To see a video related to this article click here
WE ARE A SICK SOCIETY
Consider this: every two minutes, a child is exploited in the sex industry. Children, some as young as 8 or 9 years old, or younger – are being bought and sold for sex worldwide. Reread and let that statement soak in! We are a sick society!
Sex trafficking of young girls is an evil trade that is even more profitable than drugs, and that is conducted by organized crime, corrupt politicians and even used to finance terrorist operations in Asia, Africa and other parts of the world. Governments, politicians and corrupt police either turn a blind eye to it, or, in many instances, run interference for and participate in the profits from this abominable sex industry. The selling of these human beings is a multi-billion dollar industry, which has increased from approximately $7 Billion per year in 2000, to now approximately $150 Billion every year (www.FreetheSlaves.net). Many thinking people are aware of this sex trade but there are very few who are willing to speak out against it or fight back to rescue these girls.
SLAVERY IS ALIVE AND THRIVING IN OUR SOCIETY
Researchers estimate that there are 40.3 million people enslaved in the world today (International Labour Organisation). In Africa, over two million people are trafficked annually and of this number there is an estimated 30 000 children as young as 4, who are being prostituted currently in South Africa (National Centre for Justice and Rule of Law). It is estimated that there are millions of victims; though only about 50-100,000 cases are found or reported each year in South Africa. The University of Johannesburg reports that trafficking occurs at a slightly higher rate for girls than boys, with 55% of all trafficked people in South Africa being female and 45% being male. It is estimated that more than three quarters of all victims are between the ages of 12-25. Counter Trafficking Data Portal looked into 286 accounts of trafficking in South Africa, 70% of the cases were females; and 55% of the cases were people being trafficked for sexual exploitation, with the remaining percentages being exploited for other trafficking purposes such as organ harvesting or forced labour.
UNDER OUR NOSES
Child sex tourism is prevalent in and between a number of South African cities, notably Johannesburg and Cape Town. Women and girls from other African countries are often imported to South Africa for commercial sexual exploitation, domestic servitude and other jobs in the service sector. Occasionally, these women are taken as far as Europe for sexual exploitation. Many Thai, Chinese, and European women are often trafficked to and sexually exploited in South Africa. Organized criminal groups, syndicates, local gangs and individual policemen facilitate trafficking into, out of and within South Africa, particularly for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation. Trafficking rings choose transit locations where government officials and police are corrupt, leaving traffickers with little risk of being caught and victims with little hope of being helped.
THE MOST LUCRATIVE COMMODITY: LITTLE GIRLS
Sex trafficking – especially when it comes to the buying and selling of young girls – has become big business – the fastest growing business in organized crime and these enslaved people have become the most lucrative commodity traded illegally – even more so than drugs and guns. As investigative journalist Amy Fine Collins notes, “It’s become more lucrative and much safer [for the traffickers] to sell malleable teens than drugs or guns.” Also, “A pound of heroin or an AK-47 can be retailed once, but a young girl can be sold 10 to 15 times [or more] a day.” On average, a girl might be raped by 6,000 males during a five-year period of enslavement. Brook Bello, the founder of the anti-trafficking organization More To Life, states, “We work with victims that are 3 years old and up… The average victim that we work with that’s over 18 started being raped at three.”
BUYING AND SELLING CHILDREN FOR SEX
According to USA Today, adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in the United States alone. Who buys a child for sex? Sadly, the answer is otherwise ordinary men from all walks of life. “They could be your co-worker, a businessman, doctor, pastor, or spouse,” writes journalist Tim Swarens, who spent more than a year investigating the sex trade in America. And we cannot look only to America with disgust, as this is happening right under our own noses in South Africa too. This is an industry that revolves around cheap sex on the fly, with young girls and women who are sold to up to several dozen men EACH DAY.
