header image
 

kashmir myths – pakistan is their friend…


…india is their enemy

The Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir
is geographically and politically distinct and different
from the Azad Kashmir and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

Pakistan has direct control of the “Pakistan Occupied Kashmir” or POK.
Pakistan has indirect but overwhelming control in “Azad (Independant) Kashmir.


Kashmir
Click to enlarge image

The Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir is secular and a democracy.
The regions under Pakistan control is Islamic, and under a military dictatorship.

The Indian State of Kashmir has no restriction of freedom of expression, any new of atrocities are hence quickly highlighted to the world.
The Pakistan controlled regions have no freedom of expression
the human rights abuses and atrocities never get to reach the outside world.

Most anti-India propaganda
will ONLY speak about the sufferings of Kashmiris in the Indian state,
but cleverly avoid talking of the fate of the Kashmiris in areas under Pakistan’s control.

They will deliberately blur the distinction between the different areas of control to give
the impression that atrocities are being committed ONLY in the Indian state.

This document will break that myth.
To keep the information clear and objective,
this is has been quoted word for word from a Human Rights Watch Publication.

For those of who may question the neutrality of the source,
this is about the Human Rights Watch.

“With Friends Like These…”

Summary:

Pakistan says they are our friends and India is our enemy.
I agree India is our enemy,
but with friends like these, who needs enemies?

—Mir Afzal Suleri, Muzaffarabad resident

The massive earthquake that struck on October 8, 2005, wreaking death and destruction on Kashmir, instantly conflated Kashmir’s long-running man-made crisis with a natural one. The poor response of the Pakistani government and military to the earthquake, and the attendant further loss of life, served to highlight that even natural disasters in Kashmir have a strong human component.


Pakistan earthquake


Major cities and thousands of villages in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK, Azad Kashmir), including the capital Muzaffarabad, were reduced to rubble. The devastation was immense—at least eighty-eight thousand people died, more than one hundred thousand were injured, and more than two million were left homeless. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimated that seventeen thousand children were among the dead.

Kashmir is one of the most heavily militarized regions of the world, and those buried under the rubble and their relatives who tried frantically to dig them out with their bare hands would have been justified in thinking that help would arrive rapidly. It was fair to hope that the armies massed on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) separating Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir state, ostensibly to protect the Kashmiri population, would move quickly to save Kashmiri lives from a natural threat. But as time passed and the sound of life beneath the rubble began to grow silent, it became painfully and brutally clear that the hope was misplaced. In the aftermath of the disaster, the Indian and Pakistani militaries simply did not make the saving of Kashmiri lives a top priority. As India and Pakistan engaged in diplomatic one-upmanship—making and refusing offers of help based on political opportunism rather than humanitarian concerns—the death toll mounted.

In the first seventy-two hours after the earthquake, thousands of Pakistani troops stationed in Azad Kashmir prioritized the evacuation of their own personnel over providing relief to desperate civilians. The international media began converging on Muzaffarabad within twenty-four hours of the earthquake and fanned out to other towns in Azad Kashmir shortly thereafter. They filmed Pakistani troops standing by and refusing to help because they had “no orders” to do so as locals attempted to dig out those still alive, sending a chilling message of indifference from Islamabad. Having filmed the refusal, journalists switched off their cameras and joined the rescue effort themselves; in one instance they shamed the soldiers into helping. But unlike the death and destruction, the media were not everywhere. The death toll continued to mount.

Many Kashmiris told Human Rights Watch that prior to the earthquake, the Pakistani military kept a close watch on the population to ensure political compliance and control; this was facilitated by the placement of military installations frequently in close proximity to populated areas. In the context of a military presence that was more abuser than protector, and domineering Pakistani political control, the failure of the authorities to respond quickly and more humanely to the aftereffects of the earthquake in Azad Kashmir came as little surprise. That failure generated massive public resentment against the Pakistani state, and it highlighted the need for an examination of the conduct of Pakistani authority in Azad Kashmir. This report on the state of human rights in Azad Kashmir shows longstanding restrictions on fundamental freedoms, as well as politically motivated mistreatment of persons supporting an independent Kashmir.

