ewrxroads
ewrxroads
Sep 5, 2018 · 5 min read

Apologize for the delay, but I’ve been traveling.

It is clear you have some angst regarding the United States as much of your response while disparaging of the United States really doesn’t focus on the issue of my exchange with the original posting author. The original essay presented a thesis suggesting the U.S. dropped atomic weapons on Japan, not as a legitimate part of the war effort, but out of racial animus. I disputed her claim as out of context as well as her claims that Japan lacked the ability to continue resistance, that the U.S. attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki without warning, that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were strategic targets, that Japan attempted to accept U.S. surrender terms during the seven months previous or that warfare was preferable to a blockade. It is within this context that I will address your points.

The one-million estimate was bogus. It was number plucked out of thin air, a piece of inflated propaganda to justify the a-bombing.

I disagree and, in fact, believe that to be a conservative number. Even the original author reflected on the despair of lower class Japanese and how they were reduced to “eating grass.” In addition to the lower class civilians who would be third behind the elite and military for food and medicine, there were 140,000 prisoners, who if they didn't succumb to overwork, starvation and disease were subject to the “kill all prisoners” order. In short, I not only think you are just plain wrong, your later points suggest to me that your position is guided more by your angst for the United States than by rational thinking or facts.

You complain that the article does not provide sufficient context, but you fail, in your own attempts of dismissal, to provide context all around. Just as an example, you state that the US wanted Russia to stay in China, but you neglect to mention that Russia was fighting the war on two fronts and had already paid a far larger cost in bringing Germany to a downfall than any other country.

So what’s your point? My reason for referencing the U.S. desire to keep Russia in the conflict with Japan was to debunk the notion that the U.S. perceived that Japan was finished as a fighting force at the time, at least to the degree that it could not continue hostilities that would prolong the war.

Although you are incorrect that Russia was fighting on two fronts simultaneously (the war in Europe was over by May and Russia did not declare war on Japan until August) without doubt it suffered greatly as a consequence of the war. That fact is neither disputed nor relevant to the underlying issue here.

However, in furtherance of context regarding your apparent point, Russia was not an innocent participant. Prior to WWII, Russia allied with Germany to divide Europe and began its own expansionist war-making, including a coordinated Russia/German invasion of Poland and thereafter Russian invasions of Baltic States, which Hitler promised to Stalin in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. It is theorized that after Russia’s invasion of Finland was repulsed Hitler believed Russia to be vulnerable and he (not Russia) commenced a two-front war with Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of Russia) in 1941. So on the whole, Russia losses at the hands of their former co-conspirator, Germany, seems like Karma.

You also fail to mention that the US was, as it was for WW1, a Johnny-Come-Lately who didnt get involved until it saw which side was more likely to win.

Of all your comments, this most reflects that you are writing out of emotion rather than intellect. The United States did not choose to “get involved” in WWII, at least not beyond supplying Britain and Russia through Lend Lease (long before it was clear they were “likely to win”). The United States was compelled into war with Japan as a consequence of Japan’s sneak attack on U.S. military installations in Hawaii and the Asia Pacific and it was Germany that declared war on the U.S. four days later, not the other way around. I cannot for the life of me see how you could fail to appreciate the difference.

You further fail to mention that the Greatest Country on the Planet (TM) sold armament to both the Axis and the Allies, and one company — Standard Oil — was further responsible for engineering the traintracks that they knew were going to the Holocaust camps.

First, I dispute your assertions, but, like before, what’s your point regarding the issue under discussion here?

I’m also not sure what you mean by “Greatest Country on the Planet” in reference to the United States immediately prior to WWII. At that time the U.S. had a military smaller that Portugal and was in the midst of the Great Depression.

As for selling arms to both Axis and Allies alike your statement lacks context. Prior to WWII U.S. arms production was very small, with most developed countries preferring, for obvious reasons, to manufacture their own heavy armament. However, general pre-1945 world-wide culture was that it was deemed improper for a neutral country withhold selling weapons to one side of a conflict, which might itself be considered an act of war (much as Germany perceived Lend Lease). Having said that, there were no U.S. weapons sales to Germany following WWI in the years leading up to WWII.

Your assertion that “Standard Oil … [was] responsible for engineering the traintracks that they knew were going to the Holocaust camps….” seems bizarre and unreliable. First, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil was dissolved in 1911 on grounds it was an illegal monopoly, out of which there are a dozen or so successors that bear the “Standard Oil” moniker in some respect, so it’s not clear to which company you refer. Second, I am not aware of any “Standard Oil” company that made steel or laid railroad tracks. And third, Holocaust trains were run by the “Deutsche Reichsbahn” national railway system under the strict Nazi supervision and it seems unlikely they would require such assistance. So if you have some proof of this assertion I would like to read it.

But I tire of this whole American mentality that insists those John Wayne movies were documentaries.

Did you even read the original post and subsequent dialogue? This remark is totally non-sequitur to that discussion (and as an aside, no “John Wayne movies” involved as a plot or collateral subject the dropping of atomic bombs).

You guys sat on the sidelines until everyone else was near-exhaustion, then you claimed you swept in and won it for everyone, and we should all be ever so grateful for your “sacrifice”… even as you were making bank off it.

Going to war is never an easy decision, at least it shouldn’t be. There were many in the U.S. (perhaps a majority) who believed that Europe’s wars were Europe’s problems and perhaps the U.S. would never have entered the war in Europe had Hitler not precipitated that event by unilaterally declaring war against the U.S. However, it has been discovered that war against the U.S. was part of his master plan all along.

Of course, U.S. entry into a European war would have been totally unnecessary if YOU could have figured a better way to resolve your differences. Perhaps if YOU handled the German surrender after WWI better or if YOU did not think you could just take what belonged to others, the U.S. wouldn’t have had to come over there and save your ass … again. Or do you think Britain, France and Russia were up to the task on their own? And heaven help them if the Germany/Russia pact had held together.

    ewrxroads

    Written by

    ewrxroads