NationStates

Grave_n_idle wrote:

NERVUN wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:So, because I'm saying something that doesn't match what the administration claimed and because the administration did not make declarations that what actually happened was not what had actually happened (crazy, I know) it's 'revisionism' (because, obviously, I'm actually rewriting the history here, rather than just claiming that the excuses used were false)?

Some of Truman's advisors told him to use Little Boy on barren areas. Some others claimed that Little Boy needed to be used on a settled area. That was an actual choice that was made - to drop a pure symbol, or to inflict massed casualties. We carefully positioned observors, and then repositioned them half a week later.

The logic suggests we wanted to kill people, rather than just scare people. The logic suggests we wanted to see what happened when you dropped nuclear devices on civlian areas (we'd already tested the technology here).

There is nothing revisionist or illogical about what I'm saying. It just doesn't match the propaganda you were raised on.

No, Galloism is quite right, you have nothing coming close to proof.

So I'll join him, bull fucking shit.

Let me repeat that, bull shit.

Do I need to do it again? Ok, bull shit.

You have nothing until you can come up with a source for your claims.

If it's 'bullshit' then there can be no evidence... which is, of course, what you (were raised to) expect.

Raised? Oh, you mean the 5 years of study I put in at my university on Japan, it's culture and history? You mean the close to two decades of informal study I have made of WWII? You mean the 5 years I have spent here in Japan reading up on what was going on in Japan at the end of WWII? THAT raised?

What do YOU got?

However, Truman's own personal writings reveal that HE fully believed that Japan were going to surrender anyway - and not only were our own forces aware of this, but many important people (especially in the military) were telling Truman NOT to attack civilian centres, and agressively condemned the move after the fact. Add to that - experts believed that Truman was lying about the risk of lost American lives if we HAD engaged militarily. One evaluation suggested that a WORST-case scenario for American casualties... would have been less than 50,000. We actually LOST American lives because we refused to entertain the ONE Japanese concern for surrender (survival of the Emperor) until AFTER the two bombs were dropped.

Oh I love you. Thank you for bringing up these wonderful points that I can shred. Point one, Truman had stated that much embellished figure of 1 million, but the figures that were being used by Truman were probably one done by the Joint Chiefs which showed "in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties per 1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities per 1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million U.S. casualties, including 370,000 dead" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_ove ... o_invasion There's also a WONDERFUL walk though about what could have been waiting for us here: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm so this wasn't just a fricken walk though the park and Truman KNEW it.

And 2, I'd LOVE too address this "Oh, if ONLY we had let them know they could keep the Emperor" idea. There are three reason why that wouldn't have been possible, one is political, one is diplomatic, and one is with the understanding of just what the hell the Japanese were asking for. The political reason is simply that the US had been working on unconditional surrender, it simply would not have been possible, after 4 years of war and sacrifice to suddenly tell the American people, "Well, we don't actually MEAN unconditional". The second, the diplomatic one, is a mirror of the first. The US had already agreed to the Potsdam Deceleration to accept unconditional surrender only from Japan. This was agreed with both the USSR AND the UK, again, the US could not have unilaterally suddenly declared, "We changed our minds". Finally though, and this is what I LOVE from these threads, the fact that no one actually bothers to read up on Japan before jumping in, when Japan wanted to secure the status of the emperor, they weren't talking about the emperor as he is now, the symbol of the state and the unity of the people, but the emperor as he was under the Meiji Constitution, you know, pretty much having absolute power that could be exploited by the military, like it HAD been. This would have been like saying that we would accept the surrender of Germany and allow Hitler to remain in power with all the powers given to him.

Yeah, BRILLIANT idea there.

It's interesting - there's a lot of evidence out there (that people like you and Gallo ignore). The only place where I am saying anything even vaguely revolutionary - is that most scholars argue the tests were designed to scare the soviets, rather than just to test the weapons.