The earthquake put the international spotlight on Azad Kashmir for the first time. Previously, attention had been almost wholly on Jammu and Kashmir state in India, which since 1989 has endured a brutal insurgency and counterinsurgency. Human rights abuses by the Indian security forces and separatist forces in Jammu and Kashmir have been relatively well documented and often condemned. But the world knows little about Azad Kashmir, other than that the territory has been used by Pakistan-backed militant groups as a staging ground for attacks in Jammu and Kashmir.1

Aid organizations and donors that wanted to learn about Azad Kashmir after the earthquake so that they could respond in a useful and informed manner quickly discovered that there was virtually no published information. This is because prior to the earthquake, Azad Kashmir was one of the most closed territories in the world. While Jammu and Kashmir state had known considerable tourist traffic prior to the beginning of the insurgency there, the areas of Kashmir on the other side of the LoC had seen little external interest or presence after the end of the British colonial era in 1947—a situation used by Pakistan to exercise absolute control over the territory.

Information, particularly about the human rights situation, governance, the rule of law, and the institutions that hold real power in Azad Kashmir is more important than ever as the territory rebuilds and, by necessity, opens up to the international community in the aftermath of the earthquake. In the coming years, international engagement with the territory is likely to be intense. For that engagement to be effective and beneficial to the people of Azad Kashmir, it is essential that international actors approach the territory with an awareness of its particular history and its fraught, often tense and unhappy relationship with the Pakistani state in general and the Pakistani military in particular.

Azad Kashmir is a legal anomaly.
According to United Nations (U.N.) resolutions dating back to 1948, Azad Kashmir is neither a sovereign state nor a province of Pakistan, but rather a “local authority” with responsibility over the area assigned to it under a 1949 ceasefire agreement with India. It has remained in this state of legal limbo since that time. In practice, the Pakistani government in Islamabad, the Pakistani army and the Pakistani intelligence services (Inter-Services Intelligence, ISI) control all aspects of political life in Azad Kashmirthough “Azad” means “free,” the residents of Azad Kashmir are anything but. Azad Kashmir is a land of strict curbs on political pluralism, freedom of expression, and freedom of association; a muzzled press; banned books; arbitrary arrest and detention and torture at the hands of the Pakistani military and the police; and discrimination against refugees from Jammu and Kashmir state. Singled out are Kashmiri nationalists who do not support the idea of Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan. Anyone who wants to take part in public life has to sign a pledge of loyalty to Pakistan, while anyone who publicly supports or works for an independent Kashmir is persecuted. For those expressing independent or unpopular political views, there is a pervasive fear of Pakistani military and intelligence services—and of militant organizations acting at their behest or independently.

Human Rights Watch has previously reported that torture is routinely used in Pakistan, and that acts of torture by military agencies primarily serve the purpose of “punishing” errant politicians, political activists and journalists. Azad Kashmir is no exception. Though torture is not commonplace, it is threatened often, and—when perpetrated by the military—is carried out with impunity. Human Rights Watch knows of no cases in which members of military and paramilitary security and intelligence agencies have been prosecuted or even disciplined for acts of torture or mistreatment. This report documents incidents of torture by the ISI, and by Azad Kashmir police acting at the ISI’s and the army’s behest.

Tight controls on freedom of expression have been a hallmark of the Pakistani government’s policy in Azad Kashmir and are also documented in this report. This control is highly selective. Pakistani-backed militant organizations promoting the incorporation of Jammu and Kashmir state into Pakistan have had free rein— particularly from 1989 when the insurgency began to 2001—to propagate views and disseminate literature; by contrast, groups promoting an independent Kashmir find promoting their views sharply curtailed. But frequent official repression of freedom of expression and assembly is not limited to controls and censorship specific to Kashmiri nationalists, journalists and election cycles. This repression can also be violent and very publicly so. For example, Pakistani police used lahtis (canes) and rifle butts to break up a peaceful demonstration in Muzaffarabad on November 11, 2005, by approximately two hundred earthquake survivors protesting eviction from their makeshift camp. Several protestors, including children, were injured as a result of police efforts to break up the demonstration.

Since 1994, when the ISI organized thirteen militant groups operating in Jammu and Kashmir state into the Muttahida [United] Jihad Council, army-backed militant organizations have shared, with the Pakistani military through the ISI, real decision-making authority and the management of the “Kashmir struggle.” Even mainstream political parties allowed representation by Pakistan in the Azad Kashmir Legislative Assembly are largely sidelined. As the government-backed militant groups gained strength and dominance, Kashmiri nationalist militants left the movement or were sidelined and eventually began to be persecuted by the authorities and their proxies. Soon after Pakistan began supporting the U.S.-led “global war on terror” in 2001, the United Jihad Council ceased to operate publicly. Several groups simply changed their names and now operate independently or through clandestine underground networks. The Pakistani intelligence apparatus retains close associations with these groups.

