Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Big Historical Lie

Via orwellwasright:

It is perceived wisdom throughout the Western world – particularly America – that the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “necessary” to end the war with Japan. Printed throughout textbooks in the post-war world, the understanding is that, had these targets not been struck, the war would have waged on indefinitely, with potentially untold American soldier and Japanese civilian deaths.

As the world commemorates the 68th anniversary of the attacks, however, it is important to take a step back and view the catastrophic event not through the prism of propaganda and mythologizing, but instead through the lens of historical scrutiny. For, as if often the case, the disparity between “Official History” and reality is characterized by lies and deceptions bolstered by patriotism and American exceptionalism.

We are told repeatedly that, without the use of weapons which current Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui refers to as the “ultimate inhumane weapon and an absolute evil”, Japan would never have surrendered. We are told that President Truman was troubled by the mounting Allied casualties, and that the Joint Chiefs had told him to expect 1,000,000 dead Americans in the pending attack on the Japanese home islands. Yet this figure is a complete fabrication, invented by Secretary of War Stimson. No such claim was made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Truman himself, in different statements, asserted “thousands of lives would be saved,” and “a quarter of a million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities,” and also “I thought 200,000 of our young men would be saved by making that decision.” None of these statements were based on any evidence.

The alleged indefatigably of the Japanese military and their unwillingness to surrender is also a proven myth. By the summer of 1945 their position was hopeless and numerous attempts to surrender had already been made. Brigadier Gen. Carter W. Clarke stated: “We brought them down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and 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.”

Truman knew weeks before the Potsdam Conference, which began in July, 1945, that the Japanese were making overtures to surrender, the only condition being the retention of the Emperor. But Truman was determined to test the new bombs. In the words of General Douglas McArthur: ”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.” In the event, the US agreed to the terms of the Japanese surrender anyway – but not until they had tested their new weapons and caused the deaths of 100,000s of innocent civilians.

In reality, most of the military top brass were disgusted at the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki and understood completely that it served no military purpose whatsoever. Admiral William D. Leahy, the President’s Chief of Staff said, “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.” This view was reiterated by Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, who said, “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace… The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”

So what is the truth about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why, when intelligence agencies knew months in advance that contingency plans for a large-scale invasion were completely unnecessary and that Japan desperately sought peace, did they, as Admiral Leahy put it, adopt “an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages”?

There are two main reasons. Firstly, the Russians had entered the Japanese war and were making striking advances through Manchuria, decimating the already weakened Japanese army. Indeed, their role was pivotal – as Air Force General Claire Chennault stated: “Russia’s entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped.” The last thing the American leadership wanted was for Russia to receive equal spoils of war and emerge from the war as a superpower equal to the US.

In this sense, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are more accurately perceived as the opening salvos of the Cold War, rather than the final shots fired in the Second World War – the Cold War was, after all, defined essentially as a balance of nuclear powers; realpolitik and the primacy of power where the arms race and military insanity took supremacy over diplomacy.

The other, far more sinister reason, was one of scientific curiosity. After making such a huge investment in the Manhattan Project (2 billion in 1940) and with three bombs completed, there was little to no desire to shelve the weapons. The fissionable material in the Hiroshima bomb was uranium, while the Nagasaki bomb was plutonium, and subsequently there was intense scientific curiosity as to the different effects these bombs would produce. As the US Army director of the project, General Leslie Groves pondered: “what would happen if an entire city was leveled by a single uranium bomb?” “What about a plutonium bomb?” For the science experiment to go ahead, surrender was not an option.

Perhaps Stanley Kubrick in his movie Dr. Strangelove, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb expressed his understanding more than most of the mentality of those who pushed for the use of atomic weapons on the Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – it was a decision based on a kind of hell-bent fanatical militarism combined with the worst kind of scientific endeavor devoid of any sense of humanity. Small wonder that this history books and the propaganda machine went into overdrive in the following years, endlessly justifying the use of what President Eisenhower described as “that awful thing”.

Andrew Dilks is the author of Goliath.

, , , ,

  • Hadrian999

    dropping the bomb on japan was about sending a message to russia not about japan. japan was beaten, even if they didn’t surrender they were an island nation without a source of fuel and an obliterated navy.

