Editorial: Nuclear Waste (1965)

Editorial from the August 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was 20 years ago this month that the world witnessed the terrifying spectacle of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Twenty years of gradually mounting evidence to help piece together like a jigsaw, a background of cynical and calculated brutality that is almost without parallel. Twenty years in which the soundness of the Socialist Party’s stand on the whole question of war in all its forms has been again and again vindicated.

This will no doubt be a month of commemoration and protest. From statesmen and politicians of every variety we may expect the usual tired platitudes, lies and hypocrisy as they spuriously talk about peace and prepare for another war. CND will be well to the fore, attempting to deal with nuclear weapons in isolation from their root cause – Capitalism. But society cannot put the scientific and technical clock back. From this time forward man’s ability to manufacture nuclear weapons is here to stay. The only truly reliable way to “Ban the Bomb” is to establish a society where human relationships could not possibly cause war or call nuclear weapons into use. Only world Socialism really guarantees that Hiroshima or Nagasaki could not happen again.

We have felt it important to return to the question again this month because apart from the threat to humanity’s existence in a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, it illustrates well a point we have made many times― the shocking wastefulness with which Capitalism not only squanders society’s material resources, but squanders humanity itself.

We live in a world capable of a tremendous productive effort. The work that went into the first atom bombs must have been colossal, yet it pales into insignificance when compared with the picture today. America’s defence expenditure (never “offence” expenditure) last year reached the staggering estimated figure of $54,000 millions. Comparable figures for Great Britain were ￡2,043 million, West Germany 20,929 million Deutschmarks, and France 23,485 million Francs. The U.S. contribution alone to NATO forces included eight hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles (nuclear if necessary) and over three hundred Polaris submarines. At the beginning of last year, Soviet defence minister Marshall Malinovsky was boasting of Russia’s hundred megaton bomb and the missiles that were available to carry it to any part of the globe.

And this is the spectacle which has been the curse of the capitalist world, to come into still sharper focus in the post-war years. Millions go ragged and hungry and badly housed, while unsaleable food piles up in the warehouses and backwater barges, and vast resources of human ingenuity and productive effort are squandered in turning out yet bigger and more destructive weapons. Not only that. There are now five runners in the nuclear arms race with at least two more – W. Germany and India – thinking of entering the slips.

Even whilst CND have been campaigning, more nations have entered the nuclear field. The bombs are bigger, and there are more of them. CND have protested against one aspect of capitalism’s wastefulness. They will miss the important point until they realise that the need is to remove Capitalism itself. Gigantic waste which is horrifying in its effects is synonymous with Capitalism in every direction, from nuclear terror, to world hunger. The campaign against these problems outside the context of the demand for Socialism cannot carry the prospect of success.

It is when we realise this that we see the urgent necessity for the removal of capitalism and its replacement with a world of common ownership, for this is the only way to tackle such a problem. Only then could we be sure that society’s resources would be harnessed to serve human needs instead of the requirements of the profit motive. In a Socialist system there would be abundant wealth to meet everyone’s needs, but waste would be anathema – a thing of the past. Such conditions would make possible the development of human abilities on a scale undreamed of today, for the concern of all would be to produce and distribute the very best of which they were capable. Certainly a goal worth striving for; but more than that, one which becomes a matter of greater urgency with the passing of each day

Remember Hiroshima? (1965)

From the August 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the aircraft carrying the atomic bomb appeared above Hiroshima early in the morning of 6lh August 1945, the people of the city were not especially alarmed.

They assumed that it was the reconnaissance ‘plane which every day reported on the weather over a nearby lake, used as a rendezvous point by the American bombers. For months, the B-29’s had been hammering at one Japanese city after another; in August 1945 there were only two of any importance which had not suffered a heavy raid. One of these was Hiroshima.

Uneasily, the city was organising its defences. Every home was required to have a concrete water tank readily accessible for fire-fighting. Many houses were being torn down to make fire breaks. But the Super-Fortresses kept roaring past to the lake, and swung away to other targets. The people of Hiroshima became convinced that the Americans were saving something especially horrible for them.

All these fears came to a head, at eight-fifteen that morning, when the bomb flashed in the sky and the blast roared down and out and eighty thousand human beings died in a way which nobody had ever known before. More than four square miles of Hiroshima was destroyed; within a year the death roll had reached one hundred and forty thousand.

The effects of the bomb were gruesomely strange, and this gave rise to panic rumours about what had happened. Some people said the Americans had sprayed petrol over the city and set light to it. Others thought that a cloud of magnesium had been dropped, and ignited by high tension wires. Unfamiliar and menacing things were happening to the survivors of the bomb. Their hair fell out, their gums bled, trifling cuts stayed open and festered for weeks. Pregnant women suffered miscarriages and premature births; countless babies were born dead. People who had no visible injuries or burns quietly and simply died. And as if in mockery at this, weeds and wild flowers of all sorts flourished under the bomb’s rays and grew in profusion over the wreckage of the city.

President Truman announced that the weapon he had launched against Hiroshima had “. . . more power than twenty thousand tons of T.N.T. . . . more than two thousand times the blast power of the British Grand Slam, which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare.” Although the people who were dying and suffering at Hiroshima did not appreciate it, history had been made at their expense.

In the United States, the New Yorker added its own little bit of history by devoting its entire edition, for the first time in its life, to a single feature. This was a report by John Hersey on the experiences of six people…..a German Catholic priest, an office girl, a Protestant Minister, two doctors and a windowed housewife—who had lived through the destruction of Hiroshima. Hersey’s story was immediately famous, and in November 1946 it was published in this country as a shilling Penguin (Hiroshima, by John Hersey—Penguin Books).

