Isegoria

Have you ever read Hitler’s declaration of war against the US? A commenter at Foseti’s asked that, and I immediately realized how odd it is that we don’t read any such primary sources in school.

The declaration goes along with a long speech:

With regard to Germany’s relationship with America, the following should be said:

1. Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and particularly the United States, has only benefited.

2. In the entire history of the development and existence of the United States, the German Reich has never been hostile or even politically unfriendly towards the United States. To the contrary, many Germans have given their lives to defend the USA.

3. The German Reich has never participated in wars against the United States, except when the United States went to war against it in 1917. It did so for reasons that have been thoroughly explained by a commission [a special U.S. Senate investigating committee, 1934-1935, chaired by Sen. Gerald Nye], which president Roosevelt himself established [or rather, endorsed]. This commission to investigate the reasons for America’s entry into the [First World] war clearly established that the United States entered the war in 1917 solely for the capitalist interests of a small group, and that Germany itself had no intention to come into conflict with America.

Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between the American and German nations that could possibly involve the existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its naturally ordained sphere.

America is a republic led by a president with wide-ranging powers of authority. Germany was once ruled by a monarchy with limited authority, and then by a democracy that lacked authority. Today it is a republic of wide-ranging authority. Between these two countries is an ocean. If anything, the differences between capitalist America and Bolshevik Russia, if these terms have any meaning at all, must be more significant than those between an America led by a President and a Germany led by a Führer.

It is a fact that the two historical conflicts between Germany and the United States were stimulated by two Americans, that is, by Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, although each was inspired by the same forces. History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a pledge [notably, Wilson's "14 points"]. The result was the ruin of national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic ruin.

After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine the factors behind the current developments.

First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family, and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson’s shadow [as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called upper ten thousand.

After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is, from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class, Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its entire history.

Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party, which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The “brain trust” that served the new American president was made up of members of the same national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.

And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were 13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the spreading economic depression could not be stopped.

From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15 people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously increased his country’s national debt, devalued the dollar, further disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.

The list of grievances goes on and on.

Foseti wonders what FDR’s foreign policy aims were:

As best I can determine, FDR went into the war with basically no war aims. After a while, he seems to have settled on two:

1) Totally destroying Germany and Japan (he was the first to public state the demand for unconditional surrender). I’ve read that he seems to have even considered breaking Germany back up into principalities.

2) Ending European colonialism as quickly as possible.

Both of these aims were, retrospectively, terrible.

The first served to make the Soviets the (by far) most dominant power in Europe and Asia. It left the US alone to provide any meaningful resistance in both theaters.

The second enticed the Soviets to further expand into the third world and has led to disastrous results which continue into modern times (Egypt, for example, is still struggling for stability and has rarely if ever been a better place to live following the end of colonialism — the list of course is much longer — think of all the subsequent bloodshed in the Middle East or India and Pakistan).

He certainly seems to have wanted war with Japan, commenter Red notes, citing the fact that Admiral James O. Richardson, Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, was relieved of command in February 1941 for protesting their redeployment to Pearl Harbor, which he felt was vulnerable to a surprise attack.

I’ve posted far more about Imperial Japan than I realized:

• FDR’s Lessons from WWI
• A Surprise of Capability
• Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?
• Why did Japan surrender?
• Crimes of Conscience
• Why didn’t the US attack Japan through the North Pacific?
• American Caesar or Worst General Ever?
• The Ten Ships
• War Plan Orange
• Russia’s Other Great Victory
• Learning to Learn to Fight
• Kamikaze Math
• Robert E. Howard and the Pacific Fleet
• Happy Isoroku Yamamoto Appreciation Day

Toru Hashimoto, Mayor of Osaka and co-leader of the Japan Restoration party, recently made some comments that were summarized by the mainstream media in customary fashion.

Spandrell provides his own translation of Hashimoto’s remarks:

As a result of losing the war, Japan has to accept that what it did is considered aggression. That’s what it means to lose a war. That’s not an issue with China and Korea, it’s an issue with all the victors of the war. If you deny that Japan was an aggressor, you have to start a world war again and win it. That’s ridiculous.

As a defeated nation, Japan must accept to be deemed the aggressor. Of those who deny that Japan was an aggressor, there are many who value Bushido. Well, a defeat is a defeat. You have to accept it graciously. And it’s also a fact that we caused great suffering and damage on our neighbouring countries. We have to reflect, and apologize.

As part of that, Japan can’t just say, it’s been 70 years since our defeat, now we’re even. The appraisal of the victims and third parties is important. The solution must come from Japan’s behavior and time.

Having this big principle in mind, still there are important misunderstandings that are causing Japan to be unduly insulted, and we must respond to them. And we also have to have a proper understanding of the historical conditions of the time. That is not to rationalize our conduct, but to avoid undue insults.

The fact that through aggression and colonial rule, we caused great damage and suffering to our neighbouring countries, as a defeated nation, we must accept, reflect and apologize. However, the fact is the powers of that time all had colonial possessions. And on the comfort women system, the fact is all the militaries around the world had systems to cope with the sexual urges of their soldiers.

