-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Hiroshima's complex legacy re-examined
- Thread starter themadcowtipper
- Start date
- Status
Deku said:
It's staple is programming about HISTORY. The reason why the HISTORY CHANNEL was spun off from the DISCOVERY CHANNEL was to place all of the HISTORY programming on the HISTORY channel. For pure military conflict, there's the Military Channel. There's even the Discovery Times channel that's a joint Discovery/New York Times channel and I don't see how anyone could call the NY Times a right-wing mouthpiece.
And no, most of their programming is not about conflict. They have a ton of great stuff on ancient history and archaeology.
ManaByte said:
And these programming about ancient history and archeology don't by any chance invole Rome, Greece, Egypt or any one of the great ancient civilizations do they? And I'm pretty sure there's plenty of stories about ancient wars worked into the narratives as well.
In anycase, I'm not really interested in arguing with you about the History Channel, I'm only telling you the major criticism left-leaning historians have leveled against a lot of the programming on the channel. I heard these criticisms about 3 years ago, so perhaps the History Channel has decided to heed some of the criticism and change their programming mix .
That said, I'm merely pointing out that the History Channel crowd usually don't wear Che T-shirts and berate capitalism and Amerika and the people who do, level the criticism I've already mentioned.
GaimeGuy said:
Not everyone agrees. Since I'm not a historian and my interest in history is ABOUT War, Conflict, Clash of great powers etc I'm fine really with the kind of programming we see about history. One of my favorite recent shows is Battlefield Britain.
But historians on the left believe history should be told in the context of the marxist dichotomy, and war and victories shouldn't be glorified with exhilerating programming incorporating neat computer graphics showing the battle strategies of opposing armies and hyper-active historians jumping around the battlefield pointing out where Cromwell stood.
That's all I'm saying. When ManaByte told another poster to check the history channel to get their facts, I merely wanted to point out the leftist view of history do not regard history channel's war programming and or the channel itself as unbiased.
Deku said:
Their programming mix is the same as the day they launched.
They cover all ancient history not just Rome, Greece, and Egypt. A few weeks ago on Deep Sea Detectives they had a show about a city found on a Pacific Island that looked like it could've been from a Central American civilization and they were figuring out how the giant stones were brought to the tiny island.
"I'm only telling you the major criticism left-leaning historians have leveled against a lot of the programming on the channel. "
You mean revisionist apologists who teach their students that Japan was two days away from having their own atomic bomb in August 1945. The channel presents facts recorded in modern history, it contradicts their personal bias/agenda, and they get pissed off and call the channel right wing propaganda when it's the farthest thing from the truth you can get if you actually watch their programming.
Idiots.
ManaByte said:
I didn't just limit to those 3 civilizations in my post. You did. Don't misquote me.
That's completely a-political edutainment programming. So no one probably has a problem with that, but I'm sure a left leaning prossor would argue the time would be better used to show left leaning documentaries to counteract the war documentaries.
Well, I don't really disagree with you. But then again, I'm not a historian by trade and all I can say is, I dislike revisionism as well and I reserve most of my criticism for biased individuals who pick on the US in particular for criticism (usually unfairly) and hide behind academic freedom to cover their ass. This is a particular hobby of some professors.
That said, I really would enjoy a discussion with one of these professors to get their full side of the story rather than attacking their deciples, or a version of their theory as a strawman.
Lemurnator
Banned
Original Child Bomb
Fuck this, it's like a shitty art film. Not a documentery.
Fuck this, it's like a shitty art film. Not a documentery.
Deku said:
Why the fuck would the History Channel show anything with any right or left political bias? Huh? My god some people are so fucking brainwashed.
"I don't like to listen to historical events when it clashes with my political views. Here run this Michael Moore documentary to give me a happy fuzzy feeling."
:::stands up and paces around the room to calm down:::
There is no fucking "left" or "right" when you study recorded history. If you ignore history because it clashes with whatever political bias you may have you're a fucking retard.
History is the past. You study what happened in the past to learn from it so you don't make the same mistakes. You study the past to learn where we came from.
People who use and (fucking) twist history to further their stupid political bias (no matter what stupid side they're on) are, in my opinion, idiots.
This is where I disagree with you man. History has objective facts but subjective interpretations. Sometimes, even objective facts can come into dispute with different sides claiming different motives for actions. The perfect case is the A-Bomb issue. The apologist/anti- Atomic Bomb crowd use 'real' objective historical facts to back up their claims too.
