Here’s the link for people who want to support me on Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=6600631

 

 

I wrote three blogs  a while ago called Nuclear Weapons are Dark Magic. (The links are below) I talk about how evil and destructive nuclear weapons are. However, this doesn’t mean that I think the bombs being dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were 100% unjustified. I get annoyed by the polarizing views that people often have on this subject.

 

Nuclear Weapons are Dark Magic: Part 1

 

Nuclear Weapons are Dark Magic: Part 2: What if Japan Never Surrendered During WWII?

 

Nuclear Weapons are Dark Magic: Part 3: Operation Downfall, Continued

 

In parts 2 and 3, I write about Operation Downfall, which was the Allied invasion plan in place for Japan that would have happened if the Japanese had kept fighting after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This would have been the largest scale invasion in history, dwarfing D-Day by far!

 

In the end of part 3, I explain Operation Ketsugo, which was the Japanese defense plan in place to counter an attack from the Allies that they were expecting. This would have turned out to be Operation Downfall. I also discuss the number of bombs that would have been dropped on Japan. As if those used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren’t horrifying enough, the Allies were going to drop somewhere between 7 and 15 more of those motherfuckers!

 

Part 4: Operation Downfall and the Terrors of War

 

Due to the thorough Japanese defence of Kyushu, alternate attack targets were considered by the Allies. These included Shikoku and Honshu, the latter of which would have allowed the Americans to more easily get to Tokyo. Honshu was less heavily defended, but the Allies would not have had any land support there. As part of the deception, fake landings in Shikoku were going to be the second part of Operation Pastel, and the first phase of Coronet. (sections of Operation Downfall) The deception plan for Hokkaido probably wouldn’t have worked as well as it would have with Shikoku. That’s because by June in 1945, the Japanese decided that Hokkaido would only be used for defence. By July, they predicted that the Allies would pretend to threaten to attack Hokkaido. So they likely wouldn’t have been tricked by this misdirection, and a fake assault on Shikoku would probably have worked better.

 

 

The part of Operation Pastel that involved the Americans pretending to launch attacks on Okinawa from the air would likely have panned out for them. This is because the Japanese expected airborne assaults on airfields. But Pastel was a worse deception plan that Coronet because the latter involved fake targets that were difficult to anticipate. Since Pastel didn’t include these, the Japanese predicted the exact three beaches where the Allies would supposedly land.

 

 

Due to the Japanese expecting assaults on Kashima, the fake landings in Sendai and Kashima as part of Operation Coronet would probably have worked. They also would have been tricked into thinking that Sagami was a secondary attack location because this is exactly what they anticipated. The coast of China was a good deception target as well because the Japanese expected being attacked there.

 

 

The essential structure of the American deception plans were obvious to the Japanese, so they got really good at predicting them before they were implemented. This made Allied misdirection efforts pretty ineffective in some ways. But overall, the Americans were good at anticipating what the Japanese would label as secondary targets. However, the Japanese were excellent at predicting the basic way that Allied deception plans would be implemented.

 

 

General Macarthur didn’t want to change the original Operation Olympic plan because he said that the Japanese defence was exaggerated. Marshall wanted to invade. He thought that Operation Olympic was the best plan for reducing casualties and financial costs. But he understood President Truman’s concerns about less public support for this.

 

 

The Americans didn’t know that the Russians tentatively planned to invade the Japanese island called Hokkaido in August of 1945. The naval bases there made it a target. However, a few months before that, the U. S. had agreed to let Russia take over Honshu and Hokkaido. If this had happened, it would have likely encouraged the U. S. to start Downfall before November, which was when the original attack was intended to happen. Operations Olympic and Coronet would have been defended by Japanese Kamikaze attacks in Honshu and Kyushu.

 

 

Some histor-ans claim that the Russ-ians had metic-ulous plans for Far East invasions. At least a few of them even point to attack strategies for Nazi Germany. But the one for Hokkaido was probably only poorly formed in Stalin’s imagination. He cancelled that plan when he realized that the Japanese would surrender. It was unlikely that he actually wanted to invade the Far East. He was dedicated to constructing coastal European defences so he could commit enough forces to Asia. Also, how committed he was to providing military forces or giving diplomatic attention to foreign continents is open to debate. Some historians claim that he was more focused on Europe, but others argue that he wanted to spread Communism as widely as possible. However, it seems like the chances that Stalin wanted to risk full-scale war with Germany were low. This was apparently true even after Hitler’s admittedly failed winter invasion.