This is not a problem found only in major cities or poverty stricken third world countries. It’s happening everywhere, right under our noses, in suburbs, cities and towns across the globe. Ernie Allen of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children points out, “The only way not to find this in any city is simply not to look for it.” Don’t fool yourselves into believing that this is merely a concern for lower income communities or immigrants. Most girls aren’t volunteering to be sex slaves. They’re being lured – forced – trafficked into it.
HEART OF THE PROBLEM
But let’s look at the heart of the problem, human trafficking is thriving due to simple economics: Supply and demand. A sick and perverse society is driving the demand. The evil and widespread sex trafficking industry is fueled by an unceasing demand. Because the demand is so great, traffickers are filling that demand with an increased supply of forced sex workers. They are filling that demand with our children.
PROTECTING PIMPS AND WHOREMONGERS
And what’s horrifying, is often those fueling the demand, those sick abusers of children, are protected. One investigator in an interview with Fox News pointed this out when he said, “Historically, we've allowed the sex buyer to hide behind a mask of anonymity and actually call them a ‘John’.” “We don't even call them by their name, because we let them stay behind that mask of anonymity. And the only way we're going to attack the supply side is by going after the demand. And that means the sex buyer [also] needs to be held culpable for the damage and trauma that he or she is causing to these children.”
OVER-SEXUALISED SOCIETY GROOMING GIRLS FOR EXPLOITATION
A 25-year-old victim of trafficking, after being rescued stated, “For every 10 women rescued, there are 50 to 100 more girls who are brought in by the traffickers. Unfortunately, they’re not 18 or 20-year-olds anymore,” she says, “They’re minors as young as 13 who are being trafficked. They’re little girls.” I ask you: Where did this sick appetite for young girls come from? Look around you. Young girls have been sexualized for years now in music videos, on billboards, in television ads, and in clothing stores. Marketers have created a demand for young flesh and a ready supply of over-sexualized children. Jessica Bennett from Newsweek points out, “All it takes is one look at [social media] photos of teens to see examples – if they aren’t imitating porn they’ve actually seen, they’re imitating the porn-inspired images and poses they’ve absorbed elsewhere…Latex, corsets, and stripper heels, once the fashion of porn stars, have made their way into middle and high schools. It doesn’t take a genius to see that sex, if not porn, has invaded our lives. Whether we welcome it or not, television brings it into our living rooms and the Web brings it into our bedrooms. According to a 2007 study from the University of Alberta, as many as 90 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls aged 13 to 14 have accessed sexually explicit content (porn) at least once.” Many view it regularly! In other words, the culture is grooming these young people to be preyed upon by sexual predators. And then we wonder why our young women are being preyed on, trafficked and abused? Don McAlvany of McAlvany Intelligence Advisor comments, “And sadly, there are large numbers of revolting [males] who are so sick that they want to have sex with a young girl [or young boy].”
PORNOGRAPHY FUELS PROSTITUTION AND PERVERSION
Pornography is causing greater and more bizarre sex addictions. Agents at the Cyber Crimes Center in Virginia, report that when it comes to sex, the appetites have now changed. What was once considered abnormal is now the norm. These agents are tracking a clear spike in the demand for harder-core pornography on the Internet and subsequently for brutal sex. As one agent noted, “We’ve become desensitized by the soft stuff; now we need a harder and harder hit.” Just like any other addiction, you need more increased and intense doses. A study of the life and final confessions of serial rapist and killer, Ted Bundy, who sexually brutalized and murdered 43 women, reveals that it all started with pornography and escalated to more and more wild and violent sexual atrocities. Sadly, dark spiritual forces have achieved incredible control over nearly every institution in modern society, including the news media, public education, the tech giants, politics, pop culture, banking, and finance and is having a phenomenal impact on society. Now not only is sexual violence being glamourized in Hollywood films, but it is happening on a mass scale in reality all around us.