Here was the reality behind the politicians’ statements and the statisticians’ tables and the scientists’ measurements. These people had been crushed and wounded and frightened by the bomb. They had seen inexpressible horrors. Hersey told their story with restraint and sympathy, leaving the enormity of Hiroshima to speak for itself. Only once did he stand in judgement, and that was when he was telling what happened to the office girl when the bomb went off:

“. . . the bookcases right behind her swooped forward and the contents threw her down, with her left leg horribly twisted and breaking underneath her. There, in the tin factory, in the first moment of the atomic age, a human being was crushed by books.”

For the rest, the tragedy of Hiroshima is laid out in clean and compassionate English. All the horror is there, in the description of the wounded peoples’ macabre procession into the Red Cross Hospital:

“Dr. Sasaki worked without method, taking those who were nearest him first, and he noticed soon that the corridor seemed to be getting more and more crowded . . . Before long, patients lay and crouched on the floors of the wards and the laboratories and all the other rooms, and in the corridors, and on the stairs, and in the front hall, and under the portecochere, and on the front stone steps, and in the driveway and courtyard, and for blocks each way in the streets outside. . . . Dr. Sasaki lost all sense of profession and stopped working as a skilful surgeon and a sympathetic man; he became an automaton, mechanically wiping, daubing, winding, wiping, daubing, winding.”

The twenty years which have gone by since that nightmare have been full of the lies and evasions of the official propaganda machines. The allied governments excused Hiroshima on the grounds that there was no other quick way of ending the war. They have never successfully explained why it was necessary to show the bomb’s power on a virtually undamaged city, when there were plenty of other places where it could have been demonstrated without killing over a hundred thousand people.

Then they fed us with the deterrent theory, which began with the argument (remember?) that so long as the United States was the only power to have the secret of the Bomb no other country would dare to start a war. The other capitalist powers, however, did not see it in this light; many of them said that the best way to preserve peace was for them also to have the Bomb and so restore the balance of power in the world. And while they have been arguing, and while the disarmament conferences have been droning on, and while the official lies have been flowing out, nuclear weapons have spread and become more powerful. If one of today’s hydrogen bombs had been used at Hiroshima, none of Hersey’s six people would have lived to tell their stories; they would all have been well inside the first fireball.

The important question now is what effect the establishment of nuclear armaments has had on the world. There is no evidence that the six people of Hiroshima, among the luckiest alive, learned anything from their experiences. The widow, for example, descended into destitution, and placidly accepted it. The office girl relapsed into bewildered despair. The priest had his own consolations:

“If your God is so good and kind, how can he let people suffer like this?” She made a gesture which took in her shrunken leg, the other patients in her room, and Hiroshima as a whole.

“My child, Father Kleinsorge said, “man is not now in the condition God intended. He has fallen from grace through sin.”

And of course there were always the delusions of blind patriotism:

“. . . I never heard anyone cry in disorder, even though they suffered in great agony. They died in silence, with no grudge, setting their teeth to bear it. All for the country!”

This was not unusual. In every city and in every land, in 1945 the war-weary working people could see no reason to abandon their support of the social system which had brought them to atomic warfare. All over the world, capitalism ruled on. Eventually there came the anti-nuclear movement, but that was a protest not against capitalism, nor even against war, but against a particular method of waging war. The nuclear disarmers were no different from the other movements which have protested against capitalism’s problems without understanding why they exist.

The atomic bomb was a refinement of the high explosive bombs—like the Grand Slam—which were becoming increasingly cumbersome, because the only way of stepping up their destructive power was to increase their size. High explosive bombs were an extension of the artillery shell, which in turn was a development from small arms fire. The refinement and the increase in the power of armaments is a continuous process, spurred on by, and inseparable from, the ever-present possibility of war.

All the time, the powers of capitalism are in conflict—over the right to exploit the places where they can sell goods and over access to the places where they can find the raw materials to make the goods. Singly or in alliance, they dispute over oil, tin, rubber—which means that they dispute over the Middle East. Malaya, the Congo. They dispute over trade routes and the ports and bases which serve and protect them—which means over Suez, Cyprus, Gibraltar. Here is the basic reason for armed forces, for the arms race and for the build up in weapons which now holds the possibility of a future too terrible to imagine.

It is time now to remember Hiroshima, but not in protest against the Bomb, nor against the men who made it or who dropped it, nor even against the men who sanctioned its use. The only effective protest is against capitalism, against the social order whose conflicts have brought us to the stage where human society can almost wipe itself out. Remember, then, Hiroshima—but not as a beginning nor as an end, only as an incident in a terrible story.

Ivan

20 years ago (1965)

From the August 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

One August morning twenty years ago an atom bomb exploded on the town of Hiroshima. It was shortly after 8 o’clock local time that a U.S. bomber dropped the new weapon. An estimated 80,000 people died; and more than that were injured. Together with the attack on Nagasaki a few days later, about six square miles of built up area were completely destroyed. President Truman mentioned the figure of 2,000,000,000 dollars spent on the research and production involved in the manufacture of the bomb.

Despite six bloody years of mechanized slaughter, the devastation resulting from this single raid was on a sufficient scale to penetrate the minds even of those resigned to a world constantly racked by war. Throughout the capitalist press the need for a new morality was preached and, here and there, voices were raised in humanitarian protest,

To consider the protests first; these generally took the line that the atomic bomb was such a terrible weapon that it should never have been used. But the A-bomb is just as “legitimate” as any other weapon. There is no distinction between methods of warfare which are “acceptable” and others which are not. If the stakes in any capitalist dispute are sufficiently high then every available resource is thrown into the struggle, and pious condemnation of this makes not one iota of difference.