 

 

High casualties were estimated for Operation Downfall, but the numbers fluctuated wildly. General Macarthur predicted 23 000 casualties in the first 30 days, and 125 000 after 120 days. Including the Japanese, 11 000-70 000 deaths were estimated by General Marshall. The numbers given by the Secretary of War’s staff were 1.7 million-4 million; 400 000-800 000 for the Americans, 5 million-10 million for the Japanese.

 

 

In anticipation of the Japanese invasion, 500 000 purple hearts were made. By some accounts, this is a higher number than all the U. S. casualties since World War Two! 120 000 of these awards were still left in 2003, and soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq received some of them.

 

 

After the Japanese surrendered, they gave a lot of war supplies from their islands and South Korea to the Americans. These included land and navy weapons and vehicles, planes, and swords, the last of which were difficult to transport. I guess that it isn’t easy to safely store and ship swords without worrying about someone accidentally getting stabbed.

 

 

Operation Downfall was an elaborate invasion planned for after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It changed often, and the projected casualties fluctuated a lot. The detailed deception and complete overkill with the insane amount of nuclear weapons intended to be used shows how good human beings are at war. We have become very sophisticated and organized in the way we kill each other. Imagine how much worse off Japan would have been if Operation Downfall had been successfully used. 2 Atomic bombs is horrifying enough. Can you even image the soul-crushing carnage and bloodshed of 7-15 more of them?! I can scarcely contemplate that level of slaughter and destruction.

 

 

 

But this isn’t to say something like, “Ra-ra! America sucks!” To me, Operation Downfall paints a terrifying picture of the level of brutality that we as an entire species are capable of inflicting on each other. In my opinion, war is sometimes necessary because their are people who need to be stopped, like Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. But it’s also horrifying, and should be avoided at all costs. Human beings are so tribal that we demonize those in different groups. It causes people on all sides of every war to kill innocents out of xenophobia and nationalism. Bearing all this in mind though, Downfall also shows that the Japanese could have suffered a hell of a lot more than they did. They experienced undeserved incredible death and destruction. But it could have been at least three times worse.

 

 

One main aspect of Operation Downfall that I enjoy learning about is the level of misdirection involved in war. In the historian Dr. Thomas M. Huber’s book, Pastel: Deception in the Invasion of Japan, he mentions another book called Stratagem: Deception and Surprise in War. The author, Barton Whaley, argues that good deception planners are like playwrights. They need to have all the characters, actions and setting in place.  He also says that these performances should always have a kernel of truth in them. That way, they can represent reality better and be more convincing.

…To be Continued…

Part 3: Operation Downfall, Continued

 

Here’s the link for people who want to support me on Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=6600631

 

 

I wrote two blogs  a while ago called Nuclear Weapons are Dark Magic. (The links are below) I talk about how evil and destructive nuclear weapons are. However, this doesn’t mean that I think the bombs being dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were 100% unjustified. I get annoyed by the polarizing views that people often have on this subject.

 

https://mixedmentalarts.co/nuclear-weapons-are-dark-magic-part-1/

 

Nuclear Weapons are Dark Magic: Part 2: What if Japan Never Surrendered During WWII?

 

I ended part one with details about Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. These were two parts of the Allied Deception plan that would have been used if nuclear weapons had not been used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. Coronet and Olympic were aspects of Operation Downfall, which would have been the largest invasion in history. The sheer scale of it, coupled with firebombings that had been happening frequently in Japan, are two of the main arguments that people use when they justify the bombs being dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

 

 

 

The deception plan for Operation Coronet included the same psychological warfare tactics as those for Pastel. Different Allied countries coordinated their misdirection through media outlets like newspapers and radio broadcasts. All of these same methods were used in the fake planned assault on Korea, which was going to happen a month after the fictional Shikoku attack.

 

 

Hokkaido was intended to be the third and final phase of the deception plan for Coronet. It would involve the same tactics as those for Operation Pastel, and the staged assaults on Shikoku and Korea. The goal behind the misdirection for Coronet and Pastel was to draw attention away from Sagami Bay in Japan. This was going to be the real main target for the whole operation.

