Do you think that it was wrong for the U.S. to drop the A-bomb?

[Baggins]

As I completely loathe the State in general, I usually don't comment on these questions but I have to say that if Harry Truman were alive I'd be tempted to kill him. Of course, I'm Japanese, but I don't think that has anything to do with it. The behavior of the US government in WW1 and WW2 was simply repugnant.
And it was England that started WW2.

This is one of the more rum statements on this forum for a while.

How anyone can call the behaviour of the US government in WWI and WWII repugnant and make no comment on his/her own country's rather shameful and disgusting behaviour in that period beggers belief.

The United Kingdom ( not England ) only started WWII in as much as they gave an untimatum to Germany to withdraw their troops from Poland by a certain time and this did not happen. The United Kingdom was bound by treaty to defend Poland if she was attacked and the Germans knew this. The Nazi regime knew that the UK was bound by a treaty to defend Poland but they gambled that they wouldn't fulfill their obligation, they lost that gamble and with it the lives a 10's of millions of people.

It is fairly easy to see where the aggression that lead to the start of WWII came from - nationalist politics.

As to the main question on the thread; no I don't think it was wrong; all combatant nations in WWII bombed civillians - sometimes as a by product of inaccurate bombing of millitary targets sometimes as a deliberate act - this was in no way fundamentally different. The act of dropping 2 atoimic bombs on Japan saved far more lives than it took, so on balance it was morally correct as it ended the war with the minimum loss of life.

Many of us would not be having this conversation if the invasion had gone ahead as our fathers or grandfathers would have perished in that terrible event. Anyone who doubts that the invasion of homeland Japan would have lead to awful loss of life on both sides need only look at the invasion of Okinawa and what occured there.

 

[ulu]

IMO, no it wasn't wrong to use nukes. You fight wars to win, not to play nice.

 

[WorldIsMine]

How anyone can call the behaviour of the US government in WWI and WWII repugnant and make no comment on his/her own country's rather shameful and disgusting behaviour in that period beggers belief.

I do not have a country. I do not believe that imaginary lines drawn on a map or liars and thugs with multicoloured banners deserve my respect, and certainly not my money. But it is one thing to hate the State in general, and I do, and to examine the specific behavior of a State within a concrete context. As FJP Veale's book calls it, WW2 was an "Advance to Barbarism", to which the nations of England the United States are just as much the savages that Germany was.

Anyone who doubts that the invasion of homeland Japan would have lead to awful loss of life on both sides need only look at the invasion of Okinawa and what occured there.

Maybe the US government shouldn't have antagonized the Japanese. Of course, the Japanese probably shouldn't have invaded China. But the legal theory of retaliatory force only applies to people who have actually commited crimes. The US Government in WW2 was engaged in nothing but mass murder in the name of 'democracy', after which it tried to crush the population of Germany into a helpless agrarian nation.

Stop parroting stuff you heard on the [H]itler channel, read something like John T. Flynn's "The Roosevelt Myth", FJP Veale's "Advance to Barbarism" or "Human Smoke". Guess what, everything you heard in school was propaganda. And seriously, duh. What is it with people ever believing the government? Simply judging from your own life experience, this is obviously stupid.

 

[keith99]

The US Government in WW2 was engaged in nothing but mass murder in the name of 'democracy', after which it tried to crush the population of Germany into a helpless agrarian nation.

Are you truely this ignorant? Or perhaps there really are alternate universes and you just came over from one where the Morganthau plan was implimented after WW II instead of the Marshal Plan.

 

[Breetai]

Of course, I'm Japanese, but I don't think that has anything to do with it.

ほんと？

The behavior of the US government in WW1 and WW2 was simply repugnant.

日本wasn't????

And it was England that started WW2.

The Pacific War of the Second World War is a direct result of Japanese imperialism in the 1890s. It didn't just start with Pearl Harbour.

 

[Baggins]

I do not have a country. I do not believe that imaginary lines drawn on a map or liars and thugs with multicoloured banners deserve my respect, and certainly not my money.

