[Regina]

I do find his work "less" for the simple reason other real historians feel that way which I've pointed out and included quotes. There is also more and lengthy debunking of Alperovitz's conspiracy theory by Maddox on the net, if you care to look further. Copp, Ambrose, Beevor, Keegan, Frank, Hart, Marshall, D'Este, Erickson etc. carry the title of Historian yet, you would refer to their knowledge on the matter equal to "grade 10"? I've read something from all of them and have yet to see them write anything that would back Alperovitz, but I'm eager to be proven otherwise. I have also done research for a book published in Canada that was sold out and am also registered with the Saskatchewan Archives Board......yet I don't call myself a historian. Anyone can write a book and call it history, like James Bacque was able to do.
As pointed out: "Maddox has criticized Alperovitz for "his unscholarly use of ellipsis" and other alleged misrepresentation of sources. Maddox also accuses Alperovitz of cherry picking his sources, ignoring those that undermine his thesis." Does Maddox too have an agenda?

“Unconditional Surrender” isn’t much different than “Surrender where we get to keep our Emperor”, is it?
I think this is where your argument falls off the tracks. There is a huge difference and always will be. Germany didn't "sort of" surrender only months earlier. In recent history Saddam "sort of" surrendered and was able to keep killing Kurds.

"Dumbing down" is offensive and an insult to those who died and were going to die defeating Japan. Projecting intellect isn't very becoming either.

1. Do you acknowledge that White House memos show that the Japanese were seeking terms for surrender in the spring of ‘45?
On their terms yes, on the Allies terms no. 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."

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?
You're downplaying who was in control and who were hold outs. The Military didn't have any hold outs in fact wanted the fight to continue as proved by the "Kyūjō Incident." Those who wanted to seek surrender had no power to do so.
Americans mostly knew? I'd say the Allies knew they were winning, but for some strange reason they were still dying by the 1,000's. The Germans were on the run right after the Falaise Gap was closed but didn't surrender for another 8 months.
Yup there were some holdouts but they weren't in the military.

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?
I believe the Americans, British (Canada, Australia and all Commonwealth countries) and China by way of the Potsdam Declaration insisted on unconditional surrender. Until our terms were met the war would continue.


Hawks?? Who'd have thought there would be such people............. during a World War that lasted 6 years.

It’s also McNamara’s Rule #5: Proportionality should be a guideline in warfare. One man who speaks for himself and not for all countries involved. I still prefer "Economy of Effort" which means one bomber that can do the damage of 1,000's.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

martin14 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.

In A Man Called Intrepid, the "reason" for Jubilee was to capture a component from a new, top secret German radar.
Not the same thing as a 4 rotor enigma, but the prinicple for the raid was exactly the same. I'm also sure Stephenson couldn't say what they were really after due to the reason it would still be classified in 1976.
However, at no time was it planned to be a "practice run" for an actual invasion of the Continent. A raid is not an invasion, it is a hit and run.

[Regina]

Lemmy Lemmy:

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.

You should have taken the elevator up to the top floor to the law school and ask them: When is a deal a deal?

[BartSimpson]

bambu bambu:

Eisenhower of course wouldn't have had to risk his life storming Japan to make it surrender.

Thanks for announcing your ignorance of history.

Eisenhower wasn't going to risk his life invading Japan because that was MacArthur's job, not his.

[bambu]

Japan nearly got Australia...until it ran into the poorly trained, poorly armed, greatly outnumbered bunch of 'kids' 'rag-tag' Aussie militia army in PNG, on Kokoda Track.
...and some reinforcements who eventually returned from the Middle East etc.

And US forces;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... %80%93Gona

The Battle of Buna – Gona was part of the New Guinea campaign in the Pacific campaign of World War II. On 16 November 1942, Australian and United States forces attacked the main Japanese beachheads in New Guinea, at Buna, Sanananda and Gona.


And the US Navy in the Battle of The Coral Sea.

All stand for the US national anthem!

[BartSimpson]

bambu bambu:

blah, blah, blah

Whatever you post here will not put Eisenhower in command of the US Pacific forces during WW2.

[bambu]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bambu bambu:

blah, blah, blah

Whatever you post here will not put Eisenhower in command of the US Pacific forces during WW2.

Not Eisenhower...but MacArthur, he had no idea either.

http://www.kokodatreks.com/history/comm ... arthur.cfm

General Douglas MacArthur possessed a deeply flawed personality. He was vain, aloof, and showed no interest in the welfare of the troops he commanded.

The self-styled "Hero of the Pacific" was greeted with adulation by Australian politicians, public and media.
Despite this adulation, MacArthur's passion for self-glorification drove him to lie about the manner in which he had arrived in Australia.
He told the press that his aircraft had been closely pursued by Japanese fighter planes and had narrowly escaped Japanese bombers as it was landing at Batchelor Field. This story captured the public imagination but it was all a lie.

When heavily outnumbered and poorly supplied Australian AIF and militia troops could not initially stem the determined Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track towards Port Moresby, MacArthur and Blamey were severely criticised for their neglect to provide adequate defences for Port Moresby and the heavy loss of Australian lives on the Kokoda Track which resulted from that neglect.

