RE: Speak, Memory

"Today is the 61st anniversary of the dropping of an Atomic Bomb on the city of Hiroshima. The first 
act of global, state terrorism. (The second three days later on Nagasaki, the city with the largest 
Christian population in Japan.) 
 
Today a new kind of nuclear war is being fought-- as harbinger to the next kind of nuclear war, which 
will be fought tomorrow. 
 
The suppressed story about the Iraq War is the use by the U.S. of depleted uranium weaponry. The cut to 
the chase: the U.S. littered Iraq with between 315 and 350 tons of depleted uranium during Operation 
Desert Storm. Five times as much was used during the 2003 invasion. Every shell shot from an Abrams 
tank contains 10 pounds of DU. " 
 
1st paragraph- it was not terrorism. we used the bombs to bring about the end of a declared war between 
the bomber and the bombed. without the bombs, over a million americans would have died from invasions, 
many more than a million japanese would have died, and hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians would 
have died from firebombings. the death of 120,000 outright, with some also later dying from radiation 
exposure saved the lives of at least around 3 million. IT WAS NOT TERRORISM! also, the fact that 
nagasaki was the largest christian population in japan has no significance. the dutch owned nagasaki 
for quite a time, but nagasaki was a major shipping port, hiroshima was a major military base. bombing 
those was strategic in order to diminish japan's warmaking capacity. 
 
2nd and 3rd paragraph- what is your source that brought you knowledge of using DU in warfare. i 
seriously doubt that happened. there has been no proof or evidence of this being used until i saw your 
article. frankly, i think the 3rd paragraph is a complete lie. unless you can come up with a credible 
source, i will believe you are just flat-out lying.

Guest

RE: Speak, Memory

you call that terrorism? you are more messed up than i 
thought! first of all, the gov't predicted that 1 million 
americans would die, and many more Japanese than that! so 
you have a possible 2 million casualties or 700,000 japanese 
casualties in the next 70 years...i would call that MERCY!  
what would you say we should have done instead of dropping 
The Bomb? diplomacy? they would rather die than 
lose...they showed us that in Okinawa when 50,000 american 
marines died taking that tiny island.  

Guest

the perspective of history

I am delighted to see that Walter Davis' essay has brought forth a couple of staunch defenders of our nuclear attacks on Japan in WWII. As misinformed as this point of view has become in light of revised historical fact and in spite of a more profound appreciation of the moral ramifications of such reprehensible behavior, there are still these die-hard advocates who hold to the old party line. Ptosis' (?) and Paul's dogged determination in holding to these antiquated views remind me the popular old WWII stories of the isolated Japanese soldiers who were supposed to be so devoted to the Emperor that they might continue to doggedly defend their little acre of Pacific island many decades after the war was over. One wonders if their opinions might not also be shared by the current hawkish occupants of the seats of power in the administration of President Bush in Washington. 
 
I wish I could assert that the popular verdict held by Americans was unanimous in its assessment of the error of the nuclear bombing of Japan. According to Wikipedia:  
 
"In the U.S., the prevailing view is that the bombings ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, saving many lives that would have been lost on both sides if the planned invasion of Japan taken place. In Japan, general public tends to think that the bombings were unnecessary, as the preparation for the surrender was in progress in Tokyo." 
 
While democracy determines (or should determine) who rules, it is often an unreliable determinate of truth. 
 
There seems to be a serious objection to the use of the word "terror" to describe our actions in what Pete claimed was a "MERCY"(ful) way to end the conflict. These days the word "terror" is like a can containing an immense quantity of worms. Let us try the minimal definition for the sake of this discussion. Again Wikipedia:  
 
"Terrorism is the act of scaring people for a social or political reason using violence, or threat of violence." 
 
Ptosis' assertion that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki "…was strategic in order to diminish Japan's war-making capacity" is ludicrous. Using metgaton nuclear devices to take out these cities because of their dubious function as primary military targets has about as much justification as Osama's taking out the Twin Towers because there was an office of the CIA housed there. No, even those who contend that the bombing was necessary to end the war "mercifully," make no case that the nukes had a singularly military advantage. The purpose of such massive shock and awe visited upon those mostly civilian populations was a pure and simple demonstration of terror. At the time, the stated function of the mission was to bring the Japanese socially and politically to their senses. No matter how you put it - that's terror. 
 
Personally, I rather like the bumper sticker I saw the other day: "WHEN WE DO IT - IT'S CALLED SPREADING DEMOCRACY. WHEN THEY DO IT - IT'S CALED TERRORISM. 
 
