US History and actual History.

[Greg White]

First off, some people contend that the empire of Japan was willing to surrender, it is by no means accepted fact, in the US or out.

Personally, I feel that the US perception of the war overall is skewed into the Uncle Sam and others show. Russia is neglected fairly often, the European allies show up only to cry for help and be rescued and the rest of the commonwealth is omitted entirely. This is a bug-bear for me, being Australian in that we, along with the Kiwis, Papuans, Indonesians and other islanders, were, for a fair while, the last allied powers actively fighting the Japanese and that gets completely ignored. Even after the yanks showed up, they tended to take the 'glory' assignments and leave the shitty, obscure jobs to the ANZACS. I mean, look at 'the pacific', to the best of my knowledge Australian soldiers only show up to show how ungrateful we are to our glorious fucking american saviours.

The Soviets in WWII tend to be largely ignored because of the Cold War and most history books were written back either while that was still going on or shortly after.

Other than that, US History, as a class, is supposed to focus on the US.

 

[Waffle_Man]

Unless you have both a history book that leaned towards the typical overly Pro-American slant and a certain type of teacher that likes to do the opposite and claim that everything that is bad in the world is because of the United States.

Of course, that gave me early insight into the idea that there are multiple schools of history, that sometimes none of them are entirely accurate, and that sometimes you have to look into primary sources on your own. It also means that, despite knowing a shit ton of facts, I have no idea what the big picture is anymore.

 

[DrOswald]

snip

Are you saying the impending invasion of the soviets had nothing to do with their surrender then? It was at least a reinforcing factor to decide to surrender after the bombs. The US had long broken Japanese codes and knew that surrender was on the table despite the arguing happening in house. If America wasn't interested in an unconditional surrender then there was absolutely no need to use the bomb. I think the US was more interested in the effects of using the bomb on a population, and sending a strong political message to the Russians. Japan had already lost the war, and with them surrounded, it was just a matter of waiting for surrender.

1. I never said that the Soviets had nothing to do with the surrender. The combined shock of the bombings and the Soviet invasion had a profound impact and lead to Japanese surrender.

2. Just because the Allies were not pushing for unconditional surrender does not mean they would accept any conditions. As I have said in two separate posts now which you have responded to, the problem was that the Japanese were unwilling to surrender under the terms of the Potsdam declaration, and the Allies (and the United States in particular) were unwilling to accept anything less.

3. It is true that the Allies had broken the Japanese code and were intercepting many of their communications. So, what did the communications intercepted say?

Intercepted July 22nd: "Even if the war drags on and it becomes clear that it will take much more bloodshed, the whole country as one man will pit itself against the enemy in accordance with the Imperial Will."

Commentary written July 24th concerning an intercepted message In which Sato (the Japanese ambassador) outlines the position of Japan as he sees it:

"Sato sent a long message outlining what he conceived to be Japan's position, which was in brief that she was now entirely alone and friendless and could look for succor from no one."

And another quote from the same commentary:

"He finally concluded by implying that he realized what he was saying might not be welcomed by the Government at home but that his conscience still forced him to send the message. The response to his message was that the cabinet in council had weighed all the considerations which he had raised and that their final judgement and decision was that the war must be fought on with all the vigor and bitterness of which the nation was capable."

Intercepted July 29th, In response to Sato urging Tokyo to send concrete terms of surrender and to respond to the Potsdam Declaration: "As a counter-measure in response to the Joint Declaration, we are adopting a policy of careful study."

At the same time, Prime Minister Suzuki responded to questions about the Potsdam declaration with the following statement: "We can only ignore it. We will do our utmost to complete the war to the bitter end."

Intercepted July 30th: "it is difficult to decide on concrete peace conditions here at home all at once."

Intercepted August 3rd, in a report on Japanese intelligence on the preparations of America for the invasion of Japan: "American preparations for a landing on Japan will not be completed as soon as American military authorities secretly gave great Britain and Russia to understand they would be."

From the same intercept: "British military authorities warned them (the Americans) that military preparations were not yet sufficient to take the decisive step of a landing."

And more: "The present American offensive is manifestly based on political and diplomatic considerations."

