About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


Post 60

Saturday, April 5, 2014 - 1:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Will,

I believe that the mercy phase of our WW2 intervention came with lend-lease sympathy towards England's 'Stand Alone' and economic support of China against the Japs.

Looking at WW2 we can see two things:

1.) The principles that we might want to apply where WW2 is the concrete we apply the principles to, versus...

2.) The motives that were prevalent at the time relative to going to war - that mixture of pragmatic, ideological and emotional content

 

The motives were mixed, conflicting, and vying with each other for political dominance.  There were those back then, like today, who wanted to go to war long before we were attacked, or we even suspected that we might be attacked.  But back then, those who wanted to go to war were a minority. Most of America at the time was opposed to going to war. WW1 was still within living memory and real thing of horror - the oceans were a greater barrier than they are today.

 

If someone had (and some did) argue that the Nazi and Japanese regimes would eventually force us into the war and that it would be better to enter early than late, that would have been an attempt to make a self-interest, self-defense argument. Others argued for intervention on an altruistic basis - to help Europe and to stop the butchery going on in China.

 

Anyway, that's too often the case... that political jostling done via emotional talking points end up tipping partisan balances and thus history unfolds.  Often it would be even more accurate to say that mass psychology decided even though most of the deciders might only have a fuzzy grasp of any of the principles.  In the case of WW2, this was the stage as it was set when December 7th rolled around and tipped the balance.

 

So, yes, there were a variety of motivations and emotional tendencies, with their different political factions. But when we parse the decision to go to war, we can look at WW2 and say that the self-defense principle made that a justifiable war. This is one of the confusions of politics. We try to work out rational political principles but one thing we need to work out, as a society, is to get the voters to be on the same page instead of driven by emotional group think.
----------------

In other words, I find Machan's position a priori admirable because what he's really stating is that the burden of proof falls upon those who want to wage war. On must build an argument for going to war with understandable facts that superceed the primacy of being at peace.

My regret, perhaps shared by you, is that many participants fail to understand the 'peace-first' principle, rather looking for a good excuse to wage war for war's sake....

Well said. I couldn't agree more.



Post 61

Saturday, April 5, 2014 - 7:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

Your claim of self-defense rests upon two rather obvious events: Pearl Harbor and Hitler's subsequent declaration. 

 

OTH, my claim is that the Nazis and Japs were provoked, and that said events were foreseen consequences of our own behavior.

 

For example, I believe that you cannot claim 'self-defense' if you refuse to negotiate a reasonable treaty in which your own security is assured. Likewise, you cannot sell war material to the Brits. Nor, far worse, should you declare that upon the Jap abrogation of the tonnage treaty that you'd go on an 8-year plan to build the greatest navy, by far, the world has ever seen.

 

This is not to say that I would have opposed the war--au contraire! Rather, that self-defense was the pretext given to a reluctant public. Regardless of our ability to have secured a treaty with the Japs and Nazis (again, refuting the self-defense claim!), war was still the right thing to do. Inother words, there is no way that the emotive factor can be takebn out of politics...

 

WH



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 62

Saturday, April 5, 2014 - 11:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Will,

...my claim is that the Nazis and Japs were provoked, and that said events were foreseen consequences of our own behavior.

We completely disagree. The barbarous behavior of Japan and Hitler take away any moral meaning of the term "provoked."  And, the way you are using the word "consequence" involves a conflation where on one hand it means "a reaction" and on the other hand "was caused by."  

 

Because of how reprehensible moral relativism is, this is an area where we are obligated to not get close enough to those differences such that we can be misunderstood.  Hitler and the Japanese decision makers were volitional entities - they chose to act like monsters.  That is the level at which it is wrong to say we caused those horrors.
----------------

I believe that you cannot claim 'self-defense' if you refuse to negotiate a reasonable treaty in which your own security is assured.

Yes, you always can. No free nation should ever have to bargain and negotiate for what they already have a right to.  Neither I nor you nor our nation has to seek agreements from others that they won't violate our rights.  There can be many reasons why a nation wouldn't want to enter into any given treaty - the first of which is that the treaty as you describe it is extortion - sign here or your security is in question.
------------------

...you cannot sell war material to the Brits.

