Met nieuw VS 'vluchtelingenbeleid' zullen nog meer kinderen seksueel worden misbruikt....

De nieuwe maatregelen tegen migranten en hun kinderen* zal voor een enorme toename van misbruik als verkrachtingen bij die kinderen leiden......

Rond één derde van de kinderen die in de VS tot vluchtelingen behoren en die vastzitten, is met hun ouders, dan wel een volwassen begeleider als oom of tante de VS binnengekomen (niet zelden op de vlucht voor de ellende die de VS in hun thuisland aanricht...)...... 

Sinds kort worden deze kinderen na aanhouding bij hun ouders dan wel begeleider weggehaald en apart gehuisvest in een zogenaamd opvangcentrum, in de praktijk zijn deze centra echter 'gewoon' ordinaire gevangenissen, waar die kinderen 22 uur per dag binnen zitten..... 

Juist de ambtenaren van overheidsbureaus of medewerkers van particuliere organisaties die deze jongeren 'begeleiden' en de leiding in deze zogenaamde opvangcentra, misbruiken deze vaak al getraumatiseerde kinderen op grote schaal..... Het aantal klachten over seksueel misbruik door de leiding in die gevangenissen is fiks en dat zou volgens deskundigen nog maar 2% zijn van het werkelijke aantal gevallen van kindermisbruik......

Alleen tussen 2010 en 2016 was het aantal klachten 33.000 ga maar na wat dit betekent als dit nog maar 2% is van het totale aantal gevallen van misbruik en andere vormen van ernstige geestelijke en lichamelijke mishandeling...... (over dat laatste spreekt schrijver Justin King van het hieronder opgenomen artikel niet, echter dat is voor veel van deze kinderen en andere gevangenen wel de dagelijkse praktijk....)

Ondanks deze enorme ellende, die bekend moet zijn bij de Trump administratie, is deze maatregel toch ingevoerd, een maatregel waarbij kinderen worden gescheiden van hun ouders........ Alles 'in de strijd tegen vluchtelingen', die zoals gezegd veelal op de vlucht zijn als gevolg van terroristisch, illegaal VS ingrijpen in Midden- en Zuid-Amerika.......

Een regering die dergelijke maatregelen neemt verdient maar één stempel: fascistisch!!

The Fifth Column (TFC) 12 juni 2018

How many children will be raped due to Trump’s new policy?

by Justin King • June 12, 2018

(TFC) – We’ve seen the images. Children being torn from their asylum-seeking families. Kids in cages, like animals caught by the local animal control agency. It’s horrendous, it’s evil, it’s against everything America is supposed to represent, but there’s an even larger problem.

The agencies involved in this debacle are known for raping and sexually assaulting detainees. Not in isolated incidents, but by the thousands. That’s not an exaggeration. The Intercept obtained 1224 complaints about sexual abuse in ICE custody. That’s staggering, but according to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), that’s only 2% of the total number of complaints.

“…officials with the DHS Office of Inspector General indicated that the office received some 33,000 complaints between 2010 and 2016 alleging a wide range of abuses in immigration detention. The OIG provided records documenting investigations for just 2 percent of the complaints it shared with The Intercept.”

33,000. What kind of abuses were mentioned? The allegations in the complaints are horrific. A male detainee was forced to perform oral sex on a male immigration officer. A woman was maced and then forced to endure a male guard pressing his erect penis into her from behind while other guards watched. Sodomy. A woman raped by a medical worker. It’s a never-ending barrage of the most heinous crimes imaginable.

Out of the 1224 complaints obtained, only 43 were investigated by the OIG. Out of the full 33,000, only 247 were investigated by the OIG. That’s less than 1%. No statement by the government on how widespread the problem is can be trusted because they simply refuse to even pretend to investigate themselves.

At an immigration center in Pennsylvania, there are handbooks for detainees. The English version clearly states there is a zero-tolerance policy in regards to sexual assault and harassment. The Spanish version? It advises women to not talk about sex so they can avoid being assaulted. In this particular facility, the only prosecuted case of sexual assault was a government employee assaulting a teenaged girl. She had fled Honduras to avoid being raped. The perpetrator was locked up for only five months.

