Truman dropped A-Bomb to iintimidate Soviet Union, not end WWII..

[Hardrock69]

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7706&feedId=online-news_rss20

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7706&feedId=online-news_rss20 And cos the US military wanted to compare the effects of an A-Bomb explosion at ground level (Nagasaki) to an A-Bomb explosion at a few 100 ft above ground level, of course using real people (aka innocent civilians) and buildings to do so!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
And cos the US military wanted to compare the effects of an A-Bomb explosion at ground level (Nagasaki) to an A-Bomb explosion at a few 100 ft above ground level, of course using real people (aka innocent civilians) and buildings to do so!

Now now fritz, lets not condemn the US for inhumane wartime experiments.

[Seshmeister]

I don't think this is new, it was always my understanding of the situation.

The argument at the time that the Japanese would have fought to the last man is BS otherwise they would have fought to the last nuked man.

Also they would have given them longer to surrender before Nagasaki.

On the plus point I think it maybe kept the Cold war cold because everyone knew for an absolute fact what the bomb did in real life rather than in theory.

[Serling]

Revisionist history is always so subjective.

[Nickdfresh]

Some estimates have the Allies suffering a million casualties, and the Japanese would have suffered even far worse, horrendous dead of both civilians and military. These estimates were based on US experience fighting on Pacific islands, esp. Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Some theorists have the US suffering only 10,000 dead because the Japanese had no real defense against massed armor (something that was almost impossible to do on rocky, mountainous Pacific islands). The Red Army showed this in Manchuria where the Japanese army mass surrendered after being outflanked and shocked in a matter of hours. The US was preparing a fleet of Shermans and newer Pershing tanks as a result. Japan, like France, is perfect tank country in most parts.

This is one of my interest actually, so sorry about the geek stuff.

[Seshmeister]

As you say revisionist history is everywhere and there are accepted myths all over the place.

e.g.

The US Civil War was about freeing slaves YET Unionists who owned more than 20 slaves were excused from conscription!

The US and to a lesser extent the UK won WWII YET we destroyed 3 German divisions the Russians destroyed 50!

The Romans were good guys and their culture is something to aspire to in our public architecture YET they were nasty aggresive tyranical cunts nuff said.

England defeated the Spanish armada in one of her finest hours YET 90% of their fleet were destroyed in storms.

In Braveheart William Wallace is a common man good guy YET he was a minor noble who strung up people that didn't join his army.

In the movie U-571 the Americans capture an Enigma machine shortening the war YET it was actually British forces that captured it from U-110 shortening the war by several months. Ironically U-571 was a very successful submarine.

Israel say they will NEVER negotiate with terrorists YET in the 1930s the guys that went on to be their founding fathers used to set off bombs in public places.

The Alamo was a bunch of good guys defending themselves against a Mexican hoard and was effectively a victory YET they got their asses kicked after illegally trying to steal land.

Another classic one is the Indians(Native Americans) as the bad guys. I was talking to my Dad about this the other week and he was brought up in the 1940s with the magic of cinema and he was telling me how he used to dream of shooting Indians with a gatling gun and how they were seen as the personification of evil. He knows better now but was still surprised when I told him squaw was Native American for cunt.

These are all just off the top of my head. I should start a website or something...:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

I'm looking forward to BigBadBills comments on this...:)

[Seshmeister]

Anyone got any others?

This would make a great thread in itself maybe the mods could rearrange things....

[academic punk]

The Civil War was not really about freeing slaves.

Just like W. uses "We did this to free the oppressed good people of Iraq!" to justify this war, Lincoln was able to use "Free the slaves" as his rallying cry.

The reason Lincoln opposed slavery was b/c it made it difficult for lower class whites to land work. After all, employers would have to pay them far more than he'd have to pay a slave...and the slave he owns for life.

Makes you wonder how the future text books will look at the past four years...

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by academic punk
Makes you wonder how the future text books will look at the past four years...

It's interesting if you think about it.

For example we know far more about Roman times than we do about William Wallace and all that Braveheart stuff because we have dozens of Roman sources(who don't mention Jesus but that's another argument) but maybe half a dozen on medieval Scotland.

You can just picture someone in a hundred years time doing a docrorate thesis on 'contemporary attitudes to the Iraq war and 21st century music' based in part on archived internet postings on this site.

And I've just made it a little more likely by making this post...

Ooof!

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
As you say revisionist history is everywhere and there are accepted myths all over the place.

...

Cheers!

:gulp:

Actually, I've mentioned stuff like this periodically, this would be a grate thread BTW...

Everyone should read the book "Dirty Little Secrets: Military Information You're Not Supposed to Know."

http://www.addall.com/detail/0688112706.html

One controversy I was flamed for is that American Patriots used terrorism during the American Revolutionary War (why do you think all of the Tories fled to CANADA? Surely not for the weather!).

This was true of both sides, but American guerillas used rape, summary execution, and property destruction, especially in the south. You didn't see that in "The Patriot."

[academic punk]

May I offer you a blanket, Nick?

It'll keep you warm and help you sleep (not to mention give you a heaping dose of small pox)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by academic punk
May I offer you a blanket, Nick?

It'll keep you warm and help you sleep (not to mention give you a heaping dose of small pox)

Ah yes, the bio weapons to the Native Americans...But that's almost a part of official history now.

[Seshmeister]

Not to mention Washington raping his slaves on a day to day basis...

[Hardrock69]

Yes, it is really a trip how real history ends up being homogenized into some kind of fucked up fairy tale.....

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Yes, it is really a trip how real history ends up being homogenized into some kind of fucked up fairy tale.....

I guarantee our children or our children's children will be attending "Dick Cheney Elementary School" someday.

[steve]

Originally posted by academic punk
The Civil War was not really about freeing slaves.

Just like W. uses "We did this to free the oppressed good people of Iraq!" to justify this war, Lincoln was able to use "Free the slaves" as his rallying cry.

The reason Lincoln opposed slavery was b/c it made it difficult for lower class whites to land work. After all, employers would have to pay them far more than he'd have to pay a slave...and the slave he owns for life.


ap...I respect most of your posts on here, but this is a blanket statement. The issue of slavery was something wrestled with since the conception of the US. The whole "3/5's" a person was in there because the issue of SLAVERY was BITTERLY contested by many at the Philadelphia conventions.

While there is some argument to be made that the US civil war was about things other than slavery, there is overwhelming evidence that it was. And I think that goes for Lincoln as well.

This isn't to say that northerners LOVED black people at the time or anything (or even that Lincoln did), but to say that the civil war , for lincoln, was n't about slavery is too cynical.

It was.

[Nickdfresh]

The very issue of States Rights vs. Federalism would never have come to the forefront if it were not for slavery.

[steve]

To say that it was merely a rallying cry ignores the political risk he took (to a great degree) in rallying behind the abolitionist movement (PRIOR to the civil war).

My opinion :).

[steve]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The very issue of States Rights vs. Federalism would never have come to the forefront if it were not for slavery.

Agreed.
just ask Strom Thurmond

[FORD]

Originally posted by academic punk
I guarantee our children or our children's children will be attending "Dick Cheney Elementary School" someday.

There's already a "Todd Beamer" elementary school somewhere in Seattle, and we don't even know if that guy even actually existed.

There's also a "George W. Bush" elementary in Tumwater. It's NOT named after Junior, but future generations will probably think so :(