With a growing demand for sexual slavery and an endless supply of girls and women who can be targeted for abduction, this is not a problem that’s going away anytime soon. For those trafficked, it’s a nightmare from beginning to end. Those being sold for sex have an average life expectancy of seven years and those years are a living nightmare of endless rape, forced drugging, humiliation, degradation, disease, pregnancies, abortions, miscarriages, torture, pain and always the constant fear of being killed, or having those you love hurt or killed. A common thread woven through most survivors’ experiences is being forced to go without sleep or food until they have met their “sex quota” of at least 40 men. Barbara Amaya was repeatedly sold between traffickers, abused, shot, stabbed, raped, kidnapped, trafficked, beaten, and jailed – all before she was 18 years old! “I had a quota that I was supposed to fill every night. And if I didn’t have that amount of money, I would get beaten, thrown down the stairs. He beat me once with wire coat hangers, the kind you hang up clothes on, he straightened it out and my whole back was bleeding.”
TRICKED – TRAPPED – TRAFFICKED
Debbie, a straight-A student who belonged to a close-knit Air Force family, is an example of this trading of flesh. Debbie was 15 when she was snatched from her driveway by an acquaintance-friend. Forced into a car, Debbie was bound and taken to an unknown location, held at gunpoint, and raped by multiple men. She was then crammed into a small dog kennel and forced to eat dog biscuits. Debbie’s captors advertised her services on Craigslist. Those who responded were often married with children! And the money that Debbie “earned” for sex was given to her kidnappers. The gang raping continued. After searching the apartment where Debbie was held captive, police finally found Debbie stuffed in a drawer under a bed.
Holly Austin Smith was abducted when she was 14 years old, raped and then forced to prostitute herself. Her pimp, when brought to trial, was only made to serve a year in prison. He should have been executed!
THE GIRLS NEXT DOOR
One woman recounts how her trafficker made her lie face down on the floor when she was pregnant and then literally jumped on her back, forcing her to miscarry. Peter Landesman paints the full horrors of life for those victims of the sex trade in his New York Times article “The Girls Next Door”, he writes, “Andrea told me that she and the other children she was held with were frequently beaten to keep them off balance and obedient. Sometimes they were videotaped while being forced to have sex with adults or one another. Her cell of sex traffickers offered three age ranges of sex partners – toddler to age 4, 5-12, and teens – as well as what she called a ‘damage group.’ ‘In the damage group, they can hit you or do anything they want to,’ she explained. ‘Though, sex always hurts when you are little, so it’s always violent, everything was much more painful once you were placed in the damage group.’”
I ask you again, how do you define a sick, grotesquely perverse and dying culture?
And this growing evil is, for all intents and purposes, out in the open. Trafficked women and children are advertised on the Internet, transported on our freeways, and bought and sold on our streets. Our culture is off-the-charts evil. But does anyone care? Does this make you angry?
The truth is that the government’s war on sex trafficking, like the war on drugs, or the war on terrorism, is a farce. Drugs, terrorism and sex trafficking are about huge money and certain politicians and high-up influential people are profiting from all of these fake wars. If the government wanted to stop this sex trafficking, it could. But it doesn’t! They could pass laws making sex trafficking a capital offense – or at least punishable by life imprisonment. But they won’t – in part because some powerful people are actually participants (i.e., customers) in this evil sexual abuse of little girls.
So, what can you do? Firstly look out for your own children and family members. Educate yourself and your children about this growing evil. Watch your children closely in public – even in big shopping centers, churches, or other public places. Watch closely what they are doing on social media – this is where many innocent and naïve young girls are being recruited. Eliminate or limit social media from your home, but explain to your children why so that they understand and don’t just keep doing it secretly. These are all precautionary defensive strategies. And ultimately, stop feeding the monster: Sex trafficking is part of a larger spectrum that includes sexualized television, the glorification of sexual culture and a multi-billion-dollar sex industry encompassing pornography, music, movies, entertainment, etc.
