David Miscavige versus Adolf Hitler

lkwdblds

Crusader
Show some sources to back up what you are saying.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Your bolded statement is an opinion and not a fact. You are giving PR statements as facts and conclusions, when they are just PR statements.

You do just what you accuse me of doing. You cite no references or authors and just give your opinions.

What you are saying is not all there was to it.

Correct, I never said that was all there is to it. I said that American lives were saved and that is a fact! A president's primary duty is to uphold America and protect the lives of Americans and that is a fact.

The Navy and military leaders, including MacArthur, did not recommend dropping the bomb (MacArthur agreed eventually only if it was not used on civilians) and the Navy did not even recommend invading the island.

You cite no authorities, no references and just make assertions. I said in my last post that all this stuff is interesting to look into and debate but I am trying to stick to the main points which are whether or not Truman was evil and whether or not the USA bombed Japan without givng a damn about Japanese lives because they were Asians or non Caucasians which US citizens regarded as inferior to whites which is what you first infered. Your comment that MacArthur agreed to the A bomb only if it was not used on civilians does not make any sense. How can anyone guarantee an A bomb will not destroy civilians, it will destroy everything in its path.

The U.S. military were fairly certain that the Japanese would surrender when the Soviets declared war, which they did do. Because of this they did not feel it was necessary to invade the island, just blockade it until the Soviets declared war.

The Janpanese did not surrender as soon as the Soviets declared war. The Soviets did declare war on August 8, 1945 against Japan and there was a very vigorous defense put up by the Japanese against Soviet troops until Sept 2, 1945. This started just about when the two bombs were dropped on August 6, and 9 several weeks just before the A bombs were dropped. You can't just assert with no references that the Japanese surrendered as soon and the Soviets entered the War against them. Any reference you check will show a hard fought Japanese-Soviet war which lasted at least 2 weeks and was going on up until the A bombs! The Soviets wanted the northern half of Salkhalin Island which as part of Japan as spoils for fighting Japan the last two weeks. They tooks that and it is still Russian territory


The Japanese wanted to surrender. There was no need to invade the Japanese islands and no need to drop the bombs. Truman could have simply accepted the surrender. Why didn't he accept their surrender? That is the important historical question.

You just do not know what you are talking about on this. The Japanese agreed to a conditional surrender but the U.S. and Britain wanted an unconditional surrender. On a History Channel special I saw on this, they believed that after the first A bomb, the Emperor wanted to surrender unconditionally while the Japanese war cabinet still wanted to press on. The Japanese sent a message through the Soviets to the USA that they wanted to discuss surrender terms but the Soviets, planing on picking up more territory from Japan after an armistice, failed to forward the Japanese message on to the U.S. government. Truman did not accept the Japanese first surrender because it was a conditional surrender. At the meetings with Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin and later Truman, Churchill and Stalin the demands were agreed by those 3 powers that Germany and Japan had to surrender unconditionally. This was set up by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin before Truman got into office. Truman had to honor this treaty with the other two allies and that is why the USA could not accept the Japanese first surrender. Blame Roosevelt for signing on to this unconditional surrender doctrine if you must but Truman had little choice but to enfore it.

And you are still assuming, which is an opinion also, that the Japanese surrendered because of the bombs even though the U.S. military were fairly certain that the Japanese would surrender when the Soviets declared war, which is what occured.

Your entire position is an opiniated assumption or better yet an assertion of facts, many of which are inaccurate. After the first A bomb. the Emperor of Japan spoke to all Japan by radio and demanded that they surrender for fear that the Japanese Empire and all the years of Japanese culture would be totally obliterated from the face of the Earth with the advent of this evil new weapon developed by the USA. Despite this, many of the military leaders argued to keep on fighting but the Emperor prevailed. Per Bushido law, the Japanese are to fight for there Emperor to the death. Surrender was not an honorable option and those who choose it brought dishonor to themselves in the eyes of their fellow Japanese. Only the Emperor could cause the nation to surrender. Again, you need to read up on you history as the Soviets declared war weeks earlier and the Japanese, far from surrendering, fought a viscious battle against the Soviets in the war's last weeks.

The decision to drop the bombs was a political decision and the casualty estimates were the political cover for the decision. That is my opinion.

The political aspect of the decision to drop the bombs is something I agree with because the USA leaders wanted to demonstrate to the Soviets what they had as an "ace up their sleeve" if the Soviets turned against the West.

