August 9, 2015 – 5:02 am

Talking heads love this topic. To pass judgement on an event 70 years too late. Well, if you were at ground zero when the bomb hit, there’s nothing to discuss. There’s also no excuse for Japanese atrocities or Pearl Harbor. Dr Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia was right when he said anyone who starts a war is a war criminal. That should be an international law. By Finian Cunningham.

Even if we accept that there was a plausible military imperative to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - to bring about a swift defeat of Japan and thus an end to the Pacific War - the horror of civilian death toll from those two no-warning aerial attacks places a disturbing question over the supposed ends justifying the means.But what if the official military rationale touted by US President Harry Truman and his administration turns out to be bogus? That is, the real reason for dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 70 years ago on August 6 and 9, 1945, had little to do with defeating imperial Japan and saving the lives of American troops. What if the real reason was the deliberate and cold-blooded demonstration of raw military power by Washington in order to warn the Soviet Union of America’s postwar demarcation of global hegemony?

That leads to the most chilling conclusion - a conclusion far worse than the official American narrative would have us believe. For it means that the act of obliterating up to 200,000 Japanese civilians was an event of premeditated mass murder whose intent was solely political. Or, in other words, an ineffable act of state terrorism committed by the United States.

This conjecture about the ulterior motive for the American atomic bombing of Japan has been around for many years. In January 1995, the New York Times reported: “Indeed, some historians contend that the bombing was not aimed so much at the wartime enemy Japan as at the wartime ally Soviet Union, delivered as a warning against postwar rivalry.”

With complacent equivocation, the New York Times did not follow through on the horrendous implications of its own partial admission for why the atomic bombs were dropped. If the official US calculation was indeed “a warning against postwar rivalry” to the Soviet Union, then that makes the act an indefensible political decision that had nothing to do with a moral imperative of promptly ending a war. It was, as noted, a supreme act of terrorism.

Professsor Gar Alperovitz - one of several American historians – has over the decades compiled a compelling case that the Truman administration did in fact make the decision to use the A-bombs as a political weapon against the Soviet Union.

The author of ‘The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb’ wrote: “Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognise that the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Army Air Force.”

Alperovitz cites then US Secretary of War Henry L Stimson and such military luminaries as General Dwight Eisenhower and Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William D Leahy who were explicitly opposed to using the A-bomb on Japan. Eisenhower said it was “completely unnecessary” while Leahy noted: “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.”

This points to covert political decision-making during the critical three-week period between the Potsdam conference (July 17-August 2 1945) and the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan. During that period it appears that Truman and his aides decided in secret that the then Soviet wartime ally was to be henceforth made the postwar enemy. The Cold War was being formulated.

It seems clear then that the Truman administration rushed ahead to use its new atomic weapon on Japan because its concern was to circumscribe any advance by the Soviet Union in Asia-Pacific… the atomic bombings can then be seen as a deliberate act of mass murder for no other strategic reason other than to intimidate a perceived geopolitical rival - Moscow.

Bear in mind that for months before Potsdam, the US and Britain were appealing to Russian leader Josef Stalin to join the Pacific War soon after the defeat of Nazi Germany. Two months after the Third Reich was vanquished in May 1945, the Potsdam conference between the Big Three allies achieved the much-anticipated commitment from Stalin to redeploy the Red Army against Japan.

The Soviet Union was scheduled to officially enter the Pacific War on August 15. As it turned out, Stalin ordered the Red Army into Manchuria on August 8, a week ahead of the scheduled offensive.

As Harry Truman gleefully wrote in a private letter during Potsdam this commitment from the Soviet Union meant that “the Japs were finished.”

However, the successful testing of the first A-bomb by the United States in the desert of New Mexico on July 16 - only the day before begining the Potsdam summit - was a point of no return. With this awesome new weapon, US planners must have quickly realised that they could finish the war against Japan without the Soviet Union entering the Pacific theatre, by dropping the A-bomb.

But the primary US objective wasn’t to finish the Pacific War per se. American and British military chiefs and intelligence were convinced that the mere entry of Russia into the war against Japan would precipitate the latter’s surrender. And besides the American invasion of mainland Japan was not planned to take place until November 1945.

It seems clear then that the Truman administration rushed ahead to use its new atomic weapon on Japan because its concern was to circumscribe any advance by the Soviet Union in Asia-Pacific. Not only was the Red Army poised to take Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula but mainland Japan as well.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki - two civilian centres of no military value - were thus selected as the venues for demonstrating the most spellbinding act of terror, not to an all but defeated Japan, but to the Soviet Union. The atomic bombing of Japan was therefore not the last act of the Pacific War, as the official American narrative contends, but rather it was the first, brutal act of the nascent Cold War by the US towards Soviet Russia.

