Your opinion about the Hiroshima And Nagasaki bombings

Miscellaneous History
121

This is in response to an earlier post by Jonathan M. F. Catalán,

  1. Overwhelmingly, he Iraqi people don’t share your pessimism about the future, nor your opinion regarding the preference of saddam over nascent democracy.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=7058272&page=1

Moreover, Iraqi GDP has increased significantly since the “paradise” of saddam’s rule:

Iraq’s GDP/Per Capita GDP
2002 $20.5 billion/$802
2003 $13.6 billion/$518
2004 $25.7 billion/$949
2005 $34.5 billion/$1,237
2006 $48.5 billion/$1,687
2007 $55.4 billion/$1,978
2008 $84.7 billion/$3,100

Lastly, all naive anarchists who purport to speak for the Iraqi people by minimizing and marginalizing the atrocities of the saddam regime should watch the videos on the link below:

http://www.aei.org/event/844

  1. Your assertion that unconditional surrender was not necessary is dangerously naïve. For example, the allies had previously committed to unconditional surrender, to change in mid-stream with the Japanese near defeat would have signaled to the Japanese high command of a serious lack of resolve among the US leadership that could have actually prolonged the war. Moreover, this kind of indecision, cowardice, and naïve “humanitarianism” would have created a precedent that would embolden every future enemy of the USA to fight indefinitely due to the real possibility the US resolve would weaken no matter how desperate the enemy’s situation.

3-4) Indeed the USA needed to end the war quickly to leverage its position vis-à-vis the soviet union which had just declared war. it was geopolitical stupidity to prolong the conflict with japan when faced with the survival level threat the USSR represented. Moreover, you support your opinion by claiming to know what was in the “emperor’s head” while I cite historical fact from the most important speech in the history of the Japanese people by its most revered figure.

“the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable”—hirohito less than a week after the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

Note he said nothing about the soviet union. of course, by in your defense, he may have been “thinking” about them. perhaps you could enlighten us with your channeling.

Lastly, it should be noted that the conventional bombing campaign was experiencing “diminishing returns” since the Japanese had become very adapt at protecting life and munitions. for example, the US Navy/air force had expended prodigious amounts of ordinance prior to invading Okinawa and Iwo jima to little effect. The Japanese could have indeed held out for an extended period in the absence of the bomb. Indeed, the germans actually saw an increase in military production in the last months of the war despite an allied bombing campaign around the clock.

moreover, one of the anarchists on this thread stated correctly that general lemay claimed the Japanese could be subdued by air power alone. History has shown lemay wrong in the absence of ground power or the threat thereof. Of course, Lemay was a proud and loyal flyboy, it is not surprising that he would promote his “baby”

  1. your assertion that Europe had a rich tradition of liberalism is manifestly wrong. For example on the eve of both WWI and WWII the continent was dominated by either monarchs, oligarchs, or socialists. Moreover, I challenged you to refute my assertion that Europe was more peaceful or more stable prior to US hegemony established after WWII and that challenge remains unanswered.

In summary, throughout the history of Europe monarchies and oligarchies dominated until the period after WWI in which fascism reared its ugly head. Rationalizing that pre-war Europe was even remotely as peaceful, free, and stable as post-war Europe simply damages your credibility.

  1. NO evidence that the soviets were going to invade Europe ?!!!?

The soviet union had invaded and subjugated all of its neighbors by force and had the most powerful conventional force in the history of mankind at the end of WWII. To make the polyannaish assertion that they were not a threat to the biggest prize of all, Western Europe is bizarre. The only reason stalin did not overrun western Europe was because the USA had the bomb and more importantly, the will to use it. IN summary, while you put your trust in the benevolence of dictators who routinely kill tens of millions and attack every neighboring nation, I will put my trust in peace through strength.

