From the testimonies of four American airmen involved in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima

Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum at dusk

In 2018, The Mainichi reported that interview tapes and transcripts of evidence from American airmen who dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945 had been donated to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum by the bereaved family of a Japanese person who had owned them. Museum curator Ryo Koyama said, “The records contain vivid testimonies by each and every crew member (of the Enola Gay) and have historic value.”

Captain Robert Lewis, co-pilot of the Enola Gay 

In the log Captain Lewis wrote on the return flight from dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, he wrote the famous line: ‘My God, what have we done?’

Theodore van Kirk

In 2014 it was reported that Theodore van Kirk the last surviving member of the crew that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, had died in Georgia. He said: “The whole World War II experience shows that wars don’t settle anything. And atomic weapons don’t settle anything. I personally think there shouldn’t be any atomic bombs in the world — I’d like to see them all abolished.

Private Richard Nelson

Private Richard Nelson, radar operator, said “War is a terrible thing. It takes and destroys. Anyone feels sorry for people who are killed. We are all human beings.”

Major Claude Eatherly

Only Major Claude Eatherly came forward to declare in public that he felt remorse for what he had done. The 26-year-old Texan piloted the advance weather plane which had to assess target visibility over Hiroshima. After reporting the weather was good over the target, Eatherly turned for home and was over 300 miles from ground zero when the bomb exploded, but his role in enabling the bombing haunted him for the rest of his life.

Later in his life, he began sending parts of his paychecks to the city of Hiroshima, along with letters of apology. He committed crimes to benefit others, such as forging cheques and donating the money illegally obtained to a fund for the children of Hiroshima.  In the late 1950s, he was held by the Veterans’ Administration Hospital in Waco, Texas for possible mental disorders. In 1961, his brother tried to have him declared insane at a 1961 juried hearing at Waco.

While in the hospital, he began to correspond with Viennese philosopher and pacifist Günther Anders, and worked with him to lobby for the abolition of nuclear weapons. The following account was published in 1961 and much of the book may be read courtesy of the  Marcuse Faculty, University of California. Bertrand Russell wrote an introduction, concluding:

On August 6^th, 2020, the New York Times magazine reported that in a 1961 interview with reporter Ronnie Dugger, Eatherly explained that he was not convinced by the orthodox explanation about the atomic bomb as a war winning weapon; the Japanese were putting up so little resistance by early August that he believed the war would have ended even without the nuclear devastation.

He sent a message to the people of Hiroshima. “I told them I was the Major that gave the ‘go ahead’ to destroy Hiroshima, that I was unable to forget the act, and that the guilt of the act has caused me great suffering. I asked them to forgive me.”

Thirty “girls of Hiroshima,” young hibakusha, or atomic bomb victims, left alive but scarred by the blast, responded. “We have learned to feel towards you a fellow-feeling, thinking that you are also a victim of war like us.”

Eatherly said “I have been having such difficulty in getting society to recognize the fact of my guilt, which I have long since realized. The truth is that society simply cannot accept the fact of my guilt without at the same time recognizing its own far deeper guilt.”

 

 

 

,

HIROSHIMA, NAGASAKI

the Friend, 7 August 2015

 SEVENTY YEARS AGO

8:16 am

6 August 1945

American pilots dropped the world’s first atom bomb on Hiroshima.

Approximately 80,000 people were killed as a direct result of the explosion.

At least 60,000 more were dead by the end of the year.

Many of those who survived suffered long-term illness and disability

from the radiation, including cancers, tumours and birth defects.

Three days later a second nuclear bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki.

The bomb killed 74,000 people.

President Harry S Truman said Hiroshima had been chosen so that ‘soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.’

But over ninety-five per cent of the combined casualties of the two cities were civilian.

‘Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender

with minimum loss of “face”.

It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.’

General Dwight D Eisenhower

How can we learn from history to build a peaceful future?

The author of ‘Learning the Lessons of War’, published recently in the SGI Quarterly magazine, a Buddhist forum for peace, culture and education, Dr Peter van den Dungen, has been at the Department of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford, UK, since 1976. A peace historian, he is founder and general coordinator of the International Network of Museums for Peace. Some extracts follow but interested readers are urged to follow the link and read the article in full.

Hegel’s “We learn from history that we do not learn from history” is a well-known saying. Given the continuing prevalence of war, it can also be said that we certainly do not seem to learn from war, such a pervasive feature of history. However, Immanuel Kant, a great German philosopher and one of the most profound thinkers on war and peace, argued in the late 18th century that humankind learns from history and war, but only the hard way.

After the Napoleonic Wars (of which Kant witnessed the beginning), the main European powers instituted a “concert” system to prevent a similar violent disruption of the established international order.

A century later, the horrors of World War I resulted in the creation of the League of Nations, the first organization of its kind, which was meant to limit the recourse to war. It also established agencies and the Permanent Court of International Justice in order to address issues that otherwise might result in war.

