The Hiroshima Cover-Up
 

[url=http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/08/hiroshima.html:ba4c0]Link to article...[/url:ba4c0]

[quote:ba4c0]
The Hiroshima Cover-Up

Commentary: How the military suppressed early reporting on the atomic devastation in Japan -- with help from the New York Times.

By Amy Goodman and David Goodman

August 5, 2005



A story that the U.S. government hoped would never see the light of day has finally been published—60 years after it was spiked by military censors. The discovery of reporter George Weller's first-hand account of conditions in post-nuclear Nagasaki sheds light on one of the great journalistic betrayals of the last century: the cover-up of the effects of the atomic bombing on Japan.

On August 6, 1945, the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima; three days later, Nagasaki was hit. General Douglas MacArthur promptly declared southern Japan off-limits, barring the press. Over 200,000 people died in the atomic bombings of the cities, but no Western journalist witnessed the aftermath and told the story. Instead, the world's media obediently crowded onto the USS Missouri off the coast of Japan to cover the Japanese surrender.

A month after the bombings, two reporters defied MacArthur and struck out on their own. Weller, of the Chicago Daily News, took row boats and trains to reach devastated Nagasaki. Independent journalist Wilfred Burchett rode a train for 30 hours and walked into the charred remains of Hiroshima.

Both men encountered nightmare worlds. Burchett sat down on a chunk of rubble with his Baby Hermes typewriter. His dispatch began: "In Hiroshima, thirty days after the first atomic bomb destroyed the city and shook the world, people are still dying, mysteriously and horribly—people who were uninjured in the cataclysm from an unknown something which I can only describe as the atomic plague."

He continued, tapping out the words that still haunt to this day: "Hiroshima does not look like a bombed city. It looks as if a monster steamroller has passed over it and squashed it out of existence. I write these facts as dispassionately as I can in the hope that they will act as a warning to the world."

Burchett's article, headlined THE ATOMIC PLAGUE, was published on September 5, 1945 in the London Daily Express. The story caused a worldwide sensation, and was a public relations fiasco for the U.S. military. The official U.S. narrative of the atomic bombings downplayed civilian casualties and categorically dismissed as "Japanese propaganda" reports of the deadly lingering effects of radiation.

So when Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter George Weller's 25,000-word story on the horror that he encountered in Nagasaki was submitted to military censors, Gen. MacArthur personally ordered the story killed, and the manuscript was never returned. As Weller later summarized his experience with MacArthur's censors, "They won."

Last month, Weller's son Anthony discovered a carbon copy of the suppressed dispatches among his late father's papers (George Weller died in 2002). Unable to find an interested American publisher, Anthony Weller sold the account to Mainichi Shimbun, a large Japanese newspaper. Now, on the sixtieth anniversary of the atomic bombings, Weller's account can finally be read. (The first of Weller's four dispatches can be found here.)

"In swaybacked or flattened skeletons of the Mitsubishi arms plants is revealed what the atomic bomb can do to steel and stone, but what the riven atom can do against human flesh and bone lies hidden in two hospitals of downtown Nagasaki," wrote Weller. A month after the bombs fell, he observed, "The atomic bomb's peculiar 'disease,' uncured because it is untreated and untreated because it is not diagnosed, is still snatching away lives here."

After killing Weller's reports, U.S. authorities tried to counter Burchett's articles by attacking the messenger. MacArthur ordered Burchett expelled from Japan (the order was later rescinded), his camera mysteriously vanished while he was in a Tokyo hospital, and U.S. officials accused him of being influenced by Japanese propaganda.

Then the U.S. military unleashed a secret propaganda weapon: they deployed their very own Timesman. It turns out that William L. Laurence, the science reporter for the New York Times, was also on the payroll of the War Department. For four months, while still reporting for the Times, Laurence had been writing press releases for the military explaining the atomic weapons program; he also wrote statements for President Truman and Secretary of War Henry Stimson. He was rewarded by being given a seat on the plane that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, an experience that he described in the Times with religious awe.

Three days after publication of Burchett's shocking dispatch, Laurence had a front page story in the Times disputing the notion that radiation sickness was killing people. His news story included this remarkable commentary: "The Japanese are still continuing their propaganda aimed at creating the impression that we won the war unfairly, and thus attempting to create sympathy for themselves and milder terms… Thus, at the beginning, the Japanese described 'symptoms' that did not ring true."

Laurence won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the atomic bomb, and his faithful parroting of the government line was crucial in launching a half-century of silence about the deadly lingering effects of the bomb. It is high time for the Pulitzer board to strip Hiroshima's apologist and his newspaper of their undeserved prize.

Sixty years late, Weller's censored account stands as a searing indictment not only of the inhumanity of the atomic bomb, but of the danger of journalists embedding with the government to deceive the world. [/quote:ba4c0]

oops, sucks to be them but were OK!

thats what you get when you mess with the big boys on the block . beer:

My stomach turns when I hear shit like this and people respond with little remorse.

"Hiroshima" was published 1 year after the bomb was dropped so I'm pretty sure everybody knew how horrific the bombings were.