 

 

The real attack plan for Operation Coronet involved excessive bombing from both the ground and air, obstacles on beaches being removed, and sweeping for mines. This all would have ideally made it a hell of a lot easier for the Allies, especially in combination with the deception plans. They were also going to land in Tokyo while attacking Sagami Bay, and leap-frog from there to other Japanese air bases that were still under their control.

 

 

Operation Ketsugo

 

The Japanese defence plan was Operation Ketsugo. They were concerned about an invasion in June or some other time during the summer, so they weren’t expecting one so early in the year. The Battle of Okinawa had lasted so long that they thought the Allies couldn’t attack before typhoon season. It would have been very risky weather for naval invasions.

 

 

Ketsugo depended mainly on kamikaze attacks, which were very inefficient because the Japanese had an average of 1 hit for every 9 attacks. They also only had 2000 planes. One main goal behind operation Ketsugo was to develop defensive strongholds in Okinawa, the Shanghai District, Iwo Jima, the coast of South Korea, and Taiwan. If Kyushu or Tokyo had been attacked before the landings there, the Japanese intended to send in reserve forces. But this was the only contingency plan because they didn’t expect to be attacked anywhere else.

 

 

Between the start of the war and this time period, the Japanese switched defensive strategies. At first, they had focused on protecting beaches. But later, they changed their tactics to going farther inland and digging in. This second plan had been adopted by the time the Allies were considering assaulting Kyushu during Operation Olympic. The Japanese sent the majority of their assets and war supplies there, which spread them too thinly. They had to rely on the Volunteer Fighting Corps rather than professional soldiers, and they had inferior equipment.

 

 

Their defensive strategy was focused on Kyushu in April, before the Allies outlined their plan for that same month. So worrying about Kyushu was based on the assumption that it would be attacked before anywhere else. This was due to the progression path of American forces in Okinawa. Some Japanese intelligence officers disagreed with devoting so much of their forces to Kyushu though. They were worried about supply lines being cut off if the Allies assaulted Saishu Island in the Korea Straight, or south Korea. A small number of them actually thought that Tokyo would be attacked first. So the Japanese made defense plans for Korea and all of Japan by the summer in 1945. This is because other than Kyushu, they became afraid of enemy landings in Korea, China, Shikoku and Tokyo.

 

 

In the battle of Okinawa, the U. S. had many casualties because they underestimated the number of Japanese aircraft. But neither side respected their enemy enough, and the Americans also didn’t anticipate the Japanese determination to never surrender. They were also surprised by the complex cave network used by the Japanese as defense, which allowed many of them to survive the air bombardment. Ships that were close to the coast of Okinawa were attacked by Japanese planes that flew long distances over water. This was a risky and unanticipated tactic because aircraft only had to fly over short areas of land to assault boats that were off the coast of Kyushu.

 

 

Operation Big Blue Blanket

 

However, the Allies discovered that the Japanese were going to wait until an invasion to use Kamikaze attacks on naval fleets. They had even been ordered to not fire on landing American soldiers. This led to a counter-offense plan called Big Blue Blanket. The main goal behind this was to use Allied planes to defend against Japanese ones.

 

 

In addition to underestimating Japanese aircraft strength, the Allies realized that they had done the same thing with the numbers of ground troops. However, even though this was a huge cost for American ground troops, they still decimated Japanese infantry. Nevertheless, this caused U. S. war strategists like Marhsall to want to make a new plan, or dramatically alter Operation Olympic.

 

 

Even though it had been internationally outlawed during the Geneva Protocol after World War One, widespread chemical warfare was going to be used on Japanese crops and people! They were vulnerable to it due to predictable wind patterns. Japanese soldiers would be more affected by gas because it would draw them out of the caves where they had dug into their defenses. Neither the U.S. or the Japanese ratified the Geneva Protocol. They signed it, but didn’t ratify it, meaning that they didn’t have to abide by it. The Americans didn’t ratify it until 1975. But later on, the Americans had promised to not use biological or chemical weapons. We all know how much political promises actually mean though, right? Earlier in the war, the Chinese had been the victims of gas warfare used by the Japanese. The latter also had a nuclear program that ended up failing, and they planned to use biological and chemical weapons on the U. S. By the end of WWII, the ability of the Japanese to use chemical weapons had significantly decreased.

