TGWTG Nostalgia Chick / Lindsay Ellis / TheDudette - aka Hotdogs in face girl

  • Sorry about the recent downtime. The database server is being autistic. The beatings will continue.

BScCollateral

kiwifarms.net
Whether 1 bomb or 10,000 were used to delete a city made very little diference to the japanese.
"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

Hirohito didn't even mention the conventional air raids directly in his surrender speech.

There's a class of historical revisionism which involves ignoring what was said by the original participants in favor of a preferred thesis.
 

RumblyTumbly

kiwifarms.net
My favorite thing about revisionist history regarding WWII is that the US has to feel bad about what we did to Japan all the time, and its a crime that we will never be able to earn penance for, no matter how many times we beg forgiveness.

Fair enough, but I love how Japan has never been forced to apologize even once for its atrocities committed during WWII. I'm not even talking about Pearl Harbor either because, lets face it, the US got them back. But read up about the Rape of Nanking sometime, an event that Japan never apologized for and some even denied that it ever happened (despite photographic evidence existing). It got so bad that the Nazis (the actual literal ones) had to step in and tell Japan to knock it off. Yes, there is actually a story from WWII where the actual Nazis were shocked by their ally's actions and thought "Whoa...too far guys".
 

Tiger Tanaka

In Japan, man comes first
kiwifarms.net
"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

Hirohito didn't even mention the conventional air raids directly in his surrender speech.

There's a class of historical revisionism which involves ignoring what was said by the original participants in favor of a preferred thesis.
you're absolutely correct. He does mention it. Moreover. As an afterthought, an aside. It also ignores the fact Truman and the allies ignored Japan's prior requests for surrender because they wanted to use the bombs. I don't consider America guilty of dropping them, and I don't consider it any larger a war crime than the fire bombings or Dresden (if they are war crimes), and America if it is to be a villain, is far less a villain than Japan or Germany or the USSR. I'm just standing the Japanese didn't see Atom Bombs and surrender. They'd lost bigger cities with more dead due to conventional and fire bombing and didn't surrender. The USSR in Manchuria, the mass famine, the complete lack of oil, and that every port had been successfully blockaded and mined were all just as big. Hirohito's speech to the Japanese people was a simplified message for the peasantry and it did indeed reference something they'd be terrified of enduring, but it's also a convenient "out" and helps to shift the blame from his own forces being inadequate and picking a fight they could never win. We fought honorably but the nukes robbed us.

As a source I'd quote Max Hastings's Nemesis and Armageddon. Though to tie this back into the subject matter, I think what's more important is America didn't escalate by dropping Lindsay Ellis books on the Islands of Japan.
 

Tiger Tanaka

In Japan, man comes first
kiwifarms.net
It is pure coincidence the Japanese saw atomic bombs and surrendered.
no, that is a part of the bigger picture. The Japanese were trying to surrender prior to that, to terms the Americans had agreed to prior to that. The bombings happened on the 6th and 9th. The Japanese surrendered on the 15th, after the USSR violated neutrality and started obliterating their colossal army in China.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: You

Tiger Tanaka

In Japan, man comes first
kiwifarms.net
Why didn't Hirohito mention any of that?
He doesn't mention surrender either. Or the death tolls, or the prior negotiations. Part of it being he's a figure head given a script in front of him that he did not write, and the Japanese, especially the upper echelons, are trying to save face. It's why he talks in euphemisms about the war no longer being in Japan's favor. Translation, they're getting absolutely obliterated. They didn't have the fuel to scramble a single aircraft to stop Enola Gay, and because they assumed it was a scout, let it pierce their airspace. Over 90 percent of their shipping is not getting through. There's mass starvation, no medical treatment for burns and cuts, and the USAAF is ripping the country to pieces with its incredible might. If he was to list every problem he'd have been there all week. Instead, Hito's speech is rambling showmanship, and more a means to pull the rug from under the military who are hoping for a glorious last stand that the government doesn't fancy.

Of course all of this is still debated by historians, but I'm in the camp that the A-Bombs were a a part of the surrender, and not the reason for bringing a ''fight to the last island' to the table. Japan were trying to surrender before this.
 

Tiger Tanaka

In Japan, man comes first
kiwifarms.net
People think the nukes were a bad thing in WW2? It was either that or a campaign of slaughter across the entirety of Japan and possible mainland Asia.
Well it depends on the way you look at it. Japan wants to surrender but not have the emperor prosecuted. America says no, must be unconditional. America drops two nukes, USSR invades Manchuria, breaking neutrality. Japan surrenders unconditionally. America agrees, but says they won't prosecute the emperor.

So in one regard it was needless. On the other hand, Japan had commited such barbaric and vile acts, it could be coldly suggested they needed to be bombed back to civility, and taught a lesson future generations wouldn't forget. There'd been two colossal, total wars in the past twenty five years, and it was hoped the bomb would make all other wars impossible. Twenty years later, Japan is a thriving country with a healthy blend of eastern and western culture, with western economics, social mobility, suffrage, and hasn't thought about committing disgusting war crimes to south east asia or china again. Back then, the damage radiation could do was relatively unknown and...

...you know, fuck this. I'm here to talk about Lindsay Ellis.
 

