Erase One Major U.S. Event

[Real Korimyr #9]

Hirohito was actually instrumental in ending the war. He took the unprecedented (at that time) step of addressing the Japanese people directly, and calling for an end to the war. Had it not been for that, the ruling oligarchy might have continued to fight.

It was actually that ruling oligarchy, who used the Emperor as their national symbol and figurehead, who needed to be overthrown in order to achieve peace.

And yet we still forced the Japanese to compromise their religion in the terms of the surrender agreement.

 

[Goshin]

And yet we still forced the Japanese to compromise their religion in the terms of the surrender agreement.

True. Bit harsh of us I suppose, but I think whasisname (MacArthur?) felt that the belief system that made the Emperor a decendent of divine Kami was one of the driving forces behind the morale of Japanese soldiery, and that kicking that prop out from under them would impair their ability to renew hostilities later.

Yeah, that was pretty hardcore of us... but then again, we were a lot more hard-core back then in general, than now.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I wouldn't bat an eyelash at dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan, but I think the terms of the surrender we imposed upon them were just wrong.

 

[Elutherian]

The Ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

All else will follow.

 

[Goshin]

The Ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

All else will follow.

Intresting assertion. Could you expand on that a bit? Do you prefer the Articles of Confederation?

 

[Porchev]

Erasing the 16th Amendment would be a great idea. That way the federal government would not have grown so huge and out of control.

 

[Elutherian]

Intresting assertion. Could you expand on that a bit? Do you prefer the Articles of Confederation?

I would prefer nothing at all.

 

[soccerboy22]

I would prefer nothing at all.

So for like the country not to exist?

 

[Goshin]

Based on this and a couple other posts, I think Elutherian is an anarchist.


Right?

 

[Elutherian]

So for like the country not to exist?

No Government.

Based on this and a couple other posts, I think Elutherian is an anarchist.


Right?

You are correct.

 

[Goshin]

No Government.



You are correct.

Ah. Cool. I like being right.


So, couple questions then:

1. What would have kept the Brits from taking us back over and putting us under Crown Rule again in very short order? The militia, in 1776 and again in 1812, certainly had its uses. They were capable of inflicting heavy casualties on the Brits when they had a good firing position with cover. The problem is they were totally unable to stand up to Brit Regular Army units in open-field battle, until the Continental Army trained up line-units and artillery that could stand against them. This probably would not have happened without a central government of some kind, for a variety of reasons. So, absent any central government... or any government at all.... why would we not have been re-conquered by the British Empire?

2. What would have kept us from being conquered and enslaved by some other European colonial power c. 1776-1880?

3. What would have happened in WW2? Without America the Nazi's may well have won...or at least divided the world between the 3rd Reich and the Soviet Union.

4. How do we deal with crime? I'm perfectly capable of defending myself, but what about the elderly and the sick?
If John steals my lawnmower, and I go confront him, and he pulls a gun, and I shoot him dead.... and then his kinfolk want to kill me for killing their family member.... what stops a multi-generation blood-feud?

I'll stop there for now.

 

[Elutherian]

Ah. Cool. I like being right.


So, couple questions then:

1. What would have kept the Brits from taking us back over and putting us under Crown Rule again in very short order? The militia, in 1776 and again in 1812, certainly had its uses. They were capable of inflicting heavy casualties on the Brits when they had a good firing position with cover. The problem is they were totally unable to stand up to Brit Regular Army units in open-field battle, until the Continental Army trained up line-units and artillery that could stand against them. This probably would not have happened without a central government of some kind, for a variety of reasons. So, absent any central government... or any government at all.... why would we not have been re-conquered by the British Empire?

2. What would have kept us from being conquered and enslaved by some other European colonial power c. 1776-1880?

3. What would have happened in WW2? Without America the Nazi's may well have won...or at least divided the world between the 3rd Reich and the Soviet Union.

4. How do we deal with crime? I'm perfectly capable of defending myself, but what about the elderly and the sick?
If John steals my lawnmower, and I go confront him, and he pulls a gun, and I shoot him dead.... and then his kinfolk want to kill me for killing their family member.... what stops a multi-generation blood-feud?

I'll stop there for now.

1. If not for the 1809 embargo, and the provocations by the war-hawks such as Henry Clay, there would have been no 'War of 1812'.