That puts the horrific events in an altogether different criminal light. Because the atomic bombings can then be seen as a deliberate act of mass murder for no other strategic reason other than to intimidate a perceived geopolitical rival - Moscow.

Seventy years on, history proves that this barbaric logic of the US ruling elite still holds. After the official end of the Cold War nearly a quarter of a century ago, Washington has evidently no intention of disarming its nuclear arsenal. In fact, the US government under President Barack Obama is planning to spend $355 billion over the next decade to upgrade its stockpile of some 5,000 nuclear warheads - each many times more powerful than the A-bombs that were originally dropped on Japan.

Furthermore, Washington has officially declared Russia, along with China, as its top strategic enemy, as recent as this month, according to senior Pentagon figures.

The unilateral withdrawal by the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty in 2002 and the ongoing expansion of US missile systems on Russia’s borders and in the Pacific with provocative reference to China are testimony to the inherent bellicose intent that resides in Washington.

As with the first and only use of nuclear weapons 70 years ago, the US logic that led to the holocaust at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a barbaric logic than pertains to this day. It is still being aimed at Russia, as it was seven decades ago.

Only the full exposure and eradication of this uniquely American barbaric logic will lead to peaceful international relations.

Note: Finian Cunningham was expelled from Bahrain in June 2011 for his critical journalism in which he highlighted many human rights violations by the Western-backed regime. For many years, he worked as an editor and writer in the mainstream media, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is now based in East Africa where he is writing a book on Bahrain and the Arab Spring. The above article was posted at The above article was also posted at Information Clearing House.

+ + + + +


  2. Let’s just stop with the first paragraph shall we? In 1945 Russia was no kind of world power at all, and certainly no threat to the U.S. Nobody viewed Russia as a threat to anything, so this article is bullshit. No, Japan wasn’t about to surrender anyway. No, the U.S. wasn’t trying to send a message to Russia. Thanks for the anti-American propoganda. Our government does a lot of stupid things over here, but this article is complete rubbish…

    By Big Dave on Aug 9, 2015

  3. Big Dave sums it up well. Nobel Literary Prize
    to Cunningham for Best Career Revisionist. Speaking
    of talking heads…

    By fred astaire jr. on Aug 9, 2015

  4. “besides the American invasion of mainland Japan was not planned to take place until November 1945″… so how many lives would have been lost if the US had to invade the mainland? probably more than were lost by dropping the bombs, to say that dropping didn’t bring Japan to the table looking for peace, quicker, seems ridiculous. Pearl Harbour should remind you which country started the fight, the Americans had every right to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible and minimise their and their allies loss of life. Read “Empire Of The Sun” JG Ballards semi autobiographical novel, gives you a perspective from those held as POW’s by the Japanese, for whom the end of the war couldn’t come quickly enough. Lesson to learn, if you are the playground bully and some one beats the crap out of you, for once, you can’t moan about it.

    By Liam on Aug 9, 2015

  5. I’ve enjoyed coming to this site for music, but I’m getting fed up with all the anti US articles. Has the US made mistakes, of course, but to post articles that are only opinions without any facts to support those opinions, is completely irresponsible on your part. If you are so keen on posting anti US articles, get articles about how the US representatives no longer representing the people of US, and stupidity of the US people to keep reelecting the same leaches year after year, there you would have actual facts to back up your opinions! or how in the middle of a major drought, we are wasting our water on fracking! Why haven’t you posted an article about Putin destroying tons of food, while the majority of his people have to do without! Try a little fairness & balance in the articles you post!!! One personal note, my father would have been part of that boots on ground in Japan, and there would have been a good chance that he would died, and I wouldn’t have existed! If you start a war, don’t complain when, or even how you get your ass kicked!

    By daniel4832 on Aug 9, 2015

  6. The marxist idiot who authored this article would seemingly prefer that millions died in a full scale invasion of mainland Japan, over the use of atomic weapons against the Japanese. No mention in the article of the heinous brutality the Japanese unleashed in China and the Philippines, no mention of the rape of Nanking, no mention of Wake Island and no mention of the Bataan death march. The Japanese were barbarians mercilessly brutalizing innocent people all over the Pacific. They absolutely had to be stopped and the atomic bomb stopped them and saved countless lives in the process. Also, two final facts: The Japanese invited hellfire from above the exact moment they attacked the US Navy at Pearl Harbor, and more people perished in the firebombing of Tokyo than Hiroshima & Nagasaki combined. Yet for some reason, the marxist shitstains don’t get upset about that.

