Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

While truth regrows its torn-off limbs

Richard:  Yesterday afternoon on the Troops come home...  thread, Angela Ryan belted out the words below as a stream-of-consciousness opinion.  Its brilliant powerful prose (edited by the remarkable Fiona Reynolds) explains how she believes our perceptions are being clouded.  I thought her words an incredible piece that deserves to spread across the net as such, so here it is :

 

While Truth Regrows Its Torn-Off Limbs- by Angela Ryan

Hi Fiona, I can see you understand the issue that greatly concerns so many in the academic world – and if people knew how such then affects and effects policies and world events and excuses for them in swerving popular opinion such as for wars.  The current faculties with their reduced funding and staffing are ripe targets, as is a universal history curriculum by education ministers. I note UK now sponsors two children from every school to go to "study " the Auschwitz site, yet for Brits the Boer war camps would be far more relevant and the Irish starvation policies, go to a museum there etc and for us probably the Cambodian genocide is the most relevant after our own here that some call genocide.  For British children to learn about the Russians killing off of the Orthodox church and middle class and then the deliberate famine genocide caused in Ukraine – why limit it to just one minority group's suffering?  Why limit it to just one event in history when genocides and ethnic cleansings are the one thing history is rich in! Imagine Phoney non-Catholic (hahah) Tony organising tours of Spanish Inquisition sites or even Guernica.   History must be studied as a whole by those who see only a glimpse of it in a short moment of education, otherwise it is just propaganda.

When troops come home it is indeed usually the time the "First Casualty of War"starts to heal and regrow limbs.  Sometimes these are powerful when things like truth commissions and war crime trials start.  Note we never have anyone walking for civilians, nurses, resistance fighters etc killed in wars in our ANZAC day march, yet we even have scouts who never served marching.  This makes it a militaristic celebration along MIC lines rather than a realistic consideration of the sacrifices of war and a salute to those who made them, our defenders both in and out of uniform.

But, while truth regrows its torn off limbs, it is such a shame that the soldiers and civilians cannot.  And consider little Ali, the boy who has no limbs and no family due to the Iraq war if you want an image of the civilian suffering.

There is no high tech burns unit in Iraq – but our soldiers (when the US actually agree to pick them out) and US soldiers, are rushed to stabilisation and then Germany and then home for the repeated skin grafting.  An Iraqi doctor came over and gave a speaking tour describing what resources the locals have for treating burns – practically zero, and zero staff now.  This is also what makes the civilian wounds in Gaza so heartrending when one considers the water, electricity and medicines and food needed for them and how they have all been shot down by the Israelis to punish everyone.  These are the war crimes that the world ignores, the genocide that schools can watch happening now instead of going back 60 years to a totalitarian regime. Democracy does it too, with impunity from other democracies. How will history record it?  Like the Warsaw ghetto, will the Gaza ghetto get there moment in film 60 years later by the same people who may have stopped it?

When the troops come home consider the injuries of the invaded peoples.  Remember the million plus figure bandied around as a probable death figure by the Lancet.  Consider that in most death events there are 5 to 10 times as many injured.  Depending upon whether the weapons are projectile or thermal one either gets limb amputations or severe burns, always head and often all together.  Add use of napalm (third generation version much perfected for those who want to be tricky about whether it was used or not) and flechette weapons (which may even be used now in some terrorist events considering the injuries) and these injuries are horrendous .

People here seem to think it is them and US regarding the Israeli / Jewish vs. Palestinian Christians and Jews issue.

It is not.

It is a simple matter of principles that were reinforced by events of the Second World War when those troops came home. And the message learnt from holocausts is that they can happen and will happen and if one concentrates on just one group one misses that point .  Never Again has to apply to all groups, not just European Jews.  The lessons from visiting Auschwitz is to be aware of that, and the message from visiting other sites is that it can happen even by our own governments and people if we are blinkered morally or politically.  So if we really believe in Never Again for all, not just European Jews, then we must examine what is happening in Palestine/Israel right now. Otherwise it is all racism and spin and that is the greatest insult to throw back upon anyone who suffered under the Nazis’ cruel regime.

Flechette shells, the weapons of ruthless war.  That is how a Reuter’s photographer was killed recently in his jeep (marked “Press”) by a tank.  He even filmed the muzzle turning to them and firing. His body was sliced through to his seat by the flechette blades while he was filming a tank shelling homes in Gaza.

Ed O’Loughlin describes such and his sadness at all the tragedy in his farewell piece that that the SMH didn't publish – something to be aware of. Is our media failing to cover the news there in an unbiased manner?  Do we have persons watching for bias on one side and not the other? Guess what, the BBC has and it ain't for Palestine.  How can people be aware if the very events are not covered evenly?

Never Again for anyone means proper news coverage, it means accountability immediately.  It means we do not even wait for the troops to come home from occupation duty.

No wonder some people have trouble seeing the whole picture. Would you believe Benny Morris' accounts?  As a Jewish Israeli historian of repute who once said something to the effect of "the problem was we didn’t clean them out when we could" in his description of what went on under the shadow of wars there one sees real genocide and ethnic cleansing .  Read his accounts and then transpose Jews for non-Jews and consider if it is still ok.

If it were Jews in ghettos and Germans bombing them from above daily with state of the art deadly powerful ordinance, tanks flechette shelling civilians anywhere and deliberately cutting off their water and bombing their power stations, bulldozing their food crops, and shutting them in and cutting off medical supplies and food is that ok?  Just like the Jewish and communist Polish resistance: they used violence in their pathetic homemade occasionally damaging resistance against the all powerful military occupation. Is that German response then OK?  Why is there no movie made about the Gaza resistance now?  Not many Palestinians in Hollywood, are there?

I think genocide can only o ccur when empathy is suppressed, usually by a racism that people are not even aware of and normally would fight against.

When the troops come home is when Sun Tzu lines can be dropped – unless one is planning more wars in the near future or wants to continue to feed into the military complex industry – probably THE most powerful and influential lobby group the world has ever known.

Holding the politicians and the think tanks and the media responsible and accountable for the lies they peddled in order to do the deceit that was needed to persuade a population for war will damage the profit margins for the war industry and threaten the ability to trick again for the next war. Let us see who dares support the Kucninch impeachment articles, not the senators from Boeing – as Jackson used to be called – nor the likes of Newt.

We have already seen the apparently Cheney (and interesting how much official level blame from insiders is levelled there at present) driven pre-war propaganda about Iran, such as:

  • weapons supply (remember the debunking of the IED lies) and
  • insurgent and unrest blame(remember Maliki nexing this with this commendation the next moment to Iran for increasing stability in Iraq) and
  • the current Neocon think tank nuclear weapons programs (nexed by USA IC report and the AIEI repeated refuting of such ) and
  • the obfuscation of uranium enrichment as a sin (when it is perfectly lawful in the NPT to energy grade) (note the EU stooge nations going along with the so called Security council)
  • the bizarre attempt to make a Hormuz Straits incident into an attack run etc (and note how the probably primed media under certain control groups jumped straight on to that one and ran it, more loss of credibility – no surprise).
  • the Masden allegations that Cheney’s parallel command structure was involved in the airbase and nuclear bomber event (note the missing bomb is yet accounted for, nor interestingly the missing flight time, nor the civilian flyer who disappeared).

I am sure others can think of more events.

One thing about Gates is I think people are naive to think he is for the Fallon view as it is he who pushed him out, he who has appointed new command to the air force; dual loyalty positions abound under his guard at the top levels.  What did go on at the critical airbase meeting in Iraq on Bush's way to APEC on the weekend of the missing nukes being media leaked (just look at the incredible eminence of power present at that moment in a western Iraq air base) and the time of the Israeli fully fuelled bombers flying for Iran direction (or from the Iraqi air base?)?  We do not know the original flight departure, just that homeward was over Turkey, but turning and hitting Syria randomly for some chutzpah retrieval instead.  No more Turkey flights methinks next time.  I think those who want a permanent Israel would be foolish to continue this belligerence towards Iran when it suits US-Saudi Empire purposes to remove both. And Gates is said to be loyally under (Operation Bramble Bush time) Bush 1, no friend of Israel methinks, from outside analysis only, of what happened during his time and since and to his son and their plans/planes.

And when the troops come home from Lebanon, Iraq, etc and me mates in the UN zones?

