{"items": [{"author": "Adam Yie", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/114873051319510815414", "anchor": "gp-1326986259488", "service": "gp", "text": "respect.", "timestamp": 1326986259}, {"author": "Phillip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199652996797358", "anchor": "fb-199652996797358", "service": "fb", "text": "1) To be slightly pedantic: Could you please remove the double negative, it makes it hard to read. 2) You are so NOT an ideologue, but a systems thinker:I respect that greatly.", "timestamp": "1326998818"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199660820129909", "anchor": "fb-199660820129909", "service": "fb", "text": "@Phillip: (1) which double negative? (2) thanks!", "timestamp": "1326999639"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199669433462381", "anchor": "fb-199669433462381", "service": "fb", "text": "As long as there are evil-intending persons in the world, there will be a need to defend others. That being said, who is evil and by whose standards? Through childhood, I assumed that American Indians were evil, at least when I saw them in movies. Clearly they were not -- only reactionary. With the Nazi's there was never a shred of doubt. But the Nazi evil was enabled, not by German culture, but by the potential for evil in all of us.
And then there is the converse of war, which is charity, also a basic human characteristic.
One explanation for the two is gene pool survival, wherein those outside our gene pool are evil competitors for limited resources necessary to our clan's survival. And those within our gene pool are worthy of sacrificing our lives for.
Then there are the Iraqi and Afghan wars. Sounded like good reasons going in, even if WMD in Iraq were bogus. But Rumsfeld totally bollixed up the outcome in Iraq by ignoring it until it was too late. Afghanistan is TBD, but does not look hopeful. However, attempting to deny Al Qaeda a base there sure seemed obvious at the time. Except that the hijackers were mostly Saudis.
Wars rarely go as planned. The Confederacy thought their culture of honor and defense of homeland would force a conclusion to the war in 1861.
In another war, my father worked on the Manhattan Project as an engineer at the uranium enrichment plant in Hanford WA. I am proud of his work despite the ghastly result. The Japanese suffered huge losses prior to Hiroshima, and showed absolutely no inclination to cease. In Japanese casualties _alone_, the atomic bombs were the cheapest way to end the war. Resisting an invasion would have resulted in Japanese casualties perhaps a power of ten greater than those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And this is completely excluding American casualties. Whatever one thinks of war, the only thing more immoral than using force is using insufficient force to resolve the issue.", "timestamp": "1327000660"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199672930128698", "anchor": "fb-199672930128698", "service": "fb", "text": "Then there is the ongoing covert war the Israelis are waging on Iranian atomic scientists. Whatever our opinions, the Israelis are simply not going to pay a lot of attention to those opinions.", "timestamp": "1327001062"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199675603461764", "anchor": "fb-199675603461764", "service": "fb", "text": "@Walker: \"With the Nazi's there was never a shred of doubt [that they were evil]\"
Why do you think this?", "timestamp": "1327001361"}, {"author": "Phillip", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199682526794405", "anchor": "fb-199682526794405", "service": "fb", "text": "@Jeff:My view was that there was no way the government wouldn't be able to draft enough people, is the double negative to which I am referring.", "timestamp": "1327002159"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199684346794223", "anchor": "fb-199684346794223", "service": "fb", "text": "Because of the number of humans lost to Hitler's vision, including millions killed solely for being part of an identifiable ethnic group. Of course, our ally Stalin was worse, having exterminated some 20 million of his own people.", "timestamp": "1327002373"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199685360127455", "anchor": "fb-199685360127455", "service": "fb", "text": "@Phillip: thanks; rephrased", "timestamp": "1327002494"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199686303460694", "anchor": "fb-199686303460694", "service": "fb", "text": "And I have to say, the vision of Manifest Destiny killed a lot of people. We certainly are not blameless. But Hitler was the poster boy for good wars.", "timestamp": "1327002592"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199687513460573", "anchor": "fb-199687513460573", "service": "fb", "text": "@Walker: you're saying \"there was never a shred of doubt,\" but the extent of his killing or his goals wasn't known immediately. I think many people (Germans, Americans, and others) were not sure whether he was evil in 1933-1939.", "timestamp": "1327002745"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199692850126706", "anchor": "fb-199692850126706", "service": "fb", "text": "Good point. But in the \"takes one to know one\" category, the politicians of the time could see where Hitler and the Nazi's 1930's practices were going to take Germany. The Nazis were not simply a party at that time, but rather a state within a state. And, yes, there are analogs today, but not existing within the complete vacuum of a Weimar-like government.", "timestamp": "1327003389"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=199697040126287", "anchor": "fb-199697040126287", "service": "fb", "text": "And double negatives are sometimes more accurate than zero negatives. Limber minds can stretch, engineering minds can analyze. The sentences I really like run something like \"Today the Supreme Court struck down the law that prohibited the enforcement of local regulations against...