Yet this emotional reaction to nuclear war still finds its adherents in CND and similar organisations. It is based on a refusal to face up to the reality of this capitalist world where brute force is a not inconsiderable factor in securing and maintaining a share in the world’s markets. When the permanent bickering over trade periodically flares up into open warfare no power is prepared to fight with one hand voluntarily tied behind its back. Speaking three days after the Hiroshima bombing, Truman’s double-talk made quite clear the purpose of the second world war, which culminated iu the use of a nuclear weapon:

“The U.S. wants no territory or profit or selfish advantage out of this war; we are going to maintain the military bases necessary for the complete protection of our interests and of world peace.” (Our emphasis).

However, in August 1945 the bulk of the press was unanimous in its support of the allied bombing but cautioned its readers on the threat involved to mankind. This took the form of sermonising on the “new world” which was to be ushered in with the coming of “peace” and which had to be a world free from the danger of war. The Daily Express advised:

“Everything turns on the wisdom and goodness of the peoples and their rulers.”

The Daily Telegraph felt that:

“Unless we now so bear ourselves that the power of war-making is stamped out and peace among men of good will is securely established, the human race must go down to ghastly ruin.”

The pacifist Peace News cried from the heart:

“The latent moral crisis of the world has now become evident and palpable. The invention of the atomic bomb imposes upon mankind the necessity of a new behaviour-pattern.

Henceforward, there is only one form of security for Russia or any other great power. That is moral security.”

The Daily Mirror took refuge in the thought:

“Basic power is moral power.”

Originality seemed to have gone by the board. The sum total of this wisdom amounts to this: that wars in the past have been the result of the wickedness of men but if mankind now decides to embrace the good, wholesome life than (God willing) we can all live in peace and plenty.

In Britain, amid this deluge of rubbish, Socialists raised their voices in a common sense analysis of the situation. They explained that man is not innately evil and warlike and that, in a world dominated by production for profit, it is the mad scramble for economic advantage that causes war. Conflicts between nations are the result of friction between their rival economies in the struggle to obtain or keep foreign markets and supplies of raw materials, trade routes and spheres of influence. The decision before mankind of war or peace presents itself as the wider choice between capitalism or socialism.

J. B. S. Haldane, writing on nuclear energy in the Daily Worker, had the cheek to declare:

“Marxists should be the first to realise that with a complete revolution in war and production the principles of politics will also change. What was right last week may be disastrously wrong this week.”

On the contrary, Marxian socialists realise that as long as capitalism: lasts nothing fundamentally changes in the relationship between the property-owning class and the working class; the class struggle continues. The advent of nuclear energy is no reason for socialists to desert their principles. The only effect of nuclear weapons is that the task of the working class—to establish socialism—is now even more urgent. As the Socialist Standard pointed out in October, 1945:

“Your choice is as simple as it is vital! On it rests the future of humanity.” 

If this were true in 1945, how much more so these twenty years later?

John Crump

Anti-climax (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the past year our attention has been turned to the skys in many ways. We had Fred Hoyle’s Lectures (broadcast by the B.B.C.) on the New Cosmology, giving many of us a fascinating insight into the wonders of the universe. In a B.B.C. broadcast we also learned that Societies exist to plan trips to the moon and later to mars, although it is stressed that many years will elapse before they can actually be attempted. In the same programme (Focus on Interplanetary Travel), we were taken on an imaginary trip (by rocket) to the moon.

A book was published entitled, “The Conquest of Space.”  W. Ley had collected technical information on this subject and presented it with pictures (by Chesney Borestell) based on the latest authentic research. The trips to the various planets in the book were, of course, purely imaginary. Becoming “sky-conscious” Hollywood gave us a brace of films, “Destination Moon” and “Rocketship X-M.,” but the most spectacular appeal to public attention was made by the “ Flying Saucers.” This elusive and much publicised phenomena caught the public imagination and the most extraordinary rumours were circulated regarding their speed, manoeuverability and brilliant light, particularly in America where they mostly appeared, although people in British Isles claimed to have seen them.

On 7th October, following much advance publicity, the Sunday Express featured a series of articles on the subject entitled (rather dramatically) “Is another world watching us?” The author, Gerald Heard, was introduced as “distinguished writer and well-known broadcaster,” and the articles were extracts from his book, “The Riddle of the Flying Saucers.” He certainly spread himself at length on the subject as the series did not finish till 3rd December. First a mass of testimony was brought forth by those who claimed to have witnessed the phenomena. Then it was said. “The question of their speed seems to rule out any human designer. . . from a quiet brooding to a speed of 18,000 miles per hour.” Heard put forth an astonishing assortment of suggestions quite seriously, the most fantastic being that they were “manned” by insects from outer space. (Insects being able to withstand the pressure of the tremendous acceleration). Each planet of our solar system was solemnly examined and mars singled out as the only one upon which insect life could exist.

We were told that U.S. Army and Navy denied all knowledge of the saucers: surely Mr. Heard could not be so naive as to accept that as conclusive? A child of average intelligence would realise that if It were a military or naval “ top secret ” it would be disowned rather than acknowledged prematurely.

The conclusion of the articles is more fantastic than all that has gone before and we really question whether Mr. Heard is indulging in that pastime, colloquially known as pulling our legs. He quotes earlier on that “No form of life as we know it could exist on mars, but insect life.” Nevertheless he concludes in the following extraordinary manner:—“The earths rind of rock (the lithosphere) may not be at all thick. It may be possible with our 'modem atom power explosion to burst through it. Then, quite likely, out would come our molten insects. Martians might well have strong views about planets that explode themselves. For turning ourselves into a dust belt filling our entire orbit with a thick mist of fragments we might cut off a dangerously large amount of the all- too-little sunlight they now get . . . When we twice struck Japan and then not to slaughter but to astound— made the Pacific spout, when we, time and again sent up great super-thunderheads of smoke, spray and the wreckage of human industry and human bodies right up into the stratosphere, then we put out a finger to beckon attention on any watching fellow planet that we were the little fellow out for trouble and able and itching to give it. They could hardly have failed to see that defiant wanton signal. Does that close the question Why Now?”

