Harry’s Place

This is a guest post by Ben

We have very recently experienced the worst progressive defeat in any election for almost 40 years. A loss of over 300 Labour Councillors, when 200 was thought to have been a cataclysmic result. Boris Johnson is Mayor of London, replacing an, admittedly dreadful, Labour candidate. But a Labour candidate, nonetheless.

We are about to lose the Crewe and Nantwich by-election.

It seems almost certain that we are to lose the next general election by a landslide to a party run by the historically privileged elite of this nation.

The party is on the verge of disintegrating as a serious force in the country. Just as the Tories did from 1993 onwards.

When I first found Harry’s Place, in the summer of 2004, I was a Stopper. I know we don’t talk about that kind of thing a lot these days. I had gone back to Jersey (where my family live) because I had suffered a recurrence of ME, or what the Americans call CFS – Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. That matters little.

I was not a Stopper in the “We are all Hezbollah” sense, but I was a Stopper in that I had a very strong sense of the wrongness of the Iraq War. I had watched the first bombardments of Baghdad in the early hours of that morning in March 2003 and had been terribly upset.

If you feel the above is smuckish, then you won’t like the rest. Cynicism is a dreadful thing.

When I first found Harry’s Place in 2004, the Labour Party was the dominant force in British politics, with a majority of 167 seats. The party had, three years previously, won that majority. And that was a mere 12 seats short of the 179 seat majority the party had won in 1997. The Conservative Party was dead. Vanquished. Destroyed as a substantial political force.

And thus we had rejoiced, for those seven years. And we did not think we would say goodbye to the world we thought we lived in.

I went to Oxford in 1999, and my first experience of political activism that year (my first ever in terms of UK party politics, in fact) was us winning a by-election for the County Council in West Ward against the Liberals, whose seat it has been previously. My first personal taste of victory. The stew produced by a candidate’s wife has never tasted so sweet (although it never is that good, is it?). A time when we had followed up our destruction of the Conservative Party nationally in 1997 by our result in 2001 (a great period of time for which I had spent in Reading West fighting for the victorious Martin Salter). And we utterly crushed the Liberal Democrat and Green coalition on Oxford City Council in 2002 – a part in which I played by running a good friend’s victorious committee room against the Liberal incumbent (well, it mattered then – and actually it does to this day if you’re in the know and you care about services for the working class of Oxford – so give me a break from the smarmy comments).

And thus we had rejoiced, for those seven years. And we did not think we would say goodbye to the world we thought we lived in.

And so I came across Harry’s Place, after three years at Oxford and a couple in London, just after I’d returned to Jersey.

And, as a result of reading Harry’s Place, I came to an understanding that there were enemies to the left as well as the right. And an understanding that the left could be wrong too. A revelation, to a certain extent, though I would not wish to overstate it. I had always considered Trots weird and wrong. But I increasingly came to an understanding that the Far Left and the Hard Left and even parts of the Soft Left were a threat to the values that I wanted to promote.

Because so many of them opposed the democratic self-determination of the Iraqi and Afghan people, the former of whom I had seen with their purple fingers. The flowering of trades unions. The sheer belief that a better world existed outwith the Stalinist miasma. And it became sickening for me to think of the very fact that I had given my personhood to a vile and reactionary counter-revolutionary demonstration in central London, which I would forever be tarred with. The utter scum who would forever call my name in favour of the defence of the latest popular anti-western dictatorship. Well, not in my name, to coin a phrase.

And then I moved back to London. And later that year I went to campaign for Oona King against that most vile and demagogic opponent of hers. Because her seat was the nearest marginal to where I lived in central London. And I did that day after day for weeks on end. Because I hated him. And because she was a good and proper example of what our party should be for.

And so it was very easy to attack those on the left for the idiocies they promoted. Because they were utterly wrong. Their disgusting communalism. Their horrific defence of the most reactionary elements of Islamist thought. Their pathetic peacnick hippy shit. Their attacks upon our demonstrably relevant nuclear deterrent. Their opposition – with no hyperbole – to our very way of life, and to the way of life we wanted others to be able to enjoy.

And it was easy to do, precisely because we were so triumphant. We were riding high. And, I want you to believe this, I think it was right, whatever happens. I still believe it.

And thus we had rejoiced, for those seven years. And we did not think we would say goodbye to the world we thought we lived in.

Of course, by the time we lost more than 60 seats in 2005, it was actually eight years. And we lost Oona. I have heard it said that that she was not a very good MP. I can’t comment. But I do know that she, and we, fought that campaign with valour and dedication against the forces of reaction that confronted us. And I am damn proud of what we did.