    • godozo

      And considering that Russia was planning on invading Japan,
      the message may have had this point:

      “Don’t think we won’t use it on you, as well…”

    • Aungsan

      There is also the “scientific” side of it, the US did wanted to measure the destructive capabilities of the bomb, reason why the cities marked as possible targets were not targeted for conventional bombing.

  • Dan Bunn

    Not all Japanese troops were ready to surrender… Okinawa was a prime example.
    Not all the populace would have either and fighting could have continued for weeks or months , with the USSR further advancing all the time.
    Just as it was in Korea and Vietnam…. with the same Cold War results. A divided Japan.
    Truman had to stop that from happening…. the bomb caused ALL JAPANESE to understand the futility of further resistance immediately and surrendered totally to tghe Americans and leaving only Sakhalin island in partial Soviet control.
    THAT’S the reason…. this is false propaganda.

    • Hadrian999

      people confined to an island with no viable navy or ability to resupply fuel can’t continue fighting. Taking Japan was not essential to the end of the war, all that would be necessary is to eliminate the few remnants of the imperial navy and blockade japan and it’s remaining territories. Domino theory has been proven false by history and is not a valid argument for the massacre of non combatants.

      • Lookinfor Buford

        Oh sure, duh! Why didn’t the top military brass of the time think of that? Oh yeah, they’re a conspiratory cess-pool of blood letting killers, I forgot. It’s nice to be able to sit back and take the civilian point of view all the time, isn’t it Hadrian?

        • Andrew

          “Nice?” Try “essential.”

          • Lookinfor Buford

            Essential for military commanders? I don’t follow. Maybe you misconstrued what I said. The people responsible for the well being of a nation in the face of a threatening foe and all the contingencies that go with that, don’t have that luxury. To think they should or even could is disingenuous.

          • Andrew

            Disingenuous? Are you saying that it’s impossible to honestly believe non-combatants should never be targeted in war, and anyone who claims to believe so has ulterior motives?

          • Lookinfor Buford

            Not at all. Here, I’m saying civilians who’ve never commanded during war time take many things for granted, the civilian point of view. Earlier I was saying that the practice of blowing up innocents was simply one of the harsh realities of that particular war. Was done on all sides. A civilian can always spout off about what is right and wrong, but a fight almost always sinks to the tactics of the lowest aggressor does it not? Do you think Japan could have bombed even one of our (U.S.) cities had we not attacked so viciously? If so, would that be a risk you were willing to take had you been in charge of protecting the American people, not to mention winning the war? Despite the fact that bombing cities had become the norm for the war?

          • Andrew

            Could have? No, I don’t think Japan had the capability. And yes, I’d be willing to take that risk more than once.

            Also, I was saying it’s more than “nice” for someone to be able to take the civilian point of view, it’s essential. I wasn’t talking about military commanders, whom I have little respect for.

        • Hadrian999

          I did my time in war, it doesn’t change the fact that targeting civilians is not defensible.

    • Guest

      So killing 100,000s civilians was justified? Why do people comment when they clearly haven’t looked at the evidence? And talking of “false propaganda” is ironic, to say the least…

    • Guest

      For the record, ALL propaganda is false

      • Andy Dilks

        Or at the very best, lies by omission

      • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness

        All writing is propaganda.

        • Andrew

          That’s what you want us to think.

      • Calypso_1

        Not at all. Some of the best propaganda involves nothing but the truth.

      • Andrew

        That’s what they want you to think.

    • emperorreagan

      True or false, this piece is not propaganda.

      It’s a piece written in response to a dominant narrative taught about the nuclear attack in history classes and offered in documentaries produced about the attacks on the American/Western European side of the war. The author introduces the piece as specifically being in response to the Western European & particularly American narrative about the use of nukes. A familiarity with that narrative, by virtue of the audience of this website, can be assumed.

      If this were a website with a largely African or South American audience, you could argue that it is propaganda because the familiarity with the dominant narrative could not be assumed.

      The dominant narrative IS propaganda because it glosses over other positions about using nuclear weapons (e.g. the Admiral Leahy quote in this article), accepts the subsequent assertions of various political figures (X hundreds of thousands of GIs would die), and ignores some of the other points brought up in the comments in the thread.

