atomic bombs. Were they morally and militarily justified to end the Second World War? We're approaching the anniversary of the first atomic bombs being dropped by this very aircraft, Enola Gray, which I've seen in the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. at the Dulles International Airport, the Smithsonian Air and Space Institute there. On the 6th of August 1945, an American B-29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. And that's the first atomic bomb dropped on a city in the world. In seconds, 100,000 people lost their lives. This is what Hiroshima looked like afterwards. Here you can see in the foreground the Methodist Church of Christ, the hospital dome, which was ground zero. They aimed directly their bomb sites on the dome of this hospital and made that the epicenter of the bombing. This was announced in newspapers the next day. Atomic bomb, world's most deadly blast, Japan, new air and warfare is opened by US secret weapon. Hiroshima before the war, before the bomb, on the left, Hiroshima after the bombing. The world had never seen a devastating weapon like that. If you want to know where to find Hiroshima, it's on the west coast of Japan, and Nagasaki is just slightly below, and to the south, slightly west. Here's a view of Ground Zero in Hiroshima. You can see the hospital dome, which was the, what they're now called the atomic dome, because the bomb was aimed to detonate several thousand feet above that dome. That was the epicenter of the blast. Here are survivors of the first atomic bomb blast awaiting emergency medical treatment, August 6, 1945, Hiroshima, Japan. Incredibly. After the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, hundreds of people, many of them already injured, made their way towards Nagasaki and endured a second bombing three days later. Of these, incredibly 165 people survived both atomic bombings and lived to tell the tale. Can you imagine? And this is the atomic cloud over Nagasaki viewed from some distance. This is what Nagasaki looked like after the bombing. This is three days later on the 9th of August, Nagasaki destroyed, absolutely devastated. It was a university town, as was Hiroshima. Here's twisted iron girders all that remains of this theater building about 100 meters from ground zero. You can see the remains of an Orthodox church, the cathedral. In fact, Nagasaki and Hiroshima had most of the Christians in Japan. They were the two biggest centers of Christianity in Japan. The atomic bombs actually devastated the advance of Christianity in Japan for generations. And so on September 2, 1945, the Japanese delegation signed the Instruments of Surrender on USS Missouri, a battleship in Tokyo Bay. You see, the Second World War in the Pacific began on battleship attacks, and so the symbolism was the surrender would be signed on a battleship. There's a lot of symbolism in history like this. And General Douglas MacArthur oversaw the whole proceedings because he was the officer commanding all allied forces in the Pacific. Admiral Nimitz signed on behalf of the Americans. You can see a whole line of people including the Russians over there which had nothing to do with the war in the Pacific but they also got the opportunity and you could China, which would be nationalist China. The French, who didn't do particularly much there either. But you've got a whole array of people wanting to have their moment of glory with the signing of the surrender, 2nd of September 1945. And as you can imagine, this was a scene to behold. But here's the question, did the atomic bombs actually save lives? I was taught that the United States dropped nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end the Second World War and to save both American and Japanese lives. In fact, what I heard taught in school, in textbooks and on how many documentaries and films, at least a million American soldiers would have died if they'd had to storm Japan by sea and actually fight their way through Japan. That's what we were taught. But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise. Atomic weapons were not needed to end the war, nor to save lives, they said. Who said? The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report July 1946 that concluded, and Paul Nitsch, the vice chairman of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, reports it in this document, Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of 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, even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. That's the conclusion. But what's the basis for it? Atomic weapons were not needed to end the war or to save lives, was the conclusion of this commission. General, later President Dwight Eisenhower, then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces and the officer who created most of America's Second World War military plans for Europe and Japan, said that Japanese were ready to surrender as it was not necessary to hit them with that awful thing. In Newsweek 1963, on the 11th of the 11th, in an article on Ike, Eisenhower noted, in July 1945, Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, informed me 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, intelligent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. The Secretary, upon giving me news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression, and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings. First, on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated, and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. 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 of War was deeply perturbed by my attitude." So, his view was unnecessary and unethical. Admiral William Leahy, the highest-ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 to 1949, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, effectively, who is at the center of all major American military decisions in the Second World War, he 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. They were 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 country to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I need to insert there that I think that's slander against the barbarians. The barbarians were not this bad. They don't deserve what they often get. The barbarians were fighting the Romans and so on and they didn't target women and children like the Romans did, nor did they destroy entire civilizations like the atomic bomb. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, still quoting from Admiral Leahy. Wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. In this, he actually echoes one of America's greatest military men, General Robert E. Lee, who said that any army who wages war against civilians is no army at all. And to that we give a hearty amen. So they say there was no military justification. General Douglas MacArthur, who was in charge of Allied forces in the Pacific, maintained there was no military justification for the atom bombs. MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. When asked about the decision to drop the atomic bomb, General MacArthur reported he had never even been consulted. Now here's the Supreme Commander of all Allied forces in the Pacific, and you would have thought this is extremely relevant to what he's doing there. They didn't even consult him ahead of time. He saw no military justification for dropping the atom bomb. The war might have ended weeks early, he said, if the United States had just agreed, as they did later anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. Here you can see, Japs will yield if emperor stays. That's what the American newspapers acknowledged. That was the condition from February 1945 for their surrender. And finally, when they did surrender on 2nd of September 1945, it was on that condition. So why not just accept that condition earlier? There was the Potsdam threat. The Potsdam Conference, Potsdam is a suburb outside of Berlin. At the end of the war in Europe you can see cigar-smoking alcoholic Winston Churchill, mass-murdering thug and dictator Joseph Stalin, and somewhere around here, yep, that would be Truman, I think, on the side. You can see the American flag, British flag, Soviet flag there. This is the Potsdam Conference. With the Potsdam Declaration July, it demanded Japan surrender unconditionally or to face prompt and utter destruction. MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce the Emperor and that without the Emperor, an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow. Because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless the Emperor ordered it. So MacArthur said, we need the Emperor. They would have to fight every single battle. man in Japan, they would not surrender, they would not have any peace unless the emperor ordered them to lay down their weapons and to accept it. So knowing the Asians, having lived in Asia most of his life, MacArthur said that we need the emperor for peace, we'll never have peace if the emperor doesn't agree to it and he's the one man who can order this. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign of Emperor Horatio, which was what they were after from February. So they didn't need to fight all those terrible battles through 1945. They didn't need to drop the atom bomb if they could have just accepted this earlier. In fact, General Eisenhower said, after the war, we could have ended the war three years earlier. if we had not insisted on unconditional surrender on both sides, both Europe and Japan. Unconditional surrender meant that they had to fight to the end. And so if we had accepted a conditional peace, we could have stopped the war early because both sides were ready for a negotiated peace settlement as early as 1942. So all the war from 1942, 43, 44, 45 was unnecessary. unless they had insisted on, which they did, unconditional surrender. Emperor Horyosho ordered his people to lay down their weapons and to accede to General MacArthur's occupation. And if he hadn't, they would have faced guerrilla warfare, sabotage, assassinations, terrorism. As it was, it was not even necessary. For understatement, this is hard to beat. Emperor Horyosho announcing a surrender, said the war in the Pacific has not necessarily developed in Japan's favor. That's understatement of British proportions. Japan surrenders, end of the war, Emperor accepts Allied rule, MacArthur Supreme Commander, and here you could see the Japanese people listening to Hiroshi's radio message with heads bowed in absolute horror and shock because Japan had not been defeated in 3,000 years. And they did not think they could be defeated. And this was staggering for people of the Sumerai Code. Wars ended, MacArthur will rule Japan. Horius should just stay. And so here's the famous Missouri battleship on which this surrender was signed. By the way, when you look at the Japanese people, they look like they're dressed like English gentlemen, and so was the Emperor. In fact, Japan had been the best ally of Britain in the First World War, in fact, for many decades, and it was America who forced Britain to cancel their treaty with Japan. Japan, in fact, had been an impeccable ally of Britain. Britain could move the entire navy in the First World War over to the Atlantic because Japan maintained all British interests in the Pacific during the First World War, and the Japanese modeled their whole navy on the British. In fact, the uniforms are like the British, and even the emperor himself dressed like the British, as you can see. So Emperor Horyosha, with this photograph taken with General MacArthur, and General MacArthur did not even have to have a pistol on his belt, he could walk into Japan without any fear because the Emperor had ordered his entire country to obey him. And that was it. Had General MacArthur's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have obviously been unnecessary. It was a missed opportunity. Assistant Secretary of War John McCloy noted, I've always felt that if our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam in January 1945, we had referred to the retention of the Emperor as constitutional monarch. and made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to future Japanese governments, it would have been accepted. The beginning of the war was because America put total sanctions on Japan. They couldn't get rubber. They couldn't get petroleum. They couldn't get steel. They couldn't get anything