All conspiracy theories aside, considering Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, was the U.S. right in joining WWII? Most libertarian-types agree that war is just when the you are in direct danger and/or attacked directly, which we were. Also, was the U.S. right in intervening as much as they did, in Europe and the Pacific. Lastly, was the U.S. and Truman right in using Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; I understand that is an abuse of power and genocide, but rumor has it the projected number of deaths would have been greater for both Americans and Japanese if the war had continued.
Just bumping this to keep on on the top recent because I am really curious to the answers.
have you read "The Myth of National Defense" by Hans Herman-Hoppe? If not, it may shed light on the subject of your inquiry.
I have not, I think my brother actually has it, too, so I probably will soon. Currently, we are discussing WWII in class I want some kind of quick, concise reasoning to refute my progressive teacher and the horrible Howard Zinn. Any summarization for the time being would be much appreciated.
I think the Second World War was made inevitable by American involvement in the First World War, as well as an imperialist, mercantalist foreign policy in East Asia in the intervening years. It's not like there was much of a decision left to be made in late 1941.
The "projected" number of deaths for the invasion of the Japanese home islands were ridiculous fictions written to justify dropping the bombs. Japan had no navy, airforce or fuel by this point. And in any case, it's fairly well-accepted that they were willing to surrender with the only term being the Emperor's safety, which was granted by the allies in the end regardless.
See also: Lend-Lease (the US government stealing from its subjects to give to the enemies of the Axis) and the US preventing its subjects to trade with Japan. The US government entered WWII long before Pearl Harbour, just not in yet in a military capacity. They were hardly isolationist before this.
I am sure the Japanese expected a war with the United States having attacked Pearl Harbor. So it is hard to say that entering into WWII was an unjust act, unless we consider the "intervening [of the US], in Europe and the Pacific." Whether it is "right" for the US to have done so depends on whether one sees blockading and embargoes as acts of war. If the affirmative, then intervention is not right nor our entrance into the war just.
My understanding of events did not require the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war. The war was coming to a conclusion. I have heard that the bombing proceeded to start the Cold War with the Soviet Union. A show of force to deter the communists. Whether this is correct or not, the bombing were unnecessary and the war would not have been prolonged otherwise, IMO.
The U.S. as an empire benefitted immensely from entering WWII.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
At most, the necessity of dropping the bombs was only to achieve unconditional surrender; had the US taken something approaching a reasonable position, those lives could've been spared.
I think the tendency of warfare to enhance the health of the state, and the direct drains of government conducted combat, to be so low that it was not a good thing that the U.S. entered the war. Better to be conquered by the Japanese and at least have an identifiable and hated enemy than to be conquered by our 'leaders' in Washington who will be given accolades for their dastardly dead.
What is more, the Japanese expansion in the Pacific as well as their attack in Pearl Harbor were both generated in large parts by trade barriers generated by the Americans and English, who combined practically 'owned' Pacific trade. If the American and British leaders had not been high-tariff imperialists it is unlikely the Japanese would have felt so strongly the need to secure resources and markets by force. This is not to in any way abrogate the criminal actions of the Japanese Empire, only to point out that, like Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden, it was a causal product of Anglo-American imperialism.
FDR manuevered the Japanese into firing the first shot--bombing pearl harbor.
That said, WWII was perfectly avoidable.
rumor has it the projected number of deaths would have been greater for both Americans and Japanese if the war had continued.--C Le Master
Rumor is reality.
Army intelligence concluded that over 1 million US servicemen would die seizing the Japanese home islands. Another 3-4 million Japanese civilians would die in a conventional campaign to take these islands.
In contrast, the atomic bombs killed less than 1 million by all accounts. Most importantly, it contributed to ending the war quickly, thereby preventing the loss of Western Europe. Note that a long drawn-out campaign to take Japan would have severely weakened an already untenable position in Western Europe against hordes of SOviet tanks and infantry that had already subjegated Eastern Europe.
Also, was the U.S. right in intervening as much as they did, in Europe and the Pacific.-- C Le Master
You don't fight wars or use deadly force against deadly force with half measures. Practically speaking, if your going to a gun fight, don't bring a sling shot.