Your comments on the casualty estimates as political cover for the bombings or absurd. Just look at Iwo Jima. 22,700 Japanese fought. 21,700 of which died and there were almost 29,000 US Marine casualties including nearly 7,000 dead. This was an isolated Japanese Island, unable to be reinforced or rearmed by sea or by air. Just imagine the entire Japanese homeland being attacked by the Navy and Marines and Japan, with a population of nearly 100 million at the time using guerilla warfare and suicide attacks against US forces and defending to the last man and woman! Just on some whim with no fact to back you up, you assert that the high casualty figures were made up as a cover up. 22,700 well armed Japanese soldiers holed up in caves on Iwo Jima cuased 29,000 casualties against our best fighters, the Marines, even though when they ran out of ammo they could not be rearmed. Just think what 100,000,000 Japanese Army, Navy and civilians with full arms and ammo would have done to U.S. assault troops . Just do the math!

That the Japanese wanted to surrender before the bombs were drop is a fact, and that Truman did not accept their surrender is also a fact.

Both these assertions are false. Japanese do not surrender unless their Emperor orders it. In any case, they would not surrender unconditionally which was Big 3 policy based on the treaties at Potsdam and Yalta. Truman may not have accepted a conditional surrender but even if he did, Churchill and Stalin would have had to concur before it could take effect.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I have my opinion on this and you have yours. You make no references as to where you get your material. Your initial comments made some good points e but when you are challenged, you make only wild assertion and accuse the other party of doing what you are doing. I will continue this debate if you will give some documented sources as to where you get your information and ideas from. If you can't do that then lets just call off the debate and move on.

P.S. I just checked Wickepedia on this. At the Potsdam Conference when Germany surrendered that British and American's got Stalin to agree to invade Japan from the East no more than 3 months days from the conference which was on August 8.
1945. The Soviets were ready to launch what became called the Mancuria Offensive against Japan but the first A Bomb was dropped on August 6. On August 8, the Soviets launched their attack and the Japanese army fought back but the Soviets gained a lot of ground, on August 9, the second bomb was dropped. The fighting between Japan and the Soviets lasted all the way until September 2, 1945. So the Japanese actually agreed to unconditional surrender to the USA but kept fighting the Soviets for 2 more weeks. I did not know that until now.........Lkwdblds
 
Last edited:
I have my opinion on this and you have yours. You make no references as to where you get your material. Your initial comments made some good points e but when you are challenged, you make only wild assertion and accuse the other party of doing what you are doing. I will continue this debate if you will give some documented sources as to where you get your information and ideas from. If you can't do that then lets just call off the debate and move on.......Lkwdblds

First of all, I never said Truman ws evil. I didn't say anyone was evil, not even Stalin.

Here are some sources:
For my claim that Truman knew how destructive the bombs would be From General Groves report (some claimed claimed Truman was misled and he subsequent said he wouldn't have dropped them) you can find it in David McCullough's Truman. McCullough also cites Churchill's response.
Churchill also writes about it in "The Second World War: Triumph and Tragedy" (Vol 6) Also in Martin Gilbert's "Churchill: A Life." Another book source is David Holloway's "Stalin and the Bomb."
Truman's comments to stalin about the destructiveness of the bomb can lso be found in Andrei Gromyko's "Memories." and Zhukov's autobiography. Both were present (there is some doubt about the authorship of Zhukov's book, so I wouldn't count on much of that.)

Another book that emcompasses this is R. Craig Nation's "Black Earth, Red Star. A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991"

MacArthur's and Leahy's statements are in McCullough book too.

As far as Truman not accepting Japan's terms of surrender you can find that in McCullough (the part about Truman telling Stalin to let the Japanese know) and in Richard Rhodes "The Making of the Atomic Bomb."

One source for Stalin agreeing to invade Japan three months to the day after Germany is defeated (the Soviets counted May 9th as the day) is in Bradley F. Smith's "Sharing Secrets with stalin: How the Allies Traded Intelligence, 1941-1945." Churchill called Stalin's agreement to enter the war on May 9th the most important single statement made at the conference (Yalta). This is also mentioned in Bradley's book. You can find this information in alomost every book on Yalta.

Kees Boterbloem's book "The Life and Times of Andrei Zhdanov 1896-1948" mentions some of this but only in relationship to Zhdanov's duties.