And this 'exploded myth' isn't new - here's an article from 15 years ago:

http://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0806/06191.html

Grave_n_idle wrote:

NERVUN wrote:Only if you ignore what the Japanese were saying at the time, like say the minister of war who refused to admit that Hiroshima was an atomic bomb and attempted to explain it away as a natural disaster. He changed his tune after Nagasaki.

Anami Korechika was not typical, and actually opposed even Hirohito until he was expressly ordered otherwise. At which point he conceded... and then killed himself.

North Suran wrote:

Omega Uliza wrote:Actually either spelling works.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedophilia

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paedophilia

But since most British people spell it as the latter, and most American people pronounce it as the latter, and it comes from the Greek "pais" and "philia", I believe that "paedophilia" is more correct.

NERVUN wrote:Oh... I'm going to love this.
Raised? Oh, you mean the 5 years of study I put in at my university on Japan, it's culture and history? You mean the close to two decades of informal study I have made of WWII? You mean the 5 years I have spent here in Japan reading up on what was going on in Japan at the end of WWII? THAT raised?

What do YOU got?

Oh I love you. Thank you for bringing up these wonderful points that I can shred. Point one, Truman had stated that much embellished figure of 1 million, but the figures that were being used by Truman were probably one done by the Joint Chiefs which showed "in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties per 1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities per 1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million U.S. casualties, including 370,000 dead" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_ove ... o_invasion There's also a WONDERFUL walk though about what could have been waiting for us here: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm so this wasn't just a fricken walk though the park and Truman KNEW it.

And 2, I'd LOVE too address this "Oh, if ONLY we had let them know they could keep the Emperor" idea. There are three reason why that wouldn't have been possible, one is political, one is diplomatic, and one is with the understanding of just what the hell the Japanese were asking for. The political reason is simply that the US had been working on unconditional surrender, it simply would not have been possible, after 4 years of war and sacrifice to suddenly tell the American people, "Well, we don't actually MEAN unconditional". The second, the diplomatic one, is a mirror of the first. The US had already agreed to the Potsdam Deceleration to accept unconditional surrender only from Japan. This was agreed with both the USSR AND the UK, again, the US could not have unilaterally suddenly declared, "We changed our minds". Finally though, and this is what I LOVE from these threads, the fact that no one actually bothers to read up on Japan before jumping in, when Japan wanted to secure the status of the emperor, they weren't talking about the emperor as he is now, the symbol of the state and the unity of the people, but the emperor as he was under the Meiji Constitution, you know, pretty much having absolute power that could be exploited by the military, like it HAD been. This would have been like saying that we would accept the surrender of Germany and allow Hitler to remain in power with all the powers given to him.

Yeah, BRILLIANT idea there.

Yeah, an article that claims that the scholarly consensus is that... Bullshit. This is still hotly argued between scholars. There is no consensus and NOTHING that I have read (And believe me, I have read a lot on this topic, from BOTH sides of the Pacific), has claimed in all seriousness that the bombings were made JUST to test them.

And you STILL have not shown proof of the above. Do you actually have anything?

NERVUN wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

NERVUN wrote:Only if you ignore what the Japanese were saying at the time, like say the minister of war who refused to admit that Hiroshima was an atomic bomb and attempted to explain it away as a natural disaster. He changed his tune after Nagasaki.

Anami Korechika was not typical, and actually opposed even Hirohito until he was expressly ordered otherwise. At which point he conceded... and then killed himself.

Yeah, so unusual that there was an attempted coup by militarists. He wasn't unusual, the hardliners were MORE than willing to keep on going.

Redwulf wrote:However can we PLEASE split this to it's own thread and keep this one on topic?

Non Aligned States wrote:Getting back on topic though, how do you imagine things will turn out with the current economic toilet Japan's sitting in? Will we see a drop in NEET numbers and extreme social misfits as they get around to adapting to the changing times, or will the heads up top still enforce the regimentation without really fixing anything?

