WW2 Revisionist History (2 Viewers)

[Currahee Chris]

I certainly would like to consider it current mate; makes me feel less dated.

- I'm sure a lot of guys here would agree with that- to include Brad

Yeah Damian, I would certainly consider it quite current- couple reasons really and SpitFrnd illustrates that- the demographics of this forum and there is this tendency here in the media to draw a lot of similarities between the GWOT and Nam.

 

[L Flowers]

This is a good thread. Wanted to add my two cents before it goes away. I like when revisionists attempt to attack the decision to bomb Germany and Japan as well as drop the atomic bombs on Japan. It is easy to sit back in comfort and say the wrong decision was made. A few points regarding Japan:

1) Japan had just installed a new premier, Admiral Baron Kantaro Suzuki, in April of ’45 and he was approved because he told the army leaders that Japan’s only course was “to fight to the very end even if it meant the death of one hundred million Japanese”.
2) Truman and his top advisers were reading Japanese diplomatic traffic and knew the Japanese were attempting to negotiate a continuation of the Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact. This so the million plus Japanese troops in China could be sent to Japan proper.
3) Japanese soldiers did not surrender, at least not in any military unit of any size. Their motto was “Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die and leave no ignominious crime behind you”.
4) All civilians were being trained as human weapons. Either to strap a bomb on their bodies, use crude weapons like spears or attack with grenades. The Japanese military had hundreds of midget subs and thousands of planes ready for kamikaze duty.
5) Even though we wanted unconditional surrender, we still offered what was eventually settled on after the bombs were dropped. Many critics blame the US and the Potsdam Declaration of unconditional surrender.
6) Even after the bombs were dropped, B-29s and B-32s still continued to bomb until the night of 14/15 August.

Truman made the right decision. He had information available to him that was not made public until the mid 90s and some of that are still blacked out. To top things off, the Japanese never uttered the word surrender. The Emperor stated that Japan must “endure the endurable”. Even after his August 15th recording to the nation, military units attempted to rally the people to fight on. Never in his speech did he say defeat or surrender. Hirohito didn’t give the formal order to lay down arms until Sept 2.

Truman had the guts to make a tough decision which saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

 

[Harrytheheid]

This is a good thread. Wanted to add my two cents before it goes away. I like when revisionists attempt to attack the decision to bomb Germany and Japan as well as drop the atomic bombs on Japan. It is easy to sit back in comfort and say the wrong decision was made. A few points regarding Japan:

1) Japan had just installed a new premier, Admiral Baron Kantaro Suzuki, in April of ’45 and he was approved because he told the army leaders that Japan’s only course was “to fight to the very end even if it meant the death of one hundred million Japanese”.
2) Truman and his top advisers were reading Japanese diplomatic traffic and knew the Japanese were attempting to negotiate a continuation of the Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact. This so the million plus Japanese troops in China could be sent to Japan proper.
3) Japanese soldiers did not surrender, at least not in any military unit of any size. Their motto was “Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die and leave no ignominious crime behind you”.
4) All civilians were being trained as human weapons. Either to strap a bomb on their bodies, use crude weapons like spears or attack with grenades. The Japanese military had hundreds of midget subs and thousands of planes ready for kamikaze duty.
5) Even though we wanted unconditional surrender, we still offered what was eventually settled on after the bombs were dropped. Many critics blame the US and the Potsdam Declaration of unconditional surrender.
6) Even after the bombs were dropped, B-29s and B-32s still continued to bomb until the night of 14/15 August.

Truman made the right decision. He had information available to him that was not made public until the mid 90s and some of that are still blacked out. To top things off, the Japanese never uttered the word surrender. The Emperor stated that Japan must “endure the endurable”. Even after his August 15th recording to the nation, military units attempted to rally the people to fight on. Never in his speech did he say defeat or surrender. Hirohito didn’t give the formal order to lay down arms until Sept 2.

Truman had the guts to make a tough decision which saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

THANK YOU

H

 

[OzDigger]

This is a good thread. Wanted to add my two cents before it goes away. I like when revisionists attempt to attack the decision to bomb Germany and Japan as well as drop the atomic bombs on Japan. It is easy to sit back in comfort and say the wrong decision was made. A few points regarding Japan:

1) Japan had just installed a new premier, Admiral Baron Kantaro Suzuki, in April of ’45 and he was approved because he told the army leaders that Japan’s only course was “to fight to the very end even if it meant the death of one hundred million Japanese”.
2) Truman and his top advisers were reading Japanese diplomatic traffic and knew the Japanese were attempting to negotiate a continuation of the Japanese-Soviet non-aggression pact. This so the million plus Japanese troops in China could be sent to Japan proper.
3) Japanese soldiers did not surrender, at least not in any military unit of any size. Their motto was “Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die and leave no ignominious crime behind you”.
4) All civilians were being trained as human weapons. Either to strap a bomb on their bodies, use crude weapons like spears or attack with grenades. The Japanese military had hundreds of midget subs and thousands of planes ready for kamikaze duty.
5) Even though we wanted unconditional surrender, we still offered what was eventually settled on after the bombs were dropped. Many critics blame the US and the Potsdam Declaration of unconditional surrender.
6) Even after the bombs were dropped, B-29s and B-32s still continued to bomb until the night of 14/15 August.

Truman made the right decision. He had information available to him that was not made public until the mid 90s and some of that are still blacked out. To top things off, the Japanese never uttered the word surrender. The Emperor stated that Japan must “endure the endurable”. Even after his August 15th recording to the nation, military units attempted to rally the people to fight on. Never in his speech did he say defeat or surrender. Hirohito didn’t give the formal order to lay down arms until Sept 2.

