Axis of evil

you could have alook on the theory behind how a nations national interest and therefore, its foreign policly is formed.

What the fuck are you talking about? How a nation's national interest is formed? You mean there's some other process aside from asking "What is in our best interest"? Do they write a perl script to select a national interest at random and then go for it? Or are you just trying to insult me?

*still waiting*

[Undertoad]

Yeah yeah yeah. AFTER Pearl Harbor.

But what we were discussing was: what caused the memo? The memo that points out that, at the time, there wasn't the political will to go to war. Doesn't sound like a bloodlusty racist populace in the memo.

[Griff]

I'd have to read up a little on it to find out, if thats even possible, what exactly sparked the memo. I can tell you that McCollum, who was born in Nagasaki, was the head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence which handled all the intercepted and decoded Japanese intelligence. He was uniquely qualified to see what an evil empire was developing there, something which nobody should deny. Rape of Nanking/ Bataan Death March (after the fall of the Philipines)etc... many many atrocities.

The thing that folks try to link, successfully I think, is that FDR was actually concerned with getting the US into the war allied with Britain, for the sake of the British Empire, not the Far East. He, the theory goes, set up Japan since they were the only Axis Power capable of hitting the US. The defenders of Imperial Japan can only cling to one thread, their behavior in many ways reflected that of the European colonizers, who we bailed out. Stinnett is unique in that he fully supports FDR, this wasn't the book he intended to write but its the one the facts support.

[Griff]

Wow! looks like I need to do some thread reading to find out if thats even relevent now.... later g

The general theory is indeed what Griff said - FDR wanted to back Britain and therefore "forced" Japan to strike.

There's no doubt that they were provoked; now, I don't have any trouble believing that the provocations were even <i>intended</i> to get Japan into war. Whether or not Japan was actually <b>forced</b> into striking the US is debatable (and always will be), simply because they probably <b>could have</b> escaped a war with the US. Water over the dam though.

Originally posted by Undertoad
Yeah yeah yeah. AFTER Pearl Harbor.

But what we were discussing was: what caused the memo? The memo that points out that, at the time, there wasn't the political will to go to war. Doesn't sound like a bloodlusty racist populace in the memo.

His long posts were in response to my request that he prove that the decision to "drop the bomb" was "justified" by the fact that "Japs were less than human" (which, unfortunately, it does not do).

As for what caused the memo - I'm not sure what caused that memo specifically, but there are all sorts of theories about why "the US wanted to go to war with Japan". It had been talked about for quite some time, that much is certain. Theories range from racism to protecting human rights and everything in between. It's hard to know what to believe.

[ Edit - You may want to check out http://www.tribo.org/nanking/ which has, at the very least, some pictures that will give you an idea of the Japanese atrocities in China ]

[ Another Edit - And here's a better page - GRAPHIC - http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~jackson/rape/pageone.html ]

[Nic Name]

Pearl Harbor, Internment, and Hiroshima: Historical Lessons

In later years, Truman was fond of citing the "fact" that had the U.S. not dropped the atomic bomb, "half a million" American troops would have died in the planned land invasion of Japan. This was the purest fabrication. The truth is that the Joint War Plans Committee estimated on June l0, 1945, that 40,000 Americans would be killed in the invasion of the Japanese mainland, not "half a million." Moreover, by the end of June, American military planners had concluded that Japan had already lost the war: Its cities were devastated, its people were demoralized, and its soldiers no longer had the capacity or will to fight. Japan had even made indirect overtures to the U.S. to discuss the possibility of surrender-rebuffed by Truman, who demanded "unconditional surrender." A top-secret report prepared for the Combined Chiefs of Staff meeting at Potsdam argued:

We believe that a considerable portion of the Japanese population now consider absolute military defeat to be probable. The increasing effects of sea blockade and cumulative devastation wrought by strategic bombing, which has already rendered millions homeless and has destroyed from 25 percent to 50 percent of the built-up areas of Japan's most important cities, should make this realization increasingly general. An entry of the Soviet Union into the war would finally convince the Japanese for the inevitability of complete defeat.

The report suggested that the U.S. should offer Japan "a conditional surrender." Admiral William Leahy, who believed that an invasion of Japan was unnecessary, also advised Truman to accept a Japanese surrender that would allow them to retain the emperor. Many concur that Japan only needed the facesaving gesture of keeping the emperor in place to lay down its arms. By July, the emperor had already indicated that he was interested in suing for peace. "It is my opinion," wrote Leahy a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."' In the end, following Japan's surrender days after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. did precisely what Leahy had earlier recommended-it allowed Japan to retain the emperor.

[warch]

This is very interesting.

