Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Press Censorship: How the Truth Was Hidden About Nagasaki 65 Years Ago
Nagasaki, which lost over 70,000 civilians (and a few military personnel) to a new weapon 65 years ago today, has always been The Forgotten A-Bomb City. No one ever wrote a bestselling book called Nagasaki, or made a film titled Nagasaki, Mon Amour. Yet in some ways, Nagasaki is the modern A-bomb city. For one thing, when the plutonium bomb exploded above Nagasaki it made the uranium-type bomb dropped on Hiroshima obsolete. In fact, if it had not exploded off-target the death toll in the city would have easily topped the Hiroshima total.
Hiroshima has always drawn the vast majority of press, public and historical interest, even though many who support the first atomic bombing have expressed severe misgivings about number two because of the failure of United States to give the Japanese at least a few more days to consider surrender after the first blast (and the Soviets' declaration of war). Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., once said in an interview that the "nastiest act by this country, after human slavery, was the bombing of Nagasaki."
But Nagasaki was "forgotten" from the very start, thanks to a blatant act of press censorship.
One of the great mysteries of the Nuclear Age was solved just five years ago: What was in the censored, and then lost to the ages, newspaper articles filed by the first reporter to reach Nagasaki following the atomic attack on that city on Aug. 9, 1945.
The reporter was George Weller, the distinguished correspondent for the now-defunct Chicago Daily News. His startling dispatches from Nagasaki, which could have affected public opinion on the future of the bomb, never emerged from General Douglas MacArthur's censorship office in Tokyo. I wrote about this cover-up in the book I co-authored with Robert Jay Lifton in 1995, Hiroshima in America.
Carbon copies of the stories were found in 2003 when his son discovered them after the reporter's death. Four of them were published in 2005 for the first time by the Tokyo daily Mainichi Shimbun, which purchased them from the son, Anthony Weller. I was first to report on this in the United States.
The articles published in Japan (and later included in a book assembled by Anthony Weller, First Into Nagasaki) revealed a remarkable and wrenching turn in Weller's view of the aftermath of the bombing, which anticipates the profound unease in our nuclear experience ever since. "It was remarkable to see that shifting perspective," Anthony Weller told me.
An early article that George Weller filed, on Sept. 8, 1945 -- two days after he reached the city, before any other journalist -- hailed the "effectiveness of the bomb as a military device," as his son describes it, and made no mention of the bomb's special, radiation-producing properties.
But later that day, after visiting two hospitals and shaken by what he saw, he described a mysterious "Disease X" that was killing people who had seemed to survive the bombing in relatively good shape. A month after the atomic inferno, they were passing away pitifully, some with legs and arms "speckled with tiny red spots in patches."
The following day he again described the atomic bomb's "peculiar disease" and reported that the leading local X-ray specialist was convinced that "these people are simply suffering" from the bomb's unknown radiation effects.
Anthony Weller, a novelist, told me that it was one of great disappointments of his father's life that these stories, "a real coup," were killed by MacArthur who, George Weller felt, "wanted all the credit for winning the war, not some scientists back in New Mexico."
Others have suggested that the real reason for the censorship was the United States did not want the world to learn about the morally troubling radiation effects for two reasons: It aimed to avoid questions raised about the use of the weapon in 1945, or its wide scale development in the coming years. In fact, an official "coverup" of much of this information--involving print accounts, photographs and film footage--continued for years, even, in some cases, decades.
"Clearly," Anthony Weller told me of his father's reports, "they
would have supplied an eyewitness account at a moment when the American
people badly needed one."
THE SCOOP THAT WASN'T
How did George Weller get the scoop-that-wasn't?
After years of covering the Pacific war, Weller (left) arrived in Japan with the first wave of reporters and military in early September. He had already won a Pulitzer for his reporting in 1943. Appalled by MacArthur's censors, and "the conformists" in his profession who went along with strict press restrictions, he made his way, with permission, to the distant island of Kyushu to visit a former kamikaze base. But he noted that it was connected by railroad to Nagasaki. Pretending he was "a major or colonel," as his son put it, he slipped into the city (perhaps by boat) about three days before any of his colleagues, and just after Wilfred Burchett had filed his first report from Hiroshima.
Once arrived, Weller toured the city, the aid stations, the former POW camps, and wrote numerous stories within days. According to his son, he managed to send the articles to Tokyo, not by wire, but by hand, and felt "that the sheer volume and importance of the stories would mean they would be respected" by MacArthur and his censors.
Although Weller did not express any outward disapproval of the use of the bomb, these stories -- and others he filed in the following two weeks from the vicinity -- would never see the light of the day, and the reporter lost track of his carbons. He would later summarize the experience with the censorship office in two words: "They won."