  1. your notion that after numerous high voter turn-out elections under the threat of violence that the Iraqi people are less represented than during saddam is manifestly absurd. Of course the incredibly brave iraqis and the strong voter turnouts in each national election confirm the obvious: the people of Iraq want democracy and they respect the process. Polls confirm this as well, indeed the majority of Iraqi people want democracy, as opposed to sharia law or autocratic governance.

Lastly, I will offer this for your benefit:

“I think this is sufficient to show you that you don’t know as much as you think you do. It is at least evidence that you should question your current base of knowledge, and instead opt to research these topics for yourself. I’m not telling you I’m right. It’s clear that you could look beyond the surface of each issue”

122

Rettoper,

I’m not sure you’re taking everything that I’m saying into account.

  1. Overwhelmingly, he Iraqi people don’t share your pessimism about the future, nor your opinion regarding the preference of saddam over nascent democracy.

…

Moreover, Iraqi GDP has increased significantly since the “paradise” of saddam’s rule:

…

This is the M2 aggregate between 2008 and November 2009:

Furthermore, much of the growth in GDP can be attributed to U.S. and Iraqi (mostly the former) spending on GDP. Surely, this temporarily boosts GDP, but we’ll whether or not this government investment actually leads to long-term sustainable growth. The most telling reason why this growth in GDP is unsustainable is the fact that Iraq’s private sector has not grown substantially. True economic growth should be driven by the private sector, not by government spending (whether it is the Iraqi government or the U.S. government doing the spending). Furthermore, like I mentioned and you ignored, Iraq’s government is considered the 9th most likely government to default on public debt.

  1. Your assertion that unconditional surrender was not necessary is dangerously naïve. For example, the allies had previously committed to unconditional surrender, to change in mid-stream with the Japanese near defeat would have signaled to the Japanese high command of a serious lack of resolve among the US leadership that could have actually prolonged the war. Moreover, this kind of indecision, cowardice, and naïve “humanitarianism” would have created a precedent that would embolden every future enemy of the USA to fight indefinitely due to the real possibility the US resolve would weaken no matter how desperate the enemy’s situation.

I’m not sure what’s worse, being naïve or making assertions with no historical background. It’s interesting that you write, “Moreover, this kind of indecision, cowardice, and naïve “humanitarianism” would have created a precedent that would embolden every future enemy of the USA to fight indefinitely due to the real possibility the US resolve would weaken no matter how desperate the enemy’s situation.”. This is exactly what happened during the Vietnam War.

In any case, just like you did with the first point, you completely ignored what I wrote. I provided you a list of reasons of why the nuclear bomb did not have as much of an impact on Japan’s decision to surrender as you think. Instead, you opt to discuss on some tangential topic. I’m not interested in re-writing things. Either you can address what I said, or you can choose not to respond (and, if you decide to ignore this then I just will stop responding to your posts).

Before I end on this point, you write, “For example, the allies had previously committed to unconditional surrender, to change in mid-stream with the Japanese near defeat would have signaled to the Japanese high command of a serious lack of resolve among the US leadership that could have actually prolonged the war.” You ignored my point that the ultimate terms of surrender were conditional!

Moreover, you support your opinion by claiming to know what was in the “emperor’s head” while I cite historical fact from the most important speech in the history of the Japanese people by its most revered figure.

No, I base my opinion on my reading and historical evidence. That was a quote I provided you, not my own words. Please don’t accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

I’m not sure what your point is about the following,

Indeed the USA needed to end the war quickly to leverage its position vis-à-vis the soviet union which had just declared war. it was geopolitical stupidity to prolong the conflict with japan when faced with the survival level threat the USSR represented.

It’s not clear that the US was aware of Stalin’s plans to invade the Japanese home islands, or at least that the Red Army was willing to do so at such an early stage (after the successful completion of Operation August Storm). In any case, that’s not what I said at all. I said the potential of a Soviet invasion was another factor behind Japan’s decision to surrender.

your assertion that Europe had a rich tradition of liberalism is manifestly wrong. For example on the eve of both WWI and WWII the continent was dominated by either monarchs or socialists.