What of terrorism action there? What of terrorism action that politically benefits neocon / Anglo empire purposes?  Do we examine those events?  Rarely even reported in the media.

Note all the time any reference to Prince Bandar (plus Jordan persons) and Cheney's alleged terrorism cabal with Sunni radicals in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq is not taken up and investigated (remember the US law about terrorist assets? – all of Cheney’s and Bandar's assets taken by the US state – what a glorious result that would be for the anti-terrorism laws and taxpayers) yet the information does have credibility and political and covert integrating logic.  The journalist (Hersch) breaking the story was respected for previous accusations that were found to be true, but received little coverage and no international investigation.

And silence in both the world media that we get to see and the US criminal investigative machinery about the alleged funding / training / supplying of terrorist groups within Iran, using minority groups to destabilise the government, but causing horrible civilian traumas.  This is standard black ops techniques and even discussed in Perkins’ Confessions... book . (THAT should be on all history reading lists, methinks.

Wars make a lot of money and threats of war make more as stable economies can continue in a pyramid scheme to beef up these carrion feeders using taxes.  In the USA, the actual government is tightly interwoven with this industry due to the national security impetus and the drive for privatisation as a model.  Trouble is the same industry then sells to US future threats and hence the whole thing is nationally stupid but financially gold making to the MIC.

Some say the Israeli lobby is not something to be worried about. It is, just as it would be if it was a Saudi lobby or a Turkey lobby or a Palestinian lobby or a Chinese lobby or a Communist lobby or a Catholic lobby that had power and access and paid up members from the government who take presents(bribes) like funded tours etc and huge campaign funding .and presenting loyalty and service medals from other nations to members of our government (Howard).  Also if such were interwoven with media assets in democracies and such influenced reporting about their issue. when spy cases involve such, when other nations’ interests are pushed ahead of that government's people, when funds for other nations are pushed or when war for other nation's interests etc.

This becomes treason when the activity is clearly in the negative interests of the people of that country. And war and national security makes one consider high treason issues.

As our troops come home we might consider whether Howard sent us to war on the basis of lies in support of an international conspiracy involving media, certain western governments’ groups and military lobby groups and think tanks. Did Howard and the PM office and NSA know, as the Downing Street and other docs show the Brits knew, that the evidence would be cooked up for an attack upon Iraq and there was no real threat to ..America / Australia?  Have we been deliberately lied to and deceived by a government and cooperating media in order to wage a war of aggression for the aims of hegemony, oil control and Israeli security and military industry profits as seems to be the full picture?

Try the treason test on the lobby groups we know about and on the actions of our government and media.

left
right
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The world will find another devil eventually

Angela Ryan, nobody is going to nuke Iran. The proposition is completely ridiculous. They have oil - which the world needs - and on top of that, nuclear waste floating about the planet is not a good thought - I'd prefer the grandchildren with one head and not two. So I think a little bit of self interest will take pride of place.

Tehran is a tale of two cities, one side rich and prosperous, the other side dirt poor. Religion is the opium of the masses - so anger, through religion, may as well be aimed at Israel and the United States. Best not allow the plebs to really see what's going on. I just don't take the "international theatre" very seriously.

The only thing anyone has to really fear is a United Arab Socialist movement (hasn't changed since the fifties). Thankfully, religion means that prospect is less than zero. Iran can live in paranoia without nuclear weapons - and it's better off investing money in more worthwhile projects.

Taliban growing in nuclear armed Pakistan.

As Bruce Loudon reports today, the rising influence of renegade intelligence forces loyal to the terrorist cause in Pakistan coincides with a growing sense of crisis that the country's political events are spinning out of control. After 100 days in power, Pakistan's ruling party has split with Bhutto's widower, Asif Ali Zardari, blamed by rivals for the country's deepening woes. Mr Zardari is aiming to replace Mr Musharraf as president should the latter step down, as is widely expected.

All told, it is a mess that could produce dire consequences that have an impact well beyond the immediate region. The Australian has said previously that history may well record that US President George W. Bush made the wrong call when he decided to challenge the so-called axis of evil and ignore what was happening in Pakistan, the place where many of the terrorist attacks against the West can be shown to have had their roots.

It is abundantly clear that the influence of those loyal to the Taliban is growing in the unstable nuclear-armed state of Pakistan. There will be no success for the forces of moderation in Afghanistan until this reality is acknowledged by the world community as openly as it has been by Mr Karzai.

With the war in Afghanistan going badly for the US the big question is, what to do about Pakistan? Many of the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are trained and supplied by Pakistan. The Bush strategy is failing, and the most likely end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a withdrawal.

The ICC has shown how to act when national leaders break international law.

ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has presented evidence today showing that Sudanese President, Omar Hassan Ahmad AL BASHIR committed the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur.

Three years after the Security Council requested him to investigate in Darfur, and based on the evidence collected, the Prosecutor has concluded there are reasonable grounds to believe that Omar Hassan Ahmad AL BASHIR bears criminal responsibility in relation to 10 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

More support and teeth should be given to the ICC. The way to limit the excesses of national leaders who commit crimes against humanity and other war crimes is to bring them to court.

Maybe landing a team of special force troops to capture and bring the guilty to justice. This would have been a better solution for Iraq. It would also send a message to all leaders that they are not above the law.

There isn't a right or wrong answer

John Pratt: "Do you think a dictatorship is better than a democracy?"

Generally no.

I do think, depending on the topic, it's horses for courses though.

Or do you think we should leave everything to the market system and live in complete anarchy?

I think the words market and anarchy conjure up unfair connotations in most people's hearing. I don't happen to think, however;  that either you or Mr Avent are most people (or any person on this forum for that matter), and I'd like to expand on my post at a later time.

Thank you both for the reply.

The answer is in front of your eyes

John Pratt: "As the US, Israel and Iran continue their sabre rattling the threat of war in the middle east is high. The price of oil would skyrocket. The world would be thrown into chaos and millions would die."

It would certainly cause a large degree of chaos. The type of chaos that inevitably, and historically, ends in major conflict. A good reason people should take the role of "running the world" out of the hands of politicians. A number of business arrangements, and agreements, could settle this conflict with minimal problem.

Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?

Take government out of the hands of politicians and put it in the hands of businessmen, Paul? And that should settle conflicts? I don't thing you'll get much support for that idea.

A thought occurs to me. If the Middle East owns all the oil, and its leaders decide to refuse to supply any to the West, then how would the West be able to wage any kind of war against them? Chaos all right, but I can't imaging a major conflict without any oil to power it.

Dictators do not have a good track record.

Paul, how do suppose we take the role of "running the world" out of the hands of politicians? If we did, whats make you think business would do a better job?

Do you think a dictatorship is better than a democracy? Or do you think we should leave everything to the market system and live in complete anarchy?

A war they cannot win

Angela Ryan: "And a bit differently, do you think Saddam would have been invaded if he had had a nuclear deterrent arsenal at the time with delivery system?"

Almost certainly no.

Do you think Iran may be encouraged to seek nuclear weapons (although there is no evidence of their own active program at present) were they to be threatened by nuclear armed nations who are threatening them with nuclear attack?

The real problem may not be what it's forcing Iran to do; the real problem may be what it's encouraging the United States to do. Missile testing and nuclear arms races are unfortunately making it very difficult for anyone to argue against a missile defence system.

It's also becoming increasingly difficult arguing not to be bipartisan in efforts dedicated to finding "new century weapons". Any arms race is something the United States has experience in, and a large degree of self interested success at that. Tough times allow much easier passage of tough measures.

For those reasons it'd be in everyone's interest not to see Iran with serious weapons systems. The photoshopped stuff is hopefully as good as it gets.

phew no fine for Janet's wardrobe failure

Thanks, Paul, for your thoughts. I did not quite understand your argument against Iran getting nuclear weapons, are you seriously proposing the country would attack the USA?? Or the USA really presumes that? Just as Iraq was meant to?

"For those reasons it'd be in everyone's interest not to see Iran with serious weapons systems..."

I beg to differ, for that is exactly how Iraq was a sitting target for those who wanted its oil etc – and so it was.

It is in everyone’s interests to see Iran able to deter any attack upon her by those threatening pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Those threatening such should be immediately sanctioned, not Iran. Should such strikes go ahead the precedent is unthinkable. Pre-emptive nuclear strikes against nonnuclear states? Unthinkable repercussions. Remember also that Iran is neither lacking in arms nor bioweapons. A nuclear attack would justify the worst kind of response available by any nation – and their allies. Imagine the world condemnation of such an unthinkable attack!

