[Psudo]

Toshio Tamogami is a Japanese General (namely, Chief of Staff of Japan Air Self-Defense Force). Rather, he was until he wrote an essay [English PDF] defending Japan's role in WW2 and entered it into a private contest. It was published on Halloween, and he won the top prize. He has since been sacked, as his views conflict with the government's official stances and are considered destructive to far-eastern diplomacy.

General Tamogami blames international communism (Cominten) infiltration and manipulation of the Roosevelt administration and in mainland China for trapping Japan into a necessity of fighting (ultimately unsuccessfully) to defend themselves. He argues that the Japanese treated their colonies better than any other nation at the time treated their colonies. He concludes:

General Tamogami wrote:

Japan is a wonderful country that has a long history and exceptional traditions. We, as Japanese people, must take pride in our country’s history. Unless they are influenced by some particular ideology, people will naturally love the hometown and the country where they were born. But in Japan’s case, if you look assiduously at the historical facts, you will understand that what this country has done is wonderful. There is absolutely no need for lies and fabrications. If you look at individual events, there were probably some that would be called misdeeds. That is the same as saying that there is violence and murder occurring today even in advanced nations.

We must take back the glorious history of Japan. A nation that denies its own history is destined to pursue a path of decline.

His arguments really resonate with those of American conservatives. US-cons agree that communist infiltration in US government in the 40s influenced government, and that Roosevelt did not do enough to prevent it. Also, his re-examination of a military failure to claim the moral high-road strongly parallels the US-con view of Vietnam (formally called the "revisionist school"). Also, he argues for increased military sovereignty for Japan (military sovereignty is always a conservative virtue).

Obviously, I realize that Japan and the United States were brutal enemies in that war, but I can't help but see common ground with this man's views and perhaps seeds of respect. Is it bizarre for conservatives from opposite sides of a war to find respect and common ground for each other? Obviously it is conservative to love one's own heritage, but is it conservative to want the foreigner to love that foreign heritage as well? If not, what is it called when a man wants all people to love their diverse nations as much as he loves his own?

[Mustang1]

He's a revisionist. If you want to see the German counterpart, head on over to Stormfront where the apologists make similar claims regarding Germany in the 30s.

[Psudo]

Mustang: My interest is not because the argument exists, but because it makes some sense. Of course an argument exists for every point of view. But, say, the Unibomber's Manifesto is paranoid, Ludditical insanity, while General Tamogami's essay, while a little too fatalist, is generally rational. At least in my opinion.

Similarly, white power groups are full of nonsensical arguments and logical fallacies. Further, even if I did want to read a white supremacist argument, I'd look for a formal essay rather than a web forum. Man-on-the-street conversations make for lousy research.

[Mustang1]

Psudo wrote:

Mustang: My interest is not because the argument exists, but because it makes some sense. Of course an argument exists for every point of view. But, say, the Unibomber's Manifesto is paranoid, Ludditical insanity, while General Tamogami's essay, while a little too fatalist, is generally rational. At least in my opinion.

Actually, an argument may exist, but it's a poor one. Japan was an aggressor - they've admitted as much - and Tamogami's "essay" is one full of revisionism, bias and nationalism. It's long on rhetoric and short on history. I suspect that the same people that subscribe to this, push intellectual relativism as well

Quote:

Similarly, white power groups are full of nonsensical arguments and logical fallacies. Further, even if I did want to read a white supremacist argument, I'd look for a formal essay rather than a web forum. Man-on-the-street conversations make for lousy research.

Wow. Since when did White Supremacy come from only frothing-at-the-mouth, Skinheads, kicking it out back of their doublewides. Talk about naive. Read Lipstadt "Denying the Holocaust: the growing assault on truth and memory" to see how Holocaust Denial, and revisionism can take on all sinister forms.

