anotherview Loc: California

Maybe your assessment accounts for Mr. Trump's slogan: Make America Great Again.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

It is hard to second guess history. Decisions were made based on multiple factors and in the heat of the moment. Another factor for domestic consumption was the need to justify the tremendous cost of the Manhattan Project. In recent years polls have shown that more and more Americans are questioning the use of the bombs. I think that is a good thing, given that we all hope that they are never used again. I'm glad Obama did not apologize, because that would have played right into the hands of the still-strong Japanese nationalists. Japan has been shameful in coming to terms with its actions in the 30s-40s, and the general Japanese populace is therefore alarmed at Abe's drive towards remilitarization, fearing that they may again become cannon-fodder for someone's ambitions. I fault the Japanese for never standing strong in their own convictions; always going along meekly with the decisions of those in power. In that at least, America is an example in citizen participation.

But at the same time I am glad that Obama went and acknowledged the tremendous destructivity of nuclear weapons. I personally see this as very positive in healing a wound that will hopefully allow the Japanese people to look more closely at their actions and how they led to the dropping of those bombs.

I have been working for a German company for more than two decades now, and I have great admiration for their courage in facing what they did at that time. It has given them a real moral compass--they judge each of their actions in reference to the darkness they know is resident in them, and try to make sure that nothing they do will ever lead to its reawakening.

The truth is, in my view, that such darkness exists in us all, and we should all see to it that we do not let it rule us in extreme times, or persuade us that we should follow it with arguments that seem reasonable. I very much agree with Nietzsche when he said "Who fights monsters much take care that in so doing they do not become monsters themselves." Like anything else, it is easier to see it in others than in ourselves. If you look at German history, you will see that the rise of National Socialism came at a time of great duress, when crushing reparations mandated by the Treaty of Versailles was threatening the very existence of the German state. People literally needed bags of reichsmarks to buy a loaf of bread. National Socialism was only one of hundreds of grassroots radical movements struggling to gain power with a populace which was looking for strength to restore some semblance of order, normalcy and prosperity. And that led from one thing to another, step by small step, until the country was nearly destroyed. I'm not trying to justify what they did, but I do wish to understand how human beings can embrace such destructivity, and the answer seems to be that when people's daily lives are threatened, they will embrace extreme solutions if no others seem to exist.

I happen to love the United States. I have been in enough places around the world to see its strengths and beauties, and there are many. However what I see is that many of those strengths and privileges are a result of its economic might, which is partly a result of the leverage it employs around the world based on its power. To some extent America has enjoyed what it has by taking from others who could not defend their interests. Now the balance of power is changing, and other countries are asserting themselves in ways that the US cannot counter as easily as when the world was simply bipolar. So America's leverage is waning, and much too much energy is wasted in internal political conflict that could be used in improving the daily life of the people. I just hate to see the noble ideals on which the US was founded being compromised once the going gets tough--and it is tough and will get tougher.

Speaking personally, I am distressed that the American people, having no precedent like the Germans had, do not see that they too, under duress, could fall into the same kind of trap that the Germans did. One could arguably say that the Iraq adventure was a taste of that; based on false motives, whose effects were destabilizing and resulted in over one hundred thousand deaths and counting, as well as costing the US trillions of dollars with no good return. However the US did not lose any world wars, and does not need to listen to the international court of opinion. As times get tougher, there will be ever more adventures, each one justified in some way or another. I am in no way saying "down with the US!" or suggesting that the country accede to the grandiose nationalist ambitions of other countries such as China, of which I am well aware. I am saying that we must clearly see our actions and their effects in the context of human lives, and hold to that as we chart or course in the coming stormy seas. Let us do as little damage as possible, because damage to others always eventually means damage to ourselves.

