Looking Back Into History

[Ben]

You need to do some real research outside of your realms and talk to those who served.
Were you there? Nope. You cannot condemn what you did not bear upon your shoulders. Without those acts that transpired in the Pacific campeign countless lives would have been ended,...ANYONE who served there will agree,...I have not found one nor even heard of one that does not agree.

I might recommend that you do the same, especailly given the tone of your comment.

Reetpleat said that the Japanese were not out to conquer the world. There are people on this borad much more qualified to expound on this than I, but as I understand it, that Japanese had some very definite lines they wanted to control and had no interest in over-running the west coast of the U.S.A.

Can someone inform us of this?

Also, I would be respectfully skeptical of old soldiers' stories. Again, as many others on here can inform you much better than I, those who actually saw atrocities and those who were heroes aren't inclined to talk about it much. Beyond that, much of what they say is likely based on the propaganda of the day. But it is so PC to say "they were there, so they must know" that it is possible to be taken in by people who want to look heroic.

Twitch's inital point goes both ways, it seems to me. If I am not mistaken, he was advising people to understand the times in order to understand what happened. He was, if I am not mistaken, advising us to be aware that people in the past did not have access to what we know in making their decisions, so we should be careful about what kinds of judgments are valid to makee about their decisions. But I don't think he was telling us we should toss out everything we have learned since then and trap ourselves with the same lack of knowledge.

 

[Twitch]

Reetpleat is correct in that the Japanese never intended to conquer the world. What they hoped for was that their attack at Pearl would so demoralize the US that we would conceed their agression and military build up in the Pacific and Asia. If the US was out of the picture Japan would have been able to soar economically.

Again we look back 60+ years and say,"they musta been nuts to think that!" But we fall into the original point of this- we're implying our values on peoples of 67 years ago from another culture even. Their economic thinking was fairly logical for the times they simply misjudged the US reaction militarily.

But saying that babies on bayonets was a myth is akin to saying that the Final Solution and the Holocaust never happened. That happened and so much more in 1937 Nanking perpetrated by the Japanese Army that no one here can even beging to grasp the scope of the debauchery that occurred.

I personally heard the interview of a completely non-repentant soldier who described the "games" they played with live Chinese infants and their dead bodies. The bayoneting is the very least of the heinousness, believe me. And this was not an angry outlash soon over. The perversion went on for nearly 3 months ending in 369,000 Chinese deaths!

This non-belief is one of my observations. While the Nazis are given the bulk of the hate for their war cromes, the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1932 and commenced a torture and murder spree against civilians and POWs in S.E. Asia that actually exceeds the body count of the Nazis.

And the concept that we coulda/shoulda made peace with Japan before using nukes once again leans to the "oh, poor Japanese." They had our surrender terms- unconditional surrender but ignored them. Yet the fantasy that they sought help with the Russians to sue for peace was just improperly studied mush. They offered a their own version of surrender with many conditions which was summarily rejected.

What part of unconditional surrender didn't they understand? BTW The Germans tried the same ploy countering with lots of silly points that we were expected to conceed to.

Cowboy- can't agree more- the PC stuff has ruined our society.

 

[scotrace]

And there is plenty of photographic documentation of what happened in Nanking and other places.

And the violations were not just of an outwardly violent nature. The dismantling of Korean culture during the long Japanese occupation is still deeply resented there. I believe there was a mountain with a profile considered sacred, and the occupiers poured a mountain of concrete to intentionally change it forever.

 

[reetpleat]

Reetpleat is correct in that the Japanese never intended to conquer the world. What they hoped for was that their attack at Pearl would so demoralize the US that we would conceed their agression and military build up in the Pacific and Asia. If the US was out of the picture Japan would have been able to soar economically.

Again we look back 60+ years and say,"they musta been nuts to think that!" But we fall into the original point of this- we're implying our values on peoples of 67 years ago from another culture even. Their economic thinking was fairly logical for the times they simply misjudged the US reaction militarily.

