didn't get very far.

Terms like keeping the Emperor, no occupation, not even giving Manchuria back,
is NOT a serious attempt at making peace.

$1:

2. Do you agree that, despite some hold-outs in the Japanese military, the Japanese mostly knew the were defeated by the spring of ‘45? Likewise, the Americans mostly knew that as well?

No and No.

Japanese bushido didn't allow the Japanese to think in terms of defeat.

The Germans didn't stop until the Russians had taken the Chancellery building,
and even then it took another week until Doenitz surrendered.

$1:

3. Do you agree that it was the American insistence that the surrender be “unconditional” that was the main reason the war continued through the summer of ‘45?

No, it was the Japanese continuing the war, in spite of the problems they had.
It was only when the Russians got involved that the Japs finally gave up.
And the bombs dropped.

$1:

Finally, just for shits and giggles, I walked down a few floors to the History department and knocked on the doors of some of my colleagues here. I asked them to give me the simplest, one sentence answer to “Why did the US drop the a-bombs on Japan?”. I couldn’t find any professional historians here who don’t conclude that the primary purpose in dropping the bombs was to demonstrate American power. So whatever criticisms there are of Alperovitz’ conclusions, I’m comfortable with my original assertion: that the bombs were not dropped to save American marines.

So you are willing to admit that your History department is full of
anti American idiots ?

Fine.


Sure, demonstrating the bomb to the Russians was an extra benefit, but not the
main feature.

[Lemmy]

martin14 martin14:

So you are willing to admit that your History department is full of
anti American idiots ?

It seems that you need things to be black & white. History's not like that. I can appreciate that a 10-grade interpretation of these events is more comfortable for you.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

It seems that you need things to be black & white. History's not like that.

Sometimes it is and people like yourself are too prideful to admit it because you've built your careers looking for complicated answers to simple questions. Zip would call this 'confirmation bias' meaning that you find shades of gray in everything precisely because you wanted to find them in the first place.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Sometimes it is and people like yourself are too prideful to admit it because you've built your careers looking for complicated answers to simple questions. Zip would call this 'confirmation bias' meaning that you find shades of gray in everything precisely because you wanted to find them in the first place.

Is there a coughing fit smiley somewhere?

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I’m comfortable with my original assertion: that the bombs were not dropped to save American marines.

Your original assertion was that it was "complete fiction, long debunked" that any conventional invasion of Japan would of have more casualties than the use of the atomic bombs all the way back on page 1 of this topic. You said this was debunked in 1995 with Alperovitz's book. In no way did saturn state that the use of the atomic bombs were solely for saving American lives, as you keep attesting to in that little "10th grade textbook conclusions" remark you have made a few times in this discussion.

$1:

1. Do you acknowledge that White House memos show that the Japanese were seeking terms for surrender in the spring of ‘45?

Yes, they were seeking conditional surrender with the Allies, which the Allies were not going to accept, and this was something made acutely aware to the Japanese by Foreign Minister Molotov.

The Japanese were still holding out on keeping the Imperial family in a position of significant political power on August 10th, after the bomb fell in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plus the entry of the Soviet Union to the Pacific theater.

$1:

2. Do you agree that, despite some hold-outs in the Japanese military, the Japanese mostly knew the were defeated by the spring of ‘45? Likewise, the Americans mostly knew that as well?

Interesting word choice. The Japanese, long before spring of 1945, had no real chance of actually winning the war over the Allies. Their war goals were unsustainable the longer the war continued. No doubt the Allies were aware of this.

HOWEVER, were the Japanese unable to fight, or were militarily exhausted? The answer is no. The Japanese military and government were planning on making any conventional invasion of Japan as bloody and painful as possible for the Allies. However, the Soviet invasion caught the Japanese off guard, as the Japanese expected the neutrality agreement to hold. The Japanese made their intent to fight on, even to complete ruin, completely clear, over, and over, and over.

$1:

3. Do you agree that it was the American insistence that the surrender be “unconditional” that was the main reason the war continued through the summer of ‘45?

It was the Allies' insistence, not just the Americans. Why should the Japanese receive special considerations when Nazi Germany received the same terms the Japanese did?

And no, really, it was the Japanese desire for conditional surrender that prolonged the war past the summer of 1945. The Japanese, no doubt the losing party, especially after Germany collapses and the Americans can now fully focus on the Pacific theater, still thought they were in a position to make terms of their surrender.

