The Lies Of Hiroshima Are The Lies Of Today

[Echo In Light]

The Lies Of Hiroshima Are The Lies Of Today
By John Pilger

06/08/08 "ICH" -- On the anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, John Pilger describes the 'progression of lies' from the dust of that detonated city, to the wars of today - and the threatened attack on Iran.

When I first went to Hiroshima in 1967, the shadow on the steps was still there. It was an almost perfect impression of a human being at ease: legs splayed, back bent, one hand by her side as she sat waiting for a bank to open. At a quarter past eight on the morning of August 6, 1945, she and her silhouette were burned into the granite. I stared at the shadow for an hour or more, then walked down to the river and met a man called Yukio, whose chest was still etched with the pattern of the shirt he was wearing when the atomic bomb was dropped.

He and his family still lived in a shack thrown up in the dust of an atomic desert. He described a huge flash over the city, "a bluish light, something like an electrical short", after which wind blew like a tornado and black rain fell. "I was thrown on the ground and noticed only the stalks of my flowers were left. Everything was still and quiet, and when I got up, there were people naked, not saying anything. Some of them had no skin or hair. I was certain I was dead." Nine years later, when I returned to look for him, he was dead from leukaemia.

In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. "I write this as a warning to the world," reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called "an atomic plague". For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate "good war", whose "ethical bath", as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb.

The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".

Since 1945, the United States is believed to have been on the brink of using nuclear weapons at least three times. In waging their bogus "war on terror", the present governments in Washington and London have declared they are prepared to make "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states. With each stroke toward the midnight of a nuclear Armageddon, the lies of justification grow more outrageous. Iran is the current "threat". But Iran has no nuclear weapons and the disinformation that it is planning a nuclear arsenal comes largely from a discredited CIA-sponsored Iranian opposition group, the MEK - just as the lies about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction originated with the Iraqi National Congress, set up by Washington.

The role of western journalism in erecting this straw man is critical. That America's Defence Intelligence Estimate says "with high confidence" that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 has been consigned to the memory hole. That Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" is of no interest. But such has been the mantra of this media "fact" that in his recent, obsequious performance before the Israeli parliament, Gordon Brown alluded to it as he threatened Iran, yet again.

Continued:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20444.htm

[Snarkturian Clone]

1. oy.

[JeanGrey]

101. Yeah, this shit again. I'm SICK of it too.

[malaise]

2. K & R

The truth is an offense to many people

[zipplewrath]

3. Walk a mile in their shoes first

The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

I'm always uncomfortable with this part of the argument. There is a subtle "20/20 hindsight" aspect to it which is relatively unfair to the people who were involved and making the decisions at the time. For one thing I don't think anyone ever really has suggested that we could not have won the war without the bomb. What would have been in extreme dispute AT THE TIME was exactly what would have been required to force unconditional surrender. Let us remember that communications then aren't what they are today. There was no CNN, no internet, no cell phones. We know alot today that very few people at the time knew. Furthermore, there is the issue of what you know, what you think you know, and what you believe that is not true. It typically is expressed as the "fog of war". Not only do you not always believe what later turns out to be true, but one can also believe things which turn out to be false. So to suggest that various people "knew" that the Japanese wanted to surrender, or would if given the chance, is to profess to know what they people knew, believed they knew, and misunderstood.

Also I'm uncomfortable assigning singular "reasons" that we chose to use the weapon. There were many factors, of which this article describes some. Yes there was an interest in using it to influence the Russians. Yes, there were people who wouldn't believe the weapon even worked unless it was used in combat. But I don't really find anyone in a position today to establish that these were the "defining" reasons the decision was made. Let us remember that by the time this decision was made the US had been at war for 5 years.

I know in this day in age that may not sound like much, especially after a long protracted war in Vietnam, and now in Iraq. But I don't think most Americans today understand what life was like during WWII. It wasn't like now where we are encouraged by our leadership to "go shopping". Life then involved real sacrifice. Gas was rationed, at first very strictly. You couldn't buy a new car, or tires for that matter. Many common items were not available AT ALL. And every day the war was "front page". It was on the news reel before every movie (which folks went to frequently). It was on the radio almost "constantly". But even beyond that, it was very real in a very personal and tangible way.

There were upwards of 19 million men in uniform at various times. Every town, village, street really had someone "in the war". When you left, your family might not hear from you for months. Letters came in spurts, and censored. Families hung banners in their windows with blue stars for every family member in service. These stars turned to red for captured and injured. They turned to gold for the dead. By 1946 every neighborhood had red stars. Everyone knew someone with a gold star. Some families had multiple gold stars. Men were drafted for "the duration plus six months".

So to suggest that we used the bomb for singular reasons, other than to just end the war, is hard to square with just how tired people were of war. I've never seen anyone that could make a case that the primary reason for using the weapon wasn't to end the war as quickly as possible. Truth is, if the public knew that we were holding back on using such a weapon, they probably would have stormed the White House. Were there other reasons to want to use the bomb? Sure, and it is true that some knowledgeable people tried to stop it.