The fact that such threats are not sanctioned shows either there is no belief it will occur or the world that there is no real international law when not convenient for the cabal. It shows that there is an urgent need for all to be armed to the hilt to deter and form collective defence groups.

What a tragedy in this world that this should be the case after the post cold war peace!!

How this has come about should be carefully investigated!

According to the "Clean Break, Israel securing the realm" written by the same people currently influencing US and Israeli policy, part of the carrot was to encourage development of missile defence, which would be appreciated by Senators supported by the MIC and get Israel support from these. We also know that oil was a concern, as was control of that resource, and besides, we also had the internationalists of Empire/Realm.

Perhaps this rattle of sabres by sabras is part of a rather foolish game to channel billions into the MIC which at the time of writing the paper was suffering from severe cuts due to post cold war happiness glow and peace.

The missile shield activity has NOT been just since Iran has been targeted. The missile defence /star wars etc program has been in place since before the Iraq invasion when Iran was still a "mate" in the war on terror as had aided in Afghanistan and would do so in Iraq.

Iraq was different to Iran in many ways as far as a target.

Also Iran is a democracy (with a religious head of state just as we and the UK have and we probably have a backroom boys’ club too if truth were told), and has broken no international laws, invaded no nation, threatened no nation other than retaliation if they attack – unlike the US and Israel both threatening pre-emptive nuclear strikes, has been a key ally in the war on terrorism against the Taliban and other Sunni extremists like Al Qaida and MEK, participates in international treaties, has been praised by the US occupation elected Iraqi government for helping stabilise Iraq post invasion, and is a full signatory to the NPT – unlike Israel with its nuclear weapons – and not breaking it at all according to AEIA. In fact, a relatively model citizen compared to our allies.

Iran’s uranium enrichment is to the level needed for civilian use only (3%) not to weapons grade, and unlike Israel has not plutonium ( "He said: ‘If Vanunu will be released, probably the Americans would leave Iraq and go after Israel and Israel's nuclear weapons.’")

Really one wonders why Israel is not being sanctioned and threatened with pre-emptive strikes if it doesn’t sign on to the NPT or get rid of the huge bombs it has, and remove from the Occupation, remove the illegal wall from Palestinian territory (International Count of Justice decision ignored and no sanctions), stop ethnically cleansing and building settlement s in occupied territory (international law bans this), and stop attacking civilians and civilian structures with missiles and bombs (war crimes), and using collective punishment (again illegal) and targeted murders of those it considers enemies or a threat (illegal) which often involve the killing and maiming of many around.

Really, I think the world has the picture upside down. I think neither Israel nor the world will have a proper peace until justice is served and withdrawal to the 67 line. Or maybe the 47 line would be fairer now after all that has been suffered, or a one state solution, even better, judicial accounting for war crimes and proper reparations paid to the Palestinians just as the Germans are still paying for their deliberate ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide.

The current aggressive policies of the Anglo-Dutch-American-Israeli rightwing groups with scant regard to international law except as manipulated PR excuse for military action is what have driven Russia and maybe inscrutable China to financial and political independence, and resulted in the formation of blocs and arms races, not the Iranian policy of pursuing NPT legal nuclear power and energy autonomy and prestige as a scientifically sophisticated nation.

This bloc formation and arms race has resulted in the current threat to the USA and EU, not anything Iran has done.

And were Iran to form a military pact with Russia/China or SCOC then the stakes would be raised but perhaps peace more likely in a return to the MAD world of MIC profits and mutual deterrent.

The safety of even this is being undermined by the propaganda claiming Iran is determined to remove or attack Israel, which is so ludicrous that one wonders at the sanity of any falling for it. Israel actually owes the Iranians an apology for training the Shah's notorious secret police and for enabling the arming of Pakistan with nuclear triggers (Karni case recently).Is or is Mossad not all-knowing any more about what their citizens are up to as far as smuggling nuclear weaponry? I bet India was overjoyed, perhaps a bit RAW, to learn how Pakistan obtained the bomb.

It is in everyone’s interests to see Iran able to deter any attack upon her by those threatening pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Those threatening such should be immediately sanctioned, not Iran, This is the bizarre world we are sitting in right now. It is like sanctioning Jewish businesses for being a target of Hitler's Brown Shirts. All most bizarre.

I really cannot think by what logic those who blindly pump for the Jabotinsky Israel actions can think it will benefit in the long run. When the internet is back under control and information limited – is that the stage they are gasping for? Tie up the propaganda loose ends again, a few more PC movies about just who the bad guys are – while genocide goes on? Really. Are we led by Satanists of some kind? There seems to be such a moral void, or worse, at the decision-making level. Moral equivalence seems to make everything ok if is by our group but not by yours as we have reasons for it you don’t.

Something is very wrong with our media and our governments, and with our basic ability to critically think. Where where where is the outcry? Anyway, back to the TV, phew, no fine for showing Janet Jackson's boob. A world relief. Back to the football. Anything else important? Heck, the shopping channel! Another lounge. Another brain dead potato.

Cheers

US bombing killed 47 civilians including women and children.

A US air strike in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday killed 47 civilians, 39 of them women and children, an Afghan government investigating team says.

"I believe the single thing that we have done wrong and we are striving extremely hard to improve on is killing innocent civilians," Brig Richard Nugee said.

President Karzai has been scathing in his criticism over the deaths of Afghan civilians, even summoning foreign commanders in May, 2007 to tell them "that the patience of the Afghan people is wearing thin with the continued killing of innocent civilians".

Two days ago, the Red Cross said that at least 250 Afghan civilians had been killed or wounded in insurgent attacks or military action in the previous six days. It called on all parties to the conflict to avoid civilian casualties.

Brig Richard Nugee says the US is trying extremely hard to improve its killing of innocent civilians. Looks like it doing a pretty good job already.

Tell me again why are we fighting in Afghanistan?

Time to stand up to Israel

The extraordinary hubris surrounding the outlandish threats from Israel to bomb Iran – with US compliance – should alarm everyone.

The chaos that the Middle East would descend into is truly awful to contemplate. The cherry picking of international laws and conventions that the US and Israel engage in threatens the safety of all of us – they are the rogue nations.

Completely ignored is the unstable government of Pakistan which could well fall into the hands of hardline militant Islamic generals who have provided support for groups like Al Qaeda.

And for yet another example of newspaper hysterics and mischief: News Ltd is chortling today about the doctored photos of Iran's missile pics that show four instead of three rockets firing off (who would want to be on the receiving end of even one?).

They forget their own role in promoting the ludicrous staged event of the Saddam toppling pics in Baghdad that supposedly signalled some sort of victory in Iraq (rather than the beginning of the descent into chaos) – so badly photo-shopped that the same group of thugs that accompanied the conman Chalabi (posing as "spontaneously" celebrating Iraqi civilians) appeared at least six times.

Time to stop kneeling down to Iran

"Completely ignored is the unstable government of Pakistan which could well fall into the hands of hardline militant Islamic generals who have provided support for groups like Al Qaeda. "

You mean pretty much like Iran is now?

what is ok for me is condemned if you do it. Usual spin

Geoff:"...’who have provided support for groups like Al Qaeda.’ You mean pretty much like Iran is now?"

Do you have any evidence that Iran is providing or has provided support for Al-Qaida?

Do you think providing terrorism support is something to be condemned?

If the USA or Israel is found guilty of supporting the terrorist proscribed group MEK would you condemn that?

And a bit differently, do you think Saddam would have been invaded if he had had a nuclear deterrent arsenal at the time with delivery system? Do you think Iran may be encouraged to seek nuclear weapons (although there is no evidence of their own active program at present) were they to be threatened by nuclear armed nations who are threatening them with nuclear attack?

Do you think nations threatening to drop nuclear weapons upon other nations, especially ones not nuclear armed, nor attacking them, nor threatening to pre-emptively strike them, should be condemned and suffer sanctions until they back down?

Do you think nations that pay for covert terrorist attacks upon other nations should be sanctioned and held to account? Is it OK for Al-Qaida to attack American targets? Is it OK for America to fund terrorist attacks upon other nations?