Further, last time I checked David Irving wrote some pretty articulate, formal, lucid, revisionist garbage. He's no "man-on-the-street", but he's still a revisionist. Much like Tamogami

Japan wasn't a victim in WWII. It was an imperialist aggressor that sought Asian hegemony. Japan wasn't dragged into an American "trap". Japan engaged the United States with a sneak attack. It's sad that anyone would grant this dreck legitimacy, but then, Irving, Zundel and Faurisson have their misguided supporters too

Anyway you slice it, it's revisionism - no different than Holocaust denial - and it's certainly not a persuasive argument.

[Psudo]

Why do you perceive all revisionism to be sinister garbage? If you can't consider revisionist arguments on the merits of their arguments rather than on the social acceptability of their positions, how can you ever correct mistakes in the historical orthodoxy?

Or is that orthodoxy infallible? Now that would be a naive belief.

I'm not even arguing that he's right. I'm just arguing that his view deserves consideration. If he's wrong, dispute him in points of fact, or at least identify and question his specific uses of personal judgment. But you haven't shown any evidence that you've even read the article. It's only six pages; can't you spare 5 or 10 minutes?

[Scape]

Wave off Psudo, you have been warned. M1 will have you for breakfast if you even think revisionist dreck deserves equal play. It needs to be judged upon by its merits not because if you have one side of the argument you must have a counterpoint. To that end the revisionist platform is based on very little fact and a whole lot of wishful, rose coloured glasses type thinking that glosses over far to much reality and plays up far to much of 'what ifs' it doesn't deserve to be held as credible.

[Psudo]

In as much as the revisionist argument "is based on very little fact and a whole lot of wishful, rose coloured glasses type thinking that glosses over far to much reality and plays up far to much of 'what ifs' it doesn't deserve to be held as credible." But your very agreeable quote and the definition of "revisionist" are not the same thing.

I've read and disputed revisionist arguments before. But I know of no reason why revisionism inherently includes such bad reasoning. Often, yes. But inherently?

I don't even care about what specific revisionist argument is being discussed and whether it specifically is dreck. I care about the philosophical question "What about revisionism generally makes every possible revisionist argument inherently invalid?"

[Mustang1]

Psudo wrote:

Why do you perceive all revisionism to be sinister garbage? If you can't consider revisionist arguments on the merits of their arguments rather than on the social acceptability of their positions, how can you ever correct mistakes in the historical orthodoxy?

I don't consider ALL revisionism "sinister" but I find that often an agenda - other than the search for historical truth - is behind their writings. In the case of Holocaust deniers, it's Hitler apologists or anti-Semites. In the case of Japanese revisionists, it's contemporary nationalism or other agendas.

Quote:

Or is that orthodoxy infallible? Now that would be a naive belief.

We're not discussing orthodoxy, are we? We're discussing revisionism, which, unlike scholarly work is peer reviewed, expertly written, contains primary and secondary sources (I noticed your little essay contained NO sources, but, hey, taking it on face value, that's naive) and meets methodological standards. That's not infallible but it's a heck of lot more accurate than amateurish fluff tossed around by revisionists.

Quote:

I'm not even arguing that he's right.

Good, 'cause he's wrong.

Quote:

I'm just arguing that his view deserves consideration.

Uh, yes, the credo of all good revisionists - intellectual relativism! All ideas are equal, all presenters afforded equal footing (despite a lack of formal training) and anyone can offer an opinion that should be granted instant legitimacy!

Wrong. Revisionists don't have arguments. They don't deserve consideration. No educated individual is going to entertain the notion that the Holocaust didn't happen. No historically aware person is going to grant an audience with someone who actually believes that Japan wasn't an imperialist aggressor in WWII or that it was "tricked" into attacking the United States. Only those grossly unaware of history would assume that nonsense is intellectually sound.

Quote:

If he's wrong, dispute him in points of fact, or at least identify and question his specific uses of personal judgment.

Huh? You want me to prove that Japan didn't act as an aggressor?!?!? I'm to demonstrate the orthodox narrative is sound?!? Because you don't buy it? Forget it. Here's a little lesson in historical discourse - the standard narrative is arrived at after countless peer reviews, historiographies, research, debate and analysis. It's not whipped up over night by the Lone Gunmen. The onus is on you, not me, to challenge it with independently verifiable evidence. YOU, not me, illustrate the notion that Japan was "tricked" into attacking Pearl Harbor. I don't have to prove Dickens existed to tell someone the Red Lectoids never attacked London, nor is it my role to establish an agreed upon academic narrative.

