This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan
Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives
Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.
But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):
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 certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, 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.
General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:
The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike
Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):
In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.
During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….
Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):
MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.
Moreover (pg. 512):
The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.
Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):
I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.
Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:
I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.
***
In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.
War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.
He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):
It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.
General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publicly shortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:
The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):
[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.
***
Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.
Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:
Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.
Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.
I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.
Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):
When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.
Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:
The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]
British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”
On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”
Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?
Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets ... not cities
For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):
I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation…
It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…
General George Marshall agreed:
Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”
As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.
Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed
Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.
As historian Doug Long notes:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).
Politicians Agreed
Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):
The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.
Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):
In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.
If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.
Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?
If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?
One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:
On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”
However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.
Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) - said differently:
“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.
Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:
We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.
Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).
The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.
The Real Explanation?
History.com notes:
In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.
New Scientist reported in 2005:
The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.
Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.
“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”
***
[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.
***
New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.
According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.
“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.
John Pilger points out:
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”.
We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:
Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.
***
Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.
***
The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.
***
Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.
»
- advertisements -
History.com and history channel are frauds. With all the available material out there - as in ALL the history of the world and of the US, All they play is WWII and antiques shows. ANTIQUES SHOWS!!!! Seems like some sort of subliminal shit to convince the average schlepp that history is just a bunch of antique junk. Nothin' to see here. Now! for the new world order and the miracles of STATISM! We'll give you all the history we think you need.
if you think about it, you'll perhaps understand the relevance of historical wars stories and antiques. . . who they interest & all. . .
Intriguing... I think...? Expound.
The Rape of Nanking happened in 1937, but let's not let facts get in the way of our cool "America as World Avenger" narrative.
This isn't revisionist in the sense that it's false. Look up John Dower, Look up Richard B Frank, look up Edward S Miller, look up Chalmers Johnson for God's sake. Have you read ANY history on this subject at all? George is frequently out to lunch, but this is straight out of the last 50 years of scholarship. Where have you been?
Not sure of your point... "The rape of nanking took place in 1937". Is that to say that since it happened eight years before we nuked Japan it was ancient history by then and shouldn't be factored in??? But we, now are supposed to still feel bad about something that happened SIXTY SEVEN years ago? Is that your point?
Yep, and perhaps George Washington and his sons could of led the peace flotilla to Japan, with flag and treaty in hand, to present to the good, honorable, compassionate and peace loving Japanese military establishment.
The Japanese were so ready to surrender that right up to the morning of the Enola Gay's flight they were training 10 year old girls with sharpened sticks to repel invaders.
We don't need to discuss the attempted military coup to prevent the Emperor's surrender AFTER the bombs were dropped as well. Might disturb the revisionists a bit.
Modern warfare has always killed more civilians than combatants. Period. Always has and always will.
There are no more 'Fields of Honor'. The rule is slaughter until capitulation. The beauty of modern warfare is that it is egalitarian. Everyone gets a chance to be murdered, so, in essence, civilians are as much to blame as their military if they don't rise up to deny them when they advocate invasions.
Qui tacit consentit.
This is the lesson of the Vietnam era that needs to be remembered. The people can overrule the Elites war games if they threaten the status quo's position in numbers large enough to counteract the propaganda. Events are ideas with a critical mass behind them.
The reality is if YOUR country starts a war, YOU are the enemy.
Americans should heed this reality.
I do worry that the US will frighten the rest of the world enough that they will join together to aninihilate us.
The Vietnam war lasted 30 years before public support was eroded to the extent that pursuing it was no longer politically possible, if indeed that was the reason Nixon finally stopped it.
And the proper response to a starving nation that can only respond with 10 year old girls with bamboo spears is to nuke them from half a mile up. /sarc
No Vlad. Just let them all stare to death.
/snarc
The American people have/had every right to believe that their government would follow the rules, articles and conventions of warfare.Most of the American people did not even know this weapon existed.
The Manhattan Project was engineering on the scale of the Pyramids and they managed to keep it from 99 percent of the American Public until it was actually used. Most the people actually working on the project had no idea what they were working on.
People who say that 9/11 could not have been a conspiracy should really think about this.
Huge problem with things like the War on Drugs, War on Terror, etc. No cause. No articles of war or rules of engagement (make them up as we go along). No conditions or demands for peace, etc. No remedy. Funded by borrowing, not real public support. Fought in secret. etc..etc.