But it also true that most people really didn't understand exactly what it was. Einstein's theories were new. It wasn't particularly taught in high school and most folks didn't go to college. Most folks didn't know what "nuclear energy" was. Even after the bomb was used, most folks just thought it was a "really big bomb". And it isn't all that clear that many of the people involved in deciding to use it understood it much better. Even some of the people who helped design and build it only began to get misgivings after actually SEEING the bomb "work".

I have no problem with evaluating the decision to use the bomb, and I think in hindsight many people can make a good case that it was short sighted. I do find a certain amount of hubris in our diplomacy with respect to WMD's considering that we are still, and may always be, the only nation to ever actually drop such a weapon upon our enemies. But I think it is unnecessary to demonize our predecessors, and to assign sinister motives to their decisions, in order to make the case. It is hard to "know the mind" of the people who had lived through so much, and watched so many die. We can decide to be better without deciding that they were "bad".

[cobalt1999]

9. Great post.

I would add one more point. Reading the accounts from the Japanese politicians, they were not so impressed with the atomic bomb as a weapon (we already could and did destroy cities completely), but it gave them a "face saving" excuse to the surrender.

Saying, "the Americans have developed a terrible new weapon", gave them the excuse to get out.

[Parche]

10. Exactly

How many more months or years, should we have bombed them using conventional bombs, that probably killed as many people, as using the A-Bombs did.....

Most people who dont know that we had alot of POW's in Japan also, and they were dying every day from starvation and malnutrition, and sometimes retribution...
There were many reasons for dropping the A-Bombs, ending the war quickly was just one of them

[MadHound]

13. Then if we were in such a hurry, why didn't we accept Japan's offer of surrender before the bombs

After all, Japan was offering to surrender, with one condition, to keep the Emperor in his titular spot. Instead, we took a few more weeks(during which many more American soldiers and POWs died), dropped two bombs, and then allowed Japan to surrender, granting them one condition, that their Emperor staying in his titular spot. Hmmm, if the government was so hell bent on ending the war quickly, they could have done it weeks earlier. Of course then they couldn't have dropped the bombs as demonstration of our power for the Russians to see.

Sorry, but there was no need, nor any real valid reason for dropping the bomb.

[Parche]

17. Ah

Japan had several months to surrender, they knew they were beaten, they were surrounded
yet they went on, tell me why didnt they surrender in February, or March 1945?

An unconditional surrender is just that, we specify the terms, we were the victors...

:hi:

[MadHound]

20. They tried for weeks to surrender, the US refused

Japan wanted to keep their Emperor, the US pressed for an unconditional surrender. Yet when we finally allowed them to surrender after dropping two bombs, we granted them their Emperor. If we could have accepted their surrender weeks before Hiroshima, why didn't we? It amounted to the same thing, the Emperor remaining on the throne, but we got to show off our bright shiny new bombs for the whole world, which was our intent all along. You've got to understand that even as WWII drew to a close, the US and Russia were eying each other across the smoking ruins, each wondering how to achieve as much world influence and domination as possible. The bomb was merely an opening gambit in the Cold War, telling Russia in stark terms that the Pacific rim, like Western Europe, was our baby, our sphere of influence.

If Russia hadn't been in the equation, we wouldn't have bombed Japan, but rather we would have accepted their surrender and saved many, many lives, both American and Japanese.

[Parche]

24. Tried For Weeks?

That is a 'week' argument

They had months to surrender, how about January 1945? Why didnt they?

Truman warned them, they did not surrender, so they suffered the fate

We make the terms of the surrender, not the Japanese, they surrender to us, not the other way around.

[MadHound]

30. Quibbling over the time frame that I use is also a weak, and intellectually lazy argument

I use the term weeks in order to be more precise. In action packed segments of history, like WWII, professional historians generally tend to use smaller increments of time to break down the action more accurately. Weeks in this parlance can, and usually does, cover a period ranging back for six months or even more. Excuse the fuck out of me for being both a professional historian and for dealing with the time frame in an accurate matter:eyes:

Japan was making surrender overtures in January 1945. In fact there were surrender overtures going back to 1943. They started out with wanting more concessions than the latter offers, but eventually these surrender offers, starting in early 1945, January or February of that year, wanted only one condition, the retention of their Emperor. We would grant that one condition, but only after we had dropped the bomb, killed tens of thousands of civilians, and demonstrated to the Russians what a big dick we were swinging.

But by delaying that surrender, the US government also cost us US lives lost, while waiting for the bomb to drop. If we were all so fired up to save lives, why didn't we accept Japan's surrender before we dropped the bomb. Oh, yeah, that's right, we wanted to demonstrate to Russia just what we had packing.

Sorry, but as is the case many times in history, the official story is not the real or true one.

[Parche]

38. Unconditional Surrender

Japan does not make the terms of surrender, the United States does
and if Japan does not agree to that, then they suffered the fate....