Do you think it is OK for nations to attack and invade other nations, deliberately targeting civilian structures like power stations and using anti-civilian weaponry like cluster bombs after agreeing to an armistice? Do you think that Israel should be condemned for this, especially as we now learn that the invasion and bombing of Lebanon were planned months ahead ? Is it OK to plan and invade nations ? Wasn't that what Hitler and Nazi Germany was condemned for at the Nuremberg trials? Do you think Israel should pay reparations to Lebanon for the carnage caused?

Do you think that it is OK for other nations to fly into Israel and bomb targets that are presumed to be nuclear weapon storage or tech sites? Why not, if Israel can, as in the attack on Syria of what is now known not to be a nuke weapons site?

Just some questions. You might want to read more widely than your favourite Right Wing Death Beast or the usual propaganda like Little green footballs etc for some information. Then again, you may not want to, eh? It can hurt to realise some hard truths about deceptions and waging wars. Then again, it is never too late to reform, repair and reparate...such avoids replacing.

It’s always amazing how well we can see one side but be totally blinkered to the other, despite all three religions being told by teachers to do unto others as they would have done unto .

Try replacing "Iran" with "Israel" for most of the last military events and one can see a bit of a failure of that great advice. Little wonder the less media blinkered zones have less difficulty seeing the real picture.

Do you really, really think it benefits Israel to attack Iran? Wake up and see the sting.

Cheers

One man's terrorist is still a bloody terrorist

Angela: "Do you have any evidence that Iran is providing or has provided support for Al-Qaida?"

Actually, as you have pointed out, what I said was:

"...’who have provided support for groups like Al Qaeda.’

Specifically, I had in mind filthy, murderous, anti-human, terrorist scum, Hezbollah and Hamas, which are basically tools of Iran. And which, like Al Qaeda, will have to be rooted out before the world is a safer place.

I will reply to the rest of your post when I get a chance to read it.   

Palestinian resistance.

Geoff Pahoff: "One man's terrorist is still a bloody terrorist".

So you loathe  Ehud  Olmert as much as me, do you?

Just can't resist them Hamas eyes

Paul Walter : "So you loathe  Ehud  Olmert as much as me, do you?"

I don't loathe him at all. In fact I likely would have voted for him last time. But I do agree with you it's probably about time to bring back Bibi.

In any event somebody has to help the long suffering Palestinian people to resist, and eventually shake off the bullies, tyrants, terrorists and thugs who have ruled and exploited them, and much of the rest of the Arab world for decades. The Palestinian people deserve nothing less than peace, freedom, prosperity and self-determination, including their own state, if that's what they want.

That is why Hamas (sham election or not) and the other murder gangs must go. Including those that oppress the Iranian people.  

two legs good four legs bad.

Angela  Ryan, You know you will be whistling in the wind for a intelligent reponse, so I will thank you for a good post instead, on behalf of others deeper in denial than I.

I don't think getting rid of Iran is warranted

Alan Curran: "So the price of oil will go up? It is a small price to pay for getting rid of Iran."

I don't think getting rid of Iran is warranted. I assume you meant to say, "getting rid of the regime that governs Iran".

My bet is the Iranians themselves will do that eventually.

Can the world prevent Iran becoming a nuclear power?

Israel, long assumed to have its own atomic arsenal, has sworn to prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear-armed power. Last month it staged an air force exercise that stoked speculation about a possible assault on Iranian nuclear sites.

Iran has vowed to strike back at Tel Aviv, as well as US interests and shipping, if it is attacked, asserting that missiles fired during war games under way in the Gulf included ones that could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the region.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on a visit to the former Soviet republic of Georgia that no one should be confused about Washington's commitment to protect its allies.

As the US, Israel and Iran continue their sabre rattling the threat of war in the middle east is high. The price of oil would skyrocket. The world would be thrown into chaos and millions would die.

The US, Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. What difference would it make if Iran did become a nuclear power? Can we blame Iran for wanting nuclear weapons? The current nuclear powers have ignored the nuclear proliferation treaty. The result of their refusal to destroy their nuclear weapons is that other nations are demanding nuclear weapons.

The real rogue nations are those with nuclear weapons, and UN sanctions should be against all nations with nuclear weapons, not those that just want parity.

Preventing Iran

John Pratt, don't worry about Iran, the Israelis will sort them out very quickly whilst the rest of the world stands by and watches. Anybody who thinks that Israel will stand by and let let Iran threaten them is living in LaLa land. So the price of oil will go up? It is a small price to pay for getting rid of Iran.

We should realise we have bitten off more than we can chew.

Angela asks: "Have we been deliberately lied to and deceived by a government and cooperating media in order to wage a war of aggression for the aims of hegemony, oil control and Israeli security and military industry profits as seems to be the full picture?"

We seem to be moving closer to  war with Pakistan and Iran financed countries flush with petro dollars from Saudi Arabia. 

The suicide bombing at the gates of the Indian Embassy in Kabul on Monday underscored the increasing fears of American and Afghan officials that Taliban insurgents working with Pakistani intelligence operatives might have used the bombing to pursue Pakistan’s long power struggle with India.

Al Qaeda and other militant groups have used redoubts in Pakistan’s rugged mountains as havens for the past several years. But especially since the new Pakistani government sharply curtailed security operations in the tribal areas in March and began negotiating with tribal leaders to rein in the militants, the number of foreign fighters entering the tribal areas has increased “from a trickle to a steady stream,” said a Defense Department official who follows Pakistan closely, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

Iran is flexing its muscles by testing its missiles.

State-run media said the missiles were long- and medium-range weapons, and included a Shahab-3, which Tehran maintains is able to hit targets up to 1,250 miles away from its firing position. Parts of western Iran are within 650 miles of Tel Aviv.

The Saudi Government - largely through its embassy - is believed to have funnelled at least $120 million into Australia since the 1970s to propagate hardline Islam, bankroll radical clerics and build mosques, schools and charitable orgnisations.

But the Saudi cash that has flowed into Australia, that also allegedly has paid the allowance of hardline Canberra cleric Mohammed Swaiti, who has publicly praised jihadists, is dwarfed by the $90 billion Riyadh is believed to have pumped into promoting Islamic fundamentalism internationally.

How do we think we can win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when we are facing countries with population numbers like Pakistan which have the backing of petro dollars from Saudi Arabia? We will continue to lose young Australian lives with no prospect of victory. We should realise we have bitten off more than we can chew and withdraw from both countries immediately.  We have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Stumped me again!

Eliot Ramsey: "What was so special about Tokyo Bay?"

Hmm, that is a curly one. I mean, apart from having dotted along its shores several important port cities — including the very seat of government — gee, dunno...

For anyone genuinely interested, however, my thinking is that a demonstration of The Bomb over Tokyo Bay would have helped bring home to the Japanese government the devastating potential for destruction posed by the new weapon. In a more immediate way that, apparently, bombing populous provincial cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not, according to the 1946 US Strategic Bombing Survey (p. 25):

The effect of the atomic bomb on the confidence of the Japanese civilian population outside the two cities was more restricted. This was in part due to the effect of distance, lack of understanding of the nature of atomic energy, and the impact of other demoralizing experiences.

I know that many, including ER, have a healthy scepticism about US government documents, but the above makes sense — given, for instance, that President Truman himself had a "lack of understanding of the nature of atomic energy" (as we know from the Oracle himself, Sir Max Hastings).

There would, of course, have been no "effect of distance", given that all residents of Tokyo and surrounds — including crucially the government leadership — would have not failed to look up from their whalemeat at the spectre of the mushroom cloud rising monstrously above Tokyo Bay where, traditionally, East meets West.

Undoubtedly the Emperor would have been profoundly distracted from his study of marine biology, and become instantly persuaded that he should take affairs of state more decisively in hand — perhaps deciding there and then to actually, literally sack his bloody government.

Ah well, just a thought...

Why Jacob wasn't running the Pacific campaign

Why would an atom bomb blast over an empty bay impress the Japanese government when they were quite prepared (as has been pointed out over and over) to disregard atom bomb blasts over two Japanese cities?

And if they allies had wiped out the centre of government in Japan, perhaps wiping the government out entirely, who would take the surrender?

Why? What was so special about Tokyo Bay?