If you search back through the archives in this site, you will see the desperate trials and tribulations we faced against those who had no respect for the democratic norms of our society. And you will see why a police officer was placed on every polling station, and why the roads were blocked off around the Labour Bethnal Green and Bow election night “party” (it hardly was) by police vans because, I was told by officers, the police feared reprisal violence from Respect. And, in the final analysis, look up “Les Dobrovolski” on Google. It was a horrific and very dark imitation of what one would normally expect from a campaign in this country.

So to today.

We have very recently experienced the worst progressive defeat in any election for almost 40 years, and it seems almost certain that we are to lose the next general election, by a landslide, to a party run by the historically privileged elite of this nation.

Why do I talk about “we” in all of that?

Why does it matter? Who cares?

The reason I became a “Decent” in the first place is because of the values that made me Labour to start with. I didn’t become a Eustonite, or a liberal-internationalist, or whatever we’re meant to be called these days, in a vacuum.

I took that view, and I allowed it into my most intimate moral sense

not because I wasn’t of the Left

but because I was.

We are about to let go of the finest government with the best anti-poverty track record in history. I could insult you by giving you a list of achievements. But I think you’re tired of that.

So instead, I’m just asking you to think about it. Just think about it, is all.

What *is* it that makes you a “Decent”?

Of course, if you didn’t want to do any thinking, you would be entitled to simply say goodbye to the world you thought you lived in. And that would be perfectly proper.

But some of us will fight. And fight hard. And for the very reasons that made us “Decents” in the first place. I invite you to join us. We were never popular in the first place, were we? You know what the website is.

Birmingham University Students’ Union - which is officially known as the “Guild” to avoid being mistaken for a real Union, with actual workers - appears to be promoting a debate organised by the fascist political party, Hizb ut Tahrir.

Actually, that may be slightly unfair.

Specifically, the promoting is being done by a woman called Yasmin Patel, in her capacity as Black and Minority Ethnic Students’ Officer: a post to which she was “elected”, unopposed, having “run” as the Islamic Society candidate, on a slate put together by the Student Broad Left group, which I believe includes the Socialist Workers’ Party and Socialist Action.

Yasmin Patel has been working hard to encourage people to attend this Hizb ut Tahrir event: including writing to various lecturers, suggesting that they advise their students to attend.

A few years ago, very few people knew that much about Hizb ut Tahrir. The party’s political programme, which includes the creation of the theocratic caliphate, which would impose a form of religious and gender apartheid, in which sexual minorities and religious dissenters would be executed, was only really known to Islamists and those of us who follow the extremes of the political spectrum. All that has changed.

The convictions in Denmark for incitement to racial hatred earned by the party’s representative, the association of those who have gone on to commit acts of terrorism, the racist propaganda, and the relationship of the party to the Al Qaeda supporting Al Muhajiroun are all common knowledge. Hizb ut Tahrir is treated by the National Union of Students, quite rightly, as the equivalent of the British National Party, and covered by that organisation’s No Platform policy.

As readers of this blog will know, I oppose the banning of Hizb ut Tahrir, as long as the organisation does not engage in, or directly incite, acts of terrorism. I am also in favour, generally, of taking on fascists in debate: the better to defeat them.

However, students of Hizb ut Tahrir will know that the party’s central mission in recent years has been to represent themselves as a respectable, mainstream political party. It does so, more usually, by creating front organisations which then organise debates to which respectable political figures are invited to discuss aspects of theology with members of this fascist group. That allows Hizb ut Tahrir to create the illusion that they are the authentic voice of British Muslims, and to encourage other organisations to host them, and the media to take them seriously. In reality, Hizb ut Tahrir are a tiny fringe group with little traction in this country.

Make no mistake. This is a Hizb ut Tahrir debate: billed as such. This is how Hizb ut Tahrir recruits.

I can guess why Yasmin Patel is promoting Hizb ut Tahrir. There is little to say about her: except that I would have thought that her actions are utterly incompatible with her office. BME Students Union officers should not be promoting racist totalitarian organisations. Can you imagin the furore if - say - a Womens’ Officer were to promote a ‘debate’ with a British National Party member? I’d hope that the Guild will no confidence and remove her as soon as possible. If she had any shame, she’d resign immediately.

The full story is at the Ministry of Truth blog. Go and read it.

The US Holocaust Memorial Museum has a fascinating (and timely) online exhibit about the 1936 Berlin Olympics and the events surrounding it.

