Yosuke Yamahata

[Sand]

I don't know why there is an obsession for finding out the real reason. It was used, and it had a great amount of impact on the world. If Stalin gotten the bomb first, or Germany, or even Japan, do you really think the world have been better off, Yuusha?

[Tigranes]

It would have been one of the *effects* of the bomb, if not the reason. Thus it is significant.

[Walsingham]

@Walsingham:

Stalin would cheerfully have pressed on into Europe without his fear of the bomb, and without a practical demonstration he would not have grasped its significance.

So you're basically saying that the real reason the Americans deployed the bomb was to keep Stalin in check?

 

That's a bit of an over-simplification. If I've learned anything from history it is not to expect things to be simple. I'm saying that I can accept there may have been alternatives solutions to the Japanese problem, but it was an effective one certain to work AND at the same time a solution to the Soviet problem. Indeed the only solution to the Soviet problem.

[Laozi]

Sorry lost my train of thought, something about a donkey punch.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Laozi

[Azarkon]

The bomb served an expedient end, but let's not forget that the Allies were determined to force a total surrender from Japan and had plans in place for a land invasion - if the bomb failed (which General Marshall thought it would after seeing the Japanese defend their islands). Their estimates for casaulties resulting from such an invasion were far worse than was caused by the bomb and it did not sway them, and I genuinely think that they would've reduced Japan to the last man, woman, and child if that was the way it had to be (though it'd likely not have come to that, particularly with the Soviet threat brooding on the coasts). I bring this out not to downplay the effects of the bomb, but to stress that total war, as was practiced in WW 2, was brutal in a way that people today have a hard time imagining. It wasn't about morality, it wasn't about civilian casaulties, it wasn't about keeping the public happy ... It was about winning, total victory - whatever it takes. Hundreds of years of European enlightenement, of civilization building, of societal progress... And it comes down to that. I'm glad this phase of history is over.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Azarkon

[Cantousent]

I've generally agreed with your assessments in this thread, Azarkon. As is so often the case, it's the fine point that comes between us. Total victory was the necessary end of the conflict because lack of concern is what allowed it to become total war. I don't disagree that it is a terrible thing, but nature can be terrible as well. Like astro, I see the pictures of the carnage and cannot help but think of myself. I see the women and think of my wife and sister. I see my mother. That doesn't change the fact that it was necessary to demand, and secure, complete and total victory. In the end, we still had Stalin, and his brutal regime. So total victory resulted in an incomplete peace. However, negotiating for victory would have brought an even more fragile peace and perhaps no peace at all. Once total war reared its massive ugly head, there was no choice but total victory.

[Tale]

Did we even consider the possibility of exporting cute cartoon characters as an alternative? I know hindsight is 20/20, but I'm pretty sure it would have worked. This is Japan we're talking about here.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Tale

[Azarkon]

I believe the sort of cartoon that could've worked would've offended American puritan sensibilities

 

I've generally agreed with your assessments in this thread, Azarkon. As is so often the case, it's the fine point that comes between us. Total victory was the necessary end of the conflict because lack of concern is what allowed it to become total war. I don't disagree that it is a terrible thing, but nature can be terrible as well. Like astro, I see the pictures of the carnage and cannot help but think of myself. I see the women and think of my wife and sister. I see my mother. That doesn't change the fact that it was necessary to demand, and secure, complete and total victory. In the end, we still had Stalin, and his brutal regime. So total victory resulted in an incomplete peace. However, negotiating for victory would have brought an even more fragile peace and perhaps no peace at all. Once total war reared its massive ugly head, there was no choice but total victory.

 

I don't think we disagree, but perhaps debating the finer points would help. I agree that in the circumstances we were given total victory was the only viable choice. I also suspect that you would agree with the assertion that we should be glad that we're past the phase of history that would produce such circumstances (at least, so it seems at the moment). I'm not decrying our decision to seek total victory, but the doctrine of total war that necessitated such a decision in the first place. But of course, it's not even total war that I'm criticizing, but the mentality that necessitated it - that being an ideology of power and domination founded upon beliefs of intrinsic superiority, and which put aside service to universal morality in the name of nationalism.

[Walsingham]

Did we even consider the possibility of exporting cute cartoon characters as an alternative? I know hindsight is 20/20, but I'm pretty sure it would have worked. This is Japan we're talking about here.

 

Are you kidding? Have you seen what they DO to cartoon characters over there? The last thing I want is some brutalised Mickey Mouse begging for change on the subway in his uniform.

 

On the subject of contemporary thought:

 

 

I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined the Government; 'I have nothing to offer but blood toil tears and sweat'.

 

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind, We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, What is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory - victory - at all costs, victory, in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.

 

- Winston Churchill

[Azarkon]

But is our enemy truly an existential threat? Hitler was. Fascism was. But Islamic extremists?