Intercepted August 4th: A report on Japanese preparations to repel an American invasion.

There are many more intercepted messages, but they all contain similar content to the above.

From these intercepts the Americans knew that the Japanese were unwilling to surrender under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. In the mean time, the Japanese were strengthening their defenses and preparing to repel the promised invasion. Every day the allies waited to strike the Japanese defenses were improved and the cost of forcing a surrender would be greater.

An ultimatum had been declared and rejected. The Japanese were unwilling to accept the terms of surrender given, the Allies (especially the Americans) were unwilling to accept any other terms, and time was a vital factor in reducing the cost in human lives to force the terms of surrender.

Thus the need for swift and decisive action. Traditional bombings and even fire bombings were not enough to shock the Japanese into submission. An invasion would not be possible until November, 2 months later and was an unattractive option due to the ever strengthening Japanese defenses. The bomb was the quickest, most effective option available.

 

[flarty]

snip

You never acknowledged the Russians had a hand to play in the surrender either. You just keep telling me that there was no other alternative but to drop the bomb. I disagree, an embargo could of easily been put on Japan. It would of took longer but there was no way with them being confined to their island would they have the resources or infrastructure to mount an attack on anyone.

 

[J Tyran]

Americans are a bit weird with WWII, I think. I mean celebrating dropping those bombs on Japan is pretty fucked up, for a start. Some talk about it like it was no big deal.

Also, plenty of Americans think they won the war, that the allies had nothing to do with it.

But other than that, I don't know.

No one celebrated the murder of thousands of innocents. They celebrated VJ day, Victory over Japan aka the END OF THE WAR. Who the hell wouldn't celebrate that?

A day of quiet retrospection and rememberence would have been more appropriate, thinking about all the lost friends and being grateful it was finally over. Much better than celebrating over the corpse of a nation and the 10s of thousands of corpses create by the bombs.

...

Did you just not read what I wrote? Americans didn't celebrate the death of thousands. Here I will bold it for you:

No one celebrated the murder of thousands of innocents. They celebrated VJ day, Victory over Japan aka the END OF THE WAR. Who the hell wouldn't celebrate that?

Did you read it that time? Did you? Somehow I doubt you did.

I read it, understood it too. The problem is it doesn't matter what they where actually celebrating, what matters is what appears to be going on. The US and Allies had won a brutal war and stood tall over the broken corpses and devastated nations and celebrated.

How do you think that really looks? Are they cheering that they crushed the enemy? The burning effigies and bonfire parties seemed to carry that sentiment. So you can keep posting your angry bolded caps but it wont change the public image the celebrations really displayed.

 

[gibbles545]

I'm personally studying history at University in the UK. As a general rule country's will always have a bias towards their own country's history and how it is taught. But you do get post-colonial and other revisionist perspectives on world history that can help people be more objective with what they are being taught.

An don the subject of the atomic bombing while there is contention on whether Japan was willing to surrender or not. During my reading around the subject it was pointed out to me that America spent millions building the atomic bomb to compete with Nazi Germany's own nuclear programe, but germnay was defeated before their plans were realised. Thus Truman was under pressure to not waste the vast amounts of money it took to build the bomb. Obvisouly this is only part of the explanation as to why he authorised the bombing but it is something I dont usually see brought up in disscussion about the bombings.

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

Americans are a bit weird with WWII, I think. I mean celebrating dropping those bombs on Japan is pretty fucked up, for a start. Some talk about it like it was no big deal.

Also, plenty of Americans think they won the war, that the allies had nothing to do with it.

But other than that, I don't know.

No one celebrated the murder of thousands of innocents. They celebrated VJ day, Victory over Japan aka the END OF THE WAR. Who the hell wouldn't celebrate that?

A day of quiet retrospection and rememberence would have been more appropriate, thinking about all the lost friends and being grateful it was finally over. Much better than celebrating over the corpse of a nation and the 10s of thousands of corpses create by the bombs.

...

Did you just not read what I wrote? Americans didn't celebrate the death of thousands. Here I will bold it for you:

No one celebrated the murder of thousands of innocents. They celebrated VJ day, Victory over Japan aka the END OF THE WAR. Who the hell wouldn't celebrate that?