In the years that followed, Weller continued his journalism career, winning a George Polk award and other honors and covering many other conflicts. Neither the carbons nor the originals ever surfaced, before he passed away in 2002 at the age of 95. It was then that his son made a full search of the wildly disorganized "archives" at his father's home in Italy, and in 2003 found the carbons just 30 feet from his dad's desk.
And what a find: roughly 75 pages of stories, on fading brownish paper, that covered not only his first atomic dispatches but gripping accounts by prisoners of war, some of whom described watching the bomb go off on that fateful morning.
A 'PECULIAR WEAPON'
In the first article published by the Japanese paper, the first words from Weller were: "The atomic bomb may be classified as a weapon capable of being used indiscriminately, but its use in Nagasaki was selective and proper and as merciful as such a gigantic force could be expected to be." Weller described himself as "the first visitor to inspect the ruins."
He suggested about 24,000 may have died but he attributed the high numbers to "inadequate" air raid shelters and the "total failure" of the air warning system. He declared that the bomb was "a tremendous, but not a peculiar weapon," and said he spent hours in the ruins without apparent ill effects. He did note, with some regret, that a hospital and an American mission college were destroyed, but pointed out that to spare them would have also meant sparing munitions plants.
In his second story that day, however, following his hospital visits, he would describe "Disease X," and victims, who have "neither a burn or a broken limb," wasting away with "blackish" mouths and red spots, and small children who "have lost some hair."
A third piece, sent to MacArthur the following day, reported the disease "still snatching away lives here. Men, women and children with no outward marks of injury are dying daily in hospitals, some after having walked around three or four weeks thinking they have escaped.
"The doctors ... candidly confessed ... that the answer to the malady is beyond them." At one hospital, 200 of 343 admitted had died: "They are dead -- dead of atomic bomb -- and nobody knows why."
He closed this account with: "Twenty-five Americans are due to arrive Sept. 11 to study the Nagasaki bomb site. Japanese hope they will bring a solution for Disease X." To this day, that solution for the disease--and the threat of nuclear weapons--has still not arrived.




110 Comments so far
Show AllOne wonders if any reporter or journalist will ask Obama or Secretary of State Clinton if, in light of this very disturbing article, the United States will finally issue a very belated apology to the citizens of Nagasaki as well as Hiroshima for the heinous damage and suffering that was inflicted upon those people by the United States. But then this would seem to be extremely unlikely as Obama himself had told CNN correspondent Candy Crowley in the summer of 2008 that he felt that the United States has nothing to apologize for in regard to its [most destructive] foreign policy.
You apparently know nothing of the multitude of atrocities committed by Japan, both large and small. Especially early in the war when various units of the Japanese army slaughtered POW's. The Kampei made the Gestapo look like choir boys at times. The bombings that flattened cities and killed far more people than were killed at Hiroshimea and Nagasaki.
WE have NOTHING to apologize to the Japanese for.
Those atrocities that were committed by the Japanese were supposed to somehow justify the United States dropping not one but two nuclear bombs, not on military installations, but on two cities which resulted in the incineration of innocent civilians, to say nothing of the deformities that many of the survivors suffered years after those weapons of mass destruction were dropped? Perhaps your next trick will be for you to justify what the American army did in a place called My Lai in March of 1968. But as I mentioned in a previous comment, for super patriots like yourself the United States can never be wrong.
You do not need justification to use weapons on the enemy Erroll. To ignore the bombings and the civilians killed by the Axis powers is Ostrich resasoning. Is a leg or arm lost any less of a deformity? A burned body from fire any different? Do you think a thousand pound bomb is not a WMD? Or as Airiel Torpedo isn't?
As to My Lai, it has no place at all here and is completely irrelevent to this discussion. But I would tell you that it wasn't the American Army that did this but a nutty Lt. that lost it and a platoon that had some men that followed him. Since I know you werre there in Viet Nam and were in Combat you have said, then you know full well of the many Vil's that the NVA did, the atrocities threy routinely engaged in, the heads on spikes we saw, the raped children....does that excuse the little coward that did My Lai? Of course not. But you also know its wasn't a common practice for us and seldom happenede no matter the proppaganda put out here and elsewhere, not that that excuses barbarity for anyone.
We have been wrong so many times I can't count, but to even suggest we are alone are even the worst is simply not true. Factually not true.
Mightymite bizarrely believes that "it wasn't the American Army that did this... [at My Lai]". He may find this hard to believe but Charlie Company of the Americal Division which committed that atrocity at My Lai most emphatically belonged to the American army. Also, he wants me to think that "its [sic] wasn't a common practice for us and seldom happenede [sic] no matter the proppaganda [sic] put out here and elsewhere...". Actually what happened at My Lai was simply the tip of the iceberg as there were many, many mini My Lais that occurred in Vietnam when the United States was terrorizing that country that rarely made its way into print. One of the few books that does described the atrocities that were condoned by the CIA in Vietnam was The New Legions written by a former Green Beret named Donald Duncan. It was because of those atrocities that he had seen in Vietnam that caused Duncan to resign after having been in the U.S. army for ten years.
