ITT: We state the theses to our research papers in upper level history classes. If someone is interested, they can reply to ask how we came to our conclusions. I'll start.
>Martin Luther was just as judeophobic at the start of his career as at the end. He only called for violence against them as a response to Jewish proselytizing.
>The atomic bombs were used on Japan with full knowledge that the Japanese wanted to surrender purely as a deterrent to Soviet involvement in East Asia in the Cold War.
>Osama bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa to Kill All Americans used a religious medium which lacked legitimacy as a response to the instalation of US puppet governments in the Middle East and US interference in the oil industry.
Pic unrelated
Xinjiang is a region which for a long time has not possessed a coherent national identity, despite and becsuse of its location at a geopolitical crossroads, its Muslim population and traditions, its diverse ethnic population, and-most importantly-for several centuries of domination by the Chinese Empire and Communist China.
>>413146
Baron von Ungern-Sternberg's destruction of the Chinese army in Mongolia was directly responsible for the success of Mao Zedong's communist revolution, ironically making the 20th century's most fanatical anti-communist the grandfather of its most successful communist state.
>>413146
Your second thesis, about Japan. How did you arrive at this?
>>413274
Add my request to this, OP.
As well as your first thesis, since as far as I'm aware, Jews don't proselytize.
>>413274
Not OP, but the atomic bombings coincided with the Soviet invasion of Japanese-occupied Korea.
It's reasonable to assume that without the bomb being dropped, the USSR would have conquered and annexed Korea the same way it did with eastern Europe.
>>413146
Oh, and I suppose I should throw my own in the ring.
>During WW2, U.S. Italian operations were a net strategic positive: While operational failures limited the efficacy of campaigns in the Italian theater, it was the logical, and strategically correct move to make after the fall of Tunis.
>>413307
I don't see why that is reasonable at all. Stalin was given Eastern Europe by his allies, and no such arrangements were made over Korea that I'm aware of.
And he did stop supporting Communist groups in Italy, France, and Greece because of said influence sphere arrangements, he was not eager to take on the West, even conventionally. To say that he backed down solely because of the atomic bomb seems to be unsupported by the evidence.
>>413307
This is certainly a fair secondary justification for the bombings, but I don't see how it supports "full knowledge that the Japanese wanted to surrender." This, by the way, is an idea that's just silly on its face. If you want to surrender, you surrender. If you haven't surrendered, therefore, it stands to reason that you haven't made up your mind to surrender.
>>413146
>The decline of the Ottoman Empire looks that way because the Empire refused to capitalize on it's victories to play the European powers against each other.
>There are no good books on Italy in WWI.
>Sax Rohmer's novels reveal frankly bizzare ideas about sex, gender and the British Empire had widescale traction at the turn of the century. As the empire expanded the 'frontier' was the most valuable portion as it was the only TRUELY British part of the empire, and an exclusively male, sexless domain. British woman are wonderful, because no one is attracted to them.
>>413345
Not the guy you're responding to, but a lot of this "wanted to surrender" stuff stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Japanese state, which was deeply, deeply dysfunctional.
You had an Emperor who was in theory an absolute ruler, but in practice had no power whatsoever, and all of Japan's "government" was forming cabals to fight over who got to tell the Emperor what to say on any given day. There really weren't permanent institutions, just whomever happened to grab authority over something for the nonce.
You had people in the inner circle in Japan who wanted to surrender, but whether or not they had the authority to do so could change real quick.
>>413308
In English?
My testicles are the two largest fleshy babyakers to ever or that will ever grace humanity's existence bar elephantiasis specimens. Their massive presence are enough to make and have made your woman experience the first ever recorded visual orgasm--sexual apex caused by merely gazing upon these optoaphrodisiacs.
>>413286
They did proselytize during the reformation.