That's why I mentioned earlier this debate can't be settled really.
Secondly, history can also be viewed in different frameworks. The History of Rome can certainly be told as either a story of the ruling class, the great warriors and heroes or the normal slave and normal roman who aren't particularly rich and lived and died under the empire. Here's where the left-leaning criticism comes in. They point out that too much of ancient history and even modern history focuses on the great national heroes, empire building, great wars, great achievements and not enough time on the people, and by relation, unions, and other left-wing and or liberal movements.
Again, don't go ballistic on me, but I'm trying to be very objective and explain to you why History is not fact. It's open to interpretation. Even historians agree that this is the case. History can be misused as well, to bring up past grievances and stir up nationalistic feelings, like the way the Serbs used history to justify killing so many Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, or how Bin Laden uses his twisted version of history (recalling the former greatness of an Islamic Empire) to justify his war on the west, which austensibly, is to restore this Empire. China recent used history against Japan to stir up nationalistic feelings and distract its population from problems at home.
That's why I mentioned earlier this debate can't be settled really.
Secondly, history can also be viewed in different frameworks. The History of Rome can certainly be told as either a story of the ruling class, the great warriors and heroes or the normal slave and normal roman who aren't particularly rich and lived and died under the empire. Here's where the left-leaning criticism comes in. They point out that too much of ancient history and even modern history focuses on the great national heroes, empire building, great wars, great achievements and not enough time on the people, and by relation, unions, and other left-wing and or liberal movements.
Again, don't go ballistic on me, but I'm trying to be very objective and explain to you why History is not fact. It's open to interpretation. Even historians agree that this is the case. History can be misused as well, to bring up past grievances and stir up nationalistic feelings, like the way the Serbs used history to justify killing so many Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, or how Bin Laden uses his twisted version of history (recalling the former greatness of an Islamic Empire) to justify his war on the west, which austensibly, is to restore this Empire. China recent used history against Japan to stir up nationalistic feelings and distract its population from problems at home.
As was posted multiple times in this thread before, ancient history is very much open to interpretation. There is no rock solid evidence in the form of a stone tablet that states that the Great Pyramid of Giza was actually finished in 2580 BC. It could've been built a thousand years earlier we don't know because it's not something we can easily verify.
On the other hand, we can easily verify that the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima on August 8 1945 and that the Enola Gay took off from the island at Tinian at 8:15am to deliver its payload. This is a historically recorded fact. Saying such things are not fact is again revisionist bullshit from people who want to stick their head in the ground and ignore historical events because it clashes with their personal biases.
"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." - Indiana Jones
CaptainABAB
Member
The only actions that should be second-guessed or debated are the ones that started the goddamn war.
We can debate endlessly how many lives would have been saved or lost had we done some things differently (dresden, tokyo fire bombing, etc.), but the only truth I can determine is how many lives Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini caused: 60 million.
We can debate endlessly how many lives would have been saved or lost had we done some things differently (dresden, tokyo fire bombing, etc.), but the only truth I can determine is how many lives Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini caused: 60 million.
ManaByte said:On the other hand, we can easily verify that the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima on August 8 1945 and that the Enola Gay took off from the island at Tinian at 8:15am to deliver its payload. This is a historically recorded fact. Saying such things are not fact is again revisionist bullshit from people who want to stick their head in the ground and ignore historical events because it clashes with their personal biases.
"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall." - Indiana Jones
Yeah but people aren't arguing that the US in fact used the Enola Straight to bomb Japan. They can still however objectively agree to all the main facts, like the time, date, person's involved, hardware involved, and disagree with the peripheral facts and its interpretation.
Like the real motives of dropping the bomb, and whether or not the loss of life assesment of legitimate, since obviously a lot of stuff also went unrecorded and happened behind closed door or is inferred from 3rd party sources that such and such meeting took place and people will argue over those facts and line up those 'not so objective facts' to form their theories.
I think your view that modern history is indisputably objective is a bit simplistic. It's better to look at it the same way we look at science. There are a core of objective facts everyone agree on. But the further you move out from this core, there are ancillary facts and not so reliable facts people will fight over. And usually, big picture theories like the discussion on the motives of why the bomb was dropped rely on both core facts and these outlying facts and it is how people interpret and line up these facts that make a huge difference and two people using the same sets of facts can come to different conclusions.