Virtually all independent commentators, journalists, as well as former and serving militants, Pakistani military officers and Pakistan-backed Azad Kashmir politicians speaking off-the-record told Human Rights Watch that there was continuing militant infiltration from Azad Kashmir into Jammu and Kashmir state, but were not willing to be quoted for fear of reprisal from the ISI. Most of those interviewed were of the view that though the level of infiltration had decreased substantially since 2004 (a brief spike in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake notwithstanding), there have been no indications that the Pakistani military or militant groups had decided to abandon infiltration as policy.

It was thus no accident that militant groups were the first on the scene dispensing relief goods and other aid after the earthquake. Nor was it a sign of their great organizational prowess. As the Pakistani military prioritized the rescue of its own personnel, it probably sought the assistance of its closest allies in Azad Kashmir, the militant groups. These groups, which had undoubtedly suffered the loss of personnel and infrastructure themselves in the earthquake, won much local appreciation for their rescue and relief efforts. This public relations coup could not have been possible without logistical support from sections of the Pakistani military’s intelligence apparatus. For example, one of the first groups to set up operations was the Jamaat-ud-Dawa —the Lashkar-e-Toiba group operating under a new name. In January 2002 the Pakistani government had banned the LT as a terrorist group. However, in the aftermath of the earthquake, President Pervez Musharraf went out of his way to praise its relief work and brushed off calls to restrict its operations. The Pakistani military apparently saw the earthquake as an opportunity to craft a new image for the militant groups rather than as an opportunity to disband them.

This report also documents discrimination against Kashmiri refugees and former militants from India, most of whom are secular nationalists and culturally and linguistically distinct from the peoples of Azad Kashmir. The last major episode involving these former militants took place on April 7, 2005, when Pakistani security forces prevented them from greeting the inaugural bus service between Srinagar (the Jammu and Kashmir state capital) and Muzaffarabad and arrested, jailed and beat them. A primary motive for the discrimination would appear to be that many of these people DO NOT SHARE the vision of a UNIFIED KASHMIR under PAKISTANI CONTROL.

Successive Pakistani governments have asserted that Kashmir’s political future must be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people. But the reality of Azad Kashmir prior to the earthquake was life dominated by governmental restrictions on fundamental freedoms. As the international community supports the task of reconstruction, it must insist on a new respect by Pakistan for the human rights of the people of Azad Kashmir. No viable solution to the Kashmir issue can exclude the exercise of fundamental civil and political rights for the people of Azad Kashmir in an environment free of coercion and fear.

Key recommendations:

The October 2005 earthquake brought into focus the dominant role of the Pakistani army in the governance of Azad Kashmir and the almost complete absence of any independent civil society in the territory. While Pakistani civil society’s immediate, rapid mobilization in the aftermath of the earthquake is commendable, the Pakistani military’s blundering and ineffective response to the humanitarian disaster was indicative of more than just the military’s different priorities in the region. It also highlighted its inability to assume the role of civil society that, as a matter of security policy, it has prevented from taking root. The army must greatly reduce its political role in Azad Kashmir in order to make way for genuinely civilian governmental institutions that respect basic rights.

The post-earthquake situation provides the international community with a unique opportunity to engage with Azad Kashmir’s population, government officials, civil society, and the Pakistani military to improve the state of civil and political rights in the territory. Reconstruction in Azad Kashmir, for which the international community has pledged U.S.$6.5 billion, can only be successful if central to the process is the creation of an open, empowered, rights-respecting society.
Specifically, Human Rights Watch makes the following key recommendations (a full set of recommendations is given at the end of this report):

To the Pakistani government

* Release all individuals imprisoned or detained and withdraw immediately all criminal cases against anyone, including Kashmiri nationalists, for the peaceful expression of their political views, including that Azad Kashmir should be independent.

* End the practice of arbitrary arrest and detention, other forms of harassment, and torture and other ill-treatment of persons exercising their right to freedom of expression, including those who peacefully oppose Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan or demand greater autonomy for the territory.