.
would that people would remember this point when continuing to refer to the govt. aerosoling programs ("chemtrails") as nonsense simply because they cannot fathom the why or how of this. particularly when there are actual gov. military documents, and many high ranking gov. players who talk of it. . . and yet.
There were 130,000 people and billions (1940s dollars) deployed on the Manhattan Project which created the atomic bombs. The public didn't know about it. The newly sworn in president Harry S. Truman had to be briefed on it after he was sworn in because he knew nothing about it. As you stated so well, perhaps people should dig deeper before prematurely rejecting that which they declare 'impossible to hide' or 'someone would have talked about it'. (While at the same time not being so gullible as to believe any and all 'conspiracies'.)
The US isn't doing a good job of obeying the rules of war today and I'd say hasn't for decades. The might makes right club has definitely lost the US the moral high ground; if we ever had it.
Does it still count if you have been brainwashed since birth?
That sorta takes away the 'informed' from informed consent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceGwQSYjbQ8
Big Bird told me that we were the good guys!!! So did Donald!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00u6qUelp6c
However, (narrows eyes) I am watching Hewey, Dewey, and Louie with some suspicion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_Jni0BBhpI
'Tacit". That reminds me of a quote;
"Corruptissima republica plurimae leges. (The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state)" -Tacitus, the Annals, ca AD 69
What's your point with the propaganda? Every country uses it. Every organization uses it. So what is your point? The first video is kinda funny. Those guys went to the event just to cause trouble. Dude was full of himself when security dude first came over. When security dude quit his job and went back, they were whining like the bitches they were. LOL! I guess we got to see who felt more strongly about their beliefs- Truther/agitator/whiney little bitches- dudes or ex-security dude. Security dude wins!
It would be one thing if it was the cops or some govt official who was giving truther/agitator/whiners, but it wasn't. It wasn't the govt that wanted those guys to move, it was private citizens. No horrible case of oppression here, just a small test of wills between private citizens. Truther/agitator/whiney little bitches evidently didn't have the full power of their convictions.
ahh..propaganda......
"How fortunate for governments that people do not think" - Goebbels?
"You can fool most of the people most of the time and that's good enough" - Lincoln?
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." - George Bush
anyways...
One group is right, one is wrong. It is not a matter of 'belief' here. Who do you think is right?
No matter what your convictions, anyone would have been scared in that situation. I posted the video because I find it to be an interesting example of human behavior. The US Government did not use domestic propaganda (as much) when I was younger. They even used to label any TV spots that came from the government as "Public Service Announcements". Just because 'all organizations are doing it' doesn't make it right. We have/had? laws against the use of domestic propaganda.
If you watch "SPIN" by Brian Springer, you will see that a good portion of the nightly news is now comprised of propaganda clips supplied by the Government. I do not think this is a good thing. We are supposed to have a 'limited, free and open' government in this Nation. History is full of examples where governments were able to use propaganda to do some very bad things. Judging by some of the 1850's school books I have, Americans used to be far more educated. A 4th grade reader has material from Shakespeare, etc. that would be considered college level today. I happen to believe that our nation would prosper again if we restored Constitutional Government. I also happen to think that a lot of the bad things that are happening in the world are unintended consequences from Government acting beyond it's powers and the lingering 'trust' in our institutions.
What if you were told other lies by 'organizations' when you were growing up? What if your basic worldview is wrong? Consider this video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY#t=19m20s
exactly airdalesrule. the story of what the japanese military was doing after the first bomb was dropped says everything about their mental state and how they wanted to carry on with the war. how could the military leaders be so concerned about the continued reign of the emperor after the war and yet they put him under house arrest in his own palace because "the emperor" wanted to surrender...not them! it was all about the emperor...really? praise god, that at the least, the general in command of the home guard was loyal to the emperor and took over the radio station so the "recording of the emperor's message" could be heard by the japanese people. so much for the warm and fuzzy side of tojo and his gang and how they were so so worried about the future reign of the emperor.
as for admirals and generals questioning past tactics and strategy...that is what the good ones are trained to do and what they did! and the truly great leaders question even their own great victories to see what could have been done "better"!
Suicide Cliffs, Shuri Castle, Kamikazi attacks ... Truman was not read-in to Manhattan District until he became president. Dugout Doug was not read-in at all, and was miffed that he didn't get to command Olympic.