[MadHound]

42. Actually in diplomacy, both sides can, and did make surrender overtures

The funny thing is that we took the Japanese offer up only after we bombed them, thus wasting thousands of lives, both American and Japanese. Hundreds of American soldiers died in those intervening weeks, and for what? To make this big demonstration to Russia.

[JeanGrey]

103. This reminds me of my Mom telling me five times to stop

doing something before I finally got my rear end warmed.

[uppityperson]

86. Are you saying that because they wouldn`t surrender on 1 specific day, their offer on other days

should not have been accepted? If they wouldn't surrender in Jan, then it was fine to reject their surrender offer in May? wtf?

[zipplewrath]

49. Do you really know intent?

but we got to show off our bright shiny new bombs for the whole world, which was our intent all along.

Are you asserting this or do you believe you have source that this was the singular reason for the decisions involved in the various acceptance, or lack thereof of the surrender offers? Remember, in essence the "decider" was Truman. Admittedly, he didn't particularly deviate from what was being recommended by the staff left behind by FDR, but none the less you are claiming to know the mind of Truman here. "Showing off" our weapon may have been a contributing factor no doubt, but the question remains if it was the "deal breaker" or was Truman perception that somehow this would end the war the fastest. I'm not attempting to defend the decision, and really as you suggest there are alot of legitimate questions about Truman's and the US decision process and the various influences upon that process. I'm just not sure it is particularly useful to interpret intent in order to address the decisions that were made.

[14thColony]

53. Well...

Here's one quote by Truman that would tend to speak to Truman's mind on the subject: "If this explodes as I think it will, I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys (referring to the Soviet leadership)." Ch 19, pg. 239 of "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" by Gar Alperovitz, NY: Knopf, 1995.

There are others from memoirs of senior administration officials at the time but I don't have time to track them down right now.

[zipplewrath]

63. doesn't speak to primary purpose however

That there were ancilary benefits doesn't sort out what the primary intent was. You are acusing Truman of prolonging the war to wait for an opportunity to use a weapon. That's a pretty serious claim. It would seem you would want a first person reference for it.

[cobalt1999]

21. Well, if you read the accounts of the Japanese

Especially those that were attempting to surrender earlier, you'd know that the offer was NOT from the rulers of Japan, but instead were unofficial overtures from folks in the government that feared for their lives if exposed.

It was no more valid than German overtures were before Hitler died.

[MadHound]

23. I have read the accounts from Japan

I have read extensively from many primary and secondary sources, and yes the surrender offers did carry weight, did come from those in power in Japan, from the rulers of Japan themselves. These were indeed valid offers that carried weight and authority, yet we ignored them in order to make this demonstration for the benefit of Russia.

[cobalt1999]

29. Well, I don't know what sources you are reading from then

I've read the biographies and accounts from all the Peace Party members at the time. They knew even if the US accepted their proposal, it didn't mean anything.

You'd also know the debate within the US government at the time about the authenticity of the proposal. You'll also know that it was decided (correctly) that the offer was not from sources that could implement it.

[MadHound]

39. There was no "Peace Party" at the time in Japan

Nor is there now. I don't know where you are getting your information, but as I've said, most of my sources are primary ones, diaries, records, journals, interviews, etc. all done at the time, or shortly there after. I'll stick with my sources, thanks.

The people in the Japanese government were fully aware of what was going on in the surrender process, and approved of it, as long as their Emperor stayed on the throne. I suggest you look up the Magic Diplomatic Summaries to verify this

And actually the debate wasn't about these overtures wasn't that great. Most, including Stimson, Bundy and even Truman thought that they were authentic. But other voices were heard, and kept the atomic option in play.

And the only "debate" in the US government came from the hotheads who wanted to play with their new toy. Even Ike and Stimson were against using the bomb if a reasonable surrender could be achieved(check out Stimson's diaries at Yale). But the overwhelming need to impress Russia ruled the died, and tens of thousands died in what was essentially the opening gambit of the Cold War.

[cobalt1999]

45. So why was the final surrender almost torpedo'ed by the military?

Because they were the ones in charge, not the ones doing the offer. That is why the offers were done so secretly.

[MadHound]

47. Which faction of the military?

There were, after all, about three or four:shrug: The faction that proposed surrender actually were, if you go back into the documents, part of the majority faction. The ones that were, as you put it, trying to torpedo the surrender talks were actually a military, minority, nationalistic faction, and while they had power, they weren't "in charge"

Please, go do some research. It is obvious that you're getting your information from biased, secondary sources. Try going with primary sources and make your own conclusions, rather than letting some biased author make those conclusions for you. That is, after all, the proper historical method of research.

[cobalt1999]

58. You've obviously studied this

However, based on the Japanese interviews I've read, I have serious doubts that the early peace offers were serious. In fact, the earlier the offer the less serious (such as the ones in 1943).

I consider the opinions of the people at the time an unbiased sources. When they say they feared for their lives by making the overtures, I do tend to believe them. I do know that they said the bomb gave an nice face saving out to the surrender process, that allowed the surrender to be accepted.