 

 

Since Japanese surrender was unexpected, more atomic bombs were going to be used after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How many? At least 7 of those motherfuckers! Yeah, as if two wasn’t horrifying enough, the U. S. basically intended to bomb Japan to hell. The target areas were to be avoided by American soldiers for at least 48 hours after detonation to avoid radiation exposure and nuclear fallout.

 

 

Do you have trouble believing that number of bombs? Well, the story gets even worse. According to Ken Nichols, a District Engineer for the Manhattan Project, part of the full scale invasion of the Japanese home island included 15 more atomic bombs! In order to increase the blast radius and reduce radiation for Allied ground troops who would invade after the explosions, air bursts were planned. Whether you believe it was 7, 15, or anywhere in between, any of those numbers are a hell of a lot more bombs than 2! Just try to imagine the magnitude of unparalleled devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but more than trippled at least!

 

 

…To Be Continued in Part 4…

Part 2: Operation Downfall: Allied Deception Plan

 

Here’s the link for people who want to support me on Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=6600631

 

 

I wrote a blog  a while ago called Nuclear Weapons are Dark Magic. (The link is below) I talk about how evil and destructive nuclear weapons are. However, this doesn’t mean that I think the bombs being dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were 100% unjustified. I get annoyed by the polarizing views that people often have on this subject.

 

https://mixedmentalarts.co/nuclear-weapons-are-dark-magic-part-1/

 

I’m not a historian. But it seems like moral judgements about bombs are open to interpretation. I’ve read papers by historians who think Japan would never have surrendered, even though they were losing the war. Others claim that the Japanese were going to stop fighting, and the bombs being dropped was maliciously unnecessary. But if I understand correctly, the Japanese were not sure whether they should surrender or not. It makes sense to be so uncertain about that, right?

 

 

 

Even if Japan never had surrendered, does that justify killing so many innocent people in horrifying, agonizing ways? It feels like it’s at least overkill. Some of those who approve of the bombs offer calculations showing the greater numbers of casualties that would have been seen otherwise. That’s because firebombings would probably have continued, which are arguably messier than atomic bombs. That might be true. But there’s no way anyone can know  for sure how many people would have been killed without nuclear weapons. Hypothetical predictions are not facts.

 

 

If the Japanese were going to surrender, maybe the bombs weren’t justified. If this is true, perhaps a large reason that nuclear weapons were used was sheer curiosity. They had been tested before, but apparently not in an urban environment with many people around. I don’t know how much of a motivation this was, but it’s possible.

 

 

 

However, I think there’s a low probability that the bombs were used by the Allies out of an evil desire to slaughter countless people. There are only a handful of historical figures I know of who appear to have thought that way. I wouldn’t put President Truman and other Allied leaders into this category. I would only accuse Axis leaders like Hitler and Stalin of having this motivation, and even that is debatable.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, most of us don’t know what it’s like to be in charge during war. I can only imagine the incredible pressure on people who had to make these decisions. It’s even harder to speculate about their thoughts when innocents get lumped in with enemies. How do you decide who lives and who dies? How can you determine the most efficient ways of killing people, while ensuring that your response is strong enough to defeat your enemies? How can you outsmart your opponent by using a magician’s misdirection?

 

 

 

 

Operation Downfall:

 

 

This brings us to Operation Downfall. It was the Allied plan to continue the invasion of Japan after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Downfall was divided into Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Olympic would be a full scale attack by sea on a Japanese island called Kyushu, and the first domino to fall. It would have been the largest naval assault in history! General Macarthur, who was in charge of Allied command for Operation Downfall, preferred this to the navy’s proposed bombing strategy.

 

 

The plan for Coronet was to attack the largest Japanese island, Honshu, which had the highest population. This would have been an even bigger naval invasion than Olympic! Air bases captured through the first domino in this plan were meant to be used for air support.

 

 

One of the highest estimated Allied casualties for Operation Downfall was up to a million! These predictions varied widely. But this plan would have been phenomenally historically significant if it had been executed. That’s especially true since it would have been combined with the two largest naval invasions in history. One of the main goals with this operation was to hinder Japanese air power so they couldn’t attack ground forces that were intended to be used later on.

 

 

The difficult terrain of the Japanese island geography made planning difficult. This is why the Americans didn’t like the idea of using ground troops. U. S. forces had to estimate what Japanese defences would be there because it was easy to hide them from air recon. The invasion of Kyushu for Operation Olympic was scheduled for November 1st, 1945.

