In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
Yearly at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds writes in approval of dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese in 1945, yearly a pandemonium of babbling ignorance shouts, “Yea, Verily, Yea!” and yearly, or so it seems, I make comment along these lines:
OK, yearly reminder: General MacArthur, though not informed of the drop until a day or two from it, argued against such just before in private and after in public for several reasons the gung-ho boys here do not address. And he says most other senior commanders in the Pacific were in agreement, including Nimitz.
Of reasons for not tipping the strategic hand to the presence of such a weapon, majorly was, he says, that it would encourage even more aggressive Soviet espionage, as indeed it did, and already had, in view of the fact, which MacArthur probably did not know, that Oppenheimer was directing the US project for Soviet benefit all along, although he was not the one passing paper and picture to KGB. After the drops, Oppenheimer even called for unilateral US nuclear disarmament, saying it would set a good example for other nations to follow. Sound familiar? Reason: he was told to urge that because Soviet already had everything they needed from espionage inside USA and now wanted USA to arrest development while Soviet plowed ahead. Perfectly reasonable, from Soviet perspective.
Well before the bomb dropped, MacArthur was planning a peaceful entry into Japan based on the total exhaustion of Japanese industrial capacity, war materiel and food. A-bombers in D.C. stirred fear of American slaughter by thousands of Japanese planes … planes which had no propellors, fuel, bombs, rounds or pilots. No, it was cruel petulance that dropped those bombs, akin to exposing Iraqi Christians to Caliphist savagery, except that Truman did leave MacArthur in place to protect Japanese from atrocities planned for them by the British and Soviets.
If I’m still in the body next year, I’ll say the same thing here, despite the pandemonium by legions of babblers in ignorance.
The Japanese people were and are great and good. Their warrior class at the time, driven by Bushido Code, was evil and now gone. The American people were and are great and good. Their fasco-commie ruling class, driven by Global Governance Code, is evil not yet gone.
The pandemonium ripping about this subject is notable for one very vivid omission: consulting the views, in their own words, of the commanders on the ground at the time.
Update 1: Well, Glenn Reynolds and the PJMedia crew do not let this one rest. Again I commented, with edits here:
O pooh! The drops were not war crimes. They were strategic stupidities because they were unnecessary militarily and therefore further exposed the USA to both espionage and subversion by the Soviet. Result: deep internal division, as we see right here, so many years later. An act that is not militarily necessary is immoral, definitionally, but not necessarily a war crime. A war crime is harm done to a prisoner or civilian who is in your power and therefore inside your responsibility to foster.
Causing loss of life per se, civilian or uniformed, during war — and in war there is no such distinction — is not definitionally immoral or criminal. Killing helps fulfill the purpose of war, which is to occupy a belligerent’s territory until such time as they renounce belligerence. Killing per se is not the purpose of war. Only a belligerent’s resistance to occupation of their territory — i.e., only their belligerence per se — makes killing necessary and just. Once war is entered upon, it is a military decision how much killing is required in order to achieve the goal of occupation and renunciation by the belligerent of belligerence. So, killing is not the issue in those drops. Military necessity was and is the issue, and on that there was none.
Finally, the military commanders did not order those drops and are on record demurring them. POTUS ordered the drops and upon the urging of the brotherhood who made the gadget, not his military advisers. It was all a civilian, Democratic Party-led ruling party (i.e., Soviet-subverted) operation. Military people recoil from inflicting unnecessary death and destruction. Civilians do not, as a rule. Reason for the difference: military people see, hear and smell the effects of attack in the flesh while civilians see charts on walls and dream big thoughts in fancy words as though they were reality.
Update 2: Contra mine above: Paul Fussell, The New Republic, August 1981: Thank God For The Atom Bomb
Update 3: Two germane questions:
1- If GOA MacArthur was not informed of the drop until just before it, how could he have formed a knowledgeable opinion?
2- Would the emperor have been able to pull the switch to peace w/o the shock of the bomb?
In Reminiscences, GOA MacArthur says he knew of the bomb’s development and potential but not of its impending use and that with what he knew of that and the Japanese condition, he felt a peaceful entry very possible and the bomb’s use a spur to Soviet espionage, which, in the event, and as MacArthur probably did NOT know, needed little spur because Oppenheimer already and all along was developing the project to aid the Soviet, not USA.
On the emperor switching without the drop, that is opaque. MacArthur says he knew the Emperor did not favor the war and wanted to sue for peace long before the drops but hesitated for fear of general insurrection and also palpable assassination by the Imperial General Staff. It was known in Japan leader cadre that their ability to fight was extinguished before the drops. Knowing and facing are not the same, of course. MacArthur says the Emperor was facing. That he later presented himself to MacArthur as the sole responsible party for the war against the USA confirmed MacArthur’s view that he was not only “the first gentleman of Japan” but also not afraid to die. For, the Russians and Brits were pushing to hang him, even though he opposed the war from the start and was the one who courageously pulled the plug on the Imperial General Staff, who were Bushido Code fanatics. The emperor knew the condition of his people — they were starving and defenseless — as did the Imperial General Staff — and wanted to stop their suffering and danger.