Operation Olympic might have wiped out all of the Japanese.
"War is an extension of policy by other means." That this was political is obvious. In hindsight, it prevented a hot war with the U.S.S.R until Ronnie, Maggie, and THE Pope played high stakes poker and won.
- Ned
I agree; and, of course there was a political aspect to the decision, but it wasn’t the driving force. Generally, I like George Washington, but he seems to have jumped the historical shark on this one. In addition, clearly, George hasn't read (or more likely just ignores it): Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard Frank and related history (i.e., more form the Japanese perspective).
George focuses on mostly Little/Big Boy ignorant and irritated U.S. commanders, hypocritical scientists who only wanted to vaporize Europeans, and the Emperor and his diplomats, but studiously misses the mindset of those in control of Japan at the time (i.e., the military; again, read “Downfall” for an account of this tension and a virtual clustf__k of U.S. inability to know what was going on and why). In addition to digging in for a defense on the home islands and a general willingness to fight to the last starving peasant (while putting the Emperor and his wussy diplomats under guard for even thinking about surrendering), they planned to release bubonic plague via rats carried to the West Coast via submarine, etc., etcetera. U.S. generals and other high ranking commanders who prior to its use were mostly unaware of the atomic bomb and who generally hated the way it changed warfare, who thought Iwo Jima had acceptable casualty levels, and who were not at risk of dying upon invasion of the home islands, thought ex post that dropping the bombs were a bad idea? Gee, do you really think that if you or your brother, sister, or parents were at risk of dying storming the home islands that at the time you wouldn’t have used it. In addition, regarding the scientists who thought it shouldn’t be used on Japan, think about the moral turpitude of working on the bomb then saying you thought its use n Japan was ethically wrong. Think about it, they were fine with dropping on Germany or Italy, etc., but not Japan. Look, for example, at Chinese responses today toward the Japanese (mostly born of their experience before and during WWII, and not just propaganda) and tell yourself that using those devices wasn’t the right thing; or better yet, honestly tell me that the Chinese wouldn’t have used them, and if they had them and did use them would we be having this conversation? Didn’t think so you hypocritical, self-hating, douche.
v q l:
You'll learn, imho, GW has some moments of attachments to reality, but mostly is way out there.
We'll see when GW comes up with the "true story" about Bengazi,
ya, u 'n me ain't holdin' our breaths, are we?
- Ned
{YO, GW, How'bout u do a story about how the word got out on Bengazi. Yet, in all of your posts, the word didn't get out on the 9/11 "inside job".}
{{You go girl!!!}}
(Gasp!!!)
Are you implying it wasn't a youtube video that had been on the web for months? That an administration would intentionally lie to the American people to cover up its own incompetence? Is it really credible to believe that the 3AM phone call did in fact come (as it always does) and bit both in the ass?
Say it ain't so! ;-)
My uncle was in the USMC and landed on seven different beaches in the S. Pacific. He rarely talked about those landings and cried every time he did, and not just because of what happened to his fellow Marines, but from what they had to do to the Japanese who refused to surrender even when out of ammunition. His worst nightmares were not about landing on the beach, they were about using those flame throwers on guys with just bayonets, who just would not come out.
These same arguments were floating around in the '80's while I was in college and I asked him what his take was. Even though he felt it saved his life, he regreted that they used it on non-military targets, but boy was he grateful they had. Who wants to die for a war already over while the politicians argue over the terms of surrender for months? He sure as hell didn't.
My uncle landed in the boat basin in Iwo, and it wasn't anything like "Private Ryan".
He saw the civilians leaping off of Oki "Suicide Cliffs" on Oki, because of no-shit propaganda.
Same sensless arguments have been going on since the communists infiltrated the state department well before the Muslim Brotherhood did/is doing the same.
But, well, GW is GW, thank the gods that he does. Somewhere in here he might actually do some true journalism. He flashes there every once in a while, but the inherent biases and the lack of understanding of actual physics, well, he enjoys his momma's basement too much.
'80s, 70s, 60s, etc.
- Ned
Excellent post. Though the last line is unnecessary...
In a total war, how can one make a 'moral' decision?
Best question of all.
ultimately: u v. me.
And I know which side I'm acting on.
Saul Alinsky also has his answer, so it is truly knife-fighting time.
