World Politics

[RetroActive]

The lies of Hiroshima live on, props in the war crimes of the 20th century
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/secondworldwar.warcrimes
John Pilger

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

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

Robert McNamara understood well that had they lost he would have been a war criminal. He admits as much in "The Fog of War".

 

[blutto]

... he.. frames history with a certain view, and seems not to consider the whole picture.

...that criticism could be easily applied to almost any historian....

Cheers

 

[red_flanders]

...that criticism could be easily applied to almost any historian....

Cheers

Easy to say, and some truth to it, but it's a false equivalency. Of course everyone has a bias or perspective. No question. At the same time, most serious historians work hard to understand history from a great many perspectives, and form a balanced, well-informed and cohesive view.

Zinn, as I recall, sought to make a point to represent an under-represented view of history (that of the minority voice) rather than summarize history from many viewpoints. I think that's great, valuable and important. But it also needs to be seen for what it is.

I'll have another look at Zinn, and please feel free to correct me if my recollection of his general view is off. But IIRC, his entire point was to provide an alternate view, not a holistic view.

 

[blutto]

Easy to say, and some truth to it, but it's a false equivalency. Of course everyone has a bias or perspective. No question. At the same time, most serious historians work hard to understand history from a great many perspectives, and form a balanced, well-informed and cohesive view.

Zinn, as I recall, sought to make a point to represent an under-represented view of history (that of the minority voice) rather than summarize history from many viewpoints. I think that's great, valuable and important. But it also needs to be seen for what it is.

I'll have another look at Zinn, and please feel free to correct me if my recollection of his general view is off. But IIRC, his entire point was to provide an alternate view, not a holistic view.

...its easy to say because there is a lot of truth to it....because as the prof who taught me historiographical methodology once said that while understanding the "contrast state", which is all the viewpoints and perspectives that inform an understanding of a historic event, is very important, you also have to understand that the contrast state is virtually infinite and thus not ever fully knowable ...as for the perspective thing one could argue that if you don't have one there isn't much to the story ( history is as much as anything a telling of a story all-be-it in a very rigorous manner..)....and for the bias, you have the option of fooling yourself into believing that you have successfully cleansed yourself of bias, or you can clearly delineate it....I have always preferred the latter as it is more honest and in the end much easier to incorporate into the reading of the story...

Cheers

 

[rhubroma]

I'll have another look at Zinn. My recollection is that he's an ideologue who while brilliant, frames history with a certain view, and seems not to consider the whole picture. Well worth reading as alternate history, but hardly the final word on the question of American motivation to use nuclear weapons.

I don't put any validity in your assertion that my viewpoint is based in American patriotism. It's dismissive without being informed of my background, feelings on American patriotism or my education. I'm a history minor and the son of a history professor who specialized in WWII. I've read a lot on the topic, and believe myself to be fairly un-impressed generally with flag-wavers and other un-critical thinkers.

I simply don't yet see any evidence for the degree with which you ascribe certain motives or considerations in this case.

I like Zinn's perspective more than Larry Schweikart's and Michael Allen's polemical counterpunch.

I have no problem with Zinn's ideological perspective, which was bent upon (and this was much needed) seeing through the rhetorical topos and ironies of traditional US historiography. He was an uncompromisingly polemicist in his own right, to be sure, though the ethical issues he reminds us about and the narrative aims of his historical prose, I have found far more worth my time than those typical and also terribly false accounts passed off as serious and authoritative works out there.

While he clearly wasn't interesting summarizing the "various viewpoints," why was it necessary for another apology about say the native American debacle, or US policy during the Cold War in its creation of Banana Republics, the Vietnam War, Iran Contra, the Gulf War and the Second Invasion of Iraq, the corporate-finance and military impirialism, etc.?

I mean his purpose was to indicate the things which the other historians were not writing about, which is a much more huge "oversight" than Zinn's for sure.

 

[red_flanders]

I like Zinn's perspective more than Larry Schweikart's and Michael Allen's polemical counterpunch.

I have no problem with Zinn's ideological perspective, which was bent upon (and this was much needed) seeing through the rhetorical topos and ironies of traditional US historiography. He was an uncompromisingly polemicist in his own right, to be sure, though the ethical issues he reminds us about and the narrative aims of his historical prose, I have found far more worth my time than those typical and also terribly false accounts passed off as serious and authoritative works out there.

While he clearly wasn't interesting summarizing the "various viewpoints," why was it necessary for another apology about say the native American debacle, or US policy during the Cold War in its creation of Banana Republics, the Vietnam War, Iran Contra, the Gulf War and the Second Invasion of Iraq, the corporate-finance and military impirialism, etc.?