Did you read it that time? Did you? Somehow I doubt you did.

I read it, understood it too. The problem is it doesn't matter what they where actually celebrating, what matters is what appears to be going on. The US and Allies had won a brutal war and stood tall over the broken corpses and devastated nations and celebrated.

How do you think that really looks? Are they cheering that they crushed the enemy? The burning effigies and bonfire parties seemed to carry that sentiment. So you can keep posting your angry bolded caps but it wont change the public image the celebrations really displayed.

From an outsiders prospective, all of what you are saying is true. But you also must place yourselves in the shoes of these people. The killing had stopped,the relatives and loved ones of these soldiers no longer had to worry that they would never see him again. Soldiers knew they no longer had to charge into enemy fire, that they could finally return home to their families. Who the hell wouldn't want to celebrate the END of the killing. What do you think these people were more happy about, the number of Japanese they killed, or that their loved ones could finally come home?

 

[DrOswald]

snip

You never acknowledged the Russians had a hand to play in the surrender either. You just keep telling me that there was no other alternative but to drop the bomb. I disagree, an embargo could of easily been put on Japan. It would of took longer but there was no way with them being confined to their island would they have the resources or infrastructure to mount an attack on anyone.

Excuse me for not noting down a complete and detailed history of how the Japanese surrendered. These are posts on a forum about a subject that could fill volumes. I was primarily concerned with the thinking of the Allied leaders, especially the United States, before Japanese surrender. Thus, to keep my post to only a page and a half, I did not go into details about Soviet involvement.

Also, I never said that there was no alternative to using the bomb. I only said that using the bomb was the best option available to the United States leadership at the time based upon the information available to those leaders.

Finally, the suggestion of a blockade and starving the Japanese out was a viable option, but perhaps the least attractive of all, even worse than a traditional invasion.

(1) It is generally agreed that such a course of action would have prolonged the war by about two years.

(2) Because this action would have taken so long, it would have been necessary to retake all territories taken by japan using traditional methods. By forcing a quick surrender of the Japanese government the Allies were able to end the war quickly and with significantly reduced casualties.

(3) Japanese treatment of POW's in WWII suggest that if the general population was short on food and other essentials the POW's would be completely refused food and left to starve.

(4) The slow starvation of the Japanese people would have resulted in a huge amount of death. Consider the siege of Liningrad, a single city, lasted 872 days, resulted in the death of 20% of the population of the city (some 600,000 - 800,000 deaths,) and failed. Estimates are that a siege of Japan would have resulted in some 5-10 million Japanese deaths.

(5) The military leadership of the Japanese would have been able to save face, possibly allowing the military leadership to maintain control of Japan, which was an unacceptable situation.

 

[J Tyran]

Americans are a bit weird with WWII, I think. I mean celebrating dropping those bombs on Japan is pretty fucked up, for a start. Some talk about it like it was no big deal.

Also, plenty of Americans think they won the war, that the allies had nothing to do with it.

But other than that, I don't know.

No one celebrated the murder of thousands of innocents. They celebrated VJ day, Victory over Japan aka the END OF THE WAR. Who the hell wouldn't celebrate that?

A day of quiet retrospection and rememberence would have been more appropriate, thinking about all the lost friends and being grateful it was finally over. Much better than celebrating over the corpse of a nation and the 10s of thousands of corpses create by the bombs.

...

Did you just not read what I wrote? Americans didn't celebrate the death of thousands. Here I will bold it for you:

No one celebrated the murder of thousands of innocents. They celebrated VJ day, Victory over Japan aka the END OF THE WAR. Who the hell wouldn't celebrate that?

Did you read it that time? Did you? Somehow I doubt you did.

I read it, understood it too. The problem is it doesn't matter what they where actually celebrating, what matters is what appears to be going on. The US and Allies had won a brutal war and stood tall over the broken corpses and devastated nations and celebrated.

How do you think that really looks? Are they cheering that they crushed the enemy? The burning effigies and bonfire parties seemed to carry that sentiment. So you can keep posting your angry bolded caps but it wont change the public image the celebrations really displayed.

