Having just finished reading a book on the Japanese surrender during World War II, I became curious about the libertarian position on the bombing of Hiroshima. Is there a general libertarian consensus on the legitimacy (should the bomb have been dropped) of the bombing, and if so, what is it and what justifications are there for it? Feel free to add your personal opinion.
The consensus among libertarians is that it was a horrible thing and a great example how brutal the state can be.
If you're interested, Murray Rothbard has a good little essay on war in general, and nuclear weapons in particular, in his Egalitarianism as A Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays called War, Peace and the State. But, yeah, indiscriminate mass destruction (usually) isn't regarded highly by libertarians.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
The conventional wisdom held by most "conservatives" is that the alternative to dropping the bombs was to carry out a protracted invasion of Japan, costing many more lives, including US soldiers (important), Japanese soldiers (unimportant), and even Japanese civilians (important only insofar as the heroic image of Uncle Sam is at stake). I don't feel that I have a strong enough historical grasp to refute or confirm this justification, but as was already said, the ability to condemn hundreds of thousands to death and many more to horrible disfigurement based on some quick arithmetic is a salient example of State brutality. Libertarians tend to be against the state, and while one could potentially justify the decision that was made based upon the strictures of that particular episode, it is also undeniable that without the State, there would have been no World War to begin with.
My opinion is the media has used the complete immorality of nuclear weapons to divert peoples attention from the equally immoral issue of killing non-combatants using non-nuclear means. Since the start of the colonly in Jamestown VA the white people have been using biological weapons (disease tainted blankets and what not) and more up front means to wipe out the native populations in the area now known as the USA. This process continued into the 20th century with such horrible examples of genocide like the "Trail of Tears" and "Wounded Knee". But closer to today we have all of the civillian carnage in Iraq where by US Government number at least 100,000 people were killed by the US Military and Afghanistan where drones patrol the skies killing unknown numbers of "Al Queda".
Granted the US Government is far from alone and probably not even in the top 5 in massacring its own "citizens". The Soviets and Chinese Communists along with Hitler were worse.
They were bad because the U.S. gov started the war (see the Fruits and Seeds of Infamy) and it had no right to occupy Japan. 2nd, the bombings done to the civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary, even if one didn't care about morality because it's not like Japan would've killed anywhere near as many civilians on the U.S. as the U.S. gov killed in Japan. The Emperor said that he would never even consider an invasion against civilian Americans on the continent because he believed American civilians on the continent were too armed.
Thanks for the book link! I plan to read it, and I have been looking for a revisionist book that goes well beyond the "embargo-is-aggression" argument.
I must ask if you've considered the Korean, Japanese, and Manchurian civilians in the occupied territories. The Japanese were unquestionably brutal in their occupation of these countries, unleashing diseases on the populace, in addition to the mass indiscriminate slaughter of civilians (much of which is quite disturbing to read; read Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II). Their lives need to be factored in as well.
jordan161: I must ask if you've considered the Korean, Japanese, and Manchurian civilians in the occupied territories. The Japanese were unquestionably brutal in their occupation of these countries, unleashing diseases on the populace, in addition to the mass indiscriminate slaughter of civilians (much of which is quite disturbing to read; read Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II). Their lives need to be factored in as well.
Some amount of Japanese soldiers were brutal and aggressed against civilians...therefore what?
Ugh, didn't see this until now - sorry for the late reply.
As for your question, I was responding to No2statism, who argued that the use of the bomb was unjustified because more Japanese "civilians" would have died than American civilians, apparently because of some quote by the Japanese emperor. Since he was considering civilians as some sort of sanctified category, I brought up the colonial civilian casualties as a result of the delayed surrender.
Their surrender was inevitable.
People just wanted to see what that weapon could do others.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Source?
Based on the primary source documents I've read (actually quotes in a book), the United State's "scientific power" was one of the reasons that convinced the Japanese government ot surrender. One of the top officials (Prime Minister Suzuki) , was so disturbed by what he saw at Hiroshima that he personally urged the emperor to intervene in the decision of surrender, against the military's disposition.
See Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard Frank.
Edited for clarification and grammar.