Needless to say all these authors cite primary documents for their claims. I left out two authors who cover these topics, Simon Sebag Montefiore and Dmitry Volkogonov becasue both are heavily criticized for not citing their sources.

But the books that cover the main point, that Japan surrendered because of the Soviet declaration of war are Richard Overy's "Why The Allies Won" and Hasagawa Tsuyoshi's "Racing The Enemy: Stalin and Truman and the Surrender of Japan."

Overy's book quote Japanese sources that the Japanese leadership believed that after Midway Japan's only hope was if Germany won. After Stalingrad the Japanese foreign office proposed that Japan should "reorient her policy" towards a peace settlement with the U.S. By February 1944 a comission under Admiral Takagi established to study this found that Japan could not possible win the war and should seek a compriomise peace.

Only the Japanese army (not the navy) wanted to continue. The bulk of the Japanes army was in Manchuria and China with no way to get back to Japan. Only after the Soviet declaration of war and the routing of parts of their army in Manchuria did the army give way.

Tsuyoshi's book is probably the most comprehensive study, as it has U.S., Soviet, and Japanese archival sources. The Japanese sources clearly show that the major consideration was the Soviet declaration of war.

Contrary to what you say, the Soviets did not go to war "weeks before" They went to war on the 9th and the Japanese surrendered on the 14th.

I have read all of these books mentioned in graduate school and many others that I did not mention. I didn't just Google them.

My conclusion based mostly on the Japanese sources--what the Japanese councils actually discussed--not what Americans said they were thinking--is that four factors had contributed to Japan's decision to surrender.

I am going to quote Colonel Scott A. Willey, USAF (Retired) and docent of the National Air and Space Museum.

"This book [Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's] is undoubtedly the definative study to date [2008] on the political activities in the United States, Soviet Union, and Japan surrounding the end of World War II...my position for years has been that four causes brought about the end of the wa: 1) the systematic destruction of Japan's urban and industrial centers by conventional B-29 conventional bombing, 2) the nearly complete isolation of the Home Islands by U.S. submarines and B-29 mining of the ports and major waterways, 3) the atomic bombings only three days apart and 40 the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and destruction of the Kwantung Army." (this is from his book review of Hasgawa's booki in the magazine "Air Power History/; Fall 2008)

The Red Army destroyed the Kwantung Army in a few days. It was this that made the military give up, not the bombing and starvation of the homeland.

The U.S. military never thought the invasion of Japan was necessary; it was believed they would surrender when the Soviets attacked. Truman dropped the bombs to intimated Stalin and beat him to getting Japan to capitulate. It was a political decision, not a military one.

By the way, in Richard Overy's book he cites a U.S. military post-war study that said by 1945 "only 28% were willing to continue fighting and embrace death rather than dishonor."

This is what they believed. The statements about all the Japanese fighting to the death was a PR statement to give justification after the fact to dropping the bombs.

Despite all this, it was a war situation, and one can argue that militarily it made sense (although many in the millitary, including MacArthur and Admiral Leahy, said it didn't make military sense).

But nevertheless, Truman's preoccupation with dropping the bomb was to forestall the Soviets and intimdate Stalin.

Basing that on the documents, including Truman's diary and letters to his wife and discussions with Marshall and Stimson and Byrne and Churchill--basing it on those primary sourcees--then it is a fact.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
David Miscavige versus Adolf Hitler - who was the nicer guy?

My vote goes to Adolf Hitler. He doesn't seem all bad to me. Whereas the Dwarf IS all bad.

http://www.thirdreichruins.com/berghofvisitors.htm

Hmm. Elephants pick up the bones from the skeleton of deceased relatives - as if remembering the past - I sometimes think that sites like that are an expression of the same sort of thing. What old bones of the Reich are you fondling Roland? Or do you just like the pics of the women with their wartime hairstyles?

Nick

P.S. This post is a little 'tongue in cheek' obviously - but not meant antagonistically.
 

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
Hmm. Elephants pick up the bones from the skeleton of deceased relatives - as if remembering the past - I sometimes think that sites like that are an expression of the same sort of thing. What old bones of the Reich are you fondling Roland? Or do you just like the pics of the women with their wartime hairstyles?

Nick

P.S. This post is a little 'tongue in cheek' obviously - but not meant antagonistically.

If you met Hitler while he lived you could probably have many pleasant conversations with him and might even be charmed by him. On the other hand, you would probably not want to discuss anything with David Miscavige and likely you would be repelled by him.
 

