Apologies to resurrect what appears to be a finished thread, but I have been away for 4 weeks. While I have followed on Tapatalk, replying to topics on my Sony Xperia was slightly difficult.
Paul Ham has written an excellent book called
Hiroshima Nagasaki, and Jarrah would be advised to read it before producing his usual 'Yours, angry and annoyed, JW' tabloid style rant/video. Ham actually offers an argument that the bombs should not be dropped, but at no point eludes to their use being a terrorist act. In fact Ham examines both sides of the argument and explores the careful decision process that was undertaken before the decision to drop the bombs was made.
Jarrah produces the following strawman to attack:
Those killed in 9-11 was far less than those in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The US calls 9-11 a terrorist attack, so the A-bombs should be called terrorist attacks.Jarrah attacks this strawman by pleading a special case for the A-bombs based on the radiation they produce. I understand that A-bombs are dreadful weapons, but when Jarrah sets them apart from the rest of WW2 he discounts a very clear difference between 9-11 and August 1945 -
The US had declared war on Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbour.The A-bombings themselves were part of a wider strategic plan to bring Japan to its knees, Jarrah does not seem to grasp this point. By mid-1945, before the A-bombs were dropped, Curtis LeMay had informed the President that his bombers could lay waste to 60 Japanese cities using conventional explosives before the end of the year. The US had a stark choice to make, having seen the destruction of German cities they wanted to avoid the same in Japan. Mainly because it would be more difficult to rebuild the country from nothing, but also the public and political perception that innocent civilians were being massacred by the aerial bombing campaign. The A-bombs may have been the lesser of two evils, and this consideration was part of the decision making process. Hardly a rash act of terrorism.
The use of casualties to define Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a terrorist attack is flawed given the narrative of World War 2. As others have pointed out, we could examine many events and claim terrorism based on a casualty metric. The Japanese atrocities in China, the German blitz, the actions of the SS on the Eastern Front, the US/UK bombing of German cities. To be brutally honest it was an horrific war and the inhumanity was unprecedented on the scale witnessed. The A-bombs in the context of total war casualties were insignificant, the A-bombs were significant in the dawn of global change that they ushered in, and this is where Jarrah does not understand history.
As others have raised, was Tokyo a terrorist attack, given that it killed many more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The US certainly knew that given its wooden buildings it would burn easily, and opted for incendiary bombs to raze Tokyo to the ground. Jarrah needs to read about the Tokyo bombings, along with Dresden, he would then realise that the pain and suffering meted out during those conventional bombing raids compares to that of the A-bombs. The A-bombs are not a special case of human suffering in the the context of WW2.
Further, the US had already begun dropping leaflets on Japanese cities to warn civilians to evacuate. So to claim that the US were atomic-terrorists is woefully incorrect. Jarrah also seems to ignore this fact to make his special plea.
He claims he gets angry and offended at the excuses made for the use of the A-bombs. There is certainly debate surrounding the use of the bombs, but to suggest that this amounts to excuses is wrong. The historical analysis for their use is complex and far reaching, and there are many commentaries that account for the post-war strategic position between the US and USSR. Most commentaries agree on the reasons for their use, but the bone of contention is whether the Japanese were ready to surrender. The main reasons offered for their use:
(a) To force the Japanese into a surrender and reduce US casualties with a homeland invasion.
(b) To demonstrate the existence of the A-bomb to the Soviets and provide a future bargaining chip in post war agreements.
(c) To end the war early and prevent the Soviets entering the Pacific War.
(d) To examine the effects of A-bombs the populous of a city.
(e) To test effectiveness of the bomb for military operations.
Based on the evidence I have read (a), (b) and (c) were the main reasons given for the bombings. I agree, there is a bone of contention that Japan might have been suing for peace, but even near the end of the war some Japanese leaders wanted conditions that were more favourable to them, and some militarists did not want to surrender at all. Jarrah might wish to read about the Bushido and how this cultural reference point transcended Japanese decision making and their war conduct. Maybe then he would realise his notion that the Japanese had retreated ready for surrender is flawed at many levels.
At this point I want to address Jarrah's claim that the Japanese had retreated back to the homeland and were ready to surrender. Really??? So, he wants to rewrite history.
