The curse of Hiroshima

To date, the release of the world’s first atomic bomb from the US is justified.

by Dirk Pohlmann

Does Germany, or anny other country, need their “own” nuclear bomb? Sometimes this is discussed seriously, recently by Christian Hacke in the “Welt am Sonntag”. Before talking that way, one should first realize what atomic bombing actually means: genocide and unimaginable suffering. While Auschwitz is widely recognized as a terrible injustice, the second major human crime of the twentieth century is still partially justified by the perpetrators.Hiroshima was “necessary” to end the war against Japan. This is not only disgusting, it is also historically wrong, because much indicates that the bomb was above all a threat to Moscow.

The topic has kept me busy, on the one hand because as a student I had the Jesuit and philosophy professor Helmut Erlinghagen as a university teacher, who witnessed the attack on Hiroshima as a young man in the local Jesuit monastery there. He has told me in many private conversations about the apocalyptic consequences of helping the medical and nursing people through the helpless efforts of the monastery, as well as communicating his arguments and conclusions of reflection on his life theme. Second, as a journalist, I later interviewed Lieutenant Colonel Daniel McGovern, who was sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a US military cameraman about a month after the blast to document the impact of the bomb on buildings and people. McGovern was a hard-nosed man, but the experiences in the atomically destroyed cities had rocked him to the core. And I’ve made a documentary about the history of Israeli nuclear weapons. The state of Israel is uniquely associated with both issues, Auschwitz and Hiroshima, and it wanted to be able to threaten a “new Hiroshima to prevent a new Auschwitz,” as historian Dr. Avner Cohen in my film.


When Daniele Ganser announced my first talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki on his Facebook page, there were readers who critically commented on how much these events are past, that today there are more important topics, casually speaking, why I would be dealing with old stuff to make money out of it.


In fact, Hiroshima is a topic as relevant as Auschwitz. But it is treated completely differently. Only a few people would come, for example. The idea of ​​calling Auschwitz an old junk, and who would do that in public, would soon be unemployed and socially isolated.


Discussions about Hiroshima, however, take place in a completely different thought environment.


The fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not treated with the same level of attention and moral intensity is, on sober observation, evidence of public failure. The failure has causes. They must be combated as urgently as persistently. For rational, pragmatic and moral reasons. Hiroshima is a topic of the future.


I want to substantiate this thesis, which sounds like provocation, but is reality management.


The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with their approximately 100,000 dead immediately after dropping off and another 130,000 people who died miserably by the end of 1945, it was common sense, were terrible, but necessary to end World War II. An American invasion of Japan would have cost the lives of up to 1 million US soldiers and countless Japanese soldiers and civilians because the Japanese had fought with sticks and stones to the bitter end, as the kamikaze proved. It was only the shock of the use of nuclear weapons that led the Japanese leadership to capitulate. Since then, the cruel nuclear weapons have been regarded as peace guarantors, their existence prevented a nuclear war so far.


These arguments form the Hiroshima myth. They are invariably wrong.


The academic world has long been debating whether the Japanese would have surrendered without nuclear weapons deployments and whether the nuclear weapons missions were the cause of capitulation. Like no other topic, comparable to the slavery and murder of the Native Americans, this discussion is “patriotic” in the USA. It’s about more than history, it’s about the self-image of the United States.

The US historians Gar Alperovitz and Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, who has Japanese roots and speaks Japanese, Russian and English and can read all the essential documents in the original, have made substantial contributions. Gar Alperovitz has shown that the need for nuclear bombs has been called into question, especially by US military forces.

There are a lot of quotes,who prove this:

General Dwight D. Eisenhower, later US President: “..the Japanese were ready to surrender and there was no need to throw these dreadful things on them.”

Admiral William D. Leahy, chief of staff under the two US war presidents Roosevelt and Truman:

“I believe that the use of these barbaric weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki has not made any significant contribution to our warfare against Japan. The Japanese were already beaten and ready to surrender because of the effective naval blockade and successful bombing of conventional weapons. “-” My feeling is that by being the first to use such a thing, we have become the ethical standard of the barbarians. ”

Norman Cousins ​​on General McArthur:

“A dark age had taken over. I have not been taught to wage war in this way, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

“He replied that he saw no military justification for launching the atomic bomb. The war could have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as they later did anyway, that the institution of the Tenno would be maintained.

Paul Nitze Vice-Chairman of the Commission on the Evaluation of the Strategic Bomb War:

“Based on a detailed investigation of all facts and supported by the testimony of the Japanese leadership, the evaluation commission came to the conclusion that Japan would surely have surrendered before December 31, 1945 and, most likely, before November 1, 1945, even if the atomic bombs would not have been discarded, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated”.

Gar Alperovitz also stated that the atomic destruction of the two cities was directed primarily as a demonstration of power to the Soviet Union was, the future power competitor, with whom the US in Potsdam at the negotiated about the post-war order. It was not about ending the war with Japan. And the invasion of Japan would have killed 40,000 Americans, not a million, according to US military calculations. However, why should the US president have sacrificed even one soldier if the atom bombs could end the war?