It is also, to use his words, factually untrue to think that we are not "alone or even the worst." Mightymite might wish to read William Blum's Killing Hope which methodically lists in detail the number of countries the United States, with the help of the CIA, has illegally invaded and whose governments have been overthrown by the less than benevolent United States.
By American Army I meant it was not done to Army orders nor as a practice of our Army as you well know.
"Also, he wants me to think that "its [sic] wasn't a common practice for us and seldom happenede [sic] no matter the proppaganda [sic] put out here and elsewhere...". Actually what happened at My Lai was simply the tip of the iceberg as there were many, many mini My Lais that occurred in Vietnam when the United States was terrorizing that country that rarely made its way into print."
If you actually believe this as you state you do, I do NOT believe you were in Combat in Viet Nam at any time nor in any combat zones at any time. Any combat veteran KNOWS better than that.
Viet Nam was bad enough without the self serving Bull Shit of the Hunter types or state side fabrications.
The last thing I'll say is that I was going to addd to an earlier post that while I'm certainly a Patriot, I'm no "Super Patriot" of the "love it or leave it" or "my country right or wrong type". They are the same as the people that always find America in the wrong, always find America is the only country that made bad decisions, etc. These two types of people are birds of a feather.
I'll give you an example to start with, think of the bozo's that will condemn America for killing every native in sight (a lie that should embarass any one of reasonable intelligence)....while never mentioning ONCE the depredations and killings (far worse in some cases) by the Spanish, French Dutch and English. Try African history where America is condemned right and left...I missed our colony thgere, now where was it? I know where the other countries colonies were.
Mightymite
Your arguments, such as they are, are both intellectually and morally bankrupt. You claim that "Any combat veteran KNOWS better than that." Your statement is a perfect example of a flag waver who cannot possibly believe that the United States, that alleged lover of democracy, could ever have committed atrocities and killings and rapes and terrorizations of the Vietnamese people, as well as of other Third World citizens.
As I have pointed out to you [or at least tried to], Donald Duncan covered this territory in his book The New Legions. Are you attempting to claim that Duncan lied when he and other members of the American military stood idly by when the ARVN tortured members of the NVA? Are you saying that Bill Blum's book [Killing Hope] was wrong when he listed country after country which was violated, with the help of the CIA, by the United States and which was documented by extensive end notes?
In your world these atrocities cannot possible be true because the United States does not do those things. Other countries certainly do but not the good 'ol USA. But we know [or at least we should know] that that is a lie because we have evidence such as The Phoenix Program and the use of Agent Orange and napalm that were used against the Vietnamese people. Despite your denials in the real world there most certainly were war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against the Vietnamese people and no matter how many rationalizations you choose it does not alter the fact that the United States, as evidenced by such writers as Carl Boggs, who wrote the most relevant and fact based book The Crimes of Empire: Rogue Superpower and World Domination, is most certainly guilty of having committed many war crimes against so many countries and so many people since the end of World War II.
I wonder mightymight, if you were ever in a combat zone. I don't know if the man whos views you so glibly judged was or not. I was; walked point in a LRP company through the jungles of D Zone. You really don't think My Lai was the tip of an iceberg?
Your ignorance is even more pronounced than your arrogance.
>>mightymite wrote: ... think of the bozo's that will condemn America for killing every native in sight (a lie...)....while never mentioning ONCE the depredations and killings (far worse in some cases) by the Spanish, French Dutch and English. Try African history where America is condemned right and left...I missed our colony thgere, now where was it? I know where the other countries colonies were.
mightymite, if you are ready to denounce **all** racist, imperial conquests and violence, you will find at least one other person joining you: me. However, you seem to be working too hard, on this site, to defend, explain away or just plain distort history when it comes to the USA's role in events. I have noticed the tendency on the part of some on this site to just blame the US, while leaving out all other imperial powers that you listed: Spanish, French Dutch and English. And most people cannot even imagine China as imperialistic, although it's easy to spot imperial or hegemonic tendencies and actions all through the Chinese history in the last several decades. It was the same problem with yesteryear Marxists - they couldn't bring themselves to condemn the Soviet aggressions.
"With malice towards all" - that is, all imperial aggression - is my policy. Try it. It's easier than defending your pet aggressor.
mightymite August 9th, 2010 12:16 pm:
What you're suggesting mightymite, is that let's say for example Iran would be perfectly justified in orchestrating a coup to depose the Obama Administration and institute a Shah-friendly puppet regime. Perhaps Chavez should send his secret police up to Washington right now, after all it's nothing the US hasn't already done to him.