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
If you met Hitler while he lived you could probably have many pleasant conversations with him and might even be charmed by him. On the other hand, you would probably not want to discuss anything with David Miscavige and likely you would be repelled by him.

I don't doubt what you say :)

Some say Hitler was a good orator, but mainly a figurehead controlled by what some others think of as his henchmen - that they had him on drugs. I don't know. But DM does not appear to be controlled by his henchmen - coz he's locked them all up apparently - unless you think his controllers are really the IRS etc.

Nick
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Good Post - well documented

First of all, I never said Truman ws evil. I didn't say anyone was evil, not even Stalin.

Here are some sources:
For my claim that Truman knew how destructive the bombs would be From General Groves report (some claimed claimed Truman was misled and he subsequent said he wouldn't have dropped them) you can find it in David McCullough's Truman. McCullough also cites Churchill's response.
Churchill also writes about it in "The Second World War: Triumph and Tragedy" (Vol 6) Also in Martin Gilbert's "Churchill: A Life." Another book source is David Holloway's "Stalin and the Bomb."

Truman got to see the damage the first bomb did on August 6, so by August 9when he ordered the second bomb dropped, no claim can be made that he did not know its power.

Truman's comments to stalin about the destructiveness of the bomb can lso be found in Andrei Gromyko's "Memories." and Zhukov's autobiography. Both were present (there is some doubt about the authorship of Zhukov's book, so I wouldn't count on much of that.)

Another book that emcompasses this is R. Craig Nation's "Black Earth, Red Star. A History of Soviet Security Policy, 1917-1991"

MacArthur's and Leahy's statements are in McCullough book too.

As far as Truman not accepting Japan's terms of surrender you can find that in McCullough (the part about Truman telling Stalin to let the Japanese know) and in Richard Rhodes "The Making of the Atomic Bomb."

One source for Stalin agreeing to invade Japan three months to the day after Germany is defeated (the Soviets counted May 9th as the day) is in Bradley F. Smith's "Sharing Secrets with stalin: How the Allies Traded Intelligence, 1941-1945." Churchill called Stalin's agreement to enter the war on May 9th the most important single statement made at the conference (Yalta). This is also mentioned in Bradley's book. You can find this information in alomost every book on Yalta.

I agree that Stalin agreed to invade 3 months after Germany's defeat and stressed that they did invade in my last post.

Kees Boterbloem's book "The Life and Times of Andrei Zhdanov 1896-1948" mentions some of this but only in relationship to Zhdanov's duties.

Needless to say all these authors cite primary documents for their claims. I left out two authors who cover these topics, Simon Sebag Montefiore and Dmitry Volkogonov becasue both are heavily criticized for not citing their sources.

But the books that cover the main point, that Japan surrendered because of the Soviet declaration of war are Richard Overy's "Why The Allies Won" and Hasagawa Tsuyoshi's "Racing The Enemy: Stalin and Truman and the Surrender of Japan."

No doubt the Soviet declaration of war was a factor, a major factor, in their surrender. Nevertheless it can't logically be the only factor or the overriding factor, as you seem to assert (correct me if I am misquoting you). First of all, THE JAPANESE KNEW FOR 3 MONTHS THAT THE SOVIETS WERE GOING TO ENTER THE WAR AGAINST THEM. WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST SURRENDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 3 MONTH PERIOD? WHY TAKE SO MANY ENORMOUS LOSSES DURING THE 3 MONTHS IF THEY WERE GOING TO SURRENDER AS SOON AS THE SOVIETS GOT IN? Second, why did they initially try hard to fight the Soviets in Manchuria if they were going to surrendeer anyway and why did they continue this war with the Soviets until Sept. 2, weeks after they surrendered in WWII. To me these 3 facts are form logical structure that the Soviet attack was not the prime factor in their decision to surrender.

Overy's book quote Japanese sources that the Japanese leadership believed that after Midway Japan's only hope was if Germany won. After Stalingrad the Japanese foreign office proposed that Japan should "reorient her policy" towards a peace settlement with the U.S. By February 1944 a comission under Admiral Takagi established to study this found that Japan could not possible win the war and should seek a compriomise peace.

Good points, I was not aware of this!

Only the Japanese army (not the navy) wanted to continue. The bulk of the Japanes army was in Manchuria and China with no way to get back to Japan. Only after the Soviet declaration of war and the routing of parts of their army in Manchuria did the army give way.