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
Beh, apologist.
I think statements that the "1-3 million casualty projections" are overblown are a little off the mark. If you look at the battle of Okinawa, which was the last major battle of the war, you can see that the fighting was extremely bloody despite the devestated condition of the Japanese military. The US had somewhere around 50,000 killed or wounded, and the Japanese lost around 100,000 soldiers, and 50,000-150,000 civilians...killed.
The total ground forces at Okinawa on the US's side was just under 200,000, and the Japanese defenders were just over 100,000, not counting civilians. Considering that Operation Downfall (the invasion of mainland Japan) would have certainly involved forces in the millions, I think it's not unreasonable to say that it would have killed a hell of a lot of people, including millions of civilians.
Not that this justifies the way that the atomic bomb was used, just want to disburse the idea that the casualty estimates were deliberately overblown.
In the words of military historian Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
"Though to save a life is laudable, it in no way justifies the employment of means which run counter to every precept of humanity and the customs of war. Should it do so, then, on the pretext of shortening a war and saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified."
"It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost." - Murray N. Rothbard.
Rettoper: I believe you will find this speech by Yuri N. Maltsev revealing. Then again, he is a Russian and former Soviet advisor, so why believe anything he says, right? USA! USA! http://mises.org/media/1091/Despotism-Loves-Company-The-Story-of-Roosevelt-and-Stalin
Rettoper: I believe you will find this speech by Yuri N. Maltsev revealing. Then again, he is a Russian and former Soviet advisor, so why believe anything he says, right? USA! USA!
Rettoper reminds me of Dondero.
Mises published Percy Greaves definitive revisionist history, PEARL HARBOR, SEEDS AND FRUITS OF INFAMY, documenting the Roosevelt administration's conspiracy--not a theory--to maneuver the Japanese into initiating aggression in the Pacific so that the people of American would drop their opposition to entering Churchill's war.
If a terrorist organization or a beligerent nation ever manages to explode a nuclear devise in the US, the event will be a delayed response to, and consequence of, this nation's initial, unwarranted, and to-this-day-only use of these terrible weapons upon civilian population. Those who believe their government's war-time propaganda justifying obliterating Heroshima and Nagasaki with A-bombs, and Tokyo with napalm are niave--to put it nicely.
"Though to save a life is laudable, it in no way justifies the employment of means which run counter to every precept of humanity and the customs of war. Should it do so, then, on the pretext of shortening a war and saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified." -- fuller
mr. fuller's view notwithstanding. the most humane way to win a war is quickly and decisively.
moreover, handwringing and half-measures by self-aggrandizing pacifists in the name of 'humanitarianism' emboldens mass murder more than any other action.
japan is more free, prosperous, stable, and peaceful then at anytime in its militaristic and violent past, thanks to US hegemony.
FDR maneuvered the US into war with Japan indirectly, though it is still definitely the fault of the Japanese for attacking in the first place (Yes, FDR was a bastard, but please don't act as apologists for the Japanese Empire, which was several times worse).
Now nuclear weapons were NOT needed. You forget that an invasion of Japan wasn't even needed; The Japanese fleet, its industrial capacity, its airforce, was completely crushed by the end of the war. The US could have easily simply stopped supplies from arriving from the rest of the Empire, and Japan would have folded like a house of cards (Japan has a huge lack of natural resources, and they would never hold up more than a year without the loot from their empire).
Prove it!
(Yes, FDR was a bastard, but please don't act as apologists for the Japanese Empire, which was several times worse).
Totally disagree. The USA probably killed just as many people, instigated the whole thing and directly or indirectly can plausibly be blamed for the war in the Pacific to begin with, the length and barbarity of the war in Europe (including the Allies refusing to accept peace terms and to some extent the Holocaust), the rebuilding of the Soviet military, the Soviet conquest of Europe and the triumph of the Communists in China. The American government might directly kill fewer people but the sheer amount of money makes it pretty obviously responsible for a lot more murders than anyone else. Also, don't forget the original 1918 Soviet Revolution, the starvation of Germany, etc. were the direct or indirect result of American intervention.
