God Bless America?! - 1
The rise of the Empire, from Christopher Columbus to Donald Trump.
There can be little doubt that the United States of America has become the most dangerous entity in the history of the world. Since the end of World War 2, the superpower has pursued full spectrum dominance over global affairs. This article will outline how this settler colonial outpost became the most powerful nation on earth. If you want to blame someone, you could blame Christopher Columbus. That’s where it all started.
As the current Trump administration poises to rewrite American history, no doubt to scrub its sordid past and give Uncle Sam a personality revamp, now is as good a time as any to show the true face of the Empire.
The Founding Fathers
Columbus (an Italian) got permission and funding/resources from the so-called Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, whose marriage (1469) led to the unification of Spain, through the eventual expulsion of the Moors from the southern Spain. As with many of his era, Columbus was driven by strong religious beliefs, which included the conversion of all races to Christianity, including Islam.
On the 3 August 1492, Columbus began his first voyage west to what he thought was Asia and the prospect of great wealth from a more direct route to the continent. Land fall occurred on the 12 October on what is now the Bahamas. Columbus called the natives of the new territories Los Indios (Indians). Further voyages took Columbus to Central and South America. Although he didn’t make landfall in North America, he nevertheless has an important legacy there with respect to his discovery of the ‘New World’. The US has a ‘Columbus day’ holiday and various places named after him, despite no direct historical connection. It was Italian Americans that initially marked the occasion by celebrating the 300th anniversary of his arrival in 1792. This was a one off. But after the persecution of Italian Americans a century later, the 400th anniversary was commemorated nationally to diffuse tensions between the US and Italy. Over the years though, the trend continued and in 1937 it became an annual federal holiday by presidential proclamation. However by the quincentennial in 1992, the emphasis was starting to change with increasing awareness of the effects of colonial settlements on native Americans.
What about what is now the USA? The Spanish were the first to establish a settlement in Florida in 1565. In 1604, the French established a permanent colony in Maine. In 1607 English colonists established a foothold in Virginia. This was followed by further settlements in Massachusetts, which was named Plymouth, especially those that became known as the Pilgrim Fathers, who arrived in 1620. They would play a key role in shaping the history of the US.
The Pilgrim Fathers
The origins of the Plymouth Colony has its roots in the Separatist Movement in England. They were Protestants who separated from the Church of England and opposed state interference in religious matters. They founded their own churches and communities, and saw the established church as too Catholic. They were persecuted as outlaws by the establishment, a fall-out from the English Civil War. Then it was illegal not to attend church on a Sunday. As a result the separatists fled to Holland. They shared some of the beliefs of the puritans. Indeed many puritans joined the separatists. In Holland, many decided to emigrate. It was in the Plymouth Colony that they expanded their influence, and where the Mayflower Compact was ratified. This was a 200 word document that bound the signatories to the formation of a government, pledging them to abide by any laws and regulations that would later be established “for the general good of the colony.” It would act as a provisional measure until full legal rights of the land settled by the colony were granted by the Council for New England, although it would act as the foundation of Plymouth’s government, which remained in force until the colony was absorbed into the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1691. Its fundamental principles of self-government and common consent, influenced the emergence of democratic government in America. Thanksgiving is linked to the Pilgrims. They brought the tradition over from England.
The Declaration of Independence
It would be almost a century later before the eastern colonies would finally become part of a sovereign state. The Declaration, made on 4 July, 1776 and reproduced in the US National Archives, had several aims; for the 13 original states/colonies to break away from Britain and form an independent country, being the paramount purpose. It also sought to unite the colonies as a unified nation. Importantly:
Congress had to prove the legitimacy of its cause. It had just defied the most powerful nation on Earth. It needed to motivate foreign allies to join the fight.
Prior to the Declaration, the colonists were becoming increasingly disillusioned with British rule, concerned that they would lose their freedom and viewing the British Empire as corrupt. Thomas Jefferson was the main writer of the Declaration. It was adopted by the 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress, who represented the 13 colonies. It was these delegates that were dubbed ‘the founding fathers’. The American War of Independence had already started the previous year. It would ultimately lead to victory for the fledgling country.
The Constitution of the United States
The National Archives outlines a precise summary:
The Constitution of the United States contains a preamble and seven articles that describe the way the government is structured and how it operates. The first three articles establish the three branches of government and their powers: Legislative (Congress), Executive (office of the President,) and Judicial (Federal court system). A system of checks and balances prevents any one of these separate powers from becoming dominant. Articles four through seven describe the relationship of the states to the Federal Government, establish the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and define the amendment and ratification processes.
By the time America became independent, it had a provincial constitution, the Articles of Confederation. But it lacked teeth and any real enforcement powers. On September 17, 1787 the Constitution took its final shape and was signed. Despite the presence of Anti-Federalists, the 13 original states ratified the Constitution, which finalised the creation of what was on paper the worlds first model democracy.