He had already asked the Imperial General Staff to consider surrendering before the drop. More than once, as I recall from Reminiscences and MG (R-Deceased) Charles Willoughby’s history of the SWPA and Korea campaigns. He almost certainly would have gotten more insistent, especially as an invasion fleet, which had no serious opposition at that point, hove into view. But that is unknowable because events went another direction. MacArthur says or implies, I forget which, that he believed before the drops that the Emperor would force the Imperial General Staff sooner than later to surrender for humanitarian reasons, his people’s and the allies’. Total supply, food and manufacture collapse and regular bombing was just shy of doing that.
My assessment rests on military necessity alone: there was no need for the drops, the Emperor was already pushing surrender before the drops and was getting more and more insistent about that. Patience was best, IMO, and petulance ruled.
Beyond that, the drops precipitated massive, effective, long-lasting Soviet subversive propaganda in the USA, starting in academe and ecclesia, to the effect that USA are immoral bastards, imperialists, etc. the usual litany. That propaganda was already extant, of course, but those mushroom cloud pictures were used to turn the knife, unnecessarily. THAT crap we still live with and beneath, in spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs.
Update 4: Real Clear History, coincident with the anniversary of the first drop, reports on GOA MacArthur’s preparations and attitudes regarding the surrender of Imperial Japan and the Imperial Japanese General Staff. Here is the the official US Army Reports Of General MacArthur.
Update 5: Kurt Schlichter: Liberals Use PC Words Because They’re Convenient To Them. Here Are Words To Use Instead
Update 6: Scott Johnson at Power Line quotes and comments thereon a law-learned correspondent in re incalculable damage done by Hillary Clinton to US national security. All of which is true, of course, but I saw another facet in the subject and commented as follows:
Scott, your correspondent assumes Hillary recognizes a country to secure. She does not. That’s the point of the entire world governance/globalist elite, isn’t it?: there is no national sovereignty, only personal viability in a global community. Get yours, they say to themselves.
Your correspondent’s point works in a law-based system of national sovereignty. But this now is a rules-based system of global governance by hyper-privileged elites — they attend the same cocktail parties everywhere on the globe — in their private global community. So they think. They can do as they wish because there is no authority superior to themselves, no nation deserving much less demanding security.
Their thinking — global governance (by themselves alone, because they mean so well), no national sovereignty — drives the Arab/Pan-African invasion of Europe, the Indo-Chinese/Pan-South American invasion of North America and such as the Obergefell-vs-Hodges decision. We make the rules, you obey them, and we don’t want or have national sovereignties obstructing our wishes for having lots of fun for ourselves while we talk about doing lots of good for you others.
If your correspondent wants to help, ask him or her to preach the reality of USA national sovereignty and all it implies in whatever is their orbit. These elegant globalists wield great power, as is known, but their foundation remains a cloud, a dream. Their power derives from their generation of deluding fictions (Ben Rhodes?). Ask your correspondent to make that point in his or her circle of contacts, to say again and again what is true, that national sovereignty is here to stay and will not be swept away.
Related: Glenn Reynolds quotes, approvingly, a jerk at Walter Russell Mead’s American Interest moaning that Hungary’s new emergency laws, to address invasion of that country by the Middle Eastern horde, trample on several basic liberal values. Reynolds concurred in this language: I’m afraid so. Against which I commented, Tut. To the jerk at American Interest I commented:
… laws that trample on several basic liberal values ….
No, you smug, fat, safely-padded, hand-wringing jackwagon, it’s not about liberal values, it’s about national and cultural sovereignty. Trying to make a sovereignty issue a values issue is classic fasco-commie subversion by misdirection. I knew American-Interest is sanctimonious fasco-commie, but this really self-exposes these muckers of weaponized empathy.
Update 7: Jonah Goldberg: The Rise Of House Clinton
Update 8: 1- Perhaps mistakenly, I was under the impression that neocons, such as Paul Wolfowitz, were/are Scoop Jackson Democrats.
2- War fighting to victory without occupation following is an historical howler. Never happens. When tried, as by The Fraud, the result is painful.
3- Occupation with the purpose of fostering representative democratic (republican) government dates from President McKinley and US victory over Spain in the Philippines. The concept/policy is linked, by McKinley himself, to “American manifest destiny,” an idea not foreign to many today and, in itself, not at all unworthy.
4- Occupation, which is unavoidable and essential following victorious war, should be for as long as it takes for the defeated belligerent to renounce belligerence, and no longer. The decease of beligerent spirit, not killing, is the purpose of war. Occupation is the second phase of war, following unconditional surrender by an enemy.
5- If Cruz does not know that now, he will learn it, one way or the other. Killing bodies and removing governments is not the purpose of war. Extirpating the spirit of belligerence is. For that, occupation is ineluctably indicated.
6- Representative democratic (republican) government is not a universal good. It works only in Christian civilization and in particular those blessed with a legal substrate of English Common Law. Ergo, establishing such government in a non-Christian civilization is an irrational goal, QED.
7- On the other hand, occupying a defeated enemy’s lands until such time as he renounces belligerence is a universal good with numerous examplars of success.
Update 9: Found crucifix shows Christianity in Viking Europe earlier than thought.
Update 10: ADM (Ret.) William McRaven: A Warrior’s Career Sacrificed For Politics
Update 11: The Deep Meaning Of Ben Rhodes
Update 12: How To Defeat Weaponized Empathy
Update 13: More Examples Of Weaponized Empathy
AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA