Here is possibly some of the worst and most sanctimonious, malevolent of BBC reporting you’ll ever see…
The conventional wisdom in the United States is that the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war, and because of that it was justified – end of story.
Is that really the end of the story?
It’s certainly a convenient one. But it is one that was constructed after the war, by America’s leaders, to justify what they had done. And what they had done was, by any measure, horrendous.
Americans were told a sanitised narrative of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: that a great scientific endeavour had brought quick victory, and saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.
How about that ‘told a sanitised narrative of the bombings‘ Really?
How is it then that this news reel from the time tells of the ‘dramatic story of destruction and terror that followed in the wake of the first atom bomb…30% of the city’s population was killed, some by radioactive gamma rays, some by the heat of radiation that showed its intensity in many freakish ways [images of casualties]…in a city of rubble and destruction…a year later it’s still a city of the dead’?
Or how about this film that tells of ‘the effects of the death dealing atomic power’ where ‘the devastation speaks for itself’.….
Or how about ‘a new and revolutionary increase in destruction’...
So did the Americans get a ‘sanitised’ narrative of the bombings or is that just a prejudiced and ignorant BBC narrative that allows the reporter to then go on and use it to spin a tale of American war crimes?
So there you have it, the BBC is going to revise history for you and tell us that the bombs did not end the war abruptly saving hundreds of thousands of Allied casualties. It can be no coincidence that Japan surrendered almost immediately the two bombs were dropped but as with the ‘Religion of Peace’ the BBC doesn’t like to make the obvious links that destroy their narrative. A BBC reporter, Rupert Wingfield–Hayes, who wasn’t born back then, wasn’t having to fight his way to Japan island by island in a very bloody war, who didn’t see his mates blown to pieces beside him, who didn’t have to write the letters of condolence to the parents of the killed soldiers, who wasn’t indeed one of those parents who received a letter telling them their son was dead, can blithely denounce the American effort to end the war quickly and say saving those American lives, and probably many civilian lives as well, was not worth while. Perhaps he should ask his Japanese wife what she thinks.
Curious that he has this blinkered attitude when he has previously admitted in this, again anti-American, piece that the invasion of Japan would have been bloody if Okinawa was anything to go by…
There is deep bitterness here, in particular about how their overlords from the “mainland” sacrificed them at the end of World War 2.
“Okinawa is the only place in Japan that experienced battle on the ground,” says Satoru Oshiro “We cannot forget the tragedy, the horrible past.”
And it was unspeakably horrible.
On a hilltop just outside the capital Naha, I find Takamatsu Gushiken digging for human remains.
“When I find the bones of child and woman together, I cannot help but think that must be a mother and child and think about which died first,” Gushiken says. “I heard of lots of babies sucking their mother’s breast after she has died. Was it like that or did the child go first and the mother hung on to the baby? It makes it very hard for us to see sights like that.”
All the more so when you realise that many of the victims he unearths did not die in battle but killed themselves on the orders of Japanese military commanders.
The carnage wrought by this policy is terrible to think about…Perhaps a quarter of a million people died here in three months of slaughter from April to June 1945.
He makes no mention of the 14,000 allied soldiers that died, or the 50,000 injured, taking what was the relatively tiny island of Okinawa….multiply that up for the invasion of mainland Japan and the consideration that the defence would have been even more fanatical and the casualties may have been vastly higher. I imagine the soldiers were extremely grateful not to have to fight their way into Japan…in fact you don’t have to imagine you can read it in many of their compelling and bloody and very unglorified accounts written direct from their own experience of combat against the Japanese …but what do they know, a BBC journalist is willing to sacrifice them for his own smug, sanctimonious narrative. Like to see him storm a beach with 50lbs of kit and bullets coming his way or patrolling inland with the constant threat of attack from all directions , or being pinned down under relentless artillery and machine gun fire for days on end and then tell us what he thinks of the need to end the war and whether he’d be so ‘gung ho’ about soldiers’ lives.
A real historian said this of people like Wingfield–Hayes who rewrite history from a modern perspective…..
“This is really a post-Hiroshima analysis, growing with more fervor as the distance from Hiroshima grows, about the moral legitimacy and the moral justifications for the act, and not about understanding the decision-making leading to the act.”
The decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t taken quickly or lightly and was in fact informed by the casualties taken on Okinawa.
The Japanese were known to be massing their troops for the defence of the mainland and it looked like any invasion would face at least an equivalent number of Japanese forces as the allies could muster when the acknowledged ratio for success was three to one in favour of the attackers…- ‘“not the recipe for victory.”…. New intelligence indicated that American casualties would reach over 600,000 during an invasion. ‘
Rupert Wingfield–Hayes‘ opinions are naive, simplistic and pathetically grovelling and apologetic, no doubt due to having very close and personal associations to the land he must now call home.
Perhaps the BBC would like to rewrite some other Japanese history.
In 1937 the Japanese attacked the Chinese city of Nanking killing up to 300,000 of its inhabitants according to the Chinese, 200,000 according to the International Military Tribunal For The Far East...and they didn’t die well... ‘burial societies and other organizations counted more than 155,000 bodies which they buried. They also reported that most of those were bound with their hands tied behind their backs. These figures do not take into account those persons whose bodies were destroyed by burning, or by throwing them into the Yangtze River, or otherwise disposed of by Japanese. ‘
Will the Japanese be holding a memorial service for the dead, will the BBC be reporting it as a Chinese war crime?