* Repeal constitutional curbs on freedom of association, expression and assembly in Azad Kashmir so that the constitution and Azad Kashmir law are consistent with international human rights standards.

* Prosecute to the full extent of the law and in accordance with international standards those members of the armed forces, its intelligence agencies, government officials and police personnel implicated in serious violations of human rights, including arbitrary arrests and torture.

* Respect press freedom and allow full independent coverage of both past and ongoing events in Azad Kashmir. Remove formal and informal prohibitions on news gathering and reporting by the Azad Kashmir and Pakistani media, and accord all journalists full freedom of movement. End the practice of banning books and literature.

* Ensure that human rights organizations have freedom of movement throughout Azad Kashmir and allow them to carry out investigations and fact-finding missions free from intimidation and interference by military authorities.

To Azad Kashmir-based militant groups

* Cease threatening civilians who do not cooperate with or support the activities of militant groups.

* Publicly denounce abuses committed by any militant group in Jammu and Kashmir state and call for accountability for such abuses on both sides of the Line of Control.

To donors and other international actors

* Ensure greater civilian oversight of relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. Aid should be handled through a process that involves the Azad Kashmir government, as well as local, national and international NGOs, civil society groups (particularly those working in the field), and the affected population.

* Ensure the continuing distribution of reconstruction aid without regard to political affiliation. In particular, there should be no discrimination against Kashmiri nationalists who do not support Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan or refugees who have entered Azad Kashmir from Jammu and Kashmir state since 1991.

* Use every available opportunity to press for an end to impunity for perpetrators of serious human rights abuses, including members of the military, intelligence agencies, police and militant groups. Urge respect for international due process and fair trial standards and press for impartial inquiries into, and accountability for, cases of arbitrary detention and torture and other ill-treatment in detention.

Link: To read the full documant.


If the future of Kashmir is to be decided by the choice of the the Kashmiris,
people in Pakistan occupied areas have no fundamental freedom to make a free choice.

Since 1989,
the Indian security forces have been
the persistent victim of a (Pakistani masterminded) Islamic Jihad.

(Without condoning the abuses committed by the Indian forces),
is it not possible that none of these abuses would have ever taken place if
there had not been any killings and atrocities by Islamic militants in the first place?

You decide.




TOP OF PAGE

kashmir myths – there is no objective information

 

Being fed up of anti-India propaganda
by some Kashmiris muslims, I have been writing
about the “myths”
about Kashmir that are being posted unchallanged.

Whatever I write is supported by links to documentary evidence.

I have found a group of naive and gullible Indian individuals,
who having believed the propaganda have happily lent their voice
in support for this so called “azadi” movement for the Kashmiri muslims.

The call for independance is a call by some and NOT ALL muslims of Kashmir.
And not by any of the indegenous non muslim communities,
who due to persistent ethnic cleansing have now been reduced to a minority.

If this “freedom movement” ever succeeds, it will only lead to another Islamic state
or more likely will be taken over by Pakistan, an Islamic state under a military dictator.

That will be the death warrant of all the indigenous non muslim Kashmiris.
The world will witness the repeat of the Partition, mass emigration and killings.

I do not think these people understands or cares at all for the future of non muslims;
from the comforts of their homes they will denounce the Indian forces in Kashmir
just to be able to show themselves as liberals and exult in mutual backslappings.

(I wonder how they spend the Indian Independance Day, probably
flying the Pakistani flag, and rallying for Kashmir’s occupation by Pakistan.)

Those of you who have read my articles on Kashmir,
I draw your attention to this blog that I discovered today.
http://viewfrombeneath.blogspot.com/2007/08/of-self-righteousness-and-glass.html

 

Instead of trying to prove my evidence as inaccurate
this author has written a long post, only to call me a “jackass”.

And his or her’s only argument being:
” There is no clear and objective information about the Kashmir region”.

Without bothering to explain why there is
no “clear ond objective information” coming out of Kashmir,
and from which specific areas of Kashmir, for it is certainly not the Indian side.

I hope you enjoy reading it, as much as I did.
I will of course be continuing to write more on this issue.

 

 

 

 



TOP OF PAGE

to find the cost of freedom

 

On August 15, 1947,
Two self governing countries legally came into existence.

Based on 1951 Census of displaced persons,
immediately after partition.
7,226,000 Muslims went to Pakistan from India
7,249,000 Hindus and Sikhs moved to India from Pakistan.

 

 

Partition of India: why? and for what?