However, that case was the exception. It was actually prosecuted, most aren’t even investigated. At a GEO Group-run facility, a female minor reported a sexual assault. A medical exam said she showed indications of vaginal scarring and a sexually transmitted disease. ICE declared the complaint “unfounded” even though there was ample physical evidence.

However, as is a trend with federal agencies, in many cases when a victim reports the crime, they are placed in solitary confinement. A tactic, immigrants rights groups say, designed to pressure the victim into withdrawing the complaint.

Remember that sexual assault is always underreported. There are tens of thousands of these cases. Children will be sexually assaulted as a result of the President’s policy of separating children from their families. It’s not a question of if children will be assaulted, but how many. A dozen? Hundreds? A thousand? How many kids are you ok with being raped? Is your fear of asylum-seekers so great that you’ll offer up children to predators like some pimp in a back alley?

Tags: ice immigration Justin King rape sexual assault

* Zie: 'VS sluit zelfs kinderen van 10 jaar op..... Met dat land onderhoudt Nederland hechte banden, een rechteloos land waaraan 'we' zelfs mensen uitleveren.....'

Zie ook:
'13.000 kinderen van vluchtelingen zitten gevangen in VS 'detentiekampen''

'Immigrants& Muslims Are Trump's Jews ... Until He Comes for theActual Jews' (van Harvey Wasserman)

'A Grandmother Seeking Asylum Separated From Disabled Grandson at the Border. It’s Been 10 Months'

'Jeff Sessions: 'asielzoekers zijn alleen welkom in de VS als ze kunnen bewijzen dat ze overleden zijn t.g.v. geweld..........''

'VS martelt gevluchte kinderen.....'

'Concentratiekampen in VS voor migranten.......'

'Peuter vluchtelingen moeten eigen zaak bepleiten in VS rechtszalen, de VS: het land van de 'ongekende mogelijkheden....''

'VS wil van 3.000 migrantenkinderen DNA afnemen om zo de ouders op te sporen.....'

'De VS heeft een lange geschiedenis in het ontvoeren van kinderen uit niet witte families.......'

Children Drugged, Given Forced Injections at Texas Detention Facility: Lawsuit

Pentagon Accepts Trump’s Call to House 20,000 Children on US Military Bases

De kop van dit bericht op 10 juli 2018 veranderd door het woord 'worden' te verplaatsen, dit woord was op de mij typische dyslectische manier verwerkt, mijn excuus.

Rusland voorspelde 'de gifgasaanval' in Oost-Ghouta en de reactie daarop van de VS.....

In het westen amper bekend (ofwel verzwegen door de reguliere media): al voor de 'gifgasaanval' op Douma, was bekend dat de 'gematigde rebellen' bezig waren met de voorbereiding van een chemische aanval...* Deze 'gematigde rebellen' (psychopathische moordenaars, verkrachters en martelbeulen) van (in deze) terreurgroep Jaysh al-Islam, intussen door het westen ook aangeduid als 'de gematigde oppositie....', beschikken als IS en Al Qaida Syrië (en andere terreurgroepen) over chemische wapens als chlorine, dit met medeweten van het westen...... 

Waar men liegt over 'Assads chemische wapens' en daar schande over spreekt, is het blijkbaar wel normaal dat een stel psychopaten, die bewezen schijt hebben aan de levens van anderen, daadwerkelijk over deze wapens beschikken.......

Dit in ogenschouw genomen, is het artikel van Justin King op The Fifth Column (door Anti-Media overgenomen) nog cynischer, hierin wordt verwezen naar een artikel op Reuters van 13 maart jl., waarin het hoofd van de Russische generale staf, Valery Gerasimov spreekt over de opzet van de VS een aanval met chemische wapens te laten uitvoeren in Oost-Ghouta, met de opzet deze in de schoenen van het Syrische bewind te schuiven. Waarmee uiteraard ook Rusland en Iran, de door de VS verklaarde vijanden, in een uiterst slecht daglicht zouden komen te staan....... 'Geheel toevallig' waarschuwde in dezelfde tijd hare kwaadaardigheid Haley (de VS ambassadeur voor de VN) Syrië geen aanval met chemische wapens uit te voeren........