An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
This is the second comment on CD where you have claimed we have nothing to apologize for.
In your mind, two grave wrongs make a right.
Japanese and Nazi German atrocities wers despicable. The Germans apologized, but few Japanese ever have.
As far as the U.S. is concerned, the German and Japanese apologies are irrelevant.
The U.S. bombed German and Japanese cities, murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians. That is much to apologize for.
Only sociopaths do not apologize for murder. Purposely killing civilians IS murder, as well as a war crime.
General Curtis LeMay and his assistant, Robert McNamara, in chatge of strategic bombing of German and Japanese cities, knew they would have been tried as war criminals had the U.S. lost the war.
Wake up! Japanese and Nazi atrocities can NEVER justify Allied atrocities. Revenge is NEVER justice.
If you cannot see this, you have no conscience.
Didn't Obummer spend most of his first year apologiseing to everyone who would listen for America as America.
Nobody deplores warfare more than I do. I have seen too much of such senseless slaughter in my lifetime to believe wars have ever advanced the human race one inch. I have opposed the invasions and wars against both Iraq and Afghanistan from the very beginning and refused to vote for Obama because he spoke of invading Pakistan. I find warmongering itself beyond contempt knowing that the reasons are almost always concealed from the public through lies and deceptions. I consider warfare the ultimate obscenity and a crime against humanity and the planet itself. Yet I do not think it is Obama's duty to apologize for a decision made by a previous administration so many years ago, whether many believe it merited or not. How can an apology make a difference to a generation of people who are now almost all departed? The America of 2010 had no part in and very few personal memories of those times. I, personally believe Truman's decision was made to save the loss of more American lives for a nation thoroughly exhausted by four years of seeing their young men die for what they and their families believed was a noble cause.
The history of the human race is so bloody and so violent that warfare has been a common occurence in every nation that has ever existed. We would all be apologizing endlessly for bygone atrocities deeds from bygone times if we followed this path. The best apology I can think of is to begin as a nation the arduous task of civilizing ourselves and our children so that to take the life of another human being excepting in defence of ones self or another would be unthinkable. How could Obama apologize for brutal acts of a past war when he is engaged in bloodletting against countries that, unlike Japan, never lifted a finger againast us?
A penitent country would take the first step toward disposing of its own nuclear arsonal as an example of true good will toward the rest of the world instead of using the threat of first strike to bludgeon weaker nations to permit the theft of their natural resources and bend to our will. The decisions coming out of the White House today are clearly immoral and illegal. We were never attacked and we are occupying countries where we are viewed as terrorists. We are not fit to judge decisions made 65 years ago when American itself was in actual peril.
"the nastiest act by this country, after human slavery, was 9/11."
Well said.
Hmmm
This article does give one pause for thought on so many different levels. George Weller claims to have spent days touring Nagasaki just after the bomb was dropped. He wrote about the radiation poisoning, the total destruction and human suffering. And yet....despite spending days at ground zero, just after the bombing, he managed to live into his 90's. And then of course the idea that he forgot about the carbon copies for oh about 60 years and then his son suddenly finds them. Certainly stranger things have happened.
America doesnt have to look very far back to see the very same kind of press censorship and manipulation. Take a good long hard look at Fallujah. This was a city of over 1/4 million the essentially ceased to exist after the US attack. It was subsequently partially repopulated and rebuilt. Strangely enough the population that remained/returned has suffered from many strange X factor diseases that continue to linger in the city. Oddly enough some of these X factors sound vaguely familiar......
The people who received the heaviest doses of radiation were probably exposed to gamma rays from the blast, and then showered with solid particles containing radioactive elements. And there would have been no way to wash off those particles before they had caused enormous damage.
Weller arrived in Nagasaki on September 6, a full four weeks after the bombing.
The war was already won when the two bombs were dropped.
They were dropped in frantic haste before Japan's surrender could become official and a matter of public record. General Leslie Groves had become a pariah in the military community because he gobbled up the lion's share of the military budget. Other fronts in the war effort were nearly destitute and had resolved to take revenge on General Groves when the war was over.
The General's solution? Use the bombs as quickly as possible in an effort to prove they were needed to win the war.
The fact that nothing of the kind was proven did not prevent the General and Harry S. Truman from taking credit for saving thousands of American lives.
When Oppenheimer, months later, met with Truman to criticize the unnecessary carnage the two had collaborated to create Truman called him a crybaby.
The great winner of WW II, the USA, would never admit to the unspeakable widespread suffering it had wreaked on a portion of humankind. Besides the Japs were just barely human. That bomb would never have been used against Germany. Many Americans had gobbled up the lie of the Master race, and at the very least their humanity was not in question.