But saying that babies on bayonets was a myth is akin to saying that the Final Solution and the Holocaust never happened. That happened and so much more in 1937 Nanking perpetrated by the Japanese Army that no one here can even beging to grasp the scope of the debauchery that occurred.

I personally heard the interview of a completely non-repentant soldier who described the "games" they played with live Chinese infants and their dead bodies. The bayoneting is the very least of the heinousness, believe me. And this was not an angry outlash soon over. The perversion went on for nearly 3 months ending in 369,000 Chinese deaths!

This non-belief is one of my observations. While the Nazis are given the bulk of the hate for their war cromes, the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1932 and commenced a torture and murder spree against civilians and POWs in S.E. Asia that actually exceeds the body count of the Nazis.

And the concept that we coulda/shoulda made peace with Japan before using nukes once again leans to the "oh, poor Japanese." They had our surrender terms- unconditional surrender but ignored them. Yet the fantasy that they sought help with the Russians to sue for peace was just improperly studied mush. They offered a their own version of surrender with many conditions which was summarily rejected.

What part of unconditional surrender didn't they understand? BTW The Germans tried the same ploy countering with lots of silly points that we were expected to conceed to.

Cowboy- can't agree more- the PC stuff has ruined our society.

You are right about the Japanese attrocities. they wre involved ina a very long period of war in Asia and wre extremely brutal. Their action was much more of a time past than the middle of the century. Thank God the US was more evolved than that, although thiswas fairly recent (and I might ad, we were stil guilty of many shameful acts during that war, and Korea and VIet Nam)

And I have read stories of these attrocities as described by ex japanese soldirs and do believe them. But I actually have found the babies on bayonets to be pretty obviously propagaind. It is too pat. It shows up in every description, but also shows up in other accounts of people at war. it is just too perfect. Still, bayonet practice and mass killings into a ditch are true.

What the Japanese did during the war with the US was hope to destroy our military power in asia, which they did, in hopes of dominating the asian sphere, as opposed to hte US and Britain and France. It seems a reasonable idea to me. I don't approve of the brutality, but see nothing in their colonial ambitions any different than the British French or US. They were just late to the game. You are right that neither the German's nor the Japanese had any clue the US could mobilize and act the way they did. It would seem crazy, but at the time seemed quite reasonable.

As far as surrender, you can say what part of unconditional surrender don't you understandt, but that assumes that we needed unconditional surrender. I personally believe a surrender could have been negotitated had not the Potsdam declaration declined to allow for the keeping of the emoporer. In fact, even a US bombing survey after the war was over found that Japan would have likely surrendered had we not inisted on unconditional surrender.

You can speak of the people not accepting it, but had the President declared that a surrender had been negotiated with Japan, the people would have been exstatic and would not have cared if twas unconditional or not. They wanted it over.

I believe the US wanted to drop the bomb no matter what for a number of reasons. In fact, much documentation shows that the US never intended to drop the bomb on Germany even before that war was over. makes you think.

You are perfedtly free to disagree. But While I do not condemn the common people for going along with it, I do have harsh judgement upon the leaders who made decisions that wre not solely about the needs of the war. And that, I do not consider revisionist. I consider that knowing the facts.

Your original premise about looking back at history has got me thinking though.

I do think that we must understand the perspective of the peoople of the time and the information that they had. But history, time and time again, shows that populare opinion is influenced, often on purpose, by propaganda, pr, and outright lies on the part of the leaders who have their own agendas. SO, while we can not completely blame the common people, we can sometimes hold them somewhat accountable for believing what they want to believe (Germany and Hitler for example) and we can most definitely hold the leaders accountable, and also know the facts and publicise them in the hopes it does not happen again. ther eas a time when people trusted their poiticians. I personally, am thankful, although a little sad it is necessery, that we do not trust our leaders in the same way.

 

[reetpleat]

This is something that I would expect you to say, after reading your posts in this and other threads. The way that you "feel" doesn't change the facts. I'm not going to argue this point with you because it's clear that you have been indoctrinated instead of educated on this subject.