\" Those kinds of sentences take me a couple of minutes.", "timestamp": "1327003882"}, {"author": "Ivan", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/101147004225363019038", "anchor": "gp-1327007051060", "service": "gp", "text": "\"My view was that the government was going to draft the same number of people either way, and so if I didn't go someone else would have to.\"\n
\n
\nbut the number of people drafted is not the only issue at stake. if you didn't go, then the number of people who had become conscientious objectors would go up by at least one (it would be more than one if your objection inspired others to do so, at least partially). that's an overall benefit even if someone else is chosen to replace you in the draft.\n
\n
\ni don't buy that any war was positive \"on balance\". perhaps this may have been (or could be) true on the surface--that is, if one examines only the war's immediate consequences. but every war, \nespecially\n the ones that are perceived as positive, is precedent for future use of war and other violence instead of peaceful solutions. in other words, the consequences of a war include the addition of another war into the history of a society and into the minds of the society's members. considering the potentially huge benefit that the world would see if all wars were ended, i think it's likely that all wars are negative--on balance--even if their immediate consequences are overall positive.", "timestamp": 1327007051}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1327023255358", "service": "gp", "text": "@Ivan\n \"the number of people who had become conscientious objectors would go up by at least one\"\n
\n
\nThis seems like somewhat of a good thing, but not a very big one.\n
\n
\n\"on the surface--that is, if one examines only the war's immediate consequences\"\n
\n
\nI'm using \"on balance\" to mean including all consequences, including the influence on future people to be more war-inclined.\n
\n
\n\"every war, especially the ones that are perceived as positive, is precedent for future use of war and other violence instead of peaceful solutions\"\n
\n
\nI'm not sure this is a particularly large effect. Was the Libyan revolution more likely because of the Iraq War? Lots of factors go into whether you end up with war or something nonviolent and a lack of recent warlike precedent might not change much.\n
\n
\n\"it's likely that all wars are negative--on balance--even if their immediate consequences are overall positive.\"\n
\n
\nYou may be right. It's very hard to tell. It's especially hard to tell before the war, which is when you need to know.", "timestamp": 1327023255}, {"author": "Frederic", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118156077148469167305", "anchor": "gp-1327077677780", "service": "gp", "text": "I don't buy the \"they would just recruit someone else\" argument. It's not just that joining the army lets the government commit evil acts, it's that you would also then be forced to commit evil acts. Just because the government tells you to do something wrong doesn't absolve you of the guilt of doing something wrong (unless they coerce you with something even worse, which is not the case here.)", "timestamp": 1327077677}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1327120422502", "service": "gp", "text": "@Frederic\n You may be right. This was my view at 18, I'm not as attached to it now. The question of if something evil is going to happen whether it matters if it is by my hand or someone else's is tricky.", "timestamp": 1327120422}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1327132660336", "service": "gp", "text": "@Ivan\n At the risk of Godwin's Law-ing, I cannot fathom any argument that says that World War II was a bad war for the Allies to fight, on balance or otherwise. If you had been in Churchill or FDR's place, would you have surrendered to avoid war?", "timestamp": 1327132660}, {"author": "Rick", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=200706506692007", "anchor": "fb-200706506692007", "service": "fb", "text": "It makes sense to me that there may be times that you have to use force to stop violence. In an ideal world, this would be a police action, not a war. Something like intervening to stop the Rwandan genocide, the Pol Pot murders or the Nazi's makes sense to me. However, all the wars the US has been involved in since WWII to me are criminal, and absolutely should not have happened. For example, how can anyone justify invading Iraq, killing thousands of Iraqi's, destroying huge amounts of property, and the loss of American lives and treasure because some fanatics (with no connection to Iraq) flew airplanes into the World Trade Center? Even in cases where the situation makes more sense than that, how can you justify killing many innocent people, destroying huge amounts of property, etc. for something done by someone else. For example, suppose someone from Iraq was upset that the U.S. had invaded their country and killed their entire family and