Comments on: Narrative: the Crusade http://www.historynet.com/narrative-the-crusade.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:51:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Woody Tanaka http://www.historynet.com/narrative-the-crusade.htm#comment-692676 Woody Tanaka Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:39:08 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683899#comment-692676 "1) That the Germans were right wing. Wrong, they were socialists. National Socialists." There were socialists in early days of the movement, but they were cast off fairly early, definately before they took power. Calling them "right wing" is lazy, because a revolutionary nationalist movement simply doesn't fit in the left-right political spectrum. But to insist that they were socialists because of a PR move in the early days (the DAP added "Nationalsozialistische" as a way of trying to attract both nationalists and socialists, not out of any notion that the name reflect the group's principles and goals) is nonsense. If you are going to force them onto the spectrum, they can be called right-wing, because that is where we put nationalists, which they undoubtedly were. "1) That the Germans were right wing. Wrong, they were socialists. National Socialists."

There were socialists in early days of the movement, but they were cast off fairly early, definately before they took power.

Calling them "right wing" is lazy, because a revolutionary nationalist movement simply doesn't fit in the left-right political spectrum. But to insist that they were socialists because of a PR move in the early days (the DAP added "Nationalsozialistische" as a way of trying to attract both nationalists and socialists, not out of any notion that the name reflect the group's principles and goals) is nonsense. If you are going to force them onto the spectrum, they can be called right-wing, because that is where we put nationalists, which they undoubtedly were.

]]> By: Woody Tanaka http://www.historynet.com/narrative-the-crusade.htm#comment-692671 Woody Tanaka Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:28:49 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683899#comment-692671 Japan had no interest in taking control of the world. They were merely trying to play the white man's imperial game in Asia. Had they been given the political respect commesurate with their economic and military power from the 20's to 40's, it is possible they might not have gone down the path they did. Japan had no interest in taking control of the world. They were merely trying to play the white man's imperial game in Asia. Had they been given the political respect commesurate with their economic and military power from the 20's to 40's, it is possible they might not have gone down the path they did.

]]> By: Woody Tanaka http://www.historynet.com/narrative-the-crusade.htm#comment-692662 Woody Tanaka Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:23:07 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683899#comment-692662 Given that the Japanese surrendered because, with the entry of the Soviets into the war (which would have happened regardless of whether, or how, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed), the Japanese had no avenues to gain anything through a negotiated peace, leaving capitulation the only option, the notion that a "North Japan/South Japan" is nothing more than a fantasy without any historical potentiality at all. But you are right about the destructive force of the attacks on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being comparable raids on the people in the other Japanese cities, which begs the question of why anyone would believe that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would made the difference to the Japanese Government. If they've already endured the destruction of Tokyo and the other cities, what would it matter that two more were destroyed, or how they were destroyed?? They knew they had no ability to stop the USAAF from destroying what they wanted in Japan, regardless of the method by which the Americans chose to do it, which undercuts the notion that the A bombs caused the capitulation. Given that the Japanese surrendered because, with the entry of the Soviets into the war (which would have happened regardless of whether, or how, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed), the Japanese had no avenues to gain anything through a negotiated peace, leaving capitulation the only option, the notion that a "North Japan/South Japan" is nothing more than a fantasy without any historical potentiality at all.

But you are right about the destructive force of the attacks on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being comparable raids on the people in the other Japanese cities, which begs the question of why anyone would believe that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would made the difference to the Japanese Government. If they've already endured the destruction of Tokyo and the other cities, what would it matter that two more were destroyed, or how they were destroyed?? They knew they had no ability to stop the USAAF from destroying what they wanted in Japan, regardless of the method by which the Americans chose to do it, which undercuts the notion that the A bombs caused the capitulation.

]]> By: Woody Tanaka http://www.historynet.com/narrative-the-crusade.htm#comment-692656 Woody Tanaka Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:15:23 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683899#comment-692656 Oh, it was no crusade. We went to war against the Japanese because they attacked us and, more importantly, threatened Western hegemony in East Asia and we went to war against the Germans because they threatened the existing social order in Europe. Oh, it was no crusade. We went to war against the Japanese because they attacked us and, more importantly, threatened Western hegemony in East Asia and we went to war against the Germans because they threatened the existing social order in Europe.

]]> By: Woody Tanaka http://www.historynet.com/narrative-the-crusade.htm#comment-692650 Woody Tanaka Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:09:48 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683899#comment-692650 Hasegawa, I think, makes a good case for the bombs not having the "lifesaving" effect you propose, but being, rather, a unique method that simply repeated the existed destruction of Tokyo, and not a reason to capitulate. Hasegawa, I think, makes a good case for the bombs not having the "lifesaving" effect you propose, but being, rather, a unique method that simply repeated the existed destruction of Tokyo, and not a reason to capitulate.