they needed. They were in the middle of a war against the communists in Japan, and they were the ones keeping the communists out of Korea and out of Japan. And by economic warfare being declared, and America didn't just put sanctions, they forced The Dutch, East Indies, they forced the French, Indochina, the British, and everyone to take part in this complete economic blockade of Japan. And in a time of war, what's a country like Japan going to do if they're suddenly deprived of these raw materials that they don't have natural access to? And they can't maintain a war or defense without it. Then, involved in a life and death war with communism in China, what's going to happen? Well, of course, they're going to fight. But to fight against French Indochina, Dutch East Indies, British Malaya and so on will have to get rid of the US Navy which moved from its headquarters in San Diego in California to Pearl Harbor right in the middle of the Pacific both a threat and a tantalizing bait to pick a fight with which was exactly what the American government of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was aiming for anyway. So, still quoting from Secretary of War, indeed I believe that even in the form that the ultimatum was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over, I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government to reject the ultimatum as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of affecting a Japanese surrender completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs. In fact, they could have got that before Pearl Harbor in 1941, because the Japanese were even willing to withdraw from China. Maybe even Manchuria. That was even on the cards. If the Americans lifted the trade embargo and the sanctions, the economic warfare on them, they could have avoided even Pearl Harbor and the whole of the war with them. But no, FDR was hell-bent on that war. The war was already won. Under Secretary of Navy Ralph Bird said, I think that the Japanese were ready for peace and they already had approached the Swiss and the suggestion of giving a warning of the atomic bomb would have been a face-saving proposition for them and one that they could have readily accepted. In my opinion, the Japanese war was really one before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear capability and stimulate the Russians to develop the same weapons much more rapidly than they would have done if we had not dropped the bomb. The war was really won before we used the A-bomb. That's a 1960 report in U.S. News & World Report. It definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker, and they were surrounded by the U.S. Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on, the war developed in our favor. It was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of warning, the Japanese would have been in a position to make peace, which would have made unnecessary for us to drop the bomb or having had to bring Russia into the war in the Pacific. Dropping the atom bomb had nothing to do with ending the war. General Curtis LeMay, one of the most hawkish of the hawks, the tough cigar-smoking 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. And he's referring to, he said, I managed to bake, fry, cook and incinerate more Japs in Tokyo with conventional bombs than they managed to incinerate in Hiroshima with a nuclear bomb. So he was saying our conventional bombs killed more people anyway, did more destruction of property, obviously it took more aircraft, but the point was he said we didn't need the atom bomb. And Curtis LeMay is about as vicious a warmonger as you could come across. He was not a peaceful person, but he said the atom bomb wasn't needed. Nor was any invasion needed. The Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Bombing Survey, Paul Nietzsche, wrote, I conclude that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a couple of months. My own view was Japan would capitulate by November 1945. Even without the attacks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to be the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the island, scheduled for November the 1st, would have even been necessary. What did the bombs do? They opened up Asia for communism. Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence Elias 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. In effect, we gave the go-ahead for Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. Who are the biggest opponents of communism in the world? Germany in Europe, Japan in Asia. They were the two powers blocking the Soviet Union's expansion. And isn't it amazing? They were the two most devastated. On the 6th of August 1945, an American B-29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, incinerating 100,000 people in seconds. I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds, and it was wrong on humanitarian grounds. Now, who said that? Director of Office of Naval Intelligence, Elias Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, published in 1950. This is no peacenik. Now, it's interesting because when I posted the notification on social media for tonight's topic, immediately had Americans posting, it was absolutely essential to end the war, absolutely essential for saving lives and save over a million lives and so on. They couldn't have read the article. But the interesting thing is, They always say it, but are they suggesting that General MacArthur was wrong, General Eisner was wrong, all these other leaders were wrong? We're not quoting some private somewhere, we're quoting the top leaders. They said it's immoral and unnecessary. Brigadier General Carter Clark, the military intelligence officer in charge of preparing the summaries of all intercepted Jap cables for President Truman and his advisors, he said, that's Brigadier General Clark, 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. This is the head of military intelligence who presents the summaries to the present. The commander-in-chief of the U.S. fleet and chief of naval operations, Admiral Ernst King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945 had rendered the Japanese helpless. The Navy had been destroyed, the Air Force had been destroyed, they were completely at their mercy, they were helpless, and the use of the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary and immoral. Admiral King. He's the supreme commander of all US fleet and naval operations in the Pacific. It was a double crime. In the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, reported to have said in a press conference on September the 22nd, 1945, that's a few weeks after the war had ended, the Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that the Japanese had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia's entry into the war. In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October the 5th, 1945, so that's a month after the war's over, 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. But who cares what all the military experts say? According to some journalists and according to some politician and some textbook writer, they want to say, no, it was absolutely essential and saved lives and ended the war and so on. Why were the bombs dropped on populated cities without any military value? University cities. It was also learned that on or about the 20th of July 1945, General Eisenhower urged President Truman in a personal visit not to use the atomic bomb. Now this is his supreme commander. 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. Now, bear in mind, you put a suitcase in a railway station, like Umkhonto We Sizwe did under Mandela's orders, and incinerate a grandmother and a granddaughter, that's terrorism, no question. When you put a car bomb in Church Street and kill 20 people was it? Injuring 500? That's terrorism. What do you call dropping a nuclear bomb on a city and killing 100,000 civilians? How can that not be terrorism? Eisenhower saw it as terrorism. 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. None of his military leaders wanted it. None of his Secretaries of State, Secretary of Navy, Secretary of War, none of them wanted it. The British officers were of the same mind. For example, General Sir Hastings Ismay, Chief of Staff to the British Minister of Defence, he said to British Prime Minister Churchill that Japanese would probably wish to get out of the war almost on any term short of the dethronement of the Emperor. Let them keep the Emperor, they'll sue for peace. Hearing that the atomic test, as they called it, was successful, Ismay's private reaction was one of revulsion. And so it was with all the military leaders on the Allied side. They were revolted. They were disgusted. They were ashamed that their side had resorted to such blatant terrorism. Alan Dulles, then head of the CIA, is seen second from the left, on his right is John McCloy. Even military officers who favoured the use of nuclear weapons mainly favoured using them on an unpopulated area or on Japanese military targets, not civilians. Many proposed, look, if you've got to use nuclear weapons, use this demonstration. For example, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, Louis Strauss, proposed to Secretary of the Navy, James Forrestal, that's the man on the left, Secretary of the Navy, 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 atomic bomb should be demonstrated before it is used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. Japanese very nearly ready to capitulate. My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of Cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The Cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood. I anticipate that a bomb detonate at a suitable height above such a forest would lay out the trees and wind rose from the center of the explosion in all directions like there were matchsticks and of course set them afire in the center. Of course, I think that's terrible and unnecessary, and I don't see why you should target a forest which is home to an enormous amount of creatures. But I'm just quoting. It seemed to me, he said, that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese we could destroy their cities at will. And 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. No jokes. Warning should have been given first. General George Marshall agreed. Contemporary documents show General Marshall felt these weapons might first be used against a straight military objective like a large naval installation. And if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, then we could designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would first be warned to leave, telling the Japanese we intend to destroy those centers. As the document concerning General Marshall's view suggests, the question of whether the use of the atomic bomb was justified turned on whether bombs would be used against a largely civilian target rather than a strictly military target, which in fact was the explicit choice that chose the most civilian targets imaginable. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, university cities with the largest concentration of Christians in all of Japan. not deemed militarily vital by US planners. For this reason, they hadn't been bombed really up till that point in the war. Moreover, targeting Hiroshima and Nagasaki was aimed explicitly at non-military facilities surrounded by workers' homes. They were only going to kill civilians. World's greatest destroyer, atomic bomb hurled at Japs, war discloser, secret weapon. Why let people know you've got a secret weapon? It would have been more effective to keep it for when you needed it, rather than use it when you didn't need it. Historians agree that the bomb wasn't needed. Nuclear weapons did not need to be used to stop the war or to save lives. Historian Doug Long notes, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission historian Samuel Walker studied the history of research on the decision to use nuclear weapons on Japan. In his conclusion, he writes, the consensus amongst scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short space of time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that President Truman and his advisors knew it. That's very damning. And that's the decision to use the bomb by Samuel Walker. The politicians even agreed that the atomic bombs were not needed. Many high-level politicians agreed, for example, ex-US President Herbert Hoover, as he documents in his Freedom Betrayed, his secret history of the Second World War and its aftermath, which is a damning indictment of President FDR and his warmongering activities. In fact, Herbert Hoover called it the worst crime in the history of mankind. The Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945, up to and before the time of the atomic bombs were dropped. And if such leads had been followed up through the Swiss, for example, there would have been no occasion to drop the atomic bombs. Now, here's President Hoover meeting Douglas MacArthur in Tokyo, Japan, 1946, and his interview with him is an appendix in his book, Freedom Betrayed, which I've studied. And General MacArthur was scathing on how this war was not even needed. He said, Japan didn't want war with us. