If It Walks Like a Nazi, Talks Like a Nazi, Calls Itself a Nazi...

I wrote a blog post earlier this week in which I took a rather middle-of-the-road, undecided stance on the issue of whether Trump should have been condemned for claiming liberals were equally at fault in Charlottesville. I do believe that anarchists were responsible for a good deal of the violence in Charlottesville, not in perpetrating the worst of it, but in inciting others to do so. I don't, however, believe that anarchists qualify as an "alt-left", since the only thing they have in common with liberals is opposition to a conservative government; that's not a compelling similarity considering they also oppose a liberal government.

A lot has happened since then, obviously, as he's proceeded to dig himself deeper ever day, but that's not why I'm inclined to rescind my moderate view in this regard.

This morning I had someone tell me we can't judge the Alt-Right, the KKK, or even the American Nazi Party itself based on the "extreme example" of World War II.

It was one of those jaw-dropping moments for me, and impressed upon me that one cannot really afford to take a moderate stance on anything pertaining to Nazis. The fact that anyone could say that simply flabbergasted me, but I realized that, perhaps I take for granted other people's awareness of history.

The German Nazi party was founded in 1920, took power in 1933 (despite lacking the support of most Germans) and then proceeded to ban all other parties effectively ending democracy in Germany. It then used that power to not only aggressively expand across central Europe, but to begin a slow-boil from white supremacist rhetoric to extermination. Other nations at the time tried to ignore the execution of their white-supremacist agenda and to appease their expansionism, but as the leader of the Sudeten German Party said to Adolf Hitler, the Nazis "must always demand so much that [they] can never be satisfied."

The World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists (WUFENS) was founded in 1959, nearly fifteen years after the end of the German Nazi Party (1945) and well after the crimes committed by the Nazi Party became well known to the world at large during the Nuremberg Trials (1945-1946). The founder of WUFENS also renamed the organization as the American Nazi Party (ANP) a year later, I assume because he was worried his fellow Americans wouldn't connect them to the Nazi's we fought in World War II. (This was also before the establishment of the larger World Union of National Socialists in 1962).

Given the many WWII veterans voting in the 1960s, the ANP faced intense resistance in American elections, so in 1967 the founder attempted to 'reform' the party (more like soften its image), renaming it the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP) and instructing members to be less vocal about some of their beliefs. His attempts to create a 'moderate' version of Nazism ended with his assassination that same year by a rejected ANP applicant (he was rejected for being too socialist, mind you, not for being a homicidal ****head). Given that the Civil Rights Movement was succeeding, his successor retained the decision to 'tone-down' hate speech directed towards non-whites, however, they retained the party's emphasis on "a future all-white society" as the party's ultimate goal. Since then the party has, as I understand it, been rife with internal conflict, breaking into many smaller cells.

The point, however, is that the Nazi party of Germany from 1920-1945 is not an extreme example of Nazism. The German Nazi Party was not a splinter group or an extremist group. The party that perpetrated the holocaust was the seed from which the others descend. Modern Nazis knowingly embrace and celebrate a heritage of mass violence and domination, approving horrific actions that many Nazis in WWII would have been appalled to learn about. The German Nazi Party established the values and agenda that represent the core philosophies of their successors, and fundamental to that philosophy is the goal of AN ALL WHITE SOCIETY, or what we might less politely but more concisely call GENOCIDE.

The members of the American Nazi Party did not go out and create a new party with some incidentally overlapping ideals or integrate themselves into an existing, authoritarian party. They formed a party as a direct successor to the German Nazi Party felled 15 years earlier, and they not only retained the Nazi name, they retained the swastika, the Third Reich flag, and the sturmabteilung uniforms as core elements of their image. They adopted and kept those symbols because they took pride in their predecessors' legacy, and they did so fully knowing that for much of the world they were symbols not only of 'racial purity' but of terror, intimidation, and extermination.

American Nazis are not simply fragile white men whining about political correctness or reverse discrimination; these are people who support an organization which would, given the opportunity, end the system of government that protects it and exterminate at least a third of our country.

And yeah, I'm sure that there are Alt-Right members who don't consider themselves "Nazis", but as they say, 'if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, its probably a duck'. If you stand next to someone with a Nazi flag, hold a torch, and chant about white power, what the hell are you if not a Nazi?

If you get to a rally, see that the other people who've turned up are championing an organization that industrialized the murder of a race, and you don't think, gee, maybe I'm on the wrong side of this, you are among the worst people this world has produced in the entirety of its history.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.