]]> By: Woody Tanaka http://www.historynet.com/narrative-the-crusade.htm#comment-692646 Woody Tanaka Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:07:29 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683899#comment-692646 Who said we handed anyone anything or that it was ours to hand?? The Communists were going to be in Eastern Europe whether we liked it or not, and, once August '45 came around without Japanese capitulation, they were going to be in East Asia, well. Not really much the US could have done about it (politically or militarily.) And we were fighitng Fascism and Nazism, for sure, but Imperialism?? No. We were fine with Imperialism (in India, the Philipeans, Indo-China, e.g.) It was only Imperialism by Asians that we seemed to have a problem with. Who said we handed anyone anything or that it was ours to hand?? The Communists were going to be in Eastern Europe whether we liked it or not, and, once August '45 came around without Japanese capitulation, they were going to be in East Asia, well. Not really much the US could have done about it (politically or militarily.)

And we were fighitng Fascism and Nazism, for sure, but Imperialism?? No. We were fine with Imperialism (in India, the Philipeans, Indo-China, e.g.) It was only Imperialism by Asians that we seemed to have a problem with.

]]> By: Patrick Miano http://www.historynet.com/narrative-the-crusade.htm#comment-678260 Patrick Miano Sat, 06 Aug 2011 22:01:21 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683899#comment-678260 On December 8, 1941 (not 1942), the United States declared war on Japan, but not on Italy or Germany. Those two nations declared war on us first. Only then did we declare war on them. In every war, there are neutrals, and there are neutrals. The Germans had occasional border skirmishes with the Swiss and the Swedes, but showed "great forbearance" with them as well. with typical German realpolitik, they did what was practical and expedient. Making war on the USSR and the USA were no doubt Hitler's greatest blunders, but I have no doubt Stalin would have eventually attacked him no matter what. As for us, it would have been far better for him to maintain the status quo. After all, the USSR did not declare war on Japan until late in 1945. On December 8, 1941 (not 1942), the United States declared war on Japan, but not on Italy or Germany. Those two nations declared war on us first. Only then did we declare war on them. In every war, there are neutrals, and there are neutrals. The Germans had occasional border skirmishes with the Swiss and the Swedes, but showed "great forbearance" with them as well. with typical German realpolitik, they did what was practical and expedient. Making war on the USSR and the USA were no doubt Hitler's greatest blunders, but I have no doubt Stalin would have eventually attacked him no matter what. As for us, it would have been far better for him to maintain the status quo. After all, the USSR did not declare war on Japan until late in 1945.

]]> By: bobe http://www.historynet.com/narrative-the-crusade.htm#comment-673692 bobe Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:30:14 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683899#comment-673692 Any mention about UKRAINE genocide? or the baltic countries genocides? or the German genocide at the end of war? Any mention of soviets burning alive thousands of german officers and prisoners and wounded people? I think genocide as we know it it is very selective, all we hear it is that JEWISH genocide(that was horrible but orders came directly from HITLER'S desk), when there was much more going on in WWII. WWI had atrocities but WWII surpassed that in much larger scale. Any mention about UKRAINE genocide? or the baltic countries genocides? or the German genocide at the end of war?
Any mention of soviets burning alive thousands of german officers and prisoners and wounded people?
I think genocide as we know it it is very selective, all we hear it is that JEWISH genocide(that was horrible but orders came directly from HITLER'S desk), when there was much more going on in WWII.
WWI had atrocities but WWII surpassed that in much larger scale.

]]> By: John Henry http://www.historynet.com/narrative-the-crusade.htm#comment-673115 John Henry Wed, 03 Aug 2011 03:56:16 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683899#comment-673115 That last came off as a bit snarky in tone. My apologies. While I do stand by the substance of what I said, I did not intend snark. John Henry That last came off as a bit snarky in tone.

My apologies. While I do stand by the substance of what I said, I did not intend snark.

John Henry

]]> By: John Henry http://www.historynet.com/narrative-the-crusade.htm#comment-672313 John Henry Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:13:09 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13683899#comment-672313 My understanding, having looked into this 8-10 years ago is that the museum basically says that there were some others murdered in the camps without getting into the horror of the numbers. It basically whitewashed them in favor of presenting the people murdered in the camps as overwhelmingly Jewish. I guess in your note above the 3 million non-Jewish Poles are the etc? There were also about 3mm Polish Jews. Close to 6mm Poles murdered in total. John Henry (The above comments will likely brand me as a National Socialist or sympathizer.) My understanding, having looked into this 8-10 years ago is that the museum basically says that there were some others murdered in the camps without getting into the horror of the numbers. It basically whitewashed them in favor of presenting the people murdered in the camps as overwhelmingly Jewish.

I guess in your note above the 3 million non-Jewish Poles are the etc? There were also about 3mm Polish Jews. Close to 6mm Poles murdered in total.

John Henry

(The above comments will likely brand me as a National Socialist or sympathizer.)

]]>