Jacob A. Stam: "This stuff could go on and on, but none of it invalidates the proposition that an atomic detonation over Tokyo Bay, instead of upon massive civilian targets, may well have sufficed to secure Japanese capitulation."

Why would have a blast over Tokyo Bay convinced them, when a blast over Hiroshima didn't, Jacob? It in turn followed by a blast over Nagasaki? Both of which came after the firebombing of Tokyo, that leaving Toky proper a smouldering ruin with 100,000 dead (here thoughtfully denounced as a US war crime by Common Dreams of course)?

Why?

What was so special about Tokyo Bay?

Revisionism revisited

Eliot Ramsey: "Perhaps then it would be possible then to argue that the bombs had no effect."

Oh ye Gods, ER, whoever has been arguing for any such proposition?!!

This stuff could go on and on, but none of it invalidates the proposition that an atomic detonation over Tokyo Bay, instead of upon massive civilian targets, may well have sufficed to secure Japanese capitulation.

Your overarching concerns about "the revisionist account" are well noted, but I'm actually more concerned about your own revisionist tendencies.

Missed opportunities

Geoff Pahoff: "...and the appointment of a new Cabinet and Prime Minister two days later that actually executed the unconditional surrender that had been announced by the Emperor."

Imagine the Emperor hadn't intervened. And as a result there was no appointment of a new Cabinet and Prime Minister. Even though the bombs had been dropped just the same.

Perhaps then it would be possible then to argue that the bombs had no effect.

And then what? The war dragging on? Japan still demanding to hang on to China and Korea and Indochina and elsewhere? Russia declaring war just the same (it had already told Truman it would). A Soviet invasion of the Northern Islands and a US led invasion of the Southern Islands beyond Okinawa.

Millions more dead. Japan ultimtely divided like Korea and Germany, a massive flashpoint in the Pacific during the Cold War.

What a nightmare scenario.

No wonder the Left were angry about the bomb. Wilfred Burchett could have been Japan's ambassador to Australia.

Say, what happened to Prime Minsiter Suzuki's government?

It took the un-precedented 'intervention' of the Emperor

Jacob A. Stam says:

"Okay, and the point I began with was whether dropping atomic bombs on massive civilian targets was absolutely necessary, or whether some alternative scenario (like my airburst over Tokyo Bay) might have forced the intervention/sacking thingy."

Even the airbursts over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let alone Tokyo Bay, didn't by themselves end the war, as is demonstrable from the documented record and has been repeatedly pointed out.

The Government is on record publicly stating there would be no surrender, as has been pointed out over and over and over.

It required the un-precedented 'intervention' of the Emperor, as you have yourself acknowledged.

For the revisionist account, that simple fact is the most insurmountable obstancle to their re-writing of the history of Hiroshima. That's why most revisionist accounts simply omit any mention of the Emperor's intervention and focus instead on the phoney 'peace moves' from Tokyo to the USSR.

That's the whole point of them emphasising the phoney 'impending surrender'.

Before we get into another semantic tussles, the bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima were 'airbursts', and not exploded at ground zero.

Also, Sir Max's 'Nemesis' (aptly named) is available now in paper back. Quite cheap. I recommend it highly.

 

 

Semantics and imponderables

Eliot Ramsey: "My argument with you doesn't depend on which word you use, and you are trying to use this phoney 'controversy' or semantic quibble to divert from the main point at hand."

Semantics? Actually it's you who's been playing with semantics to try to explain away what you categorically said to another commenter:

"Not even the Emperor of Japan himself was prepared to pretend the Japanese government was 'about' to surrender 'anyway', as has been pointed out. He had to actually sack his government to get a surrender."

As I've said, you made that statement without qualifying your use of the term "actually sack", in order to reinforce your argument with spurious detail.

But sure, your questionable approach to honest discussion is really just a minor side issue. That "at least one other" takes a similar approach does, however, make for twice the worry.

ER: "Namely, if it wasn't for the bombs, the Emperor wouldn't have either 'intervened' in or 'sacked' his government either way."

Okay, and the point I began with was whether dropping atomic bombs on massive civilian targets was absolutely necessary, or whether some alternative scenario (like my airburst over Tokyo Bay) might have forced the intervention/sacking thingy. We've been all through this, and you've settled on the side of preempting any slagging off at the Americans, so bully for you.

Well anyway, I've been trying to get hold of a copy of the Max Hastings' book, with which you're so enamoured, from my local library, in order to check out what he has to say without the Ramsey slant.

Unfortunately both copies of that popular tome are out, but I did manage to find this abridged extract. An interesting snippet is the following, regarding President Truman's deliberations about using the atomic bomb:

It is clear from conversations at the time between Truman and Stimson, two intelligent men, that they were unable to conceive of what they were about to do.

In their minds, as in that of British PM Winston Churchill, the new weapon represented simply a massive multiple of the conventional bombs that had been raining on Japan (and, before then, Germany) for months.

It seems, then, that Truman thought The Bomb was just a bigger version of a conventional bomb. Sort of like a penny bunger compared to the tom-thumbs they'd been using up to then.

In other words, according to Hastings, Truman apparently had no conception that an atomic bomb combined some of the worst effects — and then some — of biological/chemical weapons, the use of which the US had eschewed as a consequence of terrible experience.

In light of this, it's maybe worth considering yet another imponderable: If Truman had any real appreciation of the appallingly vile, destructive effects produced by atomic bombs, would the history of the latter stages of the Pacific War have been quite different?

Nothing would have changed

"In light of this, it's maybe worth considering yet another imponderable: If Truman had any real appreciation of the appallingly vile, destructive effects produced by atomic bombs, would the history of the latter stages of the Pacific War have been quite different?"

My guess is no. After all, by that late in the war no one could have any doubt about the appallingly vile, destructive effects produced by conventional weapons, including firestorm bombing, and the new depths reached regarding treatment of  civilian populations in pursuit of war objectives, something with which Japan had a very special familarity.

Besides, in fairness to Truman, how many people did have a real appreciation of what was different about these weapons in 1945? They were still exploding test bombs in the atmosphere close enough to Las Vegas to break windows well into the 1950's, servicemen were required to stand in  lines at certain distances from ground zero to test impact, and I know for a fact RAAF pilots were ordered to fly through the mushroom clouds and fallout of test explosions in Australia in the fifies.

My guess is that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have proceeded right on schedule. And Hirohito would still have had to dramatically intervene with utmost determination and in an unprecedented and extremely prejudicial way, resulting the next day, among other things, in the resignation of the entire Cabinet , the suicide of its War Minister, and the appointment of a new Cabinet and Prime Minister two days later that actually executed the unconditional surrender that had been announced by the Emperor. 

Send up some more smoke, Jacob.

Jacob A. Stam says:

"Well that's pretty cute, ER, accusing someone of asserting a "straight-forward untruth", after your clanger about Emperor Hirohito "actually sacking" his entire government. Perhaps, like you, Marilyn was indulging in, er, creative metaphor."

Sure, Jacob.

Your preference for the word "intervened" versus mine (and now at least one other's it seems)  for the word "sacked" with respect to the de jure status of Japan's war party the day after Hirohito surrendered (Gee, is 'sacked" or "intervened" the right word? Oh, worry, worry!), is not the same as Marilyn stating without any basis whatsoever that I think "that German civilians deserved to suffer" or her otherwise re-writing the history of the Holocaust and of the western allied occupation in Europe.

To make it perfectly clear one more time, Jacob. I don't care whether you want to use the word "intervened" or "sacked", because it makes not a lick of difference to the historical outcome at Hiroshima. As you plainly know.

My argument with you doesn't depend on which word you use, and you are trying to use this phoney 'controversy' or semantic quibble to divert from the main point at hand. Namely, if it wasn't for the bombs, the Emperor wouldn't have either "intervened" in or "sacked" his government either way.

By analogy, the equivalent to Marilyn's stance would be me saying you thought it was "good" that Japanese civilians suffered, that most of the civilians dying in Manchuria "really escaped" and that the bombs were "really' dropped by the Australians on effing Mexico City or something?

Or is it really called Manchukuo instead of Manchuria ? Aha!

 

Link correction

Sorry, here's the correct link to the thread in which Eliot Ramsey's maverick  "sacking" claim was previously made by another Webdiarist, almost 2 years ago.

/cms/?q=node/1550#comment-53711

Don't click on the link above, because a site software error seems to cause embedded hyperlinks to other threads on this site to link to the current thread instead. The solution is to copy the text of the link into your browser's address bar.