 

 

 

One part of Downfall was Operation Pastel. This was meant to trick the Japanese into thinking that the U. S. was going to attack Chinese ports around Shanghai instead of the obvious strategic targets in Japan. Dummies attached to parachutes were going to be dropped from planes the day before the assault on Kyushu. Real equipment was going to be dropped there as well. This magician’s misdirection was also meant to make it seem like Allied ground troops had arrived in the Philippines, along with the air force in Okinawa. The final version of this deception plan also included making it appear like the Americans were going to launch an assault on Shikoku island in Japan, with amphibious infantry landings. The narrative of the fake Allied landings was going to be told through methods like radio propaganda broadcasts, stories in major newspapers, and dropping leaflets. This is all psychological warfare.

 

 

 

Forces that were already close to Japan were intended to be used in both Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, including British naval fleets. Once this first domino fell, Coronet was going to begin with the invasion of Honshu on March 1st, 1945.

 

 

 

This second phase also included detailed misdirection. The Americans were going to sell the story that they would land in Shikoku, Korea, and Hokkaido. It was broadcast that the Shikoku assault would happen one month after the real landing in Honshu, on April 1st. This would help make the Japanese be unprepared for defence. The Allies were also going to reorganize their ground troops to make it look like they were getting ready to attack Shikoku. They even got military staff in the Philippines to write and publish strategic studies of the terrain in Honshu and Shikoku.

 

 

…To be continued…

 

The Russian revolution is a fascinating story. So many surreal characters and events were involved. The people include Rasputin, Tsar Nicholas II, his wife, Alexandra, their son, Alexei, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin. The events include the end of the Russian monarchy, the revolution itself, and the fact that it took place during World War I. All of these circumstances and characters were interconnected, which is why this story is so engrossing, and why history can be stranger than fiction. Political upheaval, a demolished economy, conspiracies, revolution, and war, all make reality seem more exciting than some of the best novels of all time.

 

Tsar Nicholas the II was the last emperor of Russia, which makes him a significant historical figure. He was the final ruler of the Romanov family, who controlled the country from 1613-1917. That’s over 300 years! That alone would have made him worth remembering, but there were so many other factors involved with the end of his power. A main element was Lenin, who led the Bolshevik revolution, which was one of the small number of successful coup d’etats in history. This was the second of the two most significant power shifts that took place during the revolution.

 

 

Another reason that Tsar Nicholas II’s story is interesting is his relationship with Rasputin. He is one of my favourite historical characters. That’s because he supposedly had so much influence on the Tsar that people thought he was the puppet master behind the ruler. Rumours like this were perpetuated because Rasputin spent a lot of time with the royal family. Since it was long before modern medicine, this was because he was the only person able to help Alexei, Nicholas’ son. The boy was very sickly from hemophilia, which he inherited from his mother, Alexandra. It is a disease that makes it difficult for your blood to clot. This means that he had to be careful about injuring himself because he would bleed a lot more than the average person. Before modern medicine, many people with this ailment could easily die from small cuts because when your blood clots, it helps you avoid losing so much that you die.

 

 

There were also rumours about Alexandra having a secret sexual relationship with Rasputin because he spent so much time with the royal family, including instances when the Tsar was elsewhere. So there were likely many opportunities for this, and the theory is intensified by Rasputin’s reputation as a womanizer. Men cheating on their wives seems to have been more common back then, or at least more openly accepted. But he apparently did so frequently, and without shame.

 

 

Another interesting bit of information about Rasputin is that no one really knows how he healed Alexei so well. He may have had secret abilities or resources that are common today. But for the time, he seemed to have magic powers. Rasputin appeared to easily alleviate symptoms that every doctor and expert failed to treat. The suspicion against him, along with probably various other factors, led to his assassination. This brings us to my favourite aspect of his story, which most people who paid attention in high school history class likely know: He was phenomenally difficult to kill, if reports are to be believed. First, he was poisoned, which seemed to have no effect. Then, he was shot multiple times, but still didn’t die. He was drowned after that, but this didn’t work either. So he was shot again in the head, at close range, which is what finally killed him. However, this account, which has been dramatized since then, was first told by the man who ended his life. Also, autopsies apparently showed no traces of poison or drowning as the cause of death, and concluded that the final gunshot was what killed him. But perhaps Rasputin survived a lot of torture, and the rumours are fascinating nonetheless. Just look at those beady eyes staring back at you.