2. Strong militias.

3. Without the American Government's involvement in WWI, and the subsequent Versailles Treaty, the Nazi Party would have not risen to power and WWII would have not happened, at least not in the same manner in which it occured.

4. I could not present an argument so well as Murray Rothbard did in this brilliant piece: Society Without a State by Murray N. Rothbard

 

[Goshin]

1. If not for the 1809 embargo, and the provocations by the war-hawks such as Henry Clay, there would have been no 'War of 1812'.

2. Strong militias.

3. Without the American Government's involvement in WWI, and the subsequent Versailles Treaty, the Nazi Party would have not risen to power and WWII would have not happened, at least not in the same manner in which it occured.

4. I could not present an argument so well as Murray Rothbard did in this brilliant piece: Society Without a State by Murray N. Rothbard

1. IN the absence of all government, there would likely have been other attempts to take us over by European powers or Britain, because the absence of any organizing authority would have tempted them greatly... they would assume weakness.

2: In the wars of 1776 and 1812, militias were woefully inadequate in stopping Brit Regulars from taking ground, including cities and vital strategic locations. The militias lacked the capacity to fight in line and trade musket volleys for more than one or two volleys. As a result, in open-field battle the Brits won again and again, until Continental Army Regulars (professional full-time military personnel) were trained to a level of discipline that allowed them to match the Brits in line-battle... mainly because of the quality of our artillery units, which had a lot to do with our Navy's gunner-training methods. To assume that State militias could have filled this gap is extremely optimisitic and without historic basis.... especially since you're advocating no States either.

3. Debateable.

4: I have to fix supper, I'll have to read and answer that later... but I've read some Rothbard before, and while it is intresting reading, history indicates that anarchy and peace are not synonymous.

 

[Elutherian]

1. IN the absence of all government, there would likely have been other attempts to take us over by European powers or Britain, because the absence of any organizing authority would have tempted them greatly... they would assume weakness.

2-3: In the wars of 1776 and 1812, militias were woefully inadequate in stopping Brit Regulars from taking ground, including cities and vital strategic locations. The militias lacked the capacity to fight in line and trade musket volleys for more than one or two volleys. As a result, in open-field battle the Brits won again and again, until Continental Army Regulars (professional full-time military personnel) were trained to a level of discipline that allowed them to match the Brits in line-battle... mainly because of the quality of our artillery units, which had a lot to do with our Navy's gunner-training methods. To assume that State militias could have filled this gap is extremely optimisitic and without historic basis.... especially since you're advocating no States either.

4: I have to fix supper, I'll have to read and answer that later... but I've read some Rothbard before, and while it is intresting reading, history indicates that anarchy and peace are not synonymous.

1. Attempted? Perhaps. Succeeded? Unlikely.

2-3. Is it outside the realm of possibility that adequate training could occur without state intervention? We do not know what shape militias and various forms of private defense may have taken in the absence of a central authority.

4. History has never produced an Anarchist society based on property rights, so there is no basis on which to judge.

 

[Goshin]

1. Attempted? Perhaps. Succeeded? Unlikely.

2-3. Is it outside the realm of possibility that adequate training could occur without state intervention? We do not know what shape militias and various forms of private defense may have taken in the absence of a central authority.

4. History has never produced an Anarchist society based on property rights, so there is no basis on which to judge.

Addressing 1-3: In the absence of all government, it would not have been hard for Britain to retake the former Colonies. We had a hard enough time fighting them off in 1776 and 1812 even with State governments and a Continental Congress and Continental Army.
The reasons why militias are unlikely to have been able to achieve the level of training required to defeat Brit Army Regulars in open-field combat are many. Among them are the fractious and relatively undisciplined nature of the militias themselves. Their officers were often chosen by election, or appointed by political influence, or through wealth, and lacked any great competence. They were not professional soldiers, but rather part-time soldiers. The level of discipline to stand in ranks and fire volley after volley, while closing ranks as men fell to either side of you, was never historically demonstrated by the militia in 1776 and 1812, so there is no reason to assume they would magically acquire that level of discipline simply due to the absence of government. Indeed, the absence of government would have surely been an impediment to getting community militias organized on a large enough scale to be able to fight large-scale battles at all.
There is simply no historical basis to assume that somehow the militias would be better than they historically, actually were, simply due to an absence of government.
Not to downplay the importance of militias: without them, we would have lost. They provided more manpower than the Continental Congress could muster in a regular Army, and they were good "irregulars" and skirmishers, and when firing aimed fire from cover they were hell on wheels. But without the Regulars of the Continental Army, we could not have stopped the Brits from beating us in every open-field battle. We needed both to win.
There is no historical basis for your assertions.