Seems the Webdiary site's software needs a bit of tweeking, perhaps?

'Untruth' or 'creative metaphor'?

Eliot Ramsey: "Marilyn's statement there is yet another straight-forward untruth."

Well that's pretty cute, ER, accusing someone of asserting a "straight-forward untruth", after your clanger about Emperor Hirohito "actually sacking" his entire government. Perhaps, like you, Marilyn was indulging in, er, creative metaphor.

The only other person ever known to have maintained the Emperor sacked his government was a certain C Parsons, of blessed memory. It's a pity s/he's not still around to help you further illumine this great metaphorical 'truth'.

Deliberate untruth from Marilyn Shepherd

Marilyn Shepherd: "I thought Eliot might like to read this. He is so certain that German civilians deserved to suffer."

Marilyn's statement there is yet another straight-forward untruth.

Far from ever, anywhere suggesting that German civilians deserved to suffer, I have stressed repeatedly that the suffering of German civilians under the post-war occupation, particularly in Eastern Germany and elsewhere in Europe was an appalling war crime.

I have repeatedly rebutted Marilyn's attempts at re-writing the history of those events, as is apparent from the record on this and other threads.

See also on this thread  Fiona Reynolds's comment on June 13, 2008 at 3:27pm.

"Marilyn Shepherd, what official records are you referencing? The figures you cite differ markedly from those with which I've been familiar for at least 40 years. You also interest me strangely in your failure to cite the death tolls in Poland, the Baltic states, those parts of Europe now known as the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Belorus, the Ukraine, the Netherlands, Greece .... "

And Craig Warton's on June 15, 2008 - 5:32pm.

Marilyn, I would love to continue thinking that your deliberately obtuse and revisionist views of history are due to a naive view of world events. but I am rapidly forming an opinion it is something far uglier.

And indeed, they were dreadful crimes committed against German ethnic minorities in Yugoslavia after the war, weren't they Marilyn?

Here's the crucial points you omit from your account. 

  • The Soviet Red Army aided in liberating Belgrade as well as some other Yugoslavian territories,
  • After they withdrew, it was taken over by Tito's communist regime.

So, is that another case of the "western allies" persecuting Germans?

Were the Australians responsible for this one, too?

Limits again

Eliot Ramsey: "So, what was the acceptable limit in your opinion for the Japanese forces to inflict on their victims? And therefore for 'ours' in return?"

Golly, Eliot, you've really caught me with my pants down around my ankles, because I'm going to have to get my back issues of Pravda out of storage (you know, from the good old days) to be able to give you an authoritative answer on that.

But off the top of my head, I'd remark that your query is about as useful as me saying to you:

"You obviously think a ratio of, say, ~45:1 of our civilian deaths to theirs either: a) is the exactly juuust riiight limit to justify whatever the hell it is you're trying to justify; or, b) actually surpassed some definable limit at some prior definable point in time. If a), then such a justification for whatever the hell it is you're trying to justify is rendered little more than a worthless tautology, since the defined limit would seem as arbitrary as any other you might nominate. If b), then you yourself are obliged to define some distinguishable limit beyond which they exceeded what you, for whatever reason, consider 'acceptable'. As any limit you might nominate is probably as arbitrary as any other, the circularity of your justification, for whatever the hell it is you're trying to justify, presents again."

Fair dinkum, Eliot, your persisting fantasy of Truman or whoever anxiously watching some supernatural clock ticking over at 250K deaths per month (see previous caveats on contemporary availability of such data), and deciding "Enough is enough!", is quite simply out of the twilight zone.

I'd suggest what weighed on Truman's mind was (by no means exhaustively, and in no particular order): appalled dismay at the undeniably widespread general carnage and suffering (in so far as this could be then known in any measurable terms), desired big-picture geopolitical objectives, abstract ideals of freedom and democracy, and not least the mounting toll on his own defence personnel. Oh, and undoubtedly the protracted duration of the conflict, which continued for almost as long as the present debacle in Iraq, also weighed heavily on Truman's mind.

But no, the 'limits' I referred to earlier have little to do with some simplistic formula like "quantum x justifies quantum y murders of civilians". On that logic, given the appalling Vietnam War civilian toll compared to virtually nil for the US, the Vietnamese would have been justified in nuking two or more US cities (leaving aside, of course, that they hadn't the means, and the certainty of complete annihilation due to massive US retaliation).

I could go on, but I'm too buggered. In the meantime, however, I'll give you a hint: Think Geneva Conventions.

That and the preceding should give you ample material for several bursts of incendiary scorn and withering sarcasm, for which you are so renowned and loved hereabouts, bless your socks.

Limits to "vigorous measures in return"...

Jacob A. Stam: "Whose limits are you talking about? Theirs? Ours?"

You said that you are "not unsympathetic to the view that the barbarity with which the Japanese prosecuted their war of aggression invited vigorous measures in return."

But you qualified this observation by saying:

"And yet, after all, there are limits, aren't there?"

Limits presumably to "vigorous measures in return"?

Seeing as the Japanese were killing their enemies on a much more massive scale than the reverse, for example 580,000 Japanese civilian deaths in total versus 16,200,000 Chinese civilan deaths, 4,000,000 civilian deaths in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), 1,000,000 civilians in French Indochina, etc, etc, I'm just wondering what was the acceptable limit "in return" for those fighting against Japan?

You know, like the Americans for example?

The atom bombs killed 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945.

The Japanese managed to kill 250,000 civilians in Burma alone. More than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

I read somewhere, I'll need to check the source, they managed to despatch nearly 100,000 civilians in reprisals just in Manila alone during the battle for the Phillipines Island of Leyte. That's more than Nagasaki.

So, what was the acceptable limit "in return" in your view?

Obviously, you find the 220,000 killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki above the acceptable limit for the Allies.

So, what was the acceptable limit in your opinion for the Japanese forces to inflict on their victims?

And therefore for "ours" in return?

Some nations admit their crimes against humanity

I thought Eliot might like to read this. He is so certain that German civilians deserved to suffer.

Limits

Eliot Ramsey: "Twenty million Chinese dead wasn't over the limit? But Hiroshima was?"

Whose limits are you talking about? Theirs? Ours?

Justin, there were some patchy data available about the effects of the atomic bomb before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tests. From bomb tests in the New Mexico desert, it was known that radioactive fallout would likely have indiscriminate health effects over a long period. From livestock which were exposed at various levels to the effects those blasts, some data were available on the likely effects on human flesh. And well before all that, the pioneering work of people like Thomas Edison and Marie and Pierre Curie unwittingly contributed to knowledge about the destructive effects of excessive doses of radiation.

Sadly, soon after the war, two of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project were unfortunate enough to learn first hand of the human effects of their work. Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., in an accident during a criticality experiment with a plutonium core, was lethally irradiated with gamma and neutron radiation, after which it took him 21 days to die. His colleague, Louis Slotin, had a similar mishap, but was perhaps more fortunate in lasting only 9 days. It's said that "Slotin's radiation dose was equivalent to the amount that he would have been exposed to by being 1500 m (4800 feet) away from the detonation of an atomic bomb."

memorials

Geoff Pahoff: "I've been to Tokyo Bay. Funny enough,  there is this huge memorial and museum right on the coast dedicated to Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

I don't suppose there's a memorial to the surrender agreement being signed on the deck of USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay?

Someone has pointed out to me, too, that in the surrender speech broadcast by the Emperor, the War was defined only in terms of the war with Europe and the U.S., there was no mention of the war in Asia, which is of course where the overwhelming proportion of Japan's victims were killed.

This of course is typically also how the war is characterised by those critical of the US role in ending the war.

Laughing about the bomb

Mr Justin Three-Toed Big Bird: "Jacob, methinks a demo in Tokyo Bay should have been given a go, but then again the US military would not have been able to gather real working data on the bombs' capacity to destroy buildings and flesh and stuff."

I've been to Tokyo Bay. Funny enough,  there is this huge memorial and museum right on the coast dedicated to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the museum there is a big boat, maybe a tug from memory, hanging from the roof. One side of it has blast marks and burns all along. Apparently the US military had used it in the Bikini atoll tests in the fifties and then donated it to the museum.  Funny? I laughed until I cried.