Yes, Roosevelt was worse than Stalin in terms of things you can reasonably peg on his hide. If it wasn't for America there would have been no Chi-Coms and the Soviets would have been crushed by Hitler.
The USA killed more people? Really? More than the Japanese invasion of China (with over twenty million deaths), of Burma, Indonesia, etc? Remember, the USA was involved in TWO fronts of WW2, and at no point was the US responsible for more deaths than the aforementioned Sino-Japanese war. It is possible that the US killed more against Japan alone then vice-versa, but then civilians were not exactly all over the various atolls of the Pacific, so that would just mean that the US forces were better at killing than the Japanese (Which really says nothing about their morality).
Instigated the whole thing? As I said, I hate FDR too, but he didn't cause Hitler to invade Poland, to annex Sudentenland, or to take over Austria. He also didn't have much to do with Japan invading China (which is where WW2 really started). He was itching for a war, but he couldn't have started a war without huge justification given by either the Germans or the Japanese, as the American public was definitively against any war. He baited them, but then he was very limited in what could be done, and not much short of direct attack would have warranted an actual war. Then Japan did so on his behalf with an attack on Pearl Harbour, followed by Hitler (stupidly) declaring war. Had Japan not attacked at all, the US public would have never been motivated to rescue European colonial possessions.
FDR did not rebuild the Soviet military. Stalin did. Yes, he supported the Soviets. Would have it been better if he let the Nazis conquer the Soviet Union? Had the USSR gone down, Nazi Germany would become basically impossible to defeat. The Soviets conquered Europe, but then the Soviets had the land border with the Germans, so it was that or the Nazis would have taken over instead. I don't like either, but the Soviets are infinitely preferable to the Nazis. What could have been done besides one of those two options? They could have attacked the Soviets, but they would have probably lost as the USSR was at the height of its power. It was a lose-lose situation.
The Holocaust can only be blamed on FDR in that he didn't put in more effort to stop it. He didn't cause it in any way, shape, or form.
The Communists won China mostly because of internal politics (the Nationalists took almost all of the casualties against Japan while the Communists focused mostly on guerrilla raids, limiting their casualties). We now know that the Communists were very bad, but would the Nationalists been any better? By all rights, they were fascists and could have been just as bad. We will never know now, but short of direct intervention not much could have been done. Oh, and allowing the Japanese to conquer China would have been much, much worse. They inflicted, as I said before, about 20 million casualties in the war alone, and that was almost entirely limited to China's coastlines.
The 1917 revolution? Starvation of Germany? What? The Bolsheviks weren't backed by Americans at all. Hell, the American expeditionary forces there backed the Whites. Now I won't justify the US joining the war in 1917 because that WAS definitively bad, but the US did not cause the starvation of Germany. I believe Mises himself addressed that in "Omnipotent Government".
Now, I can think of exactly one reason why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary, but it has nothing to do with Japan; If the US had simply starved out Japan or invaded directly, we wouldn't have seen the effects of nuclear warfare (outside of tests, which have hardly the same effect). Yes, about 200,000 people died, but what if neither the Soviets nor Americans understood just how bad it could be? The Soviets might have invaded, launching WW3. MAD would be hard to understand for people with no experience of nuclear weapons being used in warfare, and the world could have become a radioactive wasteland in the 60s. It doesn't change the morality, but the results could have been much, much worse.
The USA killed more people? Really? More than the Japanese invasion of China (with over twenty million deaths), of Burma, Indonesia, etc?
All of which were a direct or indirect result of U.S. policy. Frankly, I'd rather have the Japanese running China than Mao.
FDR did not rebuild the Soviet military. Stalin did.
Wrong. Materials and cash support were sent to the Soviets in billions.
Yes, he supported the Soviets. Would have it been better if he let the Nazis conquer the Soviet Union?
Yes. Nazis are better than Commies, and Roosevelt had no business in their fight, anyway.
