|
Man Effectronica seems to be extraordinarily care mad at the thought the US could be in the right about anything for any reason. Does he get paid more when he wins an e-argument?
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Rakosi posted:You do not advertise Wikipedia as an example of good scholarship by your posting of non-peer reviewed research. Anyone can do that. Wikipedia is only as good as the citations.....which in at least 90% of cases on Science and History. So, yes, Wikipedia is a pretty good place to start for research. Naturally, you will get laughed out of the room if you actually cite Wikipedia on a paper as a source.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:24
|
|
-Troika- posted:Man Effectronica seems to be extraordinarily care mad at the thought the US could be in the right about anything for any reason. Does he get paid more when he wins an e-argument? I'm still waiting for you to apologize for lying about what I said. I suspect that I will go to the grave without ever having recompense or fair revenge for your slanders.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Counterpoint: Wikipedia is not awesome because a bunch of published historians that the rest of that specialist community disregards also have as much screen time on it. That you did a degree and are so quick to come to it's defense is alarming. Just because someone is an outlier doesn't automatically make them wrong. You can have a collective opinion of an entire specialty touting some belief and a handful of outliers disagreeing or presenting a different conclusion and as the data is reviewed, re-investigated, or just properly studied, the outlying position proven right. See "the earth is a sphere" and "revolves around the sun". I am not saying that applies in every situation, but dismissing it because some group doesn't like the research isn't always right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:You do not advertise Wikipedia as an example of good scholarship by your posting of non-peer reviewed research. Anyone can do that. I'm sorry that Theophanes the Confessor isn't peer-reviewed. He was born in 758 AD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Hair Is Spiders posted:Just because someone is an outlier doesn't automatically make them wrong. You can have a collective opinion of an entire specialty touting some belief and a handful of outliers disagreeing or presenting a different conclusion and as the data is reviewed, re-investigated, or just properly studied, the outlying position proven right. I'm just saying that someone who comes in this thread and, as a qualified historian, gets their facts predominantly from wikipedia, is being intellectually dishonest. Just because their degree is on the medium, that doesn't mean all other fields and specialties are equally well represented. Wikipedia has the problem of only really have english language sources cited. I have dozens of Japanese language primary and secondary sources in my uni library, on this exact subject. They are not on wikipedia. Rakosi fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Sergg posted:I'm sorry that Theophanes the Confessor isn't peer-reviewed. He was born in 758 AD.  "Your methodology is flawed, FLAWED I SAY! More data!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:32
|
|
Rakosi posted:I'm just saying that someone who comes in this thread and, as a qualified historian, gets their facts predominantly from wikipedia, is being intellectually dishonest. Just because their degree is on the medium doesn't mean anything. Well, there's a decent chance they're on Wikipedia.jp. There's that consolation.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:You do not advertise Wikipedia as an example of good scholarship by your posting of non-peer reviewed research. Anyone can do that. a lot of articles in Portuguese wikipedia are almost entirely copy pastes of portions of history books from the 70's and 80's, sometimes they're literally direct transcripts from what you can read in the book and the wikipedia article itself. wikipedia allows you to use the shittiest, archaic sources you want and it's really dangerous because a lot of times it's simply straight up outdated poo poo that defended by some wikipedia autist who reverts any future changes. most military articles are pretty cool though, even if there's still a shitload of WW2 articles where the Germans kill every single enemy that existed on the general vicinity of the battle because some werhaboo found nazi memoirs and that's a direct primary source so it's 100% valid
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Mans posted:a lot of articles in Portuguese wikipedia are almost entirely copy pastes of portions of history books from the 70's and 80's, sometimes they're literally direct transcripts from what you can read in the book and the wikipedia article itself. exactly my point, in a way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
My history professors weren't allowed to post their research on Wikipedia since you aren't allowed to post original research on Wikipedia. I was allowed to so I did, and I cited the peer-reviewed books written by my history professors. The professor that I did the majority of postings for is one of the foremost historians in his field (Robert Citino) and he was a lecturer at Westpoint Military Academy for a second.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Sergg posted:My history professors weren't allowed to post their research on Wikipedia since you aren't allowed to post original research on Wikipedia. I was allowed to so I did, and I cited the peer-reviewed books written by my history professors. Yes but that does nothing for Wikipedia's credibility and why can you not understand this if you're a history post-grad?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm still waiting for you to apologize for lying about what I said. I suspect that I will go to the grave without ever having recompense or fair revenge for your slanders. You can't slander someone that has no reputation to speak of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:56
