On Aug 6, 1:12 pm, "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
<scie...@zzz.com> wrote:

On Aug 6, 6:46 am, Liz Burbank <lizburb...@speakeasy.net> wrote:> the digesthttp://www.burbankdigest.com/sub/unsub:

lizburb...@speakeasy.nethttp://www.burbankdigest.com/node/305

HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI 65 YEARS AGO  DEMONSTRATED  THE INHERENT NATURE
OF U.S. IMPERIALISM'S  GLOBAL DOMINATION AGENDA The Soviet Union,
then a revolutionary socialist beacon was the obstacle the U.S.
would stop at nothing to defeat, including WW2...and onward

...War Department study 'Use of Atomic Bomb on Japan' written in
1946 .declassified in the Seventies, found that "the Japanese leaders
had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext
to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and
must capitulate to the Allies."

Unfortunately for Japan's leaders, they kept their alleged desire to
surrender hidden from the rest of the world.

... the belief that it was totally unnecessary to use the atomic bomb on
Japan's cities was shared by Eisenhower, who records telling Stimson
that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bombs was
completely unnecessary"

Ike was completely alone in this belief.  Saying he "shared" the
belief is poor grammar.

and by Admiral William D Leahy, who opined 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."...

The author is lying here, by implying that Leahy tried to prevent the
use of the A-bombs.

Leahy only discovered that he opposed the A-bombs years after the war
was over, when it occurred to them that nuclear war might make a
conventional navy obsolete.

as soon as the bomb was proven to work at the Alamagordo base in
New Mexico on 16 July 1945 - the US military and civilian leadership
was convinced that it no longer needed Russia. In fact, the bomb
itself was a good diplomatic weapon against Russia. As Secretary
of State-designate Byrnes explained, "our possessing and demonstrating
the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe"... limiting
its claims on a postwar set-up in the Far East.

Funny how we kept pressing Russia to go to war against Japan even
after we knew the A-bombs worked.....

The birth of 'mere terror' Hiroshima wasn't uniquely wicked. It was
part of a policy for the mass killing of civilians

Actually, both A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

...Americans were told that use of the bombs "led to the immediate
surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the
Japanese home islands. "The hard truth is that the atomic bombings
were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved.

Well, if Japan were really secretly interested in surrender, they
shouldn't have kept it such a secret.  As far as the US knew Japan was
dead set against any surrender.

Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure,
later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the
bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson.

Actually, Hoover told Truman that the invasion would result in the
deaths of half-a-million to a million American soldiers, and the War
Department commissioned a study that said the cost of invasion would
be the deaths of 400,000 to 800,000 American soldiers (with millions
of serious injuries).

The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director
of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on "an essentially
defeated enemy."

An enemy that was refusing to surrender.

President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State James
Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the Soviets from sharing
in the occupation of Japan.

No, the primary use was to make Japan surrender.  The notion that it
might also help make the Soviets start behaving was just a bonus.

And they used it on Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among
themselves as they returned home from the Potsdam Conference
on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were looking for peace...

We were not much interested in Japanese efforts to end the war with a
cease-fire (the way the Korean War later ended).  If Japan wanted the
war to end, they were going to have to surrender.

"No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the
New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic
abdication,

There was very little radioactivity in Hiroshima the day after the
bomb.  All the radiation injuries were caused by the pulse of
radiation given off at the moment the bomb exploded.

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents
that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was
pursued.

That is mostly because they were not overtures of the Japanese
government, but of people with no authority to speak for Japan.

It is untrue that none were pursued.  The US government pursued them
in case they would lead to contact with people who did have the
authority to speak for Japan.

However, the contacts inevitably ended with the Japanese government
cutting them off as soon as it became aware of them.

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".

It dispelled nothing.  It was a third party assessment by someone who
was not in a position to make the assessment.

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".

They solved that problem by setting some military targets aside for
the A-bombs.

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".

Stimson must have thought the person who asked him that question was a
real moron.  The point of the bombs was to achieve surrender, not the
other way around.

His foreign policy colleagues were eager "to browbeat the Russians
with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip".

The Russians were misbehaving.  If the bombs had a fringe benefit of
making them behave, that would have been good.