    By Counter-Revolutionary on Aug 10, 2015

  7. Einstein wrote a letter to FDR stating the fact that Nazi Germany was looking to make an Atomic Bomb. Just think if Nazi Germany had the bomb, the world would be a much different place. We then had the Fat Boy. The war in Europe was coming to a close…. In the end it was terrible what the US had to do to stop the war in the pacific. The battles in pacific were barbaric by the japanese. Just think of the last atomic test done, it was 90 megaton bomb, that would have made the fat boy look like a firecracker.

    By niroopa on Aug 10, 2015

  8. I’m a proud American but not always proud of what our Government does. it’s not always representative of the great people of the USA. I don’t trust the US Government’s motives for a second.

    On this and other anti US articles, for those other American readers, it shows you just how the US is viewed outside of our borders. It’s based on Government actions, not the actions of it’s great people. Here in the US, everything is spun by the corporate owned news media to bring the American people into the fold. Outside of the US, they see us differently. Not us as people, but the US Government as an aggressive machine trying to dictate how the world should be run.

    On the bomb, well…could the US have considered using these bombs in unpopulated regions to make a statement first? Somewhere where the emperor could not miss the message but somewhere where the devastation would be significantly less? A military target for example? They could have bombed a city on a subsequent bomb with warning so the people could evacuate. The message would still have been quite clear showing the destructive power of the bomb.

    There are lots of other possible motives. I believe that is true. To warn the Soviets? Possibly. Not sure. Bottom line, the loss of life there was unnecessary. The suffering that ensued unnecessary. I believe the war had to end. I believe that the Japanese government needed to pay for their barbarism, but not the Japanese people.

    By beanzalo on Aug 10, 2015

  9. The whole thing about the US entering the second world war is a farce, in that the US government KNEW that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor: they knew the day and even the hour, thanks to US and Australian intelligence.

    Furthermore, a lot of things were done to facilitate the job for the Japanese navy. RADAR systems on Hawaii were removed, supposedly to cut costs and on top of that all navy vessels were gathered in one place and literally put side by side -something which is never done, even in peace time- to make one big target for the oncoming Zero planes.

    As such, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the article’s claims are true…


    By JimmyJump on Aug 10, 2015

  10. Excellent article. It’s time more Americans came to grips with our country’s war crimes instead of whining when other people do it for them. In fact, the article barely scratches the surface of the atrocities committed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The worst people in the world are those who tell you Japan deserved to be bombed in this way as revenge for Pearl Harbor. Children and babies burned to death as revenge for something they had nothing to do with. Sure, that sounds “fair”.

    When other countries purposely and specifically target civilians we call it a war crime. Or terrorism.

    The A-bombs were both.

    By Rate Your Music on Aug 11, 2015

  11. JimmyJump, do you really think we knew about Pearl Harbor so we put a lot of ships in one place for them to sink?? Wouldn’t we have tried everything to prevent it from happening? You might believe this propoganda that dude was spewing then….

    And I love BigO btw. Thanks for letting me comment even when I don’t agree. I agree with most of the comments above as well. It was terrible we had to drop the bomb on those guys. War is terrible. We were not trying to send a message to Russia though. They were our ally, and not the power they later came to be. The article was way off base…

    By Big Dave on Aug 11, 2015

  12. Seriously BigO. You’ve done a fantastic job of bringing quality music downloads here and put them at here for our enjoyment at the click of a mouse. We truly appreciate this and I commend you in regards to this. BUT! This bullshit revisionist marxist history is nothing more than that. It’s bullshit! The bombing of Japan was for one and only one reason. Stop the deaths of American soldiers and the countless lives of innocent civilians in the many nations in the Pacific Rim that had been brutally occupied by the Japanese. How soon that is forgotten. And how about all the Soviet “satellite” nations that had to wait 40 years to be liberated from the “Great Bear”. How soon that is forgotten. I am sick and fucking tired of listening to these anti-American diatribes. You need a reality check if you continue to publish this revisionis nonsense. I’m wondering now who it is that is footing the bill for this website.

    By Mike Hunt on Aug 15, 2015

  13. This is such total bullshit from start to finish. You need only look into Nanking to know everything about the Japanese war machine and it’s own attitude to innocent civilians. Why no mention of that? Not forgetting it’s barbaric treatment of POWs. Those bombs, whilst horrific, were entirely justified, and America should be proud of the part it played in destroying real evil throughout the world. Also, it’s leaders should be applauded for making a morally difficult decision that saved a lot of it’s own brave fighting men - men to whom I owe a lot of my father’s, my own, and my children’s current freedoms. There are good and bad guys in this part of history…the US is most definitely one of the good guys. And for the record, I am not American.

    By Shep on Aug 15, 2015

Post a Comment