|
Become
a
columnist.
Or
write an article. |
||
ColumnsFiona
Brewer
|
As Big A Liar As John PopeIt was August 1862. The location was just south of Washington. General Pope of the Union army had just lost 8,000 men at the end of the first day of the battle of Second Bull Run. He telegraphed Washington, "Mission accomplished!" in so many words, and then proceeded to definitively lose the battle the following day. For the United States of 1862, the truth was something that mattered. Courts martial and demotions followed the defeat. Pope was removed from command and the phrase "As big a liar as John Pope" entered the national lexicon. If he were still alive he would, no doubt, say there was "controversy" over what happened at Second Bull Run, much like there is "controversy" over the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and the plutonium bomb on Nagasaki. We see this type of controversy in the denial that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, trade unionists, mentally handicapped and political opponents of the Nazis died in concentration camps before and during the Second World War. Lies. Of course, it is easier to maintain a lie about something as large as the events of a battle; a secret policy of mass murder implemented under cover of a war; an experiment disguised as an act of war and claimed to be necessary for the aim of the war. Inquiries can break propaganda of this kind. We owe a lot to those boring housekeeping jobs like courts martial and tribunals. They get rid of the John Popes and generally set the record straight. That's something the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey was for. It tracked the effect of U.S. bombing in the Second World War. Why waste money manufacturing expensive munitions if they are ineffective? Why kill and destroy to no good purpose? When you don't have a solid piece of truth-telling like that, you need historians like Gar Alperovitz [1]. Sometimes you need a Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. Why? Human nature is unregenerate. People with power are not angels. They may do the best they can generally, but if, to take a case, an individual's career is tied to a policy of aircraft-delivered bombing, the presumed benefits of the policy will become axiomatic. Take another case. The Second World War is coming to a close. You have the agreement of the USSR to attack Japan. Japan, however is crumbling faster than anticipated. You now regret the agreement with the USSR. The benefit of attack from the USSR is perceived not for its military effect as for its psychological effect. (The forces to be attacked by the USSR are isolated from mainland Japanese islands where you have made plans to attack. Those forces are already pinned on the Asian continent by your Naval power and would not be able to assist in resisting your attack). If Japan is going to surrender, your landings will be unnecessary, and so, too, will the attack from the USSR. You have another card to play: you have a new weapon, the atomic bomb. If you use it, its psychological effect will replace the intended benefit from the attack from the USSR. If you forestall the USSR attack and keep the Russians out of the end moves, you will obviate the need to reward the USSR or consult it on your plans for Japan. Now, you have reason to think Japan will surrender before the attack from the USSR. You have a double interest in your new weapon; what is its effect? Only in war can you find that out, and the war is coming to an end. You drop the atomic bomb and the plutonium bomb to find out the effects and to dominate the Far East after the war. That's a war crime. War crime? Yes. The United States during the Second World War, condemned Japan for its war crimes - breaches of the laws of war. All [2] is not fair in war, whatever about love. The Nuremberg Tribunal was predicated on that very idea; it was not simply a kangaroo court of the victors. The point here is that the United States subscribed to the validity of the laws of war. It held Germany and Japan to that standard. The laws of war are known as humanitarian law. Humanitarian law is part of customary international law. [3] The attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a use of a projectile and material of a nature to cause superfluous injury. [4] The attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an attack on undefended cities. [5] The attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not proceeded by any comprehensible warning, [6] The attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a bombardment of, inter alia, temples and hospitals. [7] What did Harry S. Truman say about the bombing? He said he did it to save the lives of American soldiers in the planned invasion. [8] Mandy Rice Davis [9] put her finger on the issue; "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they? -------------- [1] Atomic Diplomacy; Hiroshima & Potsdam, Gar Alperovitz, [1985] Penguin Books [2] Article XXII, Hague II convention [1899] [3] Nuclear Weapons case ( para. 79) ICJ [1996] [4] A breach of Article XXIII (d), Hague II convention [1899] [5] A breach of Article XXV, Hague II convention [1899] [6] A breach of Article XXVI, Hague II convention [1899] [7] A breach of Article XXVII, Hague II convention [1899] [8] The invasion had been planned but was not intended to be executed. He variously stated the estimate of soldiers' lives he had saved, the estimate rising with the passing years. [9] The Profumo affair [1963]; prostitute and friend of prostitute Christine Keeler and John Profumo, UK cabinet minister. by Dr. Ernest Engels
|
Topics
Arts
and Entertainment
|