How many German Americans were consigned to interment camps?
Bull. Japan had not surrendered. Nor did it till 9 days after the second bomb was dropped. Revison has problems with real facts.
But what you are ignoring is that that powerful weapon was dropped not on a military installation but in a city full of civilians. You seem to believe in the myth of American Exceptionalism which states that the United States is superior to other countries and can never be wrong about anything.
Did you miss the fact that the Japanese were bombing undefended cities and dropping bombs on civilians from the start of the war? Along with the Germans and Italians. This was not a "first" by us.
"American Exceptionalism which states that the United States is superior to other countries and can never be wrong about anything" Thats one cocrpt put forth by radicals, its not what it actually means of course.
But if it did mean what you say,I certainly don't believe that.
What is the relevance of Japanese and German war planners bombing civilian targets? Does that make it morally right for us to do so as well? The Germans rounded-up their undesirable citizens. Did that make it morally right for us to round up the Japanese? Of course not. The Japanese committed plenty of war-crimes in Manchuria and elsewhere. Had Patton or Zhukov got to Germany and committed the exact same crimes would that have made it morally right to do so?
It would be one thing if this was irrelevant. However, the same mentality (that American Exceptionalism) that allowed us to kill the Indians, enslave the blacks, steal 1/2 of Mexico, invade Haiti, Cuba, Guam, Hawaii, The Philippines, etc etc etc... is still with us today as evidenced by Vietnam, Greneda, Panama, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, & the rhetoric against Iran. We believe the world is ours & that our resources for our "free-markets" just unfortunately exist under the lands of others.
"What is the relevance of Japanese and German war planners bombing civilian targets? Does that make it morally right for us to do so as well?"
You are suggesting that our countries should have practiced restricted warfare while their's did not? That we should not bomb their cities and factories while they did bomb ours? You are suggesting that we should practice your view of "morality" and allow them to defeat us?
As fact we and the Russians did get to Germany and as a matter of record the Russians raped and plundered from one end to another. We did not.
"The Germans rounded-up their undesirable citizens. Did that make it morally right for us to round up the Japanese? Of course not"
I hope that you aren't comparing these two instances as the same? While the detention of our Japanese citizens was a dishonorable and in many cases racist act to our shame, its nothing to what the Germans did to their citizens. Nothing.
The last paragraph of your post is not relative to the discussion nor particularly correct, but best left to strings addressing those areas.
What you're suggesting mightymite, is that let's say for example Iran would be perfectly justified in orchestrating a coup to depose the Obama Administration and institute a Shah-friendly puppet regime. Perhaps Chavez should send his secret police up to Washington right now, after all it's nothing the US hasn't already done to him.
An eye for an eye ends up with a bunch of blind people.
So right mightmite. If the Japs can bomb civilian targets, well, hell, we'll show them how it's done. And "ardent" would not be fit to clean Gandhi's toilet.
You are suggesting that our countries should have practiced restricted warfare while their's did not? That we should not bomb their cities and factories while they did bomb ours?
And yes, if you start a war, be prepared to accept the consequenses.
For the sake of argument. Right after Pearl Harbor and right after the Germans declared war on us...say we had the bomb then. Do you drop it on each country then or not?
Lets say the time frame extended and the Germans perfected their version and dropped it on England, do we drop ours then or keep refusing to use it?
Lets say you must make the decison to drop that bomb or send those Marines in their landing craft in to the Japanese mainland. Which do you choose? I drop it, without hesitation. I'm curious what you would do and why? You have been told what your expected casualty rates will be.
This is not meant in a deragatory way, just curious as to your reasoning.
Assuming that the Japanese were not already planning on surrendering, a fact I am not sure is true, this is what I personally would have done. I would have dropped the first bomb on as lightly populated area as possible then told the Japanese they had 1 week to inspect the site and surrender. I would then have lied to them and told them we had dozens of these bombs and we would start dropping them on actual cities, destroying them one by one until they did surrender. If they did not surrender at that point, and an invasion of the Japan itself was the ONLY option, then I would drop the next bomb on a city that was a major military target, not a civilian one.
By doing it in that fashion you shift most of the responsibility for the bombing onto the Japanese government itself. You could honestly argue that you demonstrated the devastating power of the bomb to them, warned them you would use it on cities if they did not surrender, then when you did use it, you used it on a legitimate military target.
But the way things were handled I strongly suspect the real purposes for the bombings were two fold. First live tests on actual cities were a great way to determine the effects of the two bombs in real life settings. That is why two different types of bombs were used, and the Japanese were given very little time between the bombings to surrender.
The second reason was to tell the only other significant power left in the world, the USSR, to watch out, because we had "The Bomb" and we were not afraid to use it.
Interesting.