destroyed everything they owned and cared about. They might feel they would be justified in going to war against the U.S. to try to stop this horror, and to take revenge for it. Perhaps they would do something like hijack a plane and fly it into the world trade center. Or blow up an apartment in Somerville, killling 4 adults and a baby. Is it the fault of the 4 adults and the baby that George Bush insanely and criminally invaded Iraq?", "timestamp": "1327144789"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1327163687048", "service": "gp", "text": "(\n@Todd\n An interpretation of Godwin's law that says we can't talk about Hitler and the Nazis in a discussion of whether war is always bad would be absurd.)", "timestamp": 1327163687}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1327188439917", "service": "gp", "text": "@Jeff Kaufman\n Agreed, although it would be a lot more compelling with a non-Hitler example. If Hitler is the only example of a \"good\" war, then it's almost fair to say that war is always bad under any reasonable/practical circumstance. I don't actually think that's the case, but establishing WW2 as a good war seems like an obvious first step.", "timestamp": 1327188439}, {"author": "Ivan", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/101147004225363019038", "anchor": "gp-1327205144014", "service": "gp", "text": "@Todd\n maybe i'm missing some key aspect of its history, but as far as i know, the Axis decided to start World War II. the Axis openly attacked the Allies. at that point, the Allies were already at war; they weren't given a choice. as long as we're discussing whether (starting) war is good, it's the Axis's decisions that we should be judging, not the Allies'. and in that light, it seems that we all agree that the Axis's decision was not a good one.", "timestamp": 1327205144}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1327206124550", "service": "gp", "text": "@Ivan\n The claim that there is no such thing as a good offensive war is a different, and far weaker, position then the claim that there is no such thing as a good war.\n
\n
\nThe position is weaker still if you want to carve out an exception for mutual defense against an aggressor, which is technically how Britain and France entered the war (on Poland's behalf). That not only gets you World War 2, it gets you things like the Persian Gulf war.\n
\n
\nAlso, in that sense, the Allies \ndid\n have a choice, at least initially. Britain and France weren't forced to go to war with Germany when they did, although Germany may well have attacked them later. Likewise, the US wasn't forced to go to war with Germany when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. And surrender is always an option as well.\n
\n
\nIf you merely want to say that no one should ever \nstart\n a war, then you're not saying very much about the morality of military service and conscientious objector status. In the US, you cannot claim CO status on a case-by-case basis. Admittedly, I don't support that law, but from a practical standpoint, if you would be morally obligated to serve if drafted in a WW2 scenario, then you can't claim CO status, regardless of how you might react to the Iraq War.\n
\n
\nMoreover, having said all that, I also think that the claim that there is no such thing as a good offensive war is probably also too strong. It might be difficult or even impossible to identify in advance, and in the vast majority of cases I'm sure I'd be opposed. But, for example, I think we can safely conclude that if the Allies had decided to pre-emptively invade Germany and oust Hilter before his military buildup (say in the early to mid '30s), the world would have been better off.\n
\n
\nAnother (arguably) offensive war that a large number of people would say was beneficial was the American Civil War. That's a super complex topic, though.", "timestamp": 1327206124}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=201443919951599", "anchor": "fb-201443919951599", "service": "fb", "text": "@Walker It's not so clear the bombs were needed to end WWII: http://articles.boston.com/.../29861790_1_hiroshima...", "timestamp": "1327246759"}, {"author": "Frederic", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/118156077148469167305", "anchor": "gp-1327259152871", "service": "gp", "text": "The US in fact was forced to go to war with Germany. The US declared war on Japan (but not Germany) after Pearl Harbor, and then several days later Germany declared war on the US.", "timestamp": 1327259152}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=201633849932606", "anchor": "fb-201633849932606", "service": "fb", "text": "Julia, good article. And maybe the Russian invasion was contributory to the decision of the Japanese High Command, but would probably not have been sufficient. The psychological impact of one plane, one bomb, one city is not to be underestimated.", "timestamp": "1327266707"}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1327276432422", "service": "gp", "text": "Apologies, that's correct. Although I think the basic point still stands, particularly since Germany did not and could not actually bring the war to the US.", "timestamp": 1327276432}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=201773363251988", "anchor": "fb-201773363251988", "service": "fb", "text": "It's difficult to adequately analyze history in an FB post. However, look closely at the timeline. (And it is necessary to read the Globe article in Julia's link above.)