MacArthur was adept at shifting the blame for his mistakes to troops under his command, and he announced his view that the Australian troops on the Kokoda Track were poor fighters who were retreating from a smaller number of Japanese troops. This was a monstrous lie. The Australian troops were outnumbered by at least five to one by elite Japanese troops, and MacArthur and Blamey had sent them into action without adequate arms or supplies.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson 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.

Irony from a denier and a birther.

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Irony from a denier and a birther.

Denier? Denier about what?

As to the 'birther' thing I've long said that I'm sufficiently convinced that Obama was born in Hawai'i as it says so on his birth certificates. That said, it leaves some other questions to be answered:

1. If his birth certificates were as mundane as they appear to be then why did Obama spend upwards of ten million dollars suppressing court actions to publicize them? And where did that money come from? Because if it came from his campaign then it was illegal campaign spending. And if it didn't come from his campaign as a campaign expense then it is personal income that he failed to declare on several years of his taxes.

2. He needs to explain why he claimed to be born in Kenya in his self-authored biographical sketch in the Harvard Law journal. He was the Editor of that publication and was responsible for proofreading the copy - so if it was innaccurate then why did he misrepresent himself?

3. He still needs to explain on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan in the early 1980's when he didn't obtain a US passport until after that trip.

4. Why did Michelle Obama refer to Kenya as Obama's "native country"? One would think that she'd know that her husband was born in the USA, right?

That's the fun thing about this guy, if I embrace his argument that his birth certificates are valid then that still leaves him having to explain some other incongruities in his history. He never will, of course. I doubt anyone will ever really know the full truth about this guy so I'm honestly content to wait for January 20, 2017 when he retires.

[BartSimpson]

Now Japan says the sex slaves were "necessary".

Oh. Dear. God.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/2977/20130 ... essary.htm

[bambu]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Now Japan says the sex slaves were "necessary".

Oh. Dear. God.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/2977/20130 ... essary.htm

Well one mayor anyway.

My guess is that he is not alone in his thinking though.

[bambu]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Irony from a denier and a birther.

Denier? Denier about what?

As to the 'birther' thing I've long said that I'm sufficiently convinced that Obama was born in Hawai'i as it says so on his birth certificates. That said, it leaves some other questions to be answered:

1. If his birth certificates were as mundane as they appear to be then why did Obama spend upwards of ten million dollars suppressing court actions to publicize them? And where did that money come from? Because if it came from his campaign then it was illegal campaign spending. And if it didn't come from his campaign as a campaign expense then it is personal income that he failed to declare on several years of his taxes.

2. He needs to explain why he claimed to be born in Kenya in his self-authored biographical sketch in the Harvard Law journal. He was the Editor of that publication and was responsible for proofreading the copy - so if it was innaccurate then why did he misrepresent himself?

3. He still needs to explain on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan in the early 1980's when he didn't obtain a US passport until after that trip.

4. Why did Michelle Obama refer to Kenya as Obama's "native country"? One would think that she'd know that her husband was born in the USA, right?

That's the fun thing about this guy, if I embrace his argument that his birth certificates are valid then that still leaves him having to explain some other incongruities in his history. He never will, of course. I doubt anyone will ever really know the full truth about this guy so I'm honestly content to wait for January 20, 2017 when he retires.

Conceived out of wedlock, born to a White American woman and a Black African man who were both university students in Hawaii?

4. To boost his "African" ancestry so as to capture the Black vote?


Yes, Obama is a White man.
Well he's as much White as he is Black.

He's only classed as 'Black' in America because of the "one drop"[of Black blood] law.

[raydan]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Irony from a denier and a birther.

Denier? Denier about what?

As to the 'birther' thing I've long said that I'm sufficiently convinced that Obama was born in Hawai'i as it says so on his birth certificates. That said, it leaves some other questions to be answered:

1. If his birth certificates were as mundane as they appear to be then why did Obama spend upwards of ten million dollars suppressing court actions to publicize them? And where did that money come from? Because if it came from his campaign then it was illegal campaign spending. And if it didn't come from his campaign as a campaign expense then it is personal income that he failed to declare on several years of his taxes.

2. He needs to explain why he claimed to be born in Kenya in his self-authored biographical sketch in the Harvard Law journal. He was the Editor of that publication and was responsible for proofreading the copy - so if it was innaccurate then why did he misrepresent himself?

3. He still needs to explain on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan in the early 1980's when he didn't obtain a US passport until after that trip.

4. Why did Michelle Obama refer to Kenya as Obama's "native country"? One would think that she'd know that her husband was born in the USA, right?

That's the fun thing about this guy, if I embrace his argument that his birth certificates are valid then that still leaves him having to explain some other incongruities in his history. He never will, of course. I doubt anyone will ever really know the full truth about this guy so I'm honestly content to wait for January 20, 2017 when he retires.

Only you Bart can deny being a denier, and then in the same post, deny.

[Regina]

Back on topic please.

[Thanos]

Joo$ did 9/11. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki too.