Well! Here comes the anti-climax, the secret is out—flying saucers are atom test balloons. The information was released by the chief of Nuclear Research, U.S. Navy (Daily Herald, 13/2/51).

Shades of Jules Verne. On 31st December, 1950, the Sunday Express patted itself smugly on the back that it had led the field with articles on “that interesting topic Flying Saucers ” and were much flattered that other newspapers were following their lead. They can claim no credit, rather the reverse, for sponsoring these articles as a serious attempt to solve the mystery.

The Astronomer Royal (Sir Harold Spencer Jones) took a dim view of the whole thing and said (when questioned about flying saucers) “It is very significant that most of the reports appear to have come from a country where mass hysteria is rather prevalent.”

We will close by following Mr. Heard’s lead and indulge a short flight of fancy. Supposing that space ships brought beings from another planet. One imagines they would be fleeting visitors to this miserable world of conflicts, and want alongside potential plenty. Interplanetary travel presupposes a more intellectual and very much farther advanced form of life, the outcome of which we should presume to be a classless society, where all the evils that are the outcome of capitalist society could not exist. The inevitable and ultimate goal of all human endeavours.

Many of us would want to “thumb a lift” for the journey back.

F. M. Robins

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Labourite on Profits

Mr. Parkin (Labour, Stroud): “. . . I think that to be attacking the profits is to start at the wrong end; I think that we and the trade union movement ought to be gunning for the firms who are not making any profits. That is our problem in connection with prices, and one which arises out of our success at achieving full employment. We are protecting the inefficient. The big gap of prices is the one which has to be closed, and, therefore, we ought to gun for the fellow not making profits." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

And Another on Capitalism

Mr. Chamberlain (Labour, Norwood): ". . . Then the hon. Member said that the Government are pledged to destroy capitalism. So far from that, they have made it clear again and again that whereas a certain proportion of our economy is to be nationalised, yet the major part of it will remain the province of private capital enterprise, and surely nobody suggests that we should destroy that large part of our economy which is recognised as an essential and important section." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

Income from Foreign Investments

Mr. Awbery asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of foreign investments and the income from them for the years 1913, 1920, 1938 and 1945.

Sir Stafford Cripps: “The figures are as follows: —In 1913, total value about £4,000 million, income £210 million. In 1920, total value £3,200 million to £3,700 million, income £200 million. In 1938 nominal value £3,692 million. These are all private estimates. Gross income from interest, profits and dividends in 1938 is estimated at £205 million and payments at £30 million making a net income of £175 million. No figures are available or the values of investments in 1945, but proceeds of sales during the war amounted to £1,118 million. Gross income in 1945 was £170 million payments £73 million and net income therefore £97 million. (Question Time, 8.11.49).

Nationalisation—A Tory Viewpoint 

Mr. Raikes (Conservative, Liverpool, Wavertree): “. . . Nationalisation is now a fact, and I say quite frankly, speaking from this side of the house, that it is the duty, of all sides to try to make the National Coal Board work, and to work effectively." (National Coal Board Debate, 10.11.49.)

It’s News to Us

Mr. Parkin (Labour, Stroud): “. . . The weakness of some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House is that they do not realise that much of their propaganda—and it may be some of the legislation—springs from the time when we were dispossessed instead of being the ruling classes as we are at the present time." (Debate on Economic Situation, 26.10.49.)

Better Than Nothing!—The Standby of all Labour Governments

Mr. Younger (Under Secretary of State, Home Office): “. . . Reverting for a moment to high explosive defence, I believe that in broad terms it is the expert opinion that it is three times better to be in a house than to be in the open; and it is five time better to be in an ordinary brick surface shelter than to be in a house. That is to say, it is 15 times better to be in a shelter than in the street. It is not complete protection, but it is better than nothing . . ."

“. .. The suggestion that the fact of a person being in a shelter would make no difference at all is contrary to the advice I am given. I am advised that there is a radius from an atomic explosion at which these shelters could be helpful, and they are better than nothing."

“. . . I should not want it to be thought that anything I am saying is to be taken as suggesting that the expert view of the Government is that the 1945 standard of protection is either adequate against the atomic bomb or against what could be expected in the matter of high explosives. All I do say is that, pending further provision on a tremendously increased scale to meet the country’s requirements, it is very much better to have what we have got than nothing at all." (Demolition of Air-Raid Shelters, 28.10.49.) 

Stan Hampson

A Socialist's Reflections on Atomic Energy (1948)

From the February 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the fundamentals of Scientific Socialism is the theory that when productive forces have reached a certain stage in their development, they rebel against conditions of production. This culminates in social revolution; conditions of production are harmonised with the forces of production and a new social system comes into being. Application of this theory to contemporary capitalism shows productive forces rebelling against these obsolete conditions of production, i.e. capitalism. Atomic energy is an intensification of that rebellion, a rebellion which manifests itself in slumps and wars. Social production conflicts with private ownership. The solution of this conflict is social ownership. The need for this social ownership is becoming clearer daily.

Under capitalism the purpose of production is for sale on the market in order to secure a profit for the capitalist class, which owns the means of production. When goods cannot be sold at a profit, production ceases. Wealth is produced solely by the working class, the vast majority of the population of advanced capitalist countries. This class is divorced from the means of life and therefore has to sell its labour power to the capitalists, who own the means of life. The working class does not merely produce the equivalent of its wages. It produces a surplus value, from which the capitalist class derives its income in the form of rent, interest and profit. Thus the working class, comprising most of society, produces more than it is able to buy.