    • Calypso_1

      Here is a good rundown of Japan’s attempts at peace negotiations & the US Military & scientific establishments contrary recommendations to the use of the A-bomb.

      http://www.thecontroversialfiles.net/2013/04/the-japanese-offered-to-surrender.html

      • Monkey See Monkey Do

        That’s pretty sickening. I’m surprised and thankful it hasn’t happened again for 68 years. Go Humanity!…

    • Dalton

      wrong. the bombs murdered CITIZENS, why not attack a military base or the people who actually started the war and ordered troops to attack china or pearl harbour? also, the american gov. knew about pearl harbour before it happened and allowed it because they wanted a war so they could justify coming into WW2 after the nazi’s had already put the holocaust in motion. American gov didn’t care anything about the genocide or even the japanese attacking china, australia, etc. bottom line war makes huge profits and always has, WW2 is often credited with finishing the great depression which had already run its course the way they wanted.

    • Dalton

      The US also did not want to look weaker than other nations such as the USSR because there would be less confidence in them if they stood by while Russia was the champion, which it was; during WW1 germany put about 20% of its military strength against Russia and beat them, WW2 Nazi’s use 80% of military and get defeated. Russia was a superpower at that time and would have emerged as the most powerful nation after WW2. The US coming into the european conflict as well as the japanese war and atomic bombings were all like chess moves by american gov. using the lives of US and japenese people as pawns

  • Russell Scott Day

    Of course the USA did not have to use the nuclear weapons on Japan. Japan could have surrendered before the nuclear weapons were used. The Allies were losing 4,000 soldiers a day. The allies could of course gone on losing that many and more till the Japanese surrendered. This way the USA would not have had to use the nuclear weapons it created. The great historian Paul Fussel said that the closer you were to Japan during World War II, the more you were for the use of the “Bomb”. The further away, the less you were for it.
    I think that Paul Fussell was a very wise and honest scholar.

    • Hadrian999

      I don’t accept cowardice as justification for for the slaughter of civilians, it is the same rationale as the terrorist. if you view one as acceptable the you validate the other.

      • Lookinfor Buford

        Keep it in perspective people.. The great war killed 15 MILLION, with an M, innocent civilians, INTENTIONALLY, on all sides. Do twenty thousand wrongs make a right? No. But ask yourself an honest question. In a war waged as this one was, would it be all that difficult to justify the use of this kind of tactic? Especially against an enemy who not only sucker punched and killed your young men, but also committed some of the most inhumane atrocities ever recorded in history? Uh, no.

        • Hadrian999

          there was nothing wrong with a conventional military attack by a uniformed military force on another military force whose government was already neck deep in the war

    • Andy Dilks

      So what about all the quotes cited which completely undermine your argument?

      • Russell Scott Day

        48 years is as long as I’ve been seriously reading about it. I’m 60. I am against its being used again. My father was for the use of it since he would have been sent.
        Truman had been in combat in WW II. The Japanese attacked us because we had cut off their oil because they had done some terrible things to the Chinese.
        Considering the things that the Japanese caused Americans, Australian, and Chinese to suffer before and during WWII, I think most Japanese wish they had not started that war, and understand why they got hurt as badly as they did.
        Sometimes I feel they might feel lucky because Macarthur loved them.

        • Rhoid Rager

          The Japanese aren’t a single, throbbing mass that makes singular decisions. It’s a population of many kinds of people with many different opinions, desires and sentiments. The same goes for the Chinese, the Americans, Australians etc. There’s no ‘us’ and ‘them’. Thinking like that gets us into war to begin with.

        • Calypso_1

          Maybe Merica should wish Cdre Perry hadn’t huffed & puffed his way into Yokohama Bay.

    • Calypso_1

      How could you say people closer to Japan were for it? It was a secret project. Any such opinions were a post-hoc analysis and subject to how events were narrated. They were for ending the war. They were told this is what ended the war.

    • Andy Dilks

      “Japan could have surrendered before the nuclear weapons were used.” They tried to. Repeatedly. Did you read the article?

  • emperorreagan

    Nothing has really changed.

    I’m sure one of the reasons Saddam got his hands on chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war was because the US wanted to see what happened when they were used.

    And overtures of surrender in recent wars have gone ignored in favor of new bombs, drones, and other toys to be trotted out on the battlefield.