These new institutions proved too weak to prevent another world conflagration, which occurred a mere two decades after the first one. During World War II, plans were laid for a successor world organization. The onset of the Cold War, the antagonism between the main powers since then and inherent weaknesses have made the United Nations a rather ineffective instrument for keeping the peace. At the same time, it cannot be denied that it pioneered new techniques (not even foreseen in the Charter) to limit or prevent war, such as UN peacekeeping operations.

The end of World War II also saw the beginnings of a process of economic and social cooperation that resulted in a new political entity, the European Union. The need for this, as the surest way to abolish war and poverty, was urged by the organized peace movement in the 19th century, and similar ideas had been put forward in peace plans formulated by visionaries in earlier centuries.

Airing books containing the names of atomic bomb victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park

World War II had other profound consequences, particularly for the two countries that were widely regarded as responsible for it–Germany and Japan. Apart from the terrible loss of civilian life and destruction of their cities, Germany was divided and Japan became the victim of the use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both countries adopted peace constitutions with self-denying ordinances regarding their military capabilities and intentions. But in other respects, Germany learned lessons and pursued policies with the aim of achieving peace and reconciliation with its erstwhile adversaries, which have largely been lacking in Japan. They involve elements of apology, compensation, repair and restitution–expressed in moral, material and symbolical terms. Without such a deliberate and sincere strategy on the part of Germany, the project of European unification (of which the country has been the main pillar, together with France) would have been impossible.

If Japan has learned lessons from the atrocities and crimes committed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the same cannot be said of the world as a whole.

Arnold Toynbee writes (in his autobiography, Experiences) that he had been jolted out of the traditional accepting attitude to war by the slaughter of half of his friends in World War I. The same revulsion against war was widespread in its aftermath. He noted that such revulsion “ought [to] have been total and universal from the moment . . . the world entered the Atomic Age.” He found that the American people, victorious in two world wars, had succumbed instead to militarism. Toynbee wrote this during the Vietnam War. Since then, the trauma of that war has been overshadowed by the events of 9/11, and militarism has become even more pervasive in American society.

An appropriate, meaningful and fruitful remembrance would amount to the initiation of nothing less than a worldwide program of peace education as part of the development of a comprehensive culture of peace. That peace is possible–indeed, that it is imperative for human survival–should be taught and learned in schools and universities and through peace museums.

In the modern world, museums are preeminent institutions, widely regarded as guardians of high culture that fulfill a major role in public education. It is telling that, whereas war and military museums are widespread (with hundreds of such museums in the US and UK alone) and often well-funded, peace museums are hard to find, with the singular exception of Japan. Likewise, war monuments abound, whereas antiwar and peace monuments are far less numerous. History textbooks have traditionally been dominated by war and its pretended heroes, with opponents of war and advocates of peace at best relegated to footnotes. The “invisibility” of peace in education, institutions and public life generally is a great hindrance to learning about peace and working toward it. In particular, museums honoring peacemakers of the past and present would inspire and encourage visitors to believe in peace and recognize their role in helping bring it about.

In this way, perhaps, Hegel’s sombre maxim may yet prove to be wrong.

–

Inspired by Martin Niemöller

First a bomb irradiated Hiroshima, and we did not speak out – because we were not living in Japan;.

• then people in Guantanamo were imprisoned and tortured, and we did not speak out – because our sons were safe;
• then drones bombed civilians in Pakistan, and we did not speak out – because we were far away in Britain;
• then Britain’s Tornado and Reaper drones dropped over 200 bombs or other missiles on Iraqi targets, and we did not speak out – because it was kept secret;
• then our allies bombed and blockaded Yemen, and we did not speak out – because we were not threatened;.

People search for survivors.

Then they came for us – and there was no one left to help us

–

Media in Japan and the United Arab Emirates report the UN Review Conference of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

‘

At a time when the future of Trident is an election issue in Britain, it is difficult to get news of this event. The writer was alerted by the mother of one of the delegates to the conference taking place now in New York. She had described the march through the city and only technical reasons have prevented the transmission of a picture taken on the spot.

Atomic bomb survivors and peace campaigners take part in a march through New York last Sunday ahead of the U.N. conference to promote nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation that was to start Monday. | KYODO

Around 7,500 people carrying banners and signs chanted “No nukes!”, “No more Hiroshima!” and other slogans as they walked about 3 km toward the United Nations,

An account and picture of the march was published in Japan which has experienced the horror of nuclear attacks by America.

At a rally held ahead of the parade, Yuko Nakamura, who survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945, recalled that more than 200 students at her school died when the United States dropped the bomb. She was 13 years old at the time.

