Hiroshima Day

70 Years And Counting (Towards What, I don't Know)

This time of year always gets a little hairy with Hiroshima Day and Nagasaki Day and VJ day all coming within days of another. It gives you a sense how hurried the end of WWII was, back in 1945. Still, I try to shut out the commentary on what it means today because frankly, it's been 70years. I don't know how to break it to people, but 70years is history. It should be awarded some more objectivity than rehashed propaganda, but of course that's not what we get.

I was driving over to my parents place and on Drive with Richard Glover was Geraldine Doogue and Lisa Wilkinson. Richard Glover - a witty bastard any day of the week, respect - asked with a serious tone, whether dropping the bomb was worth it. Geraldine Doogue's answer gave me the shits. Essentially, she quoted some historian who wanted to know why we talk about the dead of Hiroshima more than the 25million victims of the Japanese military aggression; and the fact the Japanese were willing to fight to the death justified dropping the bomb, so doing so saved lives; and this makes it justifiable. Lisa Wilkinson thought that the point of wars was being a bigger bastard than the other guy, and so America was willing to be the biggest baddest bastard and that explained the bomb.

Central to this construction is this ongoing myth that the two bombs brought about the Unconditional Surrender of Japan. I say myth because I've read a fair deal of the meetings held by the Five Ministers in front of the Emperor. The Imperial Conferences were an abbreviated briefing of the Emperor to short circuit the need to have cabinet meetings followed by reports to the Imperial Palace. Obviously it evolved out of the necessity because the war situation changed so quickly and so often it was easier to have the Emperor in the room to rubber stamp decisions. It also meant the Emperor had to sit and listen to the ministers ague.

The five Ministers at the Imperial Conferences were the Prime Minister, the Army Minister, the Navy Minister, the Finance Minister and the Foreign Minister. By early August 1945, these meetings were fairly desultory. Kantaro Suzuki was the Prime Minister, a retired Admiral, who was charged by the Emperor Hirohito to bring the war to an "honourable end". Those thing are pretty hard to get when you're getting spanked, but nonetheless, that was his job.

There are transcripts and reports of these meetings. The Navy Minister was Mitsumasa Yonai, an admiral who was later exonerated at the Tokyo Trials; and the Army minister was Korechika Anami, who argued the line that the people of Japan were willing to die to the man, and so the only honourable end to the war was where everybody died for the Emperor. You can imagine how the Emperor might have felt about that, waiting to rubber stamp that horrible decision.

On the morning of the 6th of August 1945, they were having yet another one of these meetings. There is an interruption where it is reported that a new bomb has been dropped on Hiroshima and devastated the city with one blast. And it barely registers with the Five Ministers. I've read that passage at least four or five times and it is indiscernible that this new - earth shattering even - information affected the discussion. The sticking point in all of these meetings in August was what "subject to" meant in the Potsdam Declaration that demanded the unconditional surrender.

If the Allies meant "subject to" in general, then sure, that is what a surrender is; but if they meant "subject to"  as in the Emperor was going to be turned into a personal slave of Douglas MacArthur, then every Japanese person ought to die fighting to prevent such an outcome. Yes, it's weird, but this is what happens when things get lost in translation. So these grown men argued in front of the Emperor interminably while the cities were burnt by carpet bombings. And they kept arguing right on for another 4days like this, past not only the Hiroshima bombing but the Nagasaki bombing as well.

They were holding out hope that either Sweden or the USSR would step in as neutrals to broker a peace. Unbelievable as it sounds, that was the project being pursued by the Foreign Ministry in the first part of 1945. This scenario fell apart when the USSR advanced troops into Manchuria, breaking its Non-Aggression Pact with Japan on the 10th August. This was the news that changed the meetings.

There's a lot that could be said about Stalin, the USSR and its role in World War II, but I'll leave that for the serious historians writing about it. If there is one thing that is irrevocably clear is that Stalin's betrayal closed the books on Japan's war. by the 11th, the Japanese leaders made the executive decision to surrender to the Americans in the hope that Japan won't be overrun by communism (this too is a very big topic which I won't go into). Hirohito rubber-stamped that one quickly according to the Kido Diaries.

The point of all this is that it most definitely wasn't the two Atomic blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively that prompted the surrender of Japan. And without that bit of justification, it is impossible to argue that dropping the two atomic bombs "saved lives". Yet the myth lives on because it is harder to live with the awful likelihood that the two atomic bombs were dropped on civilian population centres for nothing but absolutely gratuitous effect. I'm sure this is why Geraldine Doogue wants to hold tightly to the myth that the two atomic bombs were meaningful in history, that they saved lives by stopping the war. Uh, sorry, but no. It just ain't true.

In a perfect world, I would want the two bombs to be meaningful in a positive way. That they are not meaningful in the way that people want it to assuage their moral egos, does not take anything away significance from the event in history.  What I will say is this; it's been 70years since. I'm willing to let it slide into history. I ask not for tears to be shed for the civilians who copped it sweet, nor for revenge or retaining the grievances. I just want us to move past the bullshit propaganda that seeks to cast the bombings in a positive light. If you really want to come to terms with the events, that's the price.