Unless we ceased to be a free nation, we most certainly can. And it was a wise move and one that proved to be in our national interest.

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

Nor, far worse, should you declare that upon the Jap abrogation of the tonnage treaty that you'd go on an 8-year plan to build the greatest navy, by far, the world has ever seen.

That, again was a wise decision - without which we'd be posting in Kanji. Making your nation capable of defending itself is not a violation of another countries rights - it is not an initiation of force.

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

...self-defense was the pretext given to a reluctant public.

Given that provocation is not a valid argument, given that no nation must buy its freedom with non-aggression treaties, given that a free nation can sell war materials to other nations by right, given that arming ourselves was wise and again, within our rights, one has to say that when Pearl Harbor was bombed, our entry into WWII was an act of self-defense and not a pretext.

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

...there is no way that the emotive factor can be takebn out of politics...

We are rational/emotional beings. That much is true. But those of us that learn to think critically, and learn the principles we have discovered to date about the context in question, are doing just that - taking the emotive factor out of politics.  It isn't required that it be "complete" or "perfect," whatever those might mean.

 

What is sought is that our focus and the product of our thought reaches beyond that tipping point where emotions would override our logic. To say that this isn't possible, is to make the argument that no one, including the person making the argument, is capable of saying anything that isn't flawed by emotionalism. The only answer to that is, "Speak for yourself."



Post 63

Saturday, April 5, 2014 - 10:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

First, we need to clarify our general agreement that America was totally justified in entering WW2.

 

So when I talk of 'pretext' and 'provocation' it's strictly within the historical context of America's reluctance in the late 30's to get involved. Likewise, with 'negotiations' and 'security'--- as they were the buzz-words of the late 30's, as well. In other words, it was more or less assumed by all parties that the best way to ensure security was parity of weapons. These were the protocols that were abrogated by the nazis and japs.

 

In other words, 'self-defense' must be met with reasonable criterion as to 'how much' is necessary. Yet by all standards, the navy of '43 was meant for world domination. That it easily flattened the japs is okay with me, but then again, one must remember that the projetct of domination began in 1935.

 

I suppose that we disagree on the issue of jap intent and capacity to threaten the sovreignty of the US. My understanding is that it was far more about negotiating for Indionesian oil and a free hand in China.

 

In other words, there was no objective reason as to why America could not have negotiated a better deal with the Nazis and Japs than with the Brits and Russians. that we choser the later pair was a matter of justifiable, emotiional, hatred towards the former.

 

WH



Post 64

Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 1:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Will,

...'self-defense' must be met with reasonable criterion as to 'how much' is necessary. Yet by all standards, the navy of '43 was meant for world domination.

You need to be clear in your use of words. What you've written sounds like being heavily armed, but not using the arms till attacked is somehow equivalent to dominating the other by using force against them.  All of this time I was under the impression that it wasn't the size of the arms, but the one who initiates the force that determines who is the aggressor.  And you said, our navy "...easily flattened the japs..." My understanding is that we came very close to being flattened ourselves. The naval war in the Pacific came very close to going the other way.
--------------

I suppose that we disagree on the issue of jap intent and capacity to threaten the sovreignty of the US. My understanding is that it was far more about negotiating for Indionesian oil and a free hand in China.

Perhaps it is because it is late at night, but that sounds so absurd.  The Japanese carefully planned and launched a major sneak attack sinking a sizable portion of our navy and killing thousands. And you call that "negotiating"?
---------------

...there was no objective reason as to why America could not have negotiated a better deal with the Nazis and Japs than with the Brits and Russians. that we choser the later pair was a matter of justifiable, emotiional, hatred towards the former.

What's not to hate about Nazis? And as to the Russians, I don't remember us hating them at that point in time. FDR was just short of being in love with Stalin. We ended up as allies. But the key point here is that you believe we should have negotiated with the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Would you have negotiated with Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor? And you apparently believe that after Europe and Far East were gone that we would not be under attack next.
----------------

...the projetct of domination began in 1935.