Zoals altijd met dit soort zaken: wie had er baat bij deze gifgasaanval (als die al heeft plaatsgevonden) en waarom? De zogenaamde gematigde rebellen stonden al op het punt om Oost-Ghouta uitgeschopt te worden door het Syrische leger (dus waarom zou dit leger nog chemische wapens gebruiken tegen haar eigen bevolking???). Bij een 'goed georganiseerde' false flag operatie, waarbij Syrië inderdaad de schuld in de schoenen zou worden geschoven (zoals nu is gebeurd), zou de VS een excuus hebben tot ingrijpen, zoals Haley Syrië begin maart al waarschuwde en zouden de kansen voor deze terreurgroepen keren..... Voorts had de VS legermacht in Syrië belang bij deze aanval, immers de militaire top wilde niet vertrekken uit Syrië, terwijl Trump al ruim voor de aanval op Douma stelde dat de VS zich zou terugtrekken uit Syrië......

Drie vliegen in 1 klap: A: de terreurgroep in Oost-Ghouta zou kunnen voorkomen Oost-Ghouta uitgezet te worden. B: voor het voorgaande was het nodig dat de VS in Syrië zou blijven, om dit voor elkaar te krijgen. C: Syrië, Rusland en Iran zouden eens te meer als duivelse machten worden neergezet, een zaak die in het belang is van de VS, dat niet alleen uiterst agressief bezig is tegen het reguliere Syrische leger, maar ook tegen Rusland en Iran......

Bovendien kan hiermee de wens van de VS en Israël vervuld worden tot een Balkanisering van Syrië, Irak en de rest van het Midden-Oosten (het zou me niet verbazen als uiteindelijk Egypte ook zal worden  opgedeeld), zodat men makkelijker kan heersen en verdelen. Dat de VS en Israël het liefst snel Iran aan willen vallen, is al lang geen geheim meer. Over Iran gesproken: waar vorige week amper over werd bericht was de aanval van Israël op een Iraans steunpunt in Syrië (een oorlogsmisdaad...), waar Iran legaal aanwezig is, dit op verzoek van het Syrische bewind.....

Nogmaals: het Syrische leger en de democratisch gekozen president Assad, hadden totaal geen belang bij een chemisch aanval, immers de strijd was al zo goed als gewonnen, dat gaf zelfs de VS legertop toe....... Bovendien heeft Syrië geen chemische wapens in het bezit, deze zijn onder toezicht van de VN vernietigd, dezelfde VN waarvan de wapeninspecteurs hebben vastgesteld dat Syrië niet langer beschikt over faciliteiten tot het ontwikkelen en produceren van chemische wapens...... Deze faciliteiten, Syrische laboratoria en fabrieken waar men deze chemische wapens ontwikkelde en maakte zijn ontmanteld, ook daar zag de VN op toe.......

Nu papegaait men in het westen elkaar na en stelt men dat een opslagplaats en laboratorium voor chemische wapens zijn gebombardeerd door de VS, GB en Frankrijk (zonder bewijs en VN resolutie: een enorme oorlogsmisdaad!) Niet bestaande doelen (althans wat betreft de functie van die gebouwen), maar de false flag operatie van de VS in samenwerking met de 'gematigde rebellen' is geslaagd. Eén doel is echter mislukt: te zorgen dat de terreurgroep niet uit Oost-Ghouta werden verdreven........ 

Vreemd overigens dat bij die bombardementen, waarbij grote hoeveelheden gifgas moeten zijn vrijgekomen, er geen gifgasslachtoffer is aangetroffen.......... (daarover later meer)

Watch: Russia Predicted a Fake Chemical Attack, US Response Before It Happened

April 15, 2018 at 1:33 pm

Written by Justin King

(TFC) – Sometimes bizarre claims by foreign governments are so shocking they are dismissed and never thought of again. But what happens when the events predicted occur exactly as described?

