Was America Right To Nuke Japan?

World War II revisionism goes mainstream

Tokyo, the morning after its March 1945 firebombing by the US

Tucker Carlson is the most watched news anchor of all time.

His Fox News show was the biggest show of all time, before he was fired for questioning things like ‘election integrity’ and unlimited aid to Ukraine.

His new show on X regularly receives tens of millions of views.

Now, one can dispute and criticise many of Carlson’s views. But what is refreshing is that he admits to getting things wrong, and that he is willing to ask questions, questions that embarrass regime media.

• Why does nobody talk about anti-white racism?

• Are masks child abuse?

• Is the US ruled by perverted degenerates?

This past week, he went even further.

If there is one thing you are really not allowed to criticise and still maintain mainstream credibility, it is the narrative of World War II. (Perhaps evolution too. He also did that. I have presented my scepticism on both, years ago. See here and here.)

But, on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Carlson went so far as to describe American actions during the war as ‘evil’:

Implicit within the above statement is an argument against utilitarianism, the idea that all actions should be assessed by their practical consequences, and not their intrinsic moral qualities or direct aims.

‘Nuking kids saved lives overall, therefore it was good!’

Does that sound right to you?

If it does, it is because of how the bomb changed our view of the world, and what can and should be done in the name of ‘democracy’.

Earlier in the episode, Carlson makes another interesting point about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (from 19.34 to 20.19):

Did dropping a nuclear bomb usher in the age of total secularism and complete the promise offered to Adam and Eve, ‘ye shall be as gods’? More on this later.

Needless to say, Carlson has received vitriolic criticism for questioning the sacred narrative that World War II was some righteous crusade, a story that should forever inform how we organise society or even practise Christian faith. (By casting any notion of blood, faith, and soil as something akin to far-right fascism. Unless you are of certain ethnicities.)

Another media figure who has been increasingly criticised by ‘the right’ is Candace Owens, recently fired from Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire platform for denouncing Israeli actions in Gaza. (Recall Carlson recently interviewed a Christian Palestinian pastor, also to the disdain of Zionists.)

Owens picked up on Carlson’s thoughts here, and went further. What of American and British actions against Germany?

Later, she turned to the firebombing of the German city of Dresden by the British and the American, describing any support of such action as ‘satanic’.

What happened at Dresden?

Over the course of one night of firebombing, the city was largely destroyed, and tens of thousands civilians were incinerated, many of them refugees from the advance of Stalin’s Red Army.

This took place on Ash Wednesday…

It is often forgetted that the equivalent firebombing of Japan (regarded by American officers themselves as prosecutable war crimes should they lose the war), was even more deadly than the nuclear bombs.

From Thomas Fleming’s description of a night raid over Tokyo in his essential book, The New Dealers’ War:

Bombing at altitudes as low as 4,900 feet, the B-29s dropped 1,165 tons of incendiary bombs on an area in which the population density was 135,000 per square mile. Soon a stupendous conflagration—a literal sea of fire—was raging. Rising currents of superheated air almost flung some of the bombers out of control. General Thomas Powers, whose plane flew back and forth over the conflagration throughout the raid, tried to tell himself there was “no room for emotions in war.” But he realized he was seeing something so awful, he would remember it for the rest of his life. On the ground the firestorm devoured everything in its path. The neighborhood fire-fighting associations fled in terror. Most of them did not get very far. Men and women literally caught fire and burned like sticks of wood. Women carrying infants on their backs suddenly realized their babies were on fire. People who retreated to small shelters under houses were roasted alive. Those who took refuge in brick schools and theaters suffered a similar fate. Others who leaped into canals or lakes were boiled to death in the superheated water. In the few deeper shelters, people died en masse of carbon monoxide poisoning when the firestorm consumed the oxygen in the air.