It was even used as a major theme in the Emperor's speech

"...This war has now lasted four years, and despite the best efforts of the military, the government and the Japanese people, this war has not been successful for Japan. The enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon<3> with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. If we continue to fight this war, this weapon will destroy the Japanese nation and bring about the total extinction of the human race.

As a result, I have no way to save the millions of Japanese citizens other than to surrender...."

The reality was we could have killed as many people with conventional weapons and destroyed their cities just as well. The bomb provided no real military advantage, but it did open a door to getting out.

[14thColony]

36. Bunk

The Magic Diplomatic Summaries for July 1945, produced from US intercept and decryption of the high-level Japanese diplomtic signal code-named 'MAGIC,' are replete with references to peace overtures and offers of surrender eminating from the highest levels of the Japanese government; several intercepts refer to the Emperor himself being involved in the diplomatic effort to seek an end to the war.

Allen Dulles later confirmed in a 1963 interview that Japan had been trying to surrender at least as early as the July 1945 Potsdam Conference, and he was confident his sources were speaking on the authority of the "highest quarters in Japan."
http://www.greenwych.ca/dulles.htm

[cobalt1999]

41. Not the point.

I'm not debating whether or not there were peace overtures and offers of surrender. Of course there were. They were much debated by FDR and his staff.

Many thought they were valid offers (like Dulles), many didn't.

I prefer to hear from the Japanese themselves. They were the only ones in a position to know. Remember, in Japan at the time, the military not the civilian government ruled. Even the eventual surrender almost didn't happen because of the the military.

[MadHound]

43. Stimson, Truman, Dulles, Ike and many others thought that they were valid offers

Historical records from both the US and Japan have shown that they were valid offers. We didn't take them up on these offers because we had other priorities, like making a big demonstration for Russia's sake.

[14thColony]

48. I must have misunderstood your post

when you stated that the offers were "NOT from the rulers of Japan" despite the documented fact that multiple MAGIC intercepts clearly refer to actions being taken on behalf of the Emperor himself. We can debate all day who held ultimate sway, the military junta or the Emperor, but I'd draw the line at saying he is not a "ruler of Japan."

The part that still begs for explanation is why did we reject overtures/gestures/offers of surrender/armistice/peace (choose your own formula there) possibly as early as January 1945 that were prima facia virtually identical to the final resolution we later came to in August 1945? Bottomline: they wanted to keep the office of the Emperor as head of state, and after their surrender we let them keep the office of the Emperor as head of state. So why did many tens of thousands need to die when we surely had the basis of at least a cease-fire by July 1945? And so what if it ended up being a ruse? What were they going to do, buy a few weeks until they could get their Death Star operational? They were militarily and economically prostrate. If the cease-fire didn't work out or it looked like they were trying to marshall forces for continued action, then loose the B-29s again and finish it. We had the luxury of time and the position of strength, but we refused/failed/were unable to use these. Why? The only reasonable explanation is that we needed them to totter along long enough to demonstrate the power of a nuclear bomb on them for the USSR's benefit as an object lesson. Memoirs of those in the Truman administration explicity state that in the views of some this was exactly the reason the peace overtures were ignored, and there was even genuine concern that Japan would not survive long enough to have an a-bomb dropped on them.

[cobalt1999]

62. I think the offer to reject the emperor was sincere in January 1945.

I also believe the shock of the Okinawa fight, made the US relent on that topic more than demonstrating the bomb did.

However, there is no doubt the US wanted to demonstrate the bomb, and especially for the Soviets.

[WeDidIt]

98. The point everybody misses is that Truman was not in the loop

so when FDR died, Truman had to be filled in from the ground up.

[Thothmes]

32. We did not allow Japan to surrender. The finally accepted

the terms that we imposed. All they had to do is signal their intention to accept the Potsdam accords and the war would have ended the next day. They finally did this after the Nagasaki bombing. Show us where we granted the Japanese emperor the right to remain on his thown before the Japanese surrendered. Neither the Potsdam accords or the actual instrument of surrender called for the removal of the Emperor, they never did. His continued presence on the throne was to be determined after the surrender by the Allied Supreme Commander. Hirohito's position as Emperor was not guaranteed by agreement or document before the surrender of Japan.

[MadHound]

46. Impressive, you're arguing two sides of this question at once,

Perhaps without realizing it, and providing ample evidence for my side in this debate. However I'll let you sort it out, figure out where you stand, and then you can get back to me.

[Thothmes]

74. Not Quite

We did not make a deal concerning the Emperor of Japan before the Surrender of Japanese forces. We did not make a deal with the Japanese after the surrender about the status of the Emperor. It was the allied Supreme Commander that determined that he would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne as a figure head. He also had the authority granted by the surrender to remove the Emperor if he decided to do so.