Truman had the guts to make a tough decision which saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

All true, but many people overlook that Russia declared war on Japan on 8th August, two days after the A-Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The Japanese knew that the American Government had consideration for troop losses and were hopeful they could wear the US down if invaded. However with Stalinist Russia planning to invade them they knew they had no options remaining as Uncle Joe wouldn't have cared about losses.

 

[L Flowers]

Another reason to drop the A-bomb. A war of attrition was not what we wanted.

The Soviet-Japanese Neutralty Pact wasn't set to expire until 1946. Japan did not know the Soviets agreed to enter the war 3 months after Germany was defeated and that they were already working with McArthur's staff.

 

[OzDigger]

Another reason to drop the A-bomb. A war of attrition was not what we wanted.

The Soviet-Japanese Neutralty Pact wasn't set to expire until 1946. Japan did not know the Soviets agreed to enter the war 3 months after Germany was defeated and that they were already working with McArthur's staff.

I agree with the use of both A-Bombs. However the expiry date of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact proved irrelevant considering Russia's declaration of war.

Btw, I've had six or more beers so my posts may be more fuzzy than usual - if that's possible

 

[redhugh]

As Captain TJ 'King' Kong said in Dr Stangelove

"Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about nuclear combat."

 

[Spitfrnd]

I agree with the use of both A-Bombs. However the expiry date of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact proved irrelevant considering Russia's declaration of war.

Btw, I've had six or more beers so my posts may be more fuzzy than usual - if that's possible

I hadn't noticed any difference mate. Clean living or high tolerance I guess.

 

[OzDigger]

I hadn't noticed any difference mate. Clean living or high tolerance I guess.

Na, they were only mid-strength and lucky for the spell check

 

[theBaron]

Interesting note on the meaning of "revisionist", which was dealt with at earlier places in this thread--

I started reading Gordon Prange's "At Dawn We Slept," a study of the events leading up to the Pearl Harbor attach, and the official inquiry into those events. In it, "revisionist" is applied to those historians and other writers who espoused and wrote about various conspiracy theories surrounding the attack, and Roosevelt's (and to a lesser degree, Churchill's) role or motive in precipitating the attack.

Interesting how the term is applied, by whom to whom, and under which circumstances.

Prost!
Bradley

 

[bromhead]

Hope not Damian.
Opening up this particular Pandora's Box offers the prospect of endless further entertainment as they try to justify/unjustify.
In fact, I shall be extremely interested in how the deliberate targeting of civilians during the bombing campaign on Hanoi is discussed. And, indeed, the slaughter of thousands upon thousands of other non-combatants. (Who just happened to be Asians in the wrong place at the wrong time, by the way).

Seems like a bit of revisionist "entertainment here",in your time in Viet how did you tell those "non combatents" at the time or place? 2bn 18th inf 1966-67

 

[trooper]

The problem with revisionist history is that most of the time it is undertaken by people who were not present at the event, or even alive at the time of the event. They have no immediate knowledge of how people thought and try to apply todays opinions to yesterdays actions. When the bombs were dropped on Japan and the war ended the only thought was gratitude that a "silver bullet" had ended the suffering at one fell stroke. It was over at long last, and the enemy had been defeated. These days we are all supposed to feel guilt and remorse. Regret that such a series of events occured and so many lives were lost? Certainly. Guilt and remorse? No.

 

[L Flowers]

I agree with the use of both A-Bombs. However the expiry date of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact proved irrelevant considering Russia's declaration of war.

Btw, I've had six or more beers so my posts may be more fuzzy than usual - if that's possible

It was a very important element in the Japanese decision to keep on fighting. It was irrelevant for the Allies who knew the Russians were entering the fight 3 months after Germany was defeated.

 

[UKReb]

The problem with revisionist history is that most of the time it is undertaken by people who were not present at the event, or even alive at the time of the event.

One of my favorite Civil War story tellers is the American author Ambrose Bierce 1842-1913. His most famous story "An Incident at Owl Creek" has been filmed a couple of times which some of you may be familar with. Amongst his body of work he wrote a rather prophetic quote in 1904

God alone knows the future
But only a historian can alter the past.

I am also rather fond of another of his slightly cynical quotes:-

War is God's way of teaching American's geography.

Reb

 

[trooper]

Another point about history and personal accounts. Being in action does rather tend you to concentrate on your immediate area. When you have bullets zipping about your ears the Dallas Cowboys cheer leaders could be strutting their stuff 25 yards away but I will guarantee you will be unaware of it. And when someone comments on their performance the natural reaction will be to scoff and say "Look mate, I was there and I never saw it"

 

[bromhead]

Another point about history and personal accounts. Being in action does rather tend you to concentrate on your immediate area. When you have bullets zipping about your ears the Dallas Cowboys cheer leaders could be strutting their stuff 25 yards away but I will guarantee you will be unaware of it. And when someone comments on their performance the natural reaction will be to scoff and say "Look mate, I was there and I never saw it"

No problem with my time and personal account as the revisions started before I left, I live in N Dallas where the cheerleaders and driving a hummer is the national bird, they do not bother me a bit ,not

 

[Spitfrnd]

One of my favorite Civil War story tellers is the American author Ambrose Bierce 1842-1913. ...
I am also rather fond of another of his slightly cynical quotes:-

War is God's way of teaching American's geography.
Reb

Not bad but I think it could apply to the citizens of many nations.

 

[damian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7702374.stm

 

[bromhead]

Interesting that the General doesnt seem to be wearing pilots wings,a talking general rather then an aviator or historian. The problem with revisionism to wars is the veterans who survived become upset at versions of what they lived thru in book or film.

 

[damian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7798497.stm

I suppose all history depends on how you interpret things