A stub of an article published by Reuters on March 13, 2018, almost a month before the purported chemical attack in Ghouta, reads:

“Russia said on Tuesday it had information that the United States planned to bomb the government quarter in Damascus on an invented pretext, and said it would respond militarily if it felt Russian lives were threatened by such an attack.

“Valery Gerasimov, head of Russia’s General Staff, said Moscow had information that rebels in the enclave of eastern Ghouta were planning to fake a chemical weapons attack against civilians and blame it on the Syrian army.”

(Link to the original article here. Link to UK version of article here. Link to archived article in case it is removed here.)

The described attack occurred on April 8, 2018. The West then attacked Syria.

Furthermore, after the chemical attack and western response, Russia has now claimed it has evidence the west was complicit in staging the attack.

Video of conference spoke of by Reuters:

Opinion by Justin King / Republished with permission / The Fifth Column / Report a typo

* Zie: 'Syrië: nieuwe gifgasaanval als 'false flag' operatie tegen Syrisch bewind in voorbereiding........' en: 'VS bezig met voorbereiding van een 'door Syrië' gepleegde gifgasaanval, ofwel de volgende VS false flag operatie'

Zie ook: 'VS, GB en Frankrijk begaan enorme oorlogsmisdaad met aanval op Syrische doelen......'

        en: 'Aanval op Syrische doelen door VS, GB en Frankrijk op moment dat de beurs 2 dagen is gesloten....'

        en: 'De Hoop Scheffer (CDA en ex-NAVO) heeft geen spijt voor de steun aan de illegale Irakoorlog >> 1,5 miljoen vermoorde Irakezen verder......'

        en: 'Russische volk wordt geadviseerd zich voor te bereiden op een nucleaire oorlog......

        en: 'Gifgasaanval vooropgezet spel om VS actie te rechtvaardigen, waarbij GB de spelers opdracht gaf dit toneelspel snel uit te voeren........ 'False flag gelukt': Syrië gebombardeerd zonder enig bewijs voor schuld.....'

        en: 'Rusland beschuldigd GB van het regisseren gifgasaanval Douma en zegt daar bewijzen voor te hebben'

        en: 'In Douma vond geen gifgasaanval plaats aldus gelauwerd journalist Robert Fisk.....'

        en: 'De OPCW inspecteurs en hun werk in Douma n.a.v. 'gifgasaanval...''

        en: 'Wapenfabrikanten die de illegale raketbeschietingen op Syrië mogelijk maakten, zagen hun aandelen met 10 miljard stijgen.........'

        en: 'OPCW team in Douma stelt dat Syrië en Rusland niets hebben veranderd dan wel verwijderd op de plaats van de 'gisfgasaanval''

        en: 'The Guardian met propaganda over Syrië, die zo uit Orwells 1984 zou kunnen komen......'

        en: ''False flag terror' bestaat wel degelijk: bekentenissen en feiten over heel smerige zaken..........'

        en: 'Syrian ‘Rebels’ Used Sarin Nerve Gas Sold By Britain'

       en: 'Assad heeft geen gifgas gebruikt tegen de Syrische bevolking!'

        en: 'Syrië: verslaggever Bartlett prikt leugens reguliere media door'

        en: 'Syrië wacht andermaal een geplande gasaanval van 'gematigde rebellen........''

        en: 'Syrië, de prijs van westerse terreur (die onmiddellijk gestopt moet worden >> tijd voor actie!)......'

Noord-Korea: hoe de VS een voorwendsel zal gebruiken om een oorlog te beginnen......

Als bij de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, is de VS bezig een zaak te fabriceren waarmee het militair kan optreden tegen Noord-Korea, wat de gevolgen ook mogen zijn........

De VS volgt dezelfde tactiek als voorafgaand aan de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, waarna een preventieve oorlog tegen Noord-Korea zal volgen op basis van gefabriceerde leugens en waar de bevolking van de VS zal worden voorgehouden dat Noord-Korea een (directe) bedreiging is voor de VS.....