But principles do matter, and they do not on Saul's nor O'z teams' side.
A greenie on ya'
- Ned
http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/saul-alinsky-dedica...
Did you actually read the whole article? Military men and scientists prior to dropping of the bomb were already against it. Japan already had offered to surrender on condition they could keep their emporer which they eventually did. An invasion never would have been necessary since there was a very effective sea bloackade. Then soon after the end of WWII people already critised the decision to use the bomb on civilians targets. So it cannot be a post modern revisionism of history since the decision was highly questioned at the time. The decision was political, not for strategic military reasons.
At the Hiroshima atomic bomb museum, which I visited last abot 7 years ago, there is a telegram between Truman and some one at the war dept essentially sayng "the country paid 2 billion dollars for this thing and we have to give them their money's worth. I have a picture of the cable, and I'll post it. If you visit this museum, you will come away with:
1. we bombed them because we spend so much money on it and had to use it
2. If the Russians set foot on Japanese soil, the country would have been divided like Germany, and millions of Japanese in the Soviet section would have starved or sent to gulags.
There is absolutely no balance in the article. It is an opinion at the end of the day. You could have found just as many historians and military personnell who would have seen this entirely different.
I speak for my parent's, father in-law, and uncle's generation who fought in the war. Now that an entire generation of those people are gone. Do you find that at all telling?
Whether you like it or not the dropping of the atomic bomb ended World War II and within days of the bombing Japan surrendered. Bare in mind no one was quite sure how much destruction one of these bombs would cause until it was used. Now we know to never use this weapon again.
They weren't so eager to give up at Okinawa a few weeks before the nukes were used. Revisionist history is so fun. The United States with the help of the Rothschilds started the third Punic war because of something to do with the Jews. Oh, we also financially supported SunTzu so he would write that book; well the bankers did anyway. The Jews are the ones who forced the aborigines to move to Australia. The Americans, Jews and the Rothschilds also used state of the art weather control equipment to stop the Chinese from attacking the Japanese in the 12th or 13th century when we whipped up a huge storm to sink the Chinese fleet.
So sorry, as the ancient myth of Pandora so aptly points out, you cannot put evil back into the box from which it escaped. Weapons, once developed, will always be used until something even more efficiently abominable takes its place. This is the lesson of history. People can always find justification for the things they intend to do, and some leaders of nations, who are often sociopathic, completely amoral, and not sane as most would judge that condition, are willing to risk annilation of the species, to gain an edge. It wouldn't take much for India and Pakistan to start lobbing nukes at each other. Certainly China is contemplating something preemptive against the US.
Oh please, they tested this bomb in New Mexico. It created a big hole and a lot of melted sand. The scientists very well knew that the bomb would have devastating effects when used on civilian populations and said so to military command and Truman. Regarding balance: where was the balance all this time when they taught you at school that the bombing of H&N was necessary to end the war? Did they tell you that there were military men and scientists who were against it? Did they tell you that Japan had agreed to a surrender if they could keep their emporer, which in the end they did?
What I will give you is that the generation that experienced that war (and who made sure that no new world war would follow) is dying out. Now we have a generation of people that don't know the horrors of war (not at the receiving end at least). Don't be too sure that atomic weapons in perhaps a different strengts won't be used (or any other form of horrible weapon). History tends to repeat itself and there is a global fight for dominance and power going on. Perhaps ordinary people back in the 1930s didn't see war coming or were unable to stop it but they same could be true for our times.
They got to keep their Emperor as the Nominal head of state. But by forcing him to speak the surrender on the radio before the entire Japanese nation, the U.S. pulled back the curtain on his godlike status.
"Now we know to never use this weapon again."
A delusional belief if there ever was one. Because the U.S. used the bomb against a crippled Japan, everyone knows that they will be used to "defend" our crumbling empire. The danger of nuclear war is far greater today than it was back in the late 1950s when everyone was building bomb shelters in their homes and when we were all diving under our desks in civil defense drills at schools. In addtion to the usual anti-missile defenses, Russia has vast shelters for its civilian population, China has empty cities to which they can move.
We in the U.S. have nothing because our elites could care less whether we survive or not.
When challenging status quo dogma, "balance" in an article is unnecessary. To achieve "balance" the article writer would have to be given hours and hours of time to counter the onslaught of the teaching we received.