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed this war, provoked this war, did everything he could to hide the information from us about the coming attacks. Remember, General MacArthur lost his entire army on the Philippines because no aid came to him. He held out for months, but America wasn't interested in American lives in the Philippines. They're more concerned about saving Uncle Joe Stalin from Operation Barbarossa in the Soviet Union. America officially designated 90% of the men and materials to the European war against Germany, which was mainly to save the Soviet Union, actually. That's where most of the arsenal of democracy went, all the weapons. Only 10% was designated to the Pacific. So America is attacked by Japan. In fact, that was provoked not here or there, but their response is to rush over to save Russia. and to give no priority to sending supplies, aid, or helping in any sense the American army on the Philippines that was besieged and about to get annihilated. In fact, very few of them ever survived. So General MacArthur was 100% against Franklin Delano Roosevelt's war. Although he had led the war against Japan, he saw it as totally unnecessary. America was the aggressor. America provoked it. America could have ended it years before, and we didn't need the atom bomb, which was what President Hoover certainly believed and that's why it was all put as a major block into this Freedom Betrayed book. The Japanese wanted to end the war. They were desperate to. The difference between the Japanese flag which is a simple red dot on white and the war flag is the imperial flag or the war flag that's got the spreading rays. I think you can kind of see the difference between the peaceful single red sun and the sort of more aggressive rays are going out everywhere. Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew who had spent 10 years in Japan American ambassador wrote, in the light of available evidence, I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the retention of the empire or the imperial dynasty had been issued in May 1945, Potsdam, the surrender-minded elements in the Japanese government might 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 the Soviet Union into Pacific War and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer. Indeed, the world would be better. How many people are concerned right now about nuclear weapons in North Korea? North Korea is one of the most oppressive countries in the world and one of the worst persecuted churches. Who gave North Korea to the Soviets? America. They urged the Russians into the war. When the Japanese wanted to end the war, they didn't need Russia to end the war. And they gave them Manchuria, Mongolia, and North Korea. And even after General MacArthur had liberated all of North Korea in 1950, President Truman ordered him to withdraw back to the 38th parallel and give the whole of North Korea back to the Communists again, under Stalin. So, when people want to whinge and whine about the problems of China and the problems of North Korea, well, who betrayed them into the hands of the Communists in the first place? When people complain about all the threats to the Soviet Union, to the West, well, who saved the Soviet Union from collapse in 1941? with Lend-Lease and with all the rest. And so the people in Eastern Europe opened my eyes to this when they said, you betrayed us. And I said, what do you mean you betrayed us? Well, your allies, you British Americans, you betrayed us. 150 million Christians, 10 great nations in Eastern Europe betrayed in the hands of the Soviet Union by the Yalta Agreement. And so you're seeing a pattern here. Why then were atom bombs dropped on Japan? If dropping nuclear bombs was unnecessary to save 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. It's not like Truman was giving in to all of his military generals saying, you've got to drop the bomb. They were all saying, don't, we don't need it. And it's wrong. And we don't want to be the first country in the world to use such a disgusting weapon. This is a war crime. This is evil. We can't do it. What about Geneva Convention, Hague Conventions? So his entire military upper echelon was rock solid against it. So why did he do it? Well, one theory is scientists like to test their toys. They had a new weapon. Here's the Fat Man. This is the Nagasaki bomb, the second one made at Los Alamos National Laboratory. And you can see them putting the final touches. Well, Admiral William Halsey, if you've watched Tora Tora Tora, you're aware of his role as commander of the Third Fleet. Admiral Halsey publicly stated, that the atomic bomb was used because scientists had a toy and they wanted to try it out. So that was what a major admiral had to say. He further stated the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. It was a mistake to ever drop it. But interestingly, even scientists opposed using the atom bomb. Most of the Manhattan Project scientists who developed the atom bomb were opposed to using it on Japan. Here's a 1945 memo demonstrating concern amongst the Manhattan Project scientists about what they had created. And this is dated 25 June 1945. Before. Robert Oppenheimer, the man overseeing this whole project, was horrified. In fact, he quoted from the Bhagavad Gita of the Hindus, I have become the destroyer of worlds. I think you might have come across that quote before, and that's something he used when the atom bomb was successful. And of course, it precipitated an economic arms race. Albert Einstein, an important catalyst for the development of the atom bomb, but not directly involved with the Manhattan Project, said, A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb. Without warning, suddenly, immoral, unjustifiable. In Einstein's judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political diplomatic decision, not a military, nor a 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. This is just some of the industrial laboratory set up for the developing of the atom bomb in New Mexico. We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for early unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. Now, these are some of the scientists who worked on this project. By the way, many of them were communists who gave all the details and everything necessary, and the plutonium, enriched uranium, everything else to the Soviet Union, so the Soviet Union got the benefit of all America's research. 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 future control of such weapons. How can the only countries ever used nuclear weapons be the leader in saying, you can't have nuclear weapons, you can't proliferate it, and what right do they have to tell India, Pakistan, France or wherever else you can't have nuclear weapons when they've got it themselves? And they're the only ones who've used them. Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineering District Records. These are from National Archives. All quoted in A World Destroyed by Martin Sherwin. With this memorandum to the Secretary of War. The scientists questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring about surrender when destroying their cities with conventional bombs had not done so. They killed hundreds of thousands of people in Japan in Tokyo alone with the fire bombings and these houses made of wood and so on just ignited very easily. They had killed two million German civilians with the bombings in Germany and Germany didn't surrender. They destroyed Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne. Kassel, you can keep going through the names of the cities, it didn't make Germany surrender. So if killing 2 million German civilians with non-nuclear conventional bombs didn't make them surrender, if incinerating Tokyo didn't make them surrender, what makes you think that this will make them surrender? No, what's going to make them surrender is the naval blockade and the fact that they can't export or import anything and they're running out of raw materials. the entire society is going to collapse just from the sanctions. You don't need the bomb to make them surrender. Like some of the military officers quote above, these scientists recommend a demonstration atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area if they really thought it was necessary, but don't use it on the city. Okay, so what's the real explanation? In the years since the two atomic bombs were dropped in Japan, a number of historians have suggested the weapons had a two-pronged objective. And it's been suggested the second objective was to demonstrate a new weapon of mass destruction to impress the Soviet Union. By August 1945, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States had deteriorated badly. So this was basically launching the Cold War, not ending the Second World War. The Potsdam Conference between US President Harry Truman Russian leader Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill, who was later replaced by Clement Attlee, ended just four days before the bombing of Hiroshima. The meeting was marked by recriminations and suspicion between Americans and the Soviets, and Iron Curtain was already descending from Stettin in the north to Trieste in the south, as Churchill famously put it. And by the way, at Potsdam, Truman walked over to Stalin and said to him, we have developed a new bomb of terrifying dimensions and Stalin kept a straight poker type face and said well I hope you use it to good effect but in fact according to the secret war by Max Hastings which I've studied which is entirely goes to all the intelligence behind-the-scenes archives, which were sealed for about 60 years. We only know about those now. They said that Stalin already knew everything about the atomic bomb project and had known for years, and he was fully informed about the whole thing, and he even knew whether we're going to drop it. Because America was riddled with pro-communist spies, as was Britain, as was Germany. In fact, the communist infiltration of all sides had been so vast, that it was a very short time before Russia had all the same nuclear capability as America, because the scientists that the Americans were employing, and the British scientists who were employed in it, were, in many cases, communist sympathizers and traitors who passed everything on to the Soviets anyway. Russian armies were occupying most of Eastern Europe. Truman and many of his advisors hoped that a US atomic monopoly might offer diplomatic leverage to the Soviets. In this fashion, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan can be seen as the first shot of the Cold War. Now, look at it this way. The banksters made billions of the First World War. They made billions of the Second World War. Second World War is coming to an end. Sadly, too soon, because how are we going to make all our money again? By introducing a totally new type of weapon and creating such terror and panic around the world, people would not mind extra taxes and more and more arms races to produce, of course, atomic weapons are going to be eclipsed very quickly by other atomic weapons and you're going to have to be spending more money on this Cold War of nuclear arms race than you even spent on actual war just passed. And so there were people looking at what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex, which like Big Pharma, they need these problems to justify their existence. And so what the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was doing was it was starting a new war, a new arms race, a new justification for totalitarian governments for the United Nations and for massive