 

 

I’m not a historian, but it seems like Tsar Nicholas II gave up his power due to a variety of factors. These include Lenin’s Bolshevik revolution, rampant starvation caused by an eviscerated economy, and WWI increasing political turmoil. Along with other components, these created a potent necessity for abdication. Lenin succeeded him, becoming the first head of the Soviet state, under the Communist Party.

 

 

This brings us to Trotsky. He and Lenin seem similar to Che Guevara and Fidel Castro in terms of communist leaders. This is because, like Guevara, Trotsky was kind of an intellectual. He was somewhat behind the scenes, influencing changing power dynamics with his well-planned ideas. Lenin seemed to have extra charisma, and was an animated politician and speaker. Like Fidel Castro, he apparently was more of a public figure who inspired people to continue their revolutionary activities. Trotsky was well-versed in Communism, and a known Marxist. Like Guevara, he helped explain and plan his passionate leader’s actions.

 

 

The Tsar, Alexandra, Alexei, and practically everyone else with power, were executed by the Bolsheviks, Game of Thrones-style. The entire imperial family was taken to a basement, and shot. Anyone else who could have replaced them was either escaped, or was killed. You want to eliminate everyone who might take away your new-found power after a revolution, right?

 

Lenin controlled Russia from 1917 until his death in 1924. People expected Trotsky to take over as leader, but he was overcome by a more threatening opponent; Stalin, who is one of the most brutal dictators in history. There is some debate among historians about this, but he is likely responsible for the deaths of at least 8 million people. That’s a pretty fucking massive genocide! He gained power as the General Secretary of the Communist Party in 1922, and manipulated his way to the top after Lenin’s life ended. He led Russia until he died in 1953.

 

 

I barely glossed over this story because there is an insane amount of relevant information, so many interconnected factors were involved, and there are ample contradictory speculations. Nonetheless, regardless of what anyone thinks about the details, the Russian Revolution was a fascinating historical event. That’s why I love history. It’s like a collection of stories that may be true. I love fiction, but when you want to read about betrayal, suspense, corruption, conspiracies, political upheaval, starvation, and genocide, you need look no further than the Russian Revolution. It’s almost as exciting as Game of Thrones.

History is fascinating. I’m not an expert on the subject, but endless mind-boggling information can be learned from it. There are mountains of immersive, counter-intuitive accounts of topics like the brutality of war, connections between leaders, and their psychology. The best historians illuminate ample factors involved with global conflicts that no one else seems to consider. They taught me that economic trade, foreign policy, and geopolitics are almost inexorably connected with history. This subject helps me learn that world events are a hell of a lot more complex than the way they are commonly portrayed in the media.

Slavery apparently took place throughout the majority of human history. So pretty much only historians who specialize in it have a good understanding of it. However, I think that Dan Carlin does an excellent job of painting a broad picture in his engrossing podcast called Hardcore History. He teaches history as a story, with discussion of motivations behind actions, and quotes of first-hand accounts.

Carlin’s episode on slavery reiterated this information for me: it existed throughout history, was essentially ubiquitous, and no race was safe from it. Since people began forcing others to do their work, the whole world copied that. Why do manual labour, when you can make someone else do it? Entire societies were built and maintained on the backs of slaves. It wasn’t black people alone who were subjected to this either. Every race of people could be forced into slavery. Whether you were black, brown, white, yellow, purple, or any other colour, you could be captured and enslaved. That doesn’t mean that each race was equally represented in slavery of course. As Carlin said at one point, white slaves were coveted, and cost more because they were rare. However, contrary to popular belief, a lot of the first slaves that came to America were white Irish people. Apparently, the majority of slaves were black Africans, but these Irish were just as dehumanized. They even used to be referred to with the N word, which is still used in a derogatory way towards black people.

It wasn’t just white people enslaving the rest of the world. Since it happened globally, whites enslaved blacks, black people enslaved whites, brown people enslaved black and white people, and vice versa. Everyone enslaved everyone. Thousands of years ago, common practice for a conquering army shifted from killing civilians, to enslaving them. If you’re a ruler, you might as well turn the people you’ve invaded into a free work force, rather than letting them go to waste, right?