Between the 7th and the 14th centuries.
Islamic rulers invaded a non muslim northern India.

From the early 16th century
the muslim Mughal Empire ruled most of India from Delhi.
until the 19th century,
defeated by the British and becoming powerless and perhaps discontent.
The Muslims represented approximately 23% of the population of British India.

In 1885,
the Indian National Congress had been founded.
With it an Indian nationalist movement developed.
The Congress invited the Muslim community to join in in their bid for independence.
But most, not all, of the Muslims remained reluctant to join the Party,
they remained suspicious of the mainstream, secular but Hindu-majority Congress.

In 1906,
instead they founded the All India Muslim League.
Which became the driving force behind the partition of British India.

From Story of Pakistan

Many Hindu and British writers have alleged that the Muslim League was founded at official instigation. They argue that it was Lord Minto who inspired the establishment of a Muslim organization so as to divide the Congress and to minimize the strength of the Indian Freedom Movement. But these statements are not supported by evidence.
Contrary to this, the widely accepted view is that the Muslim League was basically established to protect and advance the Muslim interests and to combat the growing influence of the Indian National Congress.

In 1930,
at a convention of the Muslim League,
Muhammed Iqbal, in his presidential address on December 29
outlined a vision of an independent state for Muslim-majority provinces.

“I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated Northwest Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of Northwest India.”

He was the first politician to forward the Two-Nation Theory — that
Muslims were a distinct nation and deserved political independence
from other regions and communities of India.

Most of the Congress leaders were secularists.
They opposed the division of India on the lines of religion.
Mahatma Gandhi believed that Hindus and Muslims could and should live in amity.
He opposed the partition, saying,

“ My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine is for me a denial of God”.

The Muslims got what they desired.
The “Radcliffe line” had been drawn, that sealed the fate of millions.

1951 Census of displaced persons:
14.5 million people crossed the borders to
what they hoped was the relative safety of religious majority.

While the Death Toll as a result of Partition of India 1947:

Taken from:
Secondary Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century
14 estimates, between
200,000: World Almanac 1984
1,000,000: D.Smith, B&J (1945-48), Hartman, Wolpert – A New History of India (1993)

The median of these 14 estimates is 500,000.

How many of these were alive to reach the ‘safety’ of destinations unknown?

Partition of India

At that instant when the camera’s shutters clicked
on these homeless and penniless hundreds,
what were their thousand thoughts?
Just frightened emptiness?

The Two Nation Theory
had declared that Pakistan would be for all Muslims of India
but in reality it split them into three divisions across the subcontinent.

The northwest was already a muslim majority area, they didn’t need protection,
and it failed to protect the muslims elsewhere, where as minorities, they needed it.

Carving up a country for whatever reason will always extract a heavy price.
Regardless of the motives of the chief players behind the partition,
the price had to be paid by innocent millions and is still
being paid by their children and grandchildren.
By hindus and ironically also the muslims.

But do we not learn from history?
Kashmir, Kosovo, Palestine and very possibly Iraq.

If the minority predominant areas of Bradford UK seeks independance,
will the British Parliament as readily dig out their rusty old carving knives? I wonder.

[Photographs: BBC and Wikipedia]

 

 

 

 



TOP OF PAGE

where the mind is without fear

15th August 1947: 00:00 IST,
India was finally free from her British masters.

Hundreds of lives were lost in the struggle for freedom.
Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost as the result of freedom,
for India had been brutally ripped apart, a price to pay for being free.

Rabindranath Tagore
wrote this poem, yearning for a free India.

Originally composed in Bengali, this is his own translation and was included in his
collection of poems “Gitanjali” for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1912.

Rabindranath died 7th August 1941,
he never did see his free India, he never could be a ‘free’ Indian.
Neither did he have to witness his country being divided.

 

Where the mind is without fear

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
       by domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into
       the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening
       thought and action …

Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake.

 

Indian tricolour Will we ever wake up into such a world?

 

 

 

 



TOP OF PAGE

today, 62 years ago – Nagasaki

[continuing from – after Hiroshima

 

‘Little Boy’ had killed mercilessly, ‘Fat Man’ was patiently waiting in the wings.
6th August was Hiroshima, butMushroom Cloud nagasaki
there had to be more,
so on the 9th it was
Nagasaki.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nagasaki
was deeply unfortunate,
for it wasn’t the primary target, it was Kokura
and 9th was not the day planned, it was to be 11th August.
Forecasts of bad weather, made the Americans preponed their second bomb run.