[KillgoreTrout]

102. What surrender?

They would not surrender unconditionally. It had to be an unconditional surrender or obliteration. They chose obliteration. If we had not used nukes, hundreds of thousands would have died by fire-bombing and hundreds of our pilots would have been killed. They attacked us. We did not start that war. We finished it.

[OmahaBlueDog]

16. Amen, and I'd add this

Part of the calculus in planning Operation Olympic (the planned invasion the Japanese Home islands) versus using the bomb was witnessing the carnage at Okinawa and Iwo Jima, at which Japanese soldiers literally entrenched and fought to the death. The Japanese had shown their willingness to turn airmen into human guidance systems, and commit suicide in attempts to sink allied naval vessels. Looking at the decision with that perspective in mind, I can see why Truman opted to drop the bomb.

You mention mass murder. All war is mass murder. Whether you talk about the Nazi blitz against England, the firebombing of Dresden, or the A-Bombs, it's all mass murder. Truman was offered a Devil's Bargain -- kill 200,000 civilians now in order to keep the war from dragging through 1946 and possibly enduring 1,000,000 deaths in the bombing and invasion of the home islands.

Did the Soviet's getting half of Japan figure in? Yes. Did we want to teach them a lesson? Yes. At the end of the day, I think most of the motive was ending a bloody, protracted was as quickly as possible.

[alarimer]

27. Yes all war is mass murder.

I don not make much distinction between the A-bomb and the fire-bombing used in other cities, the only difference being the radiation, which may have gone on killing for year.

I also believe that the full consequences of such a bomb were not really known by the people who made the decision, like Truman, who ultimately made the decision. The scientists knew and they tried to stop it.

The real tragedy is not the ones who died instantly; their suffering was brief. It was those who were farther away who suffered more, with the burns and they years of radiation sickness. I have never seen any good estimates of how many died later, but I assume it was in the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands.

[14thColony]

50. I learned something...

You and I are both wrong on operation names. Earlier I referred to the invasion of Japan as Operation Coronet. You call it Olympic. It appears though that Olympic and Coronet were just phase 1 and phase 2 of Operation Downfall, the real overall name.

[OmahaBlueDog]

52. We learn something new every day

[Chulanowa]

75. Oh bull

We had already demolished the Japanese islands with conventional bombing well before dropping the A-bombs. Do you know why we didn't drop Fat Man and Little Boy on somewhere like Tokyo?

Because we had already pounded Tokyo flat into the ground. Same with several other cities. Japan's back was broken, their military was mostly impressed teenagers with no clue. A land invasion would not have seen a million American casualties. Nothing even close.

200,000 were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But far, far more Japanese civilians were killed during conventional air raids.

[OmahaBlueDog]

99. I didn't say a million American casualties

I said a million casualties. Gien the resistance the Japanese had shown at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, that figure is not unreasonable.

No one is arguing that conventional air raids didn't do horrific damage.

[KillgoreTrout]

104. Well Said

That sums it up pretty well. We didn't start that war.

[Swede]

26. Great post.

Hindsight is 20/20.

[KillgoreTrout]

100. Very well said

We felt a need at the time to show the world that if you mess with the US, be prepaired to suffer the most injurious thing imaginable. Many could not even imagine the awesome power of a nuclear bomb. If Japan was so willing to surrender, they would have done so after the first A-bomb was dropped. They did not. Many too, don't understand the Bushido warrior's code of fighting to the death and the humility of surrender. The Japanese civilians were killing themselves in droves on the Islands that we liberated. We had no good reason to believe that they would ever surrender. And yes, the bombs saved more lives than they took, initially. Even we did not fully understand the reach of nuclear fallout.
What we did was horrendous, but what the Japanese did invited it. They were barbaric and treated our wounded and our prisoners worse than someone would treat a dog. They called down the thunder, and they got what they asked for, maybe more, but they started it. We finished it.

[IndianaJones]

4. waa. nt.

[Romulox]

5. The obscuring of Japan's genocidal war crimes is a big part of the lie, too. nt

[IndianaJones]

6. they aren't obscured...the faux outrage crowd doesn't give a crap. nt.

[Seeking Serenity]

7. Or they tell us that what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese, Koreans,

our own POWs, etc., wasn't our business; that we shouldn't have tried to "police" them.

[IndianaJones]

11. yet they are "concerned" for the Japanese civilian casualties...

which saved the lives of many more civilians that would have died in a prolonged war or blockade.

[Seeking Serenity]

14. Yes, their outrage is indeed selective.

It's like I posted, sarcastically, in another thread with respect to the end of WWII.

This has just turned into a "America is to blame no matter what it did" session.

If we dropped the bombs, America is wrong.

If we blockaded and began a seige, leading to mass Japanese starvation, America is wrong.

If we invaded the home islands, leading to thousands of American and Japanese dead, America is wrong.

If we had done nothing, America is wrong (for turning its backs on the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, American POWs, etc.)

That depresses me inutterably sometimes.

[IndianaJones]

18. it is evident that the lives of civilians, Japanese or otherwise, are not really a concern. nt.