[Hubris Boy]

This is pure bullsh*t, but what would you expect from the International Socialist Review? Sheesh. The lunatic fantasies that some people try to pass off as historical fact are simply staggering.

Originally posted by Nic Name
can you clue us in as to the proof you have that has given you this entrenched belief that dropping the bomb on Japan saved lives?

Well... it certainly saved a lot of American lives. Some War Department planners (including MacArthur & Nimitz's staff planners and the US Strategic Bombing Survey) estimated that American casualties from Operation Olympic (the proposed invasion of Kyushu) in November, 1945, would exceed 250,000. Casualty estimates for Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu proposed for March, 1946, were even worse: 750,000 was the number that was usually kicked around. So, if we accept these numbers, almost 1,000,000 human beings had longer, happier lives because we dropped two atomic bombs on some other human beings. I'll sleep well tonight.

Originally posted by Nic Name
The Japanese were no more allies of the Nazis than the Koreans are of the Iraqis, or they of the Iranians.

Other than the fact that Japan signed the Tri-Partite Agreement with Italy and Germany on September 27, 1940, you mean?

Originally posted by Xugumad
It's an established basic fact of elementary College history education that the US systematically provoked Japan into action.

*gales of derisive laughter*

If by "provoked" you mean that the United States failed to acquiesce in Japan's invasion of (and subsequent brutalization of) China, Korea, French Indonesia and the Malay peninsula, then yes, I suppose you're right. How provocative of us to refuse to trade (aviation fuel, high-grade scrap iron, machine tools, munitions, finished capital goods, etc.) with the peace-loving Japanese government! What could we have been thinking?

Now, I'm willing to concede that that's a vast oversimplification of the events leading to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But in return, I expect YOU to concede that the Japanese are every bit as responsible for the pasting they received at the hands of the Americans as the Americans are for dishing it out. For some inexplicable reason, the Japanese, who live on an archipelago with virtually no natural resources, got it into their collective minds that they could go toe-to-toe with the United States in a contest for naval supremacy in the western Pacific. What could they have been thinking?

Personally, I think Japan's collective guilt is FAR greater than any that accrues to the United States, and is compounded by the fact that most of the Japanese government KNEW they couldn't win a war with the United States, but they chose to start one anyway. What kind of government deliberately leads their nation into destruction? Isoroku Yamamoto certainly believed they couldn't win such a war. He said as much in a conversation with Prince Konoye more than a year before Pearl Harbor:

If I am told to fight [the United States] regardless of the consequences, I will run wild for the first six months or a year, but I have utterly no confidence for the second or third year... Now that the situation has come to this pass, I hope you will endeavor to avoid a Japanese-American war."
From the memoirs of Prince Fumimaro Konoye, Japanese premier, September, 1940

[Nic Name]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

Personally, I think Japan's collective guilt is FAR greater than any that accrues to the United States, and is compounded by the fact that most of the Japanese government KNEW they couldn't win a war with the United States, but they chose to start one anyway. What kind of government deliberately leads their nation into destruction?

I don't think it is the incinerated civilians' fault, in any event. I think the use of the atomic bomb was a war crime that would certainly have been called to account and responsibility if it had been perpetrated against the good guys.

I was trying to explain was that it was unnecessary to drop the bomb to end the war, or to "save lives" as dham says, but that it was perceived as a justified retaliation for the attack on Pearl Harbor by a race that had been dehumanized by years of war propaganda.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey -- Japan's Struggle To End The War.

6. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the lord privy seal, the prime minister, the foreign minister and the navy minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms.

I think that having essentially won the war, the President used the bomb and sacrificed the Japs to achieve a better result in the balance of power with the Russians. And that seems to be the consensus in the historic documents that I've seen.

And I apologize for not having had all my facts correct on all points. But I don't think it's all bullshit, nonetheless.

There is a wealth of good original documentation on this at the Truman Library.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Nic Name
The dehumanization of the enemy was meant to lead to extermination and total annihilation, as was reflected in the pronouncements of US military leaders and the media. Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the US South Pacific Force, at a l944 press conference declared:

"The only good Jap is a Jap whose been dead six months. When we get to Tokyo ... we'll have a celebration where Tokyo was."

Taking such propaganda literally is often a serious mistake. Remember that back then they hadn't yet uncovered the atrocities of the Nazis to show that there WERE people who actually meant such propaganda.

There was no extermination campaign against the Japanese. There was no extermination of the Japanese, either abroad or in the US -- placing them in concentration camps was bad enough, but extermination did not occur and was never considered.

As for treatment of prisoners, you really don't want to get into that. Or the names "Bataan" and "Nanking" will come up.