Western Europe was actually not dominated by socialists prior to the First World War, although I admit most European nations were monarchies. This doesn’t say much about the level of liberalism, however. In many ways, some of those monarchies were more liberal than the modern United States. What it comes down to is your a priori belief that democracy is by definition more liberal than any other type of government. This is the only thing that is “manifestly wrong”. In any case, you continue to ignore the details I provide you.

I am not willing to debate with you if you’re going to ignore the information I willingly provide you in an effort to illustrate my arguments. It’s just not worth it for me if you’re not willing to do any reading.

Moreover, I challenged you to refute my assertion that Europe was more peaceful or more stable prior to US hegemony established after WWII and that challenge remains unanswered.

I never had any intentions of challenging you. I simply explained why this is so. Please, read my post more carefully.

Now, on the Cold War,

The soviet union had invaded and subjugated all of its neighbors by force and had the most powerful conventional force in the history of mankind at the end of WWII. To make the polyannaish assertion that they were not a threat to the biggest prize of all, Western Europe is bizarre. The only reason stalin did not overrun western Europe was because the USA had the bomb and more importantly, the will to use it. IN summary, while you put your trust in the benevolence of dictators who routinely kill tens of millions and attack every neighboring nation, I will put my trust in peace through strength.

The Soviet Union had overrun Eastern Europe in its effort to defeat Germany during the Second World War. Just like all other allied armies, the Red Army was battered after Germany’s surrender. Not only was the Soviet Union scared of the nuclear bomb, but moreover their is no evidence to suggest that the Red Army considered itself in a state to wage war against a well-armed Western Europe, especially with millions of American soldiers.

In any case, there is more to the Cold War than just the period between 1945 and 1947.

Finally,

  1. your notion that after numerous high voter turn-out elections under the threat of violence that the Iraqi people are less represented than during saddam is manifestly absurd. Of course the incredibly brave iraqis and the strong voter turnouts in each national election confirm the obvious: the people of Iraq want democracy and they respect the process. Polls confirm this as well, indeed the majority of Iraqi people want democracy, as opposed to sharia law or autocratic governance.

Unfortunately, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Freedom comes in many forms. The uncertainty caused by the occupation and insurgency is one way in which Iraqis have much less freedom today than they did under Saddam.

Now, unless you are seriously willing to read and consider what I write, I’m not sure I’m interested in continuing the debate.

123

jonathan,

you need to inform the BBC historians (and every other historian) that they are wrong that the japanese surrender was unconditional:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/2/newsid_3582000/3582545.stm

The terms were not conditional, the US unilaterally allowed the emperor to remain as an empty figurehead in a show of conquering benevolence. if ever there was an unconditional surrender and capitulation of a people to a greater power, it was the surrender of japan in 1945 aboard the USS Missouri.

for example, MacArthur scored valuable points for a peaceful occupation by retaining the emperor, he was under no obligation to do so.

124

jonathan,

I would state that the burgeoning threat of financial collapse in iraq is less severe than say italy, spain, portugal since the iraqis have much more unrealized potential in the form of a destroyed infrastructure, massive oil wealth, and a less entrenched bureaucracy.

nonetheless, the entire planet, with the exception of hong kong, singapore, et al are at risk of economic collapse due to socialism. iraq is no exception, indeed they have seen marked improvement in many areas of societal health and well being since 2002.

the way things are going in the USA , we may be looking at the “iraqi model” with envy in 2020.

125

jonathan,

the USSR had the world’s largest best armed military force in the world at the end of WW II. THey were not a "beaten"army. moreover, they disregarded previous agreements with the West and subjegated eastern europe.

imho, to minimize the threat from an brutal absolute dictator that killed tens of millions of his own people, cavilierly disregarded grand strategic agreements, sacked half of europe , and retained the most powerful army in history is naive at best.

hungarians, czechs, poles, et al will testify to this fact.

moreover, you are saying that the resolve shown by the US bombing of nagasaki and hiroshima did NOT give the soviets pause?

for example, you apparently disagree with my assertion that the failure of a nation to use force or a specific weapon, does NOT lead to the perception, or misperception, of a lack of resolve and therefore weakness?