Following the adoption of the Constitution, it was decided that additional elements needed to be included that would enhance the checks and balances already present. This gave rise to the Bill of Rights - initially prompted by those who opposed the new government - which is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It was adopted in its final form on December 15, 1791.
Colonisation or Invasion
What I’ve just outlined is the conventional historical account of the US. But there is a darker side that isn’t always included in the text books. Firstly, Columbus wasn’t the first person to ‘discover’ America. There were of course people already there. This article from the Conversation traces the real history of the ‘new world’. There is evidence of human settlement as far back as 35,000 years. It’s thought that humans may have entered the Americas before the ice age took hold. The article notes:
Almost all Native American tribes – Sioux, Comanche, Iroquois, Cherokee, Aztec, Maya, Quechua, Yanomani, and dozens of others – speak similar languages. That suggests their languages evolved from a common ancestor tongue, spoken by a single tribe entering the Americas long ago. Their descendants’ low genetic diversity suggests this founding tribe was small, maybe less than 80 people.
7 waves of immigration are outlined. The Na-Dene arrived about 5,000 years ago from Siberia. These are linked to the the Navajo, Dene, Tlingit, and Apache peoples. The Inuit’s followed soon after.
More recently the Vikings made landfall in Newfoundland. They had initially been exploring Greenland when they hit the Canadian coast.
Around the year 1200, the Polynesians explored the Pacific region, landing in many areas, including New Zealand. The also landed in South America.
Then came the Europeans, spearheaded by Columbus. This would ultimately spark a clash between different cultures.
Native American Genocide
From the time Europeans arrived on American shores, the frontier—the edge territory between white man’s civilization and the untamed natural world—became a shared space of vast, clashing differences that led the U.S. government to authorize over 1,500 wars, attacks and raids on Indians, the most of any country in the world against its Indigenous people. By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 Indigenous people remained, a sharp decline from the estimated 5 million to 15 million living in North America when Columbus arrived in 1492.
This quotation from History sums up the fault lines between European settlers and the native ‘Indians’. Land was the main prize that most of the settlers sought, as well as resources. There were vast cultural differences; Language, skin colour and beliefs. In short, indigenous peoples were seen as ‘pagan savages who must be killed in the name of civilization and Christianity’. Another area of contention was a degree of collusion with Indians and the British during the war of 1812. A pivotal event was the enactment of the Indian Removal Bill of 1830, a controversial piece of legislation, pushed by President Andrew Jackson. Jackson’s sentiment espoused the typical mindset of the time, which still prevails today:
“They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race…they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere [before] long disappear.”
This ultimately led to Indians being forced off their land as waves of settlers pushed west. The dislocation and carnage left in the wake of the migrations became known as the “Trail of Tears.” Any retaliation from Indians inevitably led to retribution. All too often peaceful settlements were attacked by the US military. One particular trail blazer, who was prepared to massacre Indians on a whim was George Armstrong Custer. He became a controversial character in the wake of his famous defeat at Little Big Horn, seen by many in history as a typical settler colonial character. By the end of the 19th century, virtually all of the frontier was under US control, with Indians confined to reservations. This led to cultural decline and a loss of identity as many Indians were compelled to abandon their ancestral lands and traditions, with some converting to Christianity and eventual assimilation into the American way of life. As part of that process, Indian children were forced to attend boarding schools. In a process dubbed cultural genocide, they were forbidden to speak their language, abandon native beliefs, and their native American identities, including their names.
The acquisition of native lands does actually have a legal precedent. It is based on a Papal decree known as the “doctrine of discovery”. National Geographic outlines its significance. The initial decree was set by Pope Alexander VI in 1493, a year after Columbus’ voyage. This meant that:
The pope’s reasoning drew in part on the emerging concept of terra nullius, Latin for “empty land.” Any place not already occupied by Christians was considered free for the taking by Christian Europeans—regardless of how many people already lived there or the advancement of their civilizations.
The Doctrine consolidated itself as a global edict, which actually became incorporated into national laws. As the article notes:
The doctrine was used to justify everything from the European takeover of most of the Western Hemisphere to the coercive tactics used by missionaries there. Though Pope Paul III in 1537 forbade the enslavement of Indigenous peoples and the seizure of their property, the edict was often ignored.
It became part of US law:
In Johnson v. M’Intosh—an 1823 Supreme Court decision related to a dispute over a parcel of Piankeshaw land in what is now Illinois—the court found that Native Americans had no land rights because of the doctrine. The religion and character of Native Americans, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, was inferior to Europeans’ “superior genius.”
This then was the driver of colonialism around the world. Even Britain, which wasn’t a Catholic country, utilised the Doctrine, essentially an instrument of international law. In recent years, pressure mounted on the Vatican to repudiate the Doctrine. The UN ‘denounced the doctrine as the “shameful” root of the ongoing marginalization of Indigenous peoples worldwide’. Finally on March 30, 2023, the Doctrine was repudiated.