[14thColony]

51. But

If we had pursued the several documented attempts by Japan to end the war in July 1945 (documented by the US government no less) we wouldn't have been wrong! Sometimes there really is a right course of action, but one has to be willing to take it.

[Romulox]

8. Disagree. Many young people, especially, are not aware of Japan's war atrocities.

This includes young Japanese, in my limited experience. The Japanese have successfully recast themselves as the victims of WWII. :wtf:

[IndianaJones]

12. With the help of the "concerned" in America. The rest of Asia knows better though. nt.

[zanne]

93. Could you recommend a book I could read, Romulox? nt

[Hugabear]

15. Strawman alert

Nobody has said a damned thing about not giving a shit about Japan's war crimes, or that they weren't important.

If you read the OP, you'd see that Japan was interested in pursuing peace with the US, but we would have no part of it. There have been countless reports that we were anxious to use this new atomic bomb we were working on, to send a strong signal to the USSR, and Japan was the perfect place to demonstrate its awful abilities. In fact, I've read many reports that the Japanese were ready to surrender PRIOR to us using the atomic bomb, but we weren't interested at that point.

I hate the fucking argument "using the bomb actually saved lives, millions would have died in an invasion". Nobody knows that for sure. We can play this woulda-coulda-shoulda game all day long.

If THAT is your primary justification - that dropping the bomb SAVED lives - then please let us know when you would use nuclear weapons in the future. Would you favor dropping a nuke on Tehran instead of invading it? Should we have dropped a few nukes in the mountains of Afghanistan after 9-11? Hell, maybe we could have nuked Pyongyang at the beginning of the Vietnam war and saved over 50,000 American lives?

[Seeking Serenity]

19. Some within Japan were interested in pursuing peace, but not surrender.

There's a big difference.

[MadHound]

22. Go check your history

There were several surrender overtures made by the Japanese. These overtures called for one, and only one condition, that Hirohito remain on the throne. We didn't grant this surrender, with this condition until after we dropped the bomb and killed thousands of people.

We could have accepted this surrender from Japan, with the same condition, weeks before dropping the bomb. Instead the US squandered many lives, both US and Japanese, in order to bring about their nuclear demonstration for Russia, which is what the government really wanted, this massive demonstration to an "ally" that they were already eying with suspicion and distrust.

[IndianaJones]

25. Japanese sources? American sources? Revisionist bs? nt.

[14thColony]

40. The Operation MAGIC Diplomatic Summaries for a start

Produced from daily US intercept and decryption of the Japanese diplomatic signal code-named 'MAGIC.' Stored to this day in the National Archives and freely accessible. (MAGIC Diplomatic Summaries for July 1945, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives)

Also the 1963 testimony of Allen Dulles, who stated he was in contact with Japanese diplomats in Switzerland who were authorized to convey an offer of surrender to the Allies prior to Potsdam, in July 1945.

[MadHound]

44. Any and all valid historical sources, US, Japanese, preferably primary sources

That's what I go by as a trained historian:shrug: That also means don't fall for the "official story", try being a bit more objective. Don't take your own preconceptions into the problem. Be objective.

But this comes easy to me as a trained researcher. Obviously you're having problems with that, especially the concept of objectivity, and you probably haven't checked any primary sources. I would suggest starting at Yale, with Stimson's diaries, then move on from there.

[deaniac21]

90. The Japanese historians, to this day, are still in denial. To cite

any of them as a valid source is laughable.

[Thothmes]

33. Exactly how did we signal acceptance of this condition

to the Japanese government. That condition was not written into the formal surrender documents signed by the Japanese Government and the Allied Governments.

[Romulox]

31. If we were engaged in "total war" involving Iran, Afghanistan, or Vietnam,

and they, in turn, were the aggressors in genocidal wars of expansionist conquest that claimed the lives of millions upon millions of innocent civilians... then the analogy would be closer, and the use of nuclear weapons would become more justifiable.

Given that the current situation in no way resembles the above scenario, however, I find the comparison a bit silly and forced... :hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. An indication of how eager they were to use the bomb:

The Allies were originally going to atom bomb Kyoto, which would have been the cultural equivalent of atom-bombing Paris or Rome. Fortunately, the Secretary of War had visited Kyoto in the 1920s and put an end to that idea.

Most Japanese cities had already been fire-bombed to smithereens by 1945, and if you've seen The Fog of War, you'll know that Robert McNamara, who was involved in targeting Japanese cities, feels terribly remorseful about having been instrumental in burning hundreds of thousands of civilians alive. The movie lists some of the cities that were bombed, and I was shocked to see the names of some awfully small cities on the list. Utsunomiya? You can see all of Utsunomiya in one glance from the freeway.

Yet Hiroshima, one of the largest ports on the Inland Sea and a provincial capital, was left completely unbombed.

Why?

Because the strategists didn't want to drop the bomb on Tokyo or some other city that had already been bombed. Oh, no, because then they wouldn't be able to tell what was atom bomb damage and what was ordinary bomb damage.