  • BuzzCoastin

    for a brief period of time
    the Japanese military ran rampant over Chinese Asia
    the Koreans still hate the Japanese even today
    the Chinese would like to hate them, but they can’t work up the energy
    they killed several million people & enslaved thousands of others
    what goes around comes around
    Der Homeland’s karmic debt will someday come due too

    • Dingbert

      WWII deaths for comparison:
      Nagasaki and Hiroshima: ~225,000 dead

      Holocaust: ~4-17M dead
      Japanese invasion of China: ~20-35M dead

      Yet, somehow, China-Burma-India is the one known as the “Forgotten Theater.”

    • godozo

      A bit of information not many know
      (and this from a jewish author,
      you might want to read the book “Stella”):

      One Million Jews were found all over Germany,
      hidden in basements, or attics of houses
      of Germans who liked their Jewish Neighbors.
      Unable to band together and fight against Hitler,
      they did what they did, usually without telling each other.

      So maybe their debt from THAT time has been paid.
      Whatever Karmic debt they have from their RECENT attempts
      to establish the Fourth Reich is developing as we speak…
      Greece, Spain and Ireland will be Revenged in due time
      (and I fear that this time, we’ll be sharing in THAT retribution).

      • Kyle Michel Sullivan

        What they couldn’t win by force, they won by bankruptcy? So…who’s gonna buy their Mercedes cars, now?

  • Jester2012

    Where are the sources of your quotes from those involved in the U.S military at the time and where is there evidence that the Japanese attempted to surrender before the Atomic bombs were dropped?

    • rhetorics_killer

      No need of ‘proof': a logical explanation runs in the fact that at the very least everybody can agree that there is no way Japan could not have offered unconditional surrender after the drop of the first bomb. Can you seriously consider a Japanese state of mind capable to ‘enjoy’ a last stand? A starving exhausted people who, having suffered Hiroshima, would still play tough braving upcoming second fire? This very fact proves in the face of the world the shameful decision made in the name of ‘superior’ political consideration. Had the reason be the one invoked, a single bomb would have spread damage enough. ‘Little man’ is the tainted fact. Your questioning is desperately, unconditionally, ‘patriotic'; which in this case means blindness.

      • Jester2012

        I see your points but I think if your argument is to be taken seriously sources need to be cited. I don’t see how you got anything else from my comment other than questions but you are entitled to think whatever you want.

      • CarloHGR .

        japanese history reports that after hiroshima the emperor ordered to surrender, and military tried to take im in custody. This is what japanese people say about his own history. Is also reported that japanese military had an impressive arsenal prepared to the american assault. They agreed in a loss, but could not stand an inconditional surrender and hoped to inflict so much losses to american, to force them into a “honorable agreedment”. They all suicided in a traditional way when in the end, japan surrendered whitout fighting. This is what japanese history says, this you can read at hiroshima museum, go there you, and the one that wrote this big lie, and please study.

        • Calypso_1

          You really think that the stories a nation tells it’s own people aren’t tailored for internal consumption?

          • CarloHGR .

            i am really sure that the japanese military had that kind of mentality: to fight till death, not caring of civil casualties, expecially over their honor. Japanese ancient history is full of wars till the last man and rebellions against the emperor, unless you belive that was tailored too for some dark reason,

          • Calypso_1

            I am quite familiar with the intersection of history & myth in numerous cultures.

          • CarloHGR .

            Is hard for japanese still living today to belive that they eard the declaration of surrender BEFORE the atomic bomb. You can try to tailor history as much as you can, but you cant tailor the story of 100.000.000 in countries that hates each others. The genocide of china and korea “slaves” from japanese army, the fact that japanese experimented bacteriologic weapons for invading usa on chinese people is remembered by some million of chinese/korean, that were not exactly friendly with usa after the war. The same goes to japan victims: they still remember the killing of people that did not wanted a war in the 30° by military. You cant fool nations like this, but you can start to write tons and tons of fakes on the net for your sake or the sake of you want others to belive. Just add a sign like: “this is the report of the secretary of the usa president…” who could say for sure: this is a fake. Even if the true secretaty get angry conspirators will say: “he made an error and now is trying to negate, so to not anger his masters anymore”. But fakes have a fatal flaw: since too many people are inventing things, no one will ever be the same of another. Take the 11/9 tower attack: according to conspiracy theory (if all are true) twin towers were hit by 2 holograms projected over 2 cruise missiles modelled like a jetplane, while bombs inside the building made it all bigger (like a true cruise missiles need additional demolition charge) After that the building were made fall by many tons of explosives and, according to many others, a nuke of 150 megaton (10 times hiroshima), that was necessair to make all that dust. I always answered that modify 2 old passengers planes so that can be remote controlled was a little better