The Japanese were NOT even considering unconditional surrender at the time and the Emperor had made clear that the homeland was to be defended utterly (at that time. The rercords are quite clear on this. There is no doubt,
I don't believe your first reason at all. Not for a minute. Forget the wartime propaganda about the Japanese or Germans aty that point. After war actions give the lie to that thought.
Now number 2 has some merit. We were certainly aware of the Russian penchant for betrayal and their ambitions for World domination...could be.
Frankly I prefer your outlined method to the one we used. But perhaps they took into account the fact that we had been fire bombing Japanese cities steadily or a couple of months with little effect on their resolution?
My Dad was convinced they would never surrender unconditionally because of their actions on Iwo Jima. His surviving mates confirmed that opinion. Everything I have found in the records (ours and theirs) tend to support that conclusion. But Truman didn't know about what was in their records when he made his decision, he didn't know what they had decided. And there is nothing in our record's to indicate that we knew these things then.
You say you don't believe these were tests? Why not? We firebombed Tokyo and Dresden, so why would we be overly concerned about destroying two more cities when we could kill two birds with one stone. Scare the crap out of the Japanese and test our latest toys.
From the day I first learned about the bombings some 40 years ago, it always stuck me as strange that they would use two different types of bombs. Why? If you are just trying to destroy two cities what is the point of using two different types of bombs? For a test is one of the first things that come to my mind.
Just think of the treasure trove of information you could gather by live nuclear tests on a city. You can see how different structures handle the blast. You can see how far the destruction goes, and how it tapers off with the distance from ground zero. You can also see how humans are effected by the blast, how far away someone has to be to survive a blast, and what effect radiation has on humans. Even Wickipedia says: " These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids and the Army Air Force agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the weapon could be made."
Can you imagine how long and how expensive it would be to gather that kind of info by conventional peace time testing? I would imagine it would be a no brainer to the military to not miss a opportunity to test the bombs on real cities. Im sure most of us here would never even consider doing something like that, but not everybody on this planet shares our concern for human life.
NC-Tom August 9th, 2010 3:28 pm:
"The second reason was to tell the only other significant power left in the world, the USSR, to watch out, because we had "The Bomb" and we were not afraid to use it."
That's the key and reason the decision was made. That, and to ensure Japan surrenders to the US as opposed to the USSR.
Since you are on a "let's say" roll, how about let's say the victors of WWI hadn't put a strangle hold on the German economy allowing fanatics like Hitler to get traction.
Did you read Gen Eisenhower's quote above. The A bomb was not needed either to end the war or save American lives. Of course, he was probably a left wing cry baby.
It requires a dark soul indeed to rationalize the murder of innocent men women and children for political gain and strategic control. We are masters of fighting wars and totally inept at preventing them.
Ike didn't fight the Japanese personally, his opinion is less valid than mine. My grandfather crawled over those islands hacking the Japenise out with sticks and flamethrowers, They don't surendar like Germans.
>^^<
The Japanese conditions for surrender were being debated long before the dropping of the atomic bomb. The major sticking point in the "unconditional surrender" was the status of the emperor. Would he still remain an institution or not? Well... it turned out that he remained an institution. So what did we get from dropping the bomb. Well I am sure this is a coincident...
On August 9th, the Soviets invaded Manchuria. They steam-rolled the Japanese army. This in itself was just as much a reason the bombs were dropped. The Soviets invasion dates were known by top America planners and they were well aware it wouldn't take the Soviets long to conquer most of imperial Japan. US invasion plans didn't call for invading the mainland until Nov. 9th. By that time what would be left to conquer?
The bomb served policy makers well... they were able to retain control of the vital Japanese economy (a major war aim), they only gave up 1/2 of Korea, and they put the world (especially the Soviets, who were already quickly becoming the enemy to US post-WWII hegemony) on notice that the US had this weapon and it was psychotic enough to use it.
Morally... the dropping of the bomb is one of the most reprehensible acts in world history.
Unconditional surrender is fairly self explanatory. There is no "sticking point" if there is no negotiaqtion. He remained an institution because McArthur decided it would be best and that was approved.
The Soviet threat to Japan? Non existent. They were a non-factor.
The US Hegemony? Gosh and here I thought that it was the Russians that occupied all those countries after WW2. It was our tanks that crushed those Hungarians...and I didn't know. Silly me.
Yep we really crushed the Japanese economy. We certainly ruled it. We should have told them, they don't seem to have been aware of it. We retain 1/2 of Korea too?
Seriously these arguments just have no validity in the face of facts.
"Morally... the dropping of the bomb is one of the most reprehensible acts in world history."
So the number of casaulties defines the moral perception in your view? I'm sorry its not morally reprehensible at all. No more than the bombing of London or Dresden or Warsaw....
Concetration camps are.
Forced prostitution is.
Attacking countries and starting wars is.