Tsuyoshi's book is probably the most comprehensive study, as it has U.S., Soviet, and Japanese archival sources. The Japanese sources clearly show that the major consideration was the Soviet declaration of war.

I haven't read the book and don't plan to but to me, the 3 points I mentioned above debunk the conclusion of this book. Perhaps there was a point when the Soviets entering the war was the major consideration for the Japanese to surrender but the Japanese did not yet know of the A Bomb. When they experienced the A Bomb on August 6, MAYBE THEIR PRIORITIES CHANGED WHEN THEY EXPERIENCED IT FIRST HAND. According to your own statement above of Admiral Takagi's commission, the Japanese knew that they could not possible win the war against the U.S. and Brittain, after Germany was defeated so the eventual entry of the Soviets was really a moot point. THEY ALREADY KNEW THAT THEY COULD NOT WIN AND THEN YOU ASSERT THAT THE ENTRY OF THE SOVIETS MADE THEM DECIDE TO GIVE UP? It is just totally illogical. It's like I weigh 150 lbs and 2 bullies weighing 250 each jump me and are beating me up. I analyze my situation and realize I can not win and the bullies keep saying, "Give up, Give up." According to your thinking process, I would keep fighting but when a third bully, also 250 lbs shows up, a bully I already knew was on his way over to assist his friends, I immediately give up because of the the 3rd bully showing up. As they say, "Give me a break." There comes a point when one has to use his critical thinking skills and separate serious argument from fantasy.

Contrary to what you say, the Soviets did not go to war "weeks before" They went to war on the 9th and the Japanese surrendered on the 14th.

I already corrected my error on that point on my P.S. to my last post. They surrendered in World War II but the Manchuria campaign against Russia was not ended until Sept 2.

I have read all of these books mentioned in graduate school and many others that I did not mention. I didn't just Google them.

I applaud you for reading all these books mentioned. I admit that I have not read anywhere near as much as you on this topic. A red flag goes up when I hear the word Graduate School. I know students are exposed to a lot of knowledge and some of the professors are very good. There is, however, a heavy left wing bias in Graduate Schools in the liberal arts. In the larger prestigious universities probably about 95% of the professors lean left and only 5% lean right. America bashing and the Americans always being the bullies and being wrong seems to be a slant which is given all students. You may correct me if I am wrong but I have done reading on this subject. Actually, I'd like to know your take on this since you lived through it and I didn't.

My conclusion based mostly on the Japanese sources--what the Japanese councils actually discussed--not what Americans said they were thinking--is that four factors had contributed to Japan's decision to surrender.

I agree with these 4 factors, the A bombs being one of them.

I am going to quote Colonel Scott A. Willey, USAF (Retired) and docent of the National Air and Space Museum.

"This book [Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's] is undoubtedly the definative study to date [2008] on the political activities in the United States, Soviet Union, and Japan surrounding the end of World War II...my position for years has been that four causes brought about the end of the wa: 1) the systematic destruction of Japan's urban and industrial centers by conventional B-29 conventional bombing, 2) the nearly complete isolation of the Home Islands by U.S. submarines and B-29 mining of the ports and major waterways, 3) the atomic bombings only three days apart and 40 the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and destruction of the Kwantung Army." (this is from his book review of Hasgawa's booki in the magazine "Air Power History/; Fall 2008)

The Red Army destroyed the Kwantung Army in a few days. It was this that made the military give up, not the bombing and starvation of the homeland.

The U.S. military never thought the invasion of Japan was necessary; it was believed they would surrender when the Soviets attacked. Truman dropped the bombs to intimated Stalin and beat him to getting Japan to capitulate. It was a political decision, not a military one.

By the way, in Richard Overy's book he cites a U.S. military post-war study that said by 1945 "only 28% were willing to continue fighting and embrace death rather than dishonor."

This is what they believed. The statements about all the Japanese fighting to the death was a PR statement to give justification after the fact to dropping the bombs.

Just look at the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima and the Kamakazi pilots. This is fact, reading a PR statement in a book by some scholarly "fat cat" in an Ivory Tower does not change what actually happened. The Japanese, throughout the war, fought to the death. Just look at Iwo Jima, 22,700 combatants, 21,700 deaths. It is well documented that the Japanese warrior code was based around fighting to the death.

Despite all this, it was a war situation, and one can argue that militarily it made sense (although many in the millitary, including MacArthur and Admiral Leahy, said it didn't make military sense).