When goods cannot be sold at a profit production ceases. Millions become unemployed and suffer from lack of food, clothing and shelter, not because of shortage but owing to a glut. The capitalist classes of various countries consequently scramble for new markets, this scramble culminating in war.

Production increases in face of a market shrinking owing to industrialisation everywhere, thus making slumps and wars more catastrophic. Atomic energy will naturally intensify these problems, if capitalism will exist when it is applied. It may lead to the extinction of mankind.

The appearance of the atomic bomb on the scene makes the obsolete nature of existing conditions of production obvious. The mouthpieces of the ruling class are in despair. Their attempts to prevent wars or even the use of atom bombs are miserable failures.

It is clear that the application of atomic energy to industry will intensify the rebellion of productive forces against obsolete conditions. Socialism, involving the harmonising of social production with social ownership, forces of production with conditions of production, will not merely solve the problem presented by increased forces of production, but will make these forces, such as atomic energy, an asset to mankind.

Under Socialism production will be solely for use and when sufficient will have been produced, society will enjoy the products of its labour. Any devices enabling society to produce more wealth more easily in a shorter time will obviously be welcomed.

The choice lies in the hands of every worker. Increasing misery under capitalism or employment of the control over Nature, which man has obtained for the benefit of mankind, under Socialism. Socialism is not merely possible—its establishment is vital if mankind is to survive.

F.T.

Do It Yourself: How to make your own Atomic Bomb (1955)

From the November 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

To-day almost everyone does it himself. A large trade has grown up in kits of parts which you buy in a carton and stick together. Tables and chairs, of course, wireless and television sets, garages and garden-sheds, clothing and rugs, electric fittings and all-night-burning stoves; we all buy the bits and “do it ourselves." “Save pounds” says the advertisement. Even the Book of Instructions issued by one group in this line is published in separate parts. After studying the section on “Bookbinding" you buy the materials and "bind it yourself."

It is not unusual on Friday evenings to see a "City gent" (i.e. office-worker) staggering to the terminus, bowler hat and umbrella in one hand, so that the other may cope successfully with a bundle of wall paper.

This idea permits of some extension. No firm has yet put out kits of parts to build your own car or even bicycle, though "knock-downs” (cars in bits in boxes) have been exported for years.

It will probably come. So far nobody has issued instructions on how to make an Atomic Bomb which, though of moderate proportions suitable for the "little man" is still quite effective. Yet as our diagram shows the actual construction is fairly simple. The "secret" of the whole business is apparently in the "critical weight" of the two separate pieces of uranium. According to our information about 3lbs. of refined uranium should be sufficient. It should be clearly understood that we are not supplying kits of parts, neither can we give addresses of firms supplying materials. Nor can we accept responsibility for accidents. Our information is culled from "Achievements of Modern Science,” by A. D. Merriman, Gregg Publishing Co., 1949.

We would emphasise that although the atom bomb is the trigger for the modern hydrogen bomb, the latter is quite beyond the capacity of the ordinary home constructor, however enthusiastic.

According to the statement published by Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, and other scientists, while the atom bomb "only" obliterated Hiroshima “no one knows how widely such radio-active particles might be diffused, but the best authorities are unanimous in saying that a war with H-bombs might quite possibly put an end to the human race ” (Evening Standard, July 9, 1955).

Therefore we do not see that any objection can be raised to a small weapon of the type we have mentioned. Those numerous “Pacifists" who are not against wars fought with old-fashioned weapons but only against large atomic missiles; all the supporters of the Russian disarmament schemes which propound the limitation of only those arms in which Russia is deficient; cannot logically object to a small home-constructor's effort, which, compared to the tests now opening craters in the sea-bed, is only kid-stuff.

Neither can we see how people who support “Peacetime" Capitalism with its fantastic road casualties alone, which regularly exceeds one million a year in one country, the U.S.A., can really care whether people make their own bombs or not. These could never compete with the most lethal weapon of modern times, the motor-car in the hands of a harassed and worried driver.

In the first flush of the Socialist Movement the idea of the “Citizens Militia" was popular. It was a hang over from the days of the National Guard in France when workers could buy cannon and maintain them at their own expense. The scheme was that each citizen kept his own weapon in readiness at home. Perhaps the next Labour Government could revert to this; instructing each “Z” class man to report with his birth certificate and home-made atomic bomb all ready, thus making considerable economies in Defence Expenditure. We make no charge for this suggestion. The Labour Party badly needs some.

Finally may we urge those desirous of undertaking private research in nuclear physics in the garden shed (after all, the Curies discovered radium in a derelict shed) to see that their personal papers are in order. Bequests donating money or property to the Socialist Party of Great Britain should be drawn up by a qualified solicitor, who will also supply the necessary Government stamp.

On the other hand, perhaps it might be better to send a smaller donation, and remain alive to advocate Socialism. Work of that sort will eventually produce a Socialist Society where atoms will be controlled by intelligence.

Horatio.

Correction (2005)

From the November 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

Two mistakes found their way into the article "Why They Dropped the Bombs" in the October issue. The date of the Potsdam ultimatum to Japan was 26 July not 21 July as stated and there was a reference to a comment of the Joint Intelligence Committee in "March 1940". Readers will have realised that this cannot have been since the US and Japan were not even at war at that point. It should of course have read "March 1944".

Sting in the Tail: A Sordid Tale (1990)

The Sting in the Tail column from the October 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Sordid Tale

The history of British Labour governments is littered with sordid episodes. One of these was told on ITV's "A Marriage of Inconvenience" on 15 August.