1945
Aug 6, Hiroshima.
Aug 7, Urgent wire from Tokyo to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow to seek a Russian-mediated negotiated peace. US intelligence intercepts this wire.
Aug 7, USSR invades NOT Japan, but Japanese-occupied China.
Aug 9, Japanese High Command considering means to surrender to US. As this meeting was internal to Japan, it was probably not known to US intelligence.
Aug 9, Lacking a conclusive response to Hiroshima, the US bombs Nagasaki.
Aug 10, Through Switzerland, Japan notifies the US that they will accept unconditional surrender.
Aug 15, To forestall the military from prolonging the war, Emperor Hirohito feels compelled to announce the surrender to the Japanese people by public radio.
Consider the relative importance of the events Aug 6-10. However attractive to modern sensibilities, asserting the primacy of an invasion of _China_, over the spectacular destruction of two cities on the Japanese home islands, strains credulity. Further, there is the tight time correlation between Nagasaki and agreement to unconditional surrender.
For the US nation that had suffered through four years of a war imposed on us by Japan, \"Give Peace a Chance\" -- despite today's popularity -- would have been perceived as irresponsible. \"Hmm. We have intelligence suggesting that the Japanese are interested in negotiating a peace. Let's spare the poor Japanese more destruction, and see if a negotiated (NOT unconditional) peace will flower.\" With bullets still flying, this scenario was simply unrealistic.
Would peace have come eventually without bombing Nagasaki, or for that matter, Hiroshima? Absolutely.
Would there have been more American deaths than there were? Absolutely.
Would those additional American deaths have been accepted as a reasonable cost for sparing the Japanese such horiffic (but according to Hasegawa's book, unimportant) destruction? Having the bombs and not using them would have gotten Truman impeached.", "timestamp": "1327284156"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=201779673251357", "anchor": "fb-201779673251357", "service": "fb", "text": "@Walker: \"asserting the primacy of an invasion of _China_, over the spectacular destruction of two cities on the Japanese home islands, strains credulity\"
My reading of the article is that the USSR invasion was a major change of the diplomatic landscape in a way that the bombings weren't. Learning that they would not be able to \"convince the Soviet Union ... to mediate a settlement with the Americans\" was, according to the article, what prompted their surrender.", "timestamp": "1327284961"}, {"author": "Mac", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/199521800143811?comment_id=201862979909693", "anchor": "fb-201862979909693", "service": "fb", "text": "Indeed, I believe your reading of the article was accurate. But in such a total war between nations, the diplomatic landscape is approximately irrelevant. This regrettable fact is incomprehensible to many people today, after decades of living in the shadow of US-USSR MAD. What was relevant in that war was ongoing violence, agreed to by both parties on a December 7th -- after the failure of months and years of ongoing diplomacy.
After Hiroshima, the Japanese urgently attempted diplomacy, and failed. After the Russian invasion, they were less urgent in applying further diplomacy, and in the continuing maelstrom suffered Nagasaki. The next day -- the very next day -- they were successful.
Yes, the Russian invasion was undoubtedly a straw, though landing in a foreign land. In my view, Nagasaki was the straw that broke the camel's back; the war ended 24 hours later. It did not end immediately after the Russian invasion. While the Japanese were certainly under an impetus to apply diplomacy, the Americans were not. And extending that war to give diplomacy a chance was unthinkable here. Today the concept has more popularity.
As the Globe article touches on, as a people, the Japanese have never embraced their guilt, and have passionately embraced their \"victimization\". Hasegawa appears to me to be yet another Japanese author arguing yet another theory against the necessity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.", "timestamp": "1327297649"}]}