amounts of extra taxation and more restricting of your freedoms. And you'll notice how Hollywood plays along with this because you need secret agents running around all over the place to just stop some rogue dropping an atom bomb or setting off a suitcase in a Well, what was that sum of all fears? Where South Africans and Austrians are working on bombing an American football stadium with a nuclear bomb. The Austrians and the Americans, they're the threat to world peace. You know, forget the Muslim jihadists and the communists and so on. The real problem is South Africans and Austrians. They're the threat to world peace. According to this Tom Clancy novel, which turned into a film, and all that sort of thing which is beyond pathetic. But there we go. This keep people in a constant state of terror and fear and they will pass more money and give up more freedoms for this new war. The New Scientist reported in 2005, the US decision to drop atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was not meant to end the Second World War, but to kickstart the Cold War. And if that sounds too disgusting to you and you think no human being could possibly be that evil, think again. The total depravity of man is a real, genuine truth. There are politicians and bankers out there that evil and more. causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium, killing over 200,000 people 74 years ago, was done on the balance of evidence to impress the Soviet Union, not to cow Japan. That's what these experts have concluded. And I agree with them. The U.S. president took the decision. Harry Truman is culpable, of course. He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species, says Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at the American University in Washington, D.C. It was not just a war crime. It was a crime against humanity. Well, actually, it's a crime against civilization, a crime against God. Japan was seeking for peace. The conventional explanation of using the bombs to end the war and save lives is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Seldin, historians from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York in America. According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to the then US Secretary of State, James Byrnes, President Truman agreed to a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. He agreed, Japan's looking for peace. So the man who made the decision to drop the bombs recognized three days beforehand, they're looking for peace. So why did he drop the bombs? Why not just accept the peace offers through the Swiss legation? Do you know on the day that the bombing was to take place, sorry, the day before, U.S. Naval intelligence officer came and said, sir, I must inform you there are 11 American airmen who had been shot down in the central police jails cells in downtown Hiroshima. They will certainly die if we go ahead with this bombing. And President Truman said, go ahead. Now, did you ever know that 11 American airmen were incinerated in that first bomb blast? I don't know what you think, but disgusting as this to kill enemy civilians, To kill your own men, knowingly, that's just inexcusable. President Truman was told by his army generals, his best army generals, like Douglas MacArthur, his worst, like Dwight Eisner, his naval chief of staff, William Lear, there's no military need to use the bomb. Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan. That's the conclusion. John Pilliger points out the U.S. Secretary of War Henry Stimson told President Truman he was fearful that the U.S. Air Force would have Japan so bombed out that this new weapon would not be able to show its strength. He later admits no effort was made and none was seriously considered to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb. You understand the concept of just war, just war theory most clearly put together by Saint Augustine in the 4th century. War must be your last resort, not your first. You must have exhausted all peaceful means before you go to war. War must be waged only against military targets, never against civilians. The means and the cost used in the war must not exceed the possible benefits of the war. There must be a realistic chance of success. You're not to target civilians. There's so many rules in the just war theory that you should adhere to that were all violated. in the Second World War, obviously, but this is just one classic one. General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that had made the bomb, testified, there never was any illusion on my part that Russia was the enemy and our project was conducting the bases. In other words, the general in charge of this project said, we thought we make an atom bomb to use on the Soviet Union. We didn't think we make it to use on Japan. And now it's used on Japan to impress the Soviet Union, and then all the fruit of their labors was betrayed over to the Soviet Union anyway. So they got all the same atomic weapons that was meant to be America's top secret project. The day after Hiroshima was obliterated, President Truman voiced his satisfaction with the overwhelming success of the experiment. He called it that, the experiment. The conservators opposed the atom bomb as immoral. Now it's interesting, today, the average conservative in America is pro-nuke. If you question nuclear bombs as viable like I do, they'd say you're not even a conservative, you're a liberal. But at the beginning in 1940s and 50s and 60s, it was the conservatives who opposed the nuclear bombs and the liberals who were advancing. Remember, it was the Democrats in America who got America into the First World War, and the Second World War, and the Vietnam War, and the Korean War. And it's the Democrats who dropped the atomic bombs on. The liberals were the ones who were the warmongers. And somewhere along the line, the conservatives have moved over and adopted a whole lot of positions that in the past only liberals used. 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 Albrecht said, although most Americans are unaware of the fact, increasing numbers of historians now recognize the United States did not need to use the atomic bombs to end the war against Japan. This, by the way, is a stopped clock found in the wreckage in Hiroshima. It's in the museum. 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 all said no. And yet today, you've got a whole bunch of well-meaning but ill-informed conservatives in America who support the atom bomb, support the use of the atom bomb on Japan, and defend an argument. And what are they defending? Do they understand they're defending a liberal, democrat, pro-Soviet agenda? Because that's what it all was. Nor was this the judgment of liberals as is sometimes thought today. Leading conservatives like Herbert Hoover and Douglas MacArthur were in the forefront of being outspoken, challenging the decision as unjustified and immoral. Not the liberals. The liberals all thought it was a good idea. Why? Because the liberals were pro-Soviet Union and removing anything you had to do to destroy Japan and Germany was good because it was just removing enemies of communism and the Soviet Union. Therefore, de facto it's good, right? That's their logic. The liberals thought nuclear weapons to destroy Japan, incendiary bombs on Dresden, that's all great because it's the enemies of communism who are suffering. So, the liberal logic. Effectively, this served the cause of communism in Asia. Instead of allowing other options to end the war, like letting the Soviets attack Japan with ground forces, which everyone said wasn't even needed in any way because the Japanese wanted peace, but there were many options to dropping nuclear bombs. The United States rushed to use two atomic bombs at almost exactly the same time that an August 8th Soviet attack had originally been scheduled. It had been agreed, Soviet Union will enter the war on the 8th of August in the Pacific. They dropped the first bomb on the 6th, they dropped the next one on the 9th. It's obviously time. They knew. It was coordinated. The timing has raised questions amongst historians. The available evidence strongly suggests that atomic bombs may well have been used in part because American leaders preferred, as the Pulitzer Prize winning historian Martin Sherwin put it, to end the war with the bombs rather than with the Soviet attack. But actually it was time to be together. The Soviets were able to say, we won the war in the Pacific. And the rewards were great. They were given Sakhalin Island, which used to be Japanese. They're given North Korea, they're given Mongolia, and effectively control of China to install their puppet Mao Zedong, to enslave a few hundred million more people. Impressing the Soviets during early diplomatic sparring that ultimately became the Cold War also appears to have been a significant factor. And the Cold War in many cases was a fraud. It was very hot in some places. People died in North Korea by the millions and in Angola, Mozambique, Vietnam. The Cold War was very hot for many of us. But the Cold War was a sham in another sense in that the same banksters who run the West were bankrolling the Soviet Union and were getting the citizens on all sides to enrich them with all their taxes and bank interests. It was unnecessary. Another view of Hiroshima and the atomic dome, the hospital that was the epicenter target of the bombing. The most illuminating perspective, however, comes from top World War II American military leaders. The conventional wisdom is the atomic bomb saved a million lives. It's so widespread that most Americans have not yet paused to ponder something rather striking to anyone seriously considering the issue. Not only did most top American military leaders think the bombings were unnecessary and unjustified, many were morally offended by what they regarded as unnecessary destruction of Japanese cities and what were essentially non-combatant populations. I don't know if you can tell what's this in the foreground. That's a firetruck. A firetruck's incinerated like that, there's not much you can do to put out the fires, is there? Like the first targets destroyed in Hamburg, were the waterworks and the fire brigades so that there was no means to put out the fires in Hamburg. They used phosphorus which couldn't be put out anyway. Moreover they spoke about it quite openly and publicly. All the leaders of the military spoke out against it. So it was a political decision. timed with the Soviet entry into the war in the Pacific. Shortly before his death, General George Marshall quietly defended the decision, but for the most part he's on record as repeatedly saying it was not a military decision, it's a political one. He should know he's more of a politician than a military man. Here's the official protest from the Japanese government. 11th of August, Through the Swiss legation Tokyo, the Japanese government filed an official protest over the atomic bombing to the US State Department. 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 a bomb involved having the most cruel effects humanity has ever known. The bombs in question, used by the Americans, by their cruelty and by their terrorizing effect, far surpass gas or any other arm, the use of which is prohibited. Japanese protests against U.S. desecration of international principles of war, paired with 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 and living quarters. 