I mean his purpose was to indicate the things which the other historians were not writing about, which is a much more huge "oversight" than Zinn's for sure.

I have no problems with his ideological perspective, in general, either. In fact I recall finding his book outstanding and worthwhile. I just think it needs to be recognized for what it is, and understand that such an intentionally narrow view, while a great counterpoint, misses or underemphasizes some key facts.

In the particular case of American motivations around the use of the bomb, I don't recall what he says. I simply don't accept the view that the desire to "experiment" was in any way on par with the desire to win the race to build the bomb and find a way not to have to invade Japan, at huge cost to both Japan and the US. Not that the concern for Japan was on part with that for the US.

I don't know that Zinn claims this, I'm simply responding to your post.

 

[RetroActive]

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-re...-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192

 

[blutto]

....here is a little gem from Pepe's latest offering....

"That happened in the framework of a major ?Pipelineistan? game-changer. After Moscow cleverly negotiated the realignment of South Stream towards Turk Stream, right up to the Greek border, Putin and Greek Prime Minister Tsipras also agreed to a pipeline extension from the Turkish border across Greece to southern Europe. So Gazprom will be firmly implanted not only in Turkey but also Greece, which in itself will become mightily strategic in European ?Pipelineistan?."

...the rest is also quite good...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/03/the-brics-plus-germany/

Cheers

 

[red_flanders]

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-re...-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192

That's pretty compelling. Thanks for posting.

EDIT: Upon looking around there appear to be a great many differences of opinion amongst the brass, as I recall. I also found this from Bill Guarnere of Band of Brothers fame:

We were on garrison duty in France for about a month, and in August, we got great news: we weren't going to the Pacific. The U.S. dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, the Japanese surrendered, and the war was over. We were so relieved. It was the greatest thing that could have happened. Somebody once said to me that the bomb was the worst thing that ever happened, that the U.S. could have found other ways. I said, "Yeah, like what? Me and all my buddies jumping in Tokyo, and the Allied forces going in, and all of us getting killed? Millions more Allied soldiers getting killed?" When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor were they concerned about how many lives they took? We should have dropped eighteen bombs as far as I'm concerned. The Japanese should have stayed out of it if they didn't want bombs dropped. The end of the war was good news to us. We knew we were going home soon.

I realize Bill wasn't looking at this strategically to say the least.

 

[Oldman]

That's pretty compelling. Thanks for posting.

EDIT: Upon looking around there appear to be a great many differences of opinion amongst the brass, as I recall. I also found this from Bill Guarnere of Band of Brothers fame:



I realize Bill wasn't looking at this strategically to say the least.

Not new news to kids from the 60's. My Dad was politically conservative until his work with Boeing elevated his security clearance to a significant access level. What he found paved the way for a much more cynical analysis of the war he fought in and the true motivations for the conflicts that came after. We argued like most households until he discovered that most armed responses were about money...specifically strategic oil reserves.

 

[blutto]

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-re...-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192

"The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory."

....yeah controversial in much the same climate change is controversial in some circles....one only need look at the way in which post WW2 propaganda was used to create a suitable potential target for a ultimately evil weapon, read, an ultimately evil enemy to see how this , uhhh, controversial theory was actually played out...

...was very interesting how the Merikan public reacted when in 1949 what had for several years been painted as the ultimate enemy suddenly had the ultimate weapon....read, they flipped out big time....and this tension fanned the flames of the already in progress Red Scare to white hot intensity and allowed several rather slithery demagogues to run amok...

Cheers

 

[Oldman]

"The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory."

....yeah controversial in much the same climate change is controversial in some circles....one only need look at the way in which post WW2 propaganda was used to create a suitable potential target for a ultimately evil weapon, read, an ultimately evil enemy to see how this , uhhh, controversial theory was actually played out...

...was very interesting how the Merikan public reacted when in 1949 what had for several years been painted as the ultimate enemy suddenly had the ultimate weapon....read, they flipped out big time....and this tension fanned the flames of the already in progress Red Scare to white hot intensity and allowed several rather slithery demagogues to run amok...

Cheers

Same thing now...and they have their own, Fuxed network to promote the dialogue. Then they have Obama's party to soft sell as well.

 

[blutto]

...specifically strategic oil reserves.

....look I watched all the movies and it was most certainly about doing the heroic thingee....most definitely not about something as pedestrian as oil...you're just a self-loathing Yanqui, that's what you are...

...seriously though in somewhat different circumstances my dad underwent a similar transformation in thinking....it didn't make him an especially happy camper......

Cheers

 

[rhubroma]

I have no problems with his ideological perspective, in general, either. In fact I recall finding his book outstanding and worthwhile. I just think it needs to be recognized for what it is, and understand that such an intentionally narrow view, while a great counterpoint, misses or underemphasizes some key facts.