The Communists won China mostly because of internal politics (the Nationalists took almost all of the casualties against Japan while the Communists focused mostly on guerrilla raids, limiting their casualties)
Wrong again; Roosevelt supported the Reds over the Nationalists because they were closer to strategic holdings in East-Asia, and the rebuilding of the Soviet Army by Roosevelt allowed them to come in after the Japanese were defeated (again, another result of American interventionism) and send captured Japanese weapons along with many thousands of Spanish silver dollars to the Reds. Without these the Reds would have died on the long march and been totally unsupplied for any serious conflict.
It seems concievable that one could make the argument that due to not being bat fuck suicidaly crazy, Nazism has a chance at creating wealth and causing wars. In so much as Western intellectual hipsters don't support commie countries, they can't really cause any harm outside of their internal suicidal policies. In that regard I can see one choosing Maoism over Nazism as "better". Though that is probably saying the same thing with a bit of an inverted twist.
Right, and this is the danger of internally less repressive states: they have enough productive capacity and social organization to exploit and actually make them dangerous. This is the main reason why the United States, despite being internally a relatively tolerable government, is a homicidal war machine around the rest of the world.
However, I feel that National Socialism was still self-destructive enough that it really stood no chance against more capitalist countries and I believe that Hitler never would have attacked England. If anything this is even more of an argument against American involvement in the war, since it transitioned the American economy into one of semi-permanent global ideological warfare. I would guess that betwee trade restrictions and various regulations it imposes on other countries that the United States has indirectly killed far more people than Nazi Germany; though it might be neck and neck with Mao and Stalin. A regulation that results in a mere 10% income decrease among poorer peoples around the world can mean starvation and disease for millions of them.
Totally disagree. The USA probably killed just as many people, instigated the whole thing and directly or indirectly can plausibly be blamed for the war in the Pacific to begin with, the length and barbarity of the war in Europe (including the Allies refusing to accept peace terms and to some extent the Holocaust), the rebuilding of the Soviet military, the Soviet conquest of Europe and the triumph of the Communists in China. The American government might directly kill fewer people but the sheer amount of money makes it pretty obviously responsible for a lot more murders than anyone else. Also, don't forget the original 1918 Soviet Revolution, the starvation of Germany, etc. were the direct or indirect result of American intervention. Yes, Roosevelt was worse than Stalin in terms of things you can reasonably peg on his hide. If it wasn't for America there would have been no Chi-Coms and the Soviets would have been crushed by Hitler. -- rj moore ii
Yes, Roosevelt was worse than Stalin in terms of things you can reasonably peg on his hide. If it wasn't for America there would have been no Chi-Coms and the Soviets would have been crushed by Hitler. -- rj moore ii
whoa !!??
indeed, liberal democracies are lethal to expansionist militaristic autocratic regimes -- but to assert that they killed more civilians is not supported by empirical evidence.
moreover, acts of violence committed by US forces were in a time of war. It is obvious that ancaps dont know how to wage war since they dont have a pot to piss in --- so I will educate you. Lethal force is necessary in wartime particularily against autocratic regimes.
Lastly and most importantly --- the end result of the allied victory was unparalleled and unprecedented peace, prosperity, stability, and freedom in the areas of US hegemony.
in contrast, in the areas of the globe that the ancaps maintain hegemony instability, violence, pover....... wait......... ancaps dont hold sway anywhere !
end of story.
I am not arguing with you Rettoper, I get enough of this apologetical BS from Dondero. I don't give a whit what you think about anything.
Right, and this is the danger of internally less repressive states: they have enough productive capacity and social organization to exploit and actually make them dangerous. This is the main reason why the United States, despite being internally a relatively tolerable government, is a homicidal war machine around the rest of the world. -- rj moore ii
ricky you've been bamboozled by conventional wisdom and mainstream media into believing this nonsense.
provide a recent example of a homicidal war machine that doesnt involve the removal of a far greater destructive force?!
the USA has been the primary force for prosperity, freedom, and stability then any other system or nation-state.
look to the areas of the globe where the USA and liberal democracy holds sway -- they are more peaceful, free, prosperous, and stable then at anytime in their tumultous and despotic past. Europe, the western hemisphere, and the asian pacific rim are examples.