Guest post by Michael Ezra

Few events in the history of the United States have been more controversial than President Harry S. Truman decisions in 1945 to use the atomic bomb against Japan. On August 6 of that year an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later another bomb fell on Nagasaki. These cities were chosen for their military significance. As Henry Stimson, the U.S. Secretary of War, who recommended the bombing, put it:

Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese Army defending southern Japan and was a major military storage and assembly point. Nagasaki was a major seaport and it contained several large industrial plants of great wartime importance. [1]

While estimates of the number of casualties vary, the US Strategic Bombing Survey put the mid- estimate for Hiroshima at 75,000 dead, and for Nagasaki at 35,000 dead. These figures include the fallout from radiation. There is no doubt that most of the dead were innocent civilians. [2]

That some regard this decision as a war crime is understandable. It is also a simplistic view that ignores the horrors of the alternatives.

Germany unconditionally surrendered to the Allied forces on May 8, 1945. Japan did not. On July 26, 1945 the leaders of the United States, Great Britain and Nationalist China issued the Potsdam Declaration. This declaration called on Japan “to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces… The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.” [3] Japanese Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro announced the following the day that their government would “ignore” the Potsdam Declaration. The word he actually used was “Mokusatsu.” This word, as Sadao Asada comments, “has been variously translated as ‘withhold comments,’ ‘treat with silent contempt,’ ‘ignore with contempt,’ ‘unworthy of public notice,’ and even ‘reject.’”[4]

On December 7, 1941, Japan had attacked the US naval base at Pearl Harbor killing over 2,000 Americans and wounding many more. The Japanese later shelled an oil storage field near Santa Barbara and bombed Oregon. Moreover, nearly one thousand Japanese balloon bombs reached the United States and many more reached Canada.[5]

This was not the first Japanese aggression.

In 1931, Japan had ruthlessly taken control of Manchuria and by 1937, Japan had invaded the rest of China. One particularly horrific Japanese atrocity was the Rape of Nanking. Estimates of those massacred range from 45,000 to 350,000.[6] “By the beginning of 1945,” notes David Gordon, “the Japanese occupied more Chinese territory than at any time since 1937.”[7]

On the day of the Pearl Harbor attack, the Japanese had invaded Thailand.[8] The Japanese also attacked Malaya and the Philippines. Before the end of 1941 the Japanese had invaded Burma and Hong Kong. In 1942, Singapore fell and Japan attacked Australia.[9] Excluding American casualties, over 17 million deaths are attributable to the Japanese Empire between 1931 and 1945.[10]

By April 1945, the Japanese were anticipating an American invasion. Their strategy was to inflict as much damage as possible on American troops. In addition to ground troops, they had a kamikaze air strength totaling over 4,800.[11] The assault, known as OLYMPIC, was being planned for the southern Japanese island of Kyushu and was due to commence on November 1, 1945. As the military historian Edward Drea notes, US intelligence had decrypted countless messages from Japanese high command that “underlined Japanese determination to fight to the death.”[12] General MacArthur predicted 105,500 casualties in the first ninety days and a further 12,600 non-battle losses.[13] The Japanese army was estimated to be 5 million in size [14] and reinforcements were flooding into Kyushu, with an estimated 560,000 troops there by the beginning of August. There were also 773 kamikaze planes in Kyushu; naval authorities thought that these alone could sink 30-40 percent of the incoming convoy. The intelligence was clear.[15]

The potential loss of life was horrific. As Truman subsequently wrote to a correspondent, the use of the atomic bomb was “a means to end the war and save 250,000 men from being killed on our side, and that many on the Japanese side, plus twice that many being injured for life.” [16] Truman’s figures, frequently criticised as excessive, may have been underestimates. Former President Herbert Hoover had compiled a report predicting that the invasion would cost 500,000-1,000,000 lives.[17] A study by the Nobel laureate William Shockley had concluded:

the Japanese dead and ineffectives at the time of the defeat will exceed the corresponding number for the Germans. In other words, we shall probably have to kill at least 5 to 10 million Japanese. This might cost us between 1.7 and 4 million casualties including between 400,000 and 800,000 killed.[18]

In his definitive recent study, Richard Frank estimates the number of Japanese civilian and military deaths from a land invasion on Kyushu alone at between “580,000 and 630,000 at the very low end.”[19] The use of the atomic bomb averted this scenario. Moreover, as D. M. Giangreco and Kathryn Moore have pointed out, production of Purple Hearts for injured soldiers dramatically increased as the invasion approached. The end of the war meant that these were not required. The US ended the war with “The most wonderful of all its surplus: 495,000 unused Purple Hearts.”[20]

I agree with the words of Henry Stimson from 1947:

The decision to use the atomic bomb was a decision that brought death to over a hundred thousand Japanese. No explanation can change that fact and I do not wish to gloss over it. But this deliberate, premeditated destruction was our least abhorrent choice. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put an end to the Japanese war.[21]

To those who argue that the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a crime, I reply: it would have been a greater crime not to use it.