No Nuance, No Peace

All of which is to say it really got my goat. What was said by Geraldine Doogue, was deeply offensive. If you can justify civilian casualties to end the war because that saves lives, you may as well make no distinctions as to who gets killed in a war and why. It's so Orwellian it's not funny.

Let's say for the moment you can justify bombing civilians because it ends wars (Doogue's argument, not mine). That would mean we would be free to bomb as many people as long as what came after the bombing was peaceful. We wouldn't have a leg to stand on in arguing against the Hanoi bombings by Richard Nixon, which of course was as unjust as they come, but all Nixon wanted to do was end the war once and for all. The Nazis bombed London, and that would be justifiable because they too were trying to end the war (by winning the Battle of Britain). We wouldn't be able to complain about collateral damage and civilian deaths resulting from Drone strikes, or the carpet bombing of Iraq using B-52s during 'Shock & Awe'.

And if you're allowed to bomb civilians to death - because it would end the war sooner to do so - then surely killing them en masse on the ground should be fine as well. Things like the 1995 Srebrenica massacre would not be war crimes, they would just attempts to bring the end of the war closer.

It's war. There is no "alright" kind of position to take on the state-sponsored violence that is war. If Geraldine Doogue wants to justify the state-sponsored violence carried out in her favour, then she's going to have to deal with arguments that justify state-sponsored violence carried out against her side. That means she has to support the case that the Nazis were right in wiping out civilian populations the Eastern Front, or that Russian pogroms were good; or that the Killing Fields of Cambodia were somehow good because they brought about peace in Cambodia.
Clearly it's an unenlightened position to hold.

The joke of course is that Doogue probably believes some of these examples are War Crimes. In which case she's essentially arguing War Crimes are justifiable if they take place in her favour, but not at any other time. It's this kind of exceptionalism that makes me sick to the gut talking about Word War II.

Not How You Do It

Elections, Iranian Style

The country that offered up in no particular order, Ayatollah Khomeini; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; Theocracy in the 21st Century;  the worst cuisine in the world; is undergoing elections. Of course, this being Iran, the news coming out is hilariously disjointed.

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's interior ministry said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took nearly 70 percent of the early votes counted, but his pro-reform rival countered that he was the clear victor and warned of possible fraud in the election.

The dispute rose up even before polls closed early Saturday, heightening tensions across the capital where emotions have been running at a fever pitch. Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reformist candidate, suggested he might challenge the results.

The messy and tense outcome capped a long day of voting — extended for six hours to accommodate a huge turnout. It raised worries that Iran's Islamic establishment could use its vast powers to pressure backers of Mousavi.
During the voting, text messages were blocked — a key campaign tool for reformers — as well as some pro-Mousavi Web sites. Security officials warned they would not tolerate political gatherings or rallies before the final results were known.

Even before the first vote counts were released, Mousavi held a news conference to declare himself "definitely the winner" based on "all indications from all over Iran." But he gave nothing more to back up his claim and alleged widespread voting irregularities without giving specifics — suggesting he was ready to challenge the final results.

Moments after Mousavi spoke, however, Iran's state news agency reported that Ahmadinejad was the victor. The report by the Islamic Republic News Agency also gave no details.
With more than 15 million votes counted, Ahmadinejad had 67.7 percent and Mousavi had 30.3 percent, said Kamran Daneshjoo, a senior officials with the Interior Ministry, which oversees the voting.

It was not reported whether the results were from locations considered Ahmadinejad strongholds or where Mousavi hoped to make headway.

The turnout was not immediately known, but election officials had predicted a possible record among the 46.2 million eligible voters.

That's a lot of voters. It's always a bad sign when 2 candidates go to the polls and both claim victory. Reminds you of Al Gore and GWBush? Of course, this being Iran, the theocracy gets to have the final say and they will pick the Holocaust-denying Nuke-building demagogue that is Mr. Ahmadinejad.

I guess Iranian elections are much like their western counterparts, a kind of punch and judy show fronting for the industrial interests of their country.

Succession North Korean Style

Here's an interesting column about the North Korean transfer of leadership from Kim Jong-Il to his 26year old son.

On June 2, it was reported that 26-year-old Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-il's youngest son, would succeed his father as North Korean leader, probably this fall at the end of a 150-day "struggle" period. Shortly before the "struggle" began, Pyongyang engaged in a series of provocative acts. On April 5, North Korea illegally launched a long range missile under the guise of a satellite test. On April 16, Pyongyang expelled United Nations nuclear inspectors before taking steps to begin processing uranium at the Yongbyon nuclear facility. On May 25, as the struggle period reportedly began, the North tested a nuclear weapon and test-fired three short-range, ground-to-air and ground-to-ship ballistic missiles.