$1:

If you agree, in general, with those three statements, doesn’t it follow that a ground invasion of Japan likely wasn’t necessary? That’s not to say that the Americans wouldn’t have done it anyway, but they certainly wouldn’t have had to. Because they didn’t have to make that invasion, the a-bombs didn’t save lives. Employing the common sense to not invade did. Of course that’s just academic because they went ahead with the nuking anyway but, for me, the only way you can conclude that the bombs saved American servicemen is to conclude that the Americans would have been foolish enough to have attempted a needless invasion on mainland Japan.

If your conclusions are correct, then an invasion might have not been necessary. However, considering the Japanese insistence on a conditional surrender, even after the use of the atomic bombs, it was highly unlikely that the agreed upon terms that the Allies were willing to accept would have come about without significant pressure placed upon the Japanese.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/33.pdf

This document, a diplomatic summary from intercepted cables from the War Department (July 17th, 1945), highlight that, in mid July, the Japanese were completely unwilling to accept unconditional surrender, they refused Soviet mediation "in anything like unconditional surrender", and vowed to continue to make blows against the Allies. Considering that the surrender Japan accepted only allowed the Emperor to keep a figurehead position as a leader of Japan, while gutting everything else, it was highly unlikely an agreement would have been reached that would have prevented either the use of the atomic bombs, or a conventional invasion.

You want the terms the Japanese were hoping for?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/29.pdf


Their statement to the Russians in requesting a conditional surrender from the British and Americans, on July 11, 1945:

"We consider the maintenance of peace in East Asia to be one aspect of the maintenance of world peace. Accordingly, Japan - as a proposal for ending the war and because of her concern for the establishment and maintenance of lasting peace-has absolutely no idea of annexing or holding the territories which she occupied during the war"



Now, even if this can be interpreted as when Japan declared war against the Republic of China, in 1937, it would still mean Japan would hold onto significant overseas possessions, a significant amount of territory.

By July 20, Ambassador Sato passionately argued with Foreign Minister Tojo to accept everything, except leaving the Imperial House intact, which, again, Foreign Minister Tojo already rejected unconditional surrender, and still vowed to fight on more.

Basically, if Ambassador Sato was Prime Minister, the war could have ended without either the use of the atomic bombs or conventional invasion.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/40.pdf

August 5, 1945. The last intercepted cable before Hiroshima. Ambassador Sato has already resigned himself to unconditional surrender, or expecting ruin, even if it means they'll be war criminals and all that, and pleaded the Japanese civilian leadership to, and I quote: "'concrete proposals' for ending the war".

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/52.pdf

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

martin14 martin14:

So you are willing to admit that your History department is full of
anti American idiots ?

It seems that you need things to be black & white. History's not like that. I can appreciate that a 10-grade interpretation of these events is more comfortable for you.

awwwwww, reduced to insults, how nice.

I guess that's all you have left after being so thoroughly re - schooled.



Next you'll tell us you and your colleagues bought into the 'new secret
reasons' for the Dieppe raid as well.

[Lemmy]

martin14 martin14:

Lemmy Lemmy:

martin14 martin14:

So you are willing to admit that your History department is full of
anti American idiots ?

It seems that you need things to be black & white. History's not like that. I can appreciate that a 10-grade interpretation of these events is more comfortable for you.

awwwwww, reduced to insults, how nice.
I guess that's all you have left after being so thoroughly re - schooled.
Next you'll tell us you and your colleagues bought into the 'new secret
reasons' for the Dieppe raid as well.

If you read your embedded quote, it's pretty clear who tossed the first insult.

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Thanos Thanos:

Next up: David Irving who, even though he went to prison for debunking The Holocaust, is the only one who ever told the truth.

Oh fuck off. There's never any grey in your world.

Wrong again, Lemmy, you have been throwing it around for pages now.

I guess you love to dish it out, just don't like taking it.

And, just to spell it out for you, slowly, the insult was for
your colleagues, not you.
Bit of a difference.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

martin14 martin14:

Lemmy Lemmy:

martin14 martin14:

So you are willing to admit that your History department is full of
anti American idiots ?

It seems that you need things to be black & white. History's not like that. I can appreciate that a 10-grade interpretation of these events is more comfortable for you.

awwwwww, reduced to insults, how nice.

I guess that's all you have left after being so thoroughly re - schooled.



Next you'll tell us you and your colleagues bought into the 'new secret
reasons' for the Dieppe raid as well.

What new secret reasons? The "secret" was out in 1976 with the writing of the book, "A Man Called Intrepid".

[martin14]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

What new secret reasons? The "secret" was out in 1976 with the writing of the book, "A Man Called Intrepid".

Not to drag this thread off tangent, but there was a doc out recently claiming
the whole reason for ordering Jubilee was to get a 4 rotor Enigma.
More 'revisionist' by some guys reading through old documents
and coming up with 'new' ideas.


Utter nonsense.