        • Lookinfor Buford

          The forces at work in Japan during this time require an enormous amount of study. If you are familiar with gekokujo, this belief was held by some very dangerous Japanese commanders of the time. We were all taught that they were ULTRA-loyal to the emperor and higher commander. This is not so. For a glimpse into the gekokujo phenomenon, I recommend the book “The Killer they Called a God”. Those of you who have followed the Japanese atrocities in the Philippines, including the death march, might be interested to know how it really happened, or rather, who really caused it.

    • Dingbert
      • Jester2012

        thank you for the reply

  • Rhoid Rager

    One particularly brutal night of firebombing in Tokyo left more people dead–around 75,000–than Hiroshima. The A-bombs received more attention because they are a political tool. It’s commonly thought that they were shown to Stalin, but the real propaganda target was the American people. With this new WMD era of politics/warfare, the political order of the day had to maintained because a Sword of Damocles was now hanging over all of our heads.

    Everyday I marvel at the psychopathology of the system we toil under. If we just accept material reasons, then all of this misery and human sacrifice is put upon us just to maintain lifestyles at the top. It hardly makes sense without some higher-dimensional explanation.

    • rhetorics_killer

      The bombing of Tokyo seems to give even higher numbers, both Japanese and American authorities estimating the toll above 100 000, whilst an historian considers these figures strongly minimized for propaganda reasons. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

      • Rhoid Rager

        I was writing from memory, but I don’t dispute that number. The use of incendiary bombs on Tokyo was deliberate; that prick, Curtis LeMay, knew that Japanese cities were made of ‘wood, paper and bamboo’ and masterminded the firebombing. .

        • Calypso_1

          Even LeMay had an outspoken opinion about the Bomb:

          “LeMay: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.

          The New York Herald Tribune: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb?

          LeMay: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”

          September 20, 1945

          …..and this was the guy they put in charge of the Strategic Air Command.

    • Bluebird_of_Fastidiousness

      Nuclear anything is a gun to the head of society. If anyone ever upsets the power order enough that no one maintains the machines, we are all fucked beyond hope.

      • Rhoid Rager

        I would hope that people don’t measure their responsibility to society by the assignments they receive from hierarchy. But perhaps that is just wishful thinking.

      • Andrew

        I’ll take that a “no” vote for a general strike.

    • gustave courbet

      I agree with your assessment but am curious about your allusion to higher dimensions. Care to elaborate?

      • Rhoid Rager

        Not offering any specific explanation. I don’t appreciate details to anything other than my own experience. Perhaps others more familiar with occult and extra-dimensional realities may wish to offer their own explanation on this.

        But to elaborate from my own experience–there is a limit to the satisfaction one gains from material things. Perhaps some reach this earlier in life than others, depending on education, exposure or some other variable. When one gets to a point when they realize that satisfaction doesn’t actually come from the material things they covet/have, then there seems to be a natural turn to things that aren’t of this reality/dimension/universe. I’ve come to this point recently (not in any consistent manner, I should admit), so I am highly incredulous that others older (i.e. ruling elite), more experienced in the material world and more experienced in the luxury of material life have not reached this point as human beings.

        How could they have the material power that they do without growing psychologically ill-seated with it. That’s what has never made sense to me. If they understand the machinations of their own global aspirations–since they must for such machinations to operate so methodically–then why do they perpetuate them with the full knowledge of their deleterious effects on our species. We cannot reasonably offer structural explanations for this–people as social beings follow social patterns, but do so under the advisement of their own conscience. One such revelation of this is the rate of PTSD of returning soldiers…

        Further, the material realm in this world is clearly operating in a pyramidal pattern with a clear definition of who is at the bottom–this is how we define poverty versus richness, in the most superficial sense. But those who situate themselves at the top of this pyramid remain obfuscated behind a veil of taboo’ed secrecy and national mysticism. These active efforts to obscure the obvious reality of ensconced elite should be our primary clue that they operate under a logic of material conditions and expect us to as well.