 

I have my doubts. At any case, the situation has changed in other ways, too - nationalism is no longer such an important factor, the result of which is that total war against the enemy has become ineffective. Forcing an official Iraqi surrender is easy; getting the militants to give up, and getting the people to stop hating each other, however - not so much. It's true that we can still achieve total victory by completely annihilating the enemy's possible countries of residence, but such an act is not only morally reprehensible but is, in fact, self-admittedly excessive in a way WW 2 total war never was. There was the notion then that if we did not reduce Germany to rubble, Hitler would've reduced us to rubble (once the war's begun, anyways). The same, I think, cannot yet be said of Islamic extremists. The existential threat is not yet real.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Azarkon

[Cantousent]

I agree that we should do our best to ensure we don't end up in an all or nothing conflict. Churchill's speech was inspiring, but only slightly more inspiring than the times were terrifying. We don't want to bet there will be a Churchill handy to inspire us. Things are less clear now than they were then, and on that we can agree.

[Yuusha]

@Sand:

I don't know why there is an obsession for finding out the real reason. It was used, and it had a great amount of impact on the world. If Stalin gotten the bomb first, or Germany, or even Japan, do you really think the world have been better off, Yuusha?

Actually no. I don't think the world would've been any better had the Japanese or the Germans gotten the A bomb. Heck, the world won't be any better so long as the threat of nuclear warfare still looms. It's just that I truly cannot understand why the American Government would resort to the A bomb. Japan was finished. Crushed. Broken. Even Eisenhower said so.

 

That is why I think that the next logical explanation would be Stalin. The US had to 'terrorize' Stalin to keep him from invading Europe. What better way to do so than to deploy the A bomb. Even if it'd meant the lives of a qurter of a million Japanese people.

 

Man, WW2 was atrocity at its finest.

--------------------------------

 

 

@Walsingham:

That's a bit of an over-simplification. If I've learned anything from history it is not to expect things to be simple. I'm saying that I can accept there may have been alternatives solutions to the Japanese problem, but it was an effective one certain to work AND at the same time a solution to the Soviet problem. Indeed the only solution to the Soviet problem.

I'm not saying it wasn't complicated or effective. But I do think it was wrong.

--------------------------------

 

@Azarkon:

But is our enemy truly an existential threat? Hitler was. Fascism was. But Islamic extremists?

 

I have my doubts. At any case, the situation has changed in other ways, too - nationalism is no longer such an important factor, the result of which is that total war against the enemy has become ineffective. Forcing an official Iraqi surrender is easy; getting the militants to give up, and getting the people to stop hating each other, however - not so much. It's true that we can still achieve total victory by completely annihilating the enemy's possible countries of residence, but such an act is not only morally reprehensible but is, in fact, self-admittedly excessive in a way WW 2 total war never was. There was the notion then that if we did not reduce Germany to rubble, Hitler would've reduced us to rubble (once the war's begun, anyways). The same, I think, cannot yet be said of Islamic extremists. The existential threat is not yet real.

Well, IF (and that's a big IF) the US declared total war on the Islamic world, then I guess I've no choice but to defend myself.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Yuusha

[Walsingham]

I disagree with both Azarkon and Canto. It was by no means clear cut. In 1940 Britain had her back to the wall, but as yet there was no obvious threat that Hitler intended to reduce us to rubble. Indeed many were either for bending the knee or enthusiastically joining him against the perceived threat of communism. We are fortunate indeed that a man was available who could frame the situation so much more clearly than his contemporaries. A man with utterly outmoded (even for the time) notions of honour and courage. I refer you to his other greatest speech (my emphasis):

 

"... I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.

 

At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty's Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation.

The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength.

 

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

 

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..."

 

 

And later on June 18th:

 

"But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science."

 

 

Let us be quite clear. The Jifascists believe in a world without utterly without science or democracy, a world run entirely on the uneducated interpretation of laws untouched by the men and women bound by them. A tyranny that would go beyond even that known under the Nazis. A world stripped of all 'unislamic' art, science, literature, and probably history. A world in which fully 50% of people would be reduced to the status of chattels, and the remainder by and large no more than drones. A threat not just to the West, but indeed to practically every culture, from the Bushmen of the Kalahari to the Inuit of Alaska, and even to Islamic countries which they consider insufficiently pure. Neither Hitler nor Stalin would have dared put forward such a crazed plan of total desolation.

[Pop]

If there's any example of a scenario that might play out under a jihadist rule (besides, eh, Afghanistan under the Taliban, although they didn't seem to have the lofty ambitions of intercultural domination your average jihadist would) I'd nominate Cambodia under Pol Pot, who succeeded (and I use that term very loosely) in demodernizing his nation in the interests of some nebulous "return to glory" of long-ago empires and bolstering defense against imperialism. Maybe a jihadist wouldn't be prone to use of agricultural communism that caused so much famine under Mao and Pol Pot, but they'd exhibit the same reactionary ludditism and anti-intellectualism. They'd probably be just as troubled (Cambodia nearly cannibalized itself)

[Walsingham]

I think it's important to recognise that while the Jifascist plan may seem implausible as a threat it relies quite simply on standard Maoist revolutionary war principles.