Moreover, do you believe that a nation that routinely avoids conflict is less at risk of predation from contiguous threats/enemies?

I would be very interested in your answer on this.

126

Illuminatus?

I like the classic liberal moniker. I would like to use it, but many classical liberals on this forum might shudder to see my handle attached to it.

with respect to the “solutions” offered by the jihadist anarchists (my name for them based on their faith-based rigidity to theoretical dogma) – I think the most “substantive” was blockade and continued air campaign.

I dont see this as practical within the context of the survival level threat that the USSR represented. I agree with you that the last thing the USA or the allies needed or wanted was a prolonged continuation of the war. Moreover, the experience in germany indicated that military production was little impacted by the bombing campaign and a virtual blockade of germany.

it is contradictory that the jihadists on this thread cited a prolonged costly campaign that suits big government and a bloated bureaucracy. Presumably, their country cousin Leftists would love an indefinite military stalemate to justify increased spending and expansion of government.

127

““Unfortunately, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. Freedom comes in many forms. The uncertainty caused by the occupation and insurgency is one way in which Iraqis have much less freedom today than they did under Saddam.””-- jonathan.

i stand corrected

oh yes, the iraqi people were much better off under saddam knowing that they were CERTAIN to be gassed, raped, tortured, starved, and murder.

the chances of these happening under the current regime is much less certain.

seriously, your assertion that the iraqi people prefer the certainty of the horrors of absolutism as opposed to the uncertainty of relative freedom is a slap in the face to the iraqi people and all freedom loving people everywhere. Moreover, I am beginning to question whether your belief in individual freedom when you have so vigorously defended one of the most heinous dictatorships in the 20th century.

128

Well, particularly when talking about historical events.

129

Your description of the american military is perfect! Congrats.

130

‘Conditions of this sort of peace would have almost certainly included retaining of Japanese possessions that it had siezed in aggressive actions against the Chinese people. That’s hardly a surrender as much as it is an appeasement, but then for a nation-state that hardly knew the meaning of surrender I’d suspect there wasn’t much room for negotiation, certainly not amongst the pro-war cabinet of the Empire. We might have diffused one conflict for now, but sowing the seeds of the next one by rewarding such behavior to save our own hides is hardly a desirable outcome as far as curbing aggression is concerned’

Rewarding such behavior? 1/4 of Tokyo was destroyed, millions of lives were lost, orphan children turned to crime to survive, rationing caused shortages and malnutrition and the people were suffering from war fatigue. Plus if you are interested in ‘curbing aggression’ then a Japanese empire in mainland China would of prevent the Communists from coming to power and killing millions of people there. Japan knew the meaning of surrender so I hope you are not falling into this mentality that the Japanese warrior is a raging monster incapable of rational thought. They are proud but not stupid. The Japanese were trying to surrender before the bombs were dropped but wanted to do so on certain conditions. If the sole interest of dropping the bombs was to ‘save present lives’ then allowing Japan to surrender would of done that. If it was meant for something more like an ultimate show of force or a show to put Japan in its place then I think it can be considered one of the most monsterous acts conceived in the 20th century. Oh sure you can have gulags and death camps but the Russians or Germans never pretended to be a land of liberty and freedom. They embraced the ideology of the collective.

131

these automatons do not give a rats ass about stimulus spending, fiat currency, or austrian business cycle – as i have stated before, they will kill you just to see the incredulous look on your face as your last breath is exhausted.–rettoper

Your description of the american military is perfect! Congrats.–jakobM

If your statement is true then it more then confirms my assertion that nations must be viligilent to deter predation.

of course, within the context of history and comparing the military actions of western democracies and autocratic regimes, your statement is pure ideological bias and rubbish.