Hiroshima was a cynical scientific experiment: take an undamaged city, drop an atom bomb on it, and see what happens.

Nagasaki, for all the posts above touting its military importance, was not the intended second target. That was Kokura on the other side of the island of Kyushu. But it was Kokura's luck to be clouded over that day, so the pilots headed for the alternative target of Nagasaki, one of the most historic and foreigner-friendly cities in all of Japan.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Those genocidal war crimes were necessary to fight evil.

If Japan hadn't raped Nanking, they would have lost a lot more troops if they had decided to seduce Nanking with chocolates and alcohol.

[LynnTheDem]

28. Everyone knows those recently declassifed docs in the NA are "leftist rewriting

of history" and are "uninformed" and are part of the "blame America first" crowd.

And the above quotes are from DUers on DU...towards other DUers. That's the part I find amazing.

[Seeking Serenity]

35. Of course we know that DUers should be in accord with others DUers at all times

and on every subject.

Right?

[LynnTheDem]

37. Nope, that would make us rightwingers. The very same rightwingers

who contantly say things like "leftists always trying to rewrite history" and "blame America first" crowd.

[OmahaBlueDog]

54. I'm glad I wasn't drinking: I'd have blown liquid through my nose laughing

I'm very close to someone who has worked with the declassification of documents at the NARA. The idea that this individual, and the co-workers I've met over almost 40 years, are engaged in a leftist rewriting of history is nothing short of hilarious.

[Ignis]

68. Welcome to the new, improved 2008 DU!

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Nuking Civilians is a Progressive Value.

:banghead:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. K&R for the discomfiture of the apologists for the murder of civiliians.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[IndianaJones]

56. kick for concerned white people pretending to care for dead Asians. nt.

[Seeking Serenity]

59. Indeed, it makes no difference to the dead. The question is,

what difference does it make to the living?

Liberty v. totalitarianism? I think I know what the living would prefer.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. Did they take a poll of the living in Hiroshima about their preferences before the bomb?

I must've missed the results of the poll.

[IndianaJones]

65. I think they may have been too busy overseeing Chinese and Korean forced labor. nt.

[Seeking Serenity]

66. Since the Japanese War Council didn't really care what the people thought,

it would have been a pretty meaningless poll.

[Raskolnik]

76. No, but we didn't take polls of Germany before deciding whether to force them into surrender either

Why would we?

[Radical Activist]

84. Some people will accept many lies to believe in the idea that America is a good country

that there are good wars, and those are the same people who are quickest to believe that the next war is a good one waged by a good nation.

[Seeking Serenity]

88. But you are convinced the truth that America is a bad country

and that all wars are bad, yes?

Wow. Just . . . wow.

[Radical Activist]

91. The world isn't that simple.

Its not a black/white either/or question.
But realize that every time someone defines WW2 as a "good" war while making excuses for the horrible things that happened, they're in effect paving the way for the next bad war based on lies.
And no. there is no such thing as a "good" war. The idea that killing thousands or millions of people could ever be called good is insane.

[Seeking Serenity]

95. "The idea that killing thousands or millions of people could ever be called good is insane. "

Better that thousand or millions of people live under tyranny and repression and totalitarianism, yes? Because with WWII, that is what would have happened to people in Europe and east Asia.

Look, no one more than I detests war, although (and I thank God for this) I've never seen it up close. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But it is on rare ocassions a necessary evil, an evil needed to combat an even greater evil. And I believe that German and Japanese facism was the greater evil.

Pacifism is a noble idea, but it shouldn't be a suicide pact, either.

[Radical Activist]

96. Was is a suicide pact.

Both sides agree that they will die.

You argue that war is necessary as the only alternative and I disagree. The seeds of WW2 are found in WW1. Its a cycle and it will never end until we reject the cycle of one war always leading to the next.

[Seeking Serenity]

97. No, I didn't say the only alternative.

The last alternative, certainly. But an alternative, nonetheless.

[wvbygod]

57. Denying that Ahmadinejad did not threaten to destroy Israel is revisionism at its worst

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

Israel "is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence," he said.


What's next...denying the holocaust?
And yet this anti Israel trash gets spouted as fact.

[IndianaJones]

60. this whole thread is full of that. nt.

[aikoaiko]

61. Perhaps this is an oversimplification, but here is how I look at it.

When people say Japan was about to surrender or we didn't need to use the A-bomb, I'm faced with the following.

Japan did not unconditionally surrender after the first bomb.

Japan did not unconditionally surrender after the second bomb.

The US had to acquiesce and let the emperor maintain his title in order to accept their conditional surrender and stop the slaughter.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

69. Ooh LOOK!!1 It's one of those fringe minority bush supporters!

Just when ya thought they didn't exist anymore!



:rofl:

[Mnemosyne]

70. Beat me to it, damn!

:rofl:

[LynnTheDem]

71. I betcha Tim still thinks Saddam was in bed with al Qaeda, Iraq did 911,

and we found em!!1! We found wmds in Iraq!11!!