I apologise, I thought you said you were Japanese. And it appears you are just a right on blow hard

Takes one, or an ex-one to know one.

But it is one thing to hate the State in general, and I do, and to examine the specific behavior of a State within a concrete context.

I was a bit like this when I was a youngster. The crushing of youthful idealism is sad. I have managed to retain some of mine thankfully. I was an Anarcho-Communist when I was a youth, happy days if a little pointless. You soon realise that you can be as anarchic as you like but everyone else is just ignoring you and getting on with life.

Then you either join them, or spend the rest of your life as the object of ridicule and pity.

You may object to states, but we all have to live in them and make our peace with them.

As FJP Veale's book calls it, WW2 was an "Advance to Barbarism", to which the nations of England the United States are just as much the savages that Germany was.

Yes moral relativism is all very well as long as you are not a European Jew in the 1930s.

You make think this a moral stance you are taking a "plague on all your houses", but if you are unable to tell the moral difference between liberal democracy and facist totalitarianism it just makes you look a bit silly.

Maybe the US government shouldn't have antagonized the Japanese.

Countries atagonise each other all the time, not all of them act in the way that the Japanese regime did. You have to remember that they where up to their necks in rape and murder in China by that point and that was the major reason the US had cut off their oil supplies. The US had taken a moral stand against Japanese attrocities in China.

Of course, the Japanese probably shouldn't have invaded China.

Perhaps not. Or perhaps not acted in such a depraved way when they did.

But the legal theory of retaliatory force only applies to people who have actually commited crimes.

Was Nanking a crime in your view?

The US Government in WW2 was engaged in nothing but mass murder in the name of 'democracy',

War is mass murder, better it be done in the name of democracy than in the name of facism.

after which it tried to crush the population of Germany into a helpless agrarian nation.

That's just rubbish:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_plan

The US rebuilt Germany into an industrial powerhouse quickly after the war, why do you think we all drive arouns in - Audis, VWs, Mercedes and BMWs?

Stop parroting stuff you heard on the [H]itler channel, read something like John T. Flynn's "The Roosevelt Myth", FJP Veale's "Advance to Barbarism" or "Human Smoke".

I may well read them, but I am not the one parrotting stuff here. You are the one who is making obviously erroneous statements.

I think I may know a little bit more about WWII judging by the standards of your posts.

Guess what, everything you heard in school was propaganda.

Guess what, everything you have written here is propaganda.

We can all make blanket stupid statements.

In fact I don't think I learnt anything about the second world war in school, it wasn't part of the curriculum when I studied history.

And seriously, duh. What is it with people ever believing the government?

Who do you believe? It appears to be the same old tin foil hat wearers.

Yes everyone you spout is telling the absolute truth and everyone I spout is a lying propagandaist. How very grown up.

Simply judging from your own life experience, this is obviously stupid.

I know your type. I nearly became one.

 

[Baggins]

Are you truely this ignorant? Or perhaps there really are alternate universes and you just came over from one where the Morganthau plan was implimented after WW II instead of the Marshal Plan.

Doesn't augur well for the accuracy of the rest of his unsupported assertions does it?

But then we are all dupes unable to tell lies from truth and spoon fed propaganda by out governments, whilst he is a free thinker who sees through all the lies.

*rolls eyes*

 

[WorldIsMine]

BTW: I meant Japanese ethnically, I am totally American in origin.

War is mass murder, better it be done in the name of democracy than in the name of facism.

America is a very fascistic nation, if not quite at the Dictator-stage yet, it is economically organized into fascism.
And I'm not a communist. I hate socialism, collectivism, and it's kissing cousin fascism. It's all just state power, murder, ignorance, destruction and decivilization.

 

[Baggins]

BTW: I meant Japanese ethnically, I am totally American in origin.


America is a very fascistic nation, if not quite at the Dictator-stage yet, it is economically organized into fascism.
And I'm not a communist. I hate socialism, collectivism, and it's kissing cousin fascism. It's all just state power, murder, ignorance, destruction and decivilization.

A definition of Facism

Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by placing the nation or race above the individual and promoting cults of unity, energy and purity.