For example, while US troops have indeed been involved in atrocities throughout its history, these actions represent largely unsanctioned and isolated events. Moreover, they pale in comparison to the systemic and horrific intensity and frequency of genocide, torture, and murder committed intentionally by autocratic regimes.

In addition, ALL of the atrocities committed by democratic war machines have been against autocratic regimes and when successful represent a net decrease in long term societal suffering and enslavement.

for example, your statement shows disregard to the law of geopolitik that states “democracies are incapable of waging war against each other”

it would benefit the rigid ideologue anarchists to note this fact when unfairly criticizing isolated occurances.

132

So much for ending the war with Japan quickly. :stuck_out_tongue:

133

maiku,

are you kidding?

are you seriously stating that there is no risk or threats to the USA from abroad?

open a history book, any page.

virtually every nation has been subject to prediation, invasion, and attack at some point in history.

134

Why don’t Muslim terrorists target places like Brazil or Iceland Ret? Could it be because Americans fund dictators then topple countries and certain other countries don’t? You might want to look up that in your history books.

135
136

@Rettoper## In this forum there are very few classical liberals, most of them are anarchists (anarcho-capitalist) and radical followers of Murray Rothbard.## I think that for those interested in Austrian Economics should not be lured into the anarchist trap viewing that all force is evil, even force for change, doing away with bad and dangerous institutions or individuals.

F.A Hayek stated it clearly:.

” It would seem to the [Old Whig classic ] liberal, indeed, that what is most urgently needed in most parts of the world is a thorough sweeping away of the obstacles to free growth.

Even those of anarchist persuasion should heed F.A. Hayek on how to promote their cause, to avoid perfection and ideological purity. He advocated that that change can only come about when it’s politically possible i.e. pragmatic step-by-step approach in collaboration with fiscal conservatives.

“The task of the political philosopher can only be to influence public opinion, not to organize people for action. He will do so effectively only if he is not concerned with what is now politically possible but consistently defends the "general principles which are always the same.”

I have done an excerpt from FA Hayek Why I Am Not a Conservative below

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

.all my life described myself as a liberal, I have done so recently with increasing misgivings - not only because in the United States this term constantly gives rise to misunderstandings, but also because I have become more and more aware of the great gulf that exists between my position and the rationalistic Continental liberalism my comment: [French Statism] or even the English liberalism of the utilitarians. [my comment: Obama combines French Statism with utilitarianism

..though today the contrary impression may sometimes be caused by the fact that there was a time when liberalism was more widely accepted and some of its objectives closer to being achieved, it has never been a backward-looking doctrine. There has never been a time when liberal ideals were fully realized and when liberalism did not look forward to further improvement of institutions. Liberalism is not averse to evolution and change; and where spontaneous change has been smothered by government control, it wants a great deal of change of policy**. So far as much of current governmental action is concerned, there is in the present world very little reason for the liberal to wish to preserve things as they are. It would seem to the liberal, indeed, that what is most urgently needed in most parts of the world is a thorough sweeping away of the obstacles to free growth.**

In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use “liberal” in the sense in which I have used it, the term “libertarian” has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.

..but it is still true that, since liberalism took the place of Whiggism only after the movement for liberty had absorbed the crude and militant rationalism of the French Revolution, and since our task must largely be to free that tradition from the overrationalistic, nationalistic, and socialistic influences which have intruded into it, Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe. The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentant Old Whig - with the stress on the “old.”

