Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The History Thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Giantsfan1080
    started a topic The History Thread

    The History Thread

    I've been wanting to make this forever. Let's discuss all things history before the 19th century. I know we have a lot of history fans here so let's keep it fun and not bring modern politics into this. I'll start by saying my favorite American historical period is the American Revolution. What about everyone else?

  • wordofi
    replied
    Originally posted by diabsoule View Post
    I don't see anything wrong with the discussion going on here just don't steer it towards anything political. Thank you, gents.
    Oh, the irony!

    Leave a comment:


  • CJSchneider
    replied
    But that is not what you did. You dismissed anyone who had a difference of opinion based on your body of work. I won't deny that you are well versed in the area we are in discussion over, but you can't deny that a fair number of academics, some even like yourself, support the argument I made as well. Where it may not be the most commonly supported viewpoint, it is a valid one none the less.

    Leave a comment:


  • bearsfan_51
    replied
    I don't argue with doctors about my medical condition, I don't argue with auto mechanics when they fix my car.

    Perhaps it was too confrontational (it would have been more polite and accurate to say "enough" instead of "any"), and I had forgotten that scotty is a history major, but the distinction between professionals and non-professionals exists in any field.

    If there was something wrong with my computer, and someone said "I build and fix computers for a living", I wouldn't continue to argue with him. I would assume that his access within a field and multiple years of training probably make him privy to a lot more information than I could ever hope to acquire. That's how you learn things as a person.

    Because we like to think of history as being something that is available to all of us, that leads to the belief that any particular opinion about the past is just as valid as any other.
    Last edited by bearsfan_51; 07-24-2011, 03:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • CJSchneider
    replied
    Diab, thank you for your endorsement of our discussion. BF51 and I are both intelligent enough to keep this on topic and I am sure we respect each other enough not to let this turn into something that will get the thread locked.
    I will admit, my strongest rationale for engaging in the debate at all was this statement-

    No offense, but that's because you don't know any of the history.

    Also, 9/11 killed about 3,000 people. Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 200,000 plus the long-term effects of radiation poisoning.

    So.....yeah.
    It is apparent that some of of know a reasonable if not considerable amount of the history. I'll be rather upfront about the fact that I did take some offense to the response to Scotty. Where as I am not unaware of your position, it has come from, in my experience, a sub-group that I can only define in terms that would get me in trouble here. I believe that on the matter of was it the right or wrong action to take by the U.S. we could debate for quite sometime and never be any closer than when we first started. But to assume that other know nothing on a particular subject is foolish, and I feel you of all people should know that - especially when considering the work you have done in your field, whatever specialized area that may be.

    Leave a comment:


  • diabsoule
    replied
    I don't see anything wrong with the discussion going on here just don't steer it towards anything political. Thank you, gents.

    Leave a comment:


  • bearsfan_51
    replied
    Tons of differences between 9/11 and Hiroshima, I agree. The biggest being that one was committed by an officially sanctioned polity and the other was not. Humans have always found state violence far more acceptable, for whatever reason, particularly when its against ones own people.

    Leave a comment:


  • CJSchneider
    replied
    Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post

    You are obviously entitled to your opinion. I'm just telling you that the vast majority of people who study this for a living would strongly disagree with you.
    On what points? I never said that the use of the weapon wasn't a show for the Russians, but none of the professionals who I have spoken with or taken classes from have ever disagreed that the bombing ended the war quicker and most likely resulted in fewer overall deaths.

    Furthermore, many of the people who "do this for a living" would likely list just as many differences as similarities between 9/11 and the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Leave a comment:


  • bearsfan_51
    replied
    The emperor was a public stooge and they were a propaganda state. There are also many diplomatic documents showing that they were not only preparing, but asking for a diplomatic end to the war.

    There was a strategic point, sure, but most historians agree that the two primary reasons for using the bomb were to scare the Russians and to justify all of the time and money spent on the Manhattan project. This is also represented in the documents, particularly the point on the Soviets, which they mentioned extensively.

    You are obviously entitled to your opinion. I'm just telling you that the vast majority of people who study this for a living would strongly disagree with you. There are some who deny global warming, but actual scientists support its existence overwhelmingly. I understand that there are many who would not look at science and history as analogous in this regard, but it is a difference between professionals and non-professionals nonetheless.

    Leave a comment:


  • CJSchneider
    replied
    Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
    Also, having historical documents really doesn't mean much depending on who the source is. American politicians shaped the way that the debate was framed because they had a specific agenda. It's like reading the memoirs of Genghis Khan to find out that he wasn't such a bad guy.

    There's a good article specifically about Henry Stimson and the "Enola ***" controversy. "Hiroshima as politics and history." The Journal of American History, Vol. 82, No.3, Dec., 1995.

    The overwhelming number of professional historians reject the argument that you're putting forward. I know what I'm talking about here.
    Really, because the documents I refer to are
    a) the letters written by the Japanese Minister of Defense and the Emperor saying that they would not surrender unless certain conditions were met. Conditions that never would be met and would have drawn Russia into war with Japan as well. These letters were written the day after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.

    b) propaganda from the Japanese Ministry written to citizens saying that the explosion was certainly not "Atomic" in nature and may have not been a bomb at all. They initially planned on denying the entire bombing itself.

    The second bombing was dropped on Nagasaki because of its naval importance. It is well documented that Hirohito later admitted they were worried about a third bomb that would be dropped on Tokyo and Hirohito changed the only condition to be Japan remain a sovereign nation with the Emperor as its ruler. As we both know, there was, however, a multinational occupation after the war was over.

    Now, if you recall, I agreed with your point that certain people post a large number of comments without thinking. Nor am I debating the moral implications of the use of the two bombings, however what is moral about killing period.

    What I argue is that perhaps there are a few of us here who do know a bit about history and that you are not the end all and be all on the topic, and I will stand by my opinion that the bombings, where horrific, ended the war quicker and with fewer net fatalities.

    Leave a comment:


  • scottyboy
    replied
    Originally posted by bearsfan_51 View Post
    I like scotty. No pwning intended.
    I like you too and fully respect your insight and opinions on damn near everything. In this one instance we may respectfully agree to disagree, and I admit I may also be wrong or not fully know of all the details. As much as history is perceived as factual and names and dates, there's so much analyzing and interpreting events. Gotta love it
    Last edited by scottyboy; 07-24-2011, 12:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bearsfan_51
    replied
    Also, having historical documents really doesn't mean much depending on who the source is. American politicians shaped the way that the debate was framed because they had a specific agenda. It's like reading the memoirs of Genghis Khan to find out that he wasn't such a bad guy.

    There's a good article specifically about Henry Stimson and the "Enola ***" controversy. "Hiroshima as politics and history." The Journal of American History, Vol. 82, No.3, Dec., 1995.

    The overwhelming number of professional historians reject the argument that you're putting forward. I know what I'm talking about here.
    Last edited by bearsfan_51; 07-24-2011, 12:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • bearsfan_51
    replied
    I like scotty. No pwning intended.

    Leave a comment:


  • CJSchneider
    replied
    Originally posted by scottyboy View Post
    pwn some noobs? **** that, i'm a history major.
    I love it, and by the way, I can point to historical documents that support my posts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jamaal-Football
    replied
    Originally posted by scottyboy View Post
    pwn some noobs? **** that, i'm a history major.
    Next to someone with at the very least ONE PhD, i'd say you're a noob, yes.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X

Debug Information