Update: Rise of Azraea, Book II

Last night I (hopefully) finished revisions to the sequel to my first book, Rise of Azraea: Book I. It started out as the ending of the first book, but that ending felt very rushed, and anticlimactic (after what is now the ending of the first book). So, I separated it, made it more in-depth, more character interaction, and a lot more action in general. After two revisions, it's grown to 90,017 words, nearly as long as the first novel. I hope to proofread it while traveling this weekend.

Book II is, hopefully, a meaningful story - especially in the context of recent events - but still funny and exciting (with maybe a few sweet, romantic moments). Some highlights from the hopefully soon-to-be new book:

Some technomagic geekery from the chapter, "We're Under Hill and On Air"

“Octaves,” Ochsner suddenly realized, “The numbers represent octaves. The system is translating between one set of spells and the other using bardic casting as a universal language. The numbers it’s assigned to each of your gnoman spells tell us the composition for each one based on musical notes…” 

Vicki studied the numbers and broke out a big grin as she understood what Ochsner meant. She whistled the first sequence in the list, and when she finished there was a soft chime, and then a voice came from the tablet in her hands. 

“This is scout two,” the gnoman voice said, “What’s going on? I heard this thing make a dinging noise or something.” 

Ochsner and the two gnomans whooped and cheered over the success. 

“Seriously, is everything okay?” the voice said again. 

“Yes scout two,” Vicki said, “Base is just revolutionizing the art of remote communication.”

Some moralizing, from the chapter, "You Never Really Go Home Again"

Azraea sighed and shook her head. She took Kaira’s hand and squeezed it, “I’m sorry. I know what you meant and there’s nothing wrong about being worried about those closest to us. The problem isn’t that we callously devalue the lives of the rest, it’s that we’ve accepted that the slaughter of a hundred people in the street is just something that can happen, and we believe that if it had to happen, then we should be thankful that at least it didn’t happen to someone close to us.” 

Some colorful side characters, from the chapter, "And Things Went South from There"

“Salmon roll!” the little grey haired woman never remembered names, but she could remember her regulars by their orders, “I thought you graduated?! Come in, come in! Who is your friend? Where are Mammoth Steak and Chicken Fingers?” 

“Samantha, this is Lily. Lily, this is Samantha,” Azraea said, “She helped me out of some trouble this morning.” 

“What sort of trouble?” Lily said suspiciously. 

“A dicksack got handsy with Salmon Roll and caught on fire. It was a debacle, ma’am.” 

“I see. I always knew that would happen eventually.”

Some reflections on the 2016 election, from the chapter, "Black and White and Dead All Over"

For Syliva, it was simply amazing to watch; she’d crafted a complex strategy to place herself in power, but most of it had become unnecessary – her base was unwavering, sustained not by personal interest or welfare, but simply by the spite they felt for the segments of the population that reviled her. All she had to do to keep them happy was to act like a monster.

A little orc/elf romance from the chapter, "A Fair to Remember"

“Now tell me, have you ever eaten anything deep fried?” Thrakaduhl asked. 

“I don’t even know what that is.” 

“Well, that explains your delicate dimensions.” 

Kaira raised an eyebrow, “Delicate?” 

“In much the same way a rapier is, of course.”

Two male characters passing a Reverse Bechdel Test, from the chapter, "Retaliation"

“A lot of the guard has gone away without leave, and what’s left is straining to maintain some semblance of peace in the countryside. Technically the men you see here are on vacation.” 

“Hell of a vacation.” 

“You know what they say, ‘come to the city, see the lights, kill the fascists,’ and all that,” Jericho nailed a rushing Firebrand in the head with one of his arrows. 

“Fascists?” 

“Or anarchists? Honestly, I don’t give a shit what they are at this point. I’ll call them bad guys and have my moral introspection after this is over."

Confederate Soldiers should be Memorialized - As Victims of White Supremacy

{This entry will be quite a lot shorter than what I usually write.}

Thinking about the social, cultural, and economic pressures involved at the time, most troops serving in the Confederate army during the Civil War can't (or at least shouldn't) be considered villains. The men (and boys) who fought on that side were born and raised in a culture of white supremacy and a society engineered to limit their exposure to other points of view.