THE PORNOGRAPHY PLAGUE
There are an estimated 4 million porn sites on the Internet, all of them only a click away on your child’s cellphone, tablet, laptop. We have to educate our children on this, as sadly it is no longer will our child know how to respond IF they come across porn, but rather WHEN they come across it. In fact, Dr. Eve’s curriculum, Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), is in many overseas schools and is now trying to be brought to South Africa, where children as young as grade 4, are taught how to masturbate! They are exposed to pornography as “entertainment” and they are taught they can be whatever gender they feel like! It is a radical explicit sexualisation of children. The UN and Unesco promote this, to children as young as 6 years old, teaching them things such as anal sex is normal and good, and they should start exploring there sexuality. They are trying to make this curriculum compulsory. But parents should be able to choose who teaches their children about the sanctity of sex, at what age, with sensitivity and Biblically, but the state is trying to take the right to make these decisions away from parents.
This epidemic is largely one of our own making, especially in a corporate age where the value placed on human life takes a backseat to profit. It is estimated that the porn industry brings in more money than tech giants like Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, or Yahoo. Call on your city councils, elected officials and police departments to make the battle against sex trafficking a top priority, more so even than the so-called war on terror and drugs. Focus on prosecuting the pimps AND buyers (customers/perverts/rapists) who victimize these young girls. It’s not just the supply that’s the problem, but the demand too. Legislators need to pass legislation aimed at prosecuting traffickers and abusers, the sick people who drive the demand for sex slaves. They need to be prosecuted with long prison sentences. Hotels need to stop enabling these traffickers by providing them with rooms and cover for their dirty deeds. Consider how you would feel about these reprobates if your own daughter was a victim. We need to turn off Hollywood. We need to restore basic principles of morality and ethics to our schools, our town halls, and our families. Only then may we seek the mercy of God and pray for forgiveness for the tens of millions of children already exploited or murdered. We need to pray for forgiveness for the evil WE have passively allowed to take root and grow in our nation – in the name of “progress” and “tolerance.”
The bottom-line, that so many women and children continue to be victimized, brutalized, and treated like human cargo is due to four factors: 1) A sex crazed, sick culture that is addicted to pornography – where large numbers of perverse people are eager to have sex with little girls or boys (i.e., pedophilia); 2) Sex trafficking is very profitable – even more-so than drugs (a multi-billion dollar, flourishing industry); 3) A level of corruption so massive on both a local and international scale that there is little hope of working through government channels for change; and 4) An eerie silence from individuals. Most people either don’t know, or just don’t care.
And so the truth is that we are all guilty of contributing to this human suffering. The traffickers are guilty. The sick male customers who want to have sex with little girls are guilty. The corrupt law enforcement and government officials who ignore the trafficking or are actually profiting from it are guilty. The women’s rights groups who do nothing are guilty. The foreign peacekeepers, aid workers and military personnel who contribute to the demand for sex slaves are guilty. And every individual who does not raise an objection to the atrocities being committed against trafficked children in almost every nation around the globe is guilty. And everyone who is voting for political parties that legalize pornography and essentially prostitution are guilty. As Edmund Burke said: “All that is necessary that evil triumph is that good men (and women) do nothing.”
“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:11
We are all guilty, but we serve a God who is gracious and merciful, and even though we are underserving, God says, “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” 2 Chronicles 7:14. Let’s humble ourselves, let’s confess our sin, let’s pray, let’s seek God’s face, let’s be renewed in our minds by meditating on His Word – Then God is faithful and just and He will forgive us and heal us. Let’s do this today.
BE THE SOLUTION
Thankfully, there are some voices now rising against this evil. But ask yourself: are you angry, or more accurately, enraged, at this growing evil and the evil described above? Are you, your church, your pastor, your friends, your family members speaking out against it? If not, why not? Is our silence a result of ignorance or cowardice? Now that you know, do not stay silent, remaining part of the problem.
