Bart, you recently wrote:
> The reason we dropped that bomb, was to save
lives because going building-to-building in Japan
> would kill - I heard Randy Humphries say this
today, "well in excess of 140,000 soldiers."
> He seems to be saying that when you invade
another country, sometimes people have pride
> and they fight for their land - they don't
roll over like senate Democrats.
> We dropped a bomb to kill hundreds of thousands
of innocent Japanese people.
> We did that to avoid what we're facing today
in Iraq, except Iraq didn't attack us.
Bart:
The historical record is so clear on this, that
it pains me when the old
cover stories are told as if they were true.
This is completely false.
Bart, we had fire bombed nearly every city in
Japan to the ground. That was
why Gen. Curtis LeMay, directing the fire bombing,
opposed dropping the
atomic bombs. Eisenhower wrote that he felt physically
ill when told we would
use the bombs, for, he said, Japan was already
defeated. These men didn't want
hundreds of thousands of US servicemen to die.
They knew better.
There would be no house to house fighting, with
dug in resistance from well
armed fighters to the death like at Iwo Jima
or Corregidor. A starved population
of no military age males (women, children, and
old men) with no houses or
standing cities was out sharpening sticks to
use as spears as their only weapons.
We had them completely cut off from any mainland
resupply of necessities for
several years, and of oil, from before the start
of the war, over four years earlier.
Truman started this ball rolling by talking of
first a half million saved, and then a
million lives saved. But the actual military
assessment of the taking of Honshu,
the main island, was 65,000 total US casualties,
to include all those killed and
wounded but not killed. Assuming that would run
2-1, that might imply about
21,000 dead. If 4-1, it would mean 13,000 or
so dead.
But the truth was, an invasion was never necessary.
They were that defeated,
so defeated, that they'd been asking for terms
of surrender through third
party state's diplomats, several of them, for
over a year. Truman's diaries show
him acknowledging he knows the 'Jap Emperor'
is looking for terms.
Everybody in our military and civilian war team
favored offering terms, and
ending the war. Adm. Halsey, Gen. Marshall, Sec.
War Stimson, just retired Sec.
State Cordell Hull, Eisenhower. All the British
military and civilian leadership,
Churchill, Montgomery, favored offering terms,
and ending the war. No loss
of life on any side, just a surrender agreement,
and then peace, with Japan
defeated and under our control.
The Potsdam Summit Declaration had its draft language
including a clarification
of surrender terms. That had approval from all
the Allies. Just before the summit,
that language was taken out by Truman, under
the advice of the new Sec. State,
James Byrnes, the only man in the leadership
of Britain or the US or our other
allies who opposed offering terms of surrender.
Why? Because the bomb hadn't been tested yet at
Almogodro, NM, and they
hadn't had a chance to use them yet. So they
prolonged the war, refusing to do
what everybody else agreed was the best way to
end the war immediately, so
hey could test, use, and demonstrate those atomic
weapons.
The main target was the Soviet Union, to cow them
internationally, and
specifically, to stop them from invading and
dismembering Japan, since
they'd joined the war on our side. But again,
the Soviets only declared war in
August, and that wouldn't have been an issue
if the Potsdam Declaration had
clarified terms months earlier.
In fact, to best demonstrate the bomb's effect
to the Soviets, a large civilian
population had to be present at ground zero,
and that was the primary criterion
for choosing Hiroshima and Nagasaki (along with
the fact that most other cities
had been burned to the ground, excepting the
holy city of Kobe). This isn't
speculation, but the transcripts of the deliberations
that went on at the time.
You know, targeting civilians to bring about
political change is the very
definition of terrorism.
That's bad enough. But what's worse is that the
second bomb's primary objective
was to test the tricky plutonium version of a
fission weapon, to make sure it worked
as designed. So, we incinerated scores
of thousands of people, slowly killing an
equal or greater number from after effects, as
a field trial of a weapon's design,
and for no military reason.