Another contentious issue was the use of disease to exterminate indigenous peoples. There is evidence that colonists were aware of how diseases such as smallpox could impact native populations, however in most cases infection was passed on by Europeans carrying a disease. Even a common disease such as influenza could be devastating, as the natives had no prior contact, therefore no immunity.
Native Americans were also used as slaves, in much the same way African Americans were. Although it should be noted that a form of slavery was practised by Indians themselves before the arrival of Europeans.
The Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine effectively opened the door to US hegemony in the western hemisphere, influencing the development of US foreign policy, although that wasn’t the initial purpose of the Doctrine. It was delivered by President James Monroe in his annual message to Congress on December 2, 1823. In essence:
the Old World and New World had different systems and must remain distinct spheres, Monroe made four basic points: (1) the United States would not interfere in the internal affairs of or the wars between European powers; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere with existing colonies and dependencies in the Western Hemisphere; (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization; and (4) any attempt by a European power to oppress or control any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States.
It was supported by the British. Indeed, the US at the time relied on Britain’s superior military prowess to deter any potential encroachment in the region.
The Doctrine effectively kickstarted the idea of Manifest Destiny, a phrase that was coined in 1945, by John O’Sullivan’s article in the New York Morning News. As History notes, Manifest Destiny is:
the idea that the United States is destined—by God, its advocates believed—to expand its dominion and spread democracy and capitalism across the entire North American continent. The philosophy drove 19th-century U.S. territorial expansion and was used to justify the forced removal of Native Americans and other groups from their homes. The rapid expansion of the United States intensified the issue of slavery as new states were added to the Union, leading to the outbreak of the Civil War.
The Doctrine, and its inherent Manifest Destiny, would expand with the new century. In 1904 in his annual message to Congress, Theodore Roosevelt announced a new Latin American policy that became known as the Roosevelt Corollary that would expand the Monroe Doctrine. This effectively outlined the role of the US as an international policeman for the Western Hemisphere. It was prompted by interventions by European powers, who attempted to blockade Venezuela and the Dominican Republic, as these countries had outstanding foreign debts. The US intervened. Roosevelt made it clear in his speech that the US would avoid any acts of territorial aggression. That would change through time though. Interestingly though, as the National Archives points out:
This so-called Roosevelt Corollary—a corollary is an extension of a previous idea—to the Monroe Doctrine contained a great irony. The Monroe Doctrine had been sought to prevent European intervention in the Western Hemisphere, but now the Roosevelt Corollary justified American intervention throughout the Western Hemisphere. In 1934, Franklin D. Roosevelt renounced interventionism and established his Good Neighbor policy within the Western Hemisphere.
This would all change with the outbreak of World War 1, which would elevate the US to the international stage, with the first potential threat to the US in the 20th century.
The Rise of a Global Power
In 1916 Woodrow Wilson was elected President for a second term on a mandate to keep the US out of the war. But, as the Archives outlined, a dramatic intervention by Britain in early 1917 would change that:
British cryptographers deciphered a telegram from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German Minister to Mexico, von Eckhardt, offering United States territory to Mexico in return for joining the German cause.
Following the release of the Zimmermann telegram to Wilson, the revelation exploded in the press, prompting the US to formally declare war on Germany on April 6, 1917.
Towards the end of the war, Wilson proposed a 14-point program for world peace, which were taken as the basis for peace negotiations at the end of the War. It was an ambitious move. However most of the Points were rejected by Britain and France. Wilson’s blueprint though would not apply to Germany. The only Point that was included the final Treaty of Versailles, was the proposal to create a world security organisation. This led to the creation of the League of Nations.
Wilson proposed the US should ratify the Treaty. This was rejected by congress. The US never joined the League. Wilson lamented that ‘without American participation in the League, there would be another world war within a generation’.
Following the war there was a period of stability and prosperity, dubbed the ‘Roaring Twenties’. By this time the US was becoming the largest economy in the world. But the end of the decade would mark a catastrophic collapse. On October 29, 1929, aka Black Tuesday, the Wall Street stock exchange collapsed, leading to the Great Depression. This in turn would sow the seeds of another catastrophe.
It wasn’t until President Franklin D. Roosevelt came to office on March 4, 1933, that the US made positive efforts to tackle the depression. The first major move came with the enactment of The National Industrial Recovery Act by Congress in June 1933. The emphasis was on promoting fair business practises and competition, and allowing workers to have a say. It did however run into enforcement difficulties. This was one of several measures that constituted FDRs ‘New Deal’, which paved the way to recovery.
