In de afgelopen 9 dagen viel de herdenking van de VS atoomaanvallen 72 jaar geleden op de Japanse steden Hiroshima en Nagasaki, respectievelijk op 6 en 9 augustus 1945. Al 72 jaar vindt de discussie plaats over de noodzaak van die aanvallen.
Volgens oorlogsmisdadiger Truman, destijds president van de VS, zou de aanval een half miljoen levens van VS militairen hebben gered. Experts hebben echter berekend dat een aanval op het ‘vaste land’ van Japan, 40.000 militairen het leven hebben gekost, althans als die invasie werkelijk nodig was…….
Precies dat betwijfelden NB een aantal verantwoordelijke VS topmilitairen, die destijds bevel voerden over de strijd tegen Japan. Volgens hen was Japan in feite al verslagen en had men in de onderhandelingen met Japan (over beëindiging van de oorlog) iets toegefelijker moeten zijn. Als de VS een onvoorwaardelijke overgave van Japan niet als noodzaak hadden gezien en daarmee het aanblijven van de Japanse keizer hadden goedgekeurd, was de oorlog zonder verder bloedvergieten beëindigd…… Uiteindelijk ging Truman wel akkoord met deze Japanse voorwaarden, echter na de steden Hiroshima en Nagasaki te hebben vernietigd, waarbij 250.000 mensen omkwamen…….. (dit nog buiten de slachtoffers die later aan de gevolgen van die oorlogsmisdaden zijn overleden >> na een meestal vreselijke lijdensweg….)
Hier een artikel van Information Clearing House gepubliceerd op 11 augustus jl, onder het artikel kan u klikken voor het gehele ICH artikel (waaronder u voor een vertaling kan klikken):
Seventy
years ago this week the US vaporized 250,000 civilians, and yet still the bombings are seen as an act of mercy
Here
we are, 70 years after the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, and I’m wondering if we’ve come even one step closer to a
moral reckoning with our status as the world’s only country to use
atomic weapons to slaughter human beings. Will an American president
ever offer a formal apology? Will our country ever regret the
dropping of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man,” those two bombs that
burned hotter than the sun? Will it absorb the way they instantly
vaporized thousands of victims, incinerated tens of thousands more,
and created unimaginably powerful shockwaves and firestorms that
ravaged everything for miles beyond ground zero? Will it finally come
to grips with the “black rain” that spread radiation and killed
even more people — slowly and painfully — leading in the end to a
death toll for the two cities conservatively
estimated at
more than 250,000?
By
1945, most Americans didn’t care that the civilians of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki had not committed Japan’s war crimes. American wartime
culture had for years drawn on a long history of “yellow peril”
racism to paint the Japanese not just as inhuman, but as subhuman. As
Truman put it in his diary, it was a country full of “savages” —
“ruthless, merciless, and fanatic” people so loyal to the emperor
that every man, woman, and child would fight to the bitter end. In
these years, magazines routinely depicted Japanese
as monkeys, apes, insects, and vermin. Given such a foe, so went the
prevailing view, there were no true “civilians” and nothing short
of near extermination, or at least a powerful demonstration of
America’s willingness to proceed down that path, could ever force
their surrender. As Admiral William “Bull” Halsey said in
a 1944 press conference, “The only good Jap is a Jap who’s been
dead six months.”
On
August 9, 1945, President Harry Truman delivered a radio
address from
the White House. “The world will note,” he said, “that the
first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was
because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible,
the killing of civilians.” He did not mention that a second atomic
bomb had already been dropped on Nagasaki.
Truman
understood, of course, that if Hiroshima was a “military base,”
then so was Seattle; that the vast majority of its residents were
civilians; and that perhaps 100,000 of them had already been killed.
Indeed, he knew that Hiroshima was chosen not for its military
significance but because it was one of only a handful of Japanese
cities that had not already been firebombed and largely obliterated
by American air power.
Twenty
years ago, the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum planned
an ambitious exhibit to
mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. At its center
was to be an extraordinary artifact — the fuselage of the Enola
Gay,
the B-29 Superfortress used to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. But
the curators and historical consultants wanted something more than
yet another triumphal celebration of American military science and
technology. Instead, they sought to assemble a thought-provoking
portrayal of the bomb’s development, the debates about its use, and
its long-term consequences. The museum sought to include some
evidence challenging the persistent claim that it was dropped simply
to end the war and “save lives.”
For
starters, visitors would have learned that some of America’s
best-known World War II military commanders opposed using atomic
weaponry. In fact, six
of the seven five-star
generals and admirals of that time believed that there was no reason
to use them, that the Japanese were already defeated, knew it, and
were likely to surrender before any American invasion could be
launched. Several, like Admiral William Leahy and General Dwight
Eisenhower, also had moral objections to the weapon. Leahy considered
the atomic bombing of Japan “barbarous” and a violation of “every
Christian ethic I have ever heard of and all of the known laws of
war.”
Truman
did not seriously consult with military commanders who had objections
to using the bomb. He did, however, ask a panel of military
experts to offer an estimate of how many Americans might be killed if
the United States launched the two major invasions of the Japanese
home islands scheduled for November 1, 1945 and March 1, 1946. Their
figure: 40,000 — far below the half-million he would cite after the
war. Even this estimate was based on the dubious assumption that
Japan could continue to feed, fuel, and arm its troops with the U.S.
in almost complete control of the seas and skies.
The
Smithsonian also planned to inform its visitors that some key
presidential advisers had urged Truman
to drop his demand for “unconditional surrender” and allow Japan
to keep the emperor on his throne, an alteration in peace terms that
might have led to an almost immediate surrender. Truman rejected that
advice, only to grant the same concession after the
nuclear attacks.
So
here we are, 70 years later, and we seem, if anything, farther than
ever from a rejection of the idea that launching atomic warfare on
Japanese civilian populations was an act of mercy. Perhaps some
future American president will finally apologize for our nuclear
attacks, but one thing seems certain: no Japanese survivor of the
bombs will be alive to hear it.
Hier de link naar het originele artikel, waaronder u ook kan klikken voor een vertaling:
The Indefensible Hiroshima Revisionism That Haunts America To This Day
PS: dat de keizer van Japan aan mocht blijven na de oorlog, is net zo vreemd als het aanblijven van het grootste deel van de repressieve fascistische overheid daar en die in Duitsland, al moet ik zeggen, dat het sparen van een enorme hoeveelheid mensenlevens, dit dubbel en dwars waard zou zijn geweest……. Overigens zou dit niet in de weg hebben gestaan voor vervolging en berechting na WOII van bijvoorbeeld rechters, politie en legeronderdelen (als de SS).
Zie ook:
‘In de VS berichtte men in 1945, dat Hiroshima ‘a military base’ was…….‘
‘Hiroshima, één van de grootste oorlogsmisdaden ooit, 71 jaar later redenen te over voor herdenking!‘
‘Overlevenden atoomaanval op Hiroshima vragen om een verbod op kernwapens‘
‘Hashima en de Japanse ontkenning van wreedheden tijdens WOII‘
en zie voor verdere VS-terreur na WOII:
‘VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘
‘VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….‘
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português