People Before Profit blog

Not everyone wanted to bomb Hiroshima

Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:05:00 +0000

Paul W. Tibbets Jr., retired brigadier general and former businessman, died on Nov. 1, 2007. He’ll forever be remembered for what he unleashed the morning of Aug. 6, 1945.

That day Tibbets’ B-29 — christened the “Enola Gay” after his mother — dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The blast, fire and radiation killed 140,000 people. Many others were scarred and injured for life. Most of the bomb’s victims were women, children, the elderly and other civilians not directly involved in the war. Those victims also included American and Allied POWs and thousands of Koreans forcibly conscripted by the Japanese as wartime labor. Thus began the nuclear age — an age that grows ever more dangerous with the continuing spread of nuclear weapons.

Tibbets stridently defended the atomic bombing of Hiroshima for the rest of his life. Like Harry S. Truman — the president who made the decision to drop the atomic bomb — Tibbets, whose job it was to implement the presidential directive, claimed never to have lost any sleep over the bombing. He went so far as to re-enact the Hiroshima bombing in 1976 at a Texas air show.

Tibbets insisted that the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki, destroyed by a second atomic bomb just three days later) was absolutely necessary to bring about Japanese surrender before a bloody American invasion of the Japanese home islands. Many Americans agree.

For Tibbets, history was unambiguous: Unleashing nuclear weapons was justified; all criticism of the atomic bombing was suspect. For the last 20 years or so of his life, Tibbets repeatedly denounced “revisionists” for questioning the necessity or morality of the atomic bombing of Japanese cities.

Through his many public statements Tibbets reinforced the widely held notion that only untrustworthy revisionists or members of the irresponsible 1960s generation have criticized the atomic bombings. Tibbets was dead wrong.

Contrary to conventional opinion today, many military leaders of the time — including six out of seven wartime five-star officers — criticized the use of the atomic bomb.

Take, for example, Adm. William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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.” Moreover, Leahy continued, “[I]n 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.”

President Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: “I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”

Adm. William “Bull” Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment.” The Japanese, he noted, had “put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before” the bomb was used.

Nor do all Pacific war veterans agree with Tibbets’ defense of the atomic bomb. To give but one example: Responding to a journalist’s question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman’s shoes, Joseph O’Donnell, a retired Marine Corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that “we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it.”

These are but a few of the military voices that have been critical of American use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Recalling these voices — those of both influential and ordinary military figures — should make us reject Tibbets’ insistence that the atomic bombings were militarily and morally justified. Only by challenging and resisting Tibbets’ comfortable view of history will Americans be able to confront, honestly and critically, one of the most disturbing episodes in the nation’s past.

Leo Maley III has taught at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and the University of Maryland, College Park. Uday Mohan is director of research for the Nuclear Studies Institute, American University. This article was distributed by the History News Service .

This article was originally published on Nov. 16, 2007 and republished here to mark the anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

Who is Ron Paul?

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:55:00 +0000

It is relatively easy to see why far-right presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas is driving some of the other Republicans crazy. He clearly won the straw poll after their first debate. On Nov. 5, he set a one-day fund-raising record through the Internet. Polls show that, although he is still far behind the big-money candidates, he is beating TV star Fred Thompson and is in a dead heat with war hero John McCain.

So-called conservative candidates customarily lure voters with nostalgia for earlier times. They play into a natural disdain for today’s values and events when compared to those of our own youth. “Why, when I was coming up ...” begins many a complaint in ordinary political conversation. Successful Republicans, especially the current occupant of the White House, imply that, if elected, they can and will physically turn our clocks and calendars backward.

Ron Paul bedevils the other hopefuls because he goes much further with that fantastic promise than they do. Instead of asking, “Who is Ron Paul,” it is much more appropriate to ask, “When is Ron Paul?” There is absolutely no argument that Dr. Paul would make the best president of the United States that the 16th century could offer.

A quick glance at Paul’s campaign positions as listed on www.ronpaul2008.com, his campaign web site, shows they have a certain simpleminded appeal. Alone among the Republicans, he opposes Bush’s wars and occupations abroad. He absolutely despises “so called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO and CAFTA.” He wants to stop the NAFTA highway. He condemns government spying on the citizenry, and would like to overturn the Patriot Act. He seems to support Social Security, even though he oversimplifies the issue of taxing benefits and is completely mistaken about undocumented workers receiving Social Security payments.

Many of Ron Paul’s other stated positions may raise antennae. As one might expect, he is strongly pro-gun and anti-abortion. He condemns the United Nations. He opposes eminent domain, not because it is misused for corporate interests but because he believes “property is sacred.” He wants to return to the gold standard. His proposed legislation for a federal voucher system would completely undermine public education. He says, “I support giving educational control back to parents.” Ron Paul is thoroughly anti-immigrant. He sees no reason why government should play any role whatsoever in stopping racism.

What Rep. Ron Paul advocates, in short, is the idea that raw capitalism, its “invisible hand” unchecked by centuries of democratic workers’ struggles, would solve all ills in 2008. It would be true, if our ills were those of serfdom or outright slavery. Capitalism did, indeed, put an end to barbarism and bring in an economic system with incredibly higher standards of production and fewer horrors from the caprices of royal aristocrats. But that was 400 years ago, and this is now.

Jim Lane (flittle7 @yahoo.com) is a labor activist in Dallas.

Australian elections: historic victory for labor movement

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:47:00 +0000

News Analysis

The decisive defeat of the right-wing Coalition government in the Nov. 24 federal elections was a great victory for the labor movement, for the thousands of rank-and-file trade unionists and members of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), for YourRights@Work groups and thousands of rank-and-file workers. They gave their money and weeks of their time in the campaign to deliver millions of leaflets, to knock on countless doors and to hold many both big and small meetings. This was a victory for this army of workers who had one thought — to vote the John Howard government out. It was helped by the fact that Labor Party challenger Kevin Rudd outmaneuvered Howard, who attempted to play wedge politics to the end. A diverse range of other aggrieved and concerned groups also played their part in this historic defeat — community organizations active among parents, hospital workers and environmental groups, and new Internet-based organizations such as GetUp, which built up a membership of over 200,000 in the course of less than a year. The Indigenous people gave an emphatic thumbs down to the military and police intervention in their communities reflected in votes in the Northern Territory. All the hard work of many thousands of workers was rewarded with the defeat of one of the most reactionary, backward and mean governments ever elected in Australia. The sweetest victory of all was the personal removal of Howard from his formerly “safe” parliamentary seat. The myth making by his “new right” Liberal Party colleagues has now begun. They claim that he was the greatest prime minister after Robert Menzies (1894-1978) and that he had made an enormous contribution to Australia. Alan Ramsey, columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald, put forth a different view. He wrote: “Howard’s [defeat] couldn’t be more exquisite than that the Labor iceberg should take our outgoing prime minister down, too. Nobody is more deserving of oblivion. ... Howard’s enduring legacy is the utter destruction of the party to which he professed ... to ‘owe’ everything.

