Left Wing Historical Revisionism

[tater]

Yeah, the topic is about bias in history texts. For example, A People's History Of The United States by Zinn is terribly biased to the left. Zinn said as much about it. He claimed it to advance a social goal. It is also used as a standard text all over. THAT is bias in history.

"Histories" that make the decision to use atomic weapons against Japan have time and time again, repeated partial information, making it look as if Japan was trying to surrender, and we knew it. What they had was 1/2 the conversation. The Ambassador to the CCCP was cabling home to say they SHOULD surrender, what they do not tell the reader is that the cable back to him basically said, "No. We will bleed them on the beaches first to secure a better deal." So bias gets in there sometimes, and unfortunately, you need to be well read to see it sometimes.

BTW, up the thread someone mentioned Costello's book. I read about 1/3 to 1/2 through one of his, and had been correcting so many errors in my head as I read, I decided I knew more than he did (some of it really dumb stuff like the wrong types of planes being named, etc).

[Tchocky]

Quoted off th'article.

. It is bizarre that Obama should be regarded (or should regard himself) as a kind-of European

He's only regarded as such by political opponents who use it as a perjorative.

See Romney, Gingrich, et al

...who is trying to bring a sophisticated kind-of socialism to American economic life, complete with government-run health care and ***8220;fair***8221; (high) taxes on the wealthy. If his European credentials were up to date, he would know that this was precisely the social model that is causing the EU to implode, and whose hopeless contradictions the best economic minds on the Continent are attempting, unsuccessfully, to resolve.

The current EU problems have little to do with tax rates and nothing at all to do with healthcare policy. As a percentage of GDP goes, the generic EU share for healthcare is massively below that of the US. Problems of fiscal independence conflicting with political and monetary union (and with a inflationary hawkish central bank) are totally unique and can't be handwaved away as a "social model". Nevermind the exact details of the Greek tragedy or the Irish/Portugese bailouts.

This writer does not know what she's on about. Standard Torygraph.

EDIT - Tater, just saw your post. I liked Zinn's History. Pretty clearly biased, but I learned about a couple of new things in it that a lot of other books skip over.

[August]

Well at least I broke the circle jerk.

I would think not. As I recall, the AVG did not fly its first combat missions against the Japanese until the week following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

what year did their boss get his job as a "banker/farmer" in china?

The 1990's retroactive reinstatement of the Group's status of US servicemen was for the seven months between December 1941 and July 1942.

The reinstatement was for "no break in service", which covers from each persons "resignation" till the units disbandment.

Of course, Obama is the topic of every thread in GT, so maybe I'm wrong

Well for balance since its history and Blair and Bush both said "let history be the judge of that" we can without a shadow of a doubt say that their stated aims for the war were lies, their "objectives" were mere fantasies and the outcome so far is pretty much exactly what was predicted by those who pointed out the obvious while Bush and Blair were still spouting their crazy plans.
Though of course the finer details of their ballsup will be fleshed out in the next few decades.
Or alternatively you could just look at the piece see that its written by a Murdoch&Barclay regular and write it off the same as you would an Al-Asqa publication.

In an attempt to get beyond the Trollsman/MH circle jerk I found this article which seems to illuminate the topic fairly well:

Well since the drive by troll wants to illuminate the topic lets take a really good example.
History WIKI and sources
How many of the six large frigates the US authorised in 1794 got built?
how many were rated as 44s?
how many could be described as sister ships?
What did the WIKI say?
How many claims were made using WIKI as a link to back up those claims yet were contradicted by the very link provided as a source of the claims?

Good example really as the Constitution is a big part of a nations history and is on the local history tour as the big star, so really someone in that nation let alone anyone local should have the story of its basic history down pretty well.

[August]

I see that the trollman is back. I won't open his latest bit of hate and envy because frankly he's never been worth the skin he inhabits, but I assume that my attempt to derail his troll has not been successful.

Oh well somebody let me know if there is anything in there worth reporting.

Tater, are you missing out the soviets role with the telegrams and diplomacy and their own aims by that time(which were not too different from their earlier aims or the pre-soviet aims).

I see that the trollman is back.

hate and envy

Look in the mirror you sad person

[tater]

Soviet aims are another issue altogether. The point is that I have read histories (popular ones, for the most part) that make the claim that the US knew through codebreaking that the japs wanted to surrender to us, and we bombed them anyway (because we wanted to test it, didn't want to wait a few weeks because of the Soviets, etc). They fail to mention that the higher level code used for outgoing commo to diplomats (or the codes we broke that allies and neutrals used) was unambiguous that Japan would not be surrendering to the US until after an invasion.

An attempt at a separate peace with the CCCP was also something they looked into (which the CCCP wanted no part of, as they planned to invade and take some of the far east for themselves).

Combined Fleet: Decoded (mentioned above) has some on this, as does the excellent book, Downfall by Richard Frank. Frank's book is particularly useful because it was done after many of the other codes broken had finally been declassified. The more biased histories were running with declassified code breaking, knowing full well that they (the authors) did not know the response, but the primary actors in the US military and government did know the responses, and said that they knew japan would not surrender. Franks could finally point out the actual replies, and show what we really knew.