But there was one country that was hit bad by the depression. That was Germany. Stripped to bone with post-war reparation commitments, the country suffered from hyper inflation. Multiple hardships led to the rise of Hitler and Nazism. This ultimately led to the outbreak of war in Europe. FDR pledged to assist the countries, specifically Britain, fighting against Germany by expanding the US arms industry in his "Four Freedoms Speech":
In his Four Freedoms Speech, Roosevelt proposed four fundamental freedoms that all people should have. His "four essential human freedoms" included some phrases already familiar to Americans from the Bill of Rights, as well as some new phrases: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. These symbolized America's war aims and gave the American people a mantra to hold onto during the war.
These Four Freedoms would become incorporated within the Charter of the United Nations after the war.
US involvement in the war was triggered by the intervention of Japan, not too unlike the trigger that pushed the US into WW1. This time though it was a direct attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbour in Hawaii. On December 8, 1941, following FDRs "Day of Infamy Speech", the US declared war on Japan. As a result the US was now directly involved in WW2.
The post war era would see the US take a more dominant role in global affairs. This would mark the beginning of a new world order that would see the old colonial order being replaced by a new imperialist power. It all started at the University of Chicago in 1942.
The Manhattan Project
Germany had began research on nuclear fission as early as 1938. Scientists who had fled from fascist regimes in Europe raised awareness of this and were concerned that Nazi Germany might develop a nuclear weapon. In 1939, Albert Einstein approached FDR with the prospect of engaging in nuclear research to facilitate an atomic chain reaction, which would ultimately lead to a bomb. In February 1940, funding was made available to start research on the project. Several sites across the US required construction to facilitate the huge scale of the project. In June 1942 the Corps of Engineers’ Manhattan District was initially assigned to carry out this work, as much of the early research had been performed at Columbia University, in Manhattan. This prompted the use of the code name ‘Manhattan Project’.
In December 1942, the first controlled fission chain reaction using plutonium-239 took place at Chicago University. However to produce plutonium on a large scale would require a large reactor. By 1945, there was sufficient plutonium to begin working on a weapon design. The cost of the Manhattan Project was estimated at $2 billion.
The Bomb
The following is an excerpt from a previous article that documented the US’s use of the Bomb. It has been expanded to include additional research.
[O]n the morning of July 16, in the New Mexico desert 120 miles south of Santa Fe, the first atomic bomb was detonated. The scientists and a few dignitaries had removed themselves 10,000 yards away to observe as the first mushroom cloud of searing light stretched 40,000 feet into the air and generated the destructive power of 15,000 to 20,000 tons of TNT. The tower on which the bomb sat when detonated was vaporized.
As everyone knows, the bomb was dropped on Japan - not once but twice - the official narrative being that using such extreme force was the only way to guarantee Japan’s surrender at the end of WW2. But there is evidence that Japan was ready to surrender before the bomb was dropped. This was for many years a contentious issue. By developing the bomb the US wittingly or not, kickstarted the arms race and sent the Soviet Union into high defence mode with a genuine fear that perhaps they might be next on the nuke list.
In 1949, NATO was formed. In 1956, following the establishment of the Warsaw Pact in 1955, the Pentagon hatched a plan to nuke the USSR. In 2015, the US National Security Archive published a series of declassified documents that outlined a detailed plan for a major nuclear strike:
The SAC [Strategic Air Command] study includes chilling details. According to its authors, their target priorities and nuclear bombing tactics would expose nearby civilians and “friendly forces and people” to high levels of deadly radioactive fallout. Moreover, the authors developed a plan for the “systematic destruction” of Soviet bloc urban-industrial targets that specifically and explicitly targeted “population” in all cities, including Beijing, Moscow, Leningrad, East Berlin, and Warsaw. Purposefully targeting civilian populations as such directly conflicted with the international norms of the day, which prohibited attacks on people per se (as opposed to military installations with civilians nearby).
The Archive reviewed declassified documents on the nuking of Japan. It notes:
The bombings were the first time that nuclear weapons had been detonated in combat operations. They caused terrible human losses and destruction at the time and more deaths and sickness in the years ahead from the radiation effects. And the U.S. bombings hastened the Soviet Union’s atomic bomb project and have fed a big-power nuclear arms race to this day.
It points out that prior to the nuclear attack, the US used the tactic of firebombing Japanese cities with incendiary bombs. For some historians:
the urban fire-bombing strategy facilitated atomic targeting by creating a “new moral context,” in which earlier proscriptions against intentional targeting of civilians had eroded.
This created a problem in which:
the Air Force had a policy of “laying waste” to Japan’s cities which created tension with the objective of reserving some urban targets for nuclear destruction.
Oswald C. Brewster, a project engineer with the Manhattan Project, warned in a letter to President Truman about the ramifications of using the bomb (Doc.14):
That goal, he feared, raised terrifying prospects with implications for the “inevitable destruction of our present day civilization.” Once the U.S. had used the bomb in combat other great powers would not tolerate a monopoly by any nation and the sole possessor would be “be the most hated and feared nation on earth.”