It's easy to look back now and say that they were human beings capable of making their own decisions, and should be accountable for their decision to fight on the wrong side of a war with a clear moral dichotomy, but that takes for granted our access to modern public education, mass media, and the massive social networks we connect to through the internet. These resources challenge our assumptions, and by presenting conflict between differing belief systems, provide many opportunities for critical thinking that most men and women of the Confederate States of America did not have. In a way, judging them harshly exhibits its own sort of prejudice, that is less a matter of hindsight bias and more akin to 'future privilege'.

In short, it may seem trite, but honestly, most Confederate soldiers didn't know better, and in some ways, they were victims, not perpetrators, of the South's war.

Accordingly, their deaths probably do deserve to be memorialized. However, remembering these victims with monuments to the oppressive culture that sent them to their deaths is simply appalling. Furthermore, if we're all supposed to 'come together' and 'set aside our differences' then we shouldn't have monuments to either the Union or the Confederacy, but rather to the Americans who fought and died during the Civil War (including those in the South who fought with the North, and vice versa).

Finally, while we should forgive the actions of confederate soldiers (and perhaps even their leaders) in a time and place of poor education and cultural homogeneity, the same patience can't reasonably be extended to people who perpetuate that war in an environment rich with information. The white supremacists of today may be ignorant, but it is certainly by their own volition and determination.


I had a whole shtick about the people of Westeros who join the White Walkers's army of the dead being compelled to fight and kill their neighbors by powers beyond their control, but it seemed especially irreverent. Obviously it would have ended with a joke about the War of Northern Aggression.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.

Violence Doesn't Solve Anything, So Punch a Nazi?

At the beginning of June, after finishing my second, full length novel (Wild Justice) I self-published my first novel, Rise of Azraea: Book I, on Amazon. To make Rise of Azraea a reasonable length, I broke the story roughly in half, separating it into two books. After getting the first book up on Amazon I promised myself I'd give writing a rest while I worked on other things in my life (primarily, my unfinished doctorate). I tabled both Wild Justice and Rise of Azraea: Book II.

I broke that promise about the middle of last week; around Wednesday or Thursday I picked up Book II and started revising it. I had some ideas I wanted to get down before I forgot, and thought if I could get through the few revisions I knew I wanted to make, I could give the finished work a read through on the trip we have planned for this weekend. That process has been a bit surreal; the novel, mostly built from content I wrote between 2013 and 2015, centers primarily around a college town ripped apart by racial violence after a wealthy narcissist stokes the flames of anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, and white supremacy to advance her own political agenda.

It was hard for me to say too much about the events in Charlottesville while working on the book this past weekend, because the actions of the protagonists in the book conflict with the values around which many people have rallied. Many posts in my Facebook feed have preached that hate and violence are wrong. Quotes from Mahatma Gandhi, Maya Angelou, and others have expressed this sentiment, as have writings by Christian leaders and polyamorous college professors (I'm happy to have a fairly diverse range of philosophical connections through my social network). There have also been many people who have said that these things are simply not American.

Being action-filled, cathartic fantasy like its predecessor, Rise of Azraea, Book II, doesn't really reflect those values, and I find it difficult to reconcile the actions I see as justified in a fantasy setting with the morality expected of me in the real world.  When the villains push, the heroes push back - and they aren't especially nice about it.

Azraea walked behind one of the armored men, dropped her blade into her hand, and ducked as she passed behind him, slashing the unprotected ligaments behind his knees. She’d seen enough corpses to know what that would do. He screamed and toppled to the ground, his armor clattering against the cobblestone. The ruckus grabbed everyone’s attention. The second armored man turned to see Azraea, but she was already in his face – literally. His armor and padding protected him well from the front, but guards, even offbrand rent-a-cops like these didn’t wear enclosed helmets. Azraea grabbed his face with her free hand and cast the fireball spell she’d been relentlessly practicing since they left Defiance. He screamed and started to fight back, but his brain cooked quickly as the temperature in his skull rapidly climbed. He was effectively dead well before his head burst into flames.

Azraea's not a hateful person, it's really not in her nature, but when she sees a pregnant woman being beaten in the streets by Nationalists with hired thugs backing them up, she doesn't try to talk it out with them, she doesn't try to explain to them why it's wrong to beat unarmed people to death; she kills three of the men and spares the fourth to spread the word.