We have come pretty far afield from photography. I came back here to post because I was accused of cowardice by one member. I have stated my case, and I leave it to you to judge whether anything I have said is useful or true. And I will say in closing that however much I may disagree with certain policies of the US, I will ever give it credit and honor for allowing me to state my opinion. This ultimately is the only hope for the world: that everyone's voice is heard and respected, regardless of whether one agrees with that voice or not.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

That is certainly what I think. I'd like to see America great again, but how about some realistic proposals for doing so? People are hurting, and they want the pain to stop. They don't want to hear that they have to grin and bear it. But the US is not the only game in town, and others also have to be considered. For me the equation is very simple: when the pain of not doing anything exceeds the pain of doing something, people will act. It is important that that action be what Buddhists call "right action". I am not a Buddhist, but I do believe in karma--"what goes around comes around".

SteveR Loc: Michigan

kymarto....You've been around the world, and you probably understand WHY people want to come to the United States....because there IS the opportunity of making a better life. My Grandparents did. They came from Italy over 100 years ago. My Grandfather worked first on the railroad, then in the coal mines of W.Va., where my Grandparents raised a a family of nine, until moving to Dearborn, Michigan where he worked for Ford. All of their children were able to live the middle class life due to their belief in education. It's here to take, kymarto. The people of the world would all love the opportunities and the lifestyle that the U.S. provides. The Asians seem to have it figured out. It's there for the taking, and to a great extent it comes down to personal responsibility.

RKH Loc: Bay Area CA

Thank you for an open discussion about A Bombs on Japan. Hope that we will never see it in use again. Yes, America is a great country. She should mind her business more at home than aboard.

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

Thanks for the interesting post, something we don't see normally. Approximately how far away were you from the action?

anotherview Loc: California

Exactly: "It is hard to second guess history. Decisions were made based on multiple factors and in the heat of the moment."

Further, we all have to live with the consequences of such decisions in their aftermath. Obviously, some will review momentous activity in hindsight. Some will move on as if switching television channels. Students later will learn about it as a subject on which they face a test and receive a grade, quickly forgetting the subject. Professionals will chew on the facts and information available at the time to offer views, critical and popular, while promoting their careers. Politicians and diplomats will summarize matters for general consumption. Intellectuals will step over graves in order to give some meaning to the vast expenditure of resources, financial, material, and human.

An overview, which I take unfinessed, tells us President Truman made a decisive war-ending decision. I do so in accord with a maxim: War necessitates and justifies extreme measures. Only a maxim like this one can account for the astronomical number of war-dead, both military and civilian, that resulted from warring activity in the 20th Century.

This maxim leaves morality aside. After all, no useful moral opinion can possibly address all that took place resulting in the loss of human life numbering in the tens of millions. Maybe as Nietzsche said we all became monsters here -- willing or not.

Another maxim arises: War means suffering and death minus morality. This maxim addresses the actuality of conflict as we have experienced it.

By this actuality, I believe we can say as to the significance of war that overall it presents no human good. Thus, war cannot contribute to human happiness. Nations go to war anyhow simply out of perceived necessity.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I was a good 100 meters (yards more or less) away. The normal press was only allowed on the west access road, well away from the action--those all those super teles. There were White House people up very close, as well as some Japanese press and pool positions. Some were literally at the base of the podium, often getting in my shot...

What is really funny is that after all I went through, not a single frame of my material was used. The pool, shot by AP, was in so much better a position, that almost everyone used their material exclusively. People like me are often only in place to shoot live shots of a correspondent talking to camera. In my case, my correspondent was shut out by a twist of fate. He had to do live reports at 13:05, 14:05 and 15:05. As it turns out, the security check for the entrance started at 13:00, so it was impossible for us to be inside and set up for 13:05. Because of the long delay in the security line, 14:05 was also impossible. He decided to do the the 15:05 also outside at the live position set up by Eurovision, but that meant that he could not come in for the ceremony, since it was locked down at 15:00 sharp. So basically I had nothing to do that whole day (except shoot stills). Of course I shot the ceremony, just in case I could catch something that the pool camera missed, but it didn't happen. My poor correspondent could have done a piece to camera inside during the ceremony if he had been able to get in, but there was no way if he was going to make the 15:05 live report...