Again, it's your use of words. Military "domination" almost always means a kind of extortion or intent to conquer others. Unless you have some sort of conspiracy theory I'm not familiar with, I know of no such project. Our buildup of the navy was to defend our nation.
----------------

 

At this point it is beginning to sound like you have taken in some very bad anti-American revisionist history. How much were you and Eva in agreement?



Post 65

Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 10:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

America created a 'back against the wall' scenario for the Japs. That they got in the first blow is, I feel, somewhat irrelevant, other than the fact that they were hugely successful. Yamamato drove six carriers thru the North Pacific in the middle of the winter-- risky beyond belief, but their only real chance.

 

To this end, his famous quote, "I can promise you a year of victorys, but no more" should be put into context that we Americans were not secretive about what would happen in '43: the great roll-out which, form that point onwards, made the Pacific war a forgone conclusion.

 

The crisis, of course, was in '42, but even then, Midway was not a 'miracle'. Hide three (far superior) carriers behind a fortified island that your enemy, with four carriers, wants to attack an seize..and you'll win every time.

 

Moreover, had Midway occured a week later, the fighters would have arrived on the island.At that point the japs would not only have lost their carriers, but perhaps the battle ships and troop transports (30,000 soldiers), as well. Of course, Yorktown would have been saved.

 

The 'negiotiating', or failure thereof, took place in the 30's. It more or less involved two issues: naval tonnage and China. The Japs refusal, IMO, constituted de facto agression from the 'objective security' pov of tonnage, and the moral outrage of China. So I'm obviously not talking of Post- Pearl negotiations.

 

In order to defend you have to assume that it's necessary to dominate. When the Japs abrogated the tonnage treaty, FDR said, "Okay, the rules are off. Come '43, you'll  be leaving China one way or another."

 

His error, as it were, was to re-deploy the existing American fleet in a forward position that was, in reality, a bottleneck, or self-imposed Cannae. It would have taken hours to have gotten the fleet thru the narrow passage and out of the sul-de-sac. That  means complete pull-out on the 6th.

 

All this about in-the-air warnings being ignored is pure Hollywood nonsense. had the fighters been scrambled, they would have lost, yet deterred the second wave on the facilities. Either way, the Japs would have had sufficient superiority to have taken out the capitals, obvilously their main objective.

 

Yes, I do believe that had we wanted to,we could have negotiated with Japs n Germans after Europe and Pearl. We would not hve been 'next' by any means. After all, the entirey of documents demonstrate that the japs had assumed we'd negotiate after having lost the capitals.To this extent, participation in the war involved a moral, or emotianal commitment.

 

Kindly explain your comment that FDR was 'in love' with Stalin...

 

So no, I'm not a 'revisionist' because what revisionists believe is that we should not have gone to war precisely because we should have negotiated after Pearl. Likewise, that we had no stake in a who won a Hitler vs Stalin war. 

 

This is not to say that revisionist history of the German-Russian War isn't interesting. For one, russia had planned their own attack on August '41, the Germans simply got the jump on them., etc...

 

Lastly, I have no idea as to what Eva, my ten-year old granddaughter, might think of WW2. Sitting on my lap as I write, 'Sweet Pickles' reads my stuff and likes to sign her name to it, as if... 

 

As for another 'Eva', I don't read back posts, so I really wouldn't even care.

 

FH



Post 66

Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 4:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Will,

America created a 'back against the wall' scenario for the Japs. That they got in the first blow is, I feel, somewhat irrelevant...

That is horribly wrong. You are making the absurd claim that we forced Japan to engage in a war against other Pacific nations. To invade China with the rape of Nanking in 1937, the invasion of Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, and Hong Kong.  Japan's brutal aggression began back in 1931 when they invaded Manchuria.

 

You act as if the Axis had no choice and had to start killing people, where as we had the choice to ignore all of the practical and moral considerations and negotiate for peace with the people who initiated wars. What kind of nonsense is that?
-----------------

Lastly, I have no idea as to what Eva, my ten-year old granddaughter, might think of WW2. ...[she] reads my stuff and likes to sign her name to it... As for another 'Eva', I don't read back posts, so I really wouldn't even care.