I can same the very same thing about anyone that does not agree with me. It hardly constitutes a valid argument supporting you cause.

And by the way, feel is simply a word I used to mean think or am of the opinion of. Suggesting I feel instead of think is a deliberate misreading of the word. Again, not much of a logical argument to support your point of view.

One man's indoctrination is another man's education.

 

[reetpleat]

Just don't tell yourself that those vets would see any contradiction between putting themselves on the line for your right to speak your mind and laying you out cold for exercising said right to their faces.

At the very least, I would venture, it lacks tact. For my part, I don't discuss metaphysics with the devout, and I don't talk poli.sci. with old soldiers.

Yes, kind of ironic isn't it?

And you are right, I have no intention of discussing the war with a bunch of old vets.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Thought provoking thread. :eusa_clap
We do have a tendency to romanticize the past to the point of distorting the reality of it. Hollywood has been especially good at putting a spin on history.
The farther we are removed from events, the more distorted the facts seem to get.
I think the main reason is that once all the people that actually lived during significant historical events have passed away, the true facts pass away with them.
If we could reverse the old time travel thing and bring someone like, say,...George Washington back to our time,...we could get the true unadulterated facts.

 

[Haversack]

Actually, within the study of history, the recent past is very difficult to analyze and write about because it is TOO recent, a lot of data is still hidden, and our own personal involvement with the events in question overly influences our judgement. Its rather akin to sitting very close to a big movie screen. There's a lack of perspective.

Now, gathering data, combing archives, interviewing participants while they are still alive is an important part of a historian's work. They're the grist for the his mill and they answer the questions of Who, What, When, Why, and How. However, a historian makes his nut by answering the question of So What. That requires perspective.

As an example, it is easier today to write a good history of George Washington than in the 1830s when there were still people alive who knew him. The reason why is that at that time, Washington was THE national hero and all but deified. The was hardly a house without his picture in it. Today, the influence of his presence is a lot less overwhelming and he can be seen more clearly.

Haversack.

 

[Haversack]

I've been following this thread with interest as it deals with a topic of personal and professional interest. What LizzieMaine referred to as Pesentism, I've been calling Chronocentrism for several years. It pretty much takes the same tack as Ethnocentrism, only instead of recognizing that we all have certain outlooks, aesthetics, and mores shaped by our own particular cultural background and upbringings, it recognizes that these same belief preferences are also shaped by our particular time. The trick is to recognize that we have these preferences and attempt to set them aside in studying and/or dealing with the other culture/time. The past is a different country.
Before anyone jumps on my head for using the term Ethnocentrism, (because some people have tried to turn it into an attack label), let me say that I am using it for its original purpose. This is merely the recognition that everyone is ethnocentric. We all have conscious and unconscious preferences which are shaped by our own particular culture and upbringing. It is not a value judgement.
Haversack

 

[cowboy76]

Yes, kind of ironic isn't it?

And you are right, I have no intention of discussing the war with a bunch of old vets.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

 

[cowboy76]

I might recommend that you do the same, especailly given the tone of your comment.

Reetpleat said that the Japanese were not out to conquer the world. There are people on this borad much more qualified to expound on this than I, but as I understand it, that Japanese had some very definite lines they wanted to control and had no interest in over-running the west coast of the U.S.A.

First Ben, do you know my background? No, you are basing this on my,.."tone?" nothing more.

Give me a break,....anyone with any itentions of anykind can bases whatever they want on anyone's so called, "Tone". This is irrelavant. Look back on other posts by other people,....do you say the same for those others with the same "tone"?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Second, by what you wrote here, you are saying you dont know much, and you feel I dont either,..based on nothing but your own insecurities. I do not know you, I did not attack you. Do not lump other people's knowledge into your own lacking amount just because of your unsurity.

By the way,...if you take sides with a man or regeim out to conquer the world, aide them etc. Why take sides with someone who wants to do so unless some of the bloodlust of power also courses through your veins too.....you're known by the company you keep.

So, in the end I will in no way ever apologize for my passion, love and defensive means for those who served and what they DID endure and witness,...not conjure up in their minds!