Also, MacArthur barred the press after the bombs dropped? No kidding, they just dropped the two insanely destructive bombs on it and the war had just ended! That doesn't sound like a very safe place for civilians.

if they didnt attack pearl harbor there wouldnt have been a need to drop that a-bomb rolleyes:

lmfao

First off Pearl Harbor was a military base so it was a fair target, secondly it wasn't nuked.

The war would have been over without the dropping of 2 bombs.

the US had no intentions of going to war with japan until they attacked pearl harbor. It would have cost alot more lives to invade japan, thats why they chose to drop the bombs. They didnt surrender until the second bomb was dropped. rolleyes:

Read history books other than your High School text books and you would see otherwise.

Pearl Harbour and a fucking nuking of two cities is not comparable...

It is like comparing 9/11 to a serial killer whose killed like 15 people...one sounds worse...both bad...but one definally worse.

Pearl Harbor = Military Base
Hiroshima and Nagasaki = Towns

Aug 6, 1945 - First atomic bomb dropped, on Hiroshima, Japan.

Aug 9, 1945 - Second atomic bomb dropped, on Nagasaki, Japan.

Aug 14, 1945 - Japanese agree to unconditional surrender.

Sept 2, 1945 - Japanese sign the surrender agreement; V-J (Victory over Japan) Day.

took them long enough to decide to surrender oOo:

Those are official dates. They were already waning on the Pacific theater, it was n't necessary to vaporize to towns.

then maybe they should have surrendered before the hot winds of death came calling ..

sleeping:

I read that the Emperor went to the military counsel on 8/12 and told them there was a burden they MUST accept. Until then there was no hope of the Japanese surrendering. Operation Cornet was estimated to lose 1 million Allied and 10 million Japanese.

I Believe that that attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a necessary evil, and I do stress "Evil".

They saved many, many more lives than they took. It's not just the US and Japanese casualties on Japan itself that must be considered, but also the lives of soldiers in captivity, civilians in subjugated countries and the like. The shortening of the war would have saved the lives of countless POW and civilian lives.

Bombing a civilian population to win a war is morally repugnant, and should never be entered into lightly, especially with such devastating weaponry. But at the end of the day, it was the best thing for the situation; a situation that humanity will hopefully never find itself in again

Imagine if they dropped the bomb on Tokyo....

Some of the fire-bomb attacks on Toyko took more lives then the a-bomb attacks. One attack in April 1945 took over 120,000 lives.

Why not drop the bomb outside the city and show the Japenese the power ? They would have surrendered in Days with little loss of life. I was watching a Bio over the history channel the other day... "Victory in The Pacific" or something along that lines, it had color camera film showing a Japenese girl.. no more then 1 year old shaking with pain.... fear.... She had rubble from the blast all over her, Her eyes wide open not really knowing what to do, all alone in a city blasted out...Suffering from radiation sickness.. I can't really figure out why a better way could not have been found....

AND Johnj.. please support this claim of the emperor telling his military council to struggle onward...I have never heard such a claim..even so this claim was made before the visaul of what the bomb could do.

The Emperor didn't tell them to carry on the struggle. The Emperor told them they had to surrender. Perhaps you should have enrolled in a remedial English class this summer. History would also help. The bombs were dropped on the 6th and the 9th.

[quote="Short Hand":92650]Why not drop the bomb outside the city and show the Japenese the power ? They would have surrendered in Days with little loss of life.[/quote:92650]

We've had about 3 debates on this issue relatively recently, and everytime, you bring up that one same point. No matter how many times I counter it with something along the lines of "No one surrendered within the THREE DAYS after the first bomb, what makes you think they would have surrendered if they hadn't even dropped it on a city?" To which you never seem to counter....

Communication was scattered. " The true depth of what had happned had not really been fully explained until a day after the dropping of the 2nd bomb.

and john, if you need to know.... rolleyes: I had a great final semester in Academic English, which in turn helped me get enrolled in a great program @ Seneca/York U for this fall. I simply misread what you said.

I see just another stupid mistake. Damn the luck.

[quote="Short Hand":8a2e6]Communication was scattered. " The true depth of what had happned had not really been fully explained until a day after the dropping of the 2nd bomb.[/quote:8a2e6]

That's just not good enough, I'm also thinking the source is fairly questionable - and that maybe you have exaggerated a totally minor insignificant phrase. Either way, it doesn't change anything. It's irrelevant. If they didn't realise the extent of damage 3 days after a bomb had hit a CITY how do you possibly believe dropping it outside of a city would help at all?

[quote="Short Hand":1771c]Communication was scattered. " The true depth of what had happned had not really been fully explained until a day after the dropping of the 2nd bomb.[/quote:1771c]

That's not what they say at the Peace Memorial in Hiroshima. Our Japanese tour guide told us that the Emperor knew the damage but that they tried to keep it from the Japanese people.

BTW - Ktog, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military towns with significant military equipment manufacturing. That's why they were chosen.

Yeah I know;however, that really wasn't the intent of my post, sorry if it was unclear. The Pearl Harbor attack was more strategic on the Japanese behalf. Yes the bomb targets in Japan were strategically picked, but I don't like the tactic.