I think the thing I find the most objection to, is not that Peter and Ptosis hold such strong opinions. What I object to is that they offer no documentation for their beliefs except to recite the PR slogans that were used to rationalize the atrocity at the time. At the time I think it could be argued that the American people, flushed with the victory of what came to be called "The Good War" were not ready for such parsing. The hindsight of history and the revelations of notable dissenting opinions that at the time were either distorted, deleted or suppressed have painted a picture that diverges sharply from the slogans and justifications that the previous posters have asserted with such confidence. I hate to say this but your beliefs concerning that whole period are hopelessly out of date. You are perhaps not to be blamed for this. I would suspect that you two guys are older people whose first impressions of these events were formed, like mine were, first hand. This is no excuse not to update your attitudes and ideas based upon new data. History proves over and over again that the attitudes and ideas that were popular at the inception of influential historical events were often apocryphal. 
 
There is one item I choose not to address here and now because of my time constraints. That is the issue raised by Ptosis concerning DU (depleted uranium) use in Iraq. I can assure you that DU is being used and has been widely used in Iraq and has been documented. I will leave the rebuttal of this issue to Professor Davis to refute if he chooses, as his study of the subject is exhaustive.  
 
Please don't call people liars when discussing a subject of which you have no knowledge. Such behavior is boorish. If both of you guys were a little longer on the facts and a little shorter on the attitude there might be the possibility of a challenging, informative discussion on this forum. 
 
I would suggest you carefully read the following documentation that I have assembled for your information and so that you might just possibly bring yourselves up to date on what really happened during those closing days of WWII. I am not citing just the hyperlinks but whole quotes edited for brevity. I urge you two guys to read this material and please continue the dialogue if you have objections or further observations. That is what this forum is all about. 
 
+++++++++++++++++++++ 
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 Peter Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, NY - two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.  
 
"According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb." (see also quotes below) 
 
"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says Selden. "Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used," 
 
"Hiroshima bomb may have carried a hidden agenda", July 2005, New scientist, Rob Edwards 
 
 
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/dn7706.html 
 
+++++++++++++++++++ 
 
 
"…first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'." 
 
Dwight David Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380  
 
+++++++++++++++++ 
 
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." 
 
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.  
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)  
 
++++++++++++++++++ 
 
"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."  
 
Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.  
 
+++++++++++++++++++ 
 
 
In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:  
"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision… If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."  
Joseph Grew 
(Under Sec. of State) Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.  
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
 
"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."  
 
Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1.  
 
"As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. 'I made one great mistake in my life,' he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, '...when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.'".  
 
Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, pg. 620.  
 
++++++++++++++++++++ 
 
"After Germany surrendered, Szilard attempted to meet with President Truman. Instead, he was given an appointment with Truman's Sec. of State to be, James Byrnes. In that meeting of May 28, 1945, Szilard told Byrnes that the atomic bomb should not be used on Japan. Szilard recommended, instead, coming to an international agreement on the control of atomic weapons before shocking other nations by their use:  
Byrnes was not interested in international control: "Byrnes... was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Rumania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia." Szilard could see that he wasn't getting though to Byrnes; "I was concerned at this point that by demonstrating the bomb and using it in the war against Japan, we might start an atomic arms race between America and Russia which might end with the destruction of both countries.".  
 
Szilard (the "father"of the bomb) quoted in Spencer Weart and Gertrud Weiss Szilard, ed., Leo Szilard: His Version of the Facts, pg. 184.  
 
(Note: the full story of Szilard's futile attempts to prevent the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the official treachery and deceit that thwarted his efforts constitutes one of the truly tragic accounts of our modern time.) 
 
For more documented quotes from these and other reputable sources go to 
 
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm 
 
Bob Boldt 
 
 
 
 
. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Guest

Thanks...

As an eye surgeon, it struck me as particularly apropos that "Ptosis" is so named. That term, denoting a drooping lid, is particularly significant in that such a condition often results in an obstruction of vision which can cause partial to total blindness. 
 
Sadly, if this condition is not corrected soon after birth, patients experience permanent and significant loss of vision which cannot be corrected (amblyopia). Given the comments by Ptosis and by Pete, I fear that corrective surgery may be too late. 
 
It is amazing to me that the "party line" concerning the horrific use of the first two nuclear bombs - for nothing more than political hay, as it turns out - persists to this day. This indicates the breadth and depth of the cultural brainwashing that has occurred. 
 
I greatly appreciate Prof. Davis' comments and am thankful for Mr. Boldt's scholarly and able defense of Walter's essay. There are none so blind as those who will not see!

Guest