Head of the Navy Admiral Leahy flatly stated that
the atomic bombs in no way
contributed to the defeat of Japan and were totally
unnecessary. The War
Department itself commissioned a Strategic Bombing
Survey in 1945, and its
conclusions were that even had the Soviets not
entered the war, or the US
dropped the atomic weapons, or invaded Japan,
'almost certainly' Japan would have
surrendered in August, as they did. Truman himself
wrote in his diary that if the
Soviet Union entered the war, 'finis' Japan.'
They had JUST entered the war, and
then we HAD to use the bombs?
And those terms? Mainly, the Japanese wanted assurances
on the Emperor, that
he wouldn't be tried and executed for war crimes,
as was already happening to
the German leadership. They wanted to remain
a nation, and not be broken into
pieces controlled by foreign countries, like
the Soviet Union, with longstanding
claims on Japanese islands.
Not only could we live with those, we wanted to
keep the Emperor and use him,
and wanted to keep Japan intact. And as a bitter
irony, when the Japanese
surrendered, they did so on those exact terms.
And we accepted them, the very
terms we could have had a year before.
As a fitting side note, the actual plan was for
the United States to continue
to bomb Japan with more atomic bombs as they
became available. Truman
noted for his conscience (I believe) in his diaries
that he called that plan
off after the second bombing at Nagasaki, to
stop the slaughter of innocent
women and children (his own words).
He was right about that, but a little late to
the table. Even many of those
who still defend the bombing of Hiroshima have
expressed qualms, up to
condemnation, of the second bombing. That they
don't know the first one
was equally suspect, hell, let's say it, a horrific
war crime, is only because of
how the above history is so well hidden. To be
fair, it only slowly developed
as the documentary evidence became public in
the '70s onward (Truman's
diaries, for example). For years, the establishment
line was that there was no
dissenting voice against the use of the weapons,
that all had agreed with their use,
when it was all but unanimous that they shouldn't
be used until we offered terms
to Japan. But as the truth of what all those
men agreed has become known,
the conventional wisdom, and the glib alibis,
have fallen by the wayside.
According to a survey of this historical question
by the Army's official historian,
those historians who specialize in WW II and
on the narrow question of the
decision to drop the bomb all know what
is presented above, and agree
with it as wholly uncontroversial. However, he
said, even professional historians
who aren't specialized in this field, and kept
up to date as the evidence revises
the older take, believe the old conventional
wisdom, and will fiercely trot out
the old chestnuts of the false apologist version
cover story that held for well
over 30 years before cracking (and without their
noticing it when it did).
Same thing as Dresden. A demonstration project
to see if you could kindle
hellfire on earth, and a horrific war crime.
And you know what? Using the atomic
bombs cost maybe 200,000 lives on their side
immediately, and THOUSANDS
of dead on our side, the number killed in action
over those last months of action
after the Potsdam Summit. The alternative number
of dead? 127,000 dead US
servicemen, countless dead Japanese? No-- zero
of either.
It wasn't to save lives, and it wasn't even about
Japan, but about the Soviets.
And it was about saving Truman's job. He was
worried about impeachment if
he didn't use the weapon, and show it a miracle
worker that ended the war.
For the Manhattan Project had been funded illegally
and unConstitutionally,
by stealing money from countless other budgets.
Only a few senior chairmen in
Congress were gradually let in on what was going
on. If it turned out a titanic
sum for the day had been embezzled from authorized
funding, for a weapon
not even used, both Truman and Byrnes feared
impeachment would result.
While both denied that was a consideration, the
record shows them concerned
and discussing the possibility.
So, it wasn't a trifecta, but it was a two-fer.
Good geopolitical effect, by showing
the Soviets the hammer. Good political effect,
covering the impeachment angle.
Byrnes was a consummate old boy, senior southern
senator, chief justice of his
state's Supreme Court, a fixer and an inveterate
poker player. He told Truman
that when you have the high cards, you bet them
and bring the pain, you don't
fold them. The atomic bombs were Byrne's idea
of high cards, but only if he
played them. That was Byrne's exact argument
that won Truman's agreement.
Damned poker players. ;-)
phil
Phil, I believe you because I've learned you speak the truth, but is
this the
widely accepted version? When "they" talk about WWII and the bomb,
this isn't mentioned - or at least I've never heard it before.
It's like the whole country needs to learn history all over again.
bart