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:You can't slander someone that has no reputation to speak of. "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Shouldn't you have quoted scripture before you nailed yourself to that cross?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I'm just saying that someone who comes in this thread and, as a qualified historian, gets their facts predominantly from wikipedia, is being intellectually dishonest. Just because their degree is on the medium, that doesn't mean all other fields and specialties are equally well represented. There is always going to be an inherent disagreement on the actual numbers when it comes to deaths in war. Largely because you get into what qualifies as result of and related to. If the defeated manages to survive in some order, there will be further disagreement. Three sides to every story so to speak. With WWII or any country that there is not a well documented or easily verified census, it becomes more guess work unless you can count every body. Which in China during WWII isn't going to happen. But that does not automatically mean the sources provided through Wiki are not credible in a manner of a decent estimate. Wiki is like a clearing house of sources with quick or one line source summaries. As long as the sources cited in the article are credible then linking to the wiki is just as credible as linking to the source for that fact, since the cite is linked to by the little number. Lazy? Possibly. But not intellectually dishonest as long as its a credible source. It isn't credible if its just some editor on wiki spouting what he saw on info-wars with out any citation to back it up. So we agree and disagree to a point I believe. Effectronica posted:"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." Did you come up with this while waiting to harass goats on a bridge or while you waited for a principal to open the locker you were stuck in?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Hey man Wikipedia cites its sources and is rated as more accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica. The sources he's citing are indeed from Wikipedia, but they are some of the most in-depth scholarly reports on the subject. The main disagreement he and I are having is not about the numbers of dead, but of the culpability with regard to famine and disease deaths caused by the war. Uh, let's be careful here, some Wikipedia pages are filled with utter garbage. Especially once you start going off the beaten path. Some articles are very well sourced, but always look at the sources, especially for unbelievable or biased-sounding claims.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I have dozens of Japanese language primary and secondary sources in my uni library, on this exact subject. They are not on wikipedia. Feel free to add the information into the relevant articles and cite your sources.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." You're not an apostle. You are a bad poster on noted comedy forum somethingawful.com.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
The indefensible wikipedia revisionism that haunts the Internets to this day
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
It would be no war crime to drop an atom bomb on this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I'm just saying that someone who comes in this thread and, as a qualified historian, gets their facts predominantly from wikipedia, is being intellectually dishonest. Just because their degree is on the medium, that doesn't mean all other fields and specialties are equally well represented. You realize mangas aren't considered historical sources, no matter how gritty and mature.. right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Sergg posted:I started reading more about the Wang Jingwei Government (on Wikipedia pretty much, the japanese were if anything -hesitant- on accepting defection but there were no shortage of men willing to defect when given the chance. It's really the consequences of china having a decentralized military organization ever since the banner armies were destroyed during the taiping rebellion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 06:04
|
|
) and apparently a shitload of Kuomintang units would directly defect to it en masse when sandwiched between the Communist and Japanese forces. Japanese propaganda used it as a way of convincing the Kuomintang units to preserve their strength against the Communists. They would then often proceed to defect back to the Kuomintang when thrown into battle against them, and then eventually all those Kuomintang units defected to the Communists. Dudes changed flags faster than Italy.
|
Sucrose posted:Uh, let's be careful here, some Wikipedia pages are filled with utter garbage. Especially once you start going off the beaten path. Some articles are very well sourced, but always look at the sources, especially for unbelievable or biased-sounding claims. basically the more mainstream an article is the greater likelihood the information is actually correct if it's something not about the english speaking world, especially if it's something about some poo poo which happened in 1500s or w/e in eastern europe then chances are it was written by some frothing at the mouth nationalist trying to prove his country was the greatest hundreds of years ago to compensate for the fact that it's a shithole today
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Mans posted:some werhaboo Duuuude. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:When it comes down to it, they offered to surrender on the condition that the Imperial System be preserved, and, funnily enough, the Japanese left has been consistent in saying that Japan should be a republic and should repudiate the vestiges of empire. So maybe it was more about symbols than about political power in the end. ' That was only 1 of the 4 requirements they made for any "surrender" that the Japanese were willing to accept. The rest would turn the last 3 years of WW2 into a "oops, do over". Prime Minister Abe has repeatedly made efforts to remove Article 9 from the Japanese Constitution - both times he has been in office. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/norihiro-kato-japans-break-with-peace.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/world/asia/abe-makes-impassioned-appeal-to-change-constitution.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/02/us-japan-defense-idUSKBN0F52S120140702
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
just want to defend my granpappy's honor. Although "Chemical Warfare Division" sounds like "War Crimes Division" in modern parlance, in WW2 parlance it was way more broad. Basically it was 'Better Warfare through Chemistry' and included (to my certain knowledge) smoke generators and flamethrowers under its purview as well as the more well known gas weapons. They probably worked on stuff like the incendiary bombs as well. Okay, maybe it was the war crimes division. :|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 10:27
|
|