Quote:

But you haven't shown any evidence that you've even read the article.

Uh-oh, here's where you fall down - haven't I already chastised it for claiming Japan wasn't an aggressor? That's not in the essay? Haven't I previously outlined the erronous statement that Japan was "tricked" into attacking the Americans? Are these lucky guesses or did I get them from the "essay". Lastly, I've already identified that said "essay" lacks sources (a MAJOR flaw in historical papers), but i guess I conjured that up too! Hey, i've already mastered a revisionist trick!

Quote:

It's only six pages; can't you spare 5 or 10 minutes?

I did, hence my objections. Perhaps you could tell me why an unsourced paper that make claims that run counter to conventional history deserves any attention beyond that of revisionism?

[Mustang1]

Scape wrote:

Wave off Psudo, you have been warned. M1 will have you for breakfast if you even think revisionist dreck deserves equal play. It needs to be judged upon by its merits not because if you have one side of the argument you must have a counterpoint. To that end the revisionist platform is based on very little fact and a whole lot of wishful, rose coloured glasses type thinking that glosses over far to much reality and plays up far to much of 'what ifs' it doesn't deserve to be held as credible.

Revisionism is a scourge on the academic community. It seeks to misrepresent history in an attempt to push a contemporary agenda. Often its proponents aren't trained historians - many possess little formal education - they're amateurs and it shows almost immediately to trained eyes. The minute one demands they adhere to standard methodological approaches they retreat to intellectual relativism, mixed with cries of "elitist", "conspiracy" or "conformists", but usually they resort to the banal, "you prove me wrong" nonsense.

Academic history exists for a reason - to promote truth, intellectual honesty and seek unbiased (although this is admittedly difficult) analysis and conclusions regarding our past. The minute that becomes relative, is the minute Hitler was misunderstood, Jews died from Tuberculosis, Japan was an innocent nation goaded into belligerent actions and Mussolini was just an admirer of ancient Rome. That's certainly NOT history

[bootlegga]

As mustang said, Tamogami (and the rest of his nationalists) are full of crap. You can argue that it resonates with you all you want, but the fact is that Japan was an agressor nation, seeking resources and its own empire (ever hear of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere), not an innocent victim who was trapped into war.

To avoid WW2, all they had to do was leave China and the US and other Western powers likely would have lifted the sanctions that nearly crippled them. Instead they chose an offensive across the Pacific Ocean against half a dozen other nations.

[Psudo]

Okay, I'll take a different approach, then: can you recommend a good history of Japanese involvement in WW2?

I admit my ignorance of most of the history of the Pacific War and a disproportionate interest in unusual views. I thought you hadn't read the essay because 1) all the responses you gave could have been responses to my post rather than the General's essay, and 2) you claimed he didn't cite sources, when he does at least mention other works that he claims defend part of his views.

General Tamogami's essay wrote:

According to such books as Mao:
The Mao Zedong Nobody Knew by Jung Chang (Kodansha) 「マオ（誰も知らなかった毛沢
東）（ユン・チアン、講談社）」, Ko Bunyu Looks Positively at the Greater East Asian War
by Ko Bunyu (WAC Co.) 「黄文雄の大東亜戦争肯定論（黄文雄、ワック出版）」, and
Refine Your Historical Power, Japan edited by Sakurai Yoshiko (Bungei Shunju) 「日本よ、 「歴史力」を磨け（櫻井よしこ編、文藝春秋）」, the theory that it was actually the work of Comintern has gained a great deal of prominence recently.

It's not a formal citation (at least not the English parts) and I recognized that it was not the work of a historian, but I thought that example at least demonstrated a citation of sources.

I completely concede and agree that his is not an academic history, and that he has an agenda, and that it would be very unlikely for him to be right when the academic community is united against him.