In the particular case of American motivations around the use of the bomb, I don't recall what he says. I simply don't accept the view that the desire to "experiment" was in any way on par with the desire to win the race to build the bomb and find a way not to have to invade Japan, at huge cost to both Japan and the US. Not that the concern for Japan was on part with that for the US.

I don't know that Zinn claims this, I'm simply responding to your post.

I wasn't suggesting that Zinn's is the last word, but that his approach was useful to my own gaining perspective.

Now, given that no civilian population had ever been nuked before and that I don't agree with the thesis that says America did so only to save its own soldiers' lives, is where my use of the the term "experiment" finds its justification.

 

[RetroActive]

"The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory."

....yeah controversial in much the same climate change is controversial in some circles....one only need look at the way in which post WW2 propaganda was used to create a suitable potential target for a ultimately evil weapon, read, an ultimately evil enemy to see how this , uhhh, controversial theory was actually played out...

...was very interesting how the Merikan public reacted when in 1949 what had for several years been painted as the ultimate enemy suddenly had the ultimate weapon....read, they flipped out big time....and this tension fanned the flames of the already in progress Red Scare to white hot intensity and allowed several rather slithery demagogues to run amok...

Cheers

Hey, I live in B.C. so I pay my carbon taxes thus I'm absolved - party on.

It's the season to burn yard waste around here, the valley is in a haze. What's that black billow off yonder, ah, someone threw their garbage on the fire too. It's fun to throw toxic **** on the fire and cheaper too, paying for an extra garbage can pick-up or recycling it - nah. Besides the recycling (that gets picked up by a separate truck from garbage) just gets shipped down to a landfill in Washington State anyway. I haven't seen too many slash piles being burnt in the clear cuts on the hills yet this year. Maybe they were all burnt in the fall when the hills looked like someone lit the warning beacons of Gondor.

Let's not pretend too much.

 

[red_flanders]

I wasn't suggesting that Zinn's is the last word, but that his approach was useful to my own gaining persepective.

Now, given that no civilian population had ever been nuked before and that I don't agree with the thesis that says America did so only to save its own soldiers' lives, is where my use of the the term "experiment" finds its justification.

I didn't say "only". But points taken and good discussion. Thanks.

 

[rhubroma]

I didn't say "only". But points taken and good discussion. Thanks.

As per yours.

 

[python]

..... the term "experiment" finds its justification.

i don't think you should be too defensive in choosing the words you did...it was an experiment on many levels.

i have by now finished reading both the red flanders link to the 16 page stimson pdf, as well the retroactive link to the global research article (thank you both for these very informative materials !)

my personal conclusion after reading both pieces and some reflection was that the decision to bomb 2 japanese cities was not only a technical gamble (which by definition is a risky experiment) but also a politically risky choice (a political experiment) which could not guarantee the core aim - the surrender of japan.

i am far from suggesting the decision to atom bomb was lighthearted, or not considered well. the impression i gained was that the overriding motivation was (greatly simplified) 'we need to use the atomic advantage while we have it, and hope they surrender'. that 'hope' is a part of every experiment, or as is said in science - confidence level. a statistical term

 

[rhubroma]

i don't think you should be too defensive in choosing the words you did...it was an experiment on many levels.

i have by now finished reading both the red flanders link to the 16 page stimson pdf, as well the retroactive link to the global research article (thank you both for these very informative materials !)

my personal conclusion after reading both pieces and some reflection was that the decision to bomb 2 japanese cities was not only a technical gamble (which by definition is a risky experiment) but also a politically risky choice (a political experiment) which could not guarantee the core aim - the surrender of japan.

i am far from suggesting the decision to atom bomb was lighthearted, or not considered well. the impression i gained was that the overriding motivation was (greatly simplified) 'we need to use the atomic advantage while we have it, and hope they surrender'. that 'hope' is a part of every experiment, or as is said in science - confidence level. a statistical term

During war over-simplifications are historiographical commonplace.

In debating the delicate matter, my parenthesis were meant to conceal that which, however convinced I am of the veracity, I'm not able to demonstrate.

My work is focussed in another direction and I hardly have time to "scientifically" pursue the matter here.

However the sources speak for themselves, for anyone who has read them.

 

[python]

During war over-simplifications are historiographical commonplace.

