HISTORICAL TRUTH OR FEEL GOOD REVISIONIST CONSPIRACY HISTORY?

user ballots

worst : history :

HISTORICAL TRUTH OR FEEL GOOD REVISIONIST CONSPIRACY HISTORY?


[+] serious ballot by jappy
ACTIVE Fri Dec 08, 06 - Wed Sep 02, 09

As each year goes by, there are fewer and fewer members of our armed services from World War II left, Unfortunately as time goes by, many people in the United States forget just how important a role these service members played in preserving the freedom of not only the United States, but the support of freedom for others around the globe. It should be mandatory for every man woman and child in the United States over the age of 10 to watch the first 45 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, to fully understand and appreciate the ultimate sacrifice so many service members made to protect our way of life.

Even worse though are those who choose to rewrite history not for the purpose of correction, but for the purpose of political correctiveness, as though by ‘white washing’ historical events we can avoid ‘offending’ anyone. This is a complete and total travesty not only to the memory of those who lost their lives, but a slap in the face to what their sacrifice represented. Revisionist bullshit includes those who try and say that the U.S. government knew that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor and ‘allowed’ it in order to stir public sentiment and ‘anti Japanese behavior’.

These same miseducated apologists also believe that there was no reason to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instead subscribing to a completely ludicrous belief that the Japanese were ‘ready to surrender’ before the atomic bombs were dropped. There is quite a difference between the Japanese surrendering under their own terms, and the unconditional surrender that was needed by Allied forces to insure that the Japanese military machine would be dismantled to end their threat to the region.

Instead of the truth, we are given rewritten ‘feel good’ historical accounts, where it’s acceptable to hide the atrocities committed by other cultures, even when it mistakingly makes the United States the ever present ‘bad guy’ in all situations. What makes revisionists conspiracy theorists even worse, are that many of them are college professors molding the impressionable minds of students, who then go out into the world with these incorrect and completely idiotic beliefs about history.

With this in mind, is it better to be historically correct or politically correct with revisionist history?

historically correct
'feel good' incorrect history

Ballot #106547 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:









similiar ballots:
106589. Historical Truth or "feel good" DENIAL of any revision
33926. Why does modern society allow political correctiveness to take precedence over historical truth, not allowing new generations to learn from history?
54208. how many people think that Europeans have a revisionist mentality?
66111. Are the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq, a good example of history being rewritten?
112784. common history books in Europe: good or bad idea?
102816. 9-11 Conspiracy: Why is there no solid physical evidence for a conspiracy?
118670. I just ________________ and now I don't feel so good...
119675. What makes you feel good?
32498. How would you feel if we got all the US troops and good civilians out of Iraq and wiped out the country?
72997. "Beauty is truth; truth, beauty." - John Keats. But if you had to choose between the two, which would you pick?


COMMENTS:
And yes, there are stories in American history that are completely ridiculous, Columbus for instance, the story of the Pilgrims at Thanksgiving is another, I'm not saying that the United States is not guilty of foolhardy behavior. But some ideas are just ridiculous.
by jappy on Fri Dec 08, 06 8:52am [+]

Voted : historically correct
You mean revisionist history by Hollywood falsely adding stars of David to the cemetary scene?
by _Beelzebubba on Fri Dec 08, 06 9:04am [+]

Voted : historically correct
I am a bit of a WWII buff, and its a sort of hobby too.

Some of your conclusions I would disagree with, but you message that the sacrifices of those who fought and died in the war, should of course be kept alive.

As to whitewashing history, it is often overlooked that the old USSR did more to defeat the Nazis than the 'Allies' ever did, but this isnt taking away the effort on their part.

Britain stood alone for 2 years against the Nazi war machine and Germany was unable to break us, due in the most part to the RAF and the use of a new technology RADAR.

This is often 'arbrushed' out of history as told by Hollywood, that often portrays the US as the only participants.

Polish pilots died in their hundreds in the Battle of Britain and we shouldnt underestimate the resistance movements in Germany and Europe as a whole.

The dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in my opinion was morally unjustified.

The allies, could have exploded the bomb on an unpopulated area, and the Japanese would know what to expect, killing 100s of thousands of civilians seemed to be a matter of overkill.

