Untold History of the United States

[pErvinalia]

I mean, I know how entertaining and enlightening the zilla/ces backslapping is, but maybe time for some real analysis. So, take a breath, put down your flag, stop praying at the alter of the great united states, just for a moment, and wipe the cobwebs of american mythology from your puny mind.

The lies of Hiroshima are the lies of today
...

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard". Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was "fearful" that the US air force would have Japan so "bombed out" that the new weapon would not be able "to show its strength". He later admitted that "no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb". His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip". General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: "There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis." The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the "overwhelming success" of "the experiment".

...

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-lies ... s-of-today

It's sad that someone with a great track record like Pilger sometimes descends to publishing outright nonsense such as this. There were no - repeat no - Japanese "peace overtures" in 1943, or 1944, or 1945 for that matter. One should try and pass off occasional tentative contacts made by individuals as reflecting of official Japanese policy or thinking. They weren't, and such contacts were made by people who were safely removed from Japan itself, and thus did not face the prospect of being hunted down and killed for breaking ranks.

Hang on. Weren't a couple of those "overtures" sent by ambassadors inside Japan (as it says for at least the German case above)? I guess it's a valid point to make that they might not have been "official", but it would seem to show there was strong resistance to Japan's continuation in the war by senior Japanese officials. I wonder if some coup could have been organised/supported?

The other point, that no one addresses, is the quotes by senior US military and public officials suggesting the bomb was more about Russia than Japan. Although, I think someone earlier in the thread did concede that it could have been about both.

edit: I see Jim just addressed this.

[pErvinalia]

Hmmmm....to summarise the pro-bombing argument - "if we don't kill loads of civilians now, even more will die later. Maybe"

I don't find this entirely compelling.

The thing is, it might be true.

But it does have a bit of a "we're doing you a favour by dropping atomic bombs on you" ring to it...

How?

Some of the stuff CES wrote. It's written like the US gave a shit about the number of Jap casualties. They cared about US (and other ally) casualties, not Japanese casualties.

[pErvinalia]

Sorry Hate-boy...

Oh nooooo, uhhh "hate boy" ooh my feelings they hurt! Are you 5? Sorry you lost, you lost big time. You'll get over believing your myths some day...well...probably not, but one can only hope. you know you lost, i can tell by your tone, and i know having your myths challenged turns you into a spiteful little defensive boy, and thats fine, to be expected. I get the same reaction when challenging peoples religious beliefs.

You're the one with the beliefs bordering on the religious: No substance to them.

Tell me, why is it that when I Google "japan surrender offer 1943", or the same for 1944, I find nothing at all to back up Pilger's claim? Is Google in cahoots with the US government perchance? Am I not searching properly? Please provide some credible links or other resources that would substantiate Pilger's remarkable claim. And yes, it is remarkable, because like all the other outlandish claims made here, would turn accepted history on its head if there were actual substance to it.

The question is - are these documents, that are alluded to, in the national archives? Surely there is a way for us to find this stuff out?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Rev, have you actually seen those documents, you don't give a source.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some of the stuff CES wrote. It's written like the US gave a shit about the number of Jap casualties. They cared about US (and other ally) casualties, not Japanese casualties.

Okay then.

[pErvinalia]

Rev, have you actually seen those documents, you don't give a source.

Well, that's what I am asking. A number of people/sources have alluded to them. Either those sources are outright lying, or the documents exist. If they exist, those here that dismiss them with opinion are perhaps being as irrational as someone who swallows them unquestionably. If those documents exist, then is there a counter analysis to what Pilger and Stone's historian have made?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Google "FRUS".

I'm on the road.

[klr]

Hmmmm....to summarise the pro-bombing argument - "if we don't kill loads of civilians now, even more will die later. Maybe"

I don't find this entirely compelling.

The thing is, it might be true.

But it does have a bit of a "we're doing you a favour by dropping atomic bombs on you" ring to it...

How?

Some of the stuff CES wrote. It's written like the US gave a shit about the number of Jap casualties. They cared about US (and other ally) casualties, not Japanese casualties.

This is true. The overwhelming (but not exclusive) concern amongst US planners and leaders was about US casualties, including the many thousands of US and other allied PoWs who would almost certainly have been executed had Japan been invaded.

But it just so happens that what was best was for US servicemen turned out (IMHO) to be the "best worst" option as well for the Japanese, and for all other civilians in Japanese-occupied Asia.

As I mentioned a few pages ago, the Japanese leadership and hardcore officers cared for absolutely no-one except themselves and their national and service "honour".