This reminds us of the 70-day campaign Kim Jong-il directed in 1974 as part of his transition to senior leadership. The struggle then was economic, and it resulted in Kim Jong-il being awarded the title of Hero of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a glory that is likely to be seen in the younger Mr. Kim's future. The recent provocative acts are no doubt tied to the transition as a means of solidifying support for the regime among the party apparatus and giving the young Mr. Kim some needed bona fides for assuming the top post.

I think they're ripe for another parody by the South Park boys. The Axis of evil is more like the Axis of bad governments.

Here's an interesting interview with one of Kim's sons.  If you watch the video, it's amazing how much of regular dude this son of Kim appears. Very disconcerting in that he at least has probably watched 'Team America' and understood it very well.

"Die Hans Brix!"

Team North Korea

Every few years, North Korea surfaces from the sludge of international relations to rattle its sabre and detonate half baked nukes and fire inaccurate missile tests. It's quite a joke really if it weren't for the fact that Kim Jong-Il seems pretty serious about his threats and nobody is willing to march in to North Korea to get themselves some regime-change-a-la-Iraq.

Thus it's always a bad time when North Korea decides to announce that it's detonated its second nuclear test, total contravention of anything discussed in the Six Nations talk. The Six Nations which include the 2 Koreas, China, Russia America and Japan have so far pleaded and begged and bribed with North Korea to stop its nuclear weapons program, but when they go and set off a 20kiloton nuke in a test, it's time for some diplomatic strife.

These fireworks follow the launch in April of a three-stage rocket over Japan and the Pacific. Until that point, it was still possible to argue that increasingly belligerent rhetoric from Mr Kim’s regime was just his way of catching the attention of President Barack Obama’s new administration. The pariah state had long said it wanted an accommodation with the United States that guaranteed its security. But engagement with the outside world now looks near the bottom of its priorities.

North Korea also says it has torn up the truce that ended the Korean war in 1953. This was provoked, it says, by South Korea’s decision to join the American-led Proliferation Security Initiative, a group that aims to block shipments of weapons of mass destruction and related contraband. South Korea was reacting to Mr Kim’s nuclear test; North Korea accused it of a “declaration of war”. With American and South Korean troops put on a higher alert, some kind of military clash looks possible.

North Korea has also said it is restarting its plutonium reprocessing plant at Yongbyon, closed since 2007 as part of a disarmament deal negotiated with America, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia. International nuclear inspectors have been kicked out of the country. There is also concern that North Korea will resume selling nuclear technology abroad.

Earlier this month North Korea told South Korean managers at the Kaesong industrial complex, not long ago seen as a symbol of warming ties on the peninsula, that they must sign new, costlier contracts for North Korean workers, or pack up and go. The chief North Korean negotiator of closer relations between North and South, once a confidant of Mr Kim, is rumoured to have been sent to a labour camp and even shot, possibly for taking bribes.

It's an ongoing joke. Like the warlords of Afghanistan, Kim Jong-Il makes his money dealing Heroin. They sell arms to dictators in Africa, they deal in black diamonds and whatever portable wealth while their population is starving. The regime is repressive to the point of cruelty, and the people are totally brain-washed in to supporting this system because dear leader allegedly makes it so good. It's like a whole nation that's been held captive by a cult of personality trying to build an on-going dynastic system like some medieval king. And the fact that the rest of the 21st Century world actually has to take this nation more seriously because of its serious nuclear ambition is truly pathetic.

But deal with them we must.

Nobody seems to have a plan on how to get North Korea to quit being North Korea as it were. Are they merely essentially fucked up? Or is it that they work hard to be so fucked up? Or is that they get immense help and encouragement to be so fucked up?

The Chinese are too invested in having the nation as a bulwark ally facing off the ...err... capitalist West at the 38th Parallel instead of on its own borders. It's not unlike the anxiety Russia has about the Ukraine wanting to join NATO. China doesn't ant North Korea to be absorbed into South Korea because suddenly the running dogs of the Capitalist West would be at their doorstep across the Yalu River.

Remember Douglas MacArthur's great plan to drop 8 nukes north of that river to create a no-mans land forever which would keep the Chinese out of the Korean peninsula? Yes, the plan that got him sacked by Truman. It sure looks prescient today, if only because dealing with the Kim Regime in both its generations has been like pulling teeth without anaesthetics - a medieval sort of problem. That's the Yalu River for you.

Perhaps we're lucky that Truman's notion of no further nuclear wars prevailed. China and Russia are still talking to the rest of the world, if with their own strategic concerns being their bug bears. That being said, most of these strategic concerns are a bit silly if it means in the case of Russia, the Ukraines cannot get energy supplies and in the case of North Korea, it continues the aggravation of this nuclear threat. And seeing that the Cold War is long over, you wonder why they let these Cold War Era politics continue locally to the detriment of their own reputations. I guess you can put this down to bloody-mindedness.

If it ever comes down to a military solution, it's going to have to be China that digs out the Kims from their bunkers, and not the USA or the West or their allies in the far east. If nukes ever get exchanged, then you'd have to say MacArthur had it right in 1951.