        I just don’t see how it could be humans with a psychological makeup like our own that sit at the top of this pyramid. In terms of explaining what else, then, I can only guess. Could it be an influence from outside our species? From outside our planet? I really don’t know for certain. But I do know that the problems we face are those vested in an entrenched rejection of our own ability to make the choices of our lives–which amounts to a tremendous existential assault on us as sentient beings. Our existence in this dimension is characterised by our ability to control our movements within its confines. What convinces us to actively negate this freedom is so mysterious to me (yet I also suffer from it, from time to time). I can only explain our predicament in the material world as a derivative of something that exists beyond the material world that somehow casts influence over us to affect our movements within this dimension. Hence my attribution.

        • seth

          thats the most logical reasoning i ever red.
          for someone to reach this conclusion, has to neutrally read in conspiracy and religion/occult finishing with science and how awesome the truth is, to eventually see the concept of being a Human.
          regards to your thoughts and excuse my english :)

        • Lookinfor Buford

          –then why do they perpetuate them with the full knowledge of their deleterious effects on our species.
          Cynicism and Misanthropy

  • Robert Estlinbaum

    Sources? I want to show up.

    • Calypso_1

      You can find all you want here:

      The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 3)

      • Robert Estlinbaum

        Thank you.

  • Bob G

    Let me see here: Pearl Harbor, the rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, the Manila massacre. Not to mention the island to island fighting were the Japanese lost 5 and 6 times the men we did. Why? Their no surrender policy. Pay back is a bitch, isn’t she? And it irritates the hell out of you liberals.

    • Calypso_1

      Nearly a million surrendered in Manchuria. Russians must have been really scary or perhaps it was the cold.

    • bobup

      “Pearl Harbor, rape of Nanking, Bataan death march, Manila….” So these were all masterminded by the charred-looking citizen at the top of this page, right? The notion of Payback may help get us by when individuals interact but it’s pretty darn problematic when you start thinking in terms of larger groups like countries or cultures. Who here believes they should be responsible for-and liable to payback for-everything their own country has done? Who believes they shouldn’t?

    • Andrew

      The only reason to do anything is to irritate liberals.

  • Matthew Milton

    Sorry, but this guy is kind of a hack. He’s acting like he’s redpilling everyone with shocking information while all of this stuff is common knowledge in academic circles. The final paragraph is just disgusting, too. I’m not “pro-bomb” by any stretch of the imagination but you can’t expect anyone to take you seriously with condemnations like that.

    2/10, give it another shot.

  • http://www.mayorgalvan.com MayorGalvan

    Something is going on here in Houston and all over the USA that we are not being told. Radioactive Clouds from Japan. Clouds from Africa hitting Houston. This may be one reason why Houston has been invaded by a new type of flea that is more aggressive and vicious. I think we are going to suffer more than what was done to the Japanese when we dropped the bombs on them. People are already suffering !

    • wolfe23

      an accordin ter Bob J Hull… Ye does reap what ye sows…
      I be thinkin that it thee thought that is thee scariest ter Americans since 9/11
      indeed “thee chickens may come home ter roost” anna ov course that be includin both folx abroad that we pillage fer our lifestyles, and those domestically that are oppressed (especially those that were enslaved in thee past)…

  • Seed_Of_Filth71

    I am not a bleeding heart liberal but would like to say to the citizens of Japan,I’m sorry my country is and was run by psychopaths and they did this to you.Yes war is hell but to bomb civilians like they did makes me sick,I was born in 71,so I wasn’t born yet, but still shouldn’t have happened!

  • Bob J Huff

    While the ambassador of Japan was in the US signing a peace treaty Tojo attacked Pearl Harbor. The Japanese got what they deserved, They started the war not the US. The Japanese cannot be trusted as they are cowards and war criminals yet the Emperor was spared any indignities for his part in the war. He remained the Emperor and never spent one day in confinement. Look at history to all the atrocities the Japanese soldiers committed in every country they occupied. No tears here, you reap what you sow.