As many people know, most gladiators were slaves too. They were often prisoners, who were forced to fight for their lives as a form of entertainment. For centuries, crowds flocked to see men brutally kill each other.

Sex slavery was a huge industry too. This is a horrifying component of the issue. Since these people didn’t always want to have sex with their masters, an unfathomable amount of rape happened. It wasn’t even seen that way. You can’t rape property, so if you look at a person in the same way, then you’re not doing anything wrong.

According to Carlin, slaves were cheap, and everyone was encouraged to have them if they could afford them. They were looked at as commodities rather than people. Even the poor often had a few slaves. It was considered fair for people to have them, as if they were a necessity. Everyone wants their own personal helpers, right?

Generally, the richer people were, the more slaves they had. But the most mind-blowing information I learned from the podcast is this: Even slaves had slaves! Yes, civilization was so deluded that even those forced into slavery seemed largely unable to see that contradiction. Those who had their freedom taken away in favour of being beaten and tortured like wild animals subjected others to the same fate. Apparently, some slaves earned money by running companies for their masters. They used some of their earnings to buy products with the highest ROI, (return on investment) which were slaves.

Innovation was hindered for centuries by slavery. When you have people doing all your manual labour for you, inventing labour-saving devices doesn’t even occur to you. That’s why the invention of the cotton gin played a massive role in the abolition of slavery in the United States. If you can buy a machine that processes cotton way faster  and cheaper than several slaves, that’s a great investment. Collective mindsets being slowly, painfully changed might have been much more responsible for this abhorrent concept’s demise. However, innovation does appear to have done a lot to help free slaves.

To me, slavery is one of the best ways of showing how all of humanity can be deluded about morality. Even Aristotle, with all his wisdom, owned and approved of slaves. It took thousands of years for people to understand that it is wrong to make someone else your property. This seems like common sense now, which is why it’s so dumbfounding. If I kidnapped someone and forced them to do manual labour, almost everyone would think I’m a crazy psychopath. No sensible person would do that today. As far as I know, only barbarians and warlords in third world countries still do it. But it was probably commonplace for the majority of history. It took thousands of years for us to give this a second thought.

Maybe one of the largest problems was the nearly inevitable cycle of oppression. Someone above you gets mistreated, they pass it on to you, and you do so with those beneath you. One of the easiest ways to gain power was through slavery, so perhaps that’s one of the reasons that it lasted so long. It’s hard to give up privilege once you get it. Would you want to let go of valuable tools that you considered to be property, especially with little-to-no incentives? It’s hard for us to look at human beings this way now, but conformity can create enormous moral blind spots.

Slavery makes me wonder what current collective behaviour might be viewed as evil in the future. Maybe it’s eating meat. (though I’m not saying that vegans and vegetarians have the right idea) Perhaps it’s mining in war-torn countries for raw materials that we use for our smartphones and other devices. Who knows? Only the future will tell us what we are all doing now that could be seen as unimaginably contemptuous. Maybe I and other people making similar predictions are wrong, but history suggests that this trend isn’t going to stop. In my opinion, we should always remember that we might not be as righteous as we think we are.

 

I read a fascinating book the other day called Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Everyone has probably heard the stories of brutality and bloodlust associated with this iconic historical figure. He had an incredible impact on the world; so much that he is one of the handful of people in human history about whom almost everyone knows.

My amateur knowledge on the subject is also complimented by Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcast. The stories that he tells are so detailed and captivating that it is by far my favourite way to learn about history. His series called Wrath of the Khans tells an incredibly engrossing and educational narrative.

The picture of Genghis Khan painted by conventional opinion seems accurate, to a certain extent. As far as anyone knows about history, it’s almost undeniable that the Mongols were unimaginably violent. They would sometimes apparently murder every single person in areas they invaded, including women and children. They killed so many people that others following in their wake would come across giant hills of bodies. Some were so large that there are stories of them being mistaken for mountains off in the distance. The most mind-boggling thing that I’ve heard about the Khans in terms of their murderous intent is this: they slaughtered so many people that they altered the global carbon footprint! I’m not sure how that’s even possible, and I don’t know much about climate science. But since people produce carbon when we breathe, and it’s what we’re made of, then the less people there are, the smaller carbon footprint there is. I have no idea about the math to do with this hypothesis. But if you extrapolate that, approximately a fucking ton of people would have to be killed for the carbon footprint to be significantly altered across the entire world.