In 1949 Ruth Williams, a white Briton, married Seretse Khama, a tribal chief In the British "Protectorate" of Bechuanaland. The neighbouring South African government, which had just imposed Apartheid, was outraged and demanded that the Labour government refuse to recognise Khama as legitimate chief.

Attlee, the Labour Prime Minister, was determined that Britain must have its own atom bomb but the American government wouldn't provide the necessary know-how.

But America was short of uranium which South Africa had in plenty, so the Labour government made a deal with South Africa to betray Khama in return for uranium which it would then swop for American atom secrets.

Khama was summoned to London to be subjected to threats, attempted bribery and finally banishment from Bechuanaland.

So the government that claimed to oppose Apartheid actually assisted it, while the cynicism and treachery they displayed would have shamed the hardest-hearted Tory.

The re-telling of this episode is a reminder that Labour governments will stop at nothing in their efforts on behalf of British capitalism.

Trotsky's "Marxism"

The 50th anniversary of Trotsky’s murder had his followers lavishing the usual praise on their hero.

In a letter to The Guardian (23 August), David Widgery of the Socialist Workers Party claimed, among other things, that Trotsky had applied Marxist analysis to 20th century events.

We deny this: What Trotsky applied was the bombastic crystal-gazing which had him writing in 1935, for example, that ". . . England is heading for a revolutionary explosion" only months before the Tories won their biggest ever majority.

According to Trotsky the sit-down strikes by French workers in 1936 "revealed the wholehearted readiness of the proletariat to overthrow the capitalist system", that capitalism in 1938 was in its "death agony", etc., etc.

History has proved Trotsky's analyses to be nonsense and his legacy to the working class has been to confuse thousands of them down the years.

Ryzhkov's "Marxism"

In the struggle for power inside the Communist Party of the USSR there appears to be a conflict between those who would immediately go over to a Western-style market economy and those who would have that change enacted more gradually.

Amongst the gradualists is the present Prime Minister Nikolai Ryzhkov. But to illustrate the hypocrisy and deceit of the ruling élite  in the USSR his more gradual approach does not apply to his own personal ownership.

In the youth daily Komsomolskaya Pravada, it has been reported that Ryzhkov has bought his state dacha with one-and-a-half hectares of forest for the ludicrous sum of 47,000 roubles (officially £47,000 but in reality about one tenth that amount judging by the foreign tourist rate.)

With the thought of yet another coal strike in the offing perhaps Mr. Ryzhkov plans to have a good supply of firewood on hand this winter. Another example of "socialist" planning?

Off the Rails

During the enquiry into the Clapham rail disaster, which led to 35 deaths, the Westminster coroner Paul Knapman made a telling point about the cause of the disaster, when questioning the technician who carried out the faulty signalling work.

During questioning of Mr. Hemingway, Mr. Knapman said that he believed that there were four "core reasons" for the disaster — a lack of instruction; a lack of supervision; a lack of testing along the guidelines set out in circular SL-53; and "the general reckless haste, pressure, pressure, pressure" of the re-signalling work

The Independent 11 September

That the pressure was indeed intense is backed up by the information that Hemingway had had only one day off in 13 weeks, that he had no formal training and that the acting testing officer who had to check Hemingway's work had no formal training either.

The "core reason" for the Clapham disaster is of course capitalism. In a sane society based on production for use there would be no need to scrimp on safety measures.

Reformist "Progress"

The Gulf crisis has meant a big set-back for environmentalists in the USA.

Until now their pressure (aided by the low cost of imported oil) has enabled them to block further oil exploration, notably in Alaska and off the Californian coast.

Now the strategists who consider the long-term interests of US capitalism insist that America has become too dependent on imported oil and that more domestic oil production is in "the national interest".

The oil companies are using this situation to turn the tables on their enemy. One of their chief spokesmen stated:

The national security aspects in oil have been completely subordinated in recent years to the environmental concerns. Now the emphasis is coming back to the national security aspect. If there is a conflict between the two, it may no longer be resolved in favour of the environmentalists.

The Guardian 25 August

And the environmentalists' other bogey, the nuclear industry, has seized the opportunity to strenghten its case by pointing out that nuclear plants greatly reduce US dependence on oil imports.

On top of this come allegations that environmentalists are a threat to national security! Congressman Dannemeyer of California says:

The environmentalists party . . . is a greater security threat than Saddam Hussein could ever be.

Now that the "communist" menace has gone, maybe the environmentalists will be the next victims to be labelled "un-American". Stranger things have happened.

Down on the Farm

Riot police lobbing tear gas grenades at angry crowds — lorries hi-jacked — roads blocked by burning debris — a scene from Lebanon, South Africa or Palestine?

No. This is rural France as farmers protest at the import of meat and lamb.

Many of them face ruin as the price of lamb has fallen by 17 per cent, calves by 10 per cent and cows by 7 per cent.

Some "experts" blame the French government for cutting subsidies, some the import of cheap produce from Britain, others blame cheap imports from Eastern Europe. None of them apparently blame the real cause — capitalism with its production for profit. 

The spectacle of children starving — while farmers riot about the ruin that faces them as the meat mountain grows — is just another example of how essential it is that we scrap the out-dated system of society that produces everything for sale despite the desperate needs of the world's hungry.

Workers leave the running of society in the hands of "experts" at their peril.

