Duitse verontwaardiging over behandeling krijgsgevangenen WOII door Sovjet-Unie: onderdeel van de anti-Russische propaganda aangaande Oekraïne

ZeitZeichen op WDR 5 beklaagde zich gisteren over de behandeling van NSDAP gevangenen, ofwel nazi's door de Sovjet-Russische bezetter na afloop van de Tweede Wereldoorlog (WOII), je kan ten tijde van de Russische inval in Oekraïne immers Rusland niet genoeg demoniseren...... In het begin van dit WDR programmaonderdeel nazi-krijgsgevangenen en leden van nazi-weerstandsgroep 'Werwolf' (zo meer daarover), destijds gevangengehouden in een aantal van de concentratiekampen van de nazi's, die zich beklaagden over de slechte huisvesting in de barakken van die voormalige dodenkampen, waar water, ijs en wind vrij spel zouden hebben gehad..... Precies wat de Joden, Roma, Sinti, homo's en links politieke gevangenen was overkomen in die dodenkampen van de nazi's......

In de uitzending wordt duidelijk gemaakt dat de nazi-gevangenen in Britse en VS handen een veel beter leven hadden, al zouden ook daar enkelen zijn omgekomen van de honger..... Er is dan ook nogal een verschil tussen de Britten en 'Amerikanen' aan de ene kant en de Russen aan de andere kant, immers Russische krijgsgevangenen hadden onder de nazi's amper kans om te overleven, om over het enorme aantal door de nazi's vermoorde Russen nog maar te zwijgen, in totaal kwamen 26 miljoen Russen om het leven door de nazi-oorlog tegen hun land...... Voorts zijn de walgelijke manieren waarop de nazi's oorlogsmisdaden begingen in Rusland met geen 100 pennen te beschrijven!!

Dezelfde nazi's die ook nog eens werden geholpen door de fascisten in de door hen veroverde landen zoals die in Hongarije en Oekraïne, fascisten of beter gezegd nazi's die meehielpen met nazi-Duitse massamoorden op Joden, Roma, Sinti, homo's en politieke gevangenen..... (wat betreft de laatste groep >> voor het overgrote deel socialisten en communisten, maar ook christenen die zich hebben verzet tegen het nazi-Duitse bewind) Niet voor niets ook dat de Sovjet-Unie het grootste deel van de Oost-Europese landen bezet hield na WOII, juist daar de nazi's in die landen al groot of zelfs aan de macht waren voordat ze werden ingelijfd bij het 'Derde Rijk'.

Nazi-zwijn Heinrich Himmler, de opperschoft van de SS, heeft in 1944 de 'Werwolf' groep opgericht, een ondergrondse weerstandsgroep die de geallieerden en dus ook de Sovjet-Russen moest aanvallen in gebieden die door hen waren veroverd (op Duits grondgebied)..... Me dunkt nogal wiedes dat de 'Russen' uiterst fanatiek optraden tegen leden van deze groep en geen risico namen bij het vastzetten van mensen die ze verdachten van deelname aan deze nazi-weerstandsgroep, zeker gezien de ervaringen van vooral de Russen met de nazi's. En ja daarbij hebben de Sovjet-Russen inderdaad het oorlogsrecht geschonden, maar nogmaals >> wat een verschil tussen wat deze Russen hadden meegemaakt met de nazi's vergeleken met de Britten en wat men 'Amerikanen' noemt....... 

Ongelofelijk dat men zich in Duitsland nog durft te beklagen over de behandeling van nazi's na de Tweede Wereldoorlog (WOII) en dat ook nog eens als onderdeel van de meer dan belachelijke anti-Russische 'propaganda-tsunami' die over de westerse volkeren wordt gestort, waar je dit niet anders kan zien dan als grootschalige hersenspoeling..... Propaganda die we niet meer hebben gezien sinds de Tweede Wereldoorlog en dat op een niveau waar nazi-zwijn Goebbels jaloers op zou zijn geweest..... (en dan te bedenken dat de Russische inval in Oekraïne puur en alleen is te danken aan de machinaties van de VS en haar NAVO-partners.....)

Dit was overigens niet de eerste keer dat ZeitZeichen op een wel heel onbeschofte manier bericht over het eind van WOII*, terwijl men nooit aandacht besteedt aan het feit dat de nazi-verschrikkingen pas heel ver na WOII werden onderwezen op het Duitse voortgezet onderwijs.... Om nog maar te zwijgen over het enorme aantal nazi's die na die oorlog op hun bestuursposten mochten blijven zitten, zoals rechters die mensen spugend en schreeuwend ter dood hadden veroordeeld voorafgaand en tijdens WOII....... 

Oh en mijn excuus aan de zwijnen voor de vergelijking met Himmler en Goebbels.

