All conspiracy theories aside, considering Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, was the U.S. right in joining WWII? Most libertarian-types agree that war is just when the you are in direct danger and/or attacked directly, which we were. Also, was the U.S. right in intervening as much as they did, in Europe and the Pacific. Lastly, was the U.S. and Truman right in using Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; I understand that is an abuse of power and genocide, but rumor has it the projected number of deaths would have been greater for both Americans and Japanese if the war had continued.
Just bumping this to keep on on the top recent because I am really curious to the answers.
have you read “The Myth of National Defense” by Hans Herman-Hoppe? If not, it may shed light on the subject of your inquiry.
I have not, I think my brother actually has it, too, so I probably will soon. Currently, we are discussing WWII in class I want some kind of quick, concise reasoning to refute my progressive teacher and the horrible Howard Zinn. Any summarization for the time being would be much appreciated.
I think the Second World War was made inevitable by American involvement in the First World War, as well as an imperialist, mercantalist foreign policy in East Asia in the intervening years. It’s not like there was much of a decision left to be made in late 1941.
The “projected” number of deaths for the invasion of the Japanese home islands were ridiculous fictions written to justify dropping the bombs. Japan had no navy, airforce or fuel by this point. And in any case, it’s fairly well-accepted that they were willing to surrender with the only term being the Emperor’s safety, which was granted by the allies in the end regardless.
See also: Lend-Lease (the US government stealing from its subjects to give to the enemies of the Axis) and the US preventing its subjects to trade with Japan. The US government entered WWII long before Pearl Harbour, just not in yet in a military capacity. They were hardly isolationist before this.
I am sure the Japanese expected a war with the United States having attacked Pearl Harbor. So it is hard to say that entering into WWII was an unjust act, unless we consider the “intervening [of the US], in Europe and the Pacific.” Whether it is “right” for the US to have done so depends on whether one sees blockading and embargoes as acts of war. If the affirmative, then intervention is not right nor our entrance into the war just.
My understanding of events did not require the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war. The war was coming to a conclusion. I have heard that the bombing proceeded to start the Cold War with the Soviet Union. A show of force to deter the communists. Whether this is correct or not, the bombing were unnecessary and the war would not have been prolonged otherwise, IMO.
The U.S. as an empire benefitted immensely from entering WWII.
At most, the necessity of dropping the bombs was only to achieve unconditional surrender; had the US taken something approaching a reasonable position, those lives could’ve been spared.
I think the tendency of warfare to enhance the health of the state, and the direct drains of government conducted combat, to be so low that it was not a good thing that the U.S. entered the war. Better to be conquered by the Japanese and at least have an identifiable and hated enemy than to be conquered by our ‘leaders’ in Washington who will be given accolades for their dastardly dead.
What is more, the Japanese expansion in the Pacific as well as their attack in Pearl Harbor were both generated in large parts by trade barriers generated by the Americans and English, who combined practically ‘owned’ Pacific trade. If the American and British leaders had not been high-tariff imperialists it is unlikely the Japanese would have felt so strongly the need to secure resources and markets by force. This is not to in any way abrogate the criminal actions of the Japanese Empire, only to point out that, like Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden, it was a causal product of Anglo-American imperialism.
FDR manuevered the Japanese into firing the first shot–bombing pearl harbor.
That said, WWII was perfectly avoidable.
rumor has it the projected number of deaths would have been greater for both Americans and Japanese if the war had continued.–C Le Master
Rumor is reality.
Army intelligence concluded that over 1 million US servicemen would die seizing the Japanese home islands. Another 3-4 million Japanese civilians would die in a conventional campaign to take these islands.
In contrast, the atomic bombs killed less than 1 million by all accounts. Most importantly, it contributed to ending the war quickly, thereby preventing the loss of Western Europe. Note that a long drawn-out campaign to take Japan would have severely weakened an already untenable position in Western Europe against hordes of SOviet tanks and infantry that had already subjegated Eastern Europe.
Also, was the U.S. right in intervening as much as they did, in Europe and the Pacific.-- C Le Master
You don’t fight wars or use deadly force against deadly force with half measures. Practically speaking, if your going to a gun fight, don’t bring a sling shot.
Beh, apologist.
I think statements that the “1-3 million casualty projections” are overblown are a little off the mark. If you look at the battle of Okinawa, which was the last major battle of the war, you can see that the fighting was extremely bloody despite the devestated condition of the Japanese military. The US had somewhere around 50,000 killed or wounded, and the Japanese lost around 100,000 soldiers, and 50,000-150,000 civilians…killed.
The total ground forces at Okinawa on the US’s side was just under 200,000, and the Japanese defenders were just over 100,000, not counting civilians. Considering that Operation Downfall (the invasion of mainland Japan) would have certainly involved forces in the millions, I think it’s not unreasonable to say that it would have killed a hell of a lot of people, including millions of civilians.
Not that this justifies the way that the atomic bomb was used, just want to disburse the idea that the casualty estimates were deliberately overblown.
In the words of military historian Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
“Though to save a life is laudable, it in no way justifies the employment of means which run counter to every precept of humanity and the customs of war. Should it do so, then, on the pretext of shortening a war and saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified.”
Rettoper: I believe you will find this speech by Yuri N. Maltsev revealing. Then again, he is a Russian and former Soviet advisor, so why believe anything he says, right? USA! USA!
http://mises.org/media/1091/Despotism-Loves-Company-The-Story-of-Roosevelt-and-Stalin
Rettoper: I believe you will find this speech by Yuri N. Maltsev revealing. Then again, he is a Russian and former Soviet advisor, so why believe anything he says, right? USA! USA!
Rettoper reminds me of Dondero.
Mises published Percy Greaves definitive revisionist history, PEARL HARBOR, SEEDS AND FRUITS OF INFAMY, documenting the Roosevelt administration’s conspiracy–not a theory–to maneuver the Japanese into initiating aggression in the Pacific so that the people of American would drop their opposition to entering Churchill’s war.
If a terrorist organization or a beligerent nation ever manages to explode a nuclear devise in the US, the event will be a delayed response to, and consequence of, this nation’s initial, unwarranted, and to-this-day-only use of these terrible weapons upon civilian population. Those who believe their government’s war-time propaganda justifying obliterating Heroshima and Nagasaki with A-bombs, and Tokyo with napalm are niave–to put it nicely.
"Though to save a life is laudable, it in no way justifies the employment of means which run counter to every precept of humanity and the customs of war. Should it do so, then, on the pretext of shortening a war and saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified." – fuller
mr. fuller’s view notwithstanding. the most humane way to win a war is quickly and decisively.
moreover, handwringing and half-measures by self-aggrandizing pacifists in the name of ‘humanitarianism’ emboldens mass murder more than any other action.
japan is more free, prosperous, stable, and peaceful then at anytime in its militaristic and violent past, thanks to US hegemony.
FDR maneuvered the US into war with Japan indirectly, though it is still definitely the fault of the Japanese for attacking in the first place (Yes, FDR was a bastard, but please don’t act as apologists for the Japanese Empire, which was several times worse).
Now nuclear weapons were NOT needed. You forget that an invasion of Japan wasn’t even needed; The Japanese fleet, its industrial capacity, its airforce, was completely crushed by the end of the war. The US could have easily simply stopped supplies from arriving from the rest of the Empire, and Japan would have folded like a house of cards (Japan has a huge lack of natural resources, and they would never hold up more than a year without the loot from their empire).