Teachers sign pledge not to lie to students.

[Friend of Mara]

See above post.

Are you suggesting only events should be taught in history and not the political surroundings or motivations of events?

 

[Stevicus]

So why are American students not taught about Japan's several offers of surrender before the bombing?

Were those offers for unconditional surrender? I think that may have been the sticky point. The Japanese knew they couldn't win, but they weren't keen on making an unconditional surrender. There were also some hardheads among the Japanese military leadership who still wanted the war to go on.

Why are they not taught that, once the Nazi threat was eliminated, the USSR had turned it's entire attention to Japan -- whom they were already pi**ed off at from their defeat by the Japanese in 1905?

Soviet forces were massing in the East. A major strike was only weeks or days away. A Japanese defeat was imminent.

The "saving American lives" claim was a ruse. It was propaganda.The atomic bombings were aimed as much at at the Soviets, as a demonstration of military superiority, as they were at the Japanese.

I did have an uncle who was in the Marines who fought in the Pacific Theater. He once told me he would have been part of the invasion force against Japan if they had to launch an amphibious invasion. So, it might have saved his life to drop the bombs.

I don't think very many people understood the technology at the time, particularly when it came to fallout and radiation. They just saw the atomic bomb as just another "big boom" to go along with all the conventional bombs which were being dropped, only bigger. It's easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight, but I think the mood, perceptions, and values of our country were different back then. Even the bombings with conventional weapons were pretty horrific, both against Japanese and German civilians - yet nobody really seemed to care or bat an eye that these things were going on. War is hell. People seemed tougher back then, or at least, more cold and heartless when it came to killing. (That's why many of the Greatest Generation viewed the Boomers and Gen X-ers as weak, soft, spoiled, and wimpy.)

There was also still a great deal of latent anger over Pearl Harbor even by 1945. That was their 9/11 back then, and when people are gripped by such heavy doses of war fever, they don't think clearly.

 

[esmith]

Are you suggesting only events should be taught in history and not the political surroundings or motivations of events?

That is correct.
There is too much of a possibility that the teacher will introduce their opinion.

 

[esmith]

Were those offers for unconditional surrender? I think that may have been the sticky point. The Japanese knew they couldn't win, but they weren't keen on making an unconditional surrender. There were also some hardheads among the Japanese military leadership who still wanted the war to go on.



I did have an uncle who was in the Marines who fought in the Pacific Theater. He once told me he would have been part of the invasion force against Japan if they had to launch an amphibious invasion. So, it might have saved his life to drop the bombs.

I don't think very many people understood the technology at the time, particularly when it came to fallout and radiation. They just saw the atomic bomb as just another "big boom" to go along with all the conventional bombs which were being dropped, only bigger. It's easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight, but I think the mood, perceptions, and values of our country were different back then. Even the bombings with conventional weapons were pretty horrific, both against Japanese and German civilians - yet nobody really seemed to care or bat an eye that these things were going on. War is hell. People seemed tougher back then, or at least, more cold and heartless when it came to killing. (That's why many of the Greatest Generation viewed the Boomers and Gen X-ers as weak, soft, spoiled, and wimpy.)

There was also still a great deal of latent anger over Pearl Harbor even by 1945. That was their 9/11 back then, and when people are gripped by such heavy doses of war fever, they don't think clearly.

Yes hindsight is great isn't it.
Seems there are those who do not understand what total war is.

 

[Friend of Mara]

That is correct.
There is too much of a possibility that the teacher will introduce their opinion.

This seems like a wholly indefensible position to have. Do you think humanities shouldn't be taught at all since that is all it is? We also have factual information about motivations especially within recent history and teaching it as only events is a type of propaganda itself. How do you teach about the holocaust without involving the motivations behind it? How do you teach about slavery or the civil war without discussing the intentions behind it?

 

[Heyo]

Well let me just say this is your opinion.
Since you obviously was not present you do not have all of the information do you?

History is that was is documented. When a document exists that says the Japanese wanted to end the war before the bombings, it is a historical fact, not opinion.
The thing is that, especially in modern history, a selection is done and has to be done, what documents to exclude. This selection process is where opinion comes in. And by omitting some details, propaganda can be made.