In contrast, look at the instability, violence, poverty, and despotism in areas of the globe were the US does not hold sway.
I acknowledge that the US has serious defeciencies in economic policy that need to be addressed-- however, we have seen dramatic improvements in civil and political liberties within liberal democracies and these positive changes have been accomplished through coercion at the expense of brutal autocratic regimes.
in sum, emotionalism and ideological hatred are driving much of the misinformation relative to supposed US indiscrestions abroad. INdeed, the difficulties autocrats are experiencing in the middle east and maghreb are directly attributable to the example in Iraq.
Frankly the Brits did way better; but I'll agree with RJII, you are probably impossible to talk to.
LOL.
I wonder how many of those despots are supported and maintain their power because of U.S. support Rottoper.
Zephyr: I wonder how many of those despots are supported and maintain their power because of U.S. support Rottoper.
Those dictators got into power all by themselves. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!
I wonder how many of those despots are supported and maintain their power because of U.S. support Rottoper. -- zephyr
the following geopolitical machinations are not particularily complicated if your open-minded and independent thinking.
the USA (and virtually every other nation that has existed) frequently and temporarily aligns with unsavory despotic nations in order to protect national interests. For example, the US temporarily aligned and supported with one of the most heinous regimes in history during WWII, the soviet union.
however, this alliance was obviously a reaction to what was percieved to be a greater threat to US interests, namely nazi germany. also, note that neither the soviet union or nazi germany exist today thanks to the application of US force.
moreover, the people of germany are more free, prosperous, peaceful, and stable than at anytime in their militaristic, despotic, and tumultous past
similarly, during the cold war, the US aligned with some unsavory authoritarian dictators in order to remove a far greater evil -- global communism.
note that the Western hemisphere is more free, prosperous, peaceful, and stable than at anytime in their militaristic , despotic, and tumultous past -- also note that none of the authoritarian regimes that we aligned with exist today -- they were quickly dispatched after the end of the Cold war with US support for indigenous democratic forces.
I know you all hate liberal democracy with a passion, however you have to examine these geopolitical issues through a clear lens to understand them.
"note that the Western hemisphere is more free, prosperous, peaceful, and stable..."
I'm sorry Rettoper, but "free and peaceful"? To quote Lew Rockwell, the USA and the West in general includes: "...invasive airport security to ubiquitous surveillance cameras, from email and phone eavesdropping to assassination squads, from torture to secret prisons, from a massive expansion in the police state to bigger government in general, from illegal searches and seizures to illegal wars."
In terms of "prosperity and stability", ha! Riots in the UK, Ireland and Greece over fiscal woes, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The U.S. and the E.U. are virtually bankrupt; their economies dead in the water. I believe you need some "open-minded and independent thinking".
>All of which were a direct or indirect result of U.S. policy. Frankly, I'd rather have the Japanese running China than Mao.
What?
The Japanese were much worse than Mao, at least for the Chinese. Lets see: over a period of ten years, the Communist Chinese, with control of the entire nation of China, killed about 50 million people (and that is a very generous estimate). The population of China was 648 million.
Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Japan, with control of about 15% of China, killed around 20 million people, with the Chinese population being between 400-500 million or so. This was, might I add, the way things went when Japan was also busy fighting Britain, the Dutch, and the USA. Nanking alone resulted in the deaths of 300,000 Chinese.
Considering that Japan inflicted nearly as much damage within far less time and with far less of China under their control, I would say even Mao was preferable.
>Wrong. Materials and cash support were sent to the Soviets in billions.
I already said that Roosevelt supported Stalin. Does that mean the USA built the Soviet army? Going by that logic, the Soviet Union may as well have not been involved. There is a difference between "he supported Stalin's army with supplies" and "he personally oversaw the creation of the Red Army".
>Yes. Nazis are better than Commies, and Roosevelt had no business in their fight, anyway.