The Passing Show: On The Bomb (1966)

The Passing Show Column from the September 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

On The Bomb

What sort of picture does that title paint for you? Probably one of unparalleled destruction and misery, of thousands of people wiped out in a matter of minutes; of a shadow of mixed gloom and terror which has darkened the world ever since those fateful days in early August, 1945, when the fruits of the hideous “Manhattan Project” were delivered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I well remember the giant newspaper headlines and the sloppy, hypocritical editorials, bleating about “international control” of this new super weapon, saying how it could be perhaps a “force for peace” if it were kept “in the right hands,” etc, and expressing thanks that it had at least been used to speed the end of the war against Japan and save many allied lives. This has since been nailed as a lie, and the fact made known that the war was kept going in face of Japanese attempts at surrender negotiations, so that the bomb could be dropped. Nevertheless, the lie is often repeated by capitalist politicians, plus the new one that the bomb is necessary as a deterrent to “the other side,” so that this uneasy lull they call peace can be maintained.

Socialists think it is a tragedy that workers in any part of the world should lose their lives in the defence of capitalism’s interests, and this has typified our attitude to all weapons of war. But to the patriotic British or American worker in 1945 it was a case of “Thank God we got there first!” Well, now the wheel has turned quite a few times and the nuclear club numbers five members, with others like India and West Germany wondering whether to join. In the past 20 years the bomb has become a diplomatic weapon of the first importance; one might almost call it a first-class admission ticket to any of the top international conference tables.

It is against such a background that you should consider movements of protest like CND, which have sprung up in this and other countries over the past few years. When we say that these movements must fail, this is not to underestimate the sincerity of many of their members. It is simply that they take no account of the social conditions which have fostered such horrors as the bomb. The roots of war, atomic or otherwise, are in the capitalist system and none of its conflicts yet have been fought with kid gloves.

Once born, man's atomic knowledge cannot be destroyed. It will be refined and developed, and under capitalism perverted for base ends. Within private property society there is no sensible meaning to the term "for peaceful purposes". Only in a Socialist world could we guarantee that atomic energy would be used solely for human welfare, and the monstrosities of nuclear bombs be but a ghastly memory.

The shock of going out to work

I never used to believe my parents when they told me that my schooldays were the happiest days of my life. I began to believe them in earnest on the first day I went out to work. Not that school life is that much of an uplifting experience, as we know; for most of us it is only a training for the workaday world we have to face at some stage in our adolescence. But when that world at last closes round us and the irrevocable step has been taken, we realise with a sudden jolt that the comparatively carefree days of short hours and long holidays are gone for good.

From now on we begin to covet those two or three weeks of holiday a year and the precious evening and weekend leisure hours. Suddenly we seem to be too short of spare time to do the things we’d like to do—neither do we have the necessary cash—and we begin to find the restrictions of factory and office routine irksome to say the least. Perhaps we haven’t yet grasped the full impact of what has happened, but sooner or later the awful truth begins to dawn on us that this is the beginning of our wage earning years, stretching away before us through a lifetime of care and struggle. 

There is the job, and a pay packet at the end of the week or month, and the terrifying prospect of doing something we don’t want to do for the next 40-odd years. Many people try to dodge the issue by changing jobs when the boredom gets too acute, and it’s nothing unusual for boys and girls nowadays to have had a whole series of employers within a year or two of leaving.school. But whichever way we turn, the black ogre of wage slavery confronts us, devouring the peak years of our lives in dull unfulfilling and often stultifying activity. No wonder we set such store by our spare time. It’s usually the only part of the day we can even think about doing something which really interests us.

For work under capitalism is not a means of expressing and developing ourselves to the full. It is merely a means of getting a living wage, and for the employer of course of getting his profits. And this state of affairs is doing a lot of harm to a lot of workers everywhere.

On Authority 

In Ludovic Kennedy’s book on the Stephen Ward Trial, there is an interesting paragraph or two on the functions and activities of “The Establishment” in a time of crisis. It was Kennedy’s contention that whatever Ward’s morality he had committed no legal offence, but had roused the wrath of those in authority by ratting on his former politician friend Profumo. The scandal rocked the government at the time, but says Kennedy, the Establishment closed its ranks and earmarked Ward for special treatment.

Socialists have long realised the ability of the ruling class to stand together when the occasion demands, and ruthlessly destroy anyone who threatens to bring its authority into public ridicule and contempt. For mass loyalty and “respect for their betters” by the working class is certainly essential to our masters if they are to get support for (or at least acquiescence in) the continuation of their system of privilege and exploitation.

Our press and politicians will try to tell us that this is “our” country and that we have a vested interest in being proud of it. In support, they will point to the various institutions, such as the Church and Royal Family, which we can look up to because they are supposed to be above “sectional interests” and therefore bind us all together in common interest. And although risqué jokes may be tossed about at times, this version dished out by authority is generally accepted by workers.

Now both the Church and the Royal Family are exceedingly rich and are symbolic of private property society, and for this reason alone would earn the Socialist Party’s hostility; but it would not really be true to say that they are above politics. True, they make no political pronouncements but they are part of the constitutional set-up in Great Britain and are expected to co-operate with the government in its day-to-day administration of capitalism. The Queen, for example, signs Parliamentary Bills, calls Privy Council meetings and generally does what she’s told. Neither the Monarch nor the Church has any power to resist the will of the capitalist class. That matter was settled a long time ago.

Which in itself is an answer to those who advocate a republic. Whether or not the Monarchy has any power makes precious little difference to the essential division of wealth and the subject position of the working class. France, U.S.A. and Russia, for example, all operate without a monarchy. And they are just as much capitalist states as Britain or Sweden.

Gaspers

“A Labour Government will not be a soft option.” (Jim Northcott, in Why Labour. Penguin Books, 1963).

“My politics were confused. 1 was a Liberal-Radical, a Tory-Democrat and a Fabian Socialist.” (Harold Macmillan—The Winds of Change).