Zie de reacties van de VS op de raketproeven van Noord-Korea, waarbij men ook nog eens stelt dat Noord-Korea atoomwapens heeft, terwijl daar het directe bewijs nog steeds ontbreekt...... Immers na een ondergrondse kernproef is de dagen daarna boven de plek verhoogde nucleaire straling te meten, daarvoor is niet één keer het bewijs geleverd, terwijl satellieten deze straling kunnen waarnemen........

Volgens Justin King, de schrijver van het hieronder overgenomen artikel en de persoon die de bijgeleverde video insprak, zal de VS Noord-Korea weer op de lijst met terreurstaten plaatsen, staten die sponsor zijn van terrorisme. De eerste aanzet daartoe is intussen al genomen door o.a. Newsweek, dit mediaorgaan heeft een bericht van het American Enterprise Institute (AEI) uit september opnieuw aangekleed en dit op 28 oktober jl. geplaatst, de strekking: Noord-Korea moet terug op de lijst van sponsors van terrorisme......

Let wel het American Enterprise Institute is een denktank die nauw betrokken was bij de fabricatie van leugens waarmee de VS een reden meende te hebben, Irak in 2003 illegaal aan te vallen (overigens waren de geheime diensten in de VS en een fiks deel van het Pentagon wel degelijk op de hoogte van die leugens......).....

Als Noord-Korea weer op de lijst van landen komt, die terrorisme bevorderen, is het nog maar een kleine stap om daadwerkelijk in te grijpen, dit door het verhaal van massavernietigingswapens opnieuw te verpakken en aan het volk in de VS en de wereld te tonen. Zo zal men 'bewijzen' dat Noord-Korea nucleaire wapens of gifgaswapens heeft geleverd aan terreurgroepen....... Dat laatste massavernietigingswapen, gifgas, heeft Noord-Korea in grote hoeveelheden en dat al meer dan 50 jaar. Er zijn 2 landen die meer gifgaswapens hebben en dat zijn de VS en Rusland.......

Ondanks dat Noord-Korea al meer dan 50 jaar chemische wapens heeft, heeft het nooit gebruik gemaakt van deze wapens en het verhaal dat dit nu wel zal gebeuren, zal niet erg geloofwaardig zijn.... Daar komt de rol van de reguliere media weer tevoorschijn, daar zij de VS bevolking zullen overtuigen, dat een aanval met chemische wapens door N-K een kwestie van tijd zal zijn........

Uiteraard is de aanslag op de broer van Kim Yung-un in Maleisië voor de reguliere media het bewijs van de kwade bedoelingen die Noord-Korea heeft, terwijl het niet bewezen is, dat N-K daar de hand in had.... Die moord zou met VX zenuwgas zijn gepleegd, echter als je weet hoe vluchtig dat spul is en dat dit door 2 personen op het gezicht van deze broer zijn gewreven, is het een godswonder dat deze 'daders' deze moordaanslag hebben overleefd........ (VX is het sterkste zenuwgas dat nu bekend is....)

Te vrezen valt dat King gelijk heeft, dan is het nog de vraag of Iran dan wel Libanon eerder of wellicht op hetzelfde moment zullen worden aangevallen..........

Video: How the US Will Create a Pretext for War With North Korea

('hoe heeft André van Duin de plek van Trump kunnen innemen....')

November 13, 2017 at 9:21 am

Written by Justin King

(TFC) — It’s clear the Trump administration wants some form of resolution with North Korea. That resolution will probably be sought through military means. The US game plan is the same as it’s been since 9/11: preemptive war based on some unidentifiable threat. That threat has to be sold to the American people.

The first step will be to return North Korea to the state sponsors of terrorism list. The chess pieces are already being put on the board and US media outlets are already laying out the case for that action. Newsweek ran an article on October 28th including some very interesting passages. The outlet rehashed an article written in September titled, “The Warmbiers are right: North Korea should be back on the State Sponsors of Terror list” published by American Enterprise Institute, a DC think tank. This is the same think tank responsible for proposing the troop surges in Iraq.

The Newsweek article includes the passage:

“We see North Korea claiming to be a victim and that the world is picking on them, and we’re here to tell you: North Korea is not a victim. They’re terrorists. They kidnapped Otto. They tortured him. They intentionally injured him. They are not victims.”