BScCollateral

kiwifarms.net
He doesn't mention surrender either.
This is correct. Instead of "surrender", he refers to "acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers."

Or the death tolls...
This is not correct.

"The thought of those officers and men as well as others who have fallen in the fields of battle, those who died at their posts of duty, and those who met with death and all their bereaved families, pains our heart night and day.

The welfare of the wounded and the war sufferers, and of those who have lost their homes and livelihood is the object of our profound solicitude. The hardships and suffering to which our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. "

...or the prior negotiations...
From which I assume they were not of concern to him or his audience.

EDIT: My apologies for posting this after you stated you wished to leave the conversation; it was not my intent to "revenge post" or "steal the last word." Your response where you said you'd rather stay on topic appeared while I was composing the reply. I agree this conversation, while interesting is not on topic.
 
Last edited:

Tiger Tanaka

In Japan, man comes first
kiwifarms.net
Weird how the people who say its okay to punch people in the face for even being suspected of Nazism suddenly aren't okay with bombing Nazi collaborators :thinking:
No idea who you're talking about there.


This is correct. Instead of "surrender", he refers to "acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers."



From which I assume they were not of concern to him or his audience.
Correct. It's all euphemisms and poetry and articulated wordplay detatched from the absolute horrors outside of his bunker beneath the palace. The entire speech is trying to blunt and excuse the Japanese defeat. When I mention the death tolls, he's not mentioning the millions dead under his leadership and how catastrophic it is. I'd also point to another book I've read, Racing the Enemy, by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa which goes into the mentality of the Japanese surrender and the big part the USSR played in the roll. The Japanese not liking the idea of their old enemy occupying the islands. The only thing is I agree with differing historians as Hasegawa is convinced the Emperor condition wasn't the primary caveat for their surrender.
 

Den Gigantiske

kiwifarms.net
Well it depends on the way you look at it. Japan wants to surrender but not have the emperor prosecuted. America says no, must be unconditional. America drops two nukes, USSR invades Manchuria, breaking neutrality. Japan surrenders unconditionally. America agrees, but says they won't prosecute the emperor.

So in one regard it was needless. On the other hand, Japan had commited such barbaric and vile acts, it could be coldly suggested they needed to be bombed back to civility, and taught a lesson future generations wouldn't forget. There'd been two colossal, total wars in the past twenty five years, and it was hoped the bomb would make all other wars impossible. Twenty years later, Japan is a thriving country with a healthy blend of eastern and western culture, with western economics, social mobility, suffrage, and hasn't thought about committing disgusting war crimes to south east asia or china again. Back then, the damage radiation could do was relatively unknown and...

...you know, fuck this. I'm here to talk about Lindsay Ellis.
Hey this much more interesting, nuanced and researched than anything relating to Lindsay.
 

Tiger Tanaka

In Japan, man comes first
kiwifarms.net
Has there ever been any live stream debates or face to face moments where someone called out Lindsay on her bullshit?
 

Tiger Tanaka

In Japan, man comes first
kiwifarms.net
EDIT: My apologies for posting this after you stated you wished to leave the conversation; it was not my intent to "revenge post" or "steal the last word." Your response where you said you'd rather stay on topic appeared while I was composing the reply. I agree this conversation, while interesting is not on topic.
Collateral my man you seem very learned and an absolute gentleman. I think we can agree to disagree because if historians haven't resolved this argument in 20 years, we certainly won't. But thanks for the food for thought.
 

Doctor Placebo

Somebody asked for brains?
kiwifarms.net
She makes R.L Stein look like Dostoevsky. This doesn't warrant that much time.
To be fair, R.L. Stein relied a lot on ghost writers after his first few Goosebumps books. Same with the Fear Street books. To be even more fair, something like Welcome to Dead House or The Haunted Mask is leagues better than Axiom's End, because Stein didn't rip off another writer who was already considered to be shit.

It did not take ten years to write the book, it took ten years to PUBLISH.
AKA ten years for her to schmooze and get down her knees forming the connections to get a nepotism publish that didn't care about her work's merit.
 

RumblyTumbly

kiwifarms.net
Has there ever been any live stream debates or face to face moments where someone called out Lindsay on her bullshit?
I think she's smart/self aware enough to not put herself in that position. She knows she'd get eaten alive or she'd get too emotionally charged when challenged (as most PC whackjobs do) and wind up embarrassing herself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NeoGAF Lurker

HonestJohn2376

kiwifarms.net
My favorite thing about revisionist history regarding WWII is that the US has to feel bad about what we did to Japan all the time, and its a crime that we will never be able to earn penance for, no matter how many times we beg forgiveness.

Fair enough, but I love how Japan has never been forced to apologize even once for its atrocities committed during WWII. I'm not even talking about Pearl Harbor either because, lets face it, the US got them back. But read up about the Rape of Nanking sometime, an event that Japan never apologized for and some even denied that it ever happened (despite photographic evidence existing). It got so bad that the Nazis (the actual literal ones) had to step in and tell Japan to knock it off. Yes, there is actually a story from WWII where the actual Nazis were shocked by their ally's actions and thought "Whoa...too far guys".
OT but Knowing Better even did a video on Japan refusing to acknowledge her WWII history.