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa proved that atomic bombs were not the key factor in Japan’s capitulation. The Japanese leaders, especially the military, were somewhat indifferent to the civilian dead, interested only in the operational capability of the strike forces. The bombing of Tokyo in 1945 had killed more people than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, about 100,000 inhabitants of a city full of wooden houses. The US Air Force burned the Japanese by the hundreds of thousands, that was the daily routine of the war. The atomic bombs were not out of the ordinary for the Japanese military. They were just a new kind of mass killing. The Japanese leadership clung to the hope of mediation by the Soviet Union, which had not declared war on Japan until August 8, 1945; the Soviet Union was neutral to Japan. When US bomber crews crashed into Vladivostok after attacks on Japan, they were interned like Germans or Britons in Switzerland. Only when Soviet Union declared war on Japan and the Soviet forces in Manchuria like a hot knife through butter, only slowed down by the supply of gasoline, only when the two-front war made all hopes for a negotiated capitulation nullified, the Japanese leadership gave up.

Alperovitz and Hasegawa are now in the US under constant attack from a patriotic-revisionist Historical Guild, which tries to discredit their work and described as unscientific, much as Daniele Ganser does with his research on Gladio.

The reason is the same in both cases. It is about the moral claim of the USA, the self-insurance, not only to be the only superpower, but also the only good superpower. No Machiavellian empire that dominates world politics with lies and deceit, with coups and political murders. World War II is called “The Good War” in the US, it was the war against evil. The conclusion of the war was the use of nuclear weapons, a story from a Hollywood script, the “extraordinary” (exceptional) nation had at the last minute the super-weapon available, it saves the heroes, the super-weapon ends the war, and serves for all Future as foundation and guarantor of supremacy. The real story of the atomic bomb but looks different from the Hiroshima myth, darker. The atomic bomb was designed with the help of emigrated scientists, the one fear worldwide Nazi rule. What if Hitler would build the bomb first? This threat even led Albert Einstein to speak out for an American nuclear bomb program – which he later regretted. When the Manhattan Project began, it was not clear whether it would become the most expensive scientific failure of all time, or in the end a new superweapon. It was the most gigantic secret weapons program that existed until then. 150,000 employees and the sum of about 2 billion US dollars sounding in the 1940s after Fantastillionen were used. And when the bomb is finally finished, the program is a success, the war against Germany won. At the end of the bomb there is – almost – not enough war left to try it out. Of course you wanted to try them after this mammoth effort. The ultimate power tool, the superweapon that will change everything, should also explode. About Menschen.Genauer said, two bombs are supposed to explode. Because there is a uranium bomb falling on Hiroshima and a plutonium bomb that will destroy Nagasaki. They are based on two different design principles. While relying on the primitive gun principle of the Hiroshima bomb, scientists are not so sure of the Nagasaki Bomb’s complex implosion principle. This bomb type is tested in the desert of New Mexico in July 1945. Successful. The message is leaked to President Truman in Potsdam, where he informs Stalin that the US has a super-weapon. Truman is astonished to find that Stalin reacts with equanimity. What Truman does not know: Stalin is informed by his intelligence services about the nuclear project of the US.Now it’s about which target the bomb is to be dropped. Japan has been largely razed, but a few cities have spared US strategists, including Hiroshima. It was not bombed because it was not a military target, unimportant. But geography is the ideal destination for the largest field experiment in history. The city is intact, one will be able to observe the before-and-after effect very well after the atomic explosion. Some scholars argue for dropping the bomb over a naval port, or conducting a spectacular demonstration, e.g. over a forest of huge trees, which would then be mapped like mile after mile as a pattern and burn spectacularly in the center – a graphic presentation that would kill only a few civilians. But the politicians want to see the thing explode, demonstrating over a functioning city and impact. So Hiroshima is burned, with a population consisting mostly of women and children. Prof Erlinghagen estimated that 90% of the burned women and children were. The bomb was equivalent to 13,000 tons of explosives. That is not much. By today’s standards, a tactical battlefield weapon. Today’s nuclear weapons are in the megaton range, which is a difference between hand grenade and air mine. After the explosion of the atomic bomb over the city, people move as living corpses sunken over debris under which their relatives plead for help. If they shake hands, you can peel off the burnt, contaminated skin like a glove. Black, radioactive rain is falling. The devourers develop wild flesh, begging to be killed. Infants sit crying next to their dying mothers. The military chief of the atomic bomb program General Lesley Groves claims in the US: “Nuclear death is a beautiful death.” The news of an unusual bomb has just reached the Japanese government, which cares little for its attention to the Soviet Union the second bomb falls, of which she knows nothing yet. The Japanese leadership does not have time to surrender, but that’s not the point. The second bomb is dropped because you want to try both bomb types. It should fall on Kokura, but there are poor visibility conditions. That’s how Nagasaki finds it. But did not the atomic bombs somehow end the war? Are not they justified, despite all the cruelty? The argument is therefore that the end justifies the means. Is that correct? If the concentration camps had ended the war, would we discuss whether it would justify it? This, too, is an example of how we got used to strange reasons we would consider obscene in other cases. Had Stalin been the