 

[esmith]

History is that was is documented. When a document exists that says the Japanese wanted to end the war before the bombings, it is a historical fact, not opinion.
The thing is that, especially in modern history, a selection is done and has to be done, what documents to exclude. This selection process is where opinion comes in. And by omitting some details, propaganda can be made.

Please show the document that says, indisputably, that the Japanase want to "unconditionally", surrender prior to the use of the atomic bombs.

 

[Heyo]

Please show the document that says, indisputably, that the Japanase want to "unconditionally", surrender prior to the use of the atomic bombs.

? What has that to do with what I wrote?

 

[Valjean]

Please show the document that says, indisputably, that the Japanase want to "unconditionally", surrender prior to the use of the atomic bombs.

Of course not. They wanted to keep some of their territorial gains, but, in the end, they knew their position was hopeless. They'd already engaged with the Soviets, and were loosing a city nearly every day to American bombs. They'd have accepted whatever was offered.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes hindsight is great isn't it.
Seems there are those who do not understand what total war is.

I remember seeing a film in school, an older documentary which outlined the reasoning and justification for using the atomic bomb.

I also found an article which makes some interesting points: BBC - History - World Wars: Japan: No Surrender in World War Two

Bushido
Nationalists and militarists alike looked to the past for inspiration. Delving into ancient myths about the Japanese and the Emperor in particular being directly descended from the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu Omikami, they exhorted the people to restore a past racial and spiritual purity lost in recent times.

They were indoctrinated from an early age to revere the Emperor as a living deity, and to see war as an act that could purify the self, the nation, and ultimately the whole world. Within this framework, the supreme sacrifice of life itself was regarded as the purest of accomplishments.

Japan's samurai heritage and the samurai code of ethics known as 'bushido' have a seductive appeal when searching for explanations for the wartime image of no surrender. The great classic of Bushido - 'Hagakure' written in the early 18th century - begins with the words, 'Bushido is a way of dying'. Its basic thesis is that only a samurai prepared and willing to die at any moment can devote himself fully to his lord.

Although this idea certainly appealed to the ideologues, what probably motivated Japanese soldiers at the more basic level were more mundane pressures. Returning prisoners from Japan's previous major war with Russia in 1904-5 had been treated as social outcasts. The Field Service Code issued by General Tojo in 1941 put it more explicitly:

Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you.

Apart from the dangers of battle, life in the Japanese army was brutal. Letters and diaries written by student conscripts before they were killed in action speak of harsh beatings, and of soldiers being kicked senseless for the most trivial of matters - such as serving their superior's rice too slowly, or using a vest as a towel.

The Allies agreed to accept nothing less than unconditional surrender from the Axis Powers, but more than that, the U.S. had a particular hatred towards Japan as a result of Pearl Harbor. The article also notes this sentiment:

But John Dower, one of America's most highly respected historians of wartime and post-war Japan, believes a major factor, often overlooked in seeking to explain why Japanese soldiers did not surrender, is that countless thousands of Japanese perished because they saw no alternative.

He argues that the attack on Pearl Harbor provoked a rage bordering on the genocidal among Americans. Not only did Admiral William Halsey, Commander of the South Pacific Force, adopt the slogan 'Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs', public opinion polls in the United States consistently showed 10 to 13 per cent of all Americans supported the 'annihilation' or 'extermination' of the Japanese as a people.

Spoiler: Offensive Pic of Halsey Sign

This article gives a good summary of the different arguments regarding whether the Japanese would have surrendered anyway, or whether it was the use of the atomic bombs which convinced the Emperor to surrender.

Debate over the Japanese Surrender | Atomic Heritage Foundation

The debate over what precipitated the Japanese surrender at the end of World War II is a source of contention among historians. This debate has also figured prominently in the discussion of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (for more on that discussion, see Debate over the Bomb). The “traditional narrative” put forward in the war’s immediate aftermath was that using the atomic bombs caused the surrender, but this narrative has come under fire in subsequent years.

As with other debates around the Manhattan Project, ambiguities arise due to the fact that many of the available primary sources are considered unreliable. The historians who have tackled this issue have generally used the same pool of primary source information, but they have come to divergent conclusions because they differed in which sources they considered trustworthy or significant.