Lemurnator
Banned
Fuck this, I'll save my documentory watching for Discovery, PBS, and History channel.
Red Scarlet
Member
I'm sure it's over for a lot of the people here, but on the Discovery Channel right now for me is Hiroshima: The First Weapon of Mass Destruction. After it is a one hour documentary called Hirohito: Emperor of War. Then both shows are being replayed.
Sokar said:
What do you mean "what exactly are you trying to imply?" I'm not "implying" anything. I'm flat out declaring that the WWII Japanese regime was an aggressive, dangerous power that oppressed and brutalized the Asian populations on the continent. Don't even try to minimize that with equivocations and laughing smileys.
btrboyev said:
Bzzt, read the thread.
Boogie said:
While I mostly like focusing my studies on ancient history, I do really enjoy Japan from the end of the 19th century through the end of the 40's. The rise of the massive moden Imperial Japan military from the introduction of western weapons in the 19th century through WWII is an incredibly facinating and fast military build up to the point where they felt they were almost invincible being led by their Emperor who was basically a god to them. What happened to Imperial Japan in WWII was almost inevitible because, yes, up to Hiroshima they were an extremely dangerous and agressive power in the region.
It is not blind devotion to a particular professor. It is just common sense to initially take the words of a US history professor, any such professor, over the words of any poster here on GAF on US history. I am properly using status to determine who likely has better credibility.
Crag Dweller
aka kindbudmaster
NotMSRP said:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/sfeature/sf_forum_0502.html#d
Answered by Richard Frank:
Typical of the Japanese war effort, both the Imperial Army and the Imperial Navy mounted atomic bomb projects. The Japanese came to recognize, however, that they lacked the capital, resources and raw materials (particularly enough uranium) required for a program that offered any prospect of success in any time frame that would be useful in the war. There is at least one book length account that claims the Japanese had a successful program, mainly in what is now North Korea, and that this program was on the cusp of success in producing a nuclear device just as the war ended. I do not find this account convincing, nor do I know of any other serious scholar of this period who does.
The Japanese atomic bomb program, however, was very significant. While that effort did not produce a usable weapon, it did make key Japanese officials highly conversant with the stupendous scientific and engineering challenges in producing a weapon, especially the manufacture of sufficient fissionable material for a supply of bombs. Consequently, even after President Truman announced that Hiroshima had been hit with an atomic bomb, Japan's most senior military leaders immediately erected two lines of defense. The first was that whatever happened to Hiroshima, it was not an atomic bomb -- or at least they would not concede this until there was an official investigation with a nuclear physicist. Before this survey of Hiroshima was complete, however, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, Admiral Toyoda Soemu, articulated the second line of defense: even if the U.S has an atomic weapon, it can not have many of them, they can not be that powerful or the U.S. will be deterred from using them by international outrage.
Edit: Found another relevent link pertaining to this disscusion I thought I'd share. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/other/70-7_23.htm
Ash Housewares
The Mountain Jew
I prefer that history channel covers wars and exciting shit instead of going back to showing the history of chocolate or playboy magazine
and I wish they would show some good movies again, they used to air the Sharpe series
and I wish they would show some good movies again, they used to air the Sharpe series
Vinzer Deling
Banned
Boogie said:
I can post whatever the fuck I want. What you're trying to imply is that Japan deserved it because of it's imperialism. Totally ignoring the fact that the whole of Asia was already under the boot of "aggressive" imperialistic Western powers that "oppressed and brutalized the Asian" before the Japanese replaced them. So why weren't they a-bombed??
Fact of the matter is the Allies didn't give two shits about those poor "oppressed Asians" either. The US sure as hell didn't care when France came back after the war.
Oh yeah.. :lol :lol
Sokar said:
Uh, please research and study how the US and China worked together towards the end of the Pacific War. They both had a common enemy (Imperial Japan) and China was somewhat of a minor ally to the US when they were taking the fight to the home islands of Japan. US pilots had safe haven in China after bombing runs.
Red Scarlet
Member
NotMSRP said:
:lol Its GAF. The color of the smiley I just used has probably been argued about before here.
Crag Dweller
aka kindbudmaster
Probably because Japan was the only one in that group that signed the Tripartite Pact, and were the only one's that attacked Pearl Harbor.
Sokar said:
Oh yeah? What about the fact that the United States cut off its oil shipments to Japan in response to Japan's continued expansion into China, which directly contributed to the Japanese decision to attack the Americans at Pearl Harbour?