first Nuclear weapons used against the civilian population, then that would probably be cited as evidence of the incomparable brutality and inhumanity of communism. But why are we so lenient with the US In the US it is argued that the atomic bombs at the end of the war on both sides many Msaved lives of the US because they made US invasion superfluous. But neither the military strategists of the Japanese nor the Americans were interested in the lives of the other side. This is a fairy-tale lie intended to legitimize the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians, mostly women and children. BOMB chief Curtis LeMay said, “There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you fight a people, you do not even try to fight against armed forces. So I do not care so much that I kill so-called innocent bystanders. “When the war is over, US cameramen and doctors are sent to Hiroshima. It is creating an organization that will record the effects of radioactivity on the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, which is medically monitoring the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and will record the suffering and deaths of people meticulously. Doctors do not treat their patients, they just watch, they collect data. The population is a herd of laboratory rats, which is scientifically examined in a gigantic field experiment. What you have to understand: Atomic bombs are not weapons. They do not serve to purposefully prevent other soldiers from killing. They are weapons of mass destruction directed at the population of a country. Governments threaten to destroy men, women, children and animals. With the total annihilation of a country and its population. With the destruction of civilization. In the US nuclear war planning of the 1960s, Moscow was to be razed to the ground with more than 160 nuclear weapons. The data for Russian warheads against New York and Washington differ only gradually. The purpose of using nuclear weapons is to destroy the population. The definition of terrorism is: threat or execution of acts of violence to achieve a political goal. That means nuclear weapons of mass destruction State terrorism. During the Second World War, the belligerent powers began to bomb cities. The beginning of the crime was the bombing of Guernica, Warsaw and London by the Nazis, but the destruction of the population was perfected in Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo. It was scientifically tested how explosive bombs were used to create flammable material, destroy the firefighter’s water supply, and then set fires that grow into firestorms and kill as many civilians as possible. The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a multiplication of one already for everyday use torn crime. Today, these crimes are being planned inconceivably. It is curious that nuclear weapons have a different status to chemistry and biological weapons. Chemical weapons and biological weapons were ostracized soon after the First World War. They are considered brutal and barbaric. Meanwhile, chemical weapons are even prohibited. The alleged use of “barbaric” chemical weapons now serves as an occasion for military strikes by powers that are outraged when dozens of people die but whose planners expect nuclear weapons to be mega-dead. Nuclear weapons are even more cruel and barbaric than chemical weapons. If you do not believe it, you should listen to the descriptions from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear weapons also harm future generations as well as the living space. They are despicable, but not outlawed. Anyone preparing their mission is despicable. If we take it exactly, we would have to arrest and detain the foreign ministers of the nuclear powers at the airport because of state terrorism. But because atomic weapons of mass destruction are the power base of the world’s most important states, their image is carefully cultivated. In the case of chemical weapons, the audience is often shown the effect in the form of twitching, dying children with foam over their mouths. We know nuclear weapons as shapely metal objects, cleanly painted and neatly tidied up. From time to time we also get to see a scary beautiful golden explosion mushroom. But never the effect of the bomb. We plebeians should not be fooled by this disinformation. We should be aware that governments are ready to sacrifice their entire population for power. Nazi Germany and Japan are examples of this. All superpowers calculate the extermination of their population. It is in the power of governments to plan wars, but not our interest in being ruled to be released for destruction. When the machinery starts, it can not be stopped. Our goal must therefore be the abolition of nuclear weapons before they can be used. But that will not be the goal of governments. The ruled will have to impose this goal on governments. If we let things go, what has happened so far happens. Atomic weapons of mass destruction are beautifully talked about as immutable, as a necessary evil stationed, although they have already brought us several times to the brink of disaster. The last boss of the now abolished strategic US bomber command, Four Stars General George Lee Butler said after his retirement, ” We survived the Cold War without a nuclear holocaust through a combination of skill, luck, and divine intervention, with divine intervention arguably the most important. “He is now committed to the elimination of all nuclear weapons. And what about Hiroshima and Auschwitz? The argument of Prof. Erlinghagen reads: “There were two crimes against humanity during World War II. The industrial genocide of the Jews and the first use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction against the civilian population. Auspicious is recognized evil. Even the neo-Nazis do not say that Auschwitz was somehow good and right, they deny it. Everyone knows. The atomic weapons of mass destruction, however, are not recognized as evil. They are not outlawed. Even if the dimension of Auschwitz was greater, what threatens us more in the present and in the future, what has the bigger dimension now? We should by no means forget Auschwitz, but would it not be right and important that we deal with the atomic threat much more mentally and in discussions? ”

Translate by alfonso


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s