Toward the end of the event, more than 7 million signatures on petitions from Japan and other countries seeking negotiations to eliminate the world’s nuclear arsenals were submitted to Taous Feroukhi, the Algerian ambassador who will chair the NPT review conference, and Angela Kane, top U.N. official for disarmament affairs. The conference will continue through May 22.

It was good to find a statement on GOV.UK, a public sector information website, created by the government’s Digital Service. Baroness Anelay, the Minister of State at the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office, is attending the UN 2015 Review Conference of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It opens:

“The United Kingdom remains committed to the Non Proliferation Treaty. It has played an unparalleled role, keeping the world safe and curtailing the nuclear arms race. It is at the centre of international efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to create a nuclear weapon free world, and to enable access to the peaceful use of nuclear energy”.

And closes: “The United Kingdom will therefore play its part to reach an outcome that best benefits our collective rights to undiminished security, whilst taking us closer to our goal of a world free from nuclear weapons”.

The only national media report found on the first page of a Google search was by the UEA’s The National: the Emirates’ Minister of State, Dr Sultan Al Jaber, said that the UAE was committed to ensuring global peace and security:

“The UAE attaches high importance to the NPT. It supports the right of countries’ peaceful use of nuclear energy with transparency and abiding by the highest standards of security and safety.”

He cited the UAE’s peaceful nuclear programme as a role model on how non-nuclear countries can utilise the international framework of cooperation, as provided for by the treaty.

Dr Al Jaber made a welcome call for the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide, urging nuclear states to abide by their commitments: “[We] need to adopt practical steps to declare the Middle East as a nuclear weapons free zone”.

–

After reading the Wyndham prophecy that “sooner or later that (nuclear) slip will occur” we salute those seeking to rid the world of a dangerous weapon and an insecure and polluting power source

.

In 1951, John Wyndham wrote:

“From August 1945, the margin of survival has narrowed appallingly. . . In the years succeeding 1945 the path of safety started to shrink to a tight-rope along which we had to walk with our eyes deliberately closed to the depths beneath us. “In any single moment of the years since then the fatal slip might have been made. It is a miracle that it was not. It is a double miracle that can go on happening for years.

But sooner or later that slip will occur . . . whether through malice, carelessness or sheer accident; the balance will have been lost and the destruction let loose”.

The atomic bombing raids killed between one and two hundred thousand Japanese civilians and military personnel outright, with the heat, radiation, and blast effects. Many tens of thousands would later die of radiation sickness and related cancers. (Rezelman, David; F.G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner (2000). “The atomic bombing of Hiroshima” and The Manhattan Project: An Interactive History, U.S. Department of Energy).

State of play

South Africa has the unique status of a nation that developed nuclear weapons but then disassembled its arsenal before joining the NPT.

–

For the first time, Japan is to sign a joint UN statement on nuclear weapons

.

Japan, the only nation that has experienced the devastation of atomic bombings, is to sign a joint statement by the United Nations – and Civilisation 3000 readers will join many in welcoming this.

But is it a ‘non-use treaty’ or does it also call for abolition?

Japan had abstained from voting on such statements since1995 believing that this would conflict with its reliance on the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

However, the Japanese government announced its intention to sign the joint statement expected from the U.N. General Assembly First Committee, on Oct.11^th.  It has been supported by Switzerland, New Zealand and 14 other countries and is said to call for the elimination of nuclear weapons, which could create a humanitarian catastrophe.

Photo by Rebecca Johnson: Civil Society Demo at Japan’s UN Mission in Geneva, 24.4.2013

Japan’s position is said to have changed after the citizens and mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were devastated by atomic bombs near the end of World War II strongly criticised Japan’s refusal to sign.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ordered the Foreign Ministry to work with relevant nations over the forthcoming joint statement. Kyodo News International reports Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida’s words that the joint statement to be issued at the United Nations will call on countries not to use nuclear weapons:

“After examining the purpose of the statement as a whole, we concluded we can support the content,” Kishida said at a press conference. “It’s a moral responsibility for Japan to make a strenuous effort to realize a nuclear-free world.”

Was one sentence in the statement a sticking point for Japan?

“The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used again is through their total elimination.”

 

At the NPT prepcom in Geneva, on 24th April 2013, the South African ambassador to the UN presented the statement on behalf of 74 states highlighting the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons.  Switzerland’s Pressenza published the statement in full.

.

 Has that sentence been retained?

 .

Good news from Iran

.

.

The latest newsletter of the International Museums for Peace brings the news that – in a ceremony held on 19 May 2013 to celebrate World Museums Day, and in the presence of representatives from different museums from all over the country – the Tehran Peace Museum was selected by the International Committee of Museums (ICOM) as the best museum of the last solar year (spring to end of winter).

The selection was based on monitoring five different items of museum activities: education, number of visitors, creativity and innovation, introducing cultural and historical legacy, and collecting cultural-historical belongings.