“Who will rise up for Me against the wicked? Who will stand for Me against those who practice iniquity?” Psalm 94:16
PROBLEM OF THE HEART
The major underlying reason for this great evil is the collapsing of culture, morality and spiritual life – an evil culture that is now being spread all over the world – a culture where most people can no longer even recognize great evil – let alone fight back against it. Earlier generations would never have tolerated pornography available on every computer and cell phone; or the death of marriage and family that we now see – nor would they have tolerated a sex industry that is turning hundreds of thousands of young girls into sex slaves. We are reaping what we have sown. We must stop the wicked from exploiting, abusing, mutilating, and murdering innocent children, because they are all God’s creatures. Will we ever stop being passive? Will we ever get angry as a people and say: “This is enough! This will go no further!” Will we ever fight back?
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” Proverbs 31:8
By Emma Vaughan-Jones
Henry Morton Stanley School of Christian Journalism Researcher
firstname.lastname@example.org | email@example.com
Sources: The information in this article is taken largely from a McAlvany Intelligence Advisor’s article written by Don McAlvany.
To listen to an interview on this subject on From the Frontline, click here.
See also: Slavery Today – Setting the Captives Free
Women’s Day Anti-Trafficking Campaign
To view this article www.ReformationSA.org website with pictures, click here.
To listen to this presentation on Sermon Audio, click here.
To view as a video, click here.
Atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima, 6 August 1945 and Nagasaki, 9 August 1945.
Suspicion Over 70th Anniversary Events in Japan
What led to this researched article and presentation, for which there are video and audio links, was when my youngest son, Calvin, was to join the Scouts Jamboree (an international, every four year, event), in Japan, August 2015. I was immediately suspicious that they were going to use this International Scout Jamboree event for some anti-American propaganda concerning the A-bomb which everyone knew was essential to end WW2 and to save both America and Japanese lives.
The Facts Can Really Ruin a Good Story
That was why I poured myself into research and was astounded to find that all America’s top military leaders, at the time, opposed it! I am not politically correct, I have never been part of the social justice warriors. I am not part of a “we hate America” movement. I have written many pro-American articles, countered much of the anti-American rhetoric of the left, in camps, courses, on radio, on TV, at public meetings, in schools, in colleges, in debate, for over 40 years. That is why American patriots like Dr. James Kennedy had me regularly on his radio programme, TV programme and in his pulpit.
The Battle to Understand History
I do not support socialists like Chomsky. However, even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. For this reason, I occasionally even quote Karl Marx. Marx said that the first battlefield is the re-writing of history, his disciples have been super busy doing that.
American Military Leaders at the Time Opposed It
In this presentation, I am quoting from Admiral William Leahy, General Douglas McArthur, General Curtis le May, Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz and other American leaders including U.S. President Herbert Hoover.
American Military Leaders at the Time Opposed It
In this presentation, I am quoting from Admiral William Leahy, General Douglas McArthur, General Curtis le May, Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz and other American leaders including U.S. President Herbert Hoover.
American Conservatives Opposed the Liberal Democrats Use of the A-Bomb
It astounded me that throughout the late 40s and 50s, American opposition to the use of the A-bomb in Japan was consistent among conservatives. It was the liberal democrats who were justifying this A-bomb attack, while the Republican conservatives were in opposition. For the reasons given.
USAF Assessment of the Ethics and Effectiveness of Bombing Cities
My good friend, General Ben Partin, U.S. Air Force retired, is a Board member of Frontline Fellowship. General Partin was the first to explain to me how counter-productive the saturation bombing/strategic bombing campaigns of the RAF and USAAF were during WW2. It was General Partin who pioneered the precision guided weapons. Because of his conviction, as a Christian USAF Weapons Specialist, he was convinced that the strategic bombing campaign/saturation bombing of cities prolonged the war and of course, greatly increased the “collateral damage” of civilian deaths. He therefore promoted and energetically dedicated his life to the development of LAZER, GPS, button batteries, producing, in time, cruise missiles.
