After 60 Years, U.S. Reporter's Censored Stories About WW2 A-Bomb Effect Discovered

Remove all ads!

What shall I say, American journalism at its best: He observes and reports, and tries to get to see the things he writes about firsthand, and to describe them as they are.

I find the story pretty remarkable, and somewhat chilling too.

 

The Americans only dropped the bomb to scare the Russians, who had at the time yet to develop it. It is my understanding that the Japs agreed to surrender as well.

 

Cool story. I will have to keep my eyes open as I would consider reading the book. The toughest thing about reading a book like that would be getting the proper mindset of a hot-war weary world morphing into a cold-war.

 

Yeah, I can see MacArthur doing that sorta thing. Given the sort of man he was, it could very well have been quashed without anyone higher up even knowing about it. That's not to say his superiors wouldn't have quashed it as well, but...

MacArthur was not the living embodiment of the American government.

 

MacArthur was exactly what he was made to be. The military doesn't create policy, they are the muscular arm that enforces the policy that the gov't implements. Blaming MacArthur for anything that he did that wasn't expressly prohibited by the US Gov't is like trying say that a person isn't responsible if they commit an assault, that it was their hands that committed the crime.

Depending on your perspective MacArthur was either a mega-maniacal egomaniac, or a military genius of epic proportion.

Personally, I think he is a little of both.

I am a little confused as to why this is in the AoLS, as it is presented as an account of the horrors of a nuclear attack, which would be AoDA material, but as it was posted to the AoLS, the implication seems to be that the "chilling" part isn't the terrible suffering those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the censorship of the story.

Hmm, this seems a bit revisionist from what I studied in history, and a bit conspiratorial. The use of the word "bomb", not "bombs", seems to make the claim that Japan was ready to surrender after the first bomb, and that the second one was unnecessary. I am not sure if that was truly the intent, or if the intent of the statement was that Japan was ready to surrender before Hiroshima was bombed, and that there was no need even use the original "nuclear option"? I would be interested in reading a reputable report that backs this theory. I have read many accounts by scientists and reporters making claims about things that they were never in a position to truly know to be factually true, such as that Japan was ready to sign a peace treaty before Hiroshima, but refused unconditional surrender. Given the manner in which Japan attacked the US (without formal declaration prior to the start of the attack on Pearl) and the loses we had taken through the islands (Iwa Jima, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, etc...), politically there was no way the people of the US would have stood for anything short of complete surrender, and from what I read, the Japanese refused to surrender until after Nagasaki was bombed.

As far as the story, and the implications to those who suffer from the results of the use of nuclear weapons, I sincerely hope that humanity never puts itself through this type of horror again, but I think the clock ever moves closer to midnight, especially with third world and terrorist states acquiring nuclear technology (who gave all that nuclear tech to N. Korea anyway? ).

 

Err, iirc MacArthur crossed that line between politician and soldier when he insisted in a nuclear strike on China - he got the boot for that.

MacArthur seemingly didn't know the difference between bringing upon a people holocaust and a 'limited war'.

 

I think disobeying orders and provoking Chinese entry into the Korean War was also an "oops" moment.

Not to mention keeping his planes grounded in the Phillipines after learning of the strike on Pearl Harbor.

 

Nice people.

[ June 23, 2005, 15:40: Message edited by: Cesard the Fir Bolg ]

 

Once again, it amazes me that people think war should be nice. The purpose of war is to win and to make sure that nobody else wants to go to war with you. I think I learned that in a Hammer's Slammers novel.

 

No MageTeclis, the Japanese government had no intention of surrendering. Even after the second bomb was dropped it took the Emperor himself to force the military to stop the fighting. Hell, they were training women and children to fight allied soldiers with bamboo spears!

 

Well if I was Japanese I would be fighting after the atomic bombs dropped. This is surely one of the vilest war crimes ever committed.

I wonder if Great Snook would think that it was acceptible of Russia did this to the US? Would you reacton still be "War is not supposed to be nice". Its about being the better person, not doing anything to win.

 

Before long in any discussion with an apologist one will hear this simple rejoinder: "Well, yes, people die in war."

Probably that's meant to shut off all concern for the innocent life expended in war’s barbaric cruelty. The mere fact that "people die in war" is supposed to make us understand that we have been utterly unrealistic and juvenile in denouncing or even mentioning the deaths in war. Indeed, only a childish mind would have brought it up in the first place. We all know that people die in war.

Yes, and Nick Berg was one of them. So too were the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 – an event, by the way, considered by both the terrorist perpetrators of that attack, as well as most Americans to have been an "act of war."

But to shrug off the 3,000 Americans whose lives were stolen on 9/11 with the crude adage, "people die in war," does seem a bit insensitive, does it not?

Not so with a few tens or hundrets of thousand to millions of 'krauts', 'japs', 'gooks', 'islamiacs' or whoever else. Then war suddenly becomes a blameless carnage. Aimed or stray bullets, laser guided bombs, Agent Orange, firestorms, nukes -- never mind -- people die in war.

Well, they are killed. I guess it's worth recalling that.