Another note (Doc. 22) involving scientists engaged in the project, which included Nobel Prize winner James Franck, outlined concerns. They rejected:
a surprise attack on Japan and recommended instead a demonstration of the bomb on the “desert or a barren island.” Arguing that a nuclear arms race “will be on in earnest not later than the morning after our first demonstration of the existence of nuclear weapons,” …that an “atomic attack against Japan would `shock’ the Russians”.
Doc. 27 provides an interesting insight into nuclear arms control as early as 1943. Known as the Quebec agreement, this:
stipulated that the neither the United States nor Great Britain would use the bomb “against third parties without each other’s consent.” Thus, an impulse for unilateral control of nuclear use decisions predated the first use of the bomb.
It was recommended that the agreement be revoked to allow the bomb to be used.
Doc.71 outlines how Truman was informed of the effects of the bomb on Hiroshima, ‘with Truman recognizing the “terrible responsibility” that was on his shoulders.’
Docs 92 - 94 outlines further reports on the aftermath of the bombs, particularly the effects of radiation on people. Initially dismissed as propaganda, a US delegation to Japan following its surrender confirmed the findings (emphasis added):
A month after the attacks [Lieutenant General Leslie Richard] Groves’ deputy, General Farrell, travelled to Japan to see for himself the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His vivid account shows that senior military officials in the Manhattan Project were no longer dismissive of reports of radiation poisoning. As Farrell observed in his discussion of Hiroshima, “Summaries of Japanese reports previously sent are essentially correct, as to clinical effects from single gamma radiation dose.” Such findings dismayed Groves, who worried that the bomb would fall into a taboo category like chemical weapons, with all the fear and horror surrounding them. Thus, Groves and others would try to suppress findings about radioactive effects, although that was a losing proposition.
Doc.96 alludes to Truman’s comments on using the bomb:
“You know the most terrible decision a man ever had to make was made by me at Potsdam. It had nothing to do with Russia or Britain or Germany. It was a decision to loose the most terrible of all destructive forces for the wholesale slaughter of human beings. The Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson, and I weighed that decision most prayerfully. But the President had to decide. It occurred to me that a quarter of a million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities, and I still think that they were and are. But I couldn’t help but think of the necessity of blotting out women and children and non-combatants. We gave them fair warning and asked them to quit. We picked a couple of cities where war work was the principle industry, and dropped bombs. Russia hurried in and the war ended.”
Projected US causalities were apparently over estimated.
What these documents don’t outline is the actual cover-up that followed the bombings. This report from Greg Mitchell, who has researched the topic extensively, outlines how the US suppressed film footage of the aftermath of the bombings, showing graphic details of widespread devastation. He notes:
While the suppression of nuclear truths stretched over decades, Hiroshima sank into "a hole in human history," as the writer Mary McCarthy observed. The U.S. engaged in a costly and dangerous nuclear arms race. Thousands of nuclear warheads remain in the world, often under loose control; the U.S. retains its "first-strike" nuclear policy; and much of the world is partly or largely dependent on nuclear power plants, which pose their own hazards.
Here’s a trailer for the film Atomic Cover-up:
Despite US restrictions, a year after the bomb, journalist John Hersey reached Hiroshima. This article covers his report. It points out that:
When the U.S military dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the American government portrayed the weapons as equivalent to large conventional bombs — and dismissed Japanese reports of radiation sickness as propaganda.
He published a 30,000-word essay in the The New Yorker that:
was fundamental in challenging the government's narrative of nuclear bombs as conventional weapons.
There was no information released about the radiological effects from the bomb. Information was closely monitored as reporting on the bombings was restricted. But accounts leaked out. This concerned the US Government:
because the U.S. had just won this horribly hard-earned military victory, and were on the moral high ground, they felt, in defeating the Axis powers. And they had avenged Pearl Harbor. They had avenged Japanese atrocities throughout the Pacific theater in Asia. But then reports that they had decimated a largely civilian population in this excruciating way with an experimental weapon — it was concerning because it might have deprived the U.S. government of [its] moral high ground.
In summing up, the article notes that Hersey’s piece:
just really imbued the event with a sobriety that really hadn't been there before. And also it just completely deprived the U.S. government of the ability to be able to paint nuclear bombs as conventional weapons. ... [Hersey] himself later said the thing that has kept the world safe from another nuclear attack since 1945 has been the memory of what happened in Hiroshima. And he certainly created a cornerstone of that memory.