Roosevelt had business in their fight the instant Germany declared war. Nazis are better than Commies? Really? Under Stalin, Eastern Europe was in relatively bad shape, but due to the inefficiencies of the Communist system. Stalin was gone by '55, and the Soviets never again managed to achieve Stalin's brutality. Had Hitler won, it would have been much, much worse. Ignoring the Jews, Gypsies, etc that would be sent to concentration camps and murdered, Slavs were considered to be worthy only of either extermination or slavery, so those people in Eastern Europe would be, at the very best, second class citizens to Germans, if not slaves or (if they were unfortunate enough to live in the Ukraine or valuable regions of Russia) dead. Western Europe wouldn't be too bad off (once again, ignoring Jews), but then they would be suffering under the Nazi economic system, which is Communism in all but name (a couple Mises articles have already addressed that). They might not have been able to invade Britain directly at first, but the USSR was the main reason they lacked the natural resources and manpower to attack. Without the Russians, Germany would have enough natural resources to build the airpower necessary to bomb Britain into oblivion.
Now, what would be the result for our Austrian economists? Well, Mises, Rothbard, Israel Kirzner, and several others would be murdered for being Jewish. Yuri Maltsev and any others with Slavic blood would be either dead or slaves. The cream of the crop would be gone.
Yeah, that sure sounds better than the Soviet Union liberalizing after 1955 and collapsing in 1991.
>Wrong again; Roosevelt supported the Reds over the Nationalists because they were closer to strategic holdings in East-Asia, and the rebuilding of the Soviet Army by Roosevelt allowed them to come in after the Japanese were defeated (again, another result of American interventionism) and send captured Japanese weapons along with many thousands of Spanish silver dollars to the Reds. Without these the Reds would have died on the long march and been totally unsupplied for any serious conflict.
Roosevelt supported the Reds AND the Nationalists more or less equally. The Soviets favoured the Reds, but then that is to be expected. The Soviets came after the Japanese were defeated because they happened to share a land border with Japanese Manchuria, whereas the US would have to circle AROUND Japan to reach it, and would then have to fight through China going north to take it over.
I'm sorry Rettoper, but "free and peaceful"? To quote Lew Rockwell, the USA and the West in general includes: "...invasive airport security to ubiquitous surveillance cameras, from email and phone eavesdropping to assassination squads, from torture to secret prisons, from a massive expansion in the police state to bigger government in general, from illegal searches and seizures to illegal wars." --hard rain
in every civilized society there are inconviencies including but not limited to minor airport security regimes and surveillance cameras that would no doubt be prevalent within ancap society. moreover, where in the USA are there torture, secret prisons, and assassination squads ?!!
note that the joker cut the head off of daniel pearl (khalid sheik mohammad) and TWO of his co-consipritors that murdered over 2500 Americans on 9/11 have been the only terrorists who had water poured on their faces while under close medical supervision. moreover, after mild waterboarding they sang like canaries and revealed plots against innocent civilians.
police state ?!! seriously dude, most of the law enforcement is local. moreover, they are primarily engaged in donut consumption and domestic disputes than any attempt at enforcing a police state. Moreover, I thought Congress voted to approve the use of force in both Iraq and afghanistan -- including edwards, clinton, kerry, biden, et al.
Explain how these wars can be illegal when the executive branch cant prosecute the wars without funding from Congress !!???
In terms of "prosperity and stability", ha! Riots in the UK, Ireland and Greece over fiscal woes, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The U.S. and the E.U. are virtually bankrupt; their economies dead in the water.-- hard rain
Riots ?!!! absurd -- more Americans get killed by shark attacks then have been killed by riots in Europe.
Your diatribe is typical of the contextually misleading and anecdotal evidence that makes the absurd assertion that liberal democracies have failed to provide for protections of civil and political liberties.
of course, the West and our federal constitutional republic need to address the soft economic tyranny that our government has engaged -- however to condenm the system as a whole as a failure to provide for civil and political liberties compared to any other system is manifestly absurd.
name one nation that has done more to promote life and liberty or capitalism then the USA ?
IN fact, I challenge you to name a single US citizen murdered or imprisoned by the police state you are referring without legal oversight.