After the last B-29s departed at 3:45 A.M., Tokyo burned for another thirteen hours. Streets became carpeted with charred bodies. Rivers grew choked with corpses. Thousands fled into icy Tokyo Bay and died of hypothermia. The fire was kept alive by a diabolical wind that rose in intensity throughout the day. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that 87,793 Japanese died, 40,918 were injured, and 1,008,005 were dehoused. The specificity of the figures stirs instant skepticism. No one, including the Japanese, knows how many people died. In the days following the raid the authorities collected 69,164 charred mostly unidentifiable corpses. Only 64 were claimed by families and buried privately. The rest were interred in mass graves. General Powers later called the raid “the greatest single disaster incurred by any enemy in military history.”

Owens also pointed out to her 5 million followers on X that it is darkly intriguing that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Christian centres in Japan at the time… More Christians were killed than Japanese soldiers.

What would our ancestors think of that?

Many will argue exactly along the utilitarian lines criticised by Carlson: the bombing was needed to end the war, to save lives that would have been lost if Japan had been invaded, equally that German or Japanese civilian deaths are entirely the fault of their regimes, because their actions necessitated the bombing of civilian centres for industrial reasons.

A few historical points:

It is surely obvious that vast numbers of deaths in German occupied territory, including within the concentration camps, were owing to destruction of supply lines of food and medicine in the country by area and terror bombing.

Second, if it is the case that only the nukes could end the war, why did so many American officials disagree, vehemently, with the decision to drop the bomb?

1. General Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces Under President Truman:

   “It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.”

2. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander during World War II and later President of the USA:

   “During [the Secretary of War’s] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’ The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude.”

3. Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff (highest-ranking member of the military) to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman from 1942 to 1949:

   “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons… The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

What these men knew, was that Japan was trying to surrender. But they had no way of communicating that to the Americans who had cut off all contact.

Many would argue here that Japan’s offer to surrender was not worth taking seriously, because it came with ‘conditions’.

But the notion of ‘unconditional surrender’ was a World War II novelty invented by President Roosevelt. In the vast majority of wars, opposing sides come to some kind of terms, an armistice, precisely to avoid the pointless conflagration that would otherwise take place at the end of every war, even after the losing side knew their cause had become hopeless.

If you give no terms of surrender to an enemy, even an enemy that is already virtually defeated, what will they do but fight on to the bitter end, in barbaric fashion themselves, believing that all that awaits is the salting of their land and the rape of their women?

Fleming again:

On March 25, 1944, General George Marshall and his fellow chiefs of staff submitted a memorandum to Roosevelt, urging “that a reassessment of the formula of unconditional surrender should be made . . . at a very early date.” The chiefs proposed a proclamation that would assure the Germans that the Allies had no desire to “extinguish the German people or Germany as a nation.” Unconditional surrender would be described, not as a policy of vengeance but as a “necessary basis for a fresh start” to a peaceful democratic society. On April 1, 1944, Roosevelt replied with an outburst that revealed as never before his hatred of Germany.

Marshall and the generals knew that ‘unconditional surrender’ would get their own men killed.

In the case of Japan, the tragic irony is that Truman, after the atomic bombs, did offer ‘conditional surrender’. They could retain their Emperor (their chief concern) and their troops could return home after they laid down their weapons. Industries to sustain their economy could be maintained.

Thus, the bombing was ultimately done to demonstrate this new American technological supremacy, not to ‘save lives’. When Truman and his coterie realised that the world would view the bombs as qualitatively different to other acts of war, the justifcation was invented post hoc. After all, without this rationale, how could the Americans prosecute the Nuremberg trials? How could they retain their moral supremacy?

The truth is that America had willingly entered into a new age in the western world, a new age of wars of annihilation, in which whole nations or classes of people came to be considered bearers of ‘ideology’ to be marked for destruction.

(For the below analysis, I lean on the thought of German historian Ernst Nolte.)