Obviously, the fact that it was OK back then, doesn’t mean it should be applied today. However, we should understand properly the conditions of the time. Not to rationalize our conduct, but to avoid undue insults.

The fact that humans, and especially men, need a way to cope with their sexual urges is an undeniable fact. In modern society this is mainly done through marriage, or through relationships, but in other historical periods, there were other ways. It is a fact that in countries other than Japan, the unmet sexual urges of soldiers were met through a system of comfort women.

The criticism that the world is making about Japan’s comfort women system, is because it is presumed that Japan, as a matter of national policy, went around kidnapping women with violence and extortion and forcing them into being comfort women. I am not a historian, so I do not know all the specific facts, but on a 2007 Diet resolution, it was established that there is no evidence behind that allegation.

Of course if evidence were to come out we should apologize, but as of now, the government official position is that there is no such evidence. Some days ago, a resolution was made about some new evidence that might come up soon. That’s why people go on saying that there were forceful kidnappings, and related organizations should go on collecting evidence.

There was an incident about Japanese soldiers in Indonesia forcing Dutch women into prostitution. That is obviously unacceptable. This incident in particular went on a war crimes trial and death sentences were pronounced. If you asked me today whether comfort women were good or bad, well of course I don’t think they were a good thing, but if you look at all other countries in the world, it’s a fact that they all had ways of coping with sexual urges of their soldiers.

There are many ways of coping. You can use the local brothels, you can set have the military administer the brothels like Japan did. When the US military invaded Japan, the Japanese government set up the Recreational and Amusement Association (RAA). I am sorry for those who became comfort women against their will. Administrators might have lied to women when hiring them.

That’s part of the tragedy of war and that’s why we shouldn’t go to war. Just because reparations have been legally addressed between Korea and Japan, it’s not becoming of a politician to shut up old comfort women with legalese. Even if the legal problems have been addressed, there are other ways of speaking and dealing with people.

But it is also an undeniable fact that there is no evidence to say that Japan, as a matter of national policy, went around kidnapping Korean women and forcing them into prostitution. If the world is misunderstanding the issue, Japan must speak out to avoid being unduly insulted. I mean, bringing the US into the picture isn’t fair. USA has always denounced prostitution, even today.

But it’s still a fact that in the surroundings of US military bases, the sex industry flourishes. When the US invasion army arrived, Japan set up the RAA. But McArthur’s GHQ banned it. Nonetheless, private prostitution flourished. Even if you officially ban it, the fact is the soldier’s sexual urges don’t go away. You need to think of ways of coping with that.

When I recommended the commanding officer at Futenma base to use the local sex industry, I didn’t mean for him to do anything illegal. According to Asahi Shinbun, the US military spokesman said “We wouldn’t do anything illegal, Hashimoto is ridiculous”. What I told him was to use the legal sex industry. To stop being a phony.

[Prostitution is illegal in Japan since McArthur, but officially only penetration is illegal, and there are tons of different venues where you can get every tiny different sexual service you can think of. That's why there's a sex industry, but not prostitution. Legally, of course. ]

The US military forbids its personnel to use even the legal sex industry. Even if you ban them from suing it, their sexual urges don’t just go away. If US soldiers use the local sex industry, not necessarily it would solve the sex crimes they commit in Okinawa. We haven’t proved any causation. But please just stop with the Victorian facade.

Thing is instead of dealing seriously with human’s sexual urges, they just close their eyes. Even in developed countries, it happens that women do that kind of work against their will. We must fight that. But in Japan, people are free to chose their profession, so why do you deny the sex industry?

As I see it, to denounce the legal sex industry in Japan, is discrimination against the women who chose to work there. There is no problem whatsoever in US military personnel making use of the japanese sex industry.

The ideological cause of the Benghazi bungles was ideological blindness, Jim points out:

The attack on the Benghazi embassy was not a terrorist attack. It was a conventional military operation by the uniformed and well equipped troops of an organization that frequently engages in terrorist attacks. They used truck mounted artillery, not box cutters, and were dressed as Al Qaeda armed forces, not civilians. If you cannot say “War with Dar al-Islam”, or even say “War with Radical Islam”, you cannot see Islamic armed forces.

No one seems able to say “uniformed”. They say that they were wearing “Afghan costumes”. But no one in Libya wears “Afghan” costumes except armed forces affiliated with Al Qaeda, thus the costumes clearly identify them as members of an organized military force, which is the Geneva Convention definition of a military uniform.

So Al Qaeda launched a conventional military attack on the US government, and the US government refused to fight back. That was scandal one. Scandal two was that the US government proceeded to lie about it, to fit it into what they wanted to believe, rather than what actually happened. Hence the cover story that the attack was a demonstration related to a video critical of Mohammed — that it was outraged civilians, or perhaps terrorists hiding amongst outraged civilians and using them as human shields.

This lie was not only intended to cover up the first scandal, but to enable them to continue to believe in a worldview that had been falsified by events. They lied to themselves, as well as to their opponents.