Replies

Um, ... let's see ... freeze Japanese assets in the US, enlist the Dutch and British in a worldwide oil embargo against Japan, provide the Chinese with war materiel, ...

[Oh, in exchange for their support, FDR commits the US to the armed support of their colonies (e.g., Singapore, Java, ...) if the Japanese cross south of the Isthmus of Kra ... Oh, yes, they do that on Dec. 5, 1941 ... Odd, Congress knew nothing of that commitment until the Pearl Harbor Investigations. Seems this fact is little known nor taught in America public schools.]

Those are odd actions of a declared neutral nation (viz., the United States) ...

Japan decided to fight on her own terms rather than submit to pressure. Go south to get especially needed oil, and guard the left flank ... i.e., destroy the Pacific Fleet ...

Whether Pearl Harbor was or was not a "sneak" attack remains actively debated ... So it goes.

"Considering the hyper-murderous aggressive crimes of both the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII, the Allies had a moral responsibility to utterly destroy their warmaking capacity even if it involved an unprecedentedly large number of collateral (= indirect, unintended, not deliberate but unavoidable) civilian casualties"

If that logic is transferred to America's participation and popularizing abortion, to include pushing abortion and eugenics policies on weaker nations, then don't American's "deserve" such an end as Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Aren't our abortion "rights" as hyper-murderous, and even more so than what Nazis have achieved?

Given the above argument as a reason to obliterate two huge civilan-populated cities, Al-Queda and Iran will have absolutely no qualms of nuking or poisoning American populations (if they haven't already released agents already). After all, Truman was just trying to get the Imperial Japanese leadership's attention. Isn't that what a terror bombing will be about?

But I understand why the logic is used. Politicians have to win the next election. Wars get unpopular just as quickly as they're started. If you want to end a war quickly, raise the level of brutality with a carrot and stick decision for the enemy. Truman wasn't going to wait out the Japanese and hope to stay in political power.

I hate risky decisive strategies. They always lose to those with the long term vision and discipline. It's like playing capture the flag on top of a hill. Sure, a "victor" emerges at the end of the clock's time, but there's only one survivor holding a flag and he's surrounded by a very fresh enemy's army still hungry for a fight. The West was lucky to not have succumbed to the Soviet's warlike society. At least while they were fighting, Stalin was less like to kill Soviets in Gulags.

We could have had Japan as a dear friend long before American politics (namely, FDR) made the Japanese a resolute enemy. The Japanese were enamored with everything Western and particularly American. We could have had a great ally against the Soviet Union. There never would have been a Red China or Korean Conflict or Vietnam War, Communist Laos, Cambodian Khmer Rouge, or John Kerry. But the world chose to ignore the message of Fatima. Communism spread its errors, and politicians and socialist Americans like President FDR became devout followers.

Lenin was the first to legalize abortions. Nazis made the killing efficient via experimentation in concentration camps. America made it socially popular and demands that other nations enforce it to receive financial aid. Now "hyper-murderous" Americans have resolute enemies willing to fly planes into our buildings just to get our leadership's attention. We've still yet to seek the moral high ground. Are we waiting for God's Judgment before we change? Will it take a nuclear strike? How about a big rock falling out of the sky?