Yeah, right. Everyone believes that... Why wouldn't we?

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

 

Not that it has anything to do with anything, but the reason that Progressives will eventually lose in the political arena is that the structures of their arguments will become recognizable, people will spot those arguments by type, and the dishonesty that they are always built of, will leave the Progressives getting nothing in return but disdain.  Dishonesty carries its own fatal flaw.



Post 67

Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 4:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

I'm afraid you've misunderstood my point, having reversed the causal arrow, as it were.

 

FDR put Japan's backs to the wall because of their rape of China.

 

In other words, because of the horrific behavior of the Japs and Nazis, FDR did everything he could do --in light of the fact that prior to Pearl, a huge swath of the American public opposed involvement.

 

therefore, creating a situation in which they had to react was the best, politically, he was able to do.

 

i really don't know where you got the idea that I felt that the Nazis had no choice in comitting genocide.

 

What we know now of the Nazi occupations of Poland, Ukraine, and Russia is far different than the state of knowledge in 39-41. What we also know about is the Soviet attrocity at Katyn, which did not prevnet us from taking their side.

 

We also have to understabnd that the 'final solution, discussed at Wannasee, was only a rumor until the liberation of death camps by the Red Army in Poland, winter of 44.

 

So if you were to ask, 'Knowing in 39  what we know now as to the Nazis intents of occupation, would a treaty been viable? Obviously not. But in 39 we knew about Molotov/Ribbentrop and the Soviet  occupation of eastern Poland. Likewise, the Soviet aggression in the Baltics and Finland. From that prespective, did the pro-German, kill the draft' Americans have a point" Indeed.

 

WH



Post 68

Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 5:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Will,

...creating a situation in which they had to react ... [my emphasis]

You still don't get it.  How can you say that we were the causal agents of the Japanese decisions to launch war in Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, and America?  So, how could they not be the causal agents of their actions, but we could be the causal agents of our alleged forcing them to initiate force?



Post 69

Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 7:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve, you're still mis-reading what I wrote..or else I was not clear.

 

First, there was jap imperialism, which included the take-over of east Asia. along with this behavior the japs had abrogated the tonnage treaty, and were building a huge, dominant navy.

 

Our (totally justifiable) response was to increase ship production to the great 1943 send-off of an unbeatable force. 'Unbeatable' means that the entirety of the world's navies, together, would have lasted about an hour on the high seas against Nimitz's forces.

 

Re jap imperialism and atrocities, we (justifiably) put their backs to the wall by freezing their assets in American banks. We also informed them (justifiably) that if they invaded Indonesia to obtain oil, our fleet would interdict. for this strategy, we had to move the fleet to hawaii form San Diego, as to be as close to the theater of potential war as possible.

 

Now these are obviously intentions to wage (justifiable) war. That the real version sharply contrasts with an 'innocent & peaceful & non-involved America'

is not my problem...

 

WH



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 70

Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 8:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

No, Will.  I'm being very clear and you are avoiding my point.  

 

Suppose these things that you say are true:

  • There was Japanese Imperialism
  • They built a huge navy
  • We increased ship production
  • We froze Japanese assets
  • We warned them not to attack Indonesia
  • We moved ships from San Diego to Hawaii

But none of that amounts to an intention to START a war.
None of that amounts to FORCING Japan to attack Hawaii, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, or Hong Kong.

 

We were not the bad guys, and we didn't force them to be bad guys.  That was their choice.



Post 71

Sunday, April 6, 2014 - 10:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve,

 

I disagree: yes, these actions as cited by you are prima facie intent to provoke a war, as justified as the war might have been.

 

My further disagreement resides in your assumption that only 'bad guys' provoke. Again, in the 30's FDR was obliged to take an indirect course against the japs (provocation, versus outright intervention) because of opposition on the home front.

 

Of course attacking Hawaii was necessarily 'forced' from the Jap pov because that's where our main forward station resided.