‘Nastiest, meanest’ “As for this last election, the one that kills Howard off politically, along with the nastiest, meanest, most miserable, self-absorbed Commonwealth government to blight Australia in living memory ... all that remains to sweep [Howard] out of sight is to get rid of the more obscene remnants of his governance in the months ahead.” Howard attempted to build an Australian society that was a mirror image of his own vile sentiments and “values.” His attempt has come crashing down, showing that there is in the Australian community a huge pool of people with high moral values who care about their communities, who are honest and motivated by goodwill. In many respects it was more a vote against Howard than an endorsement of the ALP. The ALP’s primary vote was about 44 percent, which climbed to 53.75 after the allocation of preferences. The National Party’s De-Anne Kelly, with a hitherto “safe-seat” margin of 10.1 percent, lost her central Queensland seat of Dawson in one of the largest swings against the Coalition of 13.4 percent. The electorate had experienced an influx of unionized mineworkers since the 2004 elections. They clearly made a statement against WorkChoices, the fiercely anti-labor industrial relations system that came into effect in 2006. Support for Indigenous population Another high-profile casualty was Mal Brough, minister for Indigenous affairs, who sent the troops and police into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. He was thrown right out in a swing of over 10 percent in the Queensland electorate of Longman, on the northern outskirts of Brisbane. The vote in the Northern Territory showed that the Indigenous people soundly rejected the Coalition government’s takeover of Indigenous communities. Labor Member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, reports 88 percent support for Labor — up from 78 percent in outback booths. This is a very strong condemnation of the Howard government’s appalling treatment of Indigenous Australians. Climate change was another critical issue that saw traditionally more conservative electorates undergo massive swings. The Australian Democrats were wiped out. The Greens have unquestionably emerged as the third party in Australian politics. Nationwide, the Greens polled an average of 7.76 percent in the House of Representatives. The exchange of preferences between Labor and the Greens played a critical part in the election of a number of ALP candidates, without them winning a single House of Representatives seat themselves. The Greens are expected to hold five Senate seats. The Coalition’s majority hold on the Senate appears to have been broken. The newly elected senators do not take their places until July 2008, leaving the Coalition in control of the Senate until then. The campaign by the party leaders was presidential in style as Howard and Rudd personally took over “ownership” of their parties and policies, often omitting to mention the name of their party. So-called policy statements poured out endlessly as embedded media packs scrambled for voice grabs, gaffes and photo opportunities. Their campaigns were superficial, mainly limited to the outpouring of billions of dollars of taxpayers’ dollars as they vied to buy votes.

While Rudd’s “me-tooism” stymied Howard’s attempts at wedge politics, it obscured and confused voters, many of whom came to see very little difference between John Howard and Kevin Rudd. High expectations But the electorate expects substantial change, real change in policy direction, particularly in the areas of industrial relations, climate change, health, education, Indigenous affairs, interest rates, housing, petrol prices, child care and foreign policy. There has been much talk coming from the newly elected prime minister of a vision for change. But whether Rudd’s vision, new leadership and change of direction accords with the expectations of the electorate is another question. The mixed messages which came through in the election campaign have left serious questions and doubts in many minds. The majority of the people of Australia firmly rejected the neoliberal economic and social policies of the political right, but the ALP has also endorsed these policies and implemented them in the Hawke/Keating years. During the election campaign, the ALP supported the Tasmanian Pulp Mill and the intervention in the communities of the Indigenous people. It will take more than saying “sorry” and putting something in the constitution to right the wrongs of successive governments.

It is what happens on the ground that really counts. Will the Rudd government send in armies of teachers, health workers and work out schemes and provide money to create viable jobs in Indigenous communities? Will the new Labor government take the opportunity to move away from a slavish following of U.S. foreign policy? Its policies suggest it will follow a more multilateral path and play a better role at the United Nations. These questions will be answered in the near future. In the meantime, we celebrate the defeat of the worst, meanest, most dishonest and manipulative government ever experienced in Australia. From The Guardian , newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia.

Chavez warns of plans to destabilize Venezuela

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:58:00 +0000

MERIDA, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has warned of new plans to destabilize the country after the national referendum set for next Sunday, Dec. 2. He also said he has new evidence of attempts to assassinate him and called on the Venezuelan people to be on alert for any subversive actions in the coming week.

In a speech in the western state of Zulia on Nov. 25, the Venezuelan president called on his supporters to watch out for any “perverse plan” of the opposition after the likely victory of the constitutional reform on Dec. 2.

Chavez warned that sectors of the political opposition are trying to use preliminary surveys to put the victory of the reform in doubt, and to later claim fraud when the official results do not coincide with the polls.