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism

In the US you get:

Patriotism- tick a given
Nationalism - Hmmm not really, in a country so disparate nationalism is an hard card to plat
Statism - nope, I don't think so. I know for all their talk about shrinking the state no one ever does so, But the individual States that make up America means that national statism is a non-starter.
Militarism - Yes and no. More yes these days sadly with the president in the pocket of the Military-Industrial complex.
Totalitariansim - It is a democracy, so that would be an oxymoron
Anti-Communism - another yes
Economic planning - no sign of that . But no
Corporatism - a qualified yes with this administration, but no so with others.
Autarky - No, allthough there is a strong protectionist under-tow in American politics.
Populism- Most governments are populist to some degree
Collectivism - Most assuredly not
autocracy - Well they are elective dictatorships, but come on.
Opposition of political and economic liberalism - not really, Republicans are against political liberalism but for economic liberalism and vice versa with the Democrats to a degree.

Calling teh US facist is just cheap rhetoric that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I find large swathes of US policy under this administration a complete anathema, and I find George Bush repugnant. But calling the US facist just cheapens the debate about what is wrong with America and turns it into a slanging match.

You are an anarchist, and much good it will do you, you will spend your life politically marginalised, ridiculed and powerless.

I said before; we all make accomodations with the state we live, even you. You can rail against it all you like but by standing on the outside slinging mud and calling people murders, ignorant and facist you will change precisely nothing.

But it used to give me a warm glow to be a political outsider, a frisson of excitement, but I soon realised that it would never change anything.

I campaigned for years to get the troops out of Northern Ireland, but it was a political settlement that got them out not my posturing and marching.

 

[Breetai]

BTW: I meant Japanese ethnically, I am totally American in origin.

If you think the US is bad, then you haven't much idea about Japan I'm thinking... or maybe you don't like Japan either?

 

[WorldIsMine]

If you think the US is bad, then you haven't much idea about Japan I'm thinking... or maybe you don't like Japan either?

I don't care for the behaviour of any government at any time. In my view, it's a stupid, irrational and extremely destructive ideology, which is for all purposes a religion of death.
But I maintain that the US has been quite horrific by standards of states, which would be predictable if people would recognize it as the most powerful empire which has ever existed.

As to your Baggin's definition and comparisons as to the nature of the American Empire, I recommend you look up 'Fascism' on mises.org. The US is an extremely fascistic state, but the sheer amount of wealth has prevented the necessity for the state to become a 'hard' totalitarian state, so far trickery, nonsense, indoctrination and passive robbery have accumulated enough money at low enough levels of resistance.
Your views on whether the US has economic controls and a centralized authoritarian government simply shows that you're believing what the government says rather than looking at the actual facts of the case (many of which are public record) that demonstrate your evaluations as patently false.

 

[Baggins]

As to your Baggin's definition and comparisons as to the nature of the American Empire, I recommend you look up 'Fascism' on mises.org.

Why is better than the definitions on wikipedia?

The site doesn't seem to have a simple definition of facism, just a rather tedious essay about it.

The US is an extremely fascistic state,

Not by any standard definition of facist it isn't.

I am not a big fan of the Bush administration but calling it facistic is just woolly thinking. It is a cheap shot usually used by someone who doesn't really want to analyse whatthe US is really like.

but the sheer amount of wealth has prevented the necessity for the state to become a 'hard' totalitarian state,

So not facist then

so far trickery, nonsense, indoctrination and passive robbery

Is passive robbery taxation by any chance

Your views on whether the US has economic controls and a centralized authoritarian government simply shows that you're believing what the government says rather than looking at the actual facts of the case

No, what I am doing is looking up multiple definitions of facism and seeing if the US administration can be classified as facist by weighing it against these definitions of facism. It can't.

You can define facism as people wearing pink tutus if you so wish. I will carry one using the boring old standard definitions that everybody else uses.

(many of which are public record) that demonstrate your evaluations as patently false.

Great post, not a single piece of supporting evidence save a vague notion that I should visit an Austrian economics web site. Bravo.