Japan was still in a shock at the devastation of Hiroshima, was just three days
adequate to judge the outcome of the first bombing? Why not two weeks?
The Allied invasion was not due for another three months, till November.
Japan didn’t have any WMD that they could deploy in hours or days.
So what was the Americans’ desperate hurry for the second bomb?
The only logical conclusion is the Russian invasion of Japan.

After Hiroshima, the Americans dropped warning leaflets.
These leaflets never reached Nagasaki before the bomb hit the unsuspecting victims.

 


On the morning of August 9, the U.S. B-29 Superfortress Bockscar
was given the license to kill, in their bomb bay, they carried Fat Man,
Kokura was their primary target not Nagasaki; it was the secondary target.

Fatman was even bigger and more powerful
4.6 tons in weight, packing the destruction power of 21 thousand tons of TNT.

On reaching Kokura, Bockscar found it obscured by clouds, after
three unsuccessful attempts on Kokura they conferred with weaponeer Cmdr Ashworth.
and agreed to strike the secondary target; from that moment,
Nagasaki was doomed to die.

Aiming through a brief cloud opening
the intended aiming point was missed by 3km (2 miles).
Nagasaki’s hilly terrain resulted in lower overall casualties than in flat Hiroshima.

nagasaki before and after

This time the mushroom cloud reached 18km (11m).

The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile),
followed by fires across the northern portion of the city to 3.2 km (2 miles)
40,000 people were killed outright and about 25,000 were injured.
Thousands more were to die later from related injuries, and radiation sickness.

Some survivors from Hiroshima had gone to Nagasaki and got bombed again.

The myth about the Japanese Surrender

Many who argue in favour of the slaughter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
will say that the bombings ended the war months sooner and saved many lives.
That there would have been casualties on both sides in the planned invasion of Japan.

The chronology of events: contradicts that argument.

July 17th: Potsdam Conference:
The mighty victors, USA, Britain and Russia met to carve the spoils.
To decide on a policy for the occupation of Germany and other countries after the war.

July 26th: Potsdam declaration:
United States, Britain and China: Set conditions on Japan for surrender.

“The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people”

“We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”

July 27th: the Japanese government considered how to respond to the Declaration…
the cabinet was persuaded not reject until (he) could get a reaction from the Soviets.

July 30th: Ambassador Sato wrote that Stalin was probably talking to the Western Allies about his dealings with Japan.

“There is no alternative but immediate unconditional surrender if we are to prevent Russia’s participation in the war. …

August 6th: Hiroshima destroyed.

(August 8th):
August 9th 0400 hrs Japan
Operation August Storm
Russia broke neutrality pact with Japan and declared war and invaded Manchuria.
1102 hrs – Nagasaki destroyed.

August 14th: Japan surrendered.

Bombings were unnecessary on military grounds:
General Dwight D. Eisenhower in his memoir The White House Years:

“In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.”

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.”

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman

“The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”

Japan’s decision to surrender was made after the scale of
the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands was known.
Had the war continued, the Russians had plans to invade Hokkaidō
well before the (November) Allied invasion of Kyushu.

Kuznick and Mark Selden, from Cornell University New York, US
at a Greenpeace meeting in London on 6th August 2005:

New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman’s main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia,….
Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves …
account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was “looking for peace”. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb…”Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,” …
Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used,

62 years ago,
America wanted to occupy Japan, and not let the Russians go in there first.
And if they couldn’t, they would “utterly destruct” Japan, than let Russians take it.

They dropped weapons aimed at mass destructions, at least 200,000 civilians died.
That was not collateral damage, that was deliberately planned killing. 1st degree murder.

What America wants,
they will break all international laws and kill to occupy and plunder.
But in a true cowardly manner only against the weak, non nuclear states.
It threatens to blow any country that wants to develop N-weapons,
but turned a blind eye to their allies, Pakistan and Israel.

62 years after,
America wants to invade and occupy Iran
They want complete control over middle east,
they want to plunder oil and natural gas around the Persian gulf,
and they want to prevent Iran shifting to Euro as their petro currency.

History tells us what America is capable of, let us not get fooled again.

62 years later, I sincerely hope it is not Iran..

 

 

 



TOP OF PAGE