The Venezuelan president said that if the reform is approved in the national referendum, the opposition will claim that the elections were fraudulent and call people into the streets to generate violence and to destabilize the country.

“They try to make Venezuelans and the world have doubts, repeating surveys and manipulated numbers, so that when we win on Sunday, as I am sure we will, then they can say that there was fraud, that the election was stolen, and they will come out into the streets,” he said.

Chavez reminded supporters that sectors of the opposition have used this strategy to manipulate public opinion before, using false survey numbers to create the image of fraudulent elections. He called on the country to be prepared for any kind of manipulation.

“The population, the armed forces, the organized communities — we all must be on alert and prepared,” he said. “We have to be ready for any perverse plan from those fascist sectors that still exist in Venezuela, which in the likely case of a victory for the reform could come out into the streets with the intention of destabilizing the country.”

Sectors from the Venezuelan opposition have called on their supporters to take to the streets if they lose the national referendum due to fraud.

The opposition group Comando Nacional de la Resistencia (CNR) called for a “March of No Return” on the presidential palace this week, a route that has not been used by the opposition since the 2002 coup that resulted in dozens killed and temporarily overthrew the Chavez government. The march was called for Nov. 26, but was then postponed until after the upcoming referendum.

“The ‘March of No Return’ will not be Monday the 26th, and probably not Tuesday the 27th, but be sure that it will happen if they commit the fraud that they have organized for December 2nd,” said CNR member Hermann Escarrá.

Escarrá explained that the March of No Return will be an organized event of many simultaneous marches around the country that could be of varying duration and intensity. He promised that the opposition would march on the presidential palace in Caracas in the case of fraud in the referendum, and that they would engage in active resistance in the streets.

“We aren’t going to send the people out on a useless cause, with a high cost of lives and casualties like happened on April 11th [2002, the attempted coup d’etat]. Be prepared rather for December 2nd or 3rd. You can be sure that when there is fraud, all the people will be in the street, and the CNR will be at the vanguard of this process,” assured Escarrá.

President Chavez also said in his Zulia speech that he had new evidence of plans to assassinate him. In a televised interview with a group of journalists, the Venezuelan president explained that during a recent campaign event, the light of a laser pointer was seen shining on his body and head.

Chavez explained that after experts analyzed video of the event, they observed that the light moved up to his head and remained there for some time despite constant movement on the part of Chavez. For this reason, the analysts concluded that it was the work of an expert, possibly using a sniper rifle with a laser sight.

The president also stated that a Venezuelan embassy in Central America was recently informed of a plan to assassinate Chavez before the end of the year and that there is also evidence linking the Cuban terrorist Luis Posada Carriles to assassination plans.

The Cuban leader Fidel Castro has repeatedly warned of plans to assassinate the Venezuelan president and recently advised his Venezuelan counterpart to take more precautions in his public appearances.

“You have to keep fighting and running risks, but don’t play Russian roulette every day,” said Castro in a recent article.

According to Chavez, upon seeing the video of the laser light during their visit last week, Castro warned that it was proof of the Venezuelan president’s vulnerability to an assassination attempt.

Venezuelan authorities recently uncovered an arsenal of weapons upon raiding a residence in the Caracas area, including assault rifles, pistols, a machine gun, ammunition and U.S. military uniforms. Government authorities consider that these weapons may have been intended for use in a plan to create chaos in the country, or even an attempt to assassinate the president.

Chris Carlson writes for . This article was originally published there on Nov. 27.

Communists call for ouster of far right

Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:00:00 +0000

NEW YORK — Members of the Communist Party USA national committee meeting here Nov. 10 heard Sam Webb, the party’s chairman, say that “in the struggle against the ultra-right we are at the cusp of a political conjuncture which could shift things in favor of the working class.” After “a quarter century of domination,” he said, the right is finally losing momentum.

In his report to the meeting, Webb noted the erosion of Bush administration control over Congress and of the administration’s ability to dominate politics at home and abroad. But, he warned, the right wing “is not a spent force. The threats against Iran and the continuing push for authoritarian rule here at home need to be taken seriously.”