It makes no mention of the vandalism for which Otto was charged. The article continues:

North Korea is not a victim. It is a terrorist state.

The article then goes on to detail a 30-year-old incident in which a South Korean airliner was bombed. Trump has already made indications he plans to place North Korea back on the list.

Once relisted, it will simply be a matter of repackaging the weapons of mass destruction fables that led us into the war in Iraq. There will be talk about North Korean agents giving nukes to terrorists. Even though a nuclear attack would be traceable to North Korea and would trigger a full-scale response to by the United States, the talking heads will attempt to convince the American people the attack is imminent. NBC has started the rhetoric already:

“The chance that North Korea might provide jihadis with some of their chemical or nuclear capability is a huge concern at the moment,”

However, in that same article, it highlights the biggest problem with the North Korean-to-terrorists WMD pipeline narrative. Chemical weapons. North Korea has a massive stockpile of chemical weapons. In fact, the only countries believed to possess more are the United States and Russia. Estimates range from 2500 to 5000 tons of chemical weapons. The stockpile isn’t just old blister agents either. It is widely believed the North Koreans are in possession of VX, which is the most lethal nerve agent known. A microscopic amount can be fatal. 5000 tons is certainly worrisome.

The narrative should fall apart and fear should subside when the date of North Korea’s chemical weapons program is reviewed. It began around 1955 and became successful around 1961. In more than 50 years, the North Koreans have not launched a chemical terror attack against the United States. With an arsenal that most likely includes VX, Tabun, Sarin, and many less sophisticated blood, blister, and choking agents the terror attacks the media will attempt to convince you are imminent have not occurred.

To those who would suggest they might not have these weapons or they lack the ingenuity to deploy them, it should be noted in February of this year Kim Jong-un’s half-brother was assassinated in Malaysia.  He was surprised from behind when two women rubbed two pieces of cloth on his face, he died. VX is a binary chemical agent. Two separate chemicals combine to form the weapon. It was suspected each cloth had one of the chemicals. It was later confirmed the death was caused by VX. The North Koreans have the ability to transport the most lethal chemical weapon known internationally, yet there are no attacks.

Video version from TFC’s YouTube Channel:

By Justin King / Republished by permission / The Fifth Column / Report a typo

De werkelijke reden voor de VS atoomaanvallen op Hiroshima en Nagasaki.... Niet om de oorlog met Japan ten einde te brengen.......

Het volgende artikel vond ik 17 maart jl. op het blog van Stan van Houcke. Het artikel komt oorspronkelijk van Global Research en maakt gehakt van de leugen, dat het bombarderen van twee dichtbevolkte Japanse steden met een atoombom, nodig was om een eind te maken aan de oorlog met Japan (WOII). Een grotere oorlogsmisdaad is bijna niet te bedenken........

De echte reden voor de atoomaanvallen was al bekend, maar goed te zien, dat e.e.a. nu ruimschoots terug te vinden is in (officiële) documenten.

Zelfs veel hooggeplaatste militairen spraken zich destijds uit tegen het gebruik van dit barbaarse wapen..........

Jammer dat de meeste mensen die getuige waren van deze vreselijke oorlogsmisdaad (ook de 'getuigen op afstand' zoals in Nederland), intussen zijn overleden..... Hen werd, precies als latere generaties, de leugen ingeprent, dat dit de enige manier was om de oorlog met Japan te beëindigen.......

U kunt in het volgende artikel o.a. lezen, dat de VS, voorafgaand aan het tot 2 keer toe bombarderen met atoombommen, van een dichtbevolkte Japanse stad, een wapenstilstand met Japan weigerde, daar Japan de keizer niet wilde afzetten, laat staan vervolgen. Met die voorwaarde ging de VS na de 2 aanvallen met atoombommen toch akkoord......... Daarmee was het overduidelijk, dat de VS deze aanvallen met atoombommen heeft gebruikt, om de effecten daarvan te zien en te onderzoeken...... De Japanse burgers werden in feite als proefdier gebruikt....... 