Main Entry: 1wit¬?ness
Pronunciation: \ˈwit-nəs\
Function:noun
Etymology: Middle English witnesse, from Old English witnes knowledge, testimony, witness, from 2wit
Date: before 12th century
1: attestation of a fact or event : testimony
2: one that gives evidence; specifically : one who testifies in a cause or before a judicial tribunal
3: one asked to be present at a transaction so as to be able to testify to its having taken place
4: one who has personal knowledge of something

Without a witness you have no records,...
Without records you have no writings,....
Without writings you have no books to read and study and to be taught from....
You cannot take out the first variable and make the others stand without their foundation! You cannot wipe away the blood-soaked memories of soldiers with your own egos and self-affirmed knowledge. You can try but the stains of their truths will always show through those efforts!

I for one WILL honor the words of those who speak to me and tell me of the past who were there.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

If we could bring George Washington back and grill him about his perspective on, say, the Revolutionary War, we would certainly get "true, unadulterated facts," -- at least as George Washington saw them.

I am not sure we would get all the facts, or the real truth, assuming there ever is a real truth, even if we put him in a room with a British general, a Native American Indian, a French general, a Hessian mercenary, a pioneer woman, or even Benjamin Franklin.

We would have a lot of differing viewpoints. Who to believe?

karol

 

[Haversack]

Major Danger wrote: "We do have a tendency to romanticize the past to the point of distorting the reality of it. Hollywood has been especially good at putting a spin on history."

Long before Hollywood. Take for example our popular conception of Vikings:…Horned helmets, shaggy furs, dirty, unwashed barbarians who raid our monasteries and carry off our women… We can thank the novel writers and illustrators of Victorian era Britain for this image and modern cartoonists like Hal Foster and Dik Browne for perpetuating it.

For an alternate view, John of Wallingford, the prior of St. Fridswides in early 11th C. England wrote about the Danes who had forcibly colonized the east of England:

"Habebant etiam ex consuetudine patriae unoquoque die comam pectere, sabbatis balneare, saepe etiam vestituram mutare, et formam corporis multis talibus frivolis adjuvare; unde et matronarum castitati insideabantur, et filias etiam nobilium concubinarum nomine detinebant."

"They had also from the custom of their country the habit of combing their hair every day, of bathing on Sundays, even of changing their clothing frequently, and of enhancing their physical attractiveness with many frivolous devices of this sort. By this means they laid snares for the chastity of married women and kept the daughters even of noblemen as concubines."

Rather a different picture, what?.

Haversack.

 

[cowboy76]

If we could bring George Washington back and grill him about his perspective on, say, the Revolutionary War, we would certainly get "true, unadulterated facts," -- at least as George Washington saw them.

I am not sure we would get all the facts, or the real truth, assuming there ever is a real truth, even if we put him in a room with a British general, a Native American Indian, a French general, a Hessian mercenary, a pioneer woman, or even Benjamin Franklin.

We would have a lot of differing viewpoints. Who to believe?

karol

You can focus your aim on the possible indiffernece of people towards personal beliefs or rational, but you can do that forever and ever, and then where are you? It never ends!

Then you dont know what to believe, you dont trust anyone, and the truth is molested by paranoid thinking,.....the thinking that everyone lies and we cant trust anyone,...the "how do we know?" question.

Often the truth is so simple and clear that we cannot and will not accept what's right there in our face. Its ok to search but its not ok to find....this is the modern world.

 

[jake431]

You can focus your aim on the possible indiffernece of people towards personal beliefs or rational, but you can do that forever and ever, and then where are you? It never ends!

Then you dont know what to believe, you dont trust anyone, and the truth is molested by paranoid thinking,.....the thinking that everyone lies and we cant trust anyone,...the "how do we know?" question.

Often the truth is so simple and clear that we cannot and will not accept what's right there in our face. Its ok to search but its not ok to find....this is the modern world.

I think what Karol was saying is that "simple and clear" truth is going to be very different for different people - hence the saying "perception is reality".