Truth Does Not Fear Investigation
I am not a pacifist and I am by no means anti-American. It is a mark of a Christian to be self-critical in a balanced way. Military ethics are my concern as one who has regularly lectured the military and trained military chaplains. What is the point of this study? To show the truth of what General George Patton wrote about in 1945, that communist agents of influence had infiltrated the U.S. State Department and White House to such an extent that they were serving the cause of communism in both Asia and Europe. The U.S. Military were against it. The scientists were against it. Even many senior politicians, such as U.S. Secretary of Defence, Under Secretary of the Navy and Military Intelligence opposed it. However, as Admiral Nimitz reported: “Truman succumbed to a tiny handful of people putting pressure on the President to drop atom bombs on Japan.”
We Need to Learn from History to Build a Better Future
It would also be helpful to read Freedom Betrayed by President Herbert Hoover & Patrick Buchanan’s, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.
My concerns are for the best for both America and for the world, which is our mission field.
Did the Atomic Bombs Actually Save Lives?
I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives. But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded: "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability, prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered, even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War, or to Save Lives
General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, said: "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike). Eisenhower also noted: "In July 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… 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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…."
Unnecessary and Unethical
Admiral William Leahy, the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote: "It is my opinion 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in 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."
No Military Justification
General Douglas MacArthur agreed: "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed…. He saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
The Potsdam Threat
Moreover: The Potsdam Declaration, in July 1945, demanded that Japan surrender unconditionally, or face 'prompt and utter destruction'. MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been unnecessary.
Assistant Secretary of War John McLoy noted: "I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam (July 1945), we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted… We missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."
The War was Already Won
Under Secretary of the Navy, Ralph Bird said: "The Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and the Swiss. And that suggestion of giving a warning of the atomic bomb was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted. In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb… The Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favour it was quite logical to hope and expect that, with the proper kind of a warning, the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and bring Russia in." (War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60
It Had Nothing to do with Ending the War
General Curtis LeMay, the tough cigar-smoking Army Air Force "hawk", stated publicly shortly after the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan: "The war would have been over in two weeks… The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
No Invasion was Necessary
The Vice Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey Paul Nitze wrote: "I concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945. Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands scheduled for 1 November 1945 would have been necessary."
Opening up Asia for Communism
Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Ellis Zacharias wrote: "Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. Washington decided it was time to use the A-bomb. I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds." (Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50)
Immoral and Unnecessary
Brigadier General Carter Clarke, the Military Intelligence officer in charge of preparing summaries of intercepted Japanese cables for President Truman and his advisors, said: "When we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. Many other high-level military officers concurred. For example: The commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral."
A Double Crime
"Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz stated in a press conference on 22 September 1945, that 'The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia's entry into the war.' In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on 5 October 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated 'The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.' It was learned also that General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower's assessment was 'It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing… to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting negotiations, was a double crime.' Eisenhower also stated that it wasn't necessary for Truman to 'succumb' to the tiny handful of people putting pressure on the president to drop atom bombs on Japan."
"British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, said to Prime Minister Churchill that 'when Russia came into the war against Japan, the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the Emperor.' On hearing that the atomic test was successful, Ismay's private reaction was one of 'revulsion.'"
Why Were Bombs Dropped on Populated Cities Without Military Value?
Even military officers who favoured use of nuclear weapons mainly favoured using them on unpopulated areas, or Japanese military targets… not cities.
Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss proposed that a non-lethal demonstration of atomic weapons would be enough to convince the Japanese to surrender… and the Navy Secretary agreed: "I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used… the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate… My proposal… was that the weapon should be demonstrated over… a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo… Would lay the trees out in windrows from the centre of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the centre. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will… Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation… It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world…"
Warning Should Have First Been Given
General George Marshall agreed: "'these weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and… a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave - telling the Japanese that we intend to destroy such centres….'"
Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were deemed militarily vital by U.S. planners. (This is one of the reasons neither had been heavily bombed up to this point in the war.) Moreover, targeting at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was aimed explicitly on non-military facilities surrounded by workers' homes.