It was easy for me to believe in pacifism as a child because I was never in any real danger, nor was I responsible for anyone who was. As I grew older, the latter part changed; I made friends that were victims of racial threats and sexual violence, giving me a very personal stake in such issues despite the privilege of my birth, and I also came to an understanding that, as an American citizen, I have a civic responsibility to protect my fellow Americans, and that, as a person, I have a moral responsibility to protect my fellow human beings.

Of course, how those responsibilities are interpreted varies quite a lot from person to person. Police brutality, terrorism, and war crimes are all the proof that there is a slippery slope between heroism and villainy when you resort to violence, and because of that I try to resist the temptation to share in jokes about punching Nazis or advocating the execution of domestic terrorists. I prefer to do "libtard SJW" things like write about injustices in society and vote against the election of individuals that would use their position to normalize oppression.

Still, despite knowing that violence is a terrible thing, I write fantasy novels where violence is gratuitous and swift, and in the real world, when someone quotes Martin Luther King Jr., saying that violence "doesn't solve any problems" and that it simply "multiplies evil and violence in the universe", I feel unconvinced. Pacifism doesn't have a great track record when it comes to problem-solving either; unlike violence, it requires participation from both parties in a conflict, and when one side refrains from violence, the other has little incentive to do so.

Of course, the original quote begins by specifying that "violence never really deals with the basic evil of the situation", and I do agree with that. Violence doesn't end racism, misogyny, or greed. It doesn't solve the core problems of the human race. At the same time, though, I also have to agree with the sentiment expressed in Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Although the book emphasizes the horrors of war and the tragic consequences of violence, it's pretty pragmatic about it:

"My mother said violence never solves anything." 

"So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that." 

Heinlein's snark may be lost on those without a pretty good background in ancient history (Carthage was eradicated in the third, very one-sided Punic War, which certain Roman politicians started with no real provocation) but the broad saying that violence "doesn't solve any problems" probably wouldn't ring true with even casual historians. True, we're still contending with racism and white supremacists waving the the confederate battle flag and the swastika - violence clearly did not solve the racial hatred and paranoid delusions of personal persecution that underlie those sentiments - but it's also true that slavery is illegal in the United States, and that Jewish Americans are not being systematically exterminated in concentration camps.      

People have been quick to condemn President Trump's response to the events in Charlottesville. Going by my friends online, I'm supposed to be angry that he called for us "all to come together" rather than outright condemn the white supremacists in his base. I'm supposed to be angry that he blamed hate on "many sides" rather than recognize the alt-right protesters as the driving force behind the violence. I'm supposed to be angry that, rather than be in a raging temper, he was simply, "very, very sad".

Trump's response was lukewarm and spineless, but didn't we basically write that script for him?

This isn't a blog post that ends with a moral or a bottom line. I had one, but I deleted it, because I remain unsure on which side of this I fall. Mostly I wish that the real world had the simplistic morality of fiction, where archaeologists and super soldiers punch Nazis, and happy endings involve dead dragons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.

Cake? Probably Death; Threatening North Korea is a Dead End

{For the easily confused: Not a picture of North Korea}

One of my Facebook friends made this observation today:

One person disagreed, and the basis of their perspective surprised me:

I'll admit that I don't understand how context (of placement?) applies to style in the sense that the original poster meant it, and of course, grammatically, a threat is just a particular kind of promise. Those points aside, though, I think what they were trying to get at is the importance a threat's credibility - how much we believe someone will follow through on a threat is important.

In particular, their idea seems to be that the current leader of North Korea wouldn't dare attack the United States, because his brother went to school here. In other words, Kim Jong-Un's threats are not credible, because an attack on the U.S. would risk harming his brother's college friends. Granted, Kim's relationship with his brother's former roommate would be slightly closer than his relation to his father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate, but staying his hand in this case would be a surprising degree of compassion from a man who executed his father's brother's entire family.

While the poster seems to think Kim Jong-Un wouldn't dare strike a U.S. target for fear of hitting one of his brother's ex-girlfriends, he seems to believe that, because Trump does not have any social connection to people living in the DPRK, he is much more likely to make good on his threat to violently attack North Korea if they continue to make threats. Given Trump is basically a walking 'I'll sue them!' factory, who follows through on his threats maybe 10% of the time, I'm surprised anyone would take his threats seriously, but evidently this person does.

But this is writer's blog, so let's just consider the quality of the threat based on its own content, rather than upon the character of the person issuing it, or upon their relative's educational backgrounds.