I think given the circumstances, it was. Think about the casualties and devastation a full scale invasion of mainland Japan would have caused....

It took them long enough to surrender after being nuked twice, I can imagine they would have resisted more relentlessly than the Germans, and have the Allies push right up through the country before they even considered surrender. This is only speculation, but based on the facts and intelligence, I'd like to think its a pretty fair judgement.

I know what you mean about people not expressing remorse though, it's definitely a horrible thing to have happened. It's an awful part of history....But given the situation of the time, it seems as though it was necessary. I personally can't think, even with the knowledge we have now, of any other possibility that would have worked better.

I just watched a program on CBC about the Hiroshima bombing and I just thought I’d throw my in 2 cents in general about the bombings, not in response to anyone in particular.

First off, I think I’d have to say that I believe the bombings should not have taken place. It's really hard for me to justify bombing civilian populations whether it is Hiroshima, Dresden, London, Berlin or any other city.

Did it end the war? Probably. Did it save lives? Probably. But even after those ideas are considered, I still can't support bombing of civilian populations.

After watching the program, my opinion was reinforced even more. Some things I picked up for the program:

-Temps under the blast (the bomb did not go off on impact, rather it was on a timer and exploded above ground) were 4,000 degrees Celsius at the moment the bomb detonated. Anyone around the vicinity was immediately vaporized, or turned immediately to carbon.

-The heat was so intense that where people were standing on pavement, it left a shadow of their footprints in the pavement after they were vaporized.

-The exact number of instantaneous deaths from the explosion are not known, however are thought to be in the tens of thousands.

-Those that did survive went looking for water. There was one story of a nurse who crawled out to the back of the hospital where there was a pool of water. By the time she got there, there were many people crowded around the pool of water trying to drink it. However, others had climbed on top of those first people to try to drink, thus drowning the people underneath.

-Another story was one of a Dr who lived 4 miles from the blast. The shockwave threw him through his house, but he was OK enough to go toward the city to help. On his way he ran into something he called a "monster". People in Japan dress in white in the summer, but this monster was all in black. He collapsed near the Dr and he rushed to him. The doctor went to take his pulse, however there was no skin on his arm. The Dr looked at his face and his eyes were swollen shut. He had no nose and no mouth.

-Shortly after the bombing, the rising mushroom cloud mixed in with the humid air to create rain clouds. These clouds picked up dust and debris from the bomb. It started to rain, but the rain was black like oil. All the people on the ground started to collect the water, because it was all they had. However, they did not know that this water was dense with radioactivity, and those that drank the rainwater died.

For me, any way you slice it this is not justifiable.

The history channel is re airing History In The Pacific" soon, it gives a pretty gripping details on it as well. You should watch it if you have the chance.

[quote=Tripper]That's just not good enough, I'm also thinking the source is fairly questionable - and that maybe you have exaggerated a totally minor insignificant phrase. Either way, it doesn't change anything. It's irrelevant. If they didn't realise the extent of damage 3 days after a bomb had hit a CITY how do you possibly believe dropping it outside of a city would help at all?[/quote:b741a]

[quote=Tripper][/quote:c27a4]

Just recycling crap that was spewed out here from before. Take it to my ass if you have ap orblem. Or better yet.. google it and find out. Make me look like a moron I could really give a fuck Chav. rolleyes:

So what you guys are saying is it would have been better to invade the Japanese home islands, resulting in 1 to 2 million casualties for the Allies, and genocide for the Japanese. How compassionate.

[quote="Short Hand":10807][quote=Tripper][/quote:10807]

Just recycling crap that was spewed out here from before. Take it to my ass if you have ap orblem. Or better yet.. google it and find out. Make me look like a moron I could really give a fuck Chav. rolleyes:[/quote:10807]


Don't act like a baby when you get proved wrong.

You can't make that assumption because it never happend. If we made land fall it could have been another vietnam or a quick victory, you never know.

True, but you could make a pretty safe assumption that, judging by the fanaticism of the Japanese, it would have been a hard-fought and bloody affair

Uh...well when whole towns are obliterated to dust and whole populations are vaporized, you might be a bit less organized after. Ya need recoup and then make the decision. Im sure they were jus thinking survival of their own people before signing because we obviously made our point and did our damage.

[quote=Tripper][quote="Short Hand":f6a05]Just recycling crap that was spewed out here from before. Take it to my ass if you have ap orblem. Or better yet.. google it and find out. Make me look like a moron I could really give a fuck Chav. rolleyes:[/quote:f6a05]


Don't act like a baby when you get proved wrong.[/quote:f6a05]

You have to be the largest child on this site, 80 % of your posts involve childish insults or talking about a cock you had a few nights back....Your sole purpose in the political forum seems to be finding my posts and insulting a word I forgot to capitilize... rolleyes: You could just fuck off and act a little older.. but that will never happen. Continue on chav. eek:

-On another note, Ktog is right in the sense of we can not really tell what the casulty estimates would have been. We can also not really guess what could have been.. only talk about what did.