Vreemd genoeg kan ik nergens de link vinden waarmee je het programma terug kan luisteren, terwijl je dit wel kan vinden voor alle andere ZeitZeichen uitzendingen voorafgaand aan deze uitzending......

 

(On the top right hand side of this page you can choose for a translation in the language of your choice: choose 'Engels' [english] so you can recognise your own language [the Google translation is first in dutch, a language most people don't understand, while on the other hand most people recognise there language translated in english])

(als je het Duits niet machtig bent, zet dan de tekst in Google translate eerst om in het Duits door in het menu op Duits te klikken, waarna je weer kan klikken op die vertaalapp en je bovenaan in het menu Nederlands ziet staan, klik daarop en de hele tekst staat vervolgens in het Nederlands, de vertaling is van een redelijk goede kwaliteit.)

 

 

10. Juli 1947 - Sowjetischer Geheimbericht über Massensterben in "Speziallagern" der Ostzone

Stand: 29.06.2022, 14:03 Uhr

Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg werden Nazi-Kader von den Alliierten interniert. Dadurch sollen Guerilla-Attacken der besiegten Deutschen verhindert werden. Die Bedingungen in den Lagern unterscheiden sich deutlich.

Im August 1945 endet die Potsdamer Konferenz. Die drei alliierten Siegermächte Sowjetunion, USA und Großbritannien halten in einem Protokoll fest, was sie vereinbart haben. Dazu gehört auch die Sicherheit der alliierten Truppen. Im Dokument heißt es dazu:

"Nazistische Parteiführer, einflussreiche Nazianhänger und die Leiter der nazistischen Ämter und Organisationen und alle anderen Personen, die für die Besetzung und ihre Ziele gefährlich sind, sind zu verhaften und zu internieren." Potsdamer Protokoll

Der Anlass: SS-Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler initiierte im September 1944 den Aufbau der Untergrundbewegung "Werwolf". Ihre Mitglieder sollten in den bereits von den Alliierten besetzten deutschen Gebieten den Feind angreifen. Im befreiten Aachen ermordete daraufhin ein Werwolf-Kommando den von den Amerikanern eingesetzten Bürgermeister.

Stacheldraht, Hunger, Krankheit

Bei Kriegsende richtet die US-Truppen entlang des Rheins mehr als 20 sogenannte Rheinwiesenlager ein. Eingesperrt wird alles, was männlich und verdächtigt ist: Soldaten, potenzielle Werwölfe, Zivilisten. Die Lager bestehen aus Wiesen, die mit Stacheldraht umzäunt sind. Unterkünfte fehlen. Es herrschen Hunger und Krankheit.

Nach ein paar Monaten werden die amerikanischen Lager aufgelöst und die Internierten besser untergebracht. Die Briten dagegen unterscheiden von Anfang an zwischen Internierten und Kriegsgefangenen. Die Bedingungen in diesen Internierungslagern sind moderat. Trotzdem verhungern im ersten Kriegswinter Dutzende Häftlinge. Die französische Internierungspolitik gilt als willkürlich, aber vergleichsweise milde.

Willkürliche Verhaftungen

In der sowjetischen Zone hingegen ist die Lage prekär: keine Kleidung, kaum Essen, Flöhe und Wanzen. Für ihre "Speziallager" nutzen die Sowjets auch die früheren Konzentrationslager Buchenwald und Sachsenhausen. Weitere Lager entstehen in Hohenschönhausen, Mühlberg, Bautzen, Ketschendorf, Jamlitz, Weesow, Torgau und Fünfeichen.

Die meisten Internierten sind männlich und hatten untergeordnete Funktionen in der NSDAP oder NS-Organisationen. Die Verhaftungen geschehen willkürlich. Ein Verdacht oder eine Denunziation reichen aus. Insassen haben keine Beschwerdemöglichkeit. Die Verpflegung ist so schlecht, dass Verhungerte in Massengräbern verscharrt werden.

Ein Drittel verstorben

Am 10. Juli 1947 geht ein geheimer Bericht aus der sowjetischen Besatzungszone an das Innenministerium in Moskau. Über 31.000 Internierte seien verstorben. Von den noch lebenden rund 60.000 Inhaftierten seien über 40 Prozent krank.

Dennoch seien die sowjetischen Internierungslager nicht mit den Konzentrationslagern der Nationalsozialisten gleichzusetzen, sagt die Historikerin Bettina Greiner. "Diese massenhaften Todesfälle sind nicht einem politischen Willen geschuldet, sondern politischem Desinteresse."

Als westliche Medien über die Situation in den östlichen Internierungslagern berichten, verbessern sich dort die Lebensverhältnisse. Anfang 1950 erreicht die gerade gegründete DDR, dass die Sowjets die Auflösung der letzten "Speziallager" ankündigen. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt sind die Lager im Westen schon lange geschlossen.

