Hiroshima and Nagasaki

       Hopefully Americans today are more ready to accept hard facts and truths about this nation and it's leaders. Hopefully less afraid to learn about the damning acts and less saintly principles upon which they were based. With this hope I will begin another's article with a statement of my own. Japan had been literally defeated, not only defeated, Western allies had completely surrounded and blockaded Japan from obtaining the bare necessities for civilian population let alone war materials to defend themselves. Proof of this is that they did not even have military supplies adequate to defend against multiple fire bombing raids made over Japanese cities. Also generally unknown was Japan working with Russia trying to find a way of surrender. Can you see the obvious propaganda in the statement's of President Harry S. Truman (play below) after dropping the atomic bomb's on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both large cities in Japan.
"The world will note, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, (a military base)."

"The question was whether we wanted to save our people and the Japanese as well, and win the war, or whether we wanted to take a chance on being able to win the war, (by killing all our young men)."

There is a Federal law against deliberately using false information (using propaganda to sway US citizens), however would you agree that Truman was not altogether truthful in above statements?

Article Title and Author: Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary? by Robert Freeman

       Few issues in American history - perhaps only slavery itself - are as charged as the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Was it necessary? Merely posing the question provokes indignation, even rage. Witness the hysterical shouting down of the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit that simply dared discuss the question fifty years after the act. Today, another eleven years on, Americans still have trouble coming to terms with the truth about the bombs.

       But anger is not argument. Hysteria is not history. The decision to drop the bomb has been laundered through the American myth-making machine into everything from self-preservation by the Americans to concern for the Japanese themselves-as if incinerating two hundred thousand human beings in a second was somehow an act of moral largesse.

       Yet the question will not die, nor should it: was dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a military necessity? Was the decision justified by the imperative of saving lives or were there other motives involved?

       The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." Those are not the words of a latter-day revisionist historian or a leftist writer. They are certainly not the words of an America-hater. They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless.

       After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan's cities, including the hellish fire-bombings of Tokyo and Osaka. This is what Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, meant when he observed, "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air." Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War.

       As a result of the naked futility of their position, the Japanese had approached the Russians, seeking their help in brokering a peace to end the War. The U.S. had long before broken the Japanese codes and knew that these negotiations were under way, knew that the Japanese had for months been trying to find a way to surrender.

       Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, "The Japanese had in fact already sued for peace, the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

Addendum to article: The Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard wrote that the use of the bomb without warning was contrary to "the position of the United States as general humanitarian nation," especially since Japan seemed close to surrender. President Truman on July 25, 1945 wrote in his diary that he had ordered the bomb dropped on "purely military" targets, so that "military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the only target and not women and children." Official bombing order issued to General Spaatz made no mention of targeting military objectives or sparing civilians. The cities themselves were the targets.

       Civilian authorities, especially Truman himself, would later try to revise history by claiming that the bombs were dropped to save the lives of one million American soldiers. But there is simply no factual basis for this in any record of the time. On the contrary, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported, "Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped." The November 1 date is important because that was the date of the earliest possible planned U.S. invasion of the Japanese main islands.

       In other words, the virtually unanimous and combined judgment of the most informed, senior, officers of the U.S. military is unequivocal: there was no pressing military necessity for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

       But if dropping the bombs was not driven by military needs, why, then, were they used? The answer can be discerned in the U.S. attitude toward the Russians, the way the War ended in Europe, and the situation in Asia.

Addendum to article:
After WWII (with defeat of Germany and Japan) the only remaining competitor or danger to the American empire ambitions was a nation called Russia (USSR). This enemy before year 1918 was known as the Czarist Empire, however after a 2% Zionist Bolshevik revolution take over (in which the US-gov became involved), they became the United Socialist Soviet Republic.
Karl Marx and Frederik Engles (communist ideologists in Europe from prior academic treatises published in Europe) were among a notable having input or direct participation. Communism in Russia as we know it being a bastardized Socialism, becoming what more accurately should be called a Constitutional Military Dictatorship, or Rothschild's idea of a New World Order. Because of men like Lenin and Stalin, financed by European and American Jewish bankers, Russia after the revolution became a Constitutional Military Dictatorship. Socialism for which Communism is often mistaken, a communal system, also had existence in community of early American colonies, however this should never be confused with the dictatorial Communism as regimentally enforced by a few having control over everything in the nation. Note that very few call Russia a Socialist Communism, socialism in ideology more closely related to the actions of the first Hebrew people after becoming Christian believers. These also in short order discovering the schemes of a few as detriment to any community, the nature of man along with radical ideology eventually implemented by force is the weakness of socialism that will eventually corrupt into Communism.
Then - What was the purpose of Pearl Harbor...
Many questions are answered understanding the CFR organization