Of course it was not necessary to drop the bomb on the two japanese cities. The only alternative cited is the hight casualty toll resulting from an invasion. This is hogwash. The real alternative was to let the japanese know that the U.S. had the "bomb" with which entire cities could be pulverized. Then drop one bomb in the ocean off the coast of Japan to show them what would happen next if they don't surrender in 48 hours. Why was this not done, you may ask? Well, how could the U.S. Army have missed the greatest opportunity they could have (ever?) to actually test the bomb on people?
Cheers!
Just blockade the country while you let them work out a deal to have russia or some other country act as a go-between to negotiate a cease-fire followed by a conditional surrender. Easy peasy.
Btw, any idea if this article is legit?
http://www.greenwych.ca/dulles.htm
I've found reference to the newspaper here, and the passage certainly appears in it.:
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/themilitant/1963/index.htm
(25. febuary edition)
Btw, any idea if this article is legit? http://www.greenwych.ca/dulles.htm
That is not news and was known long before that article was published. It's really only the American Empire shills that propagate the myth of Japan having a kamikaze foreign policy.
Yes the Japanese were brutal in China and Korea and that is not the most interesting part of the mess. The most interesting part of the mess to me when people bring up the brutality of the Japanese was that the Emperor of Japan sent his son to the USA to meet with FDR to propose withdraws from Manchuria and probably Korea and Indochina as well for the resumption of trade between the USA and Japan. Of course the response from asinine FDR administration was to tell the dude to take a hike and off into the biggest waste of capital and live in the history of the human race that ended in the destruction of two cities with two bombs.
In my opinion, the japanese soldier was brutal and a scumbag devoid of honor and nobility, their Bushido notwithstanding. To me the defintion of a military scumbag is that who murders women, children and defensless POWs. The japanese engage in this happily and often.
Why did the japanese attacked Pearl Harbour? Many ignore that the U.S. was very active in taking measures trying to strangle Japan economically by embargoing the sale of many raw materials and products including airplane fuel. This was to punish Japan for invading Manchuria. It reached a point in which such measures were considered a Casus Belli and that was the reason for fthe attack.
By the way, Gral Patton was also a scumbag as per my defintion above and should have been tried and hung together with the nazis and a host of russian generals, had the rules of the Nurnberg trial been equally applied to all. Of course, it did not apply to victors....,.(What else is new?)
I also heard 1 theory why the japanese might have surrenderred anyway.
Russia had already beat germany, so the japanese were afraid that russians would invade their continent and rape(literally) all their citizens?
Mass rape happened in the european front so the japanese were afraid this would happen to them, especially since they raped lots of people in the islands, (im sure lots of us soldier also raped islanders too).
Not sure if this is true but thats what i heard.
In my opinion, the japanese soldier was brutal and a scumbag devoid of honor and nobility, their Bushido notwithstanding.
That is just plain gullible. Any notion that a randomly selected group of people, such as a regular army, is significantly abnormal is bogus. It's like saying that everyone with red hair in 1981 was a mad killer. Such claims don't warrant so much as a second thought. The "Nanjing Incident", and probably every other alleged incident, came from Kuomintang spin doctors trying to hold onto power and the American post-war occupation propaganda. The facts both about the events and official motives for the war and policy for treatment of civilians stand in stark contrast.
You should read this book, and then explain to me why the author is some sort of "spin doctor" or propagandist. (Hint: He is a member of and researcher for the Hiroshima Peace Institute, which doesn't exactly endorse the use of the atomic bombs)
http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Horrors-Japanese-Transitions-Asia-America/dp/0813327180
Your analogy is just silly. There are several accounts of the differences between the way Italian soldiers and the SS treated conquered people.
Also, these aren't "randomly" selected people. I'll let you think about that one.
Why does the embargo justify the attack?
excel: Just blockade the country while you let them work out a deal to have russia or some other country act as a go-between to negotiate a cease-fire followed by a conditional surrender. Easy peasy. Btw, any idea if this article is legit? http://www.greenwych.ca/dulles.htm I've found reference to the newspaper here, and the passage certainly appears in it.: http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/themilitant/1963/index.htm (25. febuary edition)
How many Japanese civilians would have died as a result of the blockade?