 

1. Discredit existing order through acts of revolutionary violence, leading to counter-revolutionary repression.

2. Weaken target system through acts of violence aginst infrastructure and institutions.

3. Radicalisation of populace by elimination of moderates.

4. Escalation from terrorism to guerrilla warfare and thence to conventional warfare.

 

The most important point is, as I say, that stages 1-3 as we're witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan entail the wholesale impoverishment and brutalisation of the community. The danger from Al Qaeda and their allies stems from their willingness to engage in what are called mass casualty attacks. The use of nerve toxins, disease, radiological and nuclear warfare to kill and cripple. Our mistake is in assuming because we are big we are invulnerable, whereas we are in fact very vulnerable precisely because of our size.

 

It's also important to recognise that as part of their strategy the Jifascists intend an intellectual assault on our sensibilities. For an excellent description of how the communist KGB intended to actuate just such an assault I found this clip on Youtube.

 

 

I'm sad to say that while I have no problem per se with the Stop the War coalition, and have friends who are members, there are threads in their organisation who are committed to building the perceived legitimacy of jifascism and the adoption of a policy of appeasement and strategic retreat.

[Azarkon]

I disagree with both Azarkon and Canto. It was by no means clear cut. In 1940 Britain had her back to the wall, but as yet there was no obvious threat that Hitler intended to reduce us to rubble. Indeed many were either for bending the knee or enthusiastically joining him against the perceived threat of communism. We are fortunate indeed that a man was available who could frame the situation so much more clearly than his contemporaries. A man with utterly outmoded (even for the time) notions of honour and courage.

 

With all due respect Walsh, the threat of "bending the knee" is itself an existential threat. No such thing exists within the current conflict - no one is suggesting that we bend the knee to Islam, merely that we contain it as we contained Communism and let the ideology destroy itself from within. It's similarly preposterous to argue that pockets of Islamic militants are in anyways comparable to the mighty Axis war machine. Total war is a conflict that can only truly exist between two nations mobilizing all the assets at their command. The war against terrorism - against failed states that hardly put up a fight, with half-hearted support at home, with a primarily professional army, for purpose of "making the Middle-East safe for American interests," and with the spectre of profiteering hanging over it - is very different in comparison, and total victory is this case is not only nebulous but perhaps even unachievable with regards to the demands it places on our moral conscience. Sure, everybody would like to see Al Qaeda brought to justice, but few, I think, would be willing to see the Middle-East reduced to a glass parking lot in the process. That is why Islam is not an existential threat - if it were, and if total war was in fact our mode of conflict with the Islamists, then dropping a few atom bombs on Middle-Eastern cities would not be out of the question. It would, in fact, be an act of mercy compared to what we would be obligated to do as an alternative (ie a full-scale, remorseless invasion and pacification of the Middle-East).

 

As far as whether Churchill was "right" to support total war against Hitler... In retrospect, of course he was - but that doesn't mean the ideology he espoused in that speech (total war) was correct, because you also have to consider Hitler, who was driven by similar principles. Ask yourself this - if Hitler did not begin a total war, would Churchill have been justified to wage total war against him? If the ideology behind total war (which was basically fascist) was not in power, would WW 2 have occured, and even if it did, would it have been as singularly destructive and brutal?

Edited August 9, 2007 by Azarkon

[Sand]

Actually no. I don't think the world would've been any better had the Japanese or the Germans gotten the A bomb. Heck, the world won't be any better so long as the threat of nuclear warfare still looms. It's just that I truly cannot understand why the American Government would resort to the A bomb. Japan was finished. Crushed. Broken. Even Eisenhower said so.

 

And you don't think that Japan shouldn't have been punished for their cowardly attack? Was Japan beaten before the bombs, maybe, but after the bombs they most certainly were.

[Gorth]

And you don't think that Japan shouldn't have been punished for their cowardly attack? Was Japan beaten before the bombs, maybe, but after the bombs they most certainly were.

So, you're saying it was all about revenge and the more civilians we can kill, the better?

[Sand]

I am just saying if you are going to attack a country that country has the right to do anything in its power to make sure they are not attacked again by what ever means possible. Japan attacked the US therefore it is in the right of the US to use its entire military resources to destroy its enemies.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Sand

[Dark_Raven]

Total annilation? We were mercyful then by letting off as we did.

[Sand]

Yes. We could have been far more brutal to the Japanese and Germans if we wished to. I think we let Japan off easy compared to what Japanese and Germans did to those who they conquered.

[Xard]

Well rest assured, in many ways you did kill backbone of japanese people, crushing their spirit and turning their country to Satellite country for american Big Daddy. Not to mention this all lead to extreme conformism of today's Japan.

 

But they created anime after that so I shouldn't be whining

[Walsingham]

I am just saying if you are going to attack a country that country has the right to do anything in its power to make sure they are not attacked again by what ever means possible. Japan attacked the US therefore it is in the right of the US to use its entire military resources to destroy its enemies.

 

You are channeling the spirit of Georges Clemenceau again. Please report to the chapel for exorcism.

[Sand]

You are channeling the spirit of Georges Clemenceau again. Please report to the chapel for exorcism.

 

Only if Dark Raven gets to flog me this time.