August 12th, 2015.
“There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders.”
US Air-force General Curtis Le May*
The Nuclear Attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Firebombing of Tokyo.
The attacks on Tokyo in March and then Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 remain the three most violent military operations conducted in modern human history.
It says a lot about modern day Western culture, along with the increasing travesty that is Wikipedia that although six individual songs from the most recent Justin Bieber album have their own Wikipedia page the Nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are consigned to a combined entry.
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Greater weight is given in Western culture to the Bieber “Mother’s Day” single of 2012 than the massacre of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians seventy years ago it seems.
For a more serious comparison, I chose the sinking of the H.M.S Lusitania in 1915, an earlier and smaller crime committed by the other side.
There is an individual listing for the HMS Lusitania, for the sinking of the ship and also for the 1918 propaganda film about the sinking of the ship.
This degree of detail is completely appropriate, the sinking of the Lusitania remains a momentous event, although it did not achieve the apparent goal of drawing the US into World War I. The deeply suspicious Zimmerman letter seems to have played that role. But the inconsistency is clear.
The Nuclear attacks were themselves not the most large scale massacres conducted by the United States during the Second World War.
The action termed “Operation Meetinghouse” conducted against Tokyo in March 1945 saw 100,000 people killed in a single air raid. Almost all of them civilians. Wikipedia does an even better job of hiding this atrocity grouping it anonymously under
Bombing of Tokyo – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The mass murder operation against Tokyo is simply a sub heading.
The individual most closely associated with the US atrocities of the Japan air campaign is a fellow named Curtis Le May. The obvious fact that Le May was a psychopath and a bloodthirsty maniac have been well made many times.
It seems too easy to blame these crimes on any one man or even a single nation.
Of the three massacres the Nagasaki operation really stands out.
Why Nagasaki? | Restricted Data
Whereas with the Tokyo and even the Hiroshima operations some type of justification could be argued. Tokyo was the Japanese capital and the attack was five months before the end of the war.
In Hiroshima the device targeted a major military base and is believed to have instantly killed 15,000 Japanese soldiers.
The Nagasaki attack by contrast may have killed as few as 150 soldiers. Nagasaki appears to have been a live fire weapons test along with an act of satanic malevolence against the sole major Christian city of Japan. The US military deliberately refrained from bombing Nagasaki so that they could gauge the full impact of the nuclear device they were testing on the city and the occupants.
World War II is a very confusing event even 70 years after it finished.
One confusing thing is that the Germans, who allegedly transported people to camps, murdered them with death squads, stripped them of their possessions and supposedly subjected them to mass gassing, are supposed to be the worst people ever.
But the Americans murdered civilians by the hundreds of thousands and have spent great parts of the post war period posturing as if they were a force of human improvement and the rule of law.
Post World War II US military operations in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq may have led to as many as 20 million excess deaths overall.
Study: U.S. regime has killed 20-30 million people since World War Two — Puppet Masters — Sott.net
How can it possibly be lawful to launch an indiscriminate air attack on a civilian area and kill hundreds of thousands but to march people off to death camps and kill them there is the worst thing ever?
Clearly both actions are criminal and unjustifiable under any and all circumstances but whereas the German murderers were either killed or placed on trial the likes of Curtis Le May benefited greatly from their atrocities and moved on to become a passionate advocate of a first strike Nuclear attack against the Soviet Union.
I was discussing the atrocities and their lack of coverage with a family member born in the 1940s and after I complained that these events did not even get their own Wikipedia page, I was told that as far as this individual was concerned the attacks had not been covered up, they had been celebrated.
All I could say to that was “What type of civilisation celebrates the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians as a victory?”
To which might be answered, “A considerably more honest civilisation than the modern day West.” who simply consign “unhappy stories” to the apparently infinite “Things We Don’t Like to Talk About” list.
Lessons Learned: The Firebombing of Tokyo
- The Le May quote is from Curtis LeMay – Wikiquote which cites”Sherry, Michael (September 10, 1989). The Rise of American Air Power: The Creation of Armageddon, p. 287 (from “LeMay’s interview with Sherry,” interview “after the war,” p. 408 n. 108). Yale University Press. ISBN-13: 978-0300044140.”
4 thoughts on “The Nuclear Attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Firebombing of Tokyo.”
Thank you James.