Traditionalist School
The “traditionalist school” accepts the explanation given by President Truman, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, and others in the government in the aftermath of the war. The traditionalist conception is that the atomic bombs were crucial to forcing Japan to accept surrender, and that the bombings prevented a planned invasion of Japan that might have cost more lives. Emperor Hirohito’s citation of the “new and most cruel bomb” in his speech announcing surrender bolsters this theory’s credibility.

Historians have critiqued various parts of this rationale for the bombings, including casualty estimates from the planned invasion. Retrospective estimates vary wildly, and are often lower than the figures stated by Truman and Stimson. But there is also a sizable literature disagreeing with the central premise: that the bombs led to the surrender.

Revisionist School

The oldest and most prominent critics of the traditionalist school have been the “revisionist school,” starting with Gar Alperovitz in the 1960s. The revisionists argue that Japan was already ready to surrender before the atomic bombs. They say the decision to use the bombs anyway indicates ulterior motives on the part of the US government. Japan was attempting to use the Soviet Union to mediate a negotiated peace in 1945 (a doomed effort, since the Soviets were already planning on breaking off their non-aggression pact and invading). Revisionists argue that this shows the bombings were unnecessary.

The other piece of evidence behind this claim is the US Strategic Bombing Survey, conducted after the war. It concluded that Japan would have surrendered anyway before November (the planned start date for the full-scale invasion). Some historians have identified flaws in the survey, based on contemporary evidence. Others have argued that the US had no reason to trust the sincerity of the Japanese outreach to the Soviets, and that evidence from within Japan indicates that the Japanese Cabinet was not fully committed to the idea of a negotiated peace.

Revisionists have also contended that surrender could have happened without the bombings if the US had compromised on its goal of unconditional surrender. The sticking point for the Japanese was retaining the emperor in his position. It is unclear if they would have accepted the reduction of the emperor to a figurehead, as eventually happened after the war. Many officials advocated for maintaining the emperor’s authority as a condition for surrender even after the Hiroshima bombing.

The Soviet Invasion

Another school of thought dismisses parts of both the traditionalist and revisionist theories, emphasizing instead the Soviet invasion of Japan-controlled Manchuria. The most prominent proponent of this theory is Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, who has argued that the invasion was far more important than the bombs in contributing to the surrender. Hasegawa’s arguments are partly based on chronology: the Japanese government made important decisions about surrender after the invasion, rather than after the Hiroshima bombing three days earlier. The Nagasaki bombing, by all accounts, did not change their calculus very much. Also, while the emperor cited only the atomic bomb in his speech to the people, a later rescript addressing troops mentioned the invasion specifically.

Hasegawa also has focused on trying to parse the decision-making process within the Japanese Cabinet. He argues that the Japanese were somewhat accustomed to bombing after the firebombing of numerous cities, including Tokyo. The atomic bombs were, to them, simply an escalation in scale, not an entirely new threat. He also asserts that Japan would have considered the Soviet invasion a bigger shock because of the underlying betrayal. The Japanese were also motivated, according to Hasegawa, by the desire to not allow the Soviets to have a hand in the post-war process. The aristocratic government feared the Soviet Union might foment―or directly bring about―a communist overthrow of their power structure.

Hasegawa’s theory has gained popularity, with a notable convert being Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Rhodes, but it is far from universally accepted. Critics have alleged that his methodology involves too much guesswork and that he interprets sources too liberally.

This seems like a rather cogent argument, in that Japan was likely more afraid of the Soviet Union and a possible communist takeover of their country. Surrendering to the U.S. and capitalism probably would have been more palatable to many.

Internal Politics

Another theory differs slightly from the traditionalist narrative. Some scholars still see the bomb as decisive. But they see it as an excuse for the Japanese leadership to end the war without facing an internal challenge. Herbert P. Bix, whose award-winning biography of Hirohito focused on internal Japanese records, contends that in 1945 many Japanese leaders were in a state of paranoia about a possible internal uprising. Especially after the government’s strictures against surrender, the emperor and his Cabinet worried about the consequences of capitulating. They were especially afraid of leftists or communist agitation. Despite the country’s strong nationalism, the 1940s had produced some general discontent because of rationing, bombings, and other wartime exigencies.