Tater hits the high points and Frank's Downfall provides context to many of the one-sided arguments used by those who advocate that the Bomb should never have been used on a city.

Submit that Japan certainly brought Hiroshima and Nagasaki entirely upon itself. The junta in Tokyo could have ended the war at any time by accepting the Potsdam Declaration and refused to do so repeatedly. Also, diplomatic responses phrased in subtle manners requiring cultural insights that America was not likely to possess exacerbated the issue. Where clarity was needed the junta provided only obfuscation.

Whether Potsdam was the correct course of action for the Allies is a question entirely separate from the atomic bombings although it is common to lump the two together in order to victimize the Japanese and vilify Truman.

Japan had been well warned about what was going to happen, publicly and accurately so to invoke AM Harris' biblical imagery, having sowed the wind, Japan reaped the nuclear whirlwind.

[MH]

Document 62: "Hoshina Memorandum" on the Emperor's "Sacred Decision [go-seidan]," 9-10 August, 1945
Source: Zenshiro Hoshina, Daitoa Senso Hishi: Hoshina Zenshiro Kaiso-roku [Secret History of the Greater East Asia War: Memoir of Zenshiro Hoshina] (Tokyo, Japan: Hara-Shobo, 1975), excerpts from Section 5, "The Emperor made go-seidan [= the sacred decision] ***8211; the decision to terminate the war," 139-149 [translation by Hikaru Tajima]

An overview of the destruction of Hiroshima [undated, circa August-September 1945] (Photo from U.S. National Archives, RG 306-NT)

Despite the bombing of Hiroshima, the Soviet declaration of war, and growing worry about domestic instability, the Japanese cabinet (whose decisions required unanimity) could not form a consensus to accept the Potsdam Declaration. Members of the Supreme War Council***8212;***8220;the Big Six***8221;[46]***8212;wanted the reply to Potsdam to include at least four conditions (e.g., no occupation, voluntary disarmament); they were willing to fight to the finish. The peace party, however, deftly maneuvered to break the stalemate by persuading a reluctant emperor to intervene. According to Hasegawa, Hirohito had become convinced that the preservation of the monarchy was at stake. Late in the evening of 9 August, the emperor and his advisers met in the bomb shelter of the Imperial Palace.
Zenshiro Hoshina, a senior naval official, attended the conference and prepared a detailed account. With Prime Minister Suzuki presiding, each of the ministers had a chance to state his view directly to Hirohito. While Army Minister Anami tacitly threatened a coup (***8220;civil war***8221, the emperor accepted the majority view that the reply to the Potsdam declaration should include only one condition not the four urged by ***8220;Big Six.***8221; Nevertheless, the condition that Hirohito accepted was not the one that foreign minister Togo had brought to the conference. What was at stake was the definition of the kokutai (national policy). Togo***8217;s proposal would have been generally consistent with a constitutional monarchy because it defined the kokutai narrowly as the emperor and the imperial household. What Hirohito accepted, however, was a proposal by the extreme nationalist Kiichiro Hiranuma which drew upon prevailing understandings of the kokutai: the ***8220;mythical notion***8221; that the emperor was a living god. ***8220;This was the affirmation of the emperor***8217;s theocratic powers, unencumbered by any law, based on Shinto gods in antiquity, and totally incompatible with a constitutional monarchy.***8221; Thus, the Japanese response to the Potsdam declaration opposed ***8220;any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of his Majesty as a sovereign ruler.***8221; This proved to be unacceptable to the Truman administration.[47]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/62.pdf

This sort of shows state of mind after drop of first nuclear bomb.
While there had been consideration for surrender before the first bomb the document still shows high level of stubbornness and lack of consensus.

As i see it its possible that if USA kept on fire bombing Japan conventionally while preparing for attack on mainland Japan might had surrendered without use of A bomb.
I'm not sure if the civilian damage would be lesser though or if allies could had known it for certain at the time.

Soviet aims are another issue altogether.

Not when they are acting as an intermediary in the process.

An attempt at a separate peace with the CCCP was also something they looked into

Tater. what seperate peace?
They were not at war.

[tater]

The jap ambassador was shopping around to use the Soviets to broker a peace. So yes, not a separate peace, I misspoke. The soviets shined them on (cancelled appointments, etc).

Separate from the normal process (contacting the US). Mea culpa.

Regardless, we knew what he was told from the home office because that code was broken as well. No peace until after invasion.

[CaptainHaplo]

History is written by the "victor". This doesn't necessarily mean facts are written in or out - though that does happen - it primarily goes to the issue of what perspective the facts are viewed in.

WW2 is a perfect example. Many point to the end of WW1 as sowing the seeds of WW2. In some ways it did. But to claim the Versaille treaty was "THE" cause of the war negates a big picture view. Japan is viewed as imperialistic and aggressive - and in many ways this was accurate. To dismiss the policies of the US however does remove valid factors from the equation.

No singular perspective of history, especially the history of a major conflict, is going to be entirely accurate. The wise scholar realizes this, and weighs the various factors in detail. This does mean that one opinion can be vastly different from the next when learned men discuss such topics, but to call a historical perspective "revisionism" can only be accurate if it intenionally denies / skips over relevant, documented facts.