I have often wondered why the Japanese have made, in context, very little out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – and of course the Tokyo bombings. Yes, there are memorials and annual events but compared to others in the UK especially, it all seems a little low key. That the Japanese were not the victors might be one answer. But the Japanese do not see themselves as victims. This is a cultural trait, a national characteristic that I feel is less developed in much of the “west”.
To choose not to be a victim.
Thanks Covenant Woman. You make a very good point there and I think you have identified the best explanations for the phenomena you describe. Many thanks for that insightful comment.
Christopher – rare, rare msm climate-contrary – Booker, claims this week that ‘the human cost… was worth paying…’, that ‘this appalling tragedy might have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American and British servicemen who could well have died in the invasion of Japan which would otherwise have been necessary to end the war.’
‘Only more slowly’ he writes, ‘did it come to light how the atom bombs had also saved the lives of anything up to a million prisoners in camps across south-east Asia…’.
I’m not sure how he calculates this but all stands or falls on the predicted intentions of a ‘fanatical Japanese commander’ and the necessity and no alternatives to end the war.
‘Tokyo’ I hadn’t realised, covered up or just not that presented, (as usual CoE’s role). Can we be sure of the certainty Japan desperately and genuinely sought peace? Two Admirals at the time, subsequently claimed they did, one of them also saying, intelligence agencies adopted ‘an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages’.
Dresden, February 13/14, 1945, with up to half a million killed another, ‘most violent military operations conducted in modern human history’. Ample demonstration of the ‘allies’ fiber for brutal numb hatred or more likely the reported love of bloodshed, particularly by those making the decision (the literal kick of seeing the footage and reading reports). As you bring out, a good ol’celebration, encouraged by the controllers. All rounded off with PR to avoid accountability. Kubrick’s ‘I will not go down in history as the greatest mass murderer…’ line – the conflict of interests.
Of course trading such unnecessary unimaginable catastrophes is almost unfathomable. We could speculate 9/11, the domino, is the worst of all.
The one that keeps on appalling me, having previously remained somewhat obscured, were the reprisals. Lasha Darkmoon’s edited abridgement of Thomas Goodrich and public email exchange with a Russian correspondent are three posts that just about breakthrough my sadly ever-desensitised soul. I know this one gets a firm UK “so what”, no evaluation or consideration because we still hate ‘those’ Germans. Oh yeah… mucho mind-control not to look. Because if…
‘Look, when you realize how fake it all is…’ an early-on in my wake-up Alex J rant on Justin B is all I ever hear at the mention of his name. Inadvertently or otherwise this lad is a prophetic sign, not one he wants, ‘hiding this atrocity’ like the search engines and supposedly trusted ‘free encyclopedia’. Hiding all that life is in its richness and best, pumping out contrived hyper-counterfeit with not a word or whimper otherwise.
Shine on James
Many thanks for that Mark. I should have addressed all the excuses for these operations. This piece seems to shed some light on what happened.
“American intelligence data, revealed in the 1980s, shows that a large-scale US invasion (planned for no sooner than November 1, 1945) would have been unnecessary. Japan was working on peace negotiations with the Allies through its Moscow ambassador in July of 1945. Truman knew of these developments, the US having broken the Japanese code years earlier, and all of Japan’s military and diplomatic messages were being intercepted. On July 13, 1945, Foreign Minister Togo said: “Unconditional surrender (giving up all sovereignty) is the only obstacle to peace.” Truman knew this, and the war could have ended by simply conceding a post-war figurehead position for the emperor a leader regarded as a deity in Japan. That concession was refused by the US, the Japanese continued negotiating for peace, and the bombs were dropped. And after the war, the emperor remained in place. So what were the real reasons for 1) the refusal to accept Japan’s offer of surrender and 2) the decision to proceed with the bombings?
“Shortly after WWII, military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote: “The Japanese, in a military sense, were in a hopeless strategic situation by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26, 1945.” Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There: “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.” And General Dwight Eisenhower agreed.”
A similar view is given here.
It seems that the Japanese were willing to surrender prior to the Nuclear attacks, but not unconditionally.It also appears that the Soviet declaration of War on japan of August 8th, 1945 caused the Japanese leadership to realise that all hope was lost and this is what led to the unconditional surrender. The Japanese were still discussing their response to Hiroshima when Nagasaki was attacked. The Hiroshima device was a uranium based device whereas the Nagasaki bomb was plutonium based. In Nagasaki the US killed an estimated 75,000 people in Nagasaki in what was a live fire weapons test. Thanks for a great comment.