Rev, have you actually seen those documents, you don't give a source.

Well, that's what I am asking. A number of people/sources have alluded to them. Either those sources are outright lying, or the documents exist. If they exist, those here that dismiss them with opinion are perhaps being as irrational as someone who swallows them unquestionably. If those documents exist, then is there a counter analysis to what Pilger and Stone's historian have made?

There's no counter analysis of note because the claims are not taken seriously amongst proper historians. I think I'm basically repeating something I said about 24 hours ago regarding other claims made in the IHR article.

I'm off for a walk, even at this late hour of the night ...

[pErvinalia]

Rev, have you actually seen those documents, you don't give a source.

Well, that's what I am asking. A number of people/sources have alluded to them. Either those sources are outright lying, or the documents exist. If they exist, those here that dismiss them with opinion are perhaps being as irrational as someone who swallows them unquestionably. If those documents exist, then is there a counter analysis to what Pilger and Stone's historian have made?

There's no counter analysis of note because the claims are not taken seriously amongst proper historians.

Hmm, that sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. On the face of what Pilger and the others have said, those documents have important ramifications for history. If they exist, either Pilger et al are totally quote mining them, or there must be a counter analysis to them.

[pErvinalia]

Google "FRUS".

I'm on the road.

Thanks for that. But I don't know when this information was supposedly released, so I can't do a search for it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why waste time on them if they're bogus?

[pErvinalia]

Why waste time on them if they're bogus?

So you maintain that these quoted documents don't exist?

[sandinista]

Rev, have you actually seen those documents, you don't give a source.

Well, that's what I am asking. A number of people/sources have alluded to them. Either those sources are outright lying, or the documents exist. If they exist, those here that dismiss them with opinion are perhaps being as irrational as someone who swallows them unquestionably. If those documents exist, then is there a counter analysis to what Pilger and Stone's historian have made?

There's no counter analysis of note because the claims are not taken seriously amongst proper historians.

Hmm, that sounds like a bit of a cop out to me. On the face of what Pilger and the others have said, those documents have important ramifications for history. If they exist, either Pilger et al are totally quote mining them, or there must be a counter analysis to them.

A bit of a cop out? I love the term "proper historians"...meaning=historians I agree with. Like somehow Peter Kuznick is not a "proper" historian. FFS.

Peter Kuznick
Associate Professor
Department of History

The author of Beyond the Laboratory: Scientists as Political Activists in 1930s America and coeditor of Rethinking Cold War Culture, Professor Kuznick is currently writing a book about scientists’ opposition to the Vietnam War. As director of American University’s award winning Nuclear Studies Institute, he takes students on an annual study abroad trip to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He spearheaded the Committee for a National Discussion of Nuclear History and Current Policy in response to the Smithsonian’s Enola Gay exhibit and co-founded the Nuclear Education Project. He writes often and lectures frequently about nuclear issues in general and the atomic bombings in particular. He has recently completed a historically based Hollywood screenplay and teaches the path-breaking course Oliver Stone’s America. He regularly provides commentary to the media on a broad range of subject and was selected Organization of American Historians Distinguished Lecturer, 2004-2007.
Degrees
PhD, Rutgers University
MA, Rutgers University
BA, Rutgers University

no...not "proper" at all. Ridiculous.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, the use of "proper historian" is a little worrying. It's kind of circular in that in this context - "'proper historians' agree with my position therefore they are proper". But as people have probably been able to work out from my posts so far, I don't really believe the "truth" of any historian, particularly the more derivative their work is by necessity due to the passing of time. I'm an annoying adherent of the scientific method as the only true path to knowledge. Anything short of the scientific method leaves me decidedly under-whelmed.

[JimC]

Hmmmm....to summarise the pro-bombing argument - "if we don't kill loads of civilians now, even more will die later. Maybe"

I don't find this entirely compelling.

The thing is, it might be true.

But it does have a bit of a "we're doing you a favour by dropping atomic bombs on you" ring to it...

How?

Some of the stuff CES wrote. It's written like the US gave a shit about the number of Jap casualties. They cared about US (and other ally) casualties, not Japanese casualties.

In the context of a bitterly fought war, against an opponent whose treatment of POWs and civilians in occupied territories was appalling, not caring too much about enemy casualties is not exactly surprising.

But the real point is that, even though it may not have been a motive, in the balance of probabilities, the Japanese casualties from the bombs were smaller than both their civilian and armed forces casualties would have been in the virtually inevitable invasion.