You’re right that pragmatism matters. No one expects over a billion Muslims to suddenly stop seeing Jerusalem as holy. The problem is that holiness doesn’t mean exclusivity. Jews also see Jerusalem as their holiest city, and unlike the Muslim connection that developed centuries later, Jewish presence and worship there never stopped.
Israel isn’t trying to erase Islamic holiness or block worship. The Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa are managed by the Waqf, and Muslims pray there every day. What Israel won’t accept is the idea that Jews have no right to live or pray in their own historic capital.

I agree with a bit of that. It was a show of force for Russia, obviously, although Truman had already learned that Stalin knew of the success of the nuclear project.

But it also undeniably forced Japan’s immediate surrender, that’s not a fact that is debated by historians as you just claimed. You could say that there were other factors, which obviously there were but they surrendered unconditionally the day after Nagasaki… if you know of historians that think this surrender had nothing to do with the two atomic bombs I’d like to know their names.

If the U.S. hadn’t used the bombs and instead kept up the blockade or conventional bombing, millions more could have died from starvation and continued fighting, especially across China and the Pacific. And afterward, people would probably have said the same thing that the U.S. caused unnecessary suffering and prolonged the war.
The truth is, there was no version of ending World War II that didn’t involve massive civilian suffering. The bombs were horrific, but they ended the war fast and on America’s terms. Without them, the pressure to justify the human cost of a drawn-out campaign would have been enormous.

The situation with Gaza is similar to what happened with Japan in 1945. There was no way to end that war without civilian suffering. Japan’s cities were destroyed, and the atomic bombs killed hundreds of thousands, but they forced an end to the war and saved millions who might have died in a drawn-out invasion.
In Gaza, it’s the same tragic logic. When your enemy hides among civilians and refuses to surrender, every path leads to civilian casualties. It’s not about cruelty, it’s about ending a war that can’t go on forever. Both cases show that sometimes the only way to stop greater bloodshed is through terrible but decisive action.

This post was edited by Many_Names on Nov 6 2025 03:40pm

its pretty clear that japan surrendered because of the bombs. i am pretty sure some wacky historians will refute this, but then we have wacky people saying we never landed on the moon.

I just found this snarky comment you hid in an edit. Let me know what fact you have a problem with and I will provide evidence. If you feel the slightest bit of confidence in your position then you could provide evidence for yourself.

Edit: I've most likely spent more time reading history books this week than you have this year, maybe even this decade. If you have specific suggestions for reading material tho I am open to them. I got a lot for you if you're open to it, lmk

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Nov 6 2025 05:25pm

i dont hide comments in edits, i edit almost all of my posts, feel free to check.
at the same time, you said this:



the notion that the indians were winning for hundreds of years is as laughable as Russia intending to invade poland. just look at the map of America over time, as the indian nations were obliterated, and then look at ukraine over time, where the battle lines have largely remained static since the invasion 2 years ago. its total bullshit. countries that dont use excessive force are considered weak while killing 1/2 a million children is deemed "worth it".

you swan in, glorify excessive force and swan out. dont bang your head on the way out. its like saying israel does targetted strikes and then seeing an image of gaza today. everything is gone.

This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 6 2025 05:54pm

What's your strategy for picking out history books to read? One problem is many authors will insert some form of their own interpretation and beliefs into their writing (consciously or subconsciously), which isn't to say is a bad thing but if I am learning about history I want the utmost precise interpretation possible.


This post was edited by Dmitriy on Nov 6 2025 06:37pm

Well that is true. The plains tribes(mostly the Comanche, who had raped and conquered most of the other plains tribes) were winning the plains war, after a fashion. The Americans could march an army through whenever they wanted... and the Comanche would just leave them alone. The Americans could set up forts wherever they wanted... and the Comanche would just leave them alone. Any settlers trying to start lives on the plains got fked tho, entire villages raped and burned. The Comanche didn't engage large military forces or forts, which made them impossible to beat until the invention of the revolver, which quickly ended the war after hundreds of years because the Comanche could no longer win the skirmishes they had relied on fighting. The Rangers hunted them out, and we're supposed to pretend they're victims for some reason but that's not what the history books show.

As usual, everyone involved was a buttfucker and one of the two buttfuckers won out. Fair play. That's the history of humanity, this has been your first lesson. If you had read a history book prior to this conversation you may have been better prepared.

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Nov 6 2025 08:00pm

Everyone injects their bias into history, this is unavoidable. The reason we think of Justinian as a terrible emperor is because Procopius hated him. If you read Secret History you'll immediately realize that it can't possibly be true, that Procopius was obviously making shit up, but it doesn't matter any more.

People say that history is written by the victor, but this isn't true. History is written by the historian. It turns out that's not necessarily a better system.

Find historians whose style you like. I like primary sources for all ancient history because they're a lot more fun. No matter what you read you have to make your own decisions, there's no such thing as a reliable interpreter.

As a layman with my limited reading comprehension, I’d suggest you’ve also demonstrated historical bias (above). As for Justinian, that’s a poor example. If I were to reference him, it wouldn’t be in connection to Israel but to Donald Trump, a small, petty man full of insecurities and notions of exceptionalism.

I don’t think Justinian was terrible because some Procopius hated him; the broad facts of Justinian's empire are are recorded elsewhere. I believe Justinian was terrible because he had all the best cards in the deck and was too small-minded to let better people do their jobs. Justinian ran his empire into the ground, squandered his greatest general, Belisarius, over and over, drained the treasury with endless wars, and left the empire exhausted and overextended. it is not a great leap to view donald trump the same way.

As for books on war, as a primer i would suggest reading The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History: From 3500 B.C. to the Present first and then pick the war your most interested in and find books on those.

This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 7 2025 03:09am