Lets see what I can sift from Mises.org:

fascism seeks to incorporate or co-opt private ownership into the state apparatus through public-private partnership.

Do you see this a lot in the uS? If so examples please.

fascist ideology tends to be chauvinistically nationalist, stressing a particularist allegiance to one's country, culture, or ethnicity; along with this goes a suspicion of rationalism, a preference for economic autarky, and a view of life as one of inevitable but glorious struggle.

I don't think the US is particularly nationalistic. Its citizens celebrate their diverse ethnic backgrounds along side their Americanism.

We have already seen that the US can in no way be considered an Autarky, it is fully participant in globalisation.

see no tradition of glorious struggle in US politics either

Fascism also tends to cultivate a "folksy" or völkisch "man of the people," "pragmatism over principles,

George Bush does that, Will McCain or Barak? Let's not forget that the US is a representative democracy.

That is the most I could get from Mises, unless you can show me where on the site there is a more fullsome definition of facism.

I still think you are using facism as a straight insult to be thrown at the American state without really understanding what the word means.

Prove me wrong, back up your position with evidence and logical argument and I might be forced to change my rather poor impression of your position.

 

[WorldIsMine]

Case in point, the anti-trust laws were engineered by large, capital-heavy businesses to protect themselves from competition and the State to give them influence over the economy and wealth for the members of the state.
The Federal Reserve is the same thing. The conspiratorial meetings, facts as to who benefited, who put the money behind pushing these things, the people who support it and their connection to politicians, the political disfavour of those prosecuted by anti-trust and those who don't get control or advantage from the Fed.
The millions of federal regulations, controls and state-owned, subsidized or controlled agencies which affect economic and personal behavior down to comically absurd levels.
You want proof of American fascism? Read corporate law for, like, ten minutes.

 

[Baggins]

Case in point, the anti-trust laws were engineered by large, capital-heavy businesses to protect themselves from competition and the State to give them influence over the economy and wealth for the members of the state.

Anti-trust laws do three main things:

prevent cartels
prevent monopoly behaviour
supervise mergers and buyouts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-trust_law

I fail to see how any of those things relate to facism.

I fail to see how you could conclude that they prevent competition actually, but that is beside the point I am trying to discuss with you.

The Federal Reserve is the same thing. The conspiratorial meetings, facts as to who benefited, who put the money behind pushing these things, the people who support it and their connection to politicians, the political disfavour of those prosecuted by anti-trust and those who don't get control or advantage from the Fed.

I also fail to see what this has to do with the US being a facist state. The Federal reserve is a central state bank, all countries have them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve

We appear to be diving into deep blue waters of conspiracy theory now, can invocations of the Illuminati and tin foil hats be far behind.

The millions of federal regulations, controls and state-owned, subsidized or controlled agencies which affect economic and personal behavior down to comically absurd levels.

Any examples of comically absurd federal control of your economic or personal behaviour, I'd enjoy reading about them.

You want proof of American fascism? Read corporate law for, like, ten minutes.

OK...........

Nope got nothing to do with facism as far as I can see. In the US corporate law means there is a seperation of business from the state whereas, as we have already seen, Facism co-opts industry into the state in a similar way to Communism but while allowing business interests to keep their profits.

We seem to be straying from the point here.

Tell you what, why don't you define Facism in a discriptive paragraph and we can discuss that, because in saying the US is facist you seem to be using a definition which doesn't exist in most online resources so it would be best if you defined it yourself clearly and concisely then we can compare it with the evidence.

