10 ms·

Just a thought: growing up I had moved around the country a bit, and perhaps this led me to be introduced to wildly different ideas about history. For example,

Just a thought: growing up I had moved around the country a bit, and perhaps this led me to be introduced to wildly different ideas about history. For example, I was taught both the States Rights and the Slavery motives of the civil war, in both primary school and in Uni! Another: My history texts taught me to be once quite strongly of the belief that the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary, and even saved lives, until a nice old prof in uni showed me that Eisenhower and many military leaders either strongly condemned it, pointing that the Japanese were already negotiating surrender, or said it be at least not dropped on urban population centres, as there was already a complete naval blockade and they had no ability to continue the war.

notzorbo3 9y ago
> My history texts taught me to be once quite strongly of the belief that the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary, and even saved lives So that's where that attitude / excuse comes from whenever I talk to americans about the bombings of Japan?! Is that literally taught in history classes? It always seemed to me like a statement made by an indoctrinated mind. It was nuclear bombs used on civilians in two densely populated cities. How can people spin that into something good?
- hiram112 9y ago
  The typical narrative is that millions of American and Japanese lives would have been lost fighting for the home islands. The Japanese were pretty intent on dying for the cause if their leadership chose to do so. The bit left out in most history books is the fact that the atomic bomb was used not to destroy Japanese cities but instead to demonstrate to the Soviets, who by an earlier treaty, had declared war on Japan and were invading from the North, that the US could oppose them in both Japan and Europe. The US didn't really need to use atomic weapons for any tactical reason. Fire bombing had already proven that a city could be wiped out with traditional ordinance.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    This is true. What's more is that Hirohito, when asked about terms of surrender, said that he would That said, "there was no reason to use that awful thing" as Eisenhower said. Truman was "itching to use the bomb" to deter the Soviets in Europe and Asia. There wasn't any reason for a land invasion and military leaders in the US echoed this, and they were already defeated and going through conditions of surrender. Hirohito was a really bad guy, and stubbornly refused any terms that would have him step down. Miscommunication then led to the bomb drop, which few know. If you want to know more about this Google the 'Mokusatsu incident.' Then in a massive miscarriage lf justice, Hirohito remained royalty and Tojo was martyred as "the bad guy."

notzorbo3 9y ago

> My history texts taught me to be once quite strongly of the belief that the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary, and even saved lives So that's where that attitude / excuse comes from whenever I talk to americans about the bombings of Japan?! Is that literally taught in history classes? It always seemed to me like a statement made by an indoctrinated mind. It was nuclear bombs used on civilians in two densely populated cities. How can people spin that into something good?

hiram112 9y ago
The typical narrative is that millions of American and Japanese lives would have been lost fighting for the home islands. The Japanese were pretty intent on dying for the cause if their leadership chose to do so. The bit left out in most history books is the fact that the atomic bomb was used not to destroy Japanese cities but instead to demonstrate to the Soviets, who by an earlier treaty, had declared war on Japan and were invading from the North, that the US could oppose them in both Japan and Europe. The US didn't really need to use atomic weapons for any tactical reason. Fire bombing had already proven that a city could be wiped out with traditional ordinance.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  This is true. What's more is that Hirohito, when asked about terms of surrender, said that he would That said, "there was no reason to use that awful thing" as Eisenhower said. Truman was "itching to use the bomb" to deter the Soviets in Europe and Asia. There wasn't any reason for a land invasion and military leaders in the US echoed this, and they were already defeated and going through conditions of surrender. Hirohito was a really bad guy, and stubbornly refused any terms that would have him step down. Miscommunication then led to the bomb drop, which few know. If you want to know more about this Google the 'Mokusatsu incident.' Then in a massive miscarriage lf justice, Hirohito remained royalty and Tojo was martyred as "the bad guy."