From an outsiders prospective, all of what you are saying is true. But you also must place yourselves in the shoes of these people. The killing had stopped,the relatives and loved ones of these soldiers no longer had to worry that they would never see him again. Soldiers knew they no longer had to charge into enemy fire, that they could finally return home to their families. Who the hell wouldn't want to celebrate the END of the killing. What do you think these people were more happy about, the number of Japanese they killed, or that their loved ones could finally come home?

Knowing human nature I would actually believe that many of the allied troops where cheering about how many of the enemy that got killed, circumstances created deep hatreds. Losses of friends and family, rescuing POWs and seeing the state they where in. There was a common saying in Britain "the only good German is a dead German".

I already posted what would have been a more natural approach, time to reflect and remember those that didn't make it and be relieved it was over. Bonfire parties with effigy burning and drunken rowdiness sends the wrong message.

 

[spartandude]

Well to be fair its not just the US, although from what i hear it does tend to be worse than others.

but from my experience here in the UK you can really tell the difference between a teacher of history/one who has extensively researched and one who has not.

When in secondary school and college my teachers tended to give us facts and sources from multiple sides of a story. when we were doing the first world war my teacher didnt try to make the UK look like some saviour of the down troden, she pointed out how Britain was fighting to try and ensure her dominance as the leading power (great job britain).
However when we had a PE teacher covering one time, all we heard was how the UK united the democratic countries so we could stop the evil tyrranical germans who declared war on us for no reason

 

[BlindTom]

In school they never taught me the Truth about Winston Churchill.

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

Americans are a bit weird with WWII, I think. I mean celebrating dropping those bombs on Japan is pretty fucked up, for a start. Some talk about it like it was no big deal.

Also, plenty of Americans think they won the war, that the allies had nothing to do with it.

But other than that, I don't know.

No one celebrated the murder of thousands of innocents. They celebrated VJ day, Victory over Japan aka the END OF THE WAR. Who the hell wouldn't celebrate that?

A day of quiet retrospection and rememberence would have been more appropriate, thinking about all the lost friends and being grateful it was finally over. Much better than celebrating over the corpse of a nation and the 10s of thousands of corpses create by the bombs.

...

Did you just not read what I wrote? Americans didn't celebrate the death of thousands. Here I will bold it for you:

No one celebrated the murder of thousands of innocents. They celebrated VJ day, Victory over Japan aka the END OF THE WAR. Who the hell wouldn't celebrate that?

Did you read it that time? Did you? Somehow I doubt you did.

I read it, understood it too. The problem is it doesn't matter what they where actually celebrating, what matters is what appears to be going on. The US and Allies had won a brutal war and stood tall over the broken corpses and devastated nations and celebrated.

How do you think that really looks? Are they cheering that they crushed the enemy? The burning effigies and bonfire parties seemed to carry that sentiment. So you can keep posting your angry bolded caps but it wont change the public image the celebrations really displayed.

From an outsiders prospective, all of what you are saying is true. But you also must place yourselves in the shoes of these people. The killing had stopped,the relatives and loved ones of these soldiers no longer had to worry that they would never see him again. Soldiers knew they no longer had to charge into enemy fire, that they could finally return home to their families. Who the hell wouldn't want to celebrate the END of the killing. What do you think these people were more happy about, the number of Japanese they killed, or that their loved ones could finally come home?

Knowing human nature I would actually believe that many of the allied troops where cheering about how many of the enemy that got killed, circumstances created deep hatreds. Losses of friends and family, rescuing POWs and seeing the state they where in. There was a common saying in Britain "the only good German is a dead German".

I already posted what would have been a more natural approach, time to reflect and remember those that didn't make it and be relieved it was over. Bonfire parties with effigy burning and drunken rowdiness sends the wrong message.

Yes it's probably true that some allied soldiers were enthused by the fact that they had won the war, mostly by killing more of the other side. Yet at the same time do you really believe that this was the ONLY reason these people were cheering. In all likelihood, neither of us are wrong as people were celebrating for both of these events.

