It is interesting to note that what Saito learned *after* the war was nearly the same as what was being taught *before* the war in 1938. So, the position of having different techniques prewar and postwar doesn't really hold up too well. And that's a reason for studying what Ueshiba was doing prewar, during the war, and postwar. It's also a reason to study what his son, Kisshomaru, was doing post war.
Just a speculation ... but what would you do if you found out that
1) your aikido wasn't Ueshiba Morihei's aikido at all but instead was a variation built upon Kisshomaru's vision and
2) that the "whole" art of Ueshiba had not been passed down to you, but rather a gutted version built for worldwide dissemination.
As I said, it's merely speculation and wonderings, so ignore if you choose.
Oh no sir, I won't ignore! In fact, this question is very introspective and took me a few to think about. To answer your question, I would probably want to know what exactly was gutted and for what reason. But does that mean that Aikikai is Kisshomaru's vision? Did he merely organize training to make it more efficient, or did butcher the vision that was Morihei's? Is Shioda's the vision of Morihei, or his own? And what about Tomiki? I think that's the difference I see between Takeda and Ueshiba; Takeda was content with his art being Daito Ryu. Ueshiba, more of a spiritual transformation and less of a falling out between student and teacher, created his art being Aikido.