    • Rhoid Rager

      lol
      I guess the same can be said for everyone that died on 8/11 in the twin towers… as Ward Churchill called them: ‘little Eichmanns’
      lol

    • Dalton

      Civilians were killed by the atomic bombs, that is not justified; that could have been your japanese friend or co-worker, the bombings did not target any of the people that committed ‘war crimes.’ by this logic everyone in the US should be killed, considering around 90% of the deaths in the war on terror are civilian deaths that are not justified and just as bad or worse than any of the japanese war crimes. children are bombed and women raped in the middle east, Should we nuke atlanta?

  • Solange8

    It is now abundantly clear that America is the most warlike nation on the planet. It uses its narcissistic self-righteousness to justify trampling on the human rights of other nations and even its own citizens. Bizarrely, it has always seen itself as the moral guardian of the world, as if it has some divine right to claim such a position, and when in fact its own morals, both domestically and on the world stage are so very deeply questionable and troubling. Its politicians’ constant and hypocritical references to God in every speech have become so predictable and commonplace as to be rendered meaningless. Its one great success has been to keep its citizens opiated on a relentless diet of sham celebrity and saturated fats, whilst simultaneously allowing much of its education system to deteriorate to a deplorable level, leading to an increasing xenophobic, isolationist stance within the general population. But then, when your citizens know nothing of the outside world they are much easier to control – think of North Korea.

  • Diana Davis Rumbold

    My father was one of the Bombadiers who fired bombed Tokyo (he had me sehr late in life) He told me he still had nightmares about it and about Dresden. We would have one – fire plus cities made of rice paper and bamboo equals WMD. We did this to show that our missiles were bigger than theirs – theirs being the Soviets. Any other reason given is a justification.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    My military historian chum and I got into this debate just a couple days ago. Note: I was the one putting forward that the use of atomics was unnecessary…he was the one supporting their use as necessary or at least justified. Second note: at no time did we disagree on these basic issues 1) Japan offered surrender several times before the use of the atomic weapons, each with diminished requirements and conditions which were still found unsatisfactory by the US. 2) Despite the conventional wisdom of todays less informed armchair observers, there is no question that Japan was broken and incapable of offensive action…and even restricted in defensive action beyond the northern reaches of the island. 3) The US elected to make use of the atomic bombs to force unconditional surrender, make a worldwide point, and cow various other nations into compliance in a single fell swoop. These things aren’t questioned by serious military historians…only by bystanders who absorbed the Cliff Notes version of WW2 that gets passed around in junior high history class and keep parroting ‘ZOMG, a ground invasion would have cost countless lives!!!’ A ground invasion wasn’t even on the table as a real necessity.

    Where we differed is that he supports, in the end, the use of extreme actions to force a unilateral surrender rather than the slow starvation that might in SOME ways have been crueler. I contend that the US’s primary hurry was to prevent dwindling home support for an already lengthy war from making it possible for the Japanese to negotiate a far more favorable treaty. The clock was ticking after V-E day…and had Japan’s repeated attempts to surrender with terms dragged on while troops were already beginning to riot (look it up…US troops being shipped from European theatres to the Pacific were bursting at the seams with anger over redeployment) there might well have been a public collapse of support for the governments hard stance…and Japan might well have retained a wide array of colonial possessions as well as the right to field and effective army and navy. Instead, post-atomic, the US got the terms it wanted, gained colonial possessions that made it a permanent strategic power on both sides of the globe and every significant ocean, and made a show of strength in front of the entire planet with a weapon out of nightmares.

    And to be honest…I don’t feel nearly as appalled by the notion that we did it for convenience and power and influence…as I do by the infantile repetitions of “We totally had to do it…there was no other way!!!” I don’t really mind that we were dicks…I just want us to own our dickery…be conscious of it and mindful of it…and be honest with ourselves about the Machiavellian nature of global politics, instead of continuing to be the kind of gullible twats who suckle down whatever swill the pundits-for-hire dump in front of us that day, because that kind of stupidity is what makes it possible for governments and NGOs to get away with all kinds of horrors…and justify it afterwards with carefully couched explanations about how horrible it could have been if they HADN’T done (insert any heinous act here).

21
More in end war, Hiroshima, History, Nagasaki
Inside Henry Ford’s Failed Planned-City Jungle Utopia

Damn Interesting on the forgotten history of Henry Ford's surreal Fordlandia, a rubber-plantation-slash-corporate-city in the Amazon where workers would have American values stamped into them, and which was ultimately abandoned...

Close