It turns out that Hersey wasn’t the only journalist who circumvented the US restrictions. Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett was also touted as the first to expose what happened. He published an article in the Daily Express on 5 September 1945, where he recounted his experience from Hiroshima. He notes:
In these hospitals I found people who, when the bomb fell, suffered absolutely no injuries, but now are dying from the uncanny after-effects. For no apparent reason their health began to fail. They lost appetite. Their hair fell out. Bluish spots appeared on their bodies. And the bleeding began from the ears, nose and mouth. At first the doctors told me they thought these were the symptoms of general debility. They gave their patients Vitamin A injections. The results were horrible. The flesh started rotting away from the hole caused by the injection of the needle. And in every case the victim died.
He was of course describing the effects of radiation sickness. The reason for the high casualty rate was because after the bomb was dropped:
The American plane passed out of sight. The all-clear was sounded and the people of Hiroshima came out from their shelters. Almost a minute later the bomb reached the 2,000 foot altitude at which it was timed to explode – at the moment when nearly everyone in Hiroshima was in the streets.
He started his piece with an ominous message:
I write these facts as dispassionately as I can in the hope that they will act as a warning to the world.
In conclusion, during the temporary US occupation of Japan following surrender, the military conducted a thorough investigation of the effects of the bomb and its aftermath, shooting film footage of ground zero and survivors, and documenting radiation sickness. All this was suppressed. There can be no doubt that in the immediate years following the bombings, the US fully understood what they were dealing with. Yet despite this, an insane arms race was sparked, where both sides continued to develop even more powerful nuclear weapons with the full knowledge of what they were capable of.
From the Soviet perspective, extensive intelligence networks operating in the UK and US were able to monitor the bombs’ development. The Soviets had been running their own bomb program. This was accelerated following the bombing of Japan. It’s likely that the Soviets would have been aware of some of the after effects of the bombings.
So why the arms race? Its quite clear that the US and the Soviets distrusted each other despite having been allies. Russia had lost 20 million people during the war, the greatest casualty rate of any country during the conflict. The country had been devastated. Joseph Stalin had no intentions of allowing the west to harbour a strategic advantage with such a powerful weapon.
Despite the horror and devastation from the Japan bombs, more powerful weapons emerged along with a first strike strategy. Going back to the 1956 plan, a list of ‘urban-industrial areas’ were ‘identified for “systematic destruction.”’ Moscow and Leningrad were top targets. The bombs that would be used were at least 100 times as powerful as the Japan nukes. The sort of devastation they could cause doesn’t require much imagination. The strategy claimed that ‘intentional’ targeting of civilians would not take place. But the flawed logic of that assumption is obvious. In short, what was being planned was virtually a carbon copy of what was actually done in Japan, the goal being maximum destruction and maximum shock. For the record, the US nuclear stockpile by 1961 had reached 22,230.
Interestingly the US did drop leaflets before and after the bomb was dropped. Apparently they did not wish to harm civilians:
We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.
Later leaflets made it clear the US was prepared to drop more bombs:
Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war.
This gives a chilling insight as to what the US was prepared to do, and fits in with the evidence noted above.
Foreign Policy gives an interesting perspective. It argues that the threat of Soviet intervention in the war was the key to surrender. It points out that the US’s highly destructive bombing of Japanese cities caused more damage and deaths in relative terms than the Bombs did. Although the aftermath of course would bring another perspective. The use of the Bomb would bring kudos to the US. It would also allow the Emperor of Japan to maintain a facade of inviolability and detract from Japan’s atrocities during the war. In short, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no more impact on Japan’s leaders that what had went before, therefore the dropping of the Bomb was unnecessary as the Soviets would have overrun Japan in a matter of days. This has been confirmed by Common Dreams:
the overwhelming historical evidence from American and Japanese archives indicates that Japan would have surrendered that August, even if atomic bombs had not been used -- and documents prove that President Truman and his closest advisors knew it.
With the 80th anniversary coming up in a few months time at the time of writing (2025), the issue will no doubt snap into focus again.
The Radiation Effects Research Foundation was established on 1 April 1975 as a nonprofit foundation in Japan, in conjunction with the US. Its remit is to study the long term radiation effects in the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Cold War
Despite Soviet and Western cooperation to defeat Germany during the war, it wasn’t long before the spectre of communism induced paranoia in the west during the post war period. To some extent the presence of another world order would constrain US hegemony. But that didn’t stop the rising superpower from exerting its presence around the globe. At the end of the war, the countries of eastern Europe were brought within the Soviet influence. This prompted Winston Churchill to declare:
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an "Iron Curtain" has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.
On March 12, 1947, President Harry S. Truman presented his ‘Truman Doctrine’, to Congress. It was a request for financial and military assistance to Greece and Turkey, which were struggling at the time. This was when "domino theory" saw the light of day, as the Archives note:
In a meeting between Congressmen and State Department officials, Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson articulated what would later become known as the "domino theory." He stated that more was at stake than Greece and Turkey, for if those two key states should fall, communism would likely spread south to Iran and as far east as India. Acheson concluded that not since the days of Rome and Carthage had such a polarization of power existed. The stunned legislators agreed to endorse the program on the condition that President Truman stress the severity of the crisis in an address to Congress and in a radio broadcast to the American people.