Hier het artikel (dat overigens op 2 november 2012 werd gepubliceerd):

The Real Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan. It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives.

By Washington's Blog / globalresearch.ca / Nov 2, 2012

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise. 

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

It is my opinion 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

General Douglas MacArthur agreed (pg. 65, 70-71):

MacArthur’s views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed …. When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.

Moreover (pg. 512):

The Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face ‘prompt and utter destruction.’ MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General’s advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary.

Similarly, Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted (pg. 500):

I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bird said:

I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted.

***

In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn’t have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb.

War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75.

He also noted (pg. 144-145, 324):

It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn’t get any imports and they couldn’t export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in.

General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force “hawk,” stated publiclyshortly before the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan:

The war would have been over in two weeks. . . . The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote (pg. 36-37, 44-45):

[I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945.

***

Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary.

Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote:

Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds.

Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21.

Brigadier General Carter Clarke – the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors – said (pg. 359):

When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.

Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example:

The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to [the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan.]

British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that “when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.”

On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay’s private reaction was one of “revulsion.”

Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?

Even military officers who favored use of nuclear weapons mainly favored using them on unpopulated areas or Japanese military targets … not cities.

For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender … and the Navy Secretary agreed (pg. 145, 325):

I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood… I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest… would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation…

It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…

General George Marshall agreed:

Contemporary documents show that Marshall felt “these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave–telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centers….”

As the document concerning Marshall’s views suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turns … on whether the bombs had to be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target—which, in fact, was the explicit choice since although there were Japanese troops in the cities, neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki was deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting [at Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers’ homes.

Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn’t Needed

Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or save lives.

As historian Doug Long notes:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker has studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion he writes, “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.” (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990, pg. 110).

Politicians Agreed

Many high-level politicians agreed. For example, Herbert Hoover said (pg. 142):

The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945…up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; …if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs.

Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted (pg. 29-32):

In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer.

Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?

If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?

One theory is that scientists like to play with their toys:

On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out . . . .” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it.”

However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan.

Albert Einstein – an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project) – said differently:

“A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political – diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision.

Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the secretary of defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb:

We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, folder # 76, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition, pg. 323-333).

The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so, and – like some of the military officers quoted above – recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area.

The Real Explanation?

History.com notes:

In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective …. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War.

New Scientist reported in 2005:

The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory.

Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.

“He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.”

***

[The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives] is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US.

***

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

“Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” says Selden.

John Pilger points out:

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”. 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”. His foreign policy colleagues were eager “to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip”. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.” The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the “overwhelming success” of “the experiment”.

We’ll give the last word to University of Maryland professor of political economy – and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State – Gar Alperovitz:

Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize 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. Nor was this the judgment of “liberals,” as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.

***

Instead [of allowing other options to end the war, such as letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces], the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an August 8 Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians. The available evidence, though not conclusive, strongly suggests that the atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders “preferred”—as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Martin Sherwin has put it—to end the war with the bombs rather than the Soviet attack. Impressing the Soviets during the early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears likely to have been a significant factor.

***

The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that … most Americans haven’t paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.

***

Shortly before his death General George C. Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.

========================
Zie ook:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/09/the-real-reason-america-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-it-was-not-to-end-the-war/ 


'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!'

'Hiroshima en Nagasaki, aanvallen zijn niet te verdedigen enorme oorlogsmisdaden >> The Indefensible Hiroshima Revisionism That Haunts America To This Day'

'Atoomaanvallen op Hiroshima en Nagasaki, één van de grootste oorlogsmisdaden uit de menselijke geschiedenis'

'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..........'

'List of wars involving the United States'

'CIA 70 jaar: 70 jaar moorden, martelen, coups plegen, nazi's beschermen, media manipulatie enz. enz.........'

'Noord-Korea verkeerd begrepen: het land wordt bedreigd door de VS, dat alleen deze eeuw al minstens 4 illegale oorlogen begon........'

Voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, klik op één van de labels, die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: Halsey, MacArthur, Manhattan Project, Marshall en Potsdam,