The report described how “the broadly based labor-led movement has resisted Bush” from the beginning and how, as a result, “new forces came into play including antiwar and immigrant rights groups,” culminating, in 2006, “with an election victory that gave control of Congress to the Democratic Party.”

While that shift was not a “revolutionary change,” Webb noted, it helped propel critical debates along positive lines, adding impetus to the drive for diplomacy rather than military force and for government curbs on corporations that run wild, and to the drive for economic democracy and against racism.

Webb defined the 2008 elections as “a squaring off between the growing movement of labor and other democratic forces” and the far right. “At stake is our country’s future,” he said, calling for a “decisive defeat” of Republicans and increasing the Democratic majorities in Congress, especially the number of progressives.

Warning that it would be a mistake to equate the Democratic and Republican parties at this time, Webb said, “Defeating the far right is to the advantage of and critical to the survival and growth of the people’s movements.” Such an electoral sweep will “give people’s forces more leverage and independence,” he said.

He called for a strong emphasis on the fight to reverse the deteriorating economic conditions of working people.

The jobs, mortgage and housing crises and the entire economic struggle of working people must be brought into the electoral arena, Webb said. This includes the fight for manufacturing jobs, for union organizing rights and for universal health care, he said.

Joelle Fishman, chair of the CPUSA’s political action commission, also addressed the national committee members with a PowerPoint presentation on the stakes in the 2008 elections, which is available for public forums.

She warned that the Republicans can be expected to use the immigration issue to try to keep the far right in power. “Republicans hope to weaken labor’s multiracial mobilization with scare tactics that immigrants take jobs from other low-wage workers,” she said. “The root cause of job loss is pro-corporate trade and foreign policy and tax policy. Blaming immigrants from Latin America and elsewhere stirs up racial profiling and makes it harder for workers to join together and demand union rights for everyone.”

Fishman said the defeat of the Republican Party “could change the political map in our country,” and urged an all-out grassroots mobilization to turn out the vote and protect it from GOP dirty tricks.

The extensive discussions on the reports expressed a consensus that while the reports amounted to a call for some shifts in thinking and activity on the part of party members, the aim of a decisive sweeping out of Republicans in 2008 is of critical importance. Participants said such an outcome would make whoever wins the presidency feel great pressure to move in a better direction on a host of issues facing the people.

In the discussion, most felt that an absence of labor and independent progressive movements from election efforts could result in a close outcome, making a Republican defeat less valuable to the movement.

jwojcik @pww.org

Unite against racism

Fri, 02 Nov 2007 05:16:00 +0000

Commentary

Racist provocations and violence are on the rise and a cause for great concern. Racism represents a grave danger to our nation.

James Watson, awarded a Nobel Prize 50 years ago for DNA research, prompted outrage on both sides of the Atlantic recently, by stating in a London Sunday Times interview that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospects of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.” Adding that he hoped everyone is equal, he cautioned, “People who have to deal with Black employees find this is not true.” Watson, who has a long history of outlandish racist, homophobic and sexist utterances, was immediately fired from his job at a prestigious Long Island research lab.

Unfortunately, Watson’s ideas are not isolated. Racist speech today fills the airwaves and is spread online all over the world. Witness the tirade of Michael Richards, or Don Imus’ insults, or Paris Hilton’s use of the “n-word.”

Then there is former Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ suggestion that women (of all races) aren’t as smart as men.

The frequency of such statements is cause for alarm. Clearly, racist discourse in certain circles has become acceptable speech. Public figures would not make such statements if they didn’t think they could get away with it.

We think these racist attacks are inspired by the blame-the-victim policies of the Bush administration and its Justice Department, who refuse to enforce civil rights laws and whose policies have resulted in African Americans making up 50 percent of those in prison and 30 percent of those who die in police custody.