As for whether there would have been a WW2, if the USA had not been in WW1, that is too speculative to really comment on. Nor can we be sure that absent a 3rd Reich to fight, the Soviets would not have simply rolled right over western Europe as well as Eastern, soon as Stalin could come up with a pretext.

4. I know that Rothbard and company talk about how to have property rights in the absence of a state, I've had long discussions with anarchists on this topic before. Here's the problem, as you said it:

History has never produced an Anarchist society based on property rights, so there is no basis on which to judge.

Exactly. I suspect there's a reason history has never produced such a society: it isn't feasible.

 

[Elutherian]

Addressing 1-3: In the absence of all government, it would not have been hard for Britain to retake the former Colonies. We had a hard enough time fighting them off in 1776 and 1812 even with State governments and a Continental Congress and Continental Army.
The reasons why militias are unlikely to have been able to achieve the level of training required to defeat Brit Army Regulars in open-field combat are many. Among them are the fractious and relatively undisciplined nature of the militias themselves. Their officers were often chosen by election, or appointed by political influence, or through wealth, and lacked any great competence. They were not professional soldiers, but rather part-time soldiers. The level of discipline to stand in ranks and fire volley after volley, while closing ranks as men fell to either side of you, was never historically demonstrated by the militia in 1776 and 1812, so there is no reason to assume they would magically acquire that level of discipline simply due to the absence of government. Indeed, the absence of government would have surely been an impediment to getting community militias organized on a large enough scale to be able to fight large-scale battles at all.
There is simply no historical basis to assume that somehow the militias would be better than they historically, actually were, simply due to an absence of government.
Not to downplay the importance of militias: without them, we would have lost. They provided more manpower than the Continental Congress could muster in a regular Army, and they were good "irregulars" and skirmishers, and when firing aimed fire from cover they were hell on wheels. But without the Regulars of the Continental Army, we could not have stopped the Brits from beating us in every open-field battle. We needed both to win.
There is no historical basis for your assertions.

As for whether there would have been a WW2, if the USA had not been in WW1, that is too speculative to really comment on. Nor can we be sure that absent a 3rd Reich to fight, the Soviets would not have simply rolled right over western Europe as well as Eastern, soon as Stalin could come up with a pretext.

4. I know that Rothbard and company talk about how to have property rights in the absence of a state, I've had long discussions with anarchists on this topic before. Here's the problem, as you said it:


Exactly. I suspect there's a reason history has never produced such a society: it isn't feasible.

This entire thread is speculative. We cannot change events from the past, nor can we know with any reasonable certitude the outcome of such alterations.

Private Defense does not need to operate in the manner you described. However, that we should embrace democratic tyranny in place of monarchial tyranny, is akin to saying we should kill ourselves for fear of dying.

If the argument put forward resolves that if a societal order has yet to occur, it should not occur, then we are to strike down all progress since Babylon. Democratic Republics, in the form which the United States adopted, were new in the long history of political systems at the time it was introduced. Since it has been tested, and failed, I can judge it based not only on it's morality, but it's merits.

Anarchism, based in property rights, has yet to be tested. It's morality I am convinced of, as I am of it's feasibility. Yet there is no certainty in the latter.

I am inclined to believe that whatever legal doctrine is in line with ethical behavior, that is non-aggression, will be best suited for utility.

 

[Goshin]

This entire thread is speculative. We cannot change events from the past, nor can we know with any reasonable certitude the outcome of such alterations.

Private Defense does not need to operate in the manner you described. However, that we should embrace democratic tyranny in place of monarchial tyranny, is akin to saying we should kill ourselves for fear of dying.