[tw]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
Personally, I think Japan's collective guilt ... is compounded by the fact that most of the Japanese government KNEW they couldn't win a war with the United States, but they chose to start one anyway. What kind of government deliberately leads their nation into destruction?

Above posts demonstrate the number of pre-WWII actors fully involved in forcing a final event - war. Each actor (ie FDR) is the dog's head that forces action by the dog's body (ie. political, economic and social initiatives, speeches, encouragement, subtrifuge, etc) to wag a tail (war is declared). IOW we assume that FDR wagged the tail as he wanted. Reality is that fast moving events became the tail that wagged the dog.

All those WWII historical disucssions assume a leader acted to create an event and got that event to happen (ie FDR got the US into WWII). Reality is that events happened so quick as to drag everyone into war. Actors were almost powerless to avoid the resulting Pearl Harbor; out of ignorance, due to surprise, or just because what they tried to accomplish backfired.

Hitler knew up front that he could not wage war on two fronts simultaneously. But he did so anyway. It was not his intent. Again, the tail wagged the dog. Events of WWII dragged Hilter to start war on a second front. Yes, FDR knew that the US would have to enter WWII (as even Boeing and the Kennedy boys understood in the 1930s). But it was not FDRs actions that got the US into war. It was events, that caused FDR to respond that got the US into war. FDR responded to a tail that would not stop wagging.

Properly noted in so much detail are how so many tails wagged so many dogs. The final 'tail shake' was the US oil embargo of Japan. Was that the reason for WWII. By itself - no. The oil embargo was also created by other WWII events. US was already suffering domestic oil rationing because of so much WWII activity. Therefore it was the perfect response to Japan's invasion of China.


How does this correspond to the original post? The tail most wags nations led by lower intelligent leaders. Historically, these are people driven by their personal biases and political rhetoric rather than by historical experience and long term projection thinking.

Previously posted were examples of low intelligent US leadership. This 'Axis of Evil' simply is another step in undoing decades of work that was slowly creating peaceful solutions. Destruction of so much work was accomplished by the same kneejerk reactions that declared, for example, arsenic in drinking water as safe.

A decade of careful work and compromise brought all parties to a common water standard. But the White House choose to trash everything in a week - instead blaming environmental fanatics for the conclusions. No long term perspective. No appreciation for history. Just an assumption it must be wrong because it goes against White House political rhetoric. Same kneejerk thinking is displayed internationally.

This president views Iran as a monolithic entity. Everyone in Iran must think the same and must have anti-American attitudes. Wrong. Big time wrong. But the president has simply alienated potential American / Iranian friendship. This is but another case where the tail did not have to wag the dog. But the dog does not have sufficient long term perspective to understand why the tail will now be wagging the dog. This 'Axis of Evil' will probably have dangerous consequences for everyone here.

In another post, I will quote an The Economist interesting incite into jihad. Jihad also is not monolithic. However, our leader is aligning the US to go to war against Islam. Not because he intends to; but because he is setting America up to be wagged by its tail.

Yesterday's news only makes that scary. Sec of State Powell outrightly warning every Cellar dweller that the US may unilaterally declare war on Iraq. He is warning you that extremists may totally subvert US foreign policy:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...P-US-Iraq.html

Secretary of State Colin Powell says the United States might have to act alone to bring about a ``regime change'' in Iraq.
Powell told House members Wednesday that President Bush is considering ``the most serious set of options one might imagine'' for dealing with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
``Regime change is something the United States might have to do alone,'' ...

If this was any other President, except Nixon, I would say 'bull'. But this is George Jr who in one year subverted, soured or destroyed every international relationship we have. Do we really need all those 9+ new military bases in the Middle East from Bulgaria to Kazakistan? Why do we need them? To be dragged into war against a jihad we don't understand and may not need to fear? Yes, that last sentence is correct. Jihad also is not a monolithic concept to those who first learn the facts before declaring 'Axies of Evil'.

[Griff]

I have to disagree somewhat. Just because events did happen, it does not follow that they had to happen. I could say that a general Mid-East war is predestined, if enough people bought into that idea, we would have our war since none would bother to work against that outcome. Like the pre-WWII time frame there are many social and political reasons why such a general conflict is likely, however, the fatalistic vision that these factors can't be mitigated by individuals, is counter-productive. That Boeing (aircraft?) and the Kennedys both had a profit interest in war and the increase in government power which flows from it shows that they wanted war, not that it was inevitable that America participate. FDR wanted to bring the US into the conflict and affected the changes he could, to support that outcome.

You are right about the Iran situation outside of your dog/tail analogy. Progress in our relationship with Iran seemed inevitable, until one dog wagged his tail.

[Griff]

Hmm... Two suits with sunglasses are knocking on my door. I wonder what thats about?