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

I love history and I like to think I'm quite good at it. In school right now (I'm 17, Irish) we're doing the section on American history from Roosevelt to Reagan, and it's really interesting. Even if the book we use does sugarcoat the history, our teacher definitely does not. The thing is our class is often split on the issues as America's foreign policy is such a grey area. We're taught facts, and we interpret them as we will. There is no doubt however, that in Ireland John.F.Kennedy can do no wrong. The book and people in general turn a blind eye to his faults because he really made an effort to appeal to the Irish, and it really worked. Same with Obama these days to be honest.

 

[Terminate421]

I agree that the Soviet Union's participation and sacrifice in WWII is often underplayed

I'm not sure how it's dealt with in the US, but as a Brit I've never spoke to anyone who was taught in school an accurate view of how much the USSR did unless they did an A level in history. Admittedly most of my history of the period was focused on the build up to and causes of the war.

Actually we got a fair bit of knowledge of the USSR campaign when I was in High School.

Mainly Stalingrad and when they beat us all to Berlin but we do hone in on politics and such at the time. And I was at a generic public school.

 

[beastro]

snip

Are you really trying to defend Americas position in a war in which they lied their way in too?

Also there are so many half truths and inaccuracies in your post i don't know where to start.

Defending their position in the war?

No, because it shouldn't have happened, it shouldn't have been allowed to get out of hand beyond containment, but thre JFK Administration and the Army had other plans.

How about pointing em out instead of just making a broad statement?

Are you saying the impending invasion of the soviets had nothing to do with their surrender then? It was at least a reinforcing factor to decide to surrender after the bombs. The US had long broken Japanese codes and knew that surrender was on the table despite the arguing happening in house. If America wasn't interested in an unconditional surrender then there was absolutely no need to use the bomb. I think the US was more interested in the effects of using the bomb on a population, and sending a strong political message to the Russians. Japan had already lost the war, and with them surrounded, it was just a matter of waiting for surrender.

Yes, the Soviets had little to do with it because they lacked the logistics and equipment needed to invade the Home Islands. It's why they were limited to seizing the poorly defended Kurils and Sakhalin and it would have taken months to build up enough of a force to move on Hokkaido.

The Japanese would only accept surrender if it was one which restored status quo ante bellum so they could rebuild and wage another war decades from then. That is what the leadership thought Japan was entitled to for being the Yamato race, or if they couldn't get their way, then they'd go down fighting.

If America wasn't interested in an unconditional surrender then there was absolutely no need to use the bomb.

Yes, there was. They didn't want a repeat war and wanted to destroy the influence the military had over the government. In the end they had to compromise on unconditional surrender and accept to keep the Emperor in place to prevent the nation from running the risk of flipping into the Communist sphere after the war.

Japan had already lost the war, and with them surrounded, it was just a matter of waiting for surrender.

Yes, they'd lost the war, but the leadership refused to accept it. Either things went back to the way they were or the Japanese were better off dead. It's why had they not surrendered at the time they did there would have been a massive nation wide famine because the military refused to give in and the US Navy and Army Air Force were planning to target the railroad network to shut it down.

This is all aside and reveals the foolishness of your position: Yes, it would have only been a matter of time, but the death toll would have been in the millions by then through the blockade and bombardment that was taking place.

Millions!

In exchange for such a terrible strategy they plop two nuclear devices on two cities with a death toll not different from the numerous firebombings that have burnt out many other cities.

The first nuke shocked them, but they assumed the US had had only one device to throw out, then the next fell and they realized that the US the ability to destroy them city by city with only one aircraft with no losses of their own, not the massed air raids that at least produced a small amount of attrition.

They wanted to go down fighting and take as many Allies with them, but that was taken from them and caused a crisis which allowed the Emperor to move in and save his own skin.

I think the US was more interested in the effects of using the bomb on a population, and sending a strong political message to the Russians.

You think, huh?

How about you read about US policy with regard to that stage of the war.

Here's the best place to start at. Go check it out of your library ASAP: http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461

 

[beastro]

I agree that the Soviet Union's participation and sacrifice in WWII is often underplayed

I'm not sure how it's dealt with in the US, but as a Brit I've never spoke to anyone who was taught in school an accurate view of how much the USSR did unless they did an A level in history. Admittedly most of my history of the period was focused on the build up to and causes of the war.

Actually we got a fair bit of knowledge of the USSR campaign when I was in High School.

