Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
If by that, you mean the Civil War, I suppose you are correct...except for that not inconsiderable portion of your countrymen who still sport the losing flag. On balance (and I know how heavy are both sides) I think the world would have been a better place if you had let them go.

Meanwhile, I don't see how a Pacific War, which led to the nuclear destruction of two cities of an all-but-abjectly-defeated enemy, and occupation of Japan and the Philippines that lasted for decades, and the seizure of the Pacific Islands that persists to this day (and I fine show of freedom they demonstrate)....well can this be called a war of of defense?

The situation and outcome in the European Theatre was more complicated and I want my morning coffee. So for now, I will stipulate that it had a significant defensive component. I just don't think that events and outcome reflects so much to the glory of the American soldier as the myth would have it.  

And it is the relentless myth of glory, of Spotless Christian Hero-dum; the requirement that all the world---absolutely including your own politicians---genuflect to the awesomeness that is any American in uniform, that gives the wiggins about the USA. Yes, I am (in many ways) anti-American, and I think there are some pretty good reasons for it.

by PIGL (stevec@boreal.gmail@com) on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 08:56:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The American people and government have supported one of my research programs under the auspices of a treaty signed by Mexico, Canada and the USA having to do with biodiversity conservation. That generous support of research activities in foreign countries is perhaps one of those "only in America" kind of things (well, I think the EU does it, too, but I have not been on receiving end of their largess...they just eat up all our fish!)

Cartoonish Anti-Yanqui though I am, I recognise that the USA polity, internal and external, is multifaceted in the extreme. The fact is, the US gummint gave me and some colleagues a significant amount of money, and they may do so again (sure hope so!). And I am very grateful for it.

by PIGL (stevec@boreal.gmail@com) on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 10:15:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Japan was not all but defeated at the time. It still had the capability to mount a serious, if doomed, defense of its home islands. Whether that justifies Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a different question. Nor do I see how the subsequent occupation changes whether it was a war of self defense, nor whether it was justified.

In Europe, if you're referring to the fact that the primary burden of defeating the Nazis rested on the Soviets - I'm perfectly aware of that. And believe it or not, in spite of being Polish, I think that they were fighting a war of self-defense. Neither the long term occupations of foe and ally alike, nor what happened to the German civilian population  change that.

On the Civil War - well I'll assume you don't care about the fate of Americans, so just think of that of Mexico, the islands, etc.

by MarekNYC on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 10:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The ability of Japan to defend itself against an invasion of the home islands is only an issue if we accept that the legitimate war aim of the Americans and allies in the Pacific was unconditional surrender. Such an objective, it seems to me, turns a war of defense into a war of vengeance. It's understandable, and certainly not without precedent, but the two are not the same.

The subsequent occupation and establishment of imperial domains does not prove that a given war was not, at least initially, defensive. It does cast some doubt on what were the true political aims of the war, however.

And I think you may have the advantage of me. I am nore sure to what you refer as "the southern war." I thought you referred to the Civil War, but perhaps I was wrong.

by PIGL (stevec@boreal.gmail@com) on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 12:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Such an objective, it seems to me, turns a war of defense into a war of vengeance

No, it simply means you're aiming at a full victory rather than risking fighting the damn thing again in a decade or two.

It does cast some doubt on what were the true political aims of the war, however.

The 'true' political aims were defeating what was seen as a grave threat to the US. That America sought to maximize its gains from victory is normal. Again, do you really think that the primary objective of the USSR wasn't simply to defeat Germany?

I am nore sure to what you refer as "the southern war." I thought you referred to the Civil War, but perhaps I was wrong.

Not sure about your confusion, I was referring to the Civil War. My term of 'War of Southern Aggression' was just a play on the traditional southern name for the war.

by MarekNYC on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 12:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Japan would have in no position to remount the war in 20yr had a conditional surrender been accepted. By then, it was clear they had been in position to start it in the first place. With the southeast aisian old fields in allied hands, they could never have started again. So I don't think your attribution of a need for finality realy holds water.

I think the problem is with your notion of "total victory". If I may quote The Master: "Anciently, those skilled in war sought to take all under heaven intact."

by PIGL (stevec@boreal.gmail@com) on Sat Sep 6th, 2008 at 12:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Such an objective, it seems to me, turns a war of defense into a war of vengeance

No, it simply means you're aiming at a full victory rather than risking fighting the damn thing again in a decade or two.

That may have been the reasoning, but it didn't work out that way for France in 1919. Or for Germany in 1871.

Of course, it's entirely possible that each country has to learn that lesson on its own...

As an aside, by 1945 there was nothing that could possibly have prevented the US from stripping Japan of her colonies and preventing her from posing a serious threat again in the foreseeable future. And if unconditional surrender were desired anyway, blockading Japan until they complied would have been relatively straightforward, given that Japan didn't have a navy or air force at this point in the war and was dependent on imports for much of its civilian industry. Whether it would have been more humane is, however, something I'm not competent to judge.

It is striking, though, that the most obvious geostrategic difference under a continued war scenario is that it would have involved a Russian occupation of Manchuria and Korea. Given that already in 1944 the American strategic establishment had a pretty clear read on the likely fracture lines of the post-war world order, it is not unlikely that a Soviet presence in Manchuria and Korea was judged to be undesirable.

But fundamentally, I think the discussion of The Bombs is a red herring as long as one does not consider the underlying doctrine of strategic bombing. Now there is a thorny subject... that I think we should leave, however, for another diary.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 03:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And if unconditional surrender were desired anyway, blockading Japan until they complied would have been relatively straightforward, given that Japan didn't have a navy or air force at this point in the war and was dependent on imports for much of its civilian industry.

True of Germany as well, circa the end of 1944. The last five months of the war killed a hell of a lot more Germans than Japanese died from the bombs. And Germany ended up getting treated much worse than Japan in the postwar settlement.

by MarekNYC on Wed Sep 10th, 2008 at 03:59:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep. But I don't view Operation Overlord as (solely) an operation aimed against Germany either.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 at 03:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series