[clarkmoody]

One of the many reasons to oppose war.

Others include:

+ Control of the economy, price controls, rationing, shortages

+ Suspension of most (all?) of the Bill of Rights

+ Wholesale slaughter of civilian populations abroad (so much for "all men are created equal ... with unalienable rights")

But perhaps the most nefarious is the idea that "we all pulled together and sacrificed to defeat the enemy." The government schools teach the children the greatness of our national effort, priming them to accept the destruction of liberty again when the next war comes. The state forever uses a victory in war to foster national pride and patriotism, as if the society made those choices to sacrifice willingly.

Speak out against the war? Prison. Fail to comply with economic controls? Prison. Don't want to fight after being drafted? Execution. Have friends who just happen to belong to the enemy country? You're a spy.

And then the icing on the cake is when the government steals the money to pay for the war through inflation and currency devaluation through the subsequent years.

[nanistheonlyist]

We did not choose war willingly, the japanese govt made the choice for us when they attacked pearl harbor.

[ZeroGravitas]

Major General Smedley Butler, in 1935:

"At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles. "

https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

[jimbokun]

Sure, maybe those maneuvers were provocative, but they do not rise to the same level of responsibility as launching the first actual attack. Japan bears responsibility for taking the bait.

[literallycancer]

The Japanese had no choice, if they wanted to keep the territory they controlled at the time. They were heavily reliant on imports from the US, and the US imposed an embargo on them.

>US Ambassador Grew in Japan kept Roosevelt fully advised of her precarious economic situation and urgent need for imports. Chief of Naval Operations (NCO) Stark had warned the president of the danger of imposing an oil embargo on Japan. Stark had "made it known to the State Department in no uncertain terms that in my opinion if Japan's oil were shut off, she would go to war." He did not mean "necessarily with us, but … if her economic life had been choked and throttled by inability to get oil, she would go somewhere and take it … and if I were a Jap, I would" do the same.[1]

You can google many papers about this.

1 - https://mises.org/library/us-japanese-relations-wwii

[GunboatDiplomat]

Does it not matter that we were running those maneuvers largely in response to Japanese aggression in China and the Pacific? Does it matter that the reason we were in tension with Japan was their murder and conquest spree in China?

Does any of it excuse the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?

I think the answer is no, despite my great respect for General Butler.

[ZeroGravitas]

It appears that if that was the real reason, then the government of the time wasn't prepared to tell anyone that was the case, going by the General's account anyway.

Many of the things he suggest merely re-align incentives. So if the Senators and Corporate CEOs really think that Japan is a menace to be dealt with, then they should be putting their money where their mouth is, rather than having the moral hazard of benefiting selfishly from unnecessary wars.

[djsumdog]

After the US et. al. cut off fuel and oil trade. They don't teach you that part in school.

The saddest thing about WWII is that the people who started the war, by funding it, were never brought up on charges at Nuremberg. Prescott Bush and Standard Oil made millions off selling fuel to both sides. IBM made the punch-card based catalogue service for the Nazis. Henry Ford's company made tank treads for both allied and Nazi tanks and even built the rails leading to Auschwitz.

The reality is that there were entire industries that actively did everything they could to get that war going, in order to profit from it. People look at Hitler and forget that wars need to be funded.

[knz]

They do teach that in some history classes. I would encourage you to read more about events such as the Rape of Nanking or Comfort Women if you have any concerns about why the Allied nations fought Japan. It was not due to the business interests of Wall Street. There were real world consequences for millions of people due to Japanese aggression and the Japanese were actively threatening numerous sovereign nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_o...

Tensions between Japan and the prominent Western countries (the United States, France, Britain and the Netherlands) increased significantly during the increasingly militaristic early rule of Emperor Hirohito ... as part of Japan's alleged "divine right" to unify Asia under Hirohito's rule.[1]

During the 1930s, Japan's increasingly expansionist policies brought it into renewed conflict with its neighbors, Russia and China... In March 1933, Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in response to international condemnation of its conquest of Manchuria and subsequent establishment of the Manchukuo puppet government.[2] On January 15, 1936, Japan withdrew from the Second London Naval Disarmament Conference because the United States and Great Britain refused to grant the Japanese Navy parity with theirs.[3] A second war between Japan and China began with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in July 1937.

Japan's 1937 attack on China was condemned by the U.S. and several members of the League of Nations including Britain, France, Australia and the Netherlands. Japanese atrocities during the conflict, such as the notorious Nanking Massacre.... The U.S., Britain, France and the Netherlands each possessed colonies in East and Southeast Asia. Japan's new military power and willingness to use it threatened these Western economic and territorial interests in Asia.

[bpodgursky]

Um, you must also have had a pretty spotty education, because you missed the part where the fuel embargo was to stop the ongoing genocide the Japanese were conducting against China.

Don't act like the world would have been A- ok if we had just been ok selling gas to power genocides.