I'm not a martial artist, and most of the fights I've run into I have averted without physical conflict, so clearly I don't have the same expertise this person does. I'm not just a writer, though; I have an academic background in history and social psychology. From that point of view, I'd say the difference between a good threat and a bad threat is one of credibility.

In so far as a threat is a promise, it has two parts: (1) what you are promising to do, and (2) under what conditions you're promising to do it. To be believable, both of these need to be specific:

Good threat: "If you throw food on the floor one more time, you're going to bed without dessert."

Bad threat: "If you keep misbehaving, you're going to be in trouble."

The criteria for the threat to be fulfilled need to be clear, so the target of the threat knows where the line is and at what point they are crossing it. Otherwise, they will keep pushing the line incrementally to see how much they can get away with.

The nature of the promised response needs to be clear, as well, so that the consequences of non-compliance are tangible, and those consequences don't just need to be tangible, they need to be plausible. You can't threaten to do something you would be unwilling or unable to do. As irritating as it may be to drive 900 miles with your toddler kicking the back of your seat, you aren't going to "turn this car around" and cancel the vacation you've planned for three months.

If you're smart, you won't threaten them at all; you'll buy them cake, take them to a playground for twenty minutes, and resume driving after they've passed out. 

Threatening adults isn't really different from threatening children. Granted, you have to shift the scale of the threat a bit - it would be wonderful if Kim Jong-Un could swayed by threatening to withhold Mara-La-Go's now world famous "beautiful" chocolate cake, but as an adult dictator, the DPRK's Supreme Leader is capable of getting his own cake; for all we know, he's installed a button on his desk to summon his favorite sugary treat on demand - that's the sort of weird-ass thing dictator's do, right?

While the scale of the threat needs to be raised, the same underlying principles remain; the threat must be clear and believable. So how does Trump's threat measure up?

"North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen... he has been very threatening beyond a normal state. They will be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before." (Trump, August 8, 2017)

"Fire and fury" is pretty vague, and the "likes of which this world has never seen before" is needlessly mysterious. The population of the DPRK is less than 26 million - you don't need unprecedented fire and fury to destroy it; ordinary, well-precedented fire and fury should be a sufficient threat, provided that Kim Jong-Un (or the person holding his reins) believes we have the ability and willingness to use it.

The United States is, militarily, one of the most powerful countries in the world. Everyone knows we have guns, missiles, and bombs; we even give our marines swords just to make sure all our bases are covered. We're obviously capable of wiping out a country less than a tenth our size - if Trump wants a threat to be believable and compelling, he shouldn't emphasize the destructive power of our promised response, he should emphasize the ease with which we can respond and the futility of the DPRK's resistance to that response. And he should use details!

Show, don't tell!

Perhaps more importantly, though, the promised response needs to present a believable escalation. Threatening excessive force if a target does not accede to an unreasonable demand is the sort of thing that's only believable if it's coming from a psychopath.

It's unclear how exactly Trump is defining threats - announcements? Missile tests? What does it mean for North Korea to continue making threats? In the most general sense, countries make threats all the time, so demanding that the DPRK cease all threatening behavior seems more than a bit unreasonable.

And the degree of violence being threatened is greatly out of proportion with the problem. Trump's threat promises extreme preemptive retaliation (one would think that an oxymoron, but how else do you describe it?), but raining down death and destruction on a tiny country on the other side of the world because they said something that upset us wouldn't be escalation, it would be genocide.

Furthermore, it feels more than a bit hypocritical for a country that makes a big deal about free speech to tell another totalitarian regime to 'shut up or else'. The United States promising to obliterate a country if they do not accede to such a demand is simply not believable. That sort of one-sided attack would quickly propel us into the role of the world's chief villain. It's just not a believable response from the United States, a country which bargains for the better treatment of other countries' citizens. From a writing stand point, it's just too far out of character for us.

Much like 'promising' to kill someone if they attempt to punch you, Trump's threat was not intimidating; it was a vacuous statement about as meaningful as actually grabbing a ruler and unzipping his pants. (Also, only slightly longer than one of his tweets.)

So what does a good threat look like?

A threat needs to tell a story, and a good threat follows many of the same rules as a good story. The characters should act in a believable way, following realistic motivations and adhering to logical constraints, and the action should be detailed and specific. The more passionate, blustery part should be saved for later, after the story's credibility has been established for the reader.