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. This is an official protest which was lodged by the Swiss Legation. some of the survivors of the first atomic bomb receiving emergency medical treatment on the 6th of August, 1945. Well, all of this has been subject to judicial review. I've been here at The Hague in Netherlands, International Court of Justice. In 1963, the bombings were subject of a judicial review. The District Court of Tokyo found the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war. You've heard of the Hague Conventions. I had somebody post on my Reformation 500 page today that the Geneva Convention only started after the Second World War so it didn't affect us. Where did they get this from? In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was, at the time, governed by international found in the Hague Rules of Land Warfare of 1907 and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922 to 1923, and therefore it was illegal. It was a war crime. In the documentary, The Fog of War, former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recalls General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the presidential order to drop nuclear bombs in Japan. LeMay said, if we had 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? Here's a detail from the US Air Force map of Hiroshima. Notice it's pinpointed right over the hospital, the atomic dome, with circles drawn at 1,000 foot intervals, radiating out of the site of the explosion. It was indiscriminate mass murder. Here's Takashi Hiroka, mayor of Hiroshima, who in an international court of justice at the Hague hearing, he said, 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. And it certainly is. Ichiro Ito, the mayor of Nagasaki, declared in the same hearing, 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. That's another form of terrorism. With their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants, between military installations and civilian communities. The use of nuclear weapons, therefore, is a manifest infraction of international law. Day one used the word genocide. Here's, in March of 1946, what Hiroshima looked like. Of course, they've tried to clean the streets to be able to drive up and down. University of Chicago historian Bruce Cummings states, there's a consensus amongst historians. The Nagasaki bomb, the second one, was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst. Then there's a new word, Democide. You've heard of Democide? Genocide by Democracy. Democratic genocide. Professor R.J. Rummel of University of Hawaii's definition of democide, he's the author of Death by Government, which is a phenomenal book, I've studied that too, includes not only genocide, but an excessive killing of civilians in war. To the extent this is against the agreed rules of warfare. Bombing of cities, for example. He argues the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes and thus democide. Genocide by democracy. Rommel quotes, amongst others, the official protest from the US government in 1938 to Japan for bombing Chinese cities like Shanghai. Pictures like this, which has been proven since, by the way, to be photoshopped. They took a child who had been burned in the bombing and placed it in this specific picture just because it made a better backdrop. But, I mean, they're both real, but they doctored this picture, which is used to damn the Japanese to hell because they bombed cities. And there were pictures like this depicting Japan's bombing of cities, which you wonder how many air crashes would take place if you're really flying this close proximity. But the bombing of non-combatant populations violates international humanitarian laws. They were quoting from the American government. The bombing of non-combatant populations violates international humanitarian laws. So what were they doing over Dresden and Hamburg and Cologne and Berlin? and Tokyo and Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Professor Rummel considers excess deaths of civilians in conflagrations, that's incinerating fires, caused by conventional means such as the Tokyo fire bombings as acts of democide. Genocide isn't less lethal because it's performed by democracy. It's also terrorism, actually. I don't know if you recall, 2013, Boston bombing. Danilo had just been ice skating at the World Synchro in Boston when the Boston bombing took place a few days later. Two people were killed, if I remember right. Many injured and crippled. There was revulsion worldwide for this. In fact, President Barack Hussein Obama said, anytime civilians are targeted by bombing, it is terrorism. To which I say a hearty amen. At last, Obama said something I could agree with. Even a stop clock can be right twice a day. Yes, anytime you target civilians in a bombing, it's terrorism. Do you know that President Barack Hussein Obama, notwithstanding his Nobel Peace Prize, authorized over 14,000 bombings with Hellfire missiles by drones, which killed vastly more civilians than terrorists. Vastly more. He thinks killing two civilians in Boston is terrorism, which I agree, but somehow killing tens of thousands of civilians with his bombings, eh, you call it something else. What do you call it, collateral damage? Well, what do you call incinerating a few hundred thousand people? In 1967, Noam Chomsky described atomic bombings as among the most unspeakable crimes in history. And that's what President Herbert Hoover said, too. Chomsky pointed to the complicity of the American people in the bombings. They were calling for, you know, burn those yellow-bellied nip devils and things. There was a lot of that. In fact, the comics, you read the things that was going on at that time, it was terrible. The definition of terrorism is the targeting of innocent civilians to achieve a political goal. The targeting of innocent civilians to achieve a political goal. Well, that's certainly, Mkhonto-we-Siswe were guilty of that. Pan-African Congress and APLO were guilty of that. Today, 26 years ago, 25th of July, 1993. Uplift terrorist attacked St. James Church of England, killed 11 people, severely injured over 50 others. That's just terrorism. How is the bombing of cities less terrorism than attacking of a church? Unnecessary suffering and destruction. The Hague Conventions of 1899-1907 set rules in place regarding attacks on civilian populations. Here's the Hague Convention of 1907. You can see black jackets as the fashion, white shirts are the fashion. And it seems the same kind of fashions are reigning at the 1907 one too. The Hague Conventions states that religious buildings, art and science centers, charities, hospitals, and historic monuments are to be spared. They're not to be bombed unless they're being used for military purposes. So if you're using your mosque for storing bombs and so on, well, you know, you're no longer civilian, now you're a military target. But other than that, you don't bomb art centers, you don't bomb monuments, museums, churches, and so on. Like this church in Lubbock. Mrs. Scarborough was a child in Lubbock when it was bombed on that occasion. Here's the atomic dome. The atomic bomb over Hiroshima was designed to detonate at 1,900 feet above this hospital, emitting heat greater than 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit. At the moment, Europe's experiencing a heat wave. They're talking about 108 degrees Fahrenheit, and people are talking about sweltering. 108 degrees Fahrenheit. 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, imagine. Here is a shrine in Nagasaki, which is about the only thing that withstood the explosion in this area. But here's the Nagarikwama Methodist Church of Christ in Hiroshima completely shattered after the atomic attack. The ruins of an Orthodox cathedral in Nagasaki. The remains of Urukami Cathedral in Nagasaki. Are these not war crimes? According to Hague and Geneva Convention, yes, these are war crimes. You may not bomb civilians and you may not target churches or hospitals. There were 15,000 Christians in Nagasaki on the day the bomb dropped. 10,000 were incinerated. 10,000 Christians died out of a 15,000 population just in Nagasaki. Here's Urakami Cathedral before the bombing and this is what it looked like after the bombing. Absolutely staggering. Here's Urakami Cathedral ruins. When the Urakami Cathedral was built, it was the largest Church in all of East Asia. The Hague Conventions also prohibited the use of arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. In other words, minimum force. And here's a biblical principle. Deuteronomy 20 verse 19 gives the law of the Lord. When you besiege a city for a long time, while making war against it to take it, you shall not destroy its trees. Trees are essential for life. Not just our life, the birds, the squirrels, the animals. It's part of our... You don't... Your warfare must not involve destruction of the environment. Indiscriminate bombing was internationally outlawed. The Washington Treaty in 1920 expressly forbade bombing civilian populations. And America quoted that when Japan bombed Shanghai. but then they violated it when they were bombing everyone else. U.S. propaganda films condemned the Japanese Empire for bombing cities like Shanghai. But upon America's entry into war, U.S. Air Force General, Army Air Force General H.H. Arnold advocated, the policy of strategic bombing of cities is the only way Germany can be beaten. We can't beat the army on the ground, we need to bomb their cities from the air. Winston Churchill commented, the air opened paths along which death and terror could be carried far behind the lines of the actual enemy. To women, children, the aged, the sick, who in earlier struggles would perforce have been left untouched. This is the Lancaster. This carried 14 tons of bombs. The biggest German bomber, the Heinkel 111, could carry 1,000 kilograms or one ton. the British Lancaster could carry 14 times that in one plane and they used it like Dresden and Cologne. This is filmed, in fact I've seen this in colour film playing continually at the Imperial War Museum in downtown London, showing them filming incinerating Dresden during the fire bombings on Valentine's Day, 1945. Dresden, statue of Martin Luther. So here's what it looked like in 1945, and they've left this dome, the atomic dome of the hospital, as a monument, just to let people remember. Here is Emperor Horyosho, two years later, facing the atomic dome in Hiroshima, addressing the population there. Hiroshima today with a memorial dome on the left. This is as it looks today. Very well built that it could withstand a nuclear explosion. The atomic bomb dome. Now, I developed my interest and research in this when my son, Kelvin, was to go to the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as part of the Jamboree of the Scouts. The World Jamboree, it only happens every four years, and the Scout, basically, it's one chance to take part in the Jamboree in his lifetime. Kelvin went to Japan, and when I heard of him going there, I immediately thought, August. Why August? Why not June tonight? Why August? August, 2015, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 70th anniversary. And sure enough, that was the reason. And so I was angry because I thought they're going to use this for some kind of anti-American propaganda, anti-nuclear bomb thing. And I didn't want Kelvin being part of some propaganda stunt. So I did research to refute it. My research astounded me when I discovered what I've shared with you tonight, that actually, All the military leaders on the American side said it was unnecessary and immoral. And for my lifetime, I'd always thought that it was totally justified and essential to end the war and so on. So I supported Calvin going, in fact, wrote the tract that's on the table there on Matsuya Fushida, a Japanese commander who led the attack on Pearl Harbor, who was converted to Christ afterwards. And what a wonderful story to be something you could distribute to other scouts and hopefully some Japanese people too. Here's the epicenter of the bomb in Hiroshima. It's now a peace park, a memorial park, in the Memorial Mound. And this is in Nagasaki, the Peace Park. And notice how they've got the expanding circles. And it's to remind people this is where the bomb fell. And to cope with the loss and the shock and the trauma, they've got a museum showing some of what was left. In fact, this, by the way, is, you know how with some of these bombings, some people literally got entombed, and it was actually, so this is a replica of how they found some of the children afterwards incinerated, a tricycle, a Madonna from one of the Catholic churches scarred by the bombing, just powerful symbols of what was lost. And here, the Urakami Cathedral, rebuilt in Nagasaki, largest church in East Asia when completed in 1914. Virtually ground zero of the atomic bomb, reconstructed today. And this is what we call to do, to rebuild every area of life on the Bible. There's a replica of the Western-style bell from the cathedral, which, of course, had gotten damaged in the bombing, but this is symbolic. A New Zealand memorial sculpture, Cloak of Peace, dedicated to the victims of the atomic bombing in Nagasaki. And different monuments that have been set up. Doves of Peace, often a good symbol. And again, the monument showing where the atomic bomb exploded at Nagasaki. Paper cranes, which are often used as prayers. So to try and use