8 ms·

It's uncool to post a long comment on an article you didn't bother to read, let alone dismiss it with a slur about "revisionist history", whatever that is. The

by gruseom 13y ago

It's uncool to post a long comment on an article you didn't bother to read, let alone dismiss it with a slur about "revisionist history", whatever that is. The article is clearly a serious one, and since it challenges the #1 belief by far that nearly everyone (in North America if not elsewhere) has about the end of the Pacific War, it deserves attention. Unsurprisingly, you haven't addressed most of the article's arguments. Even where your material does overlap, it does so incoherently, because one can't figure out where you actually disagree with the author or are even talking about the same things. A serious counterargument to the OP would be very interesting. The comments on the FP site itself are terrible. So far, the only real argument I've seen is that the article is old hat, since we already know that it wasn't just the bombs that ended the Pacific war. It may be old hat among specialists, but it isn't to the millions of us who were taught and still believe exactly that.

mpyne 13y ago
The article may not have been so bad (though I will not patronize that site with any further page views). The title is clearly revisionist on the other hand, and it's what I had to go on. But merely "challenging a #1 belief" isn't inherent justification for the legitimacy of an argument either; that's the same tack the creationists take when trying to blow up evolution. By all means people can and should learn about the Pacific War. But learn the actual lessons of that conflict, don't just use it to reinforce your own previously-held beliefs.
- scott_s 13y ago
  You're really just riffing on arguments no one made. Which is the danger if you respond to an article you didn't read.
yohui 13y ago
If you're seeking serious responses to the claim that the Soviet invasion was paramount and the atomic bombings irrelevant, /r/AskHistorians has had several threads on the subject: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwii#wiki_japan_and_the_atomic_bombs http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwii#wiki_japan_a... (I think mpyne's reply is "serious", though. It's always preferable to read first, but the argument presented in the article is not new. I did read the article, and I'm not surprised mypne managed to address several of its points without even looking at it.)
- gruseom 13y ago
  Thanks. But the first thread I ran across there could hardly be more supportive of the OP's argument: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u6qqo/there_has_been_some_controversy_on_the_true/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u6qqo/there_h... If you can point me to counterarguments more specifically, I'll look at them.
  - yohui 13y ago
    Well, there was also a short discussion about this very article: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fhhf7/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_stalin_did_opinions_on/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fhhf7/the_bo... As the top comment by /u/restricteddata points out, the argument about the Soviet role was made by Hasegawa (who the FP article did not cite). There's no refuting that the Soviet side of the story is important and relatively unrecognized (by the public). But it's hard to say exactly how events would have played out without the bomb. And the FP article's subheading, that US policy has been based on this "myth", is just a puzzling conclusion.
klibertp 13y ago
I haven't read the article yet (as usual, checking comments to figure out if it's worth it), but I can at least tell you what "revisionist history" is, because I've seen it where I live. This kind of "history" starts with the assumption that all the sources, or at least huge majority of them, are manipulated or downright fiction. It then tells you that a) the sources were manipulated by X for Y and with support of Z (with names ofc); b) there were other sources, that were not manipulated. The latter are mostly unprovable, because there is no way to cross-check them and no way of tracking their history, yet they are believed in above all doubt. "Revisionists" then say that they can "learn" everything, "all the truth", from the manipulated, untrusted resources they previously dismissed and then they become silent for a year, during which they try to get access to those documents. Shortly after they have it, the fun starts - every other week there is some revisionist who presents a "proof" that such-and-such lied, murdered, stole and so on. That's only a beginning though, because they soon want to demolish statues and change the street names, fire people from work (from police, army, all the other public services). Then the elections come and suddenly they disappear. Well, at least that's how revisionists looked like in my country. The article is not that bad for sure :)

by gruseom 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

The article may not have been so bad (though I will not patronize that site with any further page views). The title is clearly revisionist on the other hand, and it's what I had to go on. But merely "challenging a #1 belief" isn't inherent justification for the legitimacy of an argument either; that's the same tack the creationists take when trying to blow up evolution. By all means people can and should learn about the Pacific War. But learn the actual lessons of that conflict, don't just use it to reinforce your own previously-held beliefs.

scott_s 13y ago
You're really just riffing on arguments no one made. Which is the danger if you respond to an article you didn't read.

yohui 13y ago

If you're seeking serious responses to the claim that the Soviet invasion was paramount and the atomic bombings irrelevant, /r/AskHistorians has had several threads on the subject: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwii#wiki_japan_and_the_atomic_bombs http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwii#wiki_japan_a... (I think mpyne's reply is "serious", though. It's always preferable to read first, but the argument presented in the article is not new. I did read the article, and I'm not surprised mypne managed to address several of its points without even looking at it.)

gruseom 13y ago
Thanks. But the first thread I ran across there could hardly be more supportive of the OP's argument: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u6qqo/there_has_been_some_controversy_on_the_true/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u6qqo/there_h... If you can point me to counterarguments more specifically, I'll look at them.
- yohui 13y ago
  Well, there was also a short discussion about this very article: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fhhf7/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_stalin_did_opinions_on/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fhhf7/the_bo... As the top comment by /u/restricteddata points out, the argument about the Soviet role was made by Hasegawa (who the FP article did not cite). There's no refuting that the Soviet side of the story is important and relatively unrecognized (by the public). But it's hard to say exactly how events would have played out without the bomb. And the FP article's subheading, that US policy has been based on this "myth", is just a puzzling conclusion.

klibertp 13y ago

I haven't read the article yet (as usual, checking comments to figure out if it's worth it), but I can at least tell you what "revisionist history" is, because I've seen it where I live. This kind of "history" starts with the assumption that all the sources, or at least huge majority of them, are manipulated or downright fiction. It then tells you that a) the sources were manipulated by X for Y and with support of Z (with names ofc); b) there were other sources, that were not manipulated. The latter are mostly unprovable, because there is no way to cross-check them and no way of tracking their history, yet they are believed in above all doubt. "Revisionists" then say that they can "learn" everything, "all the truth", from the manipulated, untrusted resources they previously dismissed and then they become silent for a year, during which they try to get access to those documents. Shortly after they have it, the fun starts - every other week there is some revisionist who presents a "proof" that such-and-such lied, murdered, stole and so on. That's only a beginning though, because they soon want to demolish statues and change the street names, fire people from work (from police, army, all the other public services). Then the elections come and suddenly they disappear. Well, at least that's how revisionists looked like in my country. The article is not that bad for sure :)