Japan was a belligerent power that was upsetting the balance of power in Asia. The fact that you've got nothing other than "Bu-but, TEH WEST WAS IMPERIALIST TOO" shows that you've got nothing to stand on here.
Does your entire dismissal of Japan's actions in WWII amount to "The West has done bad things too, therefore they have no right to stop Japan from doing bad things"?
edit:
Kindbudmaster said:
Oh yeah, that too
I haven't read the entire thread, so you history buffs can correct me if I'm wrong. However, I read that Japan didn't surrender after the first a-bomb, because it was holding onto the hope that Russia might honor its neutrality agreement with Japan; when Russia made it clear that it was going to enter the war against Japan, Japan surrendered.
I think the US did use the nukes unnecessarily, as if it had waited until the Soviets entered the war, then Japan would've surrendered without their deployment. But it was intent on demonstrating the power of the nuke to Russia, and ending the war quickly so that Japan wouldn't have had to be split up like Germany was.
And in general, I think using the nuke, and WW2 as a whole, were the worst things humanity has ever done to itself. Anyone who actually "celebrates" or "glorifies" WW2 in any way is a fucking moron. And anyone who thinks nukes aren't completely unnecessary and gratuitous is also a fucking moron. Peace. 
I think the US did use the nukes unnecessarily, as if it had waited until the Soviets entered the war, then Japan would've surrendered without their deployment. But it was intent on demonstrating the power of the nuke to Russia, and ending the war quickly so that Japan wouldn't have had to be split up like Germany was.
And in general, I think using the nuke, and WW2 as a whole, were the worst things humanity has ever done to itself. Anyone who actually "celebrates" or "glorifies" WW2 in any way is a fucking moron. And anyone who thinks nukes aren't completely unnecessary and gratuitous is also a fucking moron. Peace.
Well, I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread, but there's a relatively new book by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, called Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. Obviously, the author is Japanese, but he presents his case based on documents from the US, Japan, and the Soviets.
There's a summary of his findings here (it's certainly biased, but again, it is based on facts). Here's the relevant snippet:
So, what do you think?
There's a summary of his findings here (it's certainly biased, but again, it is based on facts). Here's the relevant snippet:
So, what do you think?
:lol wtf?f_elz said:
It's amazing how many of these people have popped up in the thread even after all the discussion that's gone on. :lol
Anyone who thinks Japan was ready to surrender has no idea about the values of loyalty, honor, and duty as they're seen in the East, especially in Japan towards the Emperor.
Um... why the HELL did this show up as a new post when I EDITED my old post.
Did anyone just catch the documentary on the Discovery channel? It was quite excellent. They went through the entire Hiroshima bombing in detail, and had some pretty decent 3d recreations of what the bomb/aftermath looked like on the ground in Hiroshima. I knew about the effects of the A-bomb, but never saw it and its destruction in such detail. It was a pretty big-budget thing as far as Discovery shows go- if you can, check it out.
Red Scarlet
Member
Yeah, it was pretty cool.
Vinzer Deling
Banned
ManaByte said:
Probably because it was in their interest to work with China? Ya think? I didn't see the US stepping in for the sake of those poor oppressed asians when France came back for it's colonies in Southeast Asia after the war. Probably because they had no economic interest in that region.. Oh and how can we forget the Chinese entrance into the Korean war, maybe they wanted to thank the Allies for freeing them from Japanese imperialism face-to-face.. or bayonet-to-ribcage.. :lol
Not like the US doesn't have a history of "helping" out armed groups for the benefit of it's own interest only to end up fighting them later when it clashes with those interest.
Not that I consider that a BAD thing.. countries should act in their own national interest.
Kindbudmaster said:
bingo.
Boogie said:
Wait I thought the US was doing so because of the bad bad Japanese and not because of economic interest in China??
Probably because your entire argument revolves around Japan being the "bad guy" in an era where nearly every single industrialized nation was expanding? BOMBA BOMBA! Japan acting for the benefit of their national interest! What a shocking concept.
Not an excuse, but a pretty damn valid reason for Japan to act in it's national interest in a time where they were VIRTUALLY surrounded by aggressive foreign power.
America's war with Japan sure as hell wasn't about saving the Chinese.
So please get off your fucking moral high horse.
BTW: It was total war so the bombs were justified and Imperialism was the best thing that ever happened to Asia. :lol
- Status