..that, both for the genuine conservative and still more for the many socialists turned conservative, Whiggism is the name for their pet aversion shows a sound instinct on their part. It has been the name for the only set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power

I hope I have not misled the reader by occasionally speaking of “party” when I was thinking of groups of men defending a set of intellectual and moral principles. Party politics of any one country has not been the concern of this book. The question of how the principles I have tried to reconstruct by piecing together the broken fragments of a tradition can be translated into a program with mass appeal, the political philosopher must leave to “that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs.”[20] The task of the political philosopher can only be to influence public opinion, not to organize people for action. He will do so effectively only if he is not concerned with what is now politically possible but consistently defends the “general principles which are always the same.”[21] In this sense I doubt whether there can be such a thing as a conservative political philosophy. Conservatism may often be a useful practical maxim, but it does not give us any guiding principles which can influence long-range developments.

137

Why don’t Muslim terrorists target places like Brazil or Iceland Ret? Could it be because Americans fund dictators then topple countries and certain other countries don’t? You might want to look up that in your history books.–Olovetto

Because they are irrelevent and/or in decline. Moreover, they have targeted South American countries, Argentina was hit by Musliim terror attacks a few years ago http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/argentina.html. In summary, no nation or people are immune to this scourge.

Indeed, your ignorance to the size and scope of islamic terror is palpable:

the following is a list of nations that have experienced islamic terror attacks since 9/11:

India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal and the Maldives and Argentina and Mali and Angola and India and Iraq and …

Source: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

138

The reason that FDR adopted the unconditional surrender doctrine with Japan was to prevent Japan from surrendering before the Soviet Union officially entered the war with Japan, to portray the soviets as the real liberators and to eliminate the eastern check on Soviet power. After the surrender FDR’s plan to annex parts of both Japan and China into the Soviet Union was carried out, including a naval base. When Chiang Kai-Shek refused to accept the U.S. threated war on China.–caley mckibben

caley,

!? If I understand correctly, you are stating that FDR was a traitor, a communist whose allegiance was with the brutal communist dictatorship in Moscow at the expense of our Asian allies and the USA ?!

for example, are you serious when you claim that FDR was promoting a soviet base in Japan and annexation of parts of china and japan ?!?!??

the rest of your posts on the subject of german and japan is anecdotal. For example, you are criticizing US and British policy for refusing to compromise with base evil by not accepting more generous terms of surrender.

This is dangerous, it is why a anarchist like you must never be allowed anywhere near Pennsylvania avenue. For example, if germany and japan didnt deserve unconditional surrender forced on them, then what barbaric force in history has ??? It must suck to have to defend hitler, tojo, saddam, et al to defend your fantasyland ideology.

Moreover, history has shown that the forced total capitulation of both heinous societies by America has resulted in a tamed and exemplary citizenry.

Lastly, another anarchist olevetto is under the impression that islamic extremists are really a group of “nice guys” who are “misunderstood” and only have an axe to grind with the US.

you guys are dangerously naive and misinformed. japan murdered 30 million innocents in World War II. Germany was a close second on this count. In contrast the actions of the USA and British was measured relative to these atrocities.

It won’t be long before we start hearing from anarchists that the holocaust never happened!

139

Geez, what was that silly Kai-Shek smoking for not thinking of democracy and installing communists in his own cabinet?!

140

“Even those of anarchist persuasion should heed F.A. Hayek on how to promote their cause, to avoid perfection and ideological purity. He advocated that that change can only come about when it’s politically possible i.e. pragmatic step-by-step approach in collaboration with fiscal conservatives.”–Illuminatus?

your preaching to the choir on this point. Moreover, I am disappointed to see that austrian theory is infected with so many impractical and rigid ideologues (anarchists). This is probably why it has not emerged onto the mainstream body politik despite the soundness of its tenets.

Nonetheless, as I learn more about the austrian school, I am buoyed by the fact that its primary founders (hayek and von mises) were practical and realistic thinkers.

I also think that anti-corporatist liberals who rail against the military-industrial, crony capitalism, corrupt government et al could be swayed by austrian theory almost as readily as fiscal conservatives.

both groups have the political, economic, and social puzzle pieces on their tables, but they dont know or understand completely how they fit together. The austrian school provides the last important step of putting the pieces together in a predictable and coherent picture describing most societal machinations.