Hitler Wouldn’t Risk Doomsday, But The United States Did

Sure you were...

We knew Hitler had chosen not to continue with the atom bomb in 1942 and that the Japanese bomb project was stalled because of a shortage of enriched uranium. So you may have believed that but those in positions of power did not. They knew exactly what was going on.

I take your point about the Japanese jumping off the cliff like Lemmings but their civilisation was deeply embedded with the ideals of the Way of the Bushido knights and committing Hara Kiri / Seppuku was regarded as honourably death to restore honour to themselves and their family.

This was wholly alien to us of course. But they saw things differently and were an entirely different society. The Way of the West is to kill and engage in wholesale, industrial slaughter of others - as often as not simply to send a message.

If I were to offer an analysis it would that the time has come for Western civilisation to understand that warfare is not the answer to anything other than inciting it further - which is what America really wants, of course. War is profitable. Hugely so.

If one is a cynic one might conclude that shedding blood has become a ritual requirement for the Western elites. Because they're awfully good at it and that's what they do perennially.

 

What gives America the right to bootstrap any other nation into the Twentieth - or any other - century?

Why should the Persians, who were a cultured civilisation over a thousand years before America even came into existence - pay attention to a young, arrogant and greedy nation that is only able to find solutions that come out of a smoking gun?

Explain please?

 

As far as I am concerned, the likely Japanese resistance was sufficient reason to drop the bombs whether Hitler wanted the bomb or not.

We have been involved in a lot of wars which turned out to be a mistake. WWII was not one of them. Korea, maybe, Vietnam definitely. Not so much because the reasons were wrong, but because of how they were fought. If we are going to get involved in a conflict, we need to go into the conflict with the intent to win. It results in fewer casualties on both sides.

 

There is an old adage about experience. Some people learn from twenty years of experience. Others never learn from one year of experience twenty times. The same applies to Iran. Just because they are an old civilization does not mean they had the right idea.

I worked with some Iranians training in the US with the US Air Force. Most were disappointed they would be going back to Iran with their new government. They appeared to like and respect the Shaw.

 

Sorry that was the Shah's doing. In fact, one of the reasons he was hated by some was because he implemented most of mossadeq's reforms.

 

It was like opening a box of bombs. You never know what you're gonna get.

 

Umm....yes and no. The guy the Shah overthrew, Mossa Degh, was largely guilty of nothing more than wanting Iran to get a fair deal on the literal ocean of oil underneath it and for that he was called a socialist and denied even the ability to have a funeral

 

And a lot of those Japanese were jumping because they had been told that the American tradition of slow cooking had been developed by the Americans on their slaves. It's true that Japanese society has the difficult concept of "face" and yes, if you "lose" it one way to its restoration is through an honorable suicide; one way, and not the only one, and a great deal of their whole society's elaborate codes of etiquette are based on preserving 'face' for both sides. Japanese soldiers marooned on desert islands thought the war was still on because nobody told them different and the Japanese were one of the most tractable populations known after WWII whereas the Germans had "werewolves" operating as late a 1947. This idea that the Japanese are a bunch of fanatical suicide soldiers and angsty teens just itching to anhero at the first opportunity is hogwash

 

Far more there than that he thought girls ought to get an education, that the petty nobility had too much say so and there were a host of other reforms he wished to make.

 

Wow, he really was a socialist then

 

For that part of the world maybe so. But then nothing in that part of the world has the same meaning here as it does there. And that would mean the shah was also a socialist. But as I said the language isn't the same here as it is there.

 

The people calling him a socialist were the British and the Americans. In his part of the world they were calling him a reformer. He wanted to compensate the Nationalized oil cos at a rate of 25%, which is a pretty good return on most any investment in a basic commodity so he wasn't a socialist by any objective measure anywhere in the world.

 

I have argued elsewhere on this forum in the last few days that there is good reason to suppose that the "mistakes" of Korea and Vietnam were very likely also agitated for.

And my persistent view is that we all need to understand war history (or rather foreign affairs, for that's where wars get started) a lot better.

Hence in my view, the problem with your perception about America "getting involved in a conflict" understates the actualite. In most cases the US starts a conflict; it is the real aggressor.

This is the hegemonic empire model that others call war-mongering. Which is why we saw Roosevelt pressure-cooker Japan leading up to their attack on Pearl Harbour (which he and a handful of others knew about in advance and let happen) and he also agitated for the Europeans to start a war with Hitler. Having achieved both wars- and won - these were then typified as "necessary" to save humanity. The victor writes history as we know.

Btw, I do not just point a finger at the US. We Brits agitated for WWI and got it (besides a lot of other wars). And in the 1919 peace process the victorious allies, bloated with arrogance, imposed such harsh restrictions on Germany that this led to WWII.

I regard it as well overdue that history as we know it needs to be urgently re-written from the perspective of stating the real causes of war - until that happens, national elites will continue to manipulate the perceptions of their citizens to go to war to suit the agendas of the elite (who are the only ones who ever benefit form war).

 

I knew an Iranian who was pro Shah too. He specialised in intelligence.

But today if we review the actual history of his regime, almost everybody accepts that he was a horrible and cruel dictator and his secret police the Savak were vile.

Let's remember that it was the US CIA who were responsible for the overthrow of Iran's President Mossadeq in the 1953 coup d'etat (HERE) and another Roosevelt - Kermit, the CIA officer not the sock puppet frog and son of President Roosevelt - was culpable for that too. Thereafter the US imposed the Shah on the Iranian people as their puppet (so maybe the sock puppet Kermit was involved?) - thus ensuring bitter ongoing rivalry ever since.