Autor des Hörfunkbeitrags: Heiner Wember
Redaktion: David Rother

Programmtipps:

ZeitZeichen auf WDR 5 (9.45 Uhr) und WDR 3 (17.45 Uhr) erinnert am 10. Juli 2022 an den sowjetischen Geheimbericht über das Massensterben in Internierungslagern der Ostzone. Das ZeitZeichen gibt es auch als Podcast.

ZeitZeichen am 11.07.2022: Vor 50 Jahren: Endspiel der Schach-WM zwischen Boris Spasski und Bobby Fischer

============================================

* Zie: 'ZeitZeichen van WDR 5 met schandelijke kritiek op de Sovjet-Unie tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog'

-------------------------------------------

Voorts zie: 'Werner von Braun 23 maart 1912 - 16 juni 1977 : het verhaal van een SS massamoordenaar'

'4,5 miljoen SA leden werden na de Tweede Wereldoorlog vrijgesproken van misdaden'

'14 juli 1976 aanslag op oorlogsmisdadiger en ex-adjudant van Himmler' (14 juli 2021) 

'Richard von Weizsäcker (voormalig president West-Duitsland) was officier van de Wehrmacht en werd onderscheiden met het IJzeren Kruis tweede en eerste klasse' 

'WOII herdenking op de dag dat nazi-Duitsland 75 jaar geleden capituleerde: 8 mei 1945'  

'Monument voor door de nazi's vermoorde Roma en Sinti kon pas in 2012 worden onthuld......'

'VS propaganda door de CIA geënt op de leest van nazi-Duitsland en daarmee van oorlogsmisdadiger Goebbels'

'8 mei, de dag waarop de nazi's in 1945 capituleerden mag nog steeds niet als nationale feestdag worden gevierd in Duitsland' 

'Helmut Schmidt: Duitsland heeft afgerekend met WOII, behalve op momenten dat er weer nazi-stront bovenkomt......'

'Duitse asielzoekerscentra worden steeds vaker aangevallen......... Ach ja het nazi-gif is nooit echt verwijderd uit de Duitse maatschappij......' Hoe cynisch dat men nu (het is tijdens de aanvulling op deze link 23 maart 2022) wel vluchtelingen uit Oekraïne in grote aantallen wil opnemen, het land dat voor WOII en de inval van nazi-Duitsland voor een groot deel al fascistisch, antisemitisch en tegen Roma, Sinti, homo's en linkse mensen was.....

'Litouwse held Jonas Noreika valt van de sokkel: geen held maar een massamoordenaar van Joden'

'Nazimoordenaar werkte na WOII voor de Mossad...!!!'

'Duitse neonazi-politieagenten blijven de pers halen in 'verward (rechts) Duitsland'' En zie wat dat betreft ook:

'Politie van het Duitse Essen: 29 agenten zijn neonazi's'

''Psychiatrie' in nazi-Duitsland en het niet aanpakken van daders, één van de redenen voor het ontstaan van Baader Meinhof Gruppe en Rote Armee Fraction......'

'Cees Nooteboom: Duitsland heeft tot op het bot afgerekend met het nazi verleden.....' Wat een sukkel!! Maar ja wat wil je, immers Nooteboom is uiterst populair in Duitsland en hij wil zijn lezers 'natuurlijk niet' voor de schenen schoppen......

'Ulrike Meinhof, een kind van Hitler...........'

'Nazisme in het Duitsland van de 60er jaren, versus de opkomst van de RAF........'

'Derrick en de Rote Armee Fraction'

--------------------------------------------------

En terzijde: 'AIVD waarschuwt voor het ronselen van kinderen' Dierenactivisme wordt door de rechtse AIVD vergeleken met terrorisme en kinderen vertellen wat er in de intensieve martelveehouderij gebeurt is volgens de AIVD het ronselen van kinderen..... Zo ziek als het na WOII niet vertellen aan de kinderen uit West-Duitsland wat er in hun land en daarbuiten was gebeurd tijdens WOII uit naam van Duitsland......

'Monsanto, naamsverandering in Bayer om misdaden te verdoezelen....... ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!' Bayer, het bedrijf dat tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog (WOII) concentratiekampgevangenen misbruikte voor het testen van medicijnen en het injecteren met diverse giftige stoffen om te zien wat de reactie was op het menselijk lichaam....... Ongeofelijk genoeg mocht dit bedrijf na WOII gewoon doorgaan onder dezelfde naam..... Reken maar dat er hoge functionarissen van dit bedrijf, als de heel foute wetenschappers die proeven uitvoerden op mensen, op hun post mochten blijven en men gebruik is blijven maken van de gruwelijke onderzoeken die men in dat bedrijf ten tijde van nazi-Duitsland heeft uitgevoerd....

'Eugenetica en genetische manipulatie gaan hand in hand......'

---------------------------------------------

Voor meer berichten over de Russische inval in Oekraïne, klik op het label Oekraïne direct onder dit bericht.

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,