Bix argues that the emperor and the Cabinet saved face by declaring that they were surrendering in order to prevent further atomic bombings. This explanation helps to rationalize an apparent contradiction between the emphasis on saving Japanese lives in Hirohito’s radio broadcast and the government’s previously cavalier attitude toward their own civilian population. In the months before surrender, the Japanese government had ramped up the amount of kamikaze attacks. Just days before the final decision, they had been arming citizens with bamboo sticks to fend off a land invasion.

Bix posits that the bombs’ impact was not that they shocked the Japanese into giving up (he agrees with Hasegawa on this point), but that they allowed for the completion of a surrender process that was already desired. As with other theories above, this argument relies on guessing the thought process of the Japanese leaders.

 

[Deidre]

I think that the public school system is too obsessed with testing the ability of kids to retain information, than their understanding and critical thinking of it. It might be better if history classes became forums where students could engage in healthy discussions/debates, without the pressure of tests and grades. There are facts that come up in history, when/where/who, etc but the social justice aspects could be opened up for students to offer opinions and teachers could serve more as facilitators. I think the current teacher/student/pass/fail model is in need of reform. Our knowledge base as humans in general, isn't just about what we can retain for a short term test, but should be about how we communicate ideas to others, and help each other learn.

 

[Shaul]

I think that the public school system is too obsessed with testing the ability of kids to retain information, than their understanding and critical thinking of it. It might be better if history classes became forums where students could engage in healthy discussions/debates, without the pressure of tests and grades. There are facts that come up in history, when/where/who, etc but the social justice aspects could be opened up for students to offer opinions and teachers could serve more as facilitators. I think the current teacher/student/pass/fail model is in need of reform. Our knowledge base as humans in general, isn't just about what we can retain for a short term test, but should be about how we communicate ideas to others, and help each other learn.

Schools don’t just test for rout memorization. They also test for critical thinking and reasoning. Students need certain basic knowledge. Without such knowledge and the growth that happens while acquiring it, developing critical thinking is stunted. Eliminating grades and letting ignorant students simply opine from vacuousness is a recipe for a moronic society.

 

[Deidre]

Schools don’t just test for rout memorization. They also test for critical thinking and reasoning. Students need certain basic knowledge. Without such knowledge and the growth that happens while acquiring it, developing critical thinking is stunted. Eliminating grades and letting ignorant students simply opine from vacuousness is a recipe for a moronic society.

I'm not saying to eliminate tests, etc - there has to be a way to gauge understanding, but it's not the only way. And, from what I've been reading/hearing on the news, sounds like there are a lot of problems with public education, so something's not working.

 

[esmith]

History is that was is documented. When a document exists that says the Japanese wanted to end the war before the bombings, it is a historical fact, not opinion.
The thing is that, especially in modern history, a selection is done and has to be done, what documents to exclude. This selection process is where opinion comes in. And by omitting some details, propaganda can be made.

Please show the document that says, indisputably, that the Japanase want to "unconditionally", surrender prior to the use of the atomic bombs.

? What has that to do with what I wrote?

See your post and portion highlighted.

 

[Earthtank]

Pledge to Teach the Truth: Despite New State Bills Against It | Zinn Education Project

We, the undersigned educators, refuse to lie to young people about U.S. history and current events — regardless of the law.

Comments? Thoughts?

Should teachers lie to students? Should teachers who refuse to lie to students be fired? Do you support legislation that requires teachers to lie to students?

This actually needed a pledge? I thought this was the default position.

Edit to add: But, upon reading the article I can see why this is a problem because who is to decide what is the truth? One person calls something bigoted while someone else calls it the truth, who decides? You say gay they say immorality, who decides? I am not taking sides here just pointing out how messy this can actually be.

 

[Heyo]

See your post and portion highlighted.