Murdering POW's is.
Executing civilians as reprisals is.
Starving people to death is.
>>The Soviet threat to Japan? Non existent. They were a non-factor
Given I have provided the links severla times over why do you continue to repeat the smae lies OVER AND OVER again when you claim The USSR was no threat to Japan?
It is a complete and utter fabrication.
FACTS to be repeated ONCE again and I wonder why you continue to mistate these facts.
1>80 percent of all Japanese troops were based in Manchuria and not the homeland.
This is a FACT. Furthermore the vast majority of these troops were the best equipped and best trained Japan had to offer.
Added to that the Japanese tried to ships some of tese troops back to Japan and without control of the Sea or Air found this difficult with many of their vessels sunk by US subs and airstrikes.
The Japanese troops in Manchuria wer eall but cut off from Japans islands.
2>Japan had NO OIL. They had ships sitting at the docks that could do nothing because they had no oil. They had planes grounded because they had no oil or the pilots to fly them. The reason the Yamato went out on its one way suicide mission was because there was virtually no bunker fuel left in Japan.
This means Japan could not get ships from Manchuria to Japan unless they used sailboats in any great number.
3>To your biggest frabrication which you repeat over and over again. Given 80 percent of all Japanese forces were in Manchuria, how could the USSR not be a threat to Japan? This is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. The FACT is that the USSR had amassed 1.6 million troops against The Japanese along with 6000 tanks and 4000 aircraft. The USA could not bring this many aircraft to bear against Japan as Russian Airbases were in range. They did not to fly off Carriers or crash land in China. Look at a freaking map.
The Japanese in all Manchuria had fewer then 2000 planes with no one to fly them and no fuel to put them in the air. They had virtually no air cover. They had well over a million troops all dug in who had been prepraing for the offensive or some time.
The Russian forces annihlated the Japanese using steamroll tactics and Blitzkrieg. The Japanese had no means of dealing with the Russian armor and the russians completely encircled entire armies withn days of their offensive. They destroyed 5 japanese armies and took hundreds of thousands of prisoners while losing less then 9000 men KIA.
>>As a result of the Russians' meticulous planning and
bold offensive plan, they took 594,000 Japanese prisoners
including 143 generals and 20,000 wounded. The Kwangtung
Army suffered over 80,000 men and officers killed in combat
which lasted less than two weeks. In contrast, the well-
prepared Soviet Army had 8,219 killed and 22,264 wounded.
Killing 80000 Japanese at the loss of a little over 8000 while taking 540,000 prisoners hardly suggests the Japanese were fanatics! The Russians LOST more men taking Berlin. The Russians had higher casualties in any number of unheard battles, on scales MUCH smaller on the Eastern front in a single day.
How the heck anyone can claim "The USSR no Threat to Japn" is beyond me.How they can claim "japanese troops were fanatics" is beyond me. It an INVENTION and myth of apologists for war crimes.
(I would point out that die hards in the German army were refusing to surrender as well ..that hardly means "they would never surrender")
Russia also invaded and seized the Sakhalins and had in place sufficient transport and amphibous vehicles to land an army of 200,000 on the Northern Japanese Islands.
With no airforce or navy , absolutely NO armor to speak of and no AT guns capable of dealing with Russian armor, Japanese forces on the Home Islands would not have fared any better. The home Islands would have feel within a few weeks to the Russians....which is why the USA had to ensure THAT did not happen.
So give it up. Stop misrepresenting the truth with your corny and asinine statements.
You simply continue to confuse Manchuria with Japan. It was of no consequence in Japans thinking.
Yes I have followed some of your links and its a hoot to see their claims that 80% of Japans imperioal forces were in Manchuria.
Considering the relentless Kamakaise attacks against our fleet they seeemed to find some gas from somewhere.
I'll simply refer you to Iwo Jima to answer the absurd claims that they were defeated and were defensel;ess.
As to the Russian propaganda that they would invade Japan, please spare me. They were just saving up, thats why they waited till then to declare war on Japan, huh?
"Russia also invaded and seized the Sakhalins and had in place sufficient transport and amphibous vehicles to land an army of 200,000 on the Northern Japanese Islands"
They certainly did! Refer to the Russo-Japanese war...
So where did they get this fleet and all these landing craft all of a sudden? They certsainly weren't in possesion of them 4 months before that.
Its asinine to buy Russian propaganda from the cold war, to believe "facts" that make no sense in the cold light of day except that if you believre it it confirms a preconcieved conclusion.
The Russians had little of what you claim by record.
As to the Japanese refusal to surrender and their perepared defense of the homne islands, you have no idea of what you are talking about, they were more thgan prepared. Sea assaults are not easy, nor are they for the inexperienced.