 

Interestingly enough, however, our 'shorthanded' strategy of '42 worked so well because the jap empire had expanded so much that halsey's attack carrier groups wereeasily able to penetrate the periphery, ie Doolittle's raid on Tokyo. In this strategic sense, the jap seizure of non-oil east Asia up to Burma was hopelessly stupid.

 

WH



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Monday, April 7, 2014 - 10:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Will,

 

As in the posts regarding constitutionality, we don't just disagree - I find your position abhorent.  It is moral relativism writ large.  I have said, again and again, that we were not the cause of the Japanese launching attacks - they chose to attack and that choice was for but one out of a great many other actions, none of which involved launching war.  You don't even bother to answer the heart of my argument.  I have no interest in discussing this further with you.



Post 73

Monday, April 7, 2014 - 5:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

To say I'm 'morally relativist' would mean that I somehow see the Japs as having a good point or two, and/or that America acted in ways somehow unbecomung. Neither is the case, as a reading of my texts will easily demonstrate.

 

What's 'abhorrent', therefore, is both your own inability to read and your misunderstanding of the term 'moral relativism'.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Monday, April 7, 2014 - 7:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Will,

 

I have no interest in discussing this further with you.



Post 75

Tuesday, April 8, 2014 - 7:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

My brother in law's father passed away a couple years ago.   He lived a quiet life, worked at a dairy for most of his life.   Except in his youth.

 

In his youth, he was a musician of sorts, played the trumpet.    He was also a gunners mate and bugler on the USS Intrepid.  Leyte Gulf.    He once told the story of how after the war, sailing into San Francisco Bay with everyone lined up, he threw his bugle into the water with disgust.  He hated that bugle.   He'd played it alot at sea, burying other young men.  Never wanted to play a bugle again.

 

My father , who spent 40 years as a toolmaker/master mechanic at a steel fab plant, told a similar story, but with him, it was playing cards.  He was first with the 5th Armored, in Huertgen Forest, and later with what was left of it, the 2nd Armored, as a TSgt/gunner who repaired tanks.   They would draw from a deck of cards to determine what tanks took lead in their formations.   He hated cards.

 

I would love, if it were possible, but it's not, to hear their and millions more reactions to how easy that war was.   Especially from their 400,000 buddies who were left in a meatgrinder, providing for us every breath of freedom we've taken in our lives since.



Post 76

Tuesday, April 8, 2014 - 7:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BurialAtSea_USS_Intrepid1944.jpg

 

Yes, I can see where too many easy days would put someone off their bugle.



Post 77

Tuesday, April 8, 2014 - 1:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

 

When asked about his time in WWII, my dad would just make some humerous remark, and sidestep around saying anything else.  He was so good at that, that it wasn't until I was about 30 that it occured to me that there was a very tough time behind that habit.  I remember seeing a fleeting look on his face when someone his age would joke or brag about something in the war, like having to jump our of an airplane.  The fleeting look of disgust on his face was a look reserved for those that would brag or joke about something that was to awful to be treated that way.

 

He volunteered after Pearl Harbor as many did.  After basic training and OCS, he shipped off to Ireland as new first Lieutent, and from there it was to North West Africa. From there to Scicily, then to land on the beaches of South France.  He traveled the length of France, into Austria, and Germany. He was in Austria when the war ended.

 

He finally described some of what he went through... about what a battlefield smelled like, and how you could be driving down a road and smell death around the corner. How you didn't know whose bodies - ours or theirs - you were about to see.  About the body parts scattered across the road. He never did tell my brothers or I what happened to him to get either of the two purple heart medals, or what he did to get the Bronze star.

 

There was only person I think that he really opened up to:  my uncle, his brother-in-law, Colonel Charles Hunter.  Hunter was second in command to General Merrill of Merrill's Maruaders in the Burma Campaign.  Uncle Chuck was actually in charge most of the time because Merrill was pulled out early on after having a heart attack.  Out of the 3,000 troups that started that long march through the jungles of Burma during the monsoon season, fighting one battle after another, only 2 - only 2 men out of 3,000, weren't hospitalized or killed by disease or by the wounds received.  Charles Hunter was one of them.  They had started with a couple thousand mules to pack their gear. None of the mules survived.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


User ID Password or create a free account.