If the argument put forward resolves that if a societal order has yet to occur, it should not occur, then we are to strike down all progress since Babylon. Democratic Republics, in the form which the United States adopted, were new in the long history of political systems at the time it was introduced. Since it has been tested, and failed, I can judge it based not only on it's morality, but it's merits.

Anarchism, based in property rights, has yet to be tested. It's morality I am convinced of, as I am of it's feasibility. Yet there is no certainty in the latter.

I am inclined to believe that whatever legal doctrine is in line with ethical behavior, that is non-aggression, will be best suited for utility.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

While I appreciate your ideals, and at one time shared a considerable intrest in them, I would have to disagree with you as to the pragmatic feasibility of ideological anarchy... at least on a national level, and in any circumstances within the foreseeable future.

Regards,

G.

 

[Elutherian]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

While I appreciate your ideals, and at one time shared a considerable intrest in them, I would have to disagree with you as to the pragmatic feasibility of ideological anarchy... at least on a national level, and in any circumstances within the foreseeable future.

Regards,

G.

I suppose it wouldn't make any significant difference if I said Democracy has already proven itself infeasable.

 

[Goshin]

I suppose it wouldn't make any significant difference if I said Democracy has already proven itself infeasable.

If you're talking about pure, undiliuted democracy, I've known for a long time that it doesn't work.

The mixed version (limited republic) was getting along pretty well until the past 50 years, and is still doing better than most other systems even now... even though too much pure democracy has been injected into it.

 

[Elutherian]

If you're talking about pure, undiliuted democracy, I've known for a long time that it doesn't work.

The mixed version (limited republic) was getting along pretty well until the past 50 years, and is still doing better than most other systems even now... even though too much pure democracy has been injected into it.

Isn't the very fact that Republicanism was unsustainable, and thus slipped into "pure democracy", as you call it, a testament to it's failure as a societal system?

A limited constitutional government is much like cutting a tumor down by 90%, stopping, pulling out a sharpee, then writing "Stop Growing" on it's surface.

 

[Andalublue]

The killing of native americans was not genocide.

Possibly not, but does that make those killings any less regrettable or any more justifiable? I don't think so. I don't believe that the killings of the Armenians around 1915 was genocide either, but that doesn't make the episode one iota less horrific, brutal and regrettable.

And the bombs were merciful, for both sides.

Only a winning-side propagandist would argue this. Necessary? Perhaps. Unavoidable? Maybe. But merciful? That a pretty sick idea right there.

True to your name, you'll slander the US with any feces available?

Fairly childish rhetoric.

 

[spud_meister]

The signing of the ANZUS treaty.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

YOU!

(in general)

^cept you.

 

[commy]

I wouldn't bat an eyelash at dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan, but I think the terms of the surrender we imposed upon them were just wrong.

nor woulod hitler think twice about killing 5 million jews. the targets hit weren't military, the people suffering civilians. 250,000 regular people, killed outright. that's a precedent in human history, given the bombs weren't needed to end the war, according toi just about every officer invovled in the war, and the US strategic bombing survey. the US gov't stance is that the a bombs weren't needed to end the war, that the war was already over. fire bombings, like the US did in Germany, destroying entire cities, could have been carried our over japan with no resistance. the war was over.



dropping 2 atomic bombs on japan was the first act of the cold war, it sent a message to russia. "hey look, we have these awesome bombs, and we're not afraid to use them. never mind how many innocent people die, we don't care!"

 

[Paschendale]

Most of this discussion over the atomic bombing of Japan is based on mistaken fact.

The exact reason, stated by Emperor Hirohito, that he overruled the Japanese cabinet and ended the war was because of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had that bombing not taken place, the next step would have been a land invasion of Japan. The estimated death toll would have been a MILLION American soldiers, and that doesn't take into account the millions of Japanese soldiers and citizens that would have been killed. The dropping of the bombs at the end of WW2 saved millions of lives.

There are erroneous claims in this thread that some kind of aerial battle would have settled things in Japan. This is also untrue. Most Japanese cities had already been bombed with conventional weapons. These attacks did not stop the Japanese ability to make war, nor would more of it have achieved that goal. The Japanese cabinet was set up so that the decision to surrender had to be unanimous. The secretaries of the army and navy flatly refused to stop fighting. The war would not have ended without either direct overruling by the Emperor, or by actual conquest of the country.