On this page:
Why America REALLY dropped the Atomic bomb(s)
Related: (click link)
Is the oil crash a secret US war on Russia?
Endless War = Endless Profits (How Congress Profits from War)
How Much Does the US Really Owe?
2.5 Million Homeless children living in the US
Goldman Sachs On The Myths & Realities Of Russia's Oil Sector
Financial Times Lex: Russia is a Creditor to the World - Default Risk Non-existent
China's medium term plans are to replace the US Dollar as Reserve Currency by forming a coalition with the BRICS
Surf the dark web by downloading TOR browser for free.
Don't want your information monitored online? Whatever you do, don't Google. Google Alternatives:
DuckDuckGo / StartPage
US Military Atrocities in Iraq and Syria Worse than Nazi Germany
Under Trump, U.S. Military Has Killed Over 1,000 Civilians in Iraq, Syria in March
Donald Trump KILLS Over 3,000 Iraqi Civilians in June, U.N. Reports
THANK YOU for stopping by Underground America Inc.
HOME SITE MAP ABOUT CREW ADVERTISE WEBMASTERS
Gar Alperovitz Atomic Diplomacy
It was well known among all Allied leaders that Japan would surrender as soon as the Soviet Union entered the Pacific theater. The Truman administration was therefore urging the Soviets to hurry up and join us against Japan.
As soon as the first atomic bomb was successfully detonated, the Truman show reversed this policy and took measures to delay Soviet entry into the Pacific.
Now the administration could justify using the bomb on Japan by saying it was necessary in order to effect "unconditional surrender." Remember that term.
Why would Truman and company want to do this? Two reasons:
To avoid a second Yalta, where regional hegemony would be divided with the Soviets. Truman wanted the Pacific to himself. No sharing with Uncle Joe.
To demonstrate this weapon (and our willingness to use it) to any potential rivals emerging from the rubble of WW2. This means the Soviets. In a word, intimidation.
It's often claimed that these bombings were necessary to bring about the unconditional surrender of Imperial Japan. It was known that Japan would surrender on condition of keeping its Emperor. Washington pretended that this was unacceptable, dropped the bombs, and then accepted surrender on exactly that condition. There was no unconditional surrender.
Alperovitz documents the great American generals of the war as saying that the bombs were unnecessary. He argues that Truman was acting under the influence of his Secretary of State (iirc). Practically everyone else was not so bullish on the idea.
Historical arguments aside, incinerating tens or hundreds of thousands of noncombatants at a stroke is morally repugnant. It is indefensible under any circumstances. How my fellow Americans manage to tell themselves otherwise is very disturbing.
Speak Truth to Power. Join the Fight -DONATE-
Why America REALLY dropped the Atomic bomb(s)
By Christopher R Rice
Why did America drop not one but two atomic bombs on civilian populations?
The story goes that dropping two atomic bombs on civilian cities saved lives. Because, had we not dropped those bombs, Japan was not going to surrender and consequently America would have had to invade, like D-Day and even more lives would've been lost, right? So, let us examine this with a clear head.
An invasion of a handful of tiny islands in the south pacific can not really be compared to the D-Day invasion. But since that's all that we have, lets go with it. At Normandy on D-Day there were "10,000 casualties and 4,414 dead Allies and 4,000 to 10,000 German casualties." In Hiroshima there was over 20,000 soldiers killed and 70,000 to 146,000 civilians slaughtered. And in Nagasaki 39,000 to 146,000 dead. Total: 129,000–246,000+ killed.
I dunno what kind'a new math you need to get these numbers to jive so that dropping two atomic bombs saved lives. The excuse is that dropping the A-Bomb saved 'American' lives. How many Japanese were killed is neither here nor there.
Even though Japans only allies, Germany and Italy had both been defeated. Suppose, what they told us is true. Japan would not surrender. Making an invasion unavoidable. If that was really the case then why would America drop its atomic bombs on cities? Why not bomb military installations? Military installations would have been a threat had an invasion really been necessary, right?
Had the Russians used nukes on civilians we'd never hear the end of it. Because American politicians are always ready to say something foul about someone else even if they have no proof and we have no way to verify their claims. Remember the 'Red Scare'? WMD anyone?
So why did America really drop the atomic bombs? According to historians the Americans had cracked the Japanese and Russian codes. Japan had begun negotiating a surrender with Russia and Washington found that unacceptable.
America had already lost the whole East bloc and China to Communism, Washington wasn't about to lose the whole South Pacific or even a small handful of islands.
Remember, Vietnam? Tiger cages? How many children has our Secretary of State John Kerry tortured? How many defenseless civilians did he slaughter in Vietnam? But that's okay, right?
Can I prove what I'm saying? Yep and yep. And that means that you've been played like a chump. They've lied to you your whole life. Everything they taught us has been a gawd damn lie. Remember when they told us twelve different excuses for invading Iraq? WMD, 9/11, on and on. All lies. A 10 billion dollar scam you're still paying for at the pumps. Why? Because you're a chump and everybody knows it.
"...the Japanese leaders were not greatly troubled by civilian causalities. As the Allies loomed, the Japanese people were instructed to sharpen bamboo sticks and prepare to meet the Marines at the beach.
Yet it was more than callousness. The bomb - horrific as it was - was not as special as Americans have always imagined. In early March, several hundred B-29 Super Fortress bombers dropped incendiary bombs on downtown Tokyo. Some argue that more died in the resulting firestorm than at Hiroshima. People were boiled in the canals. The photos of charred Tokyo and charred Hiroshima are indistinguishable.
...historians agree on one startling point. The public view that the atomic bomb was the decisive event that ended World War II is not supported by the facts."
Related article: Voters VS Elections