When Bush refused to respond to the victims of Katrina; when the Supreme Court majority continually rules against working people, racial minorities and women; when the attorney general uses the Justice Department not to combat but to enforce racism and discrimination; and when civil right leaders are constantly vilified and old-line segregationists are praised, it all sends the signal that racism is OK.

An especially sharp edge in this racist offensive is directed at people of African descent. The proliferation of lynch ropes at workplaces, schools and other public spaces springs out of the history of Klan terror and the brutal suppression of the African American people in the South and other parts of the country. Displaying this symbol of some of the most brutal acts of murderous racist terror in our nation’s history is not only illegal, it is a threat to democratic principles most people hold dear. Certainly it is no joke or childish prank.

Racism and violence

Racism and violence go hand in hand. There are reports in the media of the growth and launching of violent racist organizations, which are attracting some white young men.

In Staten Island, N.Y., first it was the “n-word” scrolled on the bench of a visiting Harlem football team. Then within days a Black youth was viciously beaten by bat-wielding white youths.

In Jena, La., the lynch rope was hung on a “white tree” by racist elements who later beat up a Black youth with fists and beer bottles, screaming racist epithets. Hanging a noose is indeed a hate crime, but the Bush Justice Department refused to enforce federal law or intervene when local authorities threw the book at the Jena Six.

Then there is the violence in the criminal justice system. The New York policemen who murdered unarmed Sean Bell without asking questions thought they could get away with it. In Florida, a 14-year-old Black youth was beaten to death by staff at a juvenile “boot camp.” Then the staffers were acquitted.

In the face of this new racist offensive, we strongly feel that the main responsibility for negative behavior of some Black youth should not be placed on women-headed households, as some are saying, but rather on structural racism. Those who put the main blame on the household are in some instances contributing to a well-organized effort to destroy the movement to end racism.

Who is to blame?

This rise in racist provocations is a reaction to the political shift of the country away from the disastrous right-wing policies of Bush and the Republican Party. This administration fears the poll results which show that the two leading candidates for the presidency are a women and an African American. The far-right fears that with a new administration the Iraq war might actually be ended and racial and economic justice advanced. It doesn’t like all the talk of ending the tax cuts for the rich and the growing concern about the environment and bringing an end to a foreign policy driven by corporate profits, oil and empire building.

The far-right is desperate at the prospect of the country moving in a new direction away from war, racism and economic royalty. Their strategy is to split Black, Brown and white and weaken the anti-right-wing vote in 2008. The rise in attacks on African Americans reveals the centrality of anti-Black racism in the right-wing drive to advance their anti-working-class agenda.

At the same time there is also a rise in attacks on immigrants in general and Mexican Americans in particular, including an increase in fascist-like government raids. There is a rise in anti-Semitic vandalism at synagogues and homes, with swastikas and “Hitler is back” slogans appearing in some communities in the New York City area.

United for justice

The 50,000 marchers for justice in Jena recently have been hailed as the beginning of a new civil rights movement. It clearly frightened the forces of racism. United multiracial marches such as this are needed all over the country. The only way to defeat racism is with unity in struggle.

What else is needed in response? A forthright public recognition of what is going on and expression of strong opposition by every public official and body and by every leader in the labor movement, in every democratic organization, and by individuals, in ads in local papers and other public proclamations of unity. Mayors, governors, state legislators and city council members should be speaking out. The public needs to hear the united voices of anti-racism, not just from the Congressional Black Caucus but from every elected official at all levels of government.

City councils should pass resolutions, and there should be hearings at the city, state and the federal level to determine what is really happening and to review existing anti-hate legislation and toughen it. Police commissioners should be called before city councils to account for what they are doing to prevent and punish brutality by police and others who engage in racist attacks.

All presidential candidates should be called on to speak out against racist violence and call for unity.

The time to act is now.

Jarvis Tyner, Communist Party USA executive vice chair, and Sam Webb, CPUSA chair, have written this on behalf of the CPUSA National Board. For more information on the Communist Party: .