 

[WorldIsMine]

prevent cartels
prevent monopoly behaviour
supervise mergers and buyouts

You're just making my point. All of these are economic myths to begin with, and that has nothing to do with why anti-trust laws are actually in existence. To quote Murray Rothbard:
"[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Well, how do we look at all this? Do we say that David Rockefeller's prodigious efforts on behalf of certain statist public policies are merely a reflection of unfocused altruism? Or is there pursuit of economic interest involved? Was Jimmy Carter named a member of the Trilateral Commission as soon as it was founded because Rockefeller and the others wanted to hear the wisdom of an obscure Georgia governor? Or was he plucked out of obscurity and made President by their support? Was J. Paul Austin, head of Coca-Cola, an early supporter of Jimmy Carter merely out of concern for the common good? Were all the Trilateralists and Rockefeller Foundation and Coca-Cola people chosen by Carter simply because he felt that they were the ablest possible people for the job? If so, it's a coincidence that boggles the mind."http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm
[/FONT]

 

[InigoMontoja]

In Nagasaki Peace Park there is a statue by Seibou Kitamura. The statue's left hand extends outward, symbolizing eternal peace. The statue's right hand points as well. It does not point toward Tokyo to warn of Japan's fascism that threatened the world, nor does it point to a Shinto shrine to warn of the dangers embracing a divine right to rule and a chosen race, nor does it point to Nanking in China --to warn of the atrocities Japan committed which brought such retribution. Rather, the hand points the sky, to 'warn of the threat of nuclear weapons'. I cannot think of any thing I have seen, heard, or read in the world which embodies the word hubris more than that statue.

 

[ACougar]

So your saying that the destruction of two cities was an act of retribution? Hundreds of thousands of civilians dead as an act of retibution for what? Your basicly agreeing that droping those bombs was a war crime.

In Nagasaki Peace Park there is a statue by Seibou Kitamura. The statue's left hand extends outward, symbolizing eternal peace. The statue's right hand points as well. It does not point toward Tokyo to warn of the Japan's fascism that threatened the world, nor does it point to a Shinto shrine to warn of the dangers embracing a divine right to rule and a chosen race, nor does it point to Nanking in China --to warn of the atrocities Japan committed which brought such retribution. Rather, the hand points the sky, to 'warn of the threat of nuclear weapons'. I cannot think of any thing I have seen, heard, or read in the world which embodies the word hubris more than that statue.

 

[InigoMontoja]

So your saying that the destruction of two cities was an act of retribution? Hundreds of thousands of civilians dead as an act of retibution for what? Your basicly agreeing that droping those bombs was a war crime.

It does not point toward Tokyo to warn of Japan's fascism that threatened the world, nor does it point to a Shinto shrine to warn of the dangers embracing a divine right to rule and a chosen race, nor does it point to Nanking in China --to warn of the atrocities Japan committed which brought such retribution

..

 

[Baggins]

You're just making my point. All of these are economic myths to begin with, and that has nothing to do with why anti-trust laws are actually in existence. To quote Murray Rothbard:
"[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Well, how do we look at all this? Do we say that David Rockefeller's prodigious efforts on behalf of certain statist public policies are merely a reflection of unfocused altruism? Or is there pursuit of economic interest involved? Was Jimmy Carter named a member of the Trilateral Commission as soon as it was founded because Rockefeller and the others wanted to hear the wisdom of an obscure Georgia governor? Or was he plucked out of obscurity and made President by their support? Was J. Paul Austin, head of Coca-Cola, an early supporter of Jimmy Carter merely out of concern for the common good? Were all the Trilateralists and Rockefeller Foundation and Coca-Cola people chosen by Carter simply because he felt that they were the ablest possible people for the job? If so, it's a coincidence that boggles the mind."[/FONT]

What was the point of copying this pointless guff, what has it got to do with facism?

I think I'll leave it here. If you are unwilling or unable to actually define facism as you believe pertains to the US this is just a pointless argument.

You have failed, consistently, to show that the US conforms to any mainstream, accepted version of the word facist. If you wish to pointlessly redefine the word so facist means something you want it to go ahead and try it someone else.

I can't be bothered reading a load of old guff by Austrian School libertarians which is completely beside the point. You appear to be defining practically anything which doesn't fall into their anarcho-captilism as facist. Redefining the word to cover state enterprise you dislike is stupid it rids the word of its descriptive ability, what do we call states that really are facist if that is what you are going to call the US?

If you think American anti-trust laws are facist well bully for you, I don't link you'll find many people agree with you

 

[InigoMontoja]

BTW: I meant Japanese racially, I am totally American ethnically.

It's somewhat important to use terms correctly.