This age had begun with the French Revolution and its consequent terror, wherein ‘counter-revolutionary’ elements, notably the clergy, the nobles, and revolutionary elements themselves deemed to be impure, all of which purportedly threatened the ‘general will’ of the grand Year Zero of a new humanity, were to be wiped out.

But society can never remain in permanent revolution and thus Napoleon emerged, picking up the crown of France in the gutter with his sword, and fixing the revolution on himself and his military ambitions.

But a second, darker Jacobinism would return in the form of Marxist-Leninism, a child of the French Revolutionary spirit. With the conflagration of World War I, the death of God, and the end of Europe as had been known prior, ‘scientific socialism’ emerged as a viable system, even as the most obvious system to elites. And if all of history were to culminate in a dictatorship of the proleteriat, if all owners of capital were in essence oppressors and the great obstacle to utopia, bloodshed was the key to unlocking history.

Lenin did not hesitate. Stalin did not hesitate. Millions died. Here is a basic fact alone sufficient to dismatle World War II mythology: Before a shot was fired, the Soviets had killed 10 million people, butchering the royal family, annihilating the kulak class of independent peasants, and ethnically cleansing undesirable people groups.

And it was these people who America and Britain chose to ally with. Before the Nazi camps.

And what would be the result?

Soviet conquest of half of Europe; Maoist conquest of China; Communism and socialism triumphant in vast swathes of Africa, Asia, and South America; and numerous near-misses in nuclear brinksmanship during the decades-long Cold War.

Not to mention that Poland, over whom the war began, after ‘the good war’, after suffering terrible loss that would likely have been avoided if they had simply recognized reality and returned German-speaking territory to the Germans in exchange for protection against the Soviets, would be handed over to Stalin and the Soviet Empire for 40 years.

It will be argued that one must sometimes ‘deal with the devil’ to fight one’s most immediate enemy. Isn’t that a revealing statement made so nonchalantly. The devil?

And it falls apart even on its own terms. How did allying with the Soviets save anybody in the war? The Poles? The Jews? China?

To return to the rise of Bolshevism…

It was inevitable that in opposition to this revolutionary spirit, counter-revolutionary movements would forms.

Action Francaise was the response to radical French republicanism.

Italian Fascism to the threat of communism.

And in synthesis of the above, national socialism in Germany emerged: a violent desire both to restore an ancient Reich and to overleap capitalism. Conservative and revolutionary. And perhaps less ‘nationalistic’ than commonly thought. The rhetoric used was often pan-European, not specifically German, of whose history Hitler was often critical.

(Note: in Germany, ‘socialism’ was not necessary left-wing. The conservative historian, Oswald Spengler, had already proposed ‘Prussian socialism’ as a traditionalist counter both to American capitalism and Marxism.)

Hitler led a cadre of World War I veterans and anti-Communist street fighters who had returned home to see Communist revolts in their cities, in Hungary, and the spectre of Russian invasion from the East, as would be attempted in the 1920s, and stopped by Poland.

My next point is very controversial to say, but let me do it anyway.

I will begin by quoting the ‘great’ Winston Churchill, from his 1920 essay, ‘Zionism versus Bolshevism’:

Bolshevism among the Jews is nothing new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany ), and Emma Goldman (United States)…. this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steady growing…. with the exception of Lenin, the majority of leading figures are Jews.

Churchill had noticed what everybody of his era had: many, but not a majority, of Communists were Jewish. Marx himself was an ethnic Jew. South Africans would think here of the South African Communist Party, and figures like Joe Slovo, Ronnie Kasrils, and Denis Goldberg. Contra Churchill, Lenin’s Jewish ancestry had been historically suppressed.

The Bolsheviks did not believe, ideologically, in dividing society along ethnic lines. (Thus the Communist-influenced ANC opposes the existence of Israel.) Class was primary. But as Churchill himself wrote, it was simply undeniable that many Bolshevik leaders were Jews.

Thus, the National Socialists would, along these same Churchillian lines, conflate the two under the heading of Jewish Bolshevism, to the greatest possible degree.