Nearby was a huge kids' recreation centre with gymnasiums, halls, sporting fields and three or four or more swimming pools including olympic size. I cried until I laughed. 

Double standards

Jacob A. Stam: "In fact, don't tell Eliot Ramsey, but I'm not unsympathetic to the view that the barbarity with which the Japanese prosecuted their war of aggression invited vigorous measures in return. And yet, after all, there are limits, aren't there?"

Twenty million Chinese dead wasn't over the limit? But Hiroshima was?

Is that the double standard Sir Max Hastings is talking about, below?

Persuasion

Justin Obodie: "Jacob, methinks a demo in Tokyo Bay should have been given a go, but then again the US military would not have been able to gather real working data on the bombs' capacity to destroy buildings and flesh and stuff."

The destruction of Hiroshima itself didn't persuade them to surrender. And even after Nagasaki, as Jacob has correctly pointed out, it took the intervention of the Emperor to compel the government's surrender.

So, no. You are wrong.

Data

Jacob, methinks a demo in Tokyo Bay should have been given a go, but then again the US military would not have been able to gather real working data on the bombs' capacity to destroy buildings and flesh and stuff.

Stalemate?

True enough, Craig Warton, what-ifs are always going to be problematic, but when approached in the right spirit may help illuminate appropriate responses in some kind of similar future scenario.

I could certainly understand that the Allied fighters, who did the actual 'heavy-lifting' against the Japanese, would overwhelmingly have had no reservations about using The Bomb. But perhaps that's just another good reason why there's a chain of command in the first place.

In fact, don't tell Eliot Ramsey, but I'm not unsympathetic to the view that the barbarity with which the Japanese prosecuted their war of aggression invited vigorous measures in return. And yet, after all, there are limits, aren't there? Or perhaps I'm just being old-fashioned or something, like Ike and others.

I have many concerns about that kind of 'collective punishment', particularly in this instance, e.g., that Japan was not a democracy of equals; also, the likelihood of surviving Japanese civilians rising up to depose their rulers was virtually nil, given the traditional Japanese culture of absolute obeisance to authority.

At any rate, your more reasoned view on the reservations of Eisenhower and others in the senior command is most welcome. Particularly when one thinks of the stupefyingly asinine dismissal we've seen here of such reservations as manifestations of "inter-service rivalries".

But just to clarify, I don't think I've ever suggested here that the Allies should just have "stopped all aggressive action", nor would I. Or even that the a-bomb should never have been used under any circumstances (but... but... but....).

My what-if has been concerned with the supposed absolute necessity of dropping a-bombs on massive civilian targets. I proposed a scenario (see June 27,2008-10:45pm) in which an a-bomb was detonated over Tokyo Bay, producing (hypothetically) relatively minimal civilian casualties, while (hypothetically) still producing the requisite 'psychological impact' (being the primary criterion of the targetting committee) upon the Japanese government and populace.

I frankly don't know what the answer is, and I guess the only way to know would be to be on the spot. Quite possibly something like my Tokyo Bay scenario would have been worth a shot, but quite possibly I'm dreaming. Ultimately we'll never know.

To the victor the spoils – and the immunity

Actually, Craig Warton, the difference between soldiers fighting it out and the atomic bombs dropped is that one action was between militaries and one was deliberately targeting civilians for a horrible death and maiming, and then lingering death of survivors. The photographers who went in documented the horrendous suffering of the survivors. Most photos are still censored, I understand.

The well-informed debate here about historical events has illustrated the differing information regarding the question of whether or not the Japanese would have surrendered imminently if the atomic bomb(s) were not dropped.

Either way, it was still a deliberate targeting of the civilian population with an inhumane, indiscriminate weapon guaranteed to cause huge civilian casualties and suffering, and was thus a war crime.

The debate whether or not it had to be detonated above a city to stop the war is irrelevant and only a perverted moral equivalence. And dropping two bombs is sheer terrorism, criminal mass murder. All the propaganda about stopping the war is pure spin to protect the guilty.

It is like saying a Chinese-shot bioweapon that gives smallpox variant to wipe out Americans is OK, with massive casualties, if it stops them invading China and saves Chinese soldiers from dying or being maimed. Or nuking Iran is OK if it stops them getting a nuke weapon and having the ability to threaten using it. Completely bizarre and criminal arguments.

A weapon that targets and is known to target civilians is well and clearly defined as a war crime action should it be used. That is why terrorism is given the official Bad Deed Label – it targets civilians.

Bill has already pointed this out, that dropping one bomb on a city, and then dropping another upon another city, is a cruel and evil deed against civilians and a crime. Simple.

Its effect upon the war effort is irrelevant to that point.

Now back to this interesting debate about whether it did cause the end of the war. Or whether its cessation was imminent anyway – logic says the latter, as have the data Jacob has supplied so far.

So, if the bombs didn’t need to dropped, the real question is WHY were they dropped? Revenge? Punishment? Human experiment? Message of power to Stalin? What effect were they meant to have, and upon whom? And why no criminal proceedings for dropping them – one, then the next, after seeing the damage...

Or once again, must we remember: to the victors the spoils, and immunity?

Perhaps we should be wary of those who seek to justify dropping bombs upon cities to hasten an imminent victory, for no doubt – with such a low bar – they will be supporting the next use of nukes against those without them.

Cheers

Yes, you should give up on me

Jacob A. Stam: "Do you see now, ER, why I've given up on you?"

Oh, yes. It's because of this from 11 August, days after the bombs had dropped:

"The army's general staff drafted its own response for the Supreme War Council to send to the Americans, asserting Japan's determination to contine the war."

And this from July 28 1945 from Prime Minister Suzuki regarding the Joint Declaration:

"As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu). We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war".

And this from Sir Max ...

"Most privately recognised that Japan was beaten. Yet they still ducked and weaved, to escape overt complicity in an outcome which their peers and subordinates would deem betrayal.''

and countless other demonstrations of the government's unwillingness to surrender.

And this...

"The Battle of Okinawa took just 82 days from late March through June 1945,  during which time theJapanese lost over 90,000 troops, and the Allies (mostly United States) suffered nearly 50,000 casualties, with over 12,000 killed in action."

And even your own sources saying that the war would go on at such a rate even until 31 December 1945, and at least 1 November 1945, multiplied by whatever co-efficient allowing for an invasion of the Japanese heartland.

The corpses piling up by the tens, even hundreds of thousands each month all over the Asia Pacific region, Japanese, Chinese, Burmese, Indian, Indochinese, Australian, American, Filipino, Malay, Indonesian.

Even before the Soviets entered the war, hoping to invade the northern islands of Japan.

You offer no rebuttal to any of that, except to rehash stories first dreamt up in Pravda and the like to slander the western allies.

Yes, you should give up on me.

Seems just too hard for the boy

"I could go on. But it's just incredible almost beyond belief that anyone could read into such a record of developments the idea that the war was about to end without the Emperor's intervention or that that wasn't promted by the bombs."

Actually, Eliot Ramsey, you do go on. Now please identify where I've made any such assertions.

You've likely forgotten, as seems habitual with you, that the issue I've been addressing here has been the necessity or otherwise of dropping the atomic bombs on massive civilian targets. You should really make more of an effort to remain focussed.

By the way, I've mentioned to you a number of times that the mortality rate for the conflict was a measure which wasn't established until long after the end of hostilities. Yet you continue to cite that data as if it was a valid contemporary factor in the decision by the Allies to use the atomic bombs (on massive civilian targets, by the way). One rule for Eliot Ramsey, another for everyone else...

Do you see now, ER, why I've given up on you?

A stalemate perhaps would have been better

Jacob, the part I have problems with in your assertions about dropping the bombs is the "what if".

While the Japanese may have made some steps towards preliminary discussions with the USSR, they had made no such steps towards the nations they were in combat with. The USA had broken their codes and probably knew about the feelers, but again ... no steps towards them.

Whatever the dispute about the dropping of the nuclear bombs, there can be no doubt that it brought a very sudden end to Japanese procrastination. If they had not dropped them is there any proof that the Japanese would have given up the game in so short a time frame?

If they were not dropped Allied troops would have had to continue with the futile clearing of Japanese forces from backwaters and the bombings of Japanese cities would have continued.