Bogart: Yes the Japanese were brutal in China and Korea and that is not the most interesting part of the mess. The most interesting part of the mess to me when people bring up the brutality of the Japanese was that the Emperor of Japan sent his son to the USA to meet with FDR to propose withdraws from Manchuria and probably Korea and Indochina as well for the resumption of trade between the USA and Japan. Of course the response from asinine FDR administration was to tell the dude to take a hike and off into the biggest waste of capital and live in the history of the human race that ended in the destruction of two cities with two bombs.
Could you provide a source for that incident? Google isn't helping.
There's nothing to think about. Universal conscription is random except for selecting males over 18. Therefore, any claim that Japanese soldiers were an outlier is ipso facto a claim that Japanese people in general are an outlier. Anyone that believes the latter can safely be dismissed as a crackpot bigot.
Here is a more accurate version of that statement: "There are several differences in accounts of the way Italian soldiers and the SS treated conquered people." Where words are placed in a sentence is important. No claim about any qualitative difference between any wars or any sides in wars can be taken seriously without evidence to support the plausibility of the alleged differences in motive. Only in the world of war tribunals, myth and legend and stupid history does a biased sample pool of accounts constitute a valid basis for a sociological theory. It's this kind of stupidity that continues the bigotry between "Japanese" and "Chinese" to this day.
The Nanjing incident? The Kuomitang fabricated the sources? I have the strong feeling that you are a "prologue" type of history reader....You need to do some serious research. Yes, some events quoted in books never happened and some being strongly denied did. That is why I recommend you dive into all kinds of sources before you make amateurish statements.
Surely there were other germans deserving to be hang, as were scores of british, americans and of course russians who should have ended their lives swinging from a rope. I can also tell you that some like Gral. Alfred Jodl should not have been executed (accusations against him were ludicrous). In any event, the Nurnberg trial was a kangaroo court and today it is mostly reognized a such.
Caley McKibbin: Also, these aren't "randomly" selected people. I'll let you think about that one. There's nothing to think about. Universal conscription is random except for selecting males over 18. Therefore, any claim that Japanese soldiers were an outlier is ipso facto a claim that Japanese people in general are an outlier. Anyone that believes the latter can safely be dismissed as a crackpot bigot. Your analogy is just silly. There are several accounts of the differences between the way Italian soldiers and the SS treated conquered people. Here is a more accurate version of that statement: "There are several differences in accounts of the way Italian soldiers and the SS treated conquered people." Where words are placed in a sentence is important. No claim about any qualitative difference between any wars or any sides in wars can be taken seriously without evidence to support the plausibility of the alleged differences in motive. Only in the world of war tribunals, myth and legend and stupid history does a biased sample pool of accounts constitute a valid basis for a sociological theory. It's this kind of stupidity that continues the bigotry between "Japanese" and "Chinese" to this day.
I noticed that you completely ignored differences in:
-military training
-political motivation (e.g. the S.S., not necessarily Japan)
-battlefied tactics (intimidation, etc.)
By limiting the explanations for differences in military behavior to cultural/ethnic ones, you enabled the charge of bigotry against me. That is not an honest tactic.
Also, here is a quote from your study:
"Apparently, the Japanese discovered approximately 6,500 soldiers and executed them [during the occupation of Nanking]"
Could you name a comparable mass execution committed by the U.S. in World War II?
Notice that I never brought up the rape of Nanking, but rather I referred you to another book, which you have yet to even reference. I would like to see you address the claims in that book, or at least glance at it. I read your link all the way through.
I can also tell you that some like Gral. Alfred Jodl should not have been executed (accusations against him were ludicrous).
Wrong. Those were decisions Hitler & Himmler reserved for themselves (I assume you are talking about the massacres in reprisal for partisan acts).
Partisans can be shot or hanged as they are not lawful belligerants.
Sounds to me you're no libertarian and don't have morals. So why complain about not hanging Patton and the Russians? What do you care about it, satan-spawn?