End Notes

[1] Henry L. Stimson, “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” Harper’s Magazine, 194, February 1947 pp. 97-107. Available on line

[2] “United States Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” June 30, 1946. (Confidential File, Truman Papers, Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Missouri) p. 15. Available on line (N.B. Large file)

Barton Bernstein gives the range of deaths from the two bombs from 100,000 which he considers too low to 340,000 which he views as way too high. Barton J Bernstein, “Truman and the A-Bomb: Targeting Noncombatants, Using the Bomb, and His Defending the ‘Decision’”, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 3. (Jul., 1998), pp. 547-570. Richard Frank, gives a range of 100,000-200,000 dead in both cities. Richard B. Frank, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, (London: Penguin Books, 2001) p. 287

[3] Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, Volume 6: Triumph and Tragedy, (London: Penguin Books, 2005) pp. 556-557

[4] Sadao Asada, “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration,” Pacific Historical Review Vol. 67, No. 4, (November 1998) pp. 477-512

[5] Clark G. Reynolds, “Submarine Attacks on the Pacific Coast, 1942,” The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 33, No. 2. (May, 1964), pp. 183-193, John. E. Pike, Bruce G. Blair and Stephen I. Schwartz, “Defending Against the Bomb,” in Stephen I. Schwartz ed., Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940. (Washington D.C., Brookings Institution Press, 1998) pp. 269-326

[6] David M. Gordon, “The China-Japan War, 1931-1945,” The Journal of Military History Vol. 70 (January 2006) pp. 137-182.

[7] Ibid.

[8]Kenneth P. Landon, “Thai Non-Resistance: A Footnote to History,” Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 13, No. 23. (Nov. 15, 1944), pp. 220-222.

[9]Daniel Marston ed. The Pacific War Companion: From Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima, (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2007) pp. 12-15

[10] Robert P. Newman, Truman and the Hiroshima Cult, (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1995) p. 138

[11]Robert A. Pape, “Why Japan Surrendered,” International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2. (Autumn, 1993), pp. 154-201

[12] Edward J. Drea, “Previews of Hell: Intelligence, the Bomb, and the Invasion of Japan,” MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History Vol. 7 No. 3 (Spring 1995) pp. 74-81.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Henry L. Stimson, “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” op. cit.

[15] Edward J. Drea, “Previews of Hell: Intelligence, the Bomb, and the Invasion of Japan,” op. cit.

[16] Harry S. Truman to Mrs. Haydon Klein, Jr., August 4, 1964. (Post- Presidential File, Truman Papers, Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Missouri.) Available on line

[17] D.M. Giangreco, “‘A Score of Bloody Okinawas and Iwo Jimas’: President Truman and Casualty Estimates for the Invasion of Japan,” Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 72. No. 1 pp. 93-132

[18] D. M. Giangreco, “Casualty Projections For the U.S. Invasions Of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications,” Journal of Military History, Vol. 61, No. 3, (July 1997), pp. 521-581. Available on line

[19] Richard B. Frank, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, op. cit., p. 194

[20]D. M. Giangreco and Kathryn Moore, “Half a Million Purple Hearts,” in Robert James Maddox ed., Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, (Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 2007) pp. 116-119

[21] Henry L. Stimson, “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” op. cit.

Hezbollah and its allies have taken control of west Beirut and shut down pro-government media in fighting that has left at least 11 Lebanese dead.

The Lebanese army, not wishing to take sides, chose not to get involved.

Opposition gunmen of the Syrian Socialist National Party set ablaze a building housing studios of [governing coalition leader Saad] Hariri’s TV station.

You may remember those outright fascists from one of the posts in davem’s Syrian Journal last year.

AFP reports:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — whose country is Iran’s closest regional ally — said the unrest was a purely “internal affair” but called for dialogue.

And I’m sure he’d say exactly the same if his allies in Hezbollah had got their asses kicked.

Is it safe to say that Saturday’s “Free Palestine” demonstration in London will feature lots more glorification from the “We Are All Hezbollah” crowd?