But nevertheless, Truman's preoccupation with dropping the bomb was to forestall the Soviets and intimdate Stalin.

I've always agreed with you on this point as well. I just think saving American lives may have been more important to him than this point you make but I don't know and am just guessing. Your point here is just as valid as mine.

Basing that on the documents, including Truman's diary and letters to his wife and discussions with Marshall and Stimson and Byrne and Churchill--basing it on those primary sourcees--then it is a fact.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Look, you answered my challenge and listed your sources. The sources are impressive, no doubt about it and I applaud you for reading all thses materials. In summary, we agree on quite a few major points and disagree on some. I believe the disagreements arise from our analysis of the data and our critical thinking skills. No two people always agree on everything.

This field of study is not that important to me and since you wrote your last post with excellent documentation and restored my repect for you, I do not wish to take up more time debating this material with you. The debate has enabled me to brush up on the facts and to get my time sequences straightened out and I learned some things from your quotes which were new to me. Lets let it end here. I don't want to take up any more time on WWII material but will most likely be commenting on more topics as they come up.
Lkwdblds
 
Last edited:
Look, you answered my challenge and listed your sources. The sources are impressive, no doubt about it and I applaud you for reading all thses materials. In summary, we agree on quite a few major points and disagree on some. I believe the disagreements arise from our analysis of the data and our critical thinking skills. No two people always agree on everything.

This field of study is not that important to me and since you wrote your last post with excellent documentation and restored my repect for you, I do not wish to take up more time debating this material with you. The debate has enabled me to brush up on the facts and to get my time sequences straightened out and I learned some things from your quotes which were new to me. Lets let it end here. I don't want to take up any more time on WWII material but will most likely be commenting on more topics as they come up.
Lkwdblds

Ok, cool. Actually I had fun doing this because it put me back into doing what I enjoyed a lot.

I do want to clear up a few things where I think yu have mis-stated my position.

1) The Japanese did not know the Soviets were going to attack. The agreement to attack was done at Yalta and confirmed at Potsdan. The Soviets were acting as peace negotiators between the U.S. and Japan. The Japanese were caught by surprise by the Soviet attack. The Soviets broke off diplomatic relations with Japan about a week before August 9. Becasue an event doesn't seem logical to you doesn't mean it didn't occur.

2) There were two factions in Japan; the military and the civilian. The civilian ministers wanted to end the war before 1945. The army refused. The army still refused and could not be persuaded to agree to a peace settlement by the Emperor or anyone else. After the Soviets attacked and routed the army then they agreed to surrender on August 14th, 5 days after the Soviets attacked. The Soviets continued to press the attack in Manchuria becasue Stalin wanted as much territory as possible.

3) It is true that the Japanese soldiers fought to the death in combat. It is probably a mistake to underestimate their code. but it is also a mistake to underestimate what an army would do when a nation's atempt to surrender is rebuked. The Kamikazees didn't appear until after the Japanese's offer to surrender was rebuked. Just something to consider.

What I would like also to point out is that you seem to dismiss ideas or events because they seem illogical to you. To some people the dropping of the atomic bombs seems illogical, and they can make the case that it was illogical. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

4) My experience at Graduate school was the best time of my life. It was demanding for sure.

But it is a dangerous paradigm to use a liberal/conservative scale to measure the ideas there. Just as it would be a mistake to measure the perfomance of surgeons or airline pilots on a conservative/liberal basis.

At graduate school was required required to read all views. In the Cold War for example, we read everything from Richard Pipes (who many non-historians would call far right) to H.W. Brands (who many non-historians would call far left).

It is what they say and how they present their ideas that is important, and more importantly, how one can evaluate their work from a professional historian viewpoint.

It is the application of professional historian concepts and approaches that one learns to evaluate, not politics.

Breaking it down into such a small paradigm as liberal or conservative actually has the feel of thought police.

It is a way for someone to dismiss the ideas of another who is much smarter on a particular subject than themselves.

I had some extremely smart professors, one had taught at West Point and his specialty was post 1815 to present European war and diplomacy, another was the archeologist who discovered George Wshington's boyhood home.

