Top Secret
Spy
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,258
- Reaction score
- 0
DeusExMachinia said:
Ahh, so classic.
Do the winners write the History books?
- Thread starter Dan
- Start date
Ahh, so classic.
Dan
Tank
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Messages
- 4,186
- Reaction score
- 3
Too often in history books, they give you statements and causalities without very much proof. And we tend to just accept them as fact without skepticism. I'm sure that I have many ideas about history that I've been spoon fed by the ideas of contemporary historians.
In the period following WW2 it would be impossible to write an objective history. No historian would go out and say that the US was wrong to bomb Hiroshima, everyone was just happy to have the war over. But these texts are taken as the difinitive account because they are written close to the actual events. They have more access to facts, but are also more influenced by the mood of the times. And so certain statements and ideas get passed down without question. Fathers tell their kids that, elementary school teachers giving their 30 min lesson on WW2 explain it that way to 10 year olds.
Japan had pretty much lost the war at that time. US controlled islands that could directly bomb Japan much more effectively than Chinese air bases. Their fleet's wiped out pretty much since Midway. They knew it too. One of the main points that stopped Japanese surrender was the threat to remove the Emperor, something that completely defies Japanese culture and honour. Even if the A-bomb was required to force the surrender, did it really take two A-bombs? Did they think that the Japanese would say that it was some sort of one time fluke if they only anhilated one city? Better double the punch just to make a point.
In a better world I think that historians at the time of the event would record only the facts they have without ommission and leave the interpretation to a later date or an objectivev third party.
In the period following WW2 it would be impossible to write an objective history. No historian would go out and say that the US was wrong to bomb Hiroshima, everyone was just happy to have the war over. But these texts are taken as the difinitive account because they are written close to the actual events. They have more access to facts, but are also more influenced by the mood of the times. And so certain statements and ideas get passed down without question. Fathers tell their kids that, elementary school teachers giving their 30 min lesson on WW2 explain it that way to 10 year olds.
Japan had pretty much lost the war at that time. US controlled islands that could directly bomb Japan much more effectively than Chinese air bases. Their fleet's wiped out pretty much since Midway. They knew it too. One of the main points that stopped Japanese surrender was the threat to remove the Emperor, something that completely defies Japanese culture and honour. Even if the A-bomb was required to force the surrender, did it really take two A-bombs? Did they think that the Japanese would say that it was some sort of one time fluke if they only anhilated one city? Better double the punch just to make a point.
In a better world I think that historians at the time of the event would record only the facts they have without ommission and leave the interpretation to a later date or an objectivev third party.
Similar threads