 

Can we please deal with reality? The Shah was hated because he was America's puppet from day one. They put him in power. name me any tyrant in history that answers to a foreign nation who is loved in his own country?

 

Ignorance for the win. He nationalized Iranian oil just as Mossadeq wanted to do. And whether you like it or not in the Middle east of that period you were either a Soviet Puppet or a US puppet and as a general rule the US was far and away the more benign and less demanding of the two.

 

Well mainly the Brits, we were using their intelligence because we had none of our own, South Central Asia did not become a big deal for us until much later. And Sorry Socialist doesn't necessarily mean Russian stooge then or now.

 

Was Mossa Degh a Russian stooge? Even if he was we worked with lots of Russian stooges, then AND now. And no, I don't want to argue our foreign policy from 1953, but I do think we should understand its effects on Iran now. The Iranian people recognize that change is needed and they should act now, but ANY solution that even seems American backed is going to make our problems there even worse and the Mullahs appear to understand that and use it in their favor

 

You mean the failed coup of Hatanaka Kenji?

OK, if the coup would have had success, it would have been difficult to end it this way ... but you know that the Red army was rushing through Japanese territory and this was something the US didnÄt expect and wanted?

Anyway ... you know the story of the 3rd Atomic bomb?

P.S.
I am German and I have a mster degree in history ... so please come not in a arrogant way to me like "history is bad taught" ... even my area of main interest is before WW-2, I know much!

 

The Day That The USA Invaded Russia And Fought The Red Army

U.S. soldiers Vladivostok, August 1918.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/wo...ed-russia-and-fought-with-the-red-army-x.html

 

You clearly have knowledge. Which is probably why you have not challenged any specific point from my post.

You say that the US did not expect the Soviet military to advance quickly through "Japanese territory". I assume you mean Japanese held territory in Manchuria - China.
Why would that have been a surprise?

 

Actually that is an oversimplification. American backed isn't the issue, modernity is the issue. America to much of the world is modernity on steroids, and modernity means change and that sort of change scares the crap out of people.

 

I would agree with that in 1950 or even 1960 but not today and particularly not in Iran. Iran's leaders are reactionaries and use that to rule, no question, but Iran's people are among the most forward thinking there are and have been so since Persia was a world suzerain millenia gone. America OTOH has been sliding back to the status of provincial backwater ever since we turned our backs on secular modernism and globalist enlightenment after the Republican victory of 2000

 

Are you sure I am mistaken?

"The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history titled The Battle for Iran.

Advertisement




The documents, published on the archive's website under freedom of information laws, describe in detail how the US – with British help – engineered the coup, codenamed TPAJAX by the CIA and Operation Boot by Britain's MI6.

Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.

British documents show how senior officials in the 1970s tried to stop Washington from releasing documents that would be "very embarrassing" to the UK.

Official papers in the UK remain secret, even though accounts of Britain's role in the coup are widespread. In 2009 the former foreign secretary Jack Straw publicly referred to many British "interferences" in 20th-century Iranian affairs. On Monday the Foreign Office said it could neither confirm nor deny Britain's involvement in the coup.

The previously classified US documents include telegrams from Kermit Roosevelt, the senior CIA officer on the ground in Iran during the coup. Others, including a draft in-house CIA history by Scott Kock titled Zendebad, Shah! (Viva, Shah!), say that according to Monty Woodhouse, MI6's station chief in Tehran at the time, Britain needed US support for a coup. Eden agreed. "Woodhouse took his words as tantamount to permission to pursue the idea" with the US, Kock wrote."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

The Savak was a brutal instrument of oppression which tortured and murdered with the complete approval and even assistance of the US.:

"The Shah systematically dismantled the judicial system of Iran and the country's guarantees of personal and social liberties. His regime consistently violated the codes of law and justice, destroying the dignity of our people by treating them like backward savages to be pulled with an iron hand out of the middle ages into the light of the modern era. Nearly every source of creative, artistic and intellectual endeavor in our culture was suppressed.

The media said little about the 80 percent of peasant families remaining landless, about the growing shanty towns holding the displaced peasants, the misery and alienation of these people ripped from their traditional way of life and subject to new economic and cultural pressures.

The media had less to say about the 60 per cent of adults left illiterate, and the increasing income gap which made Iran one of the world's most unequal societies. Little was heard about the royal family's financial scandals and their heroin smuggling on a global scale.

SAVAK conducted most of the torture, under the friendly guidance of the CIA. which set up SAVAK in 1957 and taught them how to interrogate suspects. Amnesty International reports methods of torture that included "whipping and beating, electric shocks, extraction of teeth and nails, boiling water pumped into the rectum, heavy weights hung on the testicles, tying the prisoner to a metal table heated to a white heat, inserting a broken bottle into the anus, and rape."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1979/12/6/life-under-the-shah-pit-was/

Try as you like to whitewash the record the CIA's own history tells the story as it becomes declassified. Iran was only the beginning of the CIA's dirty covert wars for resources and political gain around the globe. The record in central and south America is even worse and more depressing.

 

So does avarice, greed, militarism and the violence you and your proxies allies to the ME and around the world as you flood the world with industrial weapons of death and wage war on the wretched of the Earth for your own crass, imperialism and disregard for the death throes of a planet that is dying under the weight of the human race.