Smithsonian Article plagued by revisionism comments

[fnqvmuch]

Then, as it is about all this;

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and American Militarism | The Los Angeles Review of Books
suppose he knows his stuff or at least more than most - obviously some niggles, but - its such a good point he gets to ...
( Paul Ham, at least his Kokoda - is excellent, btw)

 

[GrauGeist]

Then, as it is about all this;

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and American Militarism | The Los Angeles Review of Books ... militarism

suppose he knows his stuff though i had some niggles - but its such a good point he gets to ...
( Paul Ham, at least his Kokoda - is excellent, btw)

I am having problems with the author and their facts, one that really stands out, is the development and use of napalm. It was first made and tested in 1942 and then during testing, examples of German and Japanese buildings were used. It's first deployment was in the ETO, Germany to be exact and the USAAF and the RAF used it on targets BEFORE it was used in the PTO, on targets in Japan.

Another comment they made, was that Japan's AA and fighter defenses were gone before the atomic bombings, which is not the case. Even right after the bombing of Hiroshima, B-29s and their escort were attacked by Japanese fighters over Yawata, resulting in the loss of a B-29 and several P-47s. Even after the 2nd atom bomb was dropped, combat continued and on 17/18 August, USAAF B-32s were intercepted by Japanese fighters near Tokyo.

However, one of the main reasons that interception of Allied aircraft by Japanese fighters was diminishing, was NOT because they didn't any more fighters. Instead, Japanese high command ordered fighters to be held in reserve to challenge the invasion that they knew was coming...

So I am having a little trouble with that author, to be honest.

 

[fnqvmuch]

yes, but apart from those obvious bits i warned about ...

 

[GrauGeist]

True, you had pointed that out but here's my problem with that:
"Slight" ommissions or providing just enough information as they have done, is bending the tone of their article.

If an author truly wants to present thier case, they need to do it by providing honest facts, otherwise they drift into a fictional realm.

This can be compared to the restoration of a WWII aircraft. The meticulous research underlies the project and once it's completed, it's rolled out for the public to see. Writing an article (or book) is no different. It is all in the effort to present history as it is for later generations.

Intentionally telling a reader that Napalm was developed for warfare against Japan is an all-out lie and is broadcasting misinformation. Once the auther said that, I instantly questioned all of his other facts and motives because he is not preserving history, he's distorting it. You and I may know he's told a lie, but what about the other readers who don't know better?

And that right there, has just become history revised...

 

[vikingBerserker]

I agree with Dave on his comment about Japanese Fighters. A wonderful book to read about this is called Hell to Pay - Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 by D. M. Giangreco. The Japanese had hoarded thousands of planes and the had plenty of fuel to be used only during the Allied invasion.

I also agree with Hiromachi on a couple of his points. A number of us have the luxury of looking back 70 years and knowing both sides of the story without the emotions of having to directly live through them. I am not sure one can fully understand or appreciate a problem without looking at both sides of it to begin with.

Victors have a habit of writing history. If the Axis had won I would not have been surprised if the bombing of Dresden or the dropping of the atomic bombs were considered War Crimes while the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking were not given a second thought. How many Allies were tried for the Katyn Massacre or the Tongzhou Incident? I suspect none.

If I was alive and in command I would have used the bombs to primarily save Allied lives. The Japanese Civilians had in essence become a militia from the reports I have read and thus a valid military target. Today in hindsight and knowing both sides of the issue, I still would have dropped the bombs not only save Allied lives but also those of the Japanese as well. I have no doubt that invading the islands would have caused a tremendous loss of lives on both sides.

I have no issue with analyzing data in hindsight and I think at times one can be far more objective. The issue I have with Zach is he is not even making an effort to learn both sides of the story or all the facts and data on hand which leads me to a saying I say quite often, "You cannot reason with an unreasonable person."

 

[fnqvmuch]

ok the airspace was not 100% until all those propellers were detached - we all know this - but writing in the LArb? I think its an interpretation, just to quickly illustrate the increasing impunity/supremacy; would that readership appreciate what Iwo Jima looked like by then?
As to Napalm - the word used is developed, not invented - was the concept not in any way taken further given the target application then?
No-one knows it all, i don't mind taking on a bit extra ...

 

[GrauGeist]

Yes, the article implies that napalm was "developed" solely for the use against Japanese targets.

It was not. It's concept actually came about before the U.S. was at war with Japan and then a short while later, as the synthetic compounds were successfully processed for it's testing, they didn't even know if U.S. forces were going to be able to defeat Japan, let alone get near enough to the Home islands to even try and use it.

It might also be noted that Napalm was also a key ingredient in U.S. flame-throwers, but that's for a different discussion.

So the bottom line here, is that the auther is steering the reader towards a conclusion.

 

[fnqvmuch]

an awful lot of writing is to do just that.
lets agree that in the examples above the facts are spun, by use of weasel wording to precondition for something.
there are more fact-y bits there that should not be dismissed though ... citing primary sources, iirc.