Update: Two blogs by people on the ground in Beirut: here and here.

This much is clear: Hillary Clinton will fight onto until the end of the presidential primary race asserting she is still the stronger candidate (as she has done again today). However, if as many suggest she can not win (despite pulling in almost 50% of the popular vote) after failing to win big win in Indiana, and as super delegates drift away, then there are three possibilities as to why she continues to run.

It has been suggested that she does so to increase her influence within the Democratic Party and powerbase in Washington; to run a possible 2012 campaign or the third option is the possible long shot, but increasingly discussed, Clinton and Barack Obama dream ticket.

Harold Ford, a former U.S. congressman who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council said earlier this week: “It’s something that this party is going to have to think very seriously about in the next few weeks.”

Obama, who is said to have resisted the idea privately, fuelled the talk himself yesterday, telling CNN that Clinton is “an extraordinary candidate … so obviously she’d be on anybody’s short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate”.

George Stephanopoulos, former aide to Bill Clinton and now ABC’s Sunday morning host, reported yesterday top Clinton aides were eager to discuss a peace treaty contingent on the joint ticket.

According to a CBS News/New York Times poll released last week, a majority of both Obama and Clinton voters say they would favour a so-called “Dream Ticket” involving both candidates.

“People are stopping to ask themselves, why just nominate someone who has 51 percent of the vote, when we can nominate a ticket that has 100 percent of the vote?” said Sam Arora, spokesman for Vote Both, a group trying to foster a joint ticket between the two top Democrats, told Reuters.

It would pose problems for Obama as well as opportunities. It would put Clinton close to him with the West Wing and the VP’s office just a stone’s throw away from the Oval office and she would want something meaty to own politically detracting from his presidency.

The opportunity is that with Clinton on the ticket she can ensure that white working class and women voters are locked down and do not drift to Republican John McCain, which could cost Obama his shot at the White House.

But all this is a long way off as her campaign manager Terry McAuliffe reminded people this morning after ridiculing Obama’s assertion that a victory in Oregon on May 20 could effectively wrap up the Democratic nomination.

McAuliffe said Obama can celebrate all he wants that night, but there is no official nominee until someone gets 2,025 delegates — or in the calculation of the Clinton camp, 2,209 delegates, if the disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan are counted.

The Clinton camp this morning also released a “Dear Fellow Democrats” letter from 16 US House members supporting her that reinforces her argument that she would be the stronger nominee in what is likely to be a very close November election because she is winning primaries in key battleground states and is winning among blue-collar swing voters.

May the above, as well as this and this, annoy, infuriate, confound and/or make life harder for those on the Zionist Right trying to portray presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama as a secret opponent of Israel, and for those on the anti-Zionist Left who would like him to be an open opponent of Israel, and for John McCain in his dishonest efforts to tie Obama to Hamas.

(Hat tip: Marc Ambinder.)

This morning, I looked out of our window and saw three magpies on the lawn.

And so, at 9.40 am, my wife gave birth to a baby girl.

Charlotte Smith Toube.

Eight pounds, twelve ounces: for people who are interested in such things.

Following urging from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who described the situation as “embarrassing”, the US has finally removed Nelson Mandela and the ANC from its “terror blacklist”.

As reported at (South African) News24.com, Democratic House foreign affairs chairperson Howard Berman said:

“This long-overdue bill is the direct result of a stunning and, frankly, embarrassing story for the United States.

“Despite recognising two decades ago that America’s place was on the side of those oppressed by apartheid, Congress has never resolved the inconsistency in our immigration code that treats many of those who actively opposed apartheid in South Africa as terrorists and criminals.”

The vote passed unanimously. Phew!

In related news, London will be hosting Madiba shortly as he heads to the UK for his 90th birthday bash, a free concert in Hyde Park!

The US and France yesterday called for international aid to be delivered to cyclone victims without the permission of the Burmese military government if the regime continues to block the arrival of foreign aid workers and material assistance.
[…]
At a security council meeting yesterday France argued the UN had the authority to intervene under a 2005 resolution establishing that it did sometimes have a “responsibility to protect” people when nations failed to do so. But Britain’s UN envoy, John Sawers, currently chairing the security council, said the 2005 resolution “relates to acts of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and so forth, rather than government responses to natural disasters”.

The US ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, said the US was “outraged by the slowness of the response of the government of Burma to welcome and accept assistance”.

The Guardian.

So when does blocking aid become a crime against humanity?