From my essay:
Gregory Miller in an article from The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology writes that “rumors that Jews were attempting to convert Christians were not only believed by Luther, but they became the driving force behind his change in ideology, to the point that by the late 1530s he self-described his 1523 work as ‘foolish’ toleration that was nothing short of an alliance with the Devil.” Such harsh self-criticism from Luther lends credence to the theory that Jewish proselytism came to light only after That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew had been published and that it shaped his future teaching. Indeed, Jewish Proselytism’s effects on Luther can found in On the Jews and their Lies: “I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God’s word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak, but also with the strong.” Luther admitted his previously held disbelief that a Christian would ever convert to Judaism, and his anger was noticeable throughout the work when the contrary was proved. Importantly, this was one of a few instances where Luther himself noted a change in his beliefs.
>>414151
A second proposed turning point for Luther is his fabled meeting with three rabbis in the 1530s. Unlike the conversion of the two Jews in 1521, this meeting was documented by Luther and can be found in On the Jews and their Lies. “Three learned Jews came to me, hoping to discover a new Jew in me because we were beginning to read Hebrew here in Wittenberg, and remarking that matters would soon improve since we Christians were starting to read their books…When I forced them back to the text, they fled from it.” Here Luther expressed the extent of the Jewish proselytizing—that they would even attempt to convert Luther himself to Judaism. He continued, “I took pity on them…but later I found out that they called Christ…a hanged highwayman. Therefore I did not wish to have anything more to do with any Jew.” That the rabbis resisted conversion was no surprise, and thus they gained nothing but Luther’s pity. It was their defamation of Christ that drew forth the wrath of Luther. Perry cites this unsuccessful attempt to convert the three rabbis as the turning point that led Luther to such actions as his refusal to support Josel of Rosheim in his attempt to prevent ill treatment of Jews in Saxony as well as his 1543 writing. However, I would argue that the proselytism was of much greater important than the failed conversion to Luther. Although the meeting with three rabbis is not dated, I would argue that it occurred before Luther heard reports of mass Jewish proselytism, as Luther’s final line on the subject suggested a conscious, final decision based on newly acquired knowledge of Jewish proselytism through the experience with the rabbis themselves.
>>413317
Given would be an overstatement. You cannot be given when you already possess. The Western Allies did not have the will to try to dislodge the Soviets, and in spite of Patton's posturing, it is uncertain they would have even had the means.
This theory of the atomic bombings has to do with the west's growing realization of the threat posed by Russia, and having just removed two of the major powers that might contain her, the need now to prepare for potential future conflict with the Russians. Hence the bombs were used in a spectacular public display as a way of giving the Russians pause while the new order of things could stabilize. The world was on its head, some breathing room was needed and at the end of the day the US did not like commies one bit, even if they had had some utility in fighting the Germans. That utility was at an end.
>>413345
>>413400
I agree about the dysfunctional nature of the Japanese government at the time, but I'll cite 2 documents to help my case.
The first is from a July 12 telegram Foreign Minister Togo sent o Naotake Sato, the Japanese Ambassador to the Soviet Union, which urged him to "…convey to the Soviet side before the Three-Power Conference begins the matter concerning the Imperial wishes for the termination of the war. The substance of the following should be borne in mind as appropriate in your direct explanation to Molotov:
“His Majesty the Emperor is greatly concerned over the daily increasing calamities and sacrifices faced by the citizens of the various belligerent countries in this present war, and it is His Majesty’s heart’s desire to see the swift termination of the war. In the Greater East Asia War, however, as long as America and England insist on unconditional surrender, our country has no alternative but to see it through in an all-out effort for the sake of survival and the honor of the homeland. The resulting enormous bloodshed of the citizens of the belligerent powers would indeed be contrary to His Majesty’s desires, and so it is His Majesty’s earnest hope that peace may be restored as speedily as possible for the welfare of mankind.”
The next source is from the personal journal of Byrnes who wrote on August 3, “President, Leahy and JFB agreed Japan looking for peace. President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden. JFB, Truman chide Leahy not to hold out news on the atomic bomb. Leahy still doubtful.”