If that's the case, the very least you can do is study as many different people's perception as possible. No?

-Jake

 

[A.R. McVintage]

While it is obvious that the japanese committed atrocities in asia, I doubt very much that your barber and the corner store owner witnessed japanese impaling babies on their bayonets. That is an old myth that dates back to WW I involving the Germans in Belgium. The modern day equivilant is the story of Iraqui soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in Kuwait. Later shown to be a creation of a US PR firm and the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador.

And while I also have no doubt that some vets might indeed inflict violence upon my person for daring to have a differing opinion than them, I do not see that as sufficient reason to change my mind. For that matter, I do not for a moment feel that any vet in the last 150 years has gone to war to protect my right of free speech. At no time in our history of the last 150 years or more, has the us been under any threat of invasion which might result in any infrinement of said right.

At any rate, I will thank you to limit your comments to the ideas discussed and refrain from snide commments that consitute personal insults. I will do the same.

Don't believe the Japanese atrocities? Why don't you look at period photos of heaps of dead babies and severed heads, etc.:

http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/page1.html

For even daring to imply that the US soldiers, men like my grandfather and I'm sure many other member's relatives here were anything like this, you should be banned.

As it is, since you've clearly shown you could give a rat's ass about veterans and now you're claiming they in no way fought for the right you have today, why don't you step out of the thread and follow the forum's rules before you make yourself look worse:

"We discourage any platform for harrassment, prejudice and insults, unbecoming of the civil ethos of The Lounge."

Your "I-don't-care" attitude towards veterans and your comparing of honorable men to the monsters who heap dead babies like cordwood both fall into this category. And, since you've posted each several times, I'm inclined to think discussion is the least if your goals and you've now entered into trolling.

 

[cowboy76]

I think what Karol was saying is that "simple and clear" truth is going to be very different for different people - hence the saying "perception is reality".

If that's the case, the very least you can do is study as many different people's perception as possible. No?

-Jake

Some are clearly more credible than others,....a witness vs. a non-witness.
So, I would not want to study as many people's perceptions,...I'd want to study personal accounts, things actually seen and heard, not perceptions.

Follow me on this,....

Perceptions are percievings, an outlook on a particular action or reaction. Some people "percieve" colors different, but not actions. A man picks a stone up off the ground, and you see he picks a stone up. That's that. You cannot place a "perception" on a physical action that takes or took place when it was seen by many people.

Perceptions are like opinions and (you know what!).... everyone's got one. Witnesses are unique.

 

[cowboy76]

Don't believe the Japanese atrocities? Why don't you look at period photos of heaps of dead babies and severed heads, etc.:

http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/page1.html

For even daring to imply that the US soldiers, men like my grandfather and I'm sure many other member's relatives here were anything like this, you should be banned.

As it is, since you've clearly shown you could give a rat's ass about veterans and now you're claiming they in no way fought for the right you have today, why don't you step out of the thread and follow the forum's rules before you make yourself look worse:

"We discourage any platform for harrassment, prejudice and insults, unbecoming of the civil ethos of The Lounge."

Your "I-don't-care" attitude towards veterans and your comparing of honorable men to the monsters who heap dead babies like cordwood both fall into this category. And, since you've posted each several times, I'm inclined to think discussion is the least if your goals and you've now entered into trolling.

Wholeheartedly Agreed!!

 

[The Wingnut]

Slow down, guys...he's entitled to his opinion, banning him won't prove a thing. While I can't agree with reetpleat, carting him out the door is no solution.

Let's get a bartender to weigh in(don't close the thread, just modulate this a bit). Scotrace, you've been following this...care to comment?

 

[A.R. McVintage]

Slow down, guys...he's entitled to his opinion, banning him won't prove a thing. While I can't agree with reetpleat, carting him out the door is no solution.

Let's get a bartender to weigh in(don't close the thread, just modulate this a bit).

And his opinion is that US soldiers=Baby slaughterers/head severers and he doesn't care about what a vet has to say on that matter or any other.

It's against forum rules and is trollish behavior.