Historians Agree that the Bomb Wasn't Needed
Historians agree that nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or to save lives. As historian Doug Long notes: "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian J. Samuel Walker writes, 'The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it.'" (J. Samuel Walker, The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update, Diplomatic History, Winter 1990)
Politicians Agreed that Atomic Bombs were Not Needed
Ex-president Herbert Hoover said: "The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945… up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped;… if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the atomic bombs."
The Japanese Wanted to End the War
Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew noted: "In the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the retention of the dynasty had been issued in May 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the Japanese government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clear cut decision. If surrender could have been brought about in May 1945, or even in June, or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the Pacific war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."
Why Then Were Atom Bombs Dropped on Japan?
If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to end the war, or to save lives, why was the decision to drop them made? Especially over the objections of so many top military and political figures?
Scientists Like to Test their Toys
One theory is that scientists like to play with their new toys: On 9 September 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publicly quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a:"toy and they wanted to try it out… The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment… It was a mistake to ever drop it."
Even Scientists Opposed Using the Atom Bomb
However, most of the Manhattan Project scientists, who developed the atom bomb, were opposed to using it on Japan. The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so. They recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb in an unpopulated area of Japan.
Precipitating an Atomic Arms Race
Albert Einstein, an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb (but not directly connected with the Manhattan Project), said: "'A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb'. In Einstein's judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political, diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision. Indeed, some of the Manhattan Project scientists wrote directly to the Secretary of Defense in 1945 to try to dissuade him from dropping the bomb. 'We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons." (Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy files, National Archives (also contained in: Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed)
Launching the Cold War
History.com notes: "In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, a number of historians have suggested that the weapons had a two-pronged objective…. It has been suggested that the second objective was to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. The Potsdam Conference between U.S. President Harry S. Truman, Russian leader Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill (before being replaced by Clement Attlee) ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between the Americans and Soviets. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisers hoped that the U.S. atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage with the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War."
A Crime Against Humanity
The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives is disputed by Peter Kuznick and Mark Selden, historians from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman's main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia.
New Scientist reported in 2005: "The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War, according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing the controversial theory. Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and killing over 200,000 people was done more to impress the Soviet Union than to cow Japan. 'He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species', says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University in Washington DC, US. 'It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.'"
Japan was Searching for Peace
According to an account by Walter Brown, Assistant to 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."
Russia was our Real Enemy not Japan
John Pilger points out: "The US Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was 'fearful' that the US Air Force would have Japan so 'bombed out' that the new weapon would not be able 'to show its strength'. He later admitted that 'no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender'… General Leslie Groves, Director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: 'There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.' The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the 'overwhelming success' of 'the experiment'".
Conservatives Opposed the Atom Bomb as Immoral
University of Maryland professor of political economy, and former Legislative Director in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State, Gar Alperovitz declared: "Though most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bomb to end the war against Japan in 1945. Moreover, this essential judgment was expressed by the vast majority of top American military leaders in all three services in the years after the war ended: Army, Navy and Air Force. Nor was this the judgment of 'liberals', as is sometimes thought today. In fact, leading conservatives were far more outspoken in challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral than American liberals in the years following World War II.
Serving the Cause of Communism in Asia
"Instead of allowing other options to end the war, the United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the time that an 8 August Soviet attack had originally been scheduled: Hiroshima on 6 August and Nagasaki on 9 August. The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians."
The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom that the atomic bomb saved a million lives is so widespread that most Americans haven't paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously concerned with the issue: Not only did most top U.S. military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as the unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially noncombat populations. Moreover, they spoke about it quite openly and publicly.
A Political Decision
General George C. Marshall is on record as repeatedly saying that it was not a military decision, but rather a political one.