[mikeash]

It's worth noting that China lost 15-20 million people in the war, which is the second highest death toll of all the involved countries, behind the USSR. And the war in China gets very little attention. If you ask people when WWII started, they'll usually say December 7th 1941 (if they're being US-centric) or September 1 1939 (if they remember Poland). Yet the Japanese had been rampaging around China since the early 30s, with very little done to stop them until they made the mistake of provoking a great power a decade later.

[AnimalMuppet]

Well... the US did stop selling some stuff (steel, rubber, gasoline, and maybe a bit more) to Japan because of what they were doing in China. That was a factor in Japan deciding to go to war with the US.

So I don't know if you count that as "little done to stop them". That was what we could do, short of war, and even that helped precipitate war.

[chrishacken]

> The saddest thing about WWII is that the people who started the war, by funding it, were never brought up on charges at Nuremberg. Prescott Bush and Standard Oil made millions off selling fuel to both sides. IBM made the punch-card based catalogue service for the Nazis. Henry Ford's company made tank treads for both allied and Nazi tanks and even built the rails leading to Auschwitz.

The difference is these all took place before the war started. We sell weapons to countries all the time. That doesn't mean we wouldn't stop them if they began committing atrocities that we currently have no knowledge of.

[lostlogin]

The weapons being sold are used for atrocities fairly regularly. Pretending this isn't happening is what we do best.

[chrishacken]

I guess that can be true, depending on which conflict you're talking about. For instance, we sell Israel weapons all of the time, and one can argue that their entry into Palestine was an "atrocity", however, I'm sure if we were bombarded by missiles as they were that we wouldn't hesitate to enter and clear out a small nation of terrorists either. Obviously their execution could use some work. We're not exactly experts at it ourselves, but war is far more complicated than what you see on TV.

[lostlogin]

I wouldn't describe Palestinian Territory as "a small nation of terrorists". If the US took an approach other than giving and selling arms (refered to as "aid" at times) to Israel meaningful peace negotiations might be possible. The areas I specifically had in mind were places like Saudi and Bahrain. Arms sales to Bahrain were briefly restricted/stopped but resumed fairly quickly once news reels stopped appearing.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was a strategic preëmptive strike, because they knew the US would come after their empire at some point.

I don't think Japanese imperialism can really be defended.

Of course, Japanese imperialism was very much inspired by European imperialism in… well, everything. But that doesn't make it right either, merely just as bad.

[knz]

> because they knew the US would come after their empire at some point.

This makes it sound as if the US only acted to end competition against another Empire. Japan invaded numerous territories for access to resources and committed horrible atrocities while doing so.

The attack on Pearl Harbour may have been preemptive but the only reason for Japan to fear attack from others was due to actions of the Japanese.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

> This makes it sound as if the US only acted to end competition against another Empire.

Well, that might well have been the case. While World War Ⅱ did put a stop to some horrible things, I don't know if that was because they were horrible or merely because their perpetrators were a threat. I suspect the latter.

[boomboomsubban]

Japanese imperialism was an attempt to get out from under the boot of US imperialism. The US showed up, forced their nation open to western powers,and spent the next 70 years intimately engaged in all their important decisions.

Japanese conduct during the 30s was atrocious. They tried playing by the moral code in earlier wars, the US and other Western powers repeatedly reneged on deals and forced Japan to return any possessions.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

I don't think that's quite fair. It's true that after the arrival of the US, Japan was apparently fed up and changed its approach. But does that make invading and subjugating their neighbours justifiable?

[boomboomsubban]

Sort of. If you feel there's a greater power out there that's building up to invade you and your neighbours, forced unity can seem like the lesser of two evils. The US was not super friendly in the first half of the century, Hawaii and the Philippines were both recent military conquest dangerously close to Japan.

[dragonwriter]

> After the US et. al. cut off fuel and oil trade. They don't teach you that part in school.

They did in my public school.

> People look at Hitler and forget that wars need to be funded.

Your argument is confused. You point to profiteers (who were funded by the war, not funding the war), but then follow with this.

[shawndumas]

Are you saying that Japan's decision to go to war over a hit to their oil supplies is reasonable and understandable?

[woofyman]

They cut off the oil exports to stop the Japanese war machine.

[GunboatDiplomat]

> After the US et. al. cut off fuel and oil trade. They don't teach you that part in school.

And do you know why we did that? Was that mentioned? Did they talk about Japan's war of conquest in China or the Rape of Nanking, among a thousand other atrocities?

[knz]

Japan also forced the hand of the Allied nations by invading other territories. Personally I think Japan forced our hands earlier than that (Invasion of Manchuria was a big geopolitical move IIRC) - it just wasn't apparent at the time.

[stmfreak]

There are many interpretations of history that tell a different story.

[astrodust]

Don't think the US didn't do everything it could to antagonize the enemy. Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour.

I'm not saying what Japan did was in any way noble, but it was certainly far from unexpected. The US administration knew the war in Europe was a serious problem if left unchecked, that Britain and its allies would never prevail, but there was considerable resistance to the war.