The particular example that came to mind was this speech, delivered by President Harry S. Truman, June 7, 1945:

"There can be no peace in the world until the military power of Japan is destroyed with the same completeness as was the power of the European dictators. To do that, we are now in the process of deploying millions of our armed forces against Japan in a mass movement of troops and supplies and weapons over 14,000 miles, a military and naval feat unequaled in all history. Substantial portions of Japan's key industrial centers have been leveled to the ground in a series of record incendiary raids. What has already happened to Tokyo will happen to every Japanese city whose industries feed the Japanese war machine. If the Japanese insist on continuing resistance - beyond the point of reason - their country will suffer the same destruction as Germany. Our blows will destroy their whole modern industrial plant and organization which they have built up over the past century, and which they are now devoting to a hopeless cause. We have no desire or intention to destroy or enslave the Japanese people, but only surrender can prevent the kind of ruin which they have seen come to Germany as a result of continued, useless resistance." (Truman, June 7, 1945)

Our 33rd president made it clear what was expected and provided a detailed description of the consequences for continued opposition. Furthermore, he expressed openly that we had no desire to do further harm to Japan, and made a public promise of clemency if our expectations were met. That promise of mercy made the demand - total surrender - much more reasonable. As a result, it was a believable threat.

The Problem with Threats

Despite Truman's eloquence and carefully chosen words, Japan persisted, believing they were calling a bluff. As a result, two months later on August 6, 1945, we leveled Hiroshima with an atomic bomb. A single weapon killed tens of thousands of people in mere seconds. It was no longer a threat, or a promise; it was truly fire and fury the likes of which the world had never seen.

And yet Japan persisted. Despite the horrifying death toll, with no apparent retaliation or resistance possible from their end, they refused to accept our terms of surrender.

Seventy two years ago to the day, Truman returned to the airwaves to make another statement:

"My fellow Americans, the British, Chinese and United States governments have given the Japanese people adequate warning of what is in store for them. The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and unfortunately thousands of civilian lives will be lost." 

Perhaps most powerfully he added:

"I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately and save themselves." 

That same day, August 9, 1945, we demonstrated our commitment to the end of the war by destroying Nagasaki with a second attack. Japan finally surrendered 5 days later.

There shouldn't be any doubt that there's a vast difference between the commanding, authoritative tone of President Truman and the temperamental authoritarianism of President Trump. Unfortunately, the relevance of that difference is perhaps debatable.

In June of 1945, Truman was addressing a losing nation. The Japanese Empire had briefly spanned a large portion of the Pacific, seized control of coastal China, and conquered numerous surrounding countries - by the summer of 1945, the Empire had been carved apart by the Allies, who'd focused their efforts on capturing targets of greatest strategic value. With supply lines severed and military forces scattered and isolated, defeat was inevitable for Japan; the only thing left for Japan was to make their defeat as costly for the allies as possible. A full Allied invasion of Japan itself could not be repulsed, but its military was prepared to kill as many Allied soldiers as possible before it fell. Given this dedication, their surrender came only after we decisively proved the absolute asymmetry of their situation. After Truman's carefully worded threats, his final ultimatum had to be written in the irradiated blood of over two hundred thousand Japanese citizens. Once began, a war of tragedy and atrocity could only end with more of the same.

Now, over seven decades later, our commander-in-chief is trading petulant threats with someone who is almost certainly less concerned with the welfare of his people than the Emperor of Japan ever was.

Although not confined to the boundaries of his country the way his people have been, the DPRK's supreme leader can only understand conflict between the United States and Korea in a hypothetical sense. While his own father would have been about 10 years old when the United States and North Korea last fought, at 33 years old, Kim Jong-Un is more than a generation removed from the violence of the Korean War.

Similarly, born 53 weeks after Truman issued his threat to Japan in June of 1945, Donald Trump has never lived in a world where the United States wasn't a nuclear super power, and he has never witnessed the "fire and fury" of nuclear warfare. (And I'd lay good odds that he will tweet something offensive about Hiroshima and Nagasaki today.)

In short, neither the millennial nor the baby-boomer really has the life experience or educational background to understand the "fire and fury" they're playing with. It seems fairly unlikely to me that either of these men is actually interested in avoiding conflict, and even less likely that either of them understands how to do so.

The way I see it, the reality is this: whether you're talking about threats or promises, neither really works until after you've already followed through on them. Up until the point violence begins, threats do not reliably work.

If someone is actively seeking conflict, you will not avert conflict by promising them conflict. 

Maybe we should go back to the cake.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.