Nah it wouldn't fit his agenda.
Thought Experiment: What is the logic in fighting a war against the two enemies of our cold war adversary, Russia? Why not remain out of the war, and continue trade with Germany and Japan (when goods don't cross borders...)? Let Eurasia beat itself to a pulp. We finally "beat" Russia economically, without even destroying their productive capacity. Imagine what the ravages of a prolonged war against Germany, and Japan could have wrought?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
What a concept, a thought experiment without any real thought! The Soviet Union was a victim of scorched earth tactics twice in a 3 year period (first the Russians retreating, then the Germans retreating). Short of all-out nuclear war, it would be hard for there to have been more physical and demographic damage to their "productive capacity", and they still managed to race neck and neck with "the wealthiest society in human history" for over 40 years.
Even assuming a German victory (which they couldn't achieve despite no direct US intervention in the East), how would a Nazi regime from the Atlantic to the Urals be a better outcome? What if they moved into the Middle East, a far from unlikely occurence with the USSR out of the way and England alone once more? Or a Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere that reaches to Hawaii, or even San Francisco (I assume your 'thought experiment' excludes the attack at Pearl Harbor)?
Unless you're also advocating ditching the UK, the enemy of my enemy is also the enemy of my friend, and what kind of "arsenal of democracy" is happy to have Western Europe under the Nazi heel, regardless of the realpolitik considerations? Maybe the US should have been selling them industrial furnaces for the camps too. Shit, a dollar's a dollar right? And we're fighting Communism! This is the same sort of self-righteous dickery that supported murderous right-wing dictatorships around the world (Mubarak, Mobutu, Mugabe, unnmbered S. American juntas, South Afric, etc.) all in the name of "anti-communism". I could go on, but I'm tired of typing.
Even for a lame hypothetical situation, this is pretty moronic.
Starting off with insults is not the way to engage in a rational discussion, ya fucktard.
It may be pretty moronic, but it was the philosophy of the Father of Our Country.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
He also advocated ditching the English, as did most Americans, for about 100 years. Thanks to London's bankers, this divorce was not to be permanent. My great, great grandparents had no use for the English thanks to the War of 1812 and the terror that was perpetrated by them on the civilians of the then American frontier areas.
WWII was fought to make the world safe for communism, and to destroy a competing model opposed to privately owned central banks.
your relations were canon fodder, nothing more. wars are failed diplomacy.
By virtue of war, diplomacy is non existent. So obviously wars are failed diplomacy. More accurately, failed diplomacy is where wars start. What's your point?
Playing devil's advocate here, but when there is an agressor who is only partially defeated or surrenders to avoid anihilation, those lucky enough to be alive aren't exactly friendly to their occupiers. The only way to assure compliance is to remove the agressors' population to the point that they they either don't exist any more or have so few remaining that their only choice in survivning their lineage is to live under a new people. That statement is not condoning it, but merely pointing out what the many hoards of past people's have done.
George Washington is a good blogger but a shitty historian. He fails to realize that "quotations" do not make for definitive historical truth as there are always multiple contradictory quotes in any discussion. This approach is totally unbalanced and would be laughed at by any legitimate academic review as it ignores the hundreds of available quotations that refute iths premise.
Also, when a General says he believed that Japan would surrender anyway in a "matter of months", this is a vast oversimplification of what "a matter of months" represented in lives and money -- particularly at the tail end of the worst war in history.
It also underestimates the very real threat that the West perceived Russia to be at the end of the war, and somehow delegitimizes that threat with the convenient hindsight of history.
This post is intellectually weak and academically lazy with the intent of reaching a goal-seeked conclusion.
That's all well and good and I'm not arguing for or against your position or his. I am merely stating that in the past, an effective procedure to assure compliance or surrender was complete destruction of the society and persons. The argument was that this tactic of mass destruction is nothing new and it infact works very well for the "empire" employing it, if it can be achieved. Arguing against this is just silly. If you can honestly say that that destruction of "B" to its completeness doesn't offer "A" total domination over "B" and compliance of "B" by virtue of "B"'s extinction.. then you have far better logic ability than God himself.
U,
In response to above. You are right that nasty stuff happens in war. I am very tired of the " my dad fought for your freedom" bullshit moral superiority statements. Sanitized family history.
Not sure I agree with the 'good blogger' part either.