The attack on Pearl Harbor instantly catalyzed support.

This doesn't even touch on the fact that many American companies were looking at Germany as an important customer, a country spending lavishly to build up its capability, at a time when American companies were struggling.

Politics are complicated. It's rare that any of those involved in a conflict are entirely innocent.

[andars]

Japan was "repeatedly slapped in the face" because of their increasing militarization, invasion of China (also Rape of Nanking), alliance with Italy and Germany, desire for control of all of East Asian (the Co-Prosperity Sphere), etc. The US response seems totally reasonable to me.

[dilipd]

Correct! Repeatedly slapping Japan was reasonable because of Japan's imperial ambitions, e.g. Taiwan(1895), Manchuria(1905), Korea(1910) etc. And, England and some other European countries were not 'repeatedly slapped', even though they were also imperialist, may be far longer, may be far worse!

[vkou]

Japan was also promised the world for their support of the Entente in World War I - and, much like Italy, received nothing for its efforts.

Let's not forget the context of their imperial ambitions - in the first half of the twentieth century, most of the world was still ruled by empires.

[tankenmate]

Actually Japan was mandated large amounts of German New Guinea by the Treaty of Versailles and the South Pacific Mandate; Palau, almost all of Micronesia, and parts of Papua New Guinea. Other parts of German New Guinea were ceded to Australia, New Zealand, the US, and Britain. France of course kept their South Pacific colonies.

[astrodust]

I mean with deliberate intent to provoke a military response from Japan.

It wasn't that Japan wasn't up to no good, because they were, absolutely destroying large swaths of Asia and committing atrocities so horrifying even German observers were concerned, but that the US leadership needed Japan to attack to get on board versus Germany.

[chrishacken]

> Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour.

Are you kidding me? So honor was their reason to start a war that eventually caused millions to die?

[astrodust]

You do realize that Japan, at the time, was run by a highly militarized government that still carried a lot of tradition from the feudal Japan era. Honour was a massive concern.

Also remember that Japan had already conquered large parts of China and trounced Russia militarily, so they were feeling confident they'd prevail in any conflict with the US. At the time the US was in the middle of a poor economic period and its Pacific navy was in sad shape, many warships were simply relics from WWI. It wasn't exactly threatening.

What Japan didn't realize was that the US would not be bullied, and instead would bite back a lot harder than anticipated.

It's a lot like how America assumed Iraq would be a cake-walk, or Afghanistan could be resolved in a weekend.

[laumars]

You're taking his brief argument far too literally. Of course there was more at play than honour alone. However reasons aside, I'd argue your comment is moot as there's never a good reason to start a war.

Edit: wow I'm surprised by the downvotes. Are you (who ever you are) suggesting you do agree with starting wars? I'd be very interested to hear why you disagree with me.

[knz]

I didn't downvote you but personally I feel conflict can be justified - stopping the Holocaust and defeating the nation that committed genocide and atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking were enough justification without considering the invasion of a huge number of sovereign territories.

It disgusts me that the world has sat by during recent genocides.

[laumars]

Thanks for the insight. I don't disagree your point per se. If war could be accomplished without further harming those citizens then I might agree. Or if war brought about positive change then maybe you could justify the means. But sadly we've seen time and time again that destabilising governments through instigating war - even horrible despotic regiems like the aforementioned - usually ends up with more long term conflict.

I should add that I'm against starting wars but not against retaliating, even ending the war, if and when required.

[mikeash]

I completely agree with starting wars if it stops the suffering of large numbers of civilians. As it stands, 15-20 million Chinese were killed by the Japanese in that war. How many would have died if the US had not gotten involved?

[laumars]

I understand the point you're making but you are quoting numbers of suffering due to war which defeats the purpose of arguing the suffering saved by going to war.

Plus the American involvement wasn't out of humanitarian reasons either. They only joined the war after getting attacked by Japan themselves. Which, which since I support retaliatory action if another party has already initiated war, would mean the US followed my stance on war in that regard.

[gurkendoktor]

No downvote from me, but if Germany hadn't started the war, others should have done so to stop us. (I would have preferred a clean Stauffenberg-style solution, of course.)

[GunboatDiplomat]

> Don't think the US didn't do everything it could to antagonize the enemy. Japan was repeatedly slapped in the face until it had no choice but to respond to protect its honour.

Is that what it's called when we objected to Japan's war of conquest against China? Antagonism? Fine, let it be so. Japan brought doom on themselves.

[astrodust]

Japan didn't care about words. Japan cared about things like the US selling Japan fuel even when they were doing all these things, preferring to stay "neutral", then abuptly cutting that off and leaving them scrambling to keep their military running.

Japan did bring doom on themselves, but America kept poking the tiger with a stick until America itself got attacked, which was the goal.

[zepolud]

What about the laws of thermodynamics, pretty oppressive if you ask me. Better oppose that too.