Non Aligned States wrote:Getting back on topic though, how do you imagine things will turn out with the current economic toilet Japan's sitting in? Will we see a drop in NEET numbers and extreme social misfits as they get around to adapting to the changing times, or will the heads up top still enforce the regimentation without really fixing anything?

Daistallia 2104 wrote:Prospects are not good economically. There is a growing wealth gap. Numbers of NEETs and social misfit will most likely rise. And it will most likely take a major systemic shock to make any real changes to the social regementation.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

NERVUN wrote:Oh... I'm going to love this.
Raised? Oh, you mean the 5 years of study I put in at my university on Japan, it's culture and history? You mean the close to two decades of informal study I have made of WWII? You mean the 5 years I have spent here in Japan reading up on what was going on in Japan at the end of WWII? THAT raised?

What do YOU got?

Oh I love you. Thank you for bringing up these wonderful points that I can shred. Point one, Truman had stated that much embellished figure of 1 million, but the figures that were being used by Truman were probably one done by the Joint Chiefs which showed "in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties per 1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities per 1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million U.S. casualties, including 370,000 dead" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_ove ... o_invasion There's also a WONDERFUL walk though about what could have been waiting for us here: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm so this wasn't just a fricken walk though the park and Truman KNEW it.

And 2, I'd LOVE too address this "Oh, if ONLY we had let them know they could keep the Emperor" idea. There are three reason why that wouldn't have been possible, one is political, one is diplomatic, and one is with the understanding of just what the hell the Japanese were asking for. The political reason is simply that the US had been working on unconditional surrender, it simply would not have been possible, after 4 years of war and sacrifice to suddenly tell the American people, "Well, we don't actually MEAN unconditional". The second, the diplomatic one, is a mirror of the first. The US had already agreed to the Potsdam Deceleration to accept unconditional surrender only from Japan. This was agreed with both the USSR AND the UK, again, the US could not have unilaterally suddenly declared, "We changed our minds". Finally though, and this is what I LOVE from these threads, the fact that no one actually bothers to read up on Japan before jumping in, when Japan wanted to secure the status of the emperor, they weren't talking about the emperor as he is now, the symbol of the state and the unity of the people, but the emperor as he was under the Meiji Constitution, you know, pretty much having absolute power that could be exploited by the military, like it HAD been. This would have been like saying that we would accept the surrender of Germany and allow Hitler to remain in power with all the powers given to him.

Yeah, BRILLIANT idea there.

Yeah, an article that claims that the scholarly consensus is that... Bullshit. This is still hotly argued between scholars. There is no consensus and NOTHING that I have read (And believe me, I have read a lot on this topic, from BOTH sides of the Pacific), has claimed in all seriousness that the bombings were made JUST to test them.

And you STILL have not shown proof of the above. Do you actually have anything?

So... an opinion piece that falls on it's face of in front of already presented evidence... a source from which you cherry pick some details and ignore the "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated" on the same page, several weak appeals to authority... and a claim that I said something I didn't say.

I'd like to respond... but I still have nothing to back up my claims.

Daistallia 2104 wrote:

Redwulf wrote:However can we PLEASE split this to it's own thread and keep this one on topic?

Seconded. Discussing modern Japan's social ills is much more interesting than rehashing the old nuking of Hiroshima argument for the umpteenth time.

I'll also note Kat's comments above regarding the hijacking...

Non Aligned States wrote:

Daistallia 2104 wrote:Prospects are not good economically. There is a growing wealth gap. Numbers of NEETs and social misfit will most likely rise. And it will most likely take a major systemic shock to make any real changes to the social regementation.

How big a shock are we talking here? And more importantly, can it be changed with a top down approach? i.e. someone up top decides to shake up the regimentation system. Or will it require a much more intrusive and thorough approach?

Non Aligned States wrote:By the way, does anyone have the link showing the deconstruction the OP article and the possible waiwai link? I seem to remember it showing up, but can't find it.

NERVUN wrote:

Non Aligned States wrote:By the way, does anyone have the link showing the deconstruction the OP article and the possible waiwai link? I seem to remember it showing up, but can't find it.