To approach and label what one can learn from them as either liberal or conservative is doing oneself a disservice. It would be like looking at the Grand Canyon through a pin whole.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Like I said, it let me have some of the fun I use to have.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
I don't doubt what you say :)

Some say Hitler was a good orator, but mainly a figurehead controlled by what some others think of as his henchmen - that they had him on drugs. I don't know. But DM does not appear to be controlled by his henchmen - coz he's locked them all up apparently - unless you think his controllers are really the IRS etc.

Nick

I don't think Hitler had any controllers. I hope you have not been reading some clam propaganda book like "The Men behind Hitler". Some of the German public loved Hitler. What about the crowd that gathered outside the driveway of the Berghof hoping to see Hitler come out and greet them? And he came out to greet them so many times that a tree had to be planted near the end of the driveway to give him shade. Hitler was good, Hitler was kind in those people's minds. Now tell me how many Scientologists and their children gather outside Miscavige's residence hoping to catch a glimpse of him. Not many? Not one? There seems to be a difference there.
 
I don't think Hitler had any controllers. I hope you have not been reading some clam propaganda book like "The Men behind Hitler". Some of the German public loved Hitler. What about the crowd that gathered outside the driveway of the Berghof hoping to see Hitler come out and greet them? And he came out to greet them so many times that a tree had to be planted near the end of the driveway to give him shade. Hitler was good, Hitler was kind in those people's minds. Now tell me how many Scientologists and their children gather outside Miscavige's residence hoping to catch a glimpse of him. Not many? Not one? There seems to be a difference there.

Absolutely!

Scientology's bullshit about the psyches or anybody else being behind Hitler is a dispicable disgrace. That they would minimize the truth and become essentially apologist for Hitler by blaming the bad things on psychiatrist and absolving the Nazis for their destruction is the lowest form of intellectual dishonest I have ever encountered.

The real irony is that when they finally get rid of Miscavige they will probably PR it that he had a secret background connection to a psychiatrist.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

RolandRB

Rest in Peace
Absolutely!

Scientology's bullshit about the psyches or anybody else being behind Hitler is a dispicable disgrace. That they would minimize the truth and become essentially apologist for Hitler by blaming the bad things on psychiatrist and absolving the Nazis for their destruction is the lowest form of intellectual dishonest I have ever encountered.

The real irony is that when they finally get rid of Miscavige they will probably PR it that he had a secret background connection to a psychiatrist.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Is it possible that Onkel Führer was PDHed by one of the supporters of Martin Luther and got his unfortunate tendencies from this implant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
Just of couple of comments.

Ok, cool. Actually I had fun doing this because it put me back into doing what I enjoyed a lot.

I do want to clear up a few things where I think yu have mis-stated my position.

1) The Japanese did not know the Soviets were going to attack. The agreement to attack was done at Yalta and confirmed at Potsdan. The Soviets were acting as peace negotiators between the U.S. and Japan. The Japanese were caught by surprise by the Soviet attack. The Soviets broke off diplomatic relations with Japan about a week before August 9. Becasue an event doesn't seem logical to you doesn't mean it didn't occur.

Fair enough. I believe when one is trying to reconstruct the motives behind certain moves which leaders made in history after those leaders are dead, the best chance one has to arrive at the actual motives is to follow a path of logic and reject illogical theories in favor of logical ones. Of course something illogical may have occurred, I am not totally ruling it out but just giving my best shot at being right. The Soviets entering may have initially been the top priority for surrender but after experiencing the first bomb, then that well might have supplanted the Soviet entry as the #1 reason for surrendering and the Soviet entry may have dropped to #2. I believe this is highly likely because, according to studies which you yourself cited, the Japanese already figured they had no chance to win even if the Soviets stayed out. As in my street fightin analogy, if you are already getting your ass kicked by two bullies bigger than you and you have calculated that you have no chance of wining, why would a third large bully immediately make you capitulate. I just can not see how you can still support your theory in the face of this overwhelming counter argument.

2) There were two factions in Japan; the military and the civilian. The civilian ministers wanted to end the war before 1945. The army refused. The army still refused and could not be persuaded to agree to a peace settlement by the Emperor or anyone else. After the Soviets attacked and routed the army then they agreed to surrender on August 14th, 5 days after the Soviets attacked. The Soviets continued to press the attack in Manchuria becasue Stalin wanted as much territory as possible.

Yes, very true

3) It is true that the Japanese soldiers fought to the death in combat. It is probably a mistake to underestimate their code. but it is also a mistake to underestimate what an army would do when a nation's atempt to surrender is rebuked. The Kamikazees didn't appear until after the Japanese's offer to surrender was rebuked. Just something to consider.