However, even villains have good ideas. Genghis Khan probably wasn’t a representation of unadulterated evil, and I bet that neither was someone like Hitler. It’s not as if the bad guys are so successful by just being bad, and they make progress in spite of their character. Eva Braun, who was Hitler’s girlfriend, probably thought he was a great guy. By the same token, Genghis Khan likely had people he cared about, and not everything he did centered around destruction and death. I don’t think you can conquer most of the known world based on those motivations alone.

Genghis Khan seems to have made many pragmatic and even altruistic decisions. Sometimes, when conquering new territories, he would apparently look for people who were the best at their vocation, and incorporate them into his army. This is an excellent idea because sparing their lives gave him the best intellectuals and tradesman. Why not have the smartest philosophers and best blacksmiths from everywhere working for you, instead of killing them? Many more people would have pointlessly lost their lives if the Mongols hadn’t done this.

There are also stories of the Khans encouraging progressive ideals. I don’t know much about the details of this, but they were purportedly some of the first people to legislate rights for peasants and average people, and for women. Yes, the bloodthirsty mongols are said to have been proponents of women’s and civil rights. I’m not sure how far these privileges went, and they almost certainly wouldn’t be considered impressive by today’s standards. However, it seems like they were much better than the alternative. Women and people in minorities, including those the Mongols invaded, may have had advisory positions, or some other form of power. They also had their basic needs met, like food and clothing. This doesn’t appear to have happened often with victims of invading armies. Maybe the Mongols knew that giving conquered people the bare necessities increases the chances of their loyalty.

Genghis Khan also used impressive military tactics. The heavy use of cavalry, which apparently was not common at the time, gave them significant advantages. This is particularly true since the Mongols are painted as expert horsemen. They had such strong bonds with their horses that when riding them, they likely became extensions of their own bodies. This is similar to how it could feel that way when you’re used to fighting with a sword. It’s like it becomes a part of you, according to experts in these areas. The Khans were so good at using horses that they sometimes would lure an army into chasing a group of them on horseback, only to lead them into an ambush. This would work particularly well if the enemy had little to no cavalry.

As most people who have heard of the Mongols probably know, they also are seen as master archers. Genghis Khan’s soldiers could apparently fire several arrows per second, even though they used bows that require a significant amount of strength. I’ve also heard that they hooked circular devices that look like rings to their fingers, which helped them hold other arrows in their firing hand without releasing them. The Mongols also likely combined their adept archery and horsemanship to allow them a unique advantage. Through all the practice and discipline that must have been required, they developed the ability to fire arrows while riding on horseback. But the details of how they did this is what sets them apart from other armies. When a horse is galloping, it can throw off the accuracy of your shot. So the Khans trained themselves to fire arrows at the moments when all four hooves of their horses were in the air! I know little about archery, and much less about horses, but this skill is so amazing because that window is obviously very short; probably less than a second. This is particularly true when a horse is moving faster.

The Mongols are by far some of the most iconic characters in history. Genghis is the most well-known, but many of his descendants, like Kublai, had huge impacts on their lasting empire. It’s hard to know who, in history, had the greatest impact on humanity, and which aspects are the most interesting. But the Mongols are some of the top contenders, in my opinion. They are exceptions to a lot of general rules in history, such as that you can’t successfully attack Russia in the winter. As far as I know, the Khans are the only people who accomplished that. They also were vagabonds for a long time when they were controlled by Genghis. They would live in tents, and often survive on rats and other rodents. Their discipline was one of their greatest strengths. Apparently, Genghis Khan also fucked so many women that 1 in 200 people are direct descendants! A large part of this is likely due to the fact that Asia has a high population, and I think that a lot of his territory was there at the time. So since Asia has a higher population than other parts of the world, it makes sense that a large percentage of people in general fall into this category. But still, 1 in 200 is a hell of a lot of people.

Whether you think the Mongols were one dimensional bad guys or not, they had an unfathomable effect on history. Their accomplishments were astonishing in scope, and many have not been replicated. It seems like they also had a lot of great ideas, some of which were progressive. These concepts aided in their unparalleled progress in global conquest. Pretty much no bad guys are all bad, and no good guys are all good. The brilliant tactics seem to often not be given equal consideration because they came from “murdering psychopaths.” But contrary to popular belief, the Mongols are in some ways, the epitome of progress and human rights.