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

In case you missed it, I think this is a great and eye-opening article:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

The author makes the point that those running the show in Japan didn't give a rat's ass about the civilian population--not about the casualties of the carpet bombing, and not about those caused by the atomic bombs. Every other city of any size had already been destroyed by LeMay and the air force using conventional weapons, another couple of bombs, albeit bigger, were not going to get them to capitulate. The real straw that broke the camel's back was the entrance of Russia into the war, at just the opportune moment to not have to do anything and still receive the Northern Territories, islands which they hold to this day. The Japanese knew that defeat was inevitable, and at that moment were simply scrambling to make the best of the situation. Hirohito had made it clear that he did not want to have to step down, and the fight was about getting a deal in which Japan could keep the emperor system. I strongly recommend the book "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herbert Bix, which is the result of deep research and scholarship.

At the end of the war, before the Tokyo War Crimes trials, there were many Japanese voices calling for Hirohito to be hanged, and certainly put on trial along with Tojo and the others. It was MacArthur who protected him, basically lying to Truman about the effect of putting the emperor on trial--saying it would result in mass riots of 2 million people and make Japan intractable. MacArthur basically used Hirohito as a pawn in his quest to shine as the supreme commander of the occupation, which he wanted to use as a springboard to the presidency. The Japanese people loved him as a father, and when he became a presidential candidate, this led to the famous but apocryphal story about a group of Japanese holding a huge sign on which was written "We Pray for MacArthur's Erection".

anotherview Loc: California

MacArthur had a park named after him in the City of Los Angeles.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I know it well--I grew up in LA, born during the Occupation. My parents used to take me and my brothers there on weekends. When I left LA in '75 it was not a place you wanted to hang out as a white boy.

anotherview Loc: California

The park used to be named "West Lake Park." My grandfather took me there on outings. Back then, the park welcomed families and others seeking an oasis in the city.

West Lake Park, circa 1940s

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

zara steiner has written two remarkable books "the lights that failed" and "the triumph of the dark". in the first book, she writes of the years 1919 through 1929. what is notable in this volume is the "great powers" at that time France and Great Britain learn pretty much nothing from what we call the first world war. both are scrambling to hold on to their colonies and international power. this volume as does the second, deals with the diplomacy between the actors of both countries and the desire to bring Germany back into the European fold. and they all find out, that while trying to revanche (that is go back to the system prior to the war) and make certain Germany is brought back to Europe each is a contradictory avenue. it is impossible.

the second volume deals with the diplomacy from 1929 to 1940, and it is harrowing to say the least. both are very dense and heavy books, hard to rest on one's stomach while reading. but oh so valuable in drawing contrasts to our present day situation in relations among nations.

what i find fascinating is we here, in the United States, have been attempting to do the same thing, and it is not working. people speak about America, but America is a continent, stretching from Canada to Central America. so when someone states they want to make America "great" again, i cannot but help thinking they have no idea of the country in which they live.

the United States will never again be in the position we were at the end of the Second World War. since then, other nations have risen and some have failed. we are living in a time of great change, and we are trying to hold on via old tenants of diplomacy and military positions. it is notable that every missle in Europe is pointed at Russia. and we have become bedeveled by them and their desire to once again, obtain a position of a great power and respect from western Europe and the United States. you can draw whatever conclusions you wish, in considering Germany's position after the Great War.

some things must be compromised, some things must be held closely. the ability to discern the value of each is going to be a challenge the United States must face in this coming century. our culture and societal founding myths see us as removed from the rest of the nations via our geographic isolation. this is not an advantageous position. in attempting to remain what has been, we have neglected the needs of our domestic issues and people. we need to balance our domestic needs with our international desires. in this election cycle, this has come to the fore. it is true we have forgotten, and left in dire poverty, those who have suffered from the loss of occupations. we need to bring social change and assist that part of our population via financial support and new occupation training in order to make their lives better.