art. Somebody posted this which is interesting. Hiroshima 1945 destroyed Detroit 1945, one of the most vibrant places in the world. in the world at the time. Hiroshima today, Detroit today. So they say the lesson is it's easier to come back from a nuclear strike than five decades of democratic government. I mean, the Democrats are a disaster. And that's actually kind of funny. So, any comments, any questions? Nuclear bombing in Japan, yes. Knowing what they did was wrong and everything, what will they do about it? Will they do anything to help the parents they would like to? Well, the first thing they did when Americans came in is they confiscated and destroyed all photographs that had been taken of the bombing and the victims and so on afterwards. There's coming in just like trying to clean up all the evidence, getting rid of the photographs. Of course, they couldn't get rid of all the people who were our witnesses, but there was this recognition that we can't let these pictures get out. I haven't shown the worst of the pictures. I've shown some, but there's a lot worse pictures out there, but the American government came and they sought for it like it was contraband and destroyed all photographs that the Japanese government had taken documenting it. Fortunately, some of the pictures had been sent to Switzerland for the protest and therefore we still have some, but a huge amount of evidence of what they did was destroyed. And by the way, to this day, the American government has not apologized. Even when Obama went there for the bombing commemorations, he wouldn't say we were wrong or any factors. The US government's got something just inbuilt with, we won't admit we were wrong. We've always been right and everything we've done is always right, kind of attitude. Which bothers me because if you think, the Lord is very merciful to the repentant. but he's merciless to the hypocritical Pharisee. The one who doesn't see their sin is the most condemned. I thank you, God, I'm not like other man. He gets condemned. The one who beats his chest, said, Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner. He's the one who, the Lord, hears his prayer. And so the two men went up to the temple to pray as a good example. But seldom has there been a government so self-righteous and arrogant. It's a shocking thing. And I was an apologist for American foreign policy for years, too, because I thought I brought up all the Hollywood movies, read these textbooks, and so I just also thought, you know, Japan deserved it, and atomic bombs were essential, and saved lives, and ended the war. I accepted that. But when I had to investigate it, I thought I was going to find evidence to show why what the scouts were doing was wrong in sending a memorial group that represents from every country. But in the end, Calvin went with my full blessings. I thought this was a wonderful operation. And they went to Japan, and I think it was the right thing to do, that the scouts of the world gather there. In fact, there's some videos of it, too, where scouts from America, too, are asked at the memorial museum and so on. They're saying, you know, I never knew this, and how, you know, this is wrong. to have gotten that, but the governments wouldn't admit it. But when the people on the ground see it, then how can you justify things like that? It should never be my country is always right. Can't do that. That's why in a reformation side, there have been times that I am lifting up a person from the one side and then the other who may be, in fact, were enemies. For example, King Arthur defeated the Vikings. My ancestors were the Vikings who were invading England. King Alfred, I should say, King Alfred of England, Alfred the Great, he was the enemy of my ancestors, but he became the one who converted them and led the ones he defeated to being baptized and catechized and brought to the faith. And so the first Vikings to convert to Christ were from their Saxon enemies. I can't just look and say, well, I'm going to support our side. There are times when the Russians were right. For example, when we looked at the charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War, I realized that Britain was on the wrong side. My ancestors were fighting for the Turkish Muslims against the Russian Christians who were fighting the Turks because the Turks had just massacred tens of thousands of Christians in the Holy Land and throughout the Middle East where the Turks were there. And the Russians were going to punish the Turks for murdering Christians and to demand that they respect Christian holy place and religious freedom. And France and Britain go to fight the Russians to protect the Muslim Turks who were persecuting Christians. We were on the anti-Christian side. And that's where the Victorian Cross and Chartered Light Brigade and some good things came out of it, like Florence Nightingale launched modern nursing in the Crimean War, so something good came out of it. But we were on the wrong side. We perpetuated the life of the Turkish Empire, the Ottoman Turkish Empire, which killed another 3.4 million Christians after being saved by Britain and France in the Crimean War. So, you know, there's times that our presentations here have been very pro-British, and other times very anti, sometimes very pro-American, other times very anti, and so on. And there are times that we're lifting up South African heroes who've done great things, and other times we're exposing evils and sins in our country. So to me, it can't be who's on my side, it's who's on the Lord's side. And so at times we find that we are on God's side, and other times we find we've been against God, and it does no favors to anyone to try and pretend. Otherwise, we've got to admit where we have sinned and where our side has been wrong. We've got to acknowledge it. And that's the only hope there is. So I'm afraid for a country like America that's become so confident in their own myths and legends that they believe their own propaganda. Because America's done a lot of good things. They've done a lot of evil things, too. And it's foolish to ignore either. There is good and there is evil. And well, at this moment, America exports missionaries and Bibles around the world to the blessings of the world, but also other parts of America are exporting evil through Hollywood and so on. And so one's got to acknowledge you've got both poison and blessing coming from the same country, as we do in South Africa. There are God-fearing people in South Africa who do wonderful blessings throughout Africa, and there's other South Africans who are as evil as it comes. So, I mean, that's part of it. But I must say, this project of looking at this made me look at the Japanese in a new light. And seeing the test, discovering the test with this one Japanese who came to Christ, Mitsuya Fushida, and putting his testimony out there, that was really inspiring to me because I realized that the Japanese have also, millions of them, are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They're a minority in the country, but there's a dedicated church in Japan that's very meaningful. It's also quite exciting when someone who used to be an enemy gets converted. someone of the courage of Matthew Fashida's brave. By the way, he stood up and he spoke out against the nuclear weapons and the show trials and all of that. He is brave. And many people thought he was a traitor for adopting the occupier's religion. But he was quite happy to speak out against the American policies like nuclear bombs and the the war crime trials, which he said, you just don't do that in the war. Anyway, your side did just the same and worse, and how dare you only hand out speeding tickets to one part of those involved in the Grand Prix. That's just not right. So Mathieu Fichier was courageous. He took on his own people, and he took on the occupying forces without fear or favor. Yeah, it's unfair if, for instance, in a fight between a big guy and a small guy, And after the fight, after obviously the big guy has won, he's the judge of the fight as well. It will obviously be unfair. If you're the winner and the judge. Oh, and in the show trials, which we've shown other times, you can see there's a Soviet judge there with a Soviet bloodstained flag, red with the blood of how many millions of Christians, sitting in as one of the judges. hypocrisy and of course many of the people being tried could say but you did worse yourselves and but that's not relevant to trial it's only you're on trial so it's hypocrisy that the Lord condemns the most and it's that kind of hypocrisy where you try someone else for the same something you guilty of how can one justify that so any other comments President has the powers, or the, what do you call it? The authority. The authority to launch the. Well, by the American Constitution, the U.S. President is the Commander-in-Chief and he's the highest authority. And so, they've set up. Now, in Great Britain, for example, the monarch has the supreme authority and is the one who declares war and the army swears allegiance to the queen or king, as the case may be. So, but America is set up where the President has that position. But, for example, there's other disturbing things that American presidents are not meant to be able to declare war without the support of Congress. But then you get people like Abraham Lincoln who declared war without the support of Congress. So you can get some American presidents to ignore it. And then others like Obama who don't declare war but they still bomb people. He bombed people in eight countries that America wasn't at war with. Which, how do you get a Nobel Peace Prize for that? I mean, that's pretty bad. Yes. Nobel bombing prize. Most people killed by drone hellfire missiles. That's what they call them, hellfire missiles. They come from drones. So there's never been so many executive orders and there's never been so many drone assassinations as in days of Obama. But interesting, you know, if George Bush had done 1% as much as Obama did like that, it would be a worldwide scandal. But Obama could do anything and get away with it because he's black, so that's fine. So, yeah. They speak about white privilege, well, that's black privilege. You can murder people, you can do whatever you like, and it's not a scandal. Not this one. Emperor Horyōshō died not that many years ago, and there was again some scandal in some people's minds when Prince Charles attended the funeral. Like, oh, how can they acknowledge this man? He's a war criminal. Well, what do they think their governments were? This is something that was interesting with old Donald Trump. When Donald Trump was elected president, and he was talking about wanting to go and talk to Vladimir Putin, some people said, he's got blood in his hands. And Donald Trump responded to the CNN chapter's interview. He says, you think we don't have blood in our hands? He said, let's not apply double standards here. He said, there's a lot of blood and there's enough blood and hands to go around covering all of us. So, you know, this idea that yes, well, Vladimir Putin's a tough man and leader. And of course, he's got some blood in his hands. But then if you want to start looking into that, there's far more blood in the hands of American presidents. Then on Putin's hands. I mean, who started the war in Syria and Afghanistan and Iraq and all the rest of it? Who's bombing civilians all over the place there? So, you know, and the media went ballistic because Trump had committed an unforgivable sin to suggest that there's blood in the hands of American presidents. Well, as a pro-life Christian, yeah, I think you can turn it off. As pro-life Christians, we need to remind people anyone who votes for a political party that supports abortion has blood on their hands. That includes the DA, the ANC, and all the rest of them. They support abortion in America. People vote for the Democratic Party, they vote for abortion. And they've got the accessories to murder. If you vote for a party that stands for legalised abortion, raise your hands. This isn't a very nice subject to tackle, but I think it's important. We're coming up soon to the 6th of August. We'd had audios of this, had a PowerPoint, but we needed a video of this. So tonight I've gotten a screen capture of this presentation. Video will make much more rounds. It's important for people to see the images, get the facts. We've got to have, as