You've done it again! Once I start thinking you know what you are talking about, you throw out a radical unsubstantiated statement that makes you seem to be a fool. The Kamikazees appeared in October, 1944 months before the Japanese offered to surrender. Germany was still quite active in the war and was bringing out V1's, V2's, jet planes and other secrete weapons and was not yet finished. Japanese had no intention of surrendering at this time.
Where did you get the data that the Japanese made offers to surrender before the Kamikazees appeared? THAT IS JUST A FALSE ASSERTION.


What I would like also to point out is that you seem to dismiss ideas or events because they seem illogical to you. To some people the dropping of the atomic bombs seems illogical, and they can make the case that it was illogical. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Your example is convoluted, you are comparing an actual documented event which actually happened, with an attempt to hypothesize what were the main motives for Japanese leaders in surrendering.

4) My experience at Graduate school was the best time of my life. It was demanding for sure.

After that remark you made about the Japanese offering to surrender before the kamikazees and being rebuked, I think you need to go back and re enroll in a refresher course! Also, I keep pointing out that the Big 3 allied nations demanded unconditional surrender and you keep referring to surrender without the word unconditional. That is a key component in my stand which you always as-is.

But it is a dangerous paradigm to use a liberal/conservative scale to measure the ideas there. Just as it would be a mistake to measure the perfomance of surgeons or airline pilots on a conservative/liberal basis.

Dangerous to whom. I call it as I see it. There is a liberal bias in the universities. I believe there is and said so; who is damaged?

At graduate school was required required to read all views. In the Cold War for example, we read everything from Richard Pipes (who many non-historians would call far right) to H.W. Brands (who many non-historians would call far left).

It is what they say and how they present their ideas that is important, and more importantly, how one can evaluate their work from a professional historian viewpoint.

It is the application of professional historian concepts and approaches that one learns to evaluate, not politics.

Breaking it down into such a small paradigm as liberal or conservative actually has the feel of thought police.

It is a way for someone to dismiss the ideas of another who is much smarter on a particular subject than themselves.

I had some extremely smart professors, one had taught at West Point and his specialty was post 1815 to present European war and diplomacy, another was the archeologist who discovered George Wshington's boyhood home.

To approach and label what one can learn from them as either liberal or conservative is doing oneself a disservice. It would be like looking at the Grand Canyon through a pin whole.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. Like I said, it let me have some of the fun I use to have.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Thanks for the details on your graduate experience. I was real interested to get your take on it so thanks for giving all that detail. Unfortunately, you got me riled up again with some of your other comments. The question is whether or not to continue this debate or not. I don't think it would be a good use of my time to put more into it. I may not reply anymore. I give you the opportunity to make the last posting. Our postings, while a lot of fun and very challenging for me as well has reached the point where there is not much more to be gained by continuing on. You seem like a great guy to dialogue with and I wish you good luck and happy posting. Sorry we could not find more agreement.
Lkwdblds


Lkwdblds
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the details on your graduate experience. I was real interested to get your take on it so thanks for giving all that detail. Unfortunately, you got me riled up again with some of your other comments. The question is whether or not to continue this debate or not. I don't think it would be a good use of my time to put more into it. I may not reply anymore. I give you the opportunity to make the last posting. Our posting, while a lot of fun and very challenging for me as well has reached the point where there is not much more to be gained by continuing on. You seem like a great guy to dialogue with and I wish you good luck and happy posting. Sorry we could not find more agreement but.
Lkwdblds


Lkwdblds

Ok, cool. My only last comment is that you keep saying I have an illogical theory why the Japnese surrendered yet I am refering to Japanese documents as to why they surrender.

You shouldn't make the argument that what the Japanese said when debating whether to surrender or not is irrelevant because it doesn't make sense to you logically.

If the Japanese records show that the Japanese leaders met and agreed that they must surrender because of the Soviet attack, how can you call that just a theory? But you also claim that you opinion that they surrendered because of the bombs is not a theory.

I enjoyed this conversation, and I think I have discussed this in good faith. But I don't think that you have, as evidenced by your dismissive statements about me ("go back and enroll in a refersher course", etc.) or the historians involved (Ivory tower types, etc.) You originally condemned me for not showing sources and yet you yourself have not shown any sources.

I think your intent was to make me wrong, and not to just to analyze and compare what we both think.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Top