Domino theory would dominate US foreign policy for the remainder of the cold war. This was followed by the Marshall Plan in 1948, which would provide economic assistance to war torn Europe, as well as ensuring that the Soviets would not take advantage of the situation to encroach on western Europe.
A major blow to the west was the communist take over in China in 1949, led by Mao Zedong. This posed a potential threat to south east Asia, which would become a major focal point. Formosa (now Taiwan) resisted the transition and broke away from the mainland.
Another major event at the time was the creation of the State of Israel, on May 14, 1948 and its subsequent recognition by the US. This would have major ramifications in the future for US domestic and foreign policy.
The War in Korea
Despite Europe being the key centre of tension during the cold war, it was in South East Asia that hostilities broke out.
In 1905, Korea fell under Japanese rule. That would all change at the end of the war. After the Soviet declaration of war on Japan, Korea was liberated in the north by the Soviets from Japanese influence. US forces had moved into the south. The two parties subsequently agreed to divide Korea at the 38th Parallel. A key consideration of the 38th parallel was to ensure the capital Seoul would be under US control. In December 1945, a Conference was held in Moscow where Korea was partitioned and administered by a US–Soviet Joint Commission. However the Commission effectively failed in its efforts to unify Korea. In May 1948, a general election was held in South Korea, which the Soviets refused to participate in. The Republic of Korea (ROK) was formally established on 15 August 1948. Following this, the Soviets agreed to the establishment of a communist government led by Kim Il Sung. On the 9 September 1948, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was formally established.
Kim was keen to unify Korea. In 1950, the Soviets exploded their first atom bomb. Between that and the close of the Chinese civil war, Kim and Stalin agreed that now would be the time for an invasion of the ROK. The Soviets would not participate in the war and it was reckoned the US wouldn’t either - they had just removed their forces from the South. Plans to invade the ROK were drawn up with the help of experienced Soviet commanders. The US was aware of a potential invasion. They helped to train the ROK armed forces.
In June 1950, the Korean Peoples Army broke through the 38th Parallel, apparently in response to incursions from the South, which has been an issue of some debate. ROK forces were no match for the well equipped KPA. Within days, Seoul had fallen. War in Korea had broken out. It took the US by surprise as the main focus was on Europe. It was the threat of a wider conflict and the security of Japan that brought the US into the war. With the UN approving the defence of the ROK, on the 27 June, Truman gave the green light for US military intervention. However there were issues here, that would eventually feed into the ‘red scare’ conspiracy theories that had become a part of the cold war, fuelled by McCarthyism.
The root cause of this was a top secret document called NSC 68, produced for the U.S. National Security Council by the Department of State and Department of Defense and presented to Truman on 7 April 1950. The paper What was the Cold War and How did We Win it? reviews the document. Quoting from a book by Ernest May, it notes:
NSC-68 "provided the blueprint for the militarization of the Cold War from 1950 to the collapse of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1990's”.
Following the declassification of NSC-68 in 1975, even orthodox defenders of American Cold War policy criticized the alarmist tone and Manichean rhetoric for which the document is famous.
The belief was that the Kremlin was preparing for world domination. Its apocalyptic tone reflected a division ‘between forces of "slavery" and those of the "free world."' This kick-started what was basically the cold war on steroids. Communist China and the Soviet Union was in cahoots. The red menace had to stopped at all costs. Overseeing the drafting of the document was Paul Nitze, who served as United States Deputy Secretary of Defense, U.S. Secretary of the Navy, and Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. State Department. He was highly influential in U.S. Cold War defence policy and remained in office up to the Regan administration. NSC-68 became subjected to criticism, as the paper notes:
With the exception of Nitze himself, few defend the document as a sound basis for policy planning. Many note that Soviet experts (which Nitze was not) George F. Kennan and Charles Bohlen had criticized its exaggerated perceptions of Soviet aims and capabilities at the time of its drafting. Most of the commentators agree that NSC-68 inspired an overmilitarized American response and a tendency to view localized conflicts as Kremlin imperial thrusts. Such misperceptions inspired global U.S. intervention, including the debacle in Southeast Asia.
Later evidence reveals that Stalin was reluctant to engage in war in Korea. After the end of the cold war, former Soviet commentators admitted that the Soviet Union’s economy was vulnerable, which would have made a large scale conflict with the west risky. This then was the background that drove US interventions in Korea and later Vietnam.