 

Ragusa -- I think it IS more of a numbers thing. Humanity doesn't seem to be that appalled if people die in war one at a time, even though that can add up to hundreds of thousands. Outrage seems to ensue, however, when lives are wiped out in one fell swoop (i.e. Hiroshima, 911, etc.) -- then it suddenly becomes "horrific", "unconscionable", etc. etc. None of it is acceptable, but neither do I believe that we need to be reminded of it continuously.

 

Darkwolf, please dont drag humanity as a whole into this. Responsibilty lies with the US, with no other nation.
So far no one else has nuked cities. More apropriate would be to hope that the US never sinks to such depths again.
To ensure that would require the US rising to its potential heights and condemn some actions of the past. Which it doesnt.

As for US information on the Japanese will to fight to the last child: In a discussion on an other board documents were mentioned, recently 'discovered', telling of the Tenno's attempts to end this war. He sent out emissaries to neutral Sweden, asking them to mediate negotiations with the US. Unfortunately, the US wanted none of this. And unfortunately I couldnt find anything on the net on this matter. I know I know - heresay... We will see.

A shame we have no Japanese members here. I would really like to hear what they have to say. Given that they would even wish to speak out.

 

I would interested to hear from them too. Particullary about the massacre of Nanking. Them complaining about war crimes committed against them is pure hypocracy when they themselves refuse to admit their own crimes. The same goes for the vast majority of nations in this world.

 

Yes, the US was the only nation to employ nuclear weapons, but it was not the only one to engage in aerial bombardment. Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki really categorically worse than Tokyo, Dresden, Conventry, London, Hamburg, etc etc etc? Scores of cities were reduced to rubble, and many using sophisticated efforts to create firestorms, and working civilians became as valid targets as weapons manufacturers.

Many more people died in successive firebombings of Tokyo than did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined; if your criteria is "the loss of innocent lives", shouldn't Tokyo be the greater crime? Of course, you could argue that Hiroshima was a stepping stone towards the potential horrors of full scale nuclear war, and thus was worse, but then again, the history of aerial warfare and bombardment also led us up to this point.

And I agree; people don't talk so much about the decimation of North Korea (AF General Curtis LeMay was itching to use nukes at the time). But it's also hard to say whether it would have been better to allow for a protracted civil war where North Korea, with the help of China, eventually united Korea under Kim Il-sung...

 

Absolutely. The Japanese war effort during WWII can be described as anything but humane. Just ask any of the American survivors of the Bataan Death March.

 

I dont hear Japanese complaining - here or elsewhere. Never have. At least not on online discussion forums.

And in truth this isnt about what was done to the Japanese (whose military actions will of course be utilized to put US crimes into perspective) - but what the US did. Not the victim but the perpetrator is in the spotlight.

Bion, you asked me that a little while ago and I offered my perspective. I should have know better then to get involved here. Again. Hearing people say anything but a strong NO to Hiroshima doesnt improve my mood much.

One thing though: Atomic weaponry means ultimate death. There is not chance for survival when they are brought to bear on people. Or, if you are unlucky, it means suffering for generations.
The ones in charge cannot claim to be ignorant of this. And one can read their mindset in using these weapons.
Conventional bombardements on the other hand will leave people a chance to live. Neither me nor my parents would be around if that wasnt so. Lots of Germans would never have been born. Or we would be individuals with deformed minds and bodies, had the Allies dropped something different then your run of the mill bomb. What about you? I dont know at what time the German side of your family left for the US.

Anyway, if you cannot see what rubs people the wrong way about this...

[ June 27, 2005, 18:58: Message edited by: Dendri ]

 

Spelly,
you're absolutely right. Nevertheless people do have a weak memory on the crimes they committed compared to crimes committed on them. That is the same with probably any nation, and worse with the conservatives or nationalists there.

But that that doesn't undo the crimes. I wasn't talking about individual guilt, or collective guilt of nations.

I was merely expressing my anger and disgust over the cavalier attitude behind the line 'well, people die in war'.

911 was a crime, flattening Leningrad, Coventry and Warsaw were crimes, but torching Dresden, Hamburg, Pjonyang, Hanoi and Tokyo were 'collateral damage', you know - people die in war. It's the indifference and the selective outrage I am angry about.

 

Yeah I know we hit on this before. I wouldn't deny that nukes are terrible. I think that firebombing is also terrible. Allied war planners were more vindictive and inhumane to civilian populations than was necessary, even according to their own intelligence reports. And I also agree that it is good that full investigations be done on these sorts of things after the fact. However, I would personally draw a line at posthumously indicting Truman et al as a "war criminal" over Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not that you suggested this).

As for my immediate family: 1938. Some relatives who stayed (mother's cousins, etc) didn't make it through the war (but not due to bombs; I don't think anyone had the idea that they could cripple the German war machine by destroying the wine-making capability of small towns). I know bits, but not all of this story, but this probably is way off topic...

Interestingly, the US bomber command actively helped replan cities following WW2; the same people who studied how to best screw up enemy cities began to draw compass circles around US cities to see what kind of damage would be done. This affected federal funding for the interstate highways, and thus suburbs, beltway cities, and sprawl...