Mainly Stalingrad and when they beat us all to Berlin but we do hone in on politics and such at the time. And I was at a generic public school.

The problem within the growing recognition of the Soviets part in the war is that it often swings to other extreme and downplays the Unites States role in the Eastern Front.

Yes, the Soviets fought hard and deserve praise, but they wouldn't have been able to do that without US trains, US railroad tracks, US trucks, US factory equipment.

The amount of Lend Lease weapons was small, but what made the transfer of their industrial production beyond the Urals work so well and so quick as it was came the amount of equipment of all kinds the US sent to them that isn't as glamorous as tanks and planes.

The nationalist wank about who won the war the most is BS, it was a combined effort and no one nation holds the center place of winning the war in the West more than any other.

 

[THE_NAMSU]

I agree that the Soviet Union's participation and sacrifice in WWII is often underplayed

I'm not sure how it's dealt with in the US, but as a Brit I've never spoke to anyone who was taught in school an accurate view of how much the USSR did unless they did an A level in history. Admittedly most of my history of the period was focused on the build up to and causes of the war.

I did AS history (Year 1 of A level is AS, then there is A2 but I dropped the subject), Autocracy to Communism period and the Stalinist period. My teacher made clear that the USSR's role was quite underplayed and went into detail of what happened and how the USSR was a big help (after Zhukov and some other generals were allowed to make decisions).
The details were part of our textbook, but not as much as our teacher told us so I don't know how England in general teaches these things.

 

[J Tyran]

Americans are a bit weird with WWII, I think. I mean celebrating dropping those bombs on Japan is pretty fucked up, for a start. Some talk about it like it was no big deal.

Also, plenty of Americans think they won the war, that the allies had nothing to do with it.

But other than that, I don't know.

No one celebrated the murder of thousands of innocents. They celebrated VJ day, Victory over Japan aka the END OF THE WAR. Who the hell wouldn't celebrate that?

A day of quiet retrospection and rememberence would have been more appropriate, thinking about all the lost friends and being grateful it was finally over. Much better than celebrating over the corpse of a nation and the 10s of thousands of corpses create by the bombs.

...

Did you just not read what I wrote? Americans didn't celebrate the death of thousands. Here I will bold it for you:

No one celebrated the murder of thousands of innocents. They celebrated VJ day, Victory over Japan aka the END OF THE WAR. Who the hell wouldn't celebrate that?

Did you read it that time? Did you? Somehow I doubt you did.

I read it, understood it too. The problem is it doesn't matter what they where actually celebrating, what matters is what appears to be going on. The US and Allies had won a brutal war and stood tall over the broken corpses and devastated nations and celebrated.

How do you think that really looks? Are they cheering that they crushed the enemy? The burning effigies and bonfire parties seemed to carry that sentiment. So you can keep posting your angry bolded caps but it wont change the public image the celebrations really displayed.

From an outsiders prospective, all of what you are saying is true. But you also must place yourselves in the shoes of these people. The killing had stopped,the relatives and loved ones of these soldiers no longer had to worry that they would never see him again. Soldiers knew they no longer had to charge into enemy fire, that they could finally return home to their families. Who the hell wouldn't want to celebrate the END of the killing. What do you think these people were more happy about, the number of Japanese they killed, or that their loved ones could finally come home?

Knowing human nature I would actually believe that many of the allied troops where cheering about how many of the enemy that got killed, circumstances created deep hatreds. Losses of friends and family, rescuing POWs and seeing the state they where in. There was a common saying in Britain "the only good German is a dead German".

I already posted what would have been a more natural approach, time to reflect and remember those that didn't make it and be relieved it was over. Bonfire parties with effigy burning and drunken rowdiness sends the wrong message.

Yes it's probably true that some allied soldiers were enthused by the fact that they had won the war, mostly by killing more of the other side. Yet at the same time do you really believe that this was the ONLY reason these people were cheering. In all likelihood, neither of us are wrong as people were celebrating for both of these events.

Not everyone would be no, no way to disagree about us both being right.

 

[Seydaman]

History is written by the victors.

There will almost never be a truly accurate account of things in our past, so you best try to find as much information as you can.