But suppose the Allies just stopped all aggressive action. Do you think the Japanese would have viewed it as a chance to surrender or an opportunity to rebuild and strengthen? I don’t know the answer either, but I do know what the evidence suggests.

I can understand that some of the senior Allied commanders would have expressed a reluctance to use the A-bomb. But if you asked the same question of the marines who had to clear Iwo Jima and Okinawa or the Australians clearing various islands I don’t think they would have expressed the same aversion to its use.

But I guess that is a key difference between those who organise or ponder and those who actually have to dodge the bullets.

Terms more acceptable to the Japanese national polity

Jacob A. Stam: "The deadlock (as you likely do know, but do not care) was over whether to accept unconditional surrender, or pursue surrender on terms more acceptable to the Japanese national polity."

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the "Terms more acceptable to the Japanese national polity" actually included hanging on to Japanese territorial conquests in China and Korea, amongst equally audacious fantasies.

As Sir Max Hastings has pointed out:

"If Tokyo wanted to end the war, the only credible means of doing so was by an approach to Washington, through some neutral agency less hopelessly compromised than the Soviet Union."

""We know why this did not happen: because the Japanese expected to gain more favourable terms from the Russians; and because the war party in Tokyo would have vetoed direct negotiations with the US." (p 502)

And of course, the Russians refused on at least two occasions even to meet with the Japanese, so absurd and fantastic had become their demands.

But still, you cling to the revisionist fantasy that peace was in the offing.

Jacob A. Stam: "Eliot Ramsey, your construction that "the Emperor sacked his government" is one to which clearly you are now emotionally committed. And all because of a throwaway remark made by you either in ignorance or to willfully mislead."

Just getting back to the Emperor's role in forcing the surrender, I'd like to refer you to your own source material from the US Bombing Survey's estimates of when the war would have ended had it not been for the bombs quoted earlier, namely:

"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 certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945,"

So, the war would have even by this optimistic estimate continued for at least another three to five months?

 Was that at the previously estimated rate of 250,000 additional deaths would have resulted for each month the war continued? Or have you some downwardly revised estimate you'd like to point us to?

Now, I'd like to also address this quote you provided:

"By using the urgency brought about through fear of further atomic bombing attacks on strategic and populous targets, the Prime Minister found it possible to bring the Emperor directly into the discussions of the Potsdam terms. Hirohito, acting as arbiter, resolved the conflict in favor of unconditional surrender."

That makes it sound nice and easy, almost cosy, doesn't it? The "Prime Minister found it possible to bring the Emperor directly into the discussions"?

As long as you leave out the web of intrigues and countermeasures being simultaneously employed by the "war party" to scuttle peace moves. Here's how it actually happened:

"The evening of the ninth, the 'Big Six' members of the Supreme War Council found themselves called to an 'imperial conference' in the palace. There they were told Hirohito would announce a 'sacred decision'. the summons reflected fevered efforts by the peace party, in conversations that afternoon between Prince Konoe, Mamoru Shigemitsu and the lord privy seal, Marquis Kido. At first, Kido was aghast at the notion of involving the throne in a matter of such delicacy. 'You are advocating a direct decision from the emperor,' he told the politicians. 'Have you ever thought what embarrassment such a course mighty cause His Majesty?'. The peacemakers, however, knew that only the emperor's personal support might make it possible to overcome military resistance to surrender.'... p549

The service chiefs too were then directed to attend the 'imperial conference'...

"The service chiefs agreed to attend, and to hear the 'sacred decision', knowing full well what this would be. Most privately recognised that Japan was beaten. yet they still ducked and weaved, to escape overt complicity in an outcome which their peers and subordinates would deem betrayal.' '... p549

This went on till the early hours of the tenth of August. Finally, acceptance of the terms of the Allied Declaration at Potsdam was announced. But still the intrigues and countermeasures went on.

This from 11 August, as the officers' coup attempt gathered pace...

"Feraful of their own junior officer, they satisfied their 'honour' by submitting a note to the emperor asserting that acceptance of the Byrnes note amounted to acceding to 'slave status' for Japan. Hirohito sharply rebuked them, asserting that his own mind was made up....

"The army's general staff drafted its own response for the Supreme War Council to send to the Americans, asserting Japan's determination to contine the war." (p 553)

I could go on. But it's just incredible almost beyond belief that anyone could read into such a record of developments the idea that the war was about to end without the Emperor's intervention, or that that wasn't promted by the bombs!

Also, as Sir Max points out:

"Post war critics of US conduct in the weeks before Hiroshima seem to demand from America's leaders moral and political generosity so far in advance of that displayed by their Japanese counterparts as to be fantastic." (p 503)

Scott Dunmore: "I'm guessing here but I think that the Japanese Emperor, raised in an extremely cloistered world, (much like the British royal family), might not have been inculcated with the Bushido culture still prevalent among the real ruling class of the time. "

You are doubtless absolutely correct. And he probably thought 'Why should i go down the gurgler with those incompetents', too.

But on another note, the Emperor's intervention made it impossible ultimately you would think that there could emerge any 'stab in the back' theory that would 'explain' the Japanese defeat in terms similar to those employed by post-World War One German revisionist accounts to their defeat.

Though, revisionist accounts of Hiroshima serve something of a similar role amongst Japanese reactionaries.

Fear of detail

Eliot Ramsey: "And was that before or after the bombs were dropped, Jacob? And had the Government accepted the surrender yet?"

Oh sure, Eliot, the broad brush strokes of history and hindsight support your mantra that "the bombs stopped the war".

Your approach to detail, however, has been less than satisfactory. Your "sacking" nonsense aside, earlier you asked:

"What deadlock, Jabob [sic]? Do you mean cabinet's deadlock about accepting or not accepting surrender?"

As I've come to expect from you, this is another sloppy misrepresentation of the situation as it actually obtained. The deadlock (as you likely do know, but do not care) was over whether to accept unconditional surrender, or pursue surrender on terms more acceptable to the Japanese national polity. (Don't ask for a reference, I provided one days ago which you've either failed to read or chosen to ignore.)

You will, of course, mount an ingenious argument to the effect that what you said is functionally identical to what actually obtained. And for good measure repeat your mantra that "the bombs stopped the war". Anything to obscure the detail you've avoided like the plague.

The question we've attempted to explore — remember? the necessity of otherwise of the atomic bombings of massive civilian targets to stop the war — is obviously a hypothetical one, and can never be proved one way or another. You've made it clear that you're emotionally disinclined to even approach the question in a spirit of free enquiry or with any measure of good will.

Cheers.

Insidious revisionist tendencies

Eliot Ramsey, your construction that "the Emperor sacked his government" is one to which clearly you are now emotionally committed. And all because of a throwaway remark made by you either in ignorance or to willfully mislead.

Clearly you will now defend it to your last breath on this blog, 'though I'd love to see you canvass it at a meeting of some historical society.

As I write, Googling the words "emperor hirohito sacked his government" yields this very thread as the first result. Congratulations!

By the way, may we please have yet another burst from you on the insidious "revisionist tendencies" which, you are wont to say, infest debate on this topic? That would close the matter with the most delicious irony.

Hypotheticality

Eliot Ramsay: "That's hypothetical."

I guess you must be having a bit of a joke, right? Made me smile, anyway. After all, your own estimation that the war might have continued for months or even years is just as hypothetical. So is your Agricultural experts were projecting over 7 million deaths by starvation alone if Japan stayed at war through just 1946. The war ended in August, 1945. Any speculation as to what may or may not have happened had it not ended when it did is just that — speculation. In this case, the speculation of nameless "Agricultural experts".

I followed your link, and found an essay by some guy called Gerald W. Thomas. I don't know whether he's a jockey or a ballerina. He provides no references for most of what he writes. I respect your authority on factual matters just as much as I do his, so what is the point of your providing him as a reference?

Nothing some Pravda columnist wrote has anything to do with anything I have said here. Someone living in a world ruled by demonstrated psychopaths with their fingers on the delete button didn't need to be part of a peace movement to be anxious. All it took was an ounce of intelligence. There was a time when people didn't have to live their lives every day with hoping for the best constantly in the back of their minds. That time was destroyed along with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But never mind all of that. We can throw details at each, hypothesise and challenge each other's interpretation of facts until the cows come home, and get nowhere. The things I want to know are these: (a) is destroying a city full of civilians a war crime, or not? And (b) are war crimes OK, or not?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 6 days ago