In debating the delicate matter, my parenthesis were meant to conceal that which, however convinced I am of the veracity, I'm not able to demonstrate.

the then secretary of war stimson amply demonstrated it for you...
in a remarkably candid manner he said, 'we only had 2 bombs then and we could not waste them' (meaning, a bluff that america has many more atomic bombs) ... what else demonstrates better the political gamble (a very risky experiment) he undertook. or in another place he admitted that the atomic explosion at the right height and proper time was not guaranteed b/c there was only one successful test by then. that's a political experiment overlay-ed up on a technical experiment. all in the hope of inducing japan to surrender....

i would say the chance that the 2 nuclear explosions would produce the surrender was no more than 60%. a very nasty experiment indeed. the one with hundreds of thousands of deliberately slain civilians.

what gets me so irritated (i have ranted about it before) that american politicians seem completely oblivious to the possibility of someone using this arrogant language of raw power on THEM.. 'it is a remote b/c we have the bigger gun NOW'.

 

[RetroActive]

the then secretary of war stimson amply demonstrated it for you...
in a remarkably candid manner he said, 'we only had 2 bombs then and we could not waste them' (meaning, a bluff that america has many more atomic bombs) ... what else demonstrates better the political gamble (a very risky experiment) he undertook. or in another place he admitted that the atomic explosion at the right height and proper time was not guaranteed b/c there was only one successful test by then. that's a political experiment overlay-ed up on a technical experiment. all in the hope of inducing japan to surrender....

i would say the chance that the 2 nuclear explosions would produce the surrender was no more than 60%. a very nasty experiment indeed. the one with hundreds of thousands of deliberately slain civilians.

what gets me so irritated (i have ranted about it before) that american politicians seem completely oblivious to the possibility of someone using this arrogant language of raw power on THEM.. 'it is a remote b/c we have the bigger gun NOW'.

There were also two different types of bombs to add some complexity to the experiment. I wonder what the effects on humans will be?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=moni...&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=sir2VOKSMYzloATtoYLACw

 

[movingtarget]

the then secretary of war stimson amply demonstrated it for you...
in a remarkably candid manner he said, 'we only had 2 bombs then and we could not waste them' (meaning, a bluff that america has many more atomic bombs) ... what else demonstrates better the political gamble (a very risky experiment) he undertook. or in another place he admitted that the atomic explosion at the right height and proper time was not guaranteed b/c there was only one successful test by then. that's a political experiment overlay-ed up on a technical experiment. all in the hope of inducing japan to surrender....

i would say the chance that the 2 nuclear explosions would produce the surrender was no more than 60%. a very nasty experiment indeed. the one with hundreds of thousands of deliberately slain civilians.

what gets me so irritated (i have ranted about it before) that american politicians seem completely oblivious to the possibility of someone using this arrogant language of raw power on THEM.. 'it is a remote b/c we have the bigger gun NOW'.

I think the chances of surrender after the bombs was much higher than 60%. It was a shock weapon and the Japanese showed no signs of surrendering before that. American losses in the Pacific war were mounting up added to the losses in Europe in 1944.

In battles on Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Pelelieu, Saipan and Okinawa the US losses were extremely high and hardly any Japanese were left standing as they were fighting to the death. This is what the Americans feared if they invaded the Japanese mainland, another drawn out battle with huge losses. Would the Japanese have surrendered after conventional bombing of their mainland, I think it's very doubtful. The Russians also lost a huge amount of men in the final year of the European battles, long after the Germans had any chance of winning but often that was because of Russian tactics not because the Germans were stronger.

 

[Jagartrott]

What everyone already knew: Russian military is actively involved in Ukraine (interview with wounded Russian soldier in Novaja Gazeta). Putin is lying. Much like many Western leaders of course, but still.

 

[RetroActive]

Only mass default will end the world's addiction to debt
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...lt-will-end-the-worlds-addiction-to-debt.html

We can't mine the future forever?

 

[RetroActive]

The Case to ?Reinstate? the Bank of Canada
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-case-to-reinstate-the-bank-of-canada/5430132

There is a very interesting legal case that is playing out in Canada at the moment. William Krehm, Anne Emmett, and COMER (The Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform: http://www.comer.org/) filed a lawsuit on December 12th, 2011, in Federal Court to try to force a restoration of the Bank of Canada to its mandated purposes. In essence, they want the Bank of Canada to provide interest-free loans to the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, as provided for in the Bank of Canada Act.

This money would be used to finance public expenditures whenever there is a budgetary deficit. Apparently, the federal government used to borrow interest-free (to at least some extent) from the Bank of Canada up until 1974. At present, governments borrow all of the necessary money (apart from any bonds they may sell to the public) from private banks at the going rate of interest. Canadians are economically burdened with the resultant debt-servicing charges because the Bank of Canada does not make use of its prerogatives in the interests of the Canadian public. The case is being prosecuted by Rocco Galati, who is widely considered to be Canada?s top constitutional lawyer.