Yeah right. Actually the strategy of executing hostages was an in-house development of the army. It was devised by Wehrmacht strategists, not Nazi ideologues.
Most people are not aware that there is actually a group of people that believe that nukes do not exist. That think the videos were just faked and Japan was carpet bombed just like Germany was. It was covered up and an elaborate story was made up. I am not saying that I believe it. I am just making you aware of it.
Just when you thought you had heard it all before. hahah
First of all, you should study history. it is always useful to know something about a subjet, especially when you are involved in a discussion.
I may add -for your benefit- that I a am talking about the law and conventions, and not about what I think is OK to do. That has nothing to do with it.
Gettiing into a discussion about morals per se is something that you should balance with acts carried out by both sides. There was a policy to carpet bomb all german cities killing thousands of women and children. Was that right? Was it moral to bomb Dresden and burn to death tens of thousands for no aparent reason? Was it moral to drop two nuclear bombs in Japan. when there were other valid options which should have been tried?
I want to stress the fact that I am in NO way excusing the atrocities of one side because the others "also did it". That is NEVER a valid argument however it may satisfy the need for revenge. Just in case you are intersted, the russian partisans as well as regular soldiers committed appalling crimes on German prisoners (horrible tortures, mutilations, etc.), from the very beginning of Barbarossa and during the whole campaign. You can read about this in the writings of german generals after the war. And how can we forget Einsatz Reinhard, the germans killing a couple of million jews in the eastern front....
By the way, you should check on the transcripts made by the british from secret recordings of german generals and other high ranking Wehrmacht officers taken when they were talking to each other in captivity, thinking no one was listening....Among other, they comment that they were appalled at the executions organized by Himmler's Algemeine SS in the Baltic and Eastern Front.
Kinda crazy and ironic, but Wesker1982 just reappeared in another thread (about John Stossel and his book, no less) to post a link to a Mises Daily that is completely relevant to this thread.
No we are not talking about that. We were talking about whether Jodl deserved to be hanged. You claim he did not because it is legaly accepted to execute captured partisans. Well we aren't talking about what is legal. We're libertarians (well I am) talking about whether Jodl needed to die for what he had done.
Gettiing into a discussion about morals per se is something that you should balance with acts carried out by both sides.
We should do no such thing. For libertarians there are no "two sides" there are numerous sides.
Just in case you are intersted, the russian partisans as well as regular soldiers committed appalling crimes on German prisoners (horrible tortures, mutilations, etc.), from the very beginning of Barbarossa and during the whole campaign. You can read about this in the writings of german generals after the war
How extraordinary reliable source! German mass-murdering generals with thoroughly racists views of the Russians, writing to expunge their repugnant record. Yes, I think I'm going to take them at their word!
But not by executions organized by the Wehrmacht, or the starving out of Soviet POWs in their custody. What any comments of this type showcase is rather the human beings' extraordinary capacity for hypocrisy and self-delusion rather than the inherent decency of German generals.
Suggested reading for worshippers of German generaldom: - Wolfram Wette, The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality (the story German generals wanted hidden) - Ronald Smelser and Edward Davies, The Myth of the Eastern Front (on how German generals manipulated the received wisdom after the war) - Geoffrey P. Megargee, Inside Hitler's High Command (on how the German generals' blaming every bad strategic decision on Hitler was a bunch of crap) Here is also a link to a .pdf of Wette's book.
Now, come, come. Reach for the fridge, get some icecubes in a towel and place it over your head.
Yes, we were talking about accusations against Jodl about which you said, you knew nothing. We obviously have a problem right there. My friendly suggestion for you to read history still stands. It is good for you as eating veggies. Don't know about your intake of the later, but the former is surely deficitary and in need of urgent reviewing.
Further, you seem to want to set the discussion in terms of me defending the nazis' human rights record and you championing that of the allies. The reason for this is probably that you read only selective parts of my posts and wrote yours, before putting some icecubes on your head....
The original discussion was that the law was not applied equally and that the Nurnberg Trial was a Kangaroo Court. The rest added by you was a convoluted tirade devoid of much sense. Keep the ice on your head. I have heard that it works marvels in cases like yours.