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I can't go into very deep into text comprehension but a few hints.
1. "When a document exists" is a conditional. I don't claim there to be one, that was @Valjean.
2. Try to find "unconditional" in my post. You don't? Then why did you ask me to produce a document with "unconditional" in it? Even your misunderstanding of 1. doesn't justify that.
3. I used the Japanese willing to surrender as an example as it has been your and Valjean's talking point (and you said it was Valjean's opinion) to say something about opinion. That was the message of the post which seems to have flown right over your head.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are US high schools covering the underlying reasons of the US Civil War, and the crimes against Native Americans committed by US forces? Do US kids learn about e.g. Wounded Knee, or the Trail of Tears?

Unless they stopped, last I knew yes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Were those offers for unconditional surrender? I think that may have been the sticky point. The Japanese knew they couldn't win, but they weren't keen on making an unconditional surrender. There were also some hardheads among the Japanese military leadership who still wanted the war to go on.



I did have an uncle who was in the Marines who fought in the Pacific Theater. He once told me he would have been part of the invasion force against Japan if they had to launch an amphibious invasion. So, it might have saved his life to drop the bombs.

I don't think very many people understood the technology at the time, particularly when it came to fallout and radiation. They just saw the atomic bomb as just another "big boom" to go along with all the conventional bombs which were being dropped, only bigger. It's easy to look back with 20/20 hindsight, but I think the mood, perceptions, and values of our country were different back then. Even the bombings with conventional weapons were pretty horrific, both against Japanese and German civilians - yet nobody really seemed to care or bat an eye that these things were going on. War is hell. People seemed tougher back then, or at least, more cold and heartless when it came to killing. (That's why many of the Greatest Generation viewed the Boomers and Gen X-ers as weak, soft, spoiled, and wimpy.)

There was also still a great deal of latent anger over Pearl Harbor even by 1945. That was their 9/11 back then, and when people are gripped by such heavy doses of war fever, they don't think clearly.

The scientists who built the bomb were debating if they should use sunscreen or not when the bomb was tested, because they knew it wasn't just a big bomb amd the had no idea what it would do. Destroying the atmosphere was among the concerns, amd the center of the sunscreen debate.
It was hugely debated whether to use the bomb or not, plans to use the Navy to strangle Japan were made, and Japan was largely regarded as already beaten.
But, very much so the "regular bombings" were hideous and viciously cruel, but the devate does tend to revolve around the atomic bomb.

 

[Stevicus]

The scientists who built the bomb were debating if they should use sunscreen or not when the bomb was tested, because they knew it wasn't just a big bomb amd the had no idea what it would do. Destroying the atmosphere was among the concerns, amd the center of the sunscreen debate.
It was hugely debated whether to use the bomb or not, plans to use the Navy to strangle Japan were made, and Japan was largely regarded as already beaten.
But, very much so the "regular bombings" were hideous and viciously cruel, but the devate does tend to revolve around the atomic bomb.

Yes, the scientists knew, but I don't think very many other people knew about what it could do (and even the scientists weren't exactly sure either). Truman had also been kept in the dark; it might have gone differently if FDR had lived.

Most of the general public didn't even know of the bomb's existence.

Much of the debate today seems to focus on the view that the U.S. government should have had a conscience and should have been more compassionate towards the well-being of the Japanese people. I tend to agree with that position in theory, although I just don't think it was a possibility in 1945, as the public (including the government and military leadership) was still mostly filled with rage against Japan over Pearl Harbor.

We were far more inclined to be compassionate and merciful towards the Germans (such as the rejection of the Morgenthau Plan) than we were with the Japanese.

 

[esmith]

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I can't go into very deep into text comprehension but a few hints.
1. "When a document exists" is a conditional. I don't claim there to be one, that was
2. Try to find "unconditional" in my post. You don't? Then why did you ask me to produce a document with "unconditional" in it? Even your misunderstanding of 1. doesn't justify that.

What I was attempting to point out is the allied powers mandate that both Germany and Japan accept a "unconditional surrender". That was a major issue with the Japanese; they were looking at the Treaty of Versailles as a end to the war which would have had no occupation of Japanese soil,

3. I used the Japanese willing to surrender as an example as it has been your and Valjean's talking point (and you said it was Valjean's opinion) to say something about opinion. That was the message of the post which seems to have flown right over your head.

Color me dense, but I don't understand what you are saying.