Christians, have a just war doctrine. We can't just support wars all over the place. Some wars, which are just, very few, their defensive wars, but wars of aggression and wars that involve targeting of civilians are never just. And as Christians, we've got to have a clear standard. I'm no pacifist, and I believe in fighting when it's necessary, but if we can't say that bombing cities is wrong, then honestly, our Christianity is not worth much. So to me, it's a vital thing to make the stand. I'm glad that the scouts chose to go to Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 2015 for the 17th anniversary and to market. And I think that was a good move and I trust those tens of thousands of Scouts from every country around the world who went there will go back and be a brake on this insane rush towards violence, towards other people. It's a great thing that the Scouts are doing to get people from different nations play games together and work together and sing together, it's hard to stereotype and hate the people of other nations when you've got friends amongst them, pen pals, things like that. And certain missions should bring some sanity out there because the amount of people who hate people of other countries that they've never even met and they don't even know anything about. When I grew up I thought the Russians were the worst people in the world and now I know that some of the finest Christians in the world are Russians. I wouldn't have known that if it hadn't been for travel. But we've got to present salt and light in a society. And the wicked hate the light, and we've got to shine the light on dark dealings. Because if you think of history, if our government is right all the time, then whatever they've done is right. And then if you accept that there were times when it was fine to bomb cities and incinerate cities and nuke cities, then you may think that that's all right for you to do. Like in our country, why do we have all these problems? They've glamorized people like Nelson Mandela, who launched, on contrary to his history, car bombs, limpet mines, riots, burnings, stonings. So when you lift it up, this is how we got freedom. Do you wonder that when the children are frustrated about something, they run out and they do exactly the same as what you've been glamorizing? We've got to have a clear standard for what's right, and we've got to have examples of excellence, and then we've got to expose and refute idols that are wrong. Otherwise, you're encouraging the next generation to perpetuate these kind of evils. And in Salafiqah, this is why we've got out-of-control rioting and violence, because they've glamorized it. They said that's how Salafiqah got freedom, which is a total lie. Apparently the world was saved through nuclear bombs and incinerating cities. Now, you've got to refute these lies if we intend to make any kind of better future. We've got to get some sanity back into the discussion. Has Japan ever retaliated to this nuclear bomb? No. Japan's gone the other way. They have renounced nuclear weapons. They've said they will have a defense force but they will not use nuclear weapons. They're the only country that's suffered under nuclear weapons and they have renounced that they would ever use it. And I think that's actually a good way of going about it. There's many ways of fighting. I mean, to me, I can fight terrorism without resorting to terrorism. There are many things we can do to fight. It's more important to have God on your side than it is to say, oh well, this is what goes wrong in a war. The other side does something absolutely heinous. That does not justify you sinking to their level. You will have no moral high ground if you become as bad as they are. that we had this wonderful testimony, a higher call, magnificent book that I went through. It's a story of an American Air Force bomber and a German fighter ace who met over the skies of Germany near Bremen just a few days before This B-17 bomber was shot to pieces. It was very bad. It was being held together by a few wires here and there. And along came this fighter ace who was really angry because he had lost his brother to the Allies, who was also in the Air Force. He was a night fighter. He had just seen the cities bombed to ashes, and he gets up there, he's got murder in his heart, he's angry as anything, he's come back from North Africa, where they were fighting a clean war, and he sees what's going on in the destructed cities, and he gets up there, and he sees this B-17, and his fingers on the trigger effectively, and he only needs one more kill of a bomber. he will get his knight's cross, which is the highest award the Blue Manx have for him. And he takes his finger off, he moves to the side of the playman. Charlie Brown, that's the name of the US Air Force bomber, he looks out the window and he thinks this German Messerschmitt 109 is playing with him. And he salutes him and he indicates, follow me. And he can see they're going in the wrong direction. The instruments must be shot out. They're going deep into Germany. And he guides him out. over the North Sea and leads them towards Germany. And he escorted them out because the anti-aircraft flak guns would have shot up this. Now this is his enemy. He knew he'll probably come back and bomb again, but he had been taught by his commander, you don't shoot an enemy pilot on a parachute. You shoot an enemy pilot on a parachute, I will shoot you, said his commander. And he said, you don't have a higher standard because the enemy deserves it. You have to protect yourself from becoming what you hate. You cannot sink to the level of the enemy. You must maintain a higher standard. And so he had this standard, and he thought, look, they're enemies, they're in bombing cities, but nevertheless, they're in distress. And so he let them out, and they survived the war. They later became friends in the fishing palace. And years later, this author on Air Force matters, got their stories and wrote it, and it's been turned into a major film. It's just incredible, going through the war from both of their sides, on opposite sides, and how they met there, how it all changed. The moment Charlie Brown saw this measurement, his hand went to his Bible in his top pocket, and he prayed. And as Franz Stagler, the Luftwaffe fighter ace, looked over there, pulled out his chain with his cross, and he's rubbing his cross, and he's also praying. Wisdom. Christians on both sides. And God obviously guided them. And they both survived the war. And they met one another later. Anyway, it's a great story going through. But that's the point. There's a lot of times when you're tempted. They deserve it. And I remember the first day in the Southman Defence Force, they said to us, if you ever get a command that is immoral, illegal, you are duty bound to disobey it, even if you get into trouble for it. You must disobey an illegal order because you will be tried, along with the officer who gave you that illegal order. And so somebody said, do you mean we've got to evaluate every order to see if it's ethical? They said, when it comes to war, when people's lives are at stake, yes, you must. And we had a chaplain who told me an interesting anecdote up in, oh, I think it was 1987. The war had just escalated dramatically. The Cubans bombed one of our positions just north of Ruakana, Sector 5-1. And if I remember right, something like 11 South African soldiers died in that attack, which is, we weren't used to losing so many people, that was a big shock. And it was throughout the country, this wave of revenge, let's get these Cubans back. And so in 5-1, sector 5-1 of Drukana, they're laying out the retaliation, we're going to go in and we're going to bomb this town and so on and so forth and destroy this Cuban artillery position where the attack came from. said, are there any civilians there? And the intelligence officer says, we don't think so. He said, you don't think so? Don't you know? He said, no, we don't know for sure. He said, you will not use bombs. You will use rockets, and you need line of sight visual on the target. And they were angry. But by South African military doctrine, the chaplain outranked the highest officer in the room. And they were angry. Some of them were swearing. And he ordered them not to bomb, but to use rockets, because there might be civilians in the town. No collateral damage. Later on, the officer who'd been most resentful came back and thanked the chaplain for keeping them from doing the wrong thing. It doesn't always happen that they see it like that, but there's times when your blood's up, and you need a rational conscience, and the chaplain's meant to be that conscience, to keep the men from doing something that they will regret the rest of their life. You've all seen depicted post-traumatic stress syndrome, which the Americans made a big thing of. And in the First World War, they called it shell shock. In the Second World War, they called it battle fatigue. Now they call it post-traumatic stress syndrome. And it's not just for soldiers. You can get it in a fire brigade. You can get it in almost any emergency service. And there's an extreme reaction. Now, I've met soldiers who've fought 50 and more battles, like Colonel Jan Wegman, travelled with them, slept in a sleeping bag next to them for a month in the field. And I know some of the most experienced battle-hardened soldiers out there. And they're pretty normal people, and I haven't seen any evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder amongst the soldiers I know, versus some people who have come from America who are basket-cased, destroyed, wrecked people. I've got a theory. I don't know it. because I haven't done a scientific investigation but I believe most post-traumatic stress disorder is guilt for doing things you can't live with because of not what you've seen but what you are guilty of or were party to and I've got a suspicion, a strong suspicion that who machine-gunned civilians, bombed civilians, did things that they are ashamed of and discussed it, but they haven't come to repentance, they haven't found freedom. And that's why a person who went to war and didn't do anything unethical I think those people can sleep and look at themselves in the mirror and have a normal, balanced life. But how can you live with yourself if you were party to bombing civilians? How can you live with yourself if you killed unarmed prisoners of war? And that's the problem. The American propaganda has always been hyper, hyper, hyper. And that's why in each war, their soldiers have committed huge atrocities. massive amounts, and they even glamorize it in movies. You've got films out there now like Fury, where they glamorize murder of unarmed prisoners of war and rape of civilians and think it's fun. Brad Pitt is the worst of them in these sort of films. He just seems to, like, I never saw it, but I believe Inglourious Basterds is one of the worst, where they're literally just taking baseball bats and killing German prisoners of war for no other reason than they're German. And the Jewish director and so on said, you know, this is every Jew's wet dream, killing Nazis. Nazis? They're soldiers. National Socialist Party members would have only been a few percent of the population, but to them it doesn't matter. Any blonde, blue-eyed human being is a Nazi who deserves to have their head bashed up with a baseball bat. And that's what a lot of Hollywood directors do. So Spielberg would depict in Saving Private Ryan shooting prisoners of war with the hands raised who've surrendered. War crime, but they glamorize it now in Hollywood. to make you think it's fine. And the trouble is, the Americans have been pumping their soldiers since the First World War full of demonizing the enemy, and therefore justifies that you can do anything to them because they're not human. They're evil. You know, we're righteous, and the enemy's been demonized. And when you give people propaganda like that, they end up doing things that they can't live with. That's why I think they've got probably more post-traumatic stress disorder in America than anywhere else because how do you live with yourself when you realize, you know, what did you do in the war? Well, just take if I dare to part to a beloved film of many South Africans, Downton Abbey. Lord Grantham, what's his background? He was an officer in the South African war, the Boer War. and his butler was also in the Boer War. What did