Thanks GwNorth,
This a terrific piece of writing. What is the source of your information on the last days of the Kwangtung Army, by the way? Wikipedia's page is quite void of the level of detail you provide.
I could not agree with you more in what you have written. You clearly understand the strategic situation in the Far East in mid-1945 and are willing to be honest about the order of battle. The U.S. empire was clearly attempting to check the advance of the Russian empire in 1945 in spite of the superior logistical advantages Russia held in central Europe and the Far East. The Great Game took a very interesting turn at the end of World War II. The most important victory of that war was, of course, never discussed as such, but it was the victory of the American hegemon over the failing British empire. It took another 50 years for the Red Menace to fall apart due to its own internat contradictions. Which, interestingly, we are seeing begin to destroy the American empire as it bankrupts itself with delusions of total world domination. The human spirit's main characteristic and fatal flaw seems to be not its inherent bellicosity so much as its inherent failure to understand the threat that hubris poses to all human endeavor.
[Aside: I'm often mystified by folks like mightymite who believe such foolish and self-serving delusions that are fed to naive "patriots" by state propaganda ministries. But, entire political parties seem to be created in America (and across the planet) on the basis of mutually-agreed-to delusional thinking.]
GW, could you give me a source for the pows taken by the ussr in their invasion of Manchuria? I've always wondered about the stories of the fanatical Japanese resistance during the Pacific campaign. They fought the British in Burma, but I don't remember reading about the Brits taking few if any pows from Japan...
... and the U.S. of A. still proudly proclaims that it is a "Christian" country?
When the Japanese ambassador to Moscow told the Japanese foreign minister in July 1945 that the best terms Japan could hope for was unconditional surrender with the retention of the emperor, the foreign minister replied that this was *unacceptable.* Both of these messages were read by US intelligence. The Japanese only offered to surrender on the condition that the emperor be retained *after* the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet declaration of war. Even then their initial offer was unacceptable to the US because its phrasing suggested a continuation of military rule in the emperor's name. The surrender only came about when the Japanese accepted that the emperor's role would be determined by the Allied occupation commander.
Excellent post. History is written by the victors...
Six days: August 9 to August 15.
Every country has its share of psychopaths in its top leadership and they come to the fore during war time.
>>Nietzsche wrote: Besides the Japs were just barely human. That bomb would never have been used against Germany. Many Americans had gobbled up the lie of the Master race, and at the very least their humanity was not in question. How many German Americans were consigned to interment camps?
My thoughts too.
You must remember that this country was not attacked by Germany. We were attacked by Japan. Had we been attacked by Germany, all Germans would have been suspect.
Actually, Germany attacked the usa numerous times before they finally declared war on you on Dec 9, 1941. At least two us warships were sunk with the loss of many lives.
One wonders if the usa would have declared war on Germany at all if the Bohemian Corporal hadn't made such an idiotic move as to declare war on the usa while his armies were bogged down in the USSR.
That the war against Japan was "won" in August 1945 is true, but also irrelevant. The question was not how to defeat Japan, but how to compel its surrender.
"They were dropped in frantic haste before Japan's surrender could become official and a matter of public record."
This is sheer fantasy. Have you ever actually read a reliable history of the Pacific War, such as Ronald Spector's EAGLE AGAINST THE SUN?
"General Leslie Groves had become a pariah in the military community because he gobbled up the lion's share of the military budget. Other fronts in the war effort were nearly destitute and had resolved to take revenge on General Groves when the war was over."
Utter nonsense. For example, the US spent $2 billion on nuclear weapons and $3 billion on the B-29 program alone. None of the services were starved because of the Manhattan Project--have you ever seen a picture of a US navy fast carrier task group in 1945?
Having lived through those times, I believe you are mistaken to say that the US would never have used the bomb against Germany. The hatred against the Germans and their insane leaders was almost palpable in this country. It was not safe to have a German name in some areas. There were incidents of enraged people attacking little Dachshund dogs because they were German. There may have been some admiration for Germans as a "Master race" among some circles, but not among ordinary people. Hitler was at first ridiculed, then detested as the war continued, even before we got involved. We had all seen Hitler and his roaring, adoring crowds in the newsreels and had heard stories of German ruthlessness. Our great sympathy lay with the British and our admiration for the royal family was boundless. It never seemed to occur to the people that the royal family had its own German ancestry.
After the war, after the trials at Nuremberg, after the sentences were handed down, not a single German war criminal served his full sentence.
Instead, the most brilliant minds in Germany, somewhere around a thousand of them, were brought to the US to teach US scientists the subtleties of mass murder and, ans it has turned out, torture.
This is not true; many of the Nuremburg defendants were hanged, and Albert Speer (for example) served his full 20 year sentence.
There is absolutely no excuse for the crimes against humanity which the US has visited upon the rest of the world....which continues to this day.