Discarding the Japanese nationalist view for a bit, what do you think of Mark Moyar's revisionist view of the US involvement in Vietnam? Your criticism of revisionism generally is that it is amateurish and lacks academic rigor, but Mark Moyar is -- or so it seems -- an academic historian who has written what seems to me to be a formal defense of his views. Is he part of the amateurish, agenda-driven revisionism you condemn, or is his an example of formal dispute between academics?

[Mustang1]

Psudo wrote:

Okay, I'll take a different approach, then: can you recommend a good history of Japanese involvement in WW2?

Some of the best include, of course, Keegan's "The Second World War", Storry's "A History of Modern Japan" and Milwad's "War, Economy and Society, 1939-1945"

Quote:

I admit my ignorance of most of the history of the Pacific War and a disproportionate interest in unusual views.

Then perhaps you should read up on it first with accepted works, then explore fringe theories. Your treatment of the latter might will be undoubtedly influenced by the former.

Quote:

I thought you hadn't read the essay because 1) all the responses you gave could have been responses to my post rather than the General's essay,

Actually, that's problematic because how would I know about the apologist tone and specific reference that Japan was "tricked" by America into attacking it? Sorry, but it was quite clear, I read it.

Quote:

and 2) you claimed he didn't cite sources, when he does at least mention other works that he claims defend part of his views.

General Tamogami's essay wrote:

According to such books as Mao:
The Mao Zedong Nobody Knew by Jung Chang (Kodansha) 「マオ（誰も知らなかった毛沢
東）（ユン・チアン、講談社）」, Ko Bunyu Looks Positively at the Greater East Asian War
by Ko Bunyu (WAC Co.) 「黄文雄の大東亜戦争肯定論（黄文雄、ワック出版）」, and
Refine Your Historical Power, Japan edited by Sakurai Yoshiko (Bungei Shunju) 「日本よ、 「歴史力」を磨け（櫻井よしこ編、文藝春秋）」, the theory that it was actually the work of Comintern has gained a great deal of prominence recently.

It's not a formal citation (at least not the English parts) and I recognized that it was not the work of a historian, but I thought that example at least demonstrated a citation of sources.

Actually, it's a collection of works (not annotated bibliography or page references or historiography, mind you) that only support his point on a very small section of the "essay". The rest of it, including areas that demand sourcing, remain largely untouched. You'll notice subjective elements remain unsourced and highly contentious sections - i'd add, "erronous" - like the trap set by the Americans, have zero primary or secondary evidence. This is poor history and isn't academically acceptable.

Quote:

I completely concede and agree that his is not an academic history, and that he has an agenda, and that it would be very unlikely for him to be right when the academic community is united against him.

And his own country, for that matter.

Quote:

Discarding the Japanese nationalist view for a bit, what do you think of Mark Moyar's revisionist view of the US involvement in Vietnam? Your criticism of revisionism generally is that it is amateurish and lacks academic rigor, but Mark Moyar is -- or so it seems -- an academic historian who has written what seems to me to be a formal defense of his views. Is he part of the amateurish, agenda-driven revisionism you condemn, or is his an example of formal dispute between academics?

I haven't read Mark Moyer, so i can't honestly comment on his work. What is his view on American's involvement in Vietnam and who labels it "revisionist"? And just to be clear, i said revisionism "often" has proponents that aren't trained historians. You'll notice that doesn't imply "all". Please don't ascribe views to me that aren't supported by my posts.

[ShepherdsDog]

You ever read Harry Turtledove's works of fiction? Interesting takes on alternative history(historical revisionism ) from an actual historian.

These stick to the realm of a more realistic fiction:
In the Presence of Mine Enemies (Jews hiding in a victorious post holocaust Germania)
Guns of the South - In at the Death
Fort Pillow
Justinian

[Mustang1]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

You ever read Harry Turtledove's works of fiction? Interesting takes on alternative history(historical revisionism ) from an actual historian.

Now the revisionists will be scurrying to find out how Fleetlord Atvar influenced WWII.

[ShepherdsDog]

Never read the World at War series.