Peace Museum delegate, Dr Shahriar Khateri, vice-President of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), records that a conversation between the founders of the Tehran-based Society for Chemical Weapons Victims Support (SCWVS) and a coordinator for the International Network of Museums for Peace in 2005 led to the founding of the museum.

He continues:

“This, as well as a visit to Hiroshima, Japan by members of SCWVS, fed into the desire for a peace museum in Tehran. It was in Hiroshima where the suffering from atomic arms was able to convert most powerfully into a drive for peace manifested via a peace museum.

“This ability to use the intense suffering of war to highlight the need for peace made the museums founders realize Iran’s parallel suffering from chemical arms and the need for a parallel drive for peace”.

Housed in a building donated by the municipality of Tehran within the City Park, the Tehran Peace Museum is an interactive peace center.

Its peace education program holds workshops and hosts conferences on the culture of peace, reconciliation, international humanitarian law, disarmament, and peace advocacy.

Tehran Peace Museum representatives visit The Hague

Tehran Peace Museum delegates visited The Hague early in April 2013 to attend the “Third Review Conference of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.”

During their stay they paid a visit to the INMP secretariat and Peace Palace.

In memory of Major General Eustace D’Souza

.

Civilisation 3000 networker, Major General Eustace D’Souza, died recently in Bandra, Mumbai. After his service with the Maratha Light Infantry, he became Secretary General of the World Wildlife Fund for India.  He then served two terms as Consultant for South Asia to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Several readers will remember his memorable and well-received One World Trust lecture in the House of Commons in 2001. He spoke about his work promoting the creation of a structure for environmental protection within the three Indian armed services, so that today every unit has a specific environmental role to play. He regarded this as central to global security and part of the whole ‘web of life’.

The writer remembers him as a frequent email correspondent and a welcoming host and raconteur, frequently published in the regional press, with a range of subjects from analyses of US strategies and mindset to events in Kashmir which he continued to visit regularly after serving there on the Siachen Glacier.

He cared deeply about the Chinese occupation of Tibet and, when taking part in periodic meetings with the Chinese military as a member of a government advisory group, never failed to take them to task about this.

He was also a public-spirited activist, involved with many groups in the city. Whenever a disaster was announced he would personally make the rounds and collect remarkable sums of money from people who knew that he would ensure they were properly used.

Knowing that the writer spent a quarter of the year in Mumbai (1993-2004) Eirwen Harbottle said a meeting with Eustace D’Souza should be arranged. Her late husband, Brigadier General Michael Harbottle, a former Chief of Staff of the UN Peacekeeping forces in Cyprus, wrote a number of books on international peacekeeping, including the Peacekeeper’s Handbook, which the UN and more than 70 countries have used as an instrumental manual for peacekeeping operations.

He said that D’Souza’s work inspired his own What is Proper Soldiering? by informing him of the work of the Indian armed forces in addressing some aspects of environmental security and protection. This prompted him to contact all the embassies or High Commissions in London for information which eventually went into the annex, indicating the wide range of activities going on within the armed forces around the world.

This is an extract from a very well-read article: Terrorism: the most serious threat to world peace – first posted on the C3000 website:

“Addressing terrorism: the four-fold path

1]  the motivation for this threat to peace must be removed through spirituality

2]  narcotics, the source of funding, must be eliminated and power gained to scrutinise and monitor bank accounts

3]  supplies of the ‘suitcase’ miniaturised nuclear bomb must be detected and destroyed

4]  the public must be made keenly aware of the threat to the earth’s life support system from:

• nuclear, chemical and biological weapons,
• blatant consumerism
• unfair sharing of the world’s resources and
• the shameful ‘rape’ of the environment.

Read an account of his visit to Hiroshima just after the atom bomb was dropped: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/life/this-hiroshima-survivor-bats-for-nuclear-energy/article1715345.ece

By email:

“But we need to face stark realities. Can India afford to lower its guard of no first strike nuclear deterrence with two nuclear powered hostile neighbours sitting right on its doorsteps? The lives of over 1 billion people are the responsibility of the Government. It’s all very easy for NZ to make such recommendations when it faces no nuclear threat.

“Having been privy to what a kiloton yield nuclear bomb did in Hiroshima in March 1946, I shudder to think what would happen to Mumbai in the event of a megaton yield nuclear attack.

“In recent years China‘s claims to Indian border territory have increased tension though since independence we have waged wars only in self defence after being attacked”.

Major-General D’Souza ruefully added, ”Given India’s geo-strategic considerations, non-offensive defence can never ever be realistic.”  In more cheerful vein, a few months later he wrote: “We are not interested in war. But good monsoons-YES.”

Major General Eustace D’Souza: RIP

*

In additions to press obituaries, a funeral notice on St Stanislaus School’s Ex-Students’ website may be read here.

 

 

 

 

 

.

.