Huttan posted:That was only 1 of the 4 requirements they made for any "surrender" that the Japanese were willing to accept. The rest would turn the last 3 years of WW2 into a "oops, do over". Please don't post from alternate timelines. In our world, Japan offered to surrender on one condition, and it was accepted, rather than full unconditionality, for largely the same reasons that Truman dropped the bomb in the first place. In addition, I don't know what those articles are in response to. Are they because of some syllogism where Japan=bad=left-wing, or is it a more simple rage at the perfidy of damnable Nihon?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 12:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Please don't post from alternate timelines. In our world, Japan offered to surrender on one condition, and it was accepted, rather than full unconditionality, for largely the same reasons that Truman dropped the bomb in the first place. It seems kind of disingenuous to imply that everyone who disagrees with you must be a racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Here's a good question: did the massive American firebombing campaign overall have a solid military benefit worth its cost? Like how much did we benefit from torching Tokyo and burning a bunch of indentured Korean slave laborers and women & children to death?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
all those firefighting teams were too busy putting out fires in Japan and so they couldn't be used in Japanese ships
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Please don't post from alternate timelines. In our world, Japan offered to surrender on one condition, and it was accepted, rather than full unconditionality, for largely the same reasons that Truman dropped the bomb in the first place. I get the felling that you don't even know what the issue this thread was discussing anymore. You just want to argue with people regardless of the merit of the argument or relation to the topic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:
I've always been impressed at your ability to cut a man down using words. If the world had more eloquent diplomats like you, WMDs would indeed be a relic of bygone days. It's been a while, good to see you're doing well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Here's a good question: did the massive American firebombing campaign overall have a solid military benefit worth its cost? Like how much did we benefit from torching Tokyo and burning a bunch of indentured Korean slave laborers and women & children to death? It depends what you want to classify as a military benefit. If we're talking about raw materiel and war fighting capability reductions than no, the strategic bombing campaign was a failure by every possible metric. As a weapon of terror, it was extremely effective. It took the US almost an entire month to establish their occupation forces after Japan finally capitulated, in the interim they flew low level B-25 flights to scare the poo poo out of the locals and serve as a warning. Basically "if you try to oppose this occupation we will bomb the poo poo out of you indiscriminately". Also there was no side benefit of the bombing raids drawing out the Japanese Air Force for it to be bled dry as it was in Europe. For both the occupation of Germany and Japan, the US military was allowed to practice punitive bombing/artillery shelling and summary execution. I'm unaware of any of that being necessary in Japan, and in Germany I believe there was only a handful of towns destroyed as punishment via artillery, and quite a few executions, but the threat was always there until about mid '46 when it was deemed unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Why did it take Japan three days to surrender after Hiroshima, if the bomb was what caused them to do so? The Japanese government clearly knew that it was bombed merely hours after it had happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Bolow posted:It depends what you want to classify as a military benefit. If we're talking about raw materiel and war fighting capability reductions than no, the strategic bombing campaign was a failure by every possible metric. As a weapon of terror, it was extremely effective. It took the US almost an entire month to establish their occupation forces after Japan finally capitulated, in the interim they flew low level B-25 flights to scare the poo poo out of the locals and serve as a warning. Basically "if you try to oppose this occupation we will bomb the poo poo out of you indiscriminately". Also there was no side benefit of the bombing raids drawing out the Japanese Air Force for it to be bled dry as it was in Europe. Strategic bombing didnt reduce Japanese military capability? That surprises me. What is your source? The Strategic Bombing Survey?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
Did the Japanese have any knowledge before Hiroshima that the U.S. or any WW2 power was developing a nuclear weapon, or did it come completely out of the blue with pun marginally intended?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:Did the Japanese have any knowledge before Hiroshima that the U.S. or any WW2 power was developing a nuclear weapon, or did it come completely out of the blue with pun marginally intended?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm sure they knew of their own nuclear program. That sounds like tertiary source mumbo jumbo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Bolow posted:For both the occupation of Germany and Japan, the US military was allowed to practice punitive bombing/artillery shelling and summary execution. I'm unaware of any of that being necessary in Japan, and in Germany I believe there was only a handful of towns destroyed as punishment via artillery, and quite a few executions, but the threat was always there until about mid '46 when it was deemed unnecessary. Off the top of my head the Canadians burnt down a entire town and then used bulldozers to use the rubble to make roads for their tanks after a rumor spread that their commanding officer had been killed by a German civilian. (he had actually been killed by a German soldier hiding in a farmhouse) That's the only really notable example I can think of. The SHAEF counterinsurgency manual advises taking hostages if the local population is overly uncooperative. https://archive.org/details/CombattingTheGuerrilla FrensaGeran posted:Did the Japanese have any knowledge before Hiroshima that the U.S. or any WW2 power was developing a nuclear weapon, or did it come completely out of the blue with pun marginally intended? As I recall they hadn't made fundamental mistakes in their math like the Germans (who, IIRC, believed the bomb would need to be the size of a house), but had only begun extracting small amounts of uranium in 1945. They had also requested a shipment of uranium yellowcake from Germany via submarine. I think somebody said earlier in the thread that their scientists had confirmed it was a nuclear bomb within a couple days of Hiroshima, but believed it would take the US at least a year to make another one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 10:39
|
|