Stupidest MFers on the planet. Truly.

:rofl:

[Mnemosyne]

83. Oops! Timmey has left for the cemetery, with his pizza!

:rofl:

Was his real name, Mr. Obvious? :evilgrin:

It's like listening to my relatives drivel. :puke:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[14thColony]

73. Tim, seriously though

I suggest you read all the posts top to bottom then think about what you said. If it's 'revisionist' to actually dare to read US government documents from 1945 and the statements of US leaders at the time to try to figure out what happened, then I suggest that what your view of 'revisionist' is actually closer to the religious definition of 'heresy' - that questioning Divine Truth is a sin. Do you really want to live in a society where you are disparaged and attacked just for thinking? Because one day they might decide they don't like what YOU think.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

78. Here's what I want to know:

The U.S. military has committed atrocities in Iraq and most likely in Afghanistan as well.

Would an Islamic country be justified in nuking an American city to avenge the suffering of their Muslim brethren?

If you say no, then explain why it was okay to use nukes on Japan when it had already offered to surrender?

If you accept the official story, then you obviously think that it would be okay for Pakistan to nuke an American city as revenge for what the U.S. has done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Parche]

81. We Are Not At War With Iraq

Or Afghanistan


:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. No? Then I must have imagined all those troops invading

sovereign nations.

[Parche]

89. Congress Are The Only Ones That Can Declare War

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. If it looks like a war and sounds like a war and acts like a war, it's a war

or at the very least, an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, making Bushco and everyone who supported the invasion a war criminal according to the standards established at Nuremberg.

[Parche]

94. It is an illegal invasion

Not a war...period


:hi:

[Supersedeas]

79. when journalism becomes a political wing of Administration spin

[MellowDem]

80. Not so sure about this:

"The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that ... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Really? They thought we could have just made them surrender with Air Power alone in 1946? That's pretty stupid, but it was the thought process of the time. Remember how the huge bombing raids by the US and UK over Germany were always trumped up as having a much larger effect than they actually did? In fact, they had little to no effect. Doesn't surprise me that some idiot in the government would praise to high heavens the ability of strategic bombing to bring a country to its knees at that time.

Also, that quote you showed does not say that the atomic bomb didn't save lives. If the Air Force had tried to bomb the hell out of Japan conventionally to make it surrender, I'm sure more lives would have been lost.

What I really don't get, though, is this obsession with the atom bombs. What about all of the conventional bombs used on the rest of the populace? Those killed much more people, so I don't see how using that atom bombs was any different, except it was two bombs instead of hundreds of thousands. Then there is the starvation, the disease and lack of certain medical supplies, etc. etc.

Here is something you need to understand, dropping the atom bombs was perfectly in line with everything else the US had done up to that point in the war. We had already bombed the hell out of civilians. This was NO DIFFERENT. It's no more of a "war crime" than any of the other civilians we killed, and when it comes right down to it, every country commits "war crimes" when they are involved in war, because the term "war crime" is a bullshit term. It sets an idiotically unrealistic standard where even countries that try to the best of their ability to follow certain rules of engagement, like not harming civilians, never comes to pass, given that it is a fucking war.

Playing the "what if" game of history, especially in this instance, is stupid as hell. I could not tell you with any certainty that we could have somehow ended the war by not using the bombs AND saved more lives in the process. But all the facts of history point to the greater probability that using the bombs DID save lives. Not that it really matters, given this is all speculation in hindsight.

[Zynx]

85. They were so selective in picking and choosing information for this.

This BBC documentary is a fairly good summary of the extremely numerous sources I have read on the subject of the bombing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_5PxMdR1wk

It is probably true that Japan could have been reduced by conventional means given time. However, would that have saved lives of even Japanese civilians?

Also, I will point out the original target of the Manhattan Project was Berlin. The purpose of our nuclear program was to deploy it against Germany when we started it.

[Monk06]

87. A late comment from me regarding your view of the rationale

for the Hiroshima bombing. The Battle of Berlin
began on late April, 1945. The Trinity test occurred
on July 16, 1945. This was a test of an N device
not an operational bomb.

The A bomb was had not even evolved beyond testing
stage before the Battle of Britain Began. Most war
historians agree the the BOB was a foregone defeat
for the Germans. It was just a matter of time resources
and casualties.

The only realist target for the A bomb was Japan.

But why use it?

First

1) It was a weapon was beyond human comprehension. So
to prove its effectiveness, even it's existence it had
to be tested in a combat situation.

2) The only opportunity left in a steadily shrinking
war was Japan.

3) While it was import to demonstrate the existence
of the A bomb to the Japanese, it was more important
to demonstrate it's existence to the Russians, who
were preparing for an invasion of the northern island
of Hokaido.

The American Government under Truman knew they had to
accept a post war scenario of a divided Germany with
the Russians controlling the east.

Truman didn't want the same scenario for Japan.

Hence, Hiroshima was a political act of genocide to
warn off the Russians.