Prior to the outbreak of war in Korea, the Soviet Union boycotted the UN Security Council over its failure to recognise the People's Republic of China (PRC), in preference to continued recognition of Nationalist China, which no longer existed, except in Formosa. Its representative Jacob Malik, following a vote on the issue had declared:
that the United States was "encouraging lawlessness" by refusing to recognize the "illegal presence" of the Nationalist Chinese representatives. He concluded that "even the most convinced reactionaries" had to recognize the justness of the Soviet resolution, and he vowed that the Soviet Union would not be bound by any decisions made by the Security Council if the Nationalist Chinese representative remained. Hoping to forestall any future Security Council action, Malik announced that the Soviet Union would no longer attend its meetings. The remaining members of the Security Council decided to carry on despite the Soviet boycott.
This generated a legal conundrum. When the vote was taken to invoke military intervention against the KPA, there was no Soviet representative to veto the vote. The paper, Videant Consules (1950), published in the journal, The Western Political Quarterly, by F. B. Schick, Professor of International Law, University of Utah, unpacks the legal background.
The paper makes the point that in reality there is more than one interpretation to the law, but in practise it tends to be a black and white process. In the lead up to war in Korea, it notes that:
political and ideological motivations greatly influence the choice among possible legal interpretations of certain provisions of the United Nations Charter which are applicable to this specific case.
On 25 June, 1950, the UN adopted Resolution 82 (proposed by the US), which called for ‘the immediate cessation of hostilities’ and for ‘the authorities in North Korea to withdraw’ their forces behind the 38th parallel. Also the paper stipulates that representatives from the north and the south should have had input into the Security Council decision as indicated by the UN charter. Only a representative from the south had any interaction with the body. The fly in ointment though is that technically only one Korea actually existed at the time. As such the initial conflict:
would have to be classified as a civil war. This, in turn, raises the question, …whether the Security Council can interfere in a matter which may very well be considered as falling essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the state afflicted by civil war.
Another important point was that:
Chapter III of the Security Council resolution calling upon all members "to render every assistance to the United Nations in the execution of this resolution" cannot be interpreted as constituting a permission for military assistance to South Korea in accordance with the law of the United Nations.
Further analysis suggests that intervention may be permitted in the event of a broader ‘threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression’.
The statement issued by Truman on the 27th rejected the above interpretation, whilst insisting that the "United States will continue to uphold the rule of law”. Revealingly it is pointed out that the ‘conformity’ of the US with the resolution was misleading as the call to arms had taken place before Resolution 83 was adopted on the 27th. Another point of contention was Truman’s statement to dispatch forces "to prevent any attack on Formosa” ," and that "the occupation of Formosa by Communist forces would be a direct threat to the security of the Pacific area and to United States forces performing their lawful and necessary functions in that area". The paper notes:
It is well known that the only direct threat by communist forces to Formosa comes from the government of the People's Republic of China. It can not be maintained that North Korean forces threatened the nationalist-held island of Formosa; nor is it legally tenable to assert that the Security Council resolution of June 25, 1950 - or, as a matter of fact, of June 27, 1950--permitted President Truman to order naval units to interfere in the conflict between Chiang K'ai-shek's regime and the government of Communist China.
This comes back to the absence of the Soviet delegate and whether that would affect the validity of the security council votes:
If the wording of Article 27, sec. 3 of the Charter means that a legally valid decision of the Security Council is possible only with the concurring votes of all permanent members, the resolution of June 27, 1950 would be invalid, and the military campaign of the United Nations forces under the predominant leadership of the United States would not be in accord with the constitutional law of the United Nations.
The US response was to treat the Soviet absence as an abstention. But this was not legally consistent:
The Charter assumes that the five major Powers can collaborate for peace, and it recognizes the truism that without the collaboration of all five Powers there cannot be in fact collective action by the community of nations. In the absence of collaboration by the five permanent members, the Charter makes no provision for collective enforcement action.
Then there’s China’s representation on the Council, which ‘poses an embarrassing question related to the Korean conflict’. The US recognises the Nationalist government of China, now based in Formosa. This is how the paper views this conundrum:
It is certain that the American supported interpretation, which favors Chiang K'ai-shek's representative as the Security Council delegate, conforms with the formal provisions of the United Nations Charter - in fact, it is a strictly literal interpretation. The opposing view, while drawing its strength from the venerable fabric of international law, reflects truthfully the spirit of the Charter. It is exactly this spirit of the Charter, and not its law, which the Soviet Union through the use of her "veto" right and other methods has been accused of violating by the Western Powers. Hence it would seem dangerously inconsistent for the Western Powers to reject the spirit of the Charter, and to accept solely a formalistic interpretation of the law of the United Nations, when considering representation of China on the Security Council.
The paper finishes with the warning, ‘that the bi-polar rivalry will lead to "fateful tragedy."’ It also notes that the decision taken by the US to act militarily was likely driven by the Truman Doctrine.
It’s important to tease out these nuances given the impact of the Korean war on global affairs at the time and up to this day. There does appear to be irregularities in the wider process that led to the approval of intervention in Korea.
In the next article I’ll look at the impact of the Korean War itself.