On 11 August 1945, the Japanese government filed an official protest over the atomic bombing to the U.S. State Department through the Swiss Legation in Tokyo, observing: "Combatant and non-combatant men and women, old and young, are massacred without discrimination by the atmospheric pressure of the explosion, as well as by the radiating heat which result therefrom. Consequently there is involved a bomb having the most cruel effects humanity has ever known… The bombs in question, used by the Americans, by their cruelty and by their terrorizing effects, surpass by far gas or any other arm, the use of which is prohibited. Japanese protests against U.S. desecration of international principles of war paired the use of the atomic bomb with the earlier firebombing, which massacred old people, women and children, destroying and burning down Shinto and Buddhist temples, schools, hospitals, living quarters, etc. They now use this new bomb, having an uncontrollable and cruel effect much greater than any other arms or projectiles ever used to date. This constitutes a new crime against humanity and civilization."
In 1963, the bombings were the subject of a judicial review. The District Court of Tokyo found, "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war."
The Hague Conventions
In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by International Law found in the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922 - 1923 and was therefore illegal.
In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalled General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, said: "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?"
Indiscriminate Mass Murder
Takashi Hiraoka, Mayor of Hiroshima, said in a hearing to The Hague International Court of Justice (ICJ): "It is clear that the use of nuclear weapons, which cause indiscriminate mass murder that leaves effects on survivors for decades, is a violation of international law". Iccho Itoh, the mayor of Nagasaki, declared in the same hearing: "It is said that the descendants of the atomic bomb survivors will have to be monitored for several generations to clarify the genetic impact, which means that the descendants will live in anxiety for [decades] to come... with their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants or between military installations and civilian communities... The use of nuclear weapons... therefore is a manifest infraction of international law."
University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."
Professor R.J. Rummel's definition of democide includes not only genocide, but also an excessive killing of civilians in war, to the extent this is against the agreed rules for warfare; he argues the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, and thus democide. Rummel quotes among others an official protest from the US government in 1938 to Japan, for its bombing of Chinese cities: "The bombing of non-combatant populations violated international and humanitarian laws." He also considers excess deaths of civilians in conflagrations caused by conventional means, such as in the Tokyo bombings, as acts of democide.
In 1967, Noam Chomsky described the atomic bombings as "among the most unspeakable crimes in history". Chomsky pointed to the complicity of the American people in the bombings. The definition of terrorism is "the targeting of innocent civilians to achieve a political goal".
Unnecessary Suffering and Destruction
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 set rules in place regarding the attack of civilian populations. The Hague Conventions stated that religious buildings, art and science centres, charities, hospitals, and historic monuments, were to be spared as far as possible in a bombardment, unless they were being used for military purposes. The Hague Conventions also prohibited the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering".
The War Did Not Need to Have Lasted so Long
McArthur had also told Roosevelt that: "Peace could be made with the Japanese any time after the Philippines were taken… with their supporting legs cut off, they were beaten." He said that: "Roosevelt, however was determined that he should not command in the final movement on Japan…"
The Atom Bombs Were Not Necessary to End the War
General McArthur declared: "We would have avoided all of the losses of the atomic bomb and the entry of Russia into Manchuria, had the Japanese peace overtures been accepted, in early 1945."
Betraying Asia to Communism
McArthur told President Herbert Hoover in 1946 that: "Truman's policies were enabling Russia to make a puppet state out of Manchuria and betraying all of China and Mongolia to communism."
"When you besiege a city for a long time while making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees…" Deuteronomy 20:19
Dr. Peter Hammond
P.O. Box 74 Newlands 7725
Cape Town South Africa
An audio CD of this presentation, with PowerPoint, is available from: Christian Liberty Books, PO Box 358, Howard Place 7450, Cape Town, South Africa, Tel: 021-689-7478, Fax: 086-551-7490, Email: firstname.lastname@example.org and Website: www.christianlibertybooks.co.za.
Pray for Japan (also in PowerPoint).
Mitsuo Fuchida - From Pearl Harbour to Calvary (also in PowerPoint, video and PDF Tract).
Was the Attack on Pearl Harbour Really an Unprecedented Surprise?