perhaps by doing so, we will have a more balanced system and be better able to be more comfortable in this very complicated time among nations, and failed states and migrant issues not seen since the end of the Second World War.

i am certainly no different from anyone else but i believe history can teach us lessons which are applicable to the issues facing us today.
i am reminded of Theodore Roosevelt meeting with the heads of the great monoplies (Hearst, J.P. Morgan, etal) and bluntly telling them that their avaricious grasp for wealth and power was endangering democracy in the United States. he stated that you cannot have 30 percent of the population living as a permanent underclass, living in entrenched poverty, and have the nation survive. the great capitalists actually took that message to heart and profound social and economic change ensued.


perhaps, we need to revisit the economic and social system once again, as Roosevelt did. perhaps the society will once again come to believe that the United States not only is great, but has always been so.

apologies for this long winded post, but we need to stop the inferences, the name calling, the blame placing and get on with the job facing us.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Not at all, thank you for a very interesting post. I am going to check those books out.

I would in turn suggest two books by Philip Bobbitt, who is not only the nephew of LBJ but a most distinguished academician who holds aprofessorship in constitutional law at the U of Austin and is a professor of war studies at Oxford. His seminal work is "The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History". It is close to 1000 densely packed pages, in which he develops his theory of the evolution of the modern state from Westphalia in 1648, and how it was driven primarily by military advances and the need to maintain internal order in the face of changing threats from without.

Bobbitt lists the changing face of the constitution of the state, from princely states to kingly states to territorial states, state nations and finally, in the mid nineteenth century, to the modern nation state. Each had different goals, different characteristics, different organizations and different ways of maintaining legitimacy. Bobbitt contends that as military and technological advances threaten the constitutional order of states, they evolve in response, and they evolve different systems to try to meet the threats to those constitutional orders. Those different systems then fight it out to see which will best in meeting the demands of the new order.

In the latest evolution from state nation to nation state, he contends that three competing systems emerged to meet the main ethos of the nation state, which can be succinctly put as maintaining legitimacy by improving the lives of all the citizens of the nation. Those three systems were fascism, communism and parliamentary democracy. He does not see the wars of the 20th century as being separate, instead he calls the period from 1914 to 1989 "the long war", in which those three systems battled for supremacy. Only with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 did parliamentary democracy emerge victorious as the embodiment of the nation state.

But technology marches on. One of the main characteristics of the nation state is territorial integrity. That is no longer possible. Communications, transnational threats, capital movements and other developments have undermined the territorial integrity of states, threatening the constitutional order in new ways. He contends that thus, facing new threats to the constitutional order, states are once again evolving towards a new form: the market state, whose goal, instead of providing benefits to all citizens, is to try to maximize individual opportunity. Once again, states are evolving different systems. He lists three: mercantilist, managerial and entreprenurial, which each take a slightly different approach to managing the factors necessary to compete and thrive in a new order.

This book was seminal to my understanding of what is happening in the modern world, the threats to different states and how they are dealing with them. His second book takes up from there: "Terror and Consent: The Wars for the 21st Century". In this book he identifies the ever-present threats to state orders throughout history from terrorism, and explain how the forms of terrorism evolve in concert with the forms of the state by mirroring their characteristics. This is an extremely cogent analysis of what is happening in warfare today. Although the book was written 10 years ago, he predicts the rise of a group like ISIS, and explains why and how the face of security is changing and why it must change in order to protect the safety of the citizens of the the state, which is the basis of state legitimacy.

These are not easy books, but I do recommend them as the most lucid overviews of the modern world and its formation I have ever encountered.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i will pick up both books. after all, after reading steiner's tomes, i'm equipped to handle another 1,000 page book. i think you will enjoy the steiners, but get them in paperback if you can, as they are rather pricey!
all the best,
cody