My Meeting - Shared screen with speaker view
Satoko Oka Norimatsu
I turn off video and sound as I have to do something. I will be back just before the session starts.
Peter, are we recording?
Here is an online timeline of 25 dates in 1945, https://www.vtwilpfgathering.com/timeline .It describes the political negotiations towards the end of the war in Europe, the Manhattan Project; the various committees who made decisions about where and whether to drop an A-bomb on a Japan city; the actual dropping of the 2 type of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the slow progress towards Japan’s eventual surrender.
Statements from military leaders from Gar Alperovitz
Intertwined dates describe the creation of the United Nations, also happening in 1945. These A-bombs were an extension of the horrendous fire-bombing of 60 Japanese cities which had been happening for many months and had already killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians.The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) – US section created this online 1945 timeline. Please visit it to find out more about the opposite themes of waging war and seeking peace here: https://www.vtwilpfgathering.com/timeline
The cover story of the July/August 1995 edition of American Journalism Review, by Tony Capaccio and Uday Mohan, provides an overview of the abysmal mainstream news coverage of the controversy over the Smithsonian censorship of the A-bomb exhibit. You can find it here: https://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=1285&id=1285
1. Why didn't the top military men not tell Truman before the bomb was dropped?
Michael Mosettig: How likely is it, that had we not seen the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which most realize is deterrent to using it again, would it have been employed in a future war. MacArthur wanted to use it in Korea, we came close over Cuba an d we have the current president, admittedly an outlier, saying, since we have these weapons, why don't we use them.
Aside from the real human tragedy and economic damage done by the two immolation, the most persistent impact of the use of these bombs on real human beings in real societal situations was to provide what we would now call “fake” science to allow unscientific and “fake” confidence in radiation protection standards that allowed atomic energy to be pursued commercially and strategically thu Atoms for Peace.Discuss. DrDavidLowry, senior international research fellow, Institute for Resource and Security Studies, Cambridge, Massachusetts fellow.
Was a demonstration of the A-bomb considered as an option to end the war?
WILPF's timeline contains links to the Potsdam Declaration and descriptions of the Interim Committee who essentially made the decision that the A-bombs be used. CEOs of companies working in the Manhattan Project were involved in these discussions. Who was making lots of money from the Manhattan Project? Read all about these details here https://www.vtwilpfgathering.com/timeline
Satoko Oka Norimatsu
We mostly so far heard discussions around the U.S. decision to drop the bomb and Japanese motivation for surrendering, but I think there is another critical element -- US motive for developing the bomb was to counter the Nazis. Can you talk about how the U.S. did not stop the Manhattan project when they knew Nazis gave up their plan to make atomic bombs? Satoko Oka Norimatsu, editor, Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus.
Gar Alperowitz, if my memory is correct, your 1965 book referred to Truman's appointment calendar and how it showed hawkish officials, such as Jimmy Brynes, met with him at key times. Is that correct?
QUESTION: How does the fact that the myth that the United States dropped the bombs to avoid having to invade and that it saved a million American lives relate to today’s debate over whether the United States should spend more than $1 trillion on a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems? How does it relate to what we are facing today with the Trump administration walking away from nuclear treaties and promoting a new nuclear arms race?
Why do you think Nitze’s idea of a live demonstration of an atomic bomb for Japanese observers was rejected? -Brett Wilkins, contributor, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Antiwar.com
My major article on the Stimson article coming at Mother Jones tomorrow or Monday, from my new book, “The Beginning or the End.”
The uncontrollable arms race between the US and Soviet Union/Russia is where we are today and what does threaten all life on the planet. The Russians fully understand the threat and have made clear their nuclear policy is DEFENSIVE only. The question for Americans and people in the world today is “do you realise the destructive potential of this weapon to all life on the planet today.” The Russian perspective is clear: America has withdrawn from all but one of the nuclear treaties. America is the only one who has declared a “first strike” nuclear policy. America is the aggressor with thousands of troops on Russia’s borders, missiles, nuclear and conventional in Poland, Turkey, and Missile Defence systems in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Add to this the 24/7 Russian blaming and bashing in the US and we are faced with a more imminent and real threat of a nuclear conflict with Russia than at any time during the Cold War. As a documentary filmmaker, living in Russia, this is the challenge we all face today.
In the first few weeks after these bombings the only readily available information had been prepared under the auspices of the War Department and under the watchful eye of General Groves. Early reports that the A-bomb would keep killing people long after its blast was over were dismissed by the US military as propaganda. See these historians' books.
Mr Ullman- read our 1945 timeline for description of the delay before the surrender: https://www.vtwilpfgathering.com/japan-surrenders
Why do we not hear about the awfulness of nuclear weapons?- its called the military-industrial complex and their power over our Congress and our media.
That's Walter for you!
The US public IS becoming more aware of the need for nuclear disarmament, watch the livestreaming programs on 6 & 9 August here: https://www.hiroshimanagasaki75.org/events
I must leave now. This has been such a fascinating conversation. I've got more books now to read. Cheers, Dana
Thanks for participating, Dana!
Thanks for everyone for doing that. I have 2 questions: 1. Professor Kuznik, you mentioned the the Soviet leadership realized that the nuclear strike was directed against its ambitions rather than the Japanese. So how did the nuclear factor influenced Soviet foreign policy? Did it deepen tensions between Washington and Moscow?
2. How do you think the post-war world would have looked like without nuclear weapons all together? Would it have n=been safer, more stable or vice versa?
Thank all of you for this. I must leave now.
I just have bad internet connection and the might be troubles
That is why I am writing here. Thanks
Thank you. A very ingformative afternoon. I must depart now. Drew Christianse
tad in los angeles
I know that Walter Pincus worked long ago for Senator J. William Fulbright. So perhaps you'll indulge me to share with you here, Walter, the article I wrote for the Global Policy Journal. It was posted last week on the 75th anniversary of the Trinity test and the dawn of the atomic age. It conveys what Fulbright said -- along with Truman, John Foster Dulles, and Einstein -- about the implications of The Bomb for the brand new United Nations.
tad in los angeles
tad in los angeles
Tad Daley, Citizens for Global Solutions, Los Angeles, email@example.com
Satoko Oka Norimatsu
I have another question, time permitting.So far the reasons that I am hearing on why it was not necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan were1) US leaders knew Japanese were ready to surrender if the preservation of the Emperor was ensured.2) US leaders knew Soviet entry into the war would play a definitive role into Japanese surrender.So, if the US leaders hadn't known the above, or if it was the case that the Japanese were not going to surrender no matter what -- regardless of the emperor status, regardless of the Soviet entry, ready to fight until there was no one to kill left in Japan,Would the panelists have agreed to the atomic bombing of Japan?Satoko Oka Norimatsu, editor, the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus
Thank you for taking my question. It was a privilege to listen in. Thank you, Peter, for the invitation.
Thanks to you all.
Thank you, Ed Fields, for your incisive stimulating question and input. l enjoy your documentaries!