There was no retreat. Even the most precursory examination of World War 2 shows his lack of understanding on this point. How he has reached a conclusion of retreat has perplexed me, and I have been checking my own understanding to make sure that I have not missed a fine detail. I have not. The Japanese were defeated across the Pacific in a series of bloody battles, the most famous being Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese clung on to these islands because they were strategically important in the defence of the homeland. Once captured, they reduced the US Lines of Communication and allowed basing for an attack on the homeland. There was no retreat, and the Japanese were preparing a militia army to defend against an invasion that would have cost the US 500 000 - 1 000 000 casualties and brought more pain and suffering to Japanese civilians.
So questions to Jarrah, you would rather have seen the continued suffering of the Japanese people at the hands of an altruistic government and military rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would rather have seen the thousands of men and women in POW camps experience continued torture, starvation and worked to death rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would rather war raged in China, and the continued cost to its civilian populace rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would have preferred the continued destruction of Japanese cities by conventional means rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would rather have seen the death of more US military serviceman/women with pain and anguish brought upon their families rather than the speedy curtailing of the war? You would rather have run the risk that without the use of the bomb its use in the future would have been inevitable, a use which would have been catastrophic to the population of this world? Do you actually understand the wider strategic implications of WW2 and the fallout between the Soviet Union and USA, and maybe the use of the bomb was a means to an end? While I agree that the bomb was a terrible weapon, maybe the world would have been a worse place without its use? People are not making excuses for its use, most people abhor its use, but it may well have been the lesser of two evils, and the decision to drop it was considered very carefully. We will never know the answer to 'what if the bomb was not dropped on Japan?' While a terrible sacrifice for the peoples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it may have been worth paying. Yes, there is that debate, but it certainly was not a terrorist act when the correct context is considered and a proper historical analysis is applied. So, Jarrah can be offended and angry all he wants, but that's all it will ever be given he has no grasp of history, and by this I mean his ability to analyse historical events rather than churn out some Googled facts.
I would also like to add that the US, having learned from the Versailles Treaty, entered Japan and brought peace and prosperity to that nation with its program of reconciliation and regeneration. The US did not enter as conquerors, but showed considerable humility to the starving Japanese. People that were starving while their leaders who had brought Bushido fanaticism across the Pacific and Indo-China dined in comfort, vying for surrender terms to save face. Jarrah might wish to examine the oppression of the Japanese by their own leaders, and then maybe he'd see the true 'terrorists.' Were the US acting like terrorists during the post-war fallout, were they acting imperialistically like their Soviet counterparts, or were they trying to ensure a stable Pacific? The US actions post-war were about as far removed from terrorism as anyone can possibly imagine, the US wanted to end the war and restore peace to the world.
Finally, I almost choked when I heard Jarrah claim he got angry and offended by A-bomb apologists, yet in his comment section on the video he has allowed a few users to spew Holohoax nonsense. I don't see his rants about offence and anger over his subscribers making light of an event that brought terror and suffering to millions of people. He might also like to examine his friendship with Ralph Rene, a known Holocaust denier, anti-semite and racist (I have the proof). I for one would not allow myself to be friends with such people, so to sit there claiming offence and anger over apologies for the A-bombs while simultaneously allowing those that deny the suffering brought upon the people of Europe during the holocaust stinks of double standards. I suggest Jarrah applies his moral compass fairly and consistently, and he can begin by denouncing Ralph Rene (since Jarrah is keen on laying down the gauntlet) and his offensive views regarding the human extermination that took place during the holocaust.
As for Jarrah's challenge, if he wants to pay my expenses to Japan, I would go to Nagasaki and Hiroshima and present my thesis that the atomic bombs, while awful,
may have been a necessary price to pay. That debate exists, but Jarrah chooses to take it out of context and apply emotive terms for his own means. Of course, I would rather go and discuss how the US, UK and Japan live in harmony now, and while a dark time for all nations, looking forward to the future and learning from the past offers a better future for the world. My point being is there is no need to revise history and point the finger so accusingly at one awful event amongst many. There has been much reconciliation for the dark days of 1939-45, and maybe Jarrah needs to take his blinkers off and see the forgiveness and acts of humility that have taken part between those that were there. It is rather predictable that he chooses to rage against something that he did not experience and clearly does not understand to support his anti-US wanabee agenda. Maybe he would actually find the real answers for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, Tokyo, London, Coventry by discovering the true acts of humanism and forgiveness that have taken place since those awful days. Maybe the loss of the generation has given us hope for the future, and while terrible and an enormous sacrifice, the A-bombs have given us peace and stability. We will not truly know the answer to this, but Jarrah has shown once again that he has no understanding of the subject matter at the broader level.
Over to you Mr White