       At this point, in February 1945, the U.S. did not know whether the bomb would work or not. But it unquestionably needed Russia's help to end both the War in Europe and the War in the Pacific. These military realities were not lost on Roosevelt: with no army to displace Stalin's in Europe and needing Stalin's support, Roosevelt conceded eastern Europe, handing the Russians the greatest territorial gain of the War.

       Once the bomb was proven to work on July 15, 1945, events took on a furious urgency. The excuse now used was that there was simply no time to work through negotiations with the Japanese. Expanding the excuse with a feverous implication that every day of delay meant more land given up to Russia and, therefore, a greater likelihood of communist victory in the Chinese civil war. All of Asia might go communist. It would be a strategic catastrophe for the U.S. to have won the War against Japan, only to hand it to its other arch enemy, the communists. And so the Atomic experimentation was decided, the U.S. needed to end the War not in months, or even weeks, but in days.

       So, on August 6, 1945, it was now argued, before the Russians were to declare war against Japan, the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. There was no risk to U.S. forces then waiting for a Japanese response to the demand for surrender. There was no invasion planned against Japan, however the propaganda was that the earliest planned invasion of the island was still three months away, and the U.S. controlled the timing of all military engagements in the Pacific. And so only three days later, the U.S. dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. The Japanese surrendered on August 14, 1945, eight days after the first bomb was dropped.

       Major General Curtis LeMay commented on the bomb's use: "The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all." Except that it drastically speeded the War's end to deprive the Russians of territory in east Asia.

       The story of military necessity, quickly and clumsily pasted together after the War's end, simply does not hold up against the overwhelming military realities of the time. On the other hand, the use of the bomb to contain Russian expansion and to make the Russians, in Truman's revealing phrase, "more manageable," comports completely with all known facts and especially with U.S. motivations and interests.

       Which story should we accept, the one that doesn't hold together but that has been sanctified as national dogma? Or the one that does hold together but offends our self concept? How we answer says everything about our maturity and our capacity for intellectual honesty.
       It is sometimes hard for a people to reconcile its history with its own national mythologies - the mythologies of eternal innocence and Providentially anointed righteousness. It is all the more difficult when a countries leaders and government are embroiled in yet another war and the power of such myths are needed again to gird the people's commitment against the more sobering force of facts.

       But the purpose of history is not to sustain myths. It is, rather, to debunk them so that future generations may act with greater awareness to avoid the tragedies of the past. It may take another six or even sixty decades but eventually the truth of the bomb's use will be written not in mythology but in history. Hopefully, the ordinary citizen has progressed to a point they are ready to attempt such a reality.

       If you have had trouble believing the above that is true, what would you do with the information that President Roosevelt knew beforehand of the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, because the Japanese codes had been broken before the attack.

       Here is a little information to get you started if interested.
Australian Capt. Eric Nave; Broke Japan's Code Before Pearl Harbor
He drew on his experiences in his book, "Betrayal at Pearl Harbor: How Churchill Lured Roosevelt Into World War II," which was published in the United States by Summit Books. Its other co-author was James Rusbridger.

Book: The Pearl Harbor Deception by Robert Stinnett

Comprehensive research has shown not only that Washington knew in advance of the attack, but that it deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the "surprise" attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, stated in 1944: "Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war."

       And so I am adding these last two video's, it is an interesting story of why Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin could be such 'good buddies' at Yalta, keeping the East vs West myth alive... does today's "False Flag Terrorism" terrorism sound familiar.

NATO... A product of 28 nations... What do you know of NATO

Dwight D. Eisenhower, graduating West Point 61st in a class of 164,
given yearbook tag by piers the 'Terrible Swedish Jew',
murdering about a million German POWs by starving them to death,
which should explain to some the real story about General Patton.

FAIR USE NOTICE:    This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

| Return to Top | Return to Index of Articles |