What of the many millions of victims of Japanese militarism during and before WWII? Will the BBC be reporting their fate in sombre, accusatory tones?
The Japanese mass murdering started long before WWII with the…
‘……Japanese seizure of Manchuria earlier. It really began in 1895 with Japan’s assassination of Korea’s Queen Min, and invasion of Korea, resulting in its absorption into Japan, followed quickly by Japan’s seizure of southern Manchuria, etc. – establishing that Japan was at war from 1895-1945. Prior to 1895, Japan had only briefly invaded Korea during the Shogunate, long before the Meiji Restoration, and the invasion failed. Therefore, Rummel’s estimate of 6-million to 10-million dead between 1937 (the Rape of Nanjing) and 1945, may be roughly corollary to the time-frame of the Nazi Holocaust, but it falls far short of the actual numbers killed by the Japanese war machine. If you add, say, 2-million Koreans, 2-million Manchurians, Chinese, Russians, many East European Jews (both Sephardic and Ashkenazy), and others killed by Japan between 1895 and 1937 (conservative figures), the total of Japanese victims is more like 10-million to 14-million. Of these, I would suggest that between 6-million and 8-million were ethnic Chinese, regardless of where they were resident.’
The Japanese were brutal, fanatical and ruthless. They killed millions, millions, of people by many different savage methods, not just shooting but by torture, starvation, crucifixion, bayoneting, beheading, burning, burying alive, chemical and biological attacks, or just working them to death.
The Japanese soldier rarely surrendered, preferring to fight to the death taking with him as many of his opponents as possible. The Allies experienced this ruthless fanaticism during the war as they fought their way towards Japan. This experience informed the decision to use the nuclear bombs on the Japanese mainland in order to make a powerful statement to the Japanese leadership that all such resistance was entirely hopeless and would lead to the destruction of Japan.
Wisely the Japanese recognised this and surrendered preventing the deaths of maybe hundreds of thousands of Allied troops had they been forced to invade Japan.
The BBC thinks that saving those Allied lives and the subsequent effects on their families was the wrong thing to do, that the lives of Japanese civilians were somehow more valuable than American or British soldiers, never mind that they had fully backed the Japanese military expansionism of the past decades. Why does the BBC not ask the families of the US soldiers whether they are happy that the war ended as it did and their sons came home from the war?
The BBC prefers to ask an American student of the present day whom the BBC reporter thinks is ‘remarkable’….
I met a remarkable young man in Hiroshima the other day. His name is Jamal Maddox and he is a student at Princeton University in America.
Standing near the famous A-Bomb Dome, I asked Jamal whether his visit to Hiroshima had changed the way he views America’s use of the atom bomb on the city 70 years ago. He considered the question for a long time.
“It’s a difficult question,” he finally said. “I think we as a society need to revisit this point in history and ask ourselves how America came to a point where it was okay to destroy entire cities, to firebomb entire cities.
“I think that’s what’s really necessary if we are going to really make sense of what happened on that day.”
What if Jamal had visited Nanking or the Solomon Islands or Okinawa where so many American soldiers lost their lives? Would he still have reservations about the use of the bomb? We shall never know because that’s not on the BBC agenda. It is incredible how ‘Jamal’ is now the BBC poster boy, one man’s opinion, taken on the hop, being used to rewrite history and erase the real narrative behind the necessity for the use of the nuclear bombs in favour of the BBC’s preferred one of trying paint the Allies as the real war criminals in order to justify the BBC’s continued assault against the West, its history and its place in the world as it seeks to relativise everything and sell us a narrative that says there are no good or bad societies, no good or bad ideology, no good or bad cultures. We should not judge how other people want to live their lives, unless you happen to be white and western, then it’s open season for the BBC.
This approach plays out back in the UK where Islam is given a free pass. It is not intolerant, oppressive, authoritarian, misogynist, homophobic, violent, backward or unpleasant, it is a lovely, tolerant, peaceful and spiritual religion despite all the evidence being that it has never been that, and certainly isn’t today. Mishal Husain feels free to denounce Christianity as backward and unpleasant on the Today programme but no such vilification for her own religion.
The BBC’s hand-wringing, angst driven approach to reporting the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is motivated by its anti-Western agenda, its hatred of what it sees as the European/US, white dominance of history, its kneejerk cultural cringe and guilt-ridden fawning towards other races and cultures by its white reporters and a gleeful free for all from its ethnic reporters who take a great deal of pleasure in attacking the West and its values whether they have lived here all their lives or not like a school child being rude to their teacher.
The BBC of course would be entirely sympathetic to the notion that Japanese war criminals were in fact victims themselves..how often have we been peddled this exact same narrative for terrorists and criminals by the BBC?…
‘Many Japanese reacted to the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal by demanding parole for the detainees or mitigation of their sentences. Shortly after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, a movement demanding the release of B- and C-class war criminals began, emphasizing the “unfairness of the war crimes tribunals” and the “misery and hardship of the families of war criminals”. The movement quickly garnered the support of more than ten million Japanese. The government commented that “public sentiment in our country is that the war criminals are not criminals. Rather, they gather great sympathy as victims of the war, and the number of people concerned about the war crimes tribunal system itself is steadily increasing”.’