they do there? They never say. And what can they say? You know, we dynamited wells, killed cattle and sheep, dynamited people's homes, burned people's homes and rounded up women and children and put them in concentration camps. I mean, who can talk about that and say, you know, what did you do in the war? Well, you know, we imprisoned women and children in camps where a quarter of them died every year. No wonder they can't tell you what war because what he did was not honourable. None of them did anything honourable. In fact, they know that. And many of them came back traumatised over the fact that, what were we doing? We were fighting farmers. We weren't even fighting farmers, we were fighting the farmers' wives. I mean, what's honourable about that? So no wonder there's a whole lot of these people with post-traumatic stress disorder. It's guilt. They said some of the worst things using oil is chemical warfare. Yes, they use it in abortion clinics on a daily basis. And that's not wrong in an abortion clinic. Oh, gee. The baby can feel everything. Oh. There's one other anecdote to this nuclear bomb issue. You know, it only came out very recently that to test the impact of nuclear bombs, they marched several companies of soldiers into the New Mexico desert. Some were below ground, others were in trenches up to chest height, and others were out in the open with tents, at a distance from the nuclear bomb blast. Instead of the bomb blast, they had to monitor him for the next years to see what to fix the radiation on him. They owned soldiers. It's a major scandal. They literally took a bunch of infantrymen, didn't tell them what they were going to go through. They didn't know what the dangers were. Nobody even knew what the radiation was, but they wanted to know what the effects of the radiation would be. Whether soldiers are above ground, below ground, in trenches at chest height, and so on. And I've actually got a picture of US soldiers watching through binoculars and so on, nuclear bomb blast in front there. And they're, of course, far enough away that it doesn't hit them, but the radiation is going to get to them. And a whole lot of them died horrible deaths. on the radiation. And they were being monitored by the US military, and all of these were hushed up, but it somehow came out 50 years later or something. But they were doing that in the 40s, just testing on their own people. That's not even talking about Agent Orange in Vietnam, and so on. But don't think that governments aren't capable of doing disgusting things to their own people. You wonder where their conscience is. those politicians who make those sort of decisions. Anyway, so any other comments, questions? I've got notes of tonight's presentation. Have you got resources about the Vietnam War? Not me, not personally, no. What I've got and what we've got in our collection there of videos includes the missing in action prisoners of and Senator Jeremiah Denton. These were people who were in the Vietnam War and were locked up six and a half years in the case of Captain Rick McDaniels, seven and a half years in Hanoi Hilton. That's the concentration camp in Vietnam, they're called. That's in the case of Senator Denton. Studied their books, met them. And Captain Rick McDaniels started the prisoner of war missing in action investigation. And the Americans knew they left 2,500 prisons behind in communist hands in the Vietnam War. But when he did investigations, he found how many tens of thousands are left behind in North Korea in the Korean War, and Russia after the Second World War, and Russia after the First World War. Some of the intervention forces during the Civil War between whites and reds, and so on. of the US government betraying and leaving their own soldiers behind. And this is one reason why General Patton got murdered, because he discovered that the American government was covering up the fact that Russians, their allies, had liberated 20-something thousand American prisoners of war had been captured by the Germans but were in camps that were held behind Iron Curtain. Therefore, in the Russian areas, the Russians wouldn't let them go. They were holding them hostage. And at first, they were holding them hostage, saying, if you don't do this, that, and the other, we won't release them. And after a while, it changed to, if you don't do this, that, and the other, we will release them and let your people know that you've been keeping quiet about the fact that we've got so many tens of thousands of your soldiers. It gets worse than that. What they did to their prisons of war was just staggering. Of course, then they had their soldiers patrolling these areas like the Ho Chi Minh Trail. And then the Air Force was dropping aged orange, which was defoilants, to destroy all the greenery, so there's no cover for the enemy. And these chaps didn't know about how bad it was. And they were literally drinking water out of orange-tinged water holes and wondering, wonder if that's got anything to do with Agent Orange. And these people suffered the most hideous kinds of diseases as a result. And the government even had to admit and gave them medical coverage for it. It was, you know, in the line of duty. But chemical warfare used effectively on your own people because your own people operating in areas they were spraying Agent Orange over. So yes, I'm afraid when it comes to evil governments, and most of what I know about this, I learned from General Ben Parton, US Air Force scientist, who designed everything from cruise missiles to the GPSs to deliver the cruise missiles to the right address. But the Vietnam War was also actually unnecessary. Yeah. I mean, America didn't have to Well, there's several sides to it. One thing is they could have stayed out of it, but if you get involved, you've got to fight to win. But they kept restraining their people so that they were never allowed to win. It was a no-win war. Just like in the Korean War where MacArthur thinks he's got to defeat the enemy, so he defeats the enemy, goes all the way up to the Yellow River, liberates the whole of North Korea, and then ordered to withdraw to the 30th parallel to let the communists take back their territory. That's why he refused and he got fired. General MacArthur, after 45 years serving the country, this stupid politician. Truman, the same man who dropped the bomb, decides to fire his best general because he wants to fight the enemy instead of giving the communists back the territory he just liberated from him. Imagine that. So, yes, there's quite a bit here. We've got books on, if you look up here, there's a whole lot on Allied Betrayed. and so on and speaks about ally betrayed Nicaragua, ally betrayed China, ally betrayed Iran and so on and Wall Street and the funding of the Soviet Union and so on. It's just staggering and all written by Americans exposing what their own government has done in betraying them. It's not to be surprising that the biggest and greatest country in the world has been targeted for infiltration by people who hate Christianity and want to destroy it. So there's some very good people in America, but boy, they've had some very bad governments. Very bad governments. And I remember going up there in 1988, my first visit, and I met people like Colonel Oliver North at Washington, D.C., National Religious Broadcasting and so on. And I remember hearing his testimony and thinking, It must be absolutely terrible to have a government that betrays you. I'm glad our government would never do that to us. In 1988, I believed the National Party would never betray us. Imagine my shock just two years later when I saw our government betraying us in South West Africa and in South Africa. I was staggered. It was hard enough for me to understand that the American government betrayed their own army, to understand that our government could betray us. Staggering. In 1989, this October, it'll be 30 years, I was in prison in Mozambique. When I was locked up in Meshava Security Prison, I was in a single cell, where if I lay down, my head could touch one side, and I could just stretch my toes to touch the other side. My hands could touch each side of the wall, so I could literally, which was no bigger than, my hands could reach up, my feet could reach line. Of course, there's no beds or mattresses or anything like that. There's just a concrete floor with full-thinned rats coming under the door. I woke up first morning with this rat on my, you know, seeing this rat sideways on, just the smell, opened my eyes, and here's this rat about to take some nibbles out of me. Well, on the same morning, I pulled myself up onto the burglar bars to get some, you know, pull up, sort of, look out the window a bit and get some, see some sun. And I say, Sir, I've been walking outside. And I, I called him and this chap was a Reckie, he was a reconnaissance commander soldier. And there were two others there, three Reckies, locked up in the Shrava security prison, but they'd been there so long they were allowed to walk around outside our school. slowly confined because they're still interrogating us. And they'd been here for years. And now I was well networked. I got to Spesskop, I knew the generals. I'd never heard of these guys being locked up in Mozambique. So I memorized their force numbers and details and all that sort of thing. And they hadn't had so much as a visit. They hadn't had a parcel. So when I got out, I asked the Salaf Khan, Foreign Affairs. Do you know about these people? Yes. Why have you never visited? We don't want to endanger lives. I said, endanger their lives. They're in the hands of SNAS for five years. You can't endanger their lives anymore. They're in the Shava security prison, for goodness sake. Could you not take them anti-malaria tablets, vitamins, toothpaste, soap, paper, pens, books, something? Oh, it's very difficult, they said. I said, difficult? You must try staying in the Shava security prison. I took this information to the Who would have thought that our government was so treacherous that our own reconnaissance commando soldiers could be in the communist prisons and they didn't even organize a care package. Was it in the year that de Klerk was president? Sadly not. I'm talking about 1989. Yes, well, de Klerk was president by then, but I'm afraid they'd been there for longer than that. But Pitt Porter was the head of foreign affairs. He was a traitor. I mean, he joined the ANC the moment he could, afterwards. So it was treachery. I'm sure if P.W. Bull had known, he would have done something about it, but he was obviously limited in what he was told. This was just so disgusting. I thought, you know, I knew the Americans did that to their soldiers. I didn't know our people could do it to ours. Yeah, I could give a few prison experience examples because I've got another side of and out of Chikorubi and Harare by our missions networks and going to International Society of Human Rights in Frankfurt Convention, also talking about 1988. And again, the Southern Government didn't do anything to help our people, but our mission, just with a bit of publicity, BBC and so on, we managed to get these people released. What can you say about a government that doesn't even look after you when you're locked up? How difficult would it be to... Diplomatic pressure. If a newspaper's publication can make them release them. Surely the government's got something we can do. In fact, we were doing a huge amount for these countries. They were eating apples grown in Elgin, for goodness sakes. South Africa was giving Mozambique so much. They could have easily said, look, if you want this and this, then we want our people out. If there's a will, there's a way. Treachery. How long were you in the prison there? Me, just a week. Yeah, fortunately, I was depending on a mission to get me out. If I was, depending on the southern government, I'd still be there. No, it's, I mean, our mission was organized. There was demonstrations outside the Mozambique embassy in Washington, D.C. and London. Airwaves were full of it. There's lots of newspaper protests. Our people moved nicely. In fact, the timing was quite good because I'd just taken Ted Bear up into Angola to meet Jonas Savimbi to do a whole film documentary on the United Freedom Fighters. And so when he heard that I was locked up, he organized demonstrations in Washington and networked a whole lot of people in America. So it's not what you know, it's who you know.