Not only did the drop the bomb, they dropped another, just what point were they trying to make?

The US are far from the 'bad guys' in WWII, but it should be remembered that they were not fighting alone.
by Steelhamster on Fri Dec 08, 06 9:06am [+]

I totally agree with you steelhamster, that UBoat movie that Hollywood made totally pissed me off because how freaking hard would it have been to have given the British intelligence credit for capturing the German decoder. Hell if I remember right they didn't even get the name of the freaking UBoat correct. I know exactly what you mean, I'm not one of the American so called 'war buffs' who claims that the United States 'saved europe', considering how much the British and Russians did to stop Hitler. I will argue from time to time about the P51 Mustang but that's about it haha.
by jappy on Fri Dec 08, 06 9:10am [+]

And also, I think it's mostly Americans that seem to be whitewashing history in the name of being politically correct.
by jappy on Fri Dec 08, 06 9:11am [+]

Voted : historically correct
We must tell the truth.
by Black_Lava on Fri Dec 08, 06 9:29am [+]

Voted : historically correct
History and emotion are always a bad combination, and facts often get lost as a result. From what I've read, the myth that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor was part of post World War I pacifism. Pacifism was popular until Pearl Harbor after "the war to end all wars." I think Hiroshima was a necessary evil, although Nagasaki is more arguable.

History should be taught according to facts, not opinion, whether the opinion is political correctness, Lost Cause myth or whatever.
by skylab on Fri Dec 08, 06 9:52am [+]

Voted : historically correct
But I still believe the bombs were dropped to scare the Russians.
by thc2883 on Fri Dec 08, 06 3:40pm [+]

HISTORICALLY CORRECT AND TRUE - whatever that might be, and no matter who might be offended, even it turns it's nothing like the OFFICIAL version keeps claiming it to be...

No holy writ, no sacred cows, and no bullshit accuaations of "nazi" and "antisemite" by people trying to shout down the questioning of OFFICIAL history of ANY EVENT.
by Lovelynice on Sat Dec 09, 06 12:32am [+]

Jappy apparently likes to keep spreading old propaganda in denial of the facts.

The popular claim that the dropping of the nuclear bombs saved a million lives was fictional BS; McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. The Japanese government had also tried repeatedly to offer surrender with only one condition; the emperor would be safe. Guess what; that's exactly the condition that the USA accepted at the end anyway.

The Japanese first offered surrender straight after the Potsdam declaration. The ONLY condition they attached to their surrender was that the emperor would be protected. The USA refused to accept the Japanese offer of surrender. The Japanese tried again at least 3 times, two of those times via the Russians but the Russians apparently didn't pass the Japanese surrender offer onto the USA. The Japanese government also offered surrender by radio broadcasts, but again the leaders of the government of the USA refused to talk about it and pretended that they only wanted an unconditional surrender.

If the USA really wanted a quick surrender from Japan, then the USA should've simply agreed to the same conditions that the Japanese had asked for in response to the Potsdam Declaration; namely allow the Emperor's sacred position to be protected. Since that's the condition that the USA allowed in the end anyway, they could've accepted the Japanese surrender weeks before.

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, years later, declared that there was no need to attack Japan with "that awful thing,"

Admiral William Leahy, President Truman's wartime chief of staff, who chaired the Joint Chiefs, said "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender ... in being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."
Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.
by Lovelynice on Sat Dec 09, 06 1:03am [+]

On July 18, 1945, exactly 19 days before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan, in his own handwritten diary, Harry S. Truman wrote:

"Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. (Churchill) of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace…"

still think that Japan hadn't already offered surrender?
by Lovelynice on Tue Dec 12, 06 3:47am [+]

'feel good' revisionist history doesn't just extend to dealing with japans WW II role, but America's aswell. Where exactly are the British or Canadians mantioned in 'Saving Private Ryan', the film you insist everybody should watch? Oh thats rights, once, about half way through when Ted Danson and Tom Hanks talk about how crap montgomery was. No mention of the hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth soldiers who fought in Normandy.
by Chomsky on Tue Mar 13, 07 5:54am [+]






About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact
© 2002-2008 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved