New HH Episode forth coming!

[Hastur]

I've stopped listening to HH as they come out. I wait for him to finish first. I've now listened to the first three episodes of SNITE and I have to agree with C-mag.
Dan is an excellent storyteller, no doubt there, but he has a clear bias. The Western parties are always totally liable to for their actions but the Japanese are just caugh up in the moment, captives of their culture, forced by peer pressure, and whatnot.
Typical leftist low expectation racism and exotification.

But the dude knows how spin a good yarn.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I've stopped listening to HH as they come out. I wait for him to finish first. I've now listened to the first three episodes of SNITE and I have to agree with C-mag.
Dan is an excellent storyteller, no doubt there, but he has a clear bias. The Western parties are always totally liable to for their actions but the Japanese are just caugh up in the moment, captives of their culture, forced by peer pressure, and whatnot.
Typical leftist low expectation racism and exotification.

But the dude knows how spin a good yarn.

Do you feel that he’s claiming that the allies are culpable at a rank below the generals?

At the lower levels of the military, I’d say everyone is caught up in the machine - regardless of which side.

[Manwithnoname]

But I stand by my point that far too much of any critique of Carlin here goes way past content and way into butt hurt that he left us at the alter to chase a supermodel.

You're standing by a point but can't provide any evidence on why you feel that way.

The only specific issue you talk about is FDR, "FDR was very late to the story and justifiably. It was essentially a military story". I could probably accept that, but then why reach out and bring in Churchill ? Don't you find that odd ?

You also say, "All I heard was a balanced talk". Well that's fine, but the history isn't balanced. We know what happened. Dan repeatedly said, the 'Japanese were like everyone else but more.' That softens the true story of the brutality of Imperial Japan, and is far too harsh on the USA. Less than 1% of POWs taken by the USA worldwide died in captivity, and we took millions, the Imperial Japanese killed 40%, and they killed them by brutal means. That's like saying walking across Siberia is just like walking across Rhode Island, only more so.

Further, and this wasn't part of the story, but it matters. Look at how the victors treated the defeated. We executed few of their leaders for war crimes, we left them their emperor, we left their culture in tact, AND, we used our wealth to rebuild them into a prosperous nation.

Explain how you think I'm acting as spurned, when I was doing these exact same reviews, in the exact same template, while there was a DCF and engaging Dan directly at that time ?

Jilted lover- man this forum is full of it. And fine. Do what you have to do, but don’t pretend you and others here look at anything Dan does looking for an excuse to be angry.
The Churchill reference was similar to the FDR one. Fine in the context of atomic war moving from the military to the political. And I’ll go as far as saying that his waxing lyrical about nukes seemed to be him settling scores from his earlier battles with Smitty. But so what? I don’t put him on a pedestal as some do.
As for the brutality of the Japanese... did you actually listen to it? Nothing was held back. He portrayed them as animals- and rightly so. I had relatives that fought the jerries, ities, japs and even the French foreign legion. The jerries were considered hard cunts. The Italians just didn’t want to be there. The foreign legion tough as nail bastards, and the Japs animal - like something from out of space. Fuck they were beheading and eating our soldiers while you lot were still putting out the flames of pearl harbour.
Sure he could have gone harder but how many horror stories do you need to hear? At what point does it stop shocking and do you tune out?

[C-Mag]

Explain how you think I'm acting as spurned, when I was doing these exact same reviews, in the exact same template, while there was a DCF and engaging Dan directly at that time ?

Jilted lover- man this forum is full of it. And fine. Do what you have to do, but don’t pretend you and others here look at anything Dan does looking for an excuse to be angry.

Negative, consistent.
I've always been hard on Dan in points where I disagreed with him. I've also praised him where I believe it's due. That's called a balanced perspective. I took Dan to task over a decade ago on how Fascism and Communism is the same and falling into the trap that they are some big Right - Left paradigm is foolish.

If you love Dan's work fine, I'm not telling you not to listen to it or you can't enjoy his work. Why are you so threatened by a critique of the work ?

The Churchill reference was similar to the FDR one. Fine in the context of atomic war moving from the military to the political. And I’ll go as far as saying that his waxing lyrical about nukes seemed to be him settling scores from his earlier battles with Smitty. But so what? I don’t put him on a pedestal as some do.
As for the brutality of the Japanese... did you actually listen to it? Nothing was held back. He portrayed them as animals- and rightly so. I had relatives that fought the jerries, ities, japs and even the French foreign legion. The jerries were considered hard cunts. The Italians just didn’t want to be there. The foreign legion tough as nail bastards, and the Japs animal - like something from out of space. Fuck they were beheading and eating our soldiers while you lot were still putting out the flames of pearl harbour.
Sure he could have gone harder but how many horror stories do you need to hear? At what point does it stop shocking and do you tune out?

To use Churchill is misleading, the quote did not encompass all Churchills thought on Nukes. Churchill in fact was the first major Western leader to call for detente because of the danger of Nuclear weapons.

Additionally...........
70 Scientists signed a petition asking Truman to not use the weapon.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "I voiced to him my grave misgivings(to Truman), first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face."
Churchill was asked if he wanted to partner with FDR on the Manhattan project early on, and Churchill did not.
Churchill asked that the USA allow British military observers to watch the use of the weapons, Truman refused.
President Truman insisted that the bomb should be used before the Red Army joined the war against Japan.

Bottom line is, if you going to seek out a historical figure to assign as a proponent of using Nuclear Weapons you have to start with FDR and end with Truman.

[SuburbanFarmer]

You posted your opinions for debate, and they’re being debated. Don’t go ad hominem at the response.

[Hastur]

The Japanese generals responsible for Shanghai and the Philippines were unjustly sentenced for war crimes but American bomber pilots were war criminals.

Different yardstick, I suppose.