 

[fnqvmuch]

Really though, as it's just a book review by a peer, it has done the job - i want to get the Ham and will try to find the reviewers book/s. Preaching to the converted works ...

 

[GrauGeist]

There was a book published several years ago, by a well known author who "speculated" that the Germans had flown a Ju390 (V2) to the east coast of the United States on a recon mission. There was never any proven sources of this claim and a high degree of evidence proves this flight never happened.

However, since this was a published account, many people who were not able to access Luftwaffe data or took the account as gospel propegated the myth and it still persists to this day. As you are well aware of, what is written can be done in such a way as to mislead or sway a reader.

Since the article is trying to push a point across to the reader, that the United States wanted desperately to use the atom bombs on Japan (because the U.S. is a militaristic society), embellishing the point of Napalm development the way he did, lends weight to his point. So to, does the way he makes the Japanese sound like they were wobbling on their last legs, by saying they had no way of bringing their army home from Manchuria/Korea while the author ALSO fails to mention that there were well over 2 million Japanese soldiers on home soil, the remainder offshore being roughly 5 million. At no point, does the author even cover the effective preparations the Japanese have made for defense, but instead, insists the Japanese were ready to surrender prior to the bombing. The Japanese, like it has been mentioned before, were still full of fight, they were still defiant and they were prepared to fight to the death defending their soil.

As Allied forces closed in on Japan, they encountered stronger resistance. By the time the Allies assaulted the lower islands of Japan proper (Iwo Jima Okinawa), the fighting was savage and all-or-nothing. This was alarming to Allied strategists, because they knew that if the Japanese were willing to put up a savage defense of those two Japanese islands, then the defense of the homeland would be unimaginable. And they were right.

The author also drifts between information of strategic bombing of Europe and strategic bombing over Japan, using the "unpredictable wind currents" that plagued the Japanese bombing strategy when discussing European bombing strategy. The more I read this guy's article, the angrier I get.

If, for some reason, I were to take all that he's saying as fact, it would instantly render my entire library worthless...

I'm starting to wonder if this author knows our friend Zachary...

 

[pbehn]

Any one writing a history book seeks to bring new information or a new viewpoint to revise opinion however I always consider "revisionist" to be presenting history with a twisted agenda, holocaust denial and "Dresden was a war crime" are examples of this in my book.

I always thought that the Japanese were able to intercept the Enola Gay plus two other B29s but thought it was a recon flight.

Whatever the morality of the A Bomb every nation with the resources to build on has done so or tried to. No nation has ever developed a weapon then not used it in favour of letting their men get killed. An exception may be the information from Ultra but that was to protect future operations and lives. The use of the bombs was probably th best option for both sides in terms of loss of life, fortunately Japan still had enough of a coherent system in place to bring about a surrender by the military.

 

[fnqvmuch]

should be careful lest we conflate work/words of two quite divergent authors here; one is a bona fide historian - the other one it seems has some relevant experience -which has informed at least one book ie knew le may - dunno about your zach though.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

should be careful lest we conflate work/words of two quite divergent authors here; one is a bona fide historian - the other one it seems has some relevant experience -which has informed at least one book ie knew le may - dunno about your zach though.

And there have been MANY "bona fide historians" who have put out inaccurate and WRONG information over the years.

 

[Shortround6]

The Japanese were resorting not only to Kamikaze aircraft, but suicide motor boats (thousands built), suicide or 'manned' torpedoes and even lunge mines for anti-tank work.

Perhaps the Japanese were on the verge of defeat but it seemed at the time that they were quite willing to trade Japanese lives for allied lives at a rather unfavorable ratio (overall, not for one successful attack) for quite some time. They also seemed willing to use unorthodox equipment of low cost in material to wage war until the final defeat. They were some of the first to use IEDs to combat, in some cases a soldier in a hole with an aircraft bomb/artillery shell and a hammer. He used the hammer on the fuse to "command detonate" bomb when allied vehicle/troops were in effective range.

It is little wonder that the Allies/Americans looked to avoid invading the Japanese home Islands by using any means possible. The eventual end was not in doubt. The cost in lives, both Allied and Japanese was.

 

[stona]

The problem with these sorts of theories is that like the denial of the moon landings, they depend on hundreds or thousands of people being complicit in some kind of cover up or promotion of an alternate history. In the case of the atomic bomb many men on both sides of the Atlantic would have been involved. That would include Churchill and his cabinet and on the American side Stimson, McCloy, Leahy, King, Groves, MacArthur and any number of scientists including Oppenheimer to name but a few.

A wise man once said that three men can keep a secret only if two of them are dead. That was Benjamin Franklin, and it is an astute observation.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Wavelength]

These attempts at revising history have less with correcting errors in the historical record than with pushing current agendas and current politics.