Wai Wai is gone, NAS.

Milks Empire wrote:It would take a HUGE shock - bigger than the American postwar occupation - to make any major changes to the social order in Japan. The militarism largely disappeared, but you're not going to undo 1000 years of tradition overnight.

Non Aligned States wrote:How big a shock are we talking here? And more importantly, can it be changed with a top down approach? i.e. someone up top decides to shake up the regimentation system. Or will it require a much more intrusive and thorough approach?

NERVUN wrote:There's two threads on Moderation asking for it. Hopefully...

Non Aligned States wrote:By the way, does anyone have the link showing the deconstruction the OP article and the possible waiwai link? I seem to remember it showing up, but can't find it.

NERVUN wrote:A HUGE shock, as in Japan needing to rebuild again. The problem with a top down approach is that it is very hard to figure out just where the hell the top is in Japan. A lot of times who you THINK is the top is naught but a figurehead and has no real decision making powers.

NERVUN wrote:The best way to put it is that Japan, for all the many years it has supposedly stopped being a feudal system, still operates as one. You have a lot of entrenched groups with their fingers in certain pies who more or less work to keep their own, and face against any outside threat. The political system rides on top of this without really being able to control it. Imagine if K Street in Washington was in bed with the US Government (NOT Congress, the agencies themselves), and dictated policy to Congress and the President, not the other way around.

Daistallia 2104 wrote:As Milks said, huge. Looking at Japanese history, 4 of the 5 the main social shake ups have all been associated with outside contacts - China in the 5th C., Europe in the 16th, the West in general in the 19th, and then the US occupation (the exception was the introduction of the shogunate in the 12th c.). Most of them were also associated with civil wars. Then a strongman type of government imposes social reforms.

Now, if the economy continues to go south and governmental, economic, and social institutions continue to be disfunctional and unable to change course, there will come a point where something has to give. I am fairly hopeful we'll see a fairly peaceful change for once, as it seems like a lot of ordinary people are well aware of what's wrong here. They just don't know what to do about it.

Omega Uliza wrote:

Bottle wrote:It sounds almost sweet, with all these socially-inept virgins finding love in an unconventional place, until you realized that these are middle-aged men who seek sexual gratification with passive images of pre-pubescent girls.

Then it just sounds dull. Ho-hum, yet another cohort of old men who only want relationships with little girls who never talk back.

Pedophilia is a little off...granted. But it doesn't make them child molestors. I know you didn't say this...but I see it so many times that I want to strangle someone...well...not really.

In all the facets of perversion, pedophilia is just a little more on the extreme side. But I'd personally rather have a pedophile jerk off to images of pre-pubescent girls rather than taking the other step and actually having sex with one. In the world of lolicon and shotacon, those who avidly are interested in these realms actually probably dislike child molestors more than fear-mongering mothers and fathers.

See...a child molestor is a pedophile, but a pedophile is not necessarily a child molestor. Just like an Oak is a tree, but a tree is not necessarily an Oak. It's like they just don't hear the analogy and only hear pedophile.

It's frankly disheartening.

NERVUN wrote:

Daistallia 2104 wrote:

Redwulf wrote:However can we PLEASE split this to it's own thread and keep this one on topic?

Seconded. Discussing modern Japan's social ills is much more interesting than rehashing the old nuking of Hiroshima argument for the umpteenth time.

I'll also note Kat's comments above regarding the hijacking...

There's two threads on Moderation asking for it. Hopefully...

Redwulf wrote:

NERVUN wrote:

Daistallia 2104 wrote:Seconded. Discussing modern Japan's social ills is much more interesting than rehashing the old nuking of Hiroshima argument for the umpteenth time.

I'll also note Kat's comments above regarding the hijacking...

There's two threads on Moderation asking for it. Hopefully...

Or, you could actually start a new thread and the argument can move there. Saves work on the mods and it lessens the chance someone gets red texted for continuing the hijack after the first red text about the hijack.