“He (Mr. Wilson) has put aside promises now. He is giving us threats instead. Why? The fact is that he simply has no choice. Britain (like it or not) is a capitalist country, living in a predominantly capitalist world.” (Charles Curran, Evening News, 15.7.66).

“This journal will do anything in its power, short of betraying its principles, to support a Labour government.” (New Statesman. 15.7.66).

“Labour members must realise how wrong they are to describe stop-go as Tory policy. It has been the policy of all governments since the war.” (Selwyn Lloyd, Commons debate. 27.7.66).

Eddie Critchfield

He gave us Hell! (1973)

From the February 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

Among the myth-shrouded images of capitalism’s politicians — the image of rich man, strong man, clever man and so on — there exists a place for common man, the one who climbs up from simple origins and thereby proves that buried somewhere beneath the privilege and suppression of capitalism there is a streak of essential hope.

Such a man was Harry Truman, who was President of the United States between 1945 and 1952 and who died in the last days of 1972. Truman, who came of an unpromising family background, was a failed mine prospector, oil man and haberdasher before he went, surrounded by cronies, into Kansas City politics in the Twenties. He was aided in this venture by the patronage of fearsome Boss Prendergast, who dominated the Democratic Party in Kansas City and Prendergast helped Truman to become first Judge and later Senator. Clearly, Truman was a fast learner and a slick worker; Prendergast however was not famous for a reverence for the legal niceties and his record of bribery and corruption was halted in 1939 by a 15-year prison sentence for tax evasion. Truman adroitly managed to avoid any of the Prendergast mud sticking to him.

In the Senate Truman soldiered on until in 1944 he emerged, as the saying goes, as a compromise between Henry Wallace and James Byrne as Vice-Presidential candidate to run with Roosevelt. By that time Roosevelt’s rule over the massive war machine of American capitalism was of great political importance. All over the world, workers who thought it their duty to fight and to die in the interests of their masters regarded Roosevelt as a great, comforting father figure. When he died, and Truman was thrust into the Presidency, a tremor of unease ran through the workers of the Allied countries. Who was this little man, known till then only for posing for a leggy picture with Lauren Bacall? Was he strong (in other words ruthless) enough to keep up the war? Would he be willing to kill enough workers on the other side? There was not long to wait for the answer.

Within months of taking over Truman had played his part as one of the victorious jackals of Potsdam, tearing up the carcass of Europe and the Far East and redrawing the frontiers to make the focal points of future conflicts. And he had ordered the use of the atomic bomb on the cities of Japan — upon live, warm, feeling human beings who turned into dust beneath the new horror weapon unleashed by the little man in the White House. Truman said later that he had cleared it all with Stalin. In this country the Attlee government set its course as the first majority Labour government in British history by also approving this act of cold-blooded mass murder.

Fortified, Truman gave the order for the manufacture of the American H-bomb — again approved, and copied by, the Labour government. He rushed America into the Korean war, and arranged afterwards for his side to be called the United Nations, which presumably was meant to make everyone feel better about it. It is said that he did not realise the possible consequences of these decisions — as if there is anything unusual about that. His sacking of the fabulously popular General McArthur was a calculated risk in which the calculations came off.

In 1948 the Republicans made the most of Truman’s difficulties in trying to control American capitalism, fighting the election on the slogan “Had Enough?” Truman, urged on with the battle cry “Give ’em hell, Harry”, fought a peppery campaign and secured his historical place as the little man made good when he upset all predictions by beating the smooth New York lawyer Dewey. In fact his was a shrewdly judged campaign. Truman gave up in 1952, just in time to avoid the Eisenhower landslides.

When he died Truman was widely described as a “great” American president. Presumably the word means that he was always ready to do whatever dirty work capitalism required of him. In the system’s long history of trickery, suppression and butchery no leader will deserve a more prominent place.

Ivan

Hiroshima and After! (1945)

From the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another date has been added to History’s gruesome chronology of horror. Hiroshima, August 5th 1945, marks the application of a new technique in the sordid science of slaughter. In one catastrophic flash a city has been destroyed and “all life seared to death”. While the monument of dust still towered above the ruins, the news was released upon a world almost satiated with carnage.

Yet it is significant to observe that although the use of the atomic bomb hastened the end of the war in the East, the announcement was received with little popular enthusiasm.

Before 1939 it was comparatively easy for the ruling class to convince the workers of the need for a large navy, army, and air force. Armaments, they maintained would ward off would-be aggressors and thereby ensure peace. Their solicitude for our safety seemed almost genuine. Years of grim experience, however, have proved the Socialists’ contention that armaments are no insurance against war. New methods of persuasion will be needed next time to herd the population into the future shoddy equivalents of Anderson shelters, particularly since we are told by the US War Department that “an atomic bomb could be made 1,000 times more powerful than the type used on Japan”. (Sunday Despatch, August 12th, 1945). There will be very few near miss stories!

The reaction of the military mind is summed up by General Ismay, who in 1941 stated on behalf of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, “although personally, I am quite content with the existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement”. (Times, August 7th, 1945).

Let there be no mistake! The disastrous effect of this latest device to uplift humanity will in no way prevent its use. In fact because of the power of destruction, it becomes obvious that the element of surprise will be a major advantage in war. It may well be that a matter of hours will decide which group of capitalists will emerge victorious from the next edition, which gang will be jet-propelled on the next Crooks Tour, to sit at the fleshpots of some future Potsdam Conference.

Unfortunately for the British and American capitalistic class it will be impossible to monopolise the development of nuclear power. Sir James Chadwick, chief scientific advisor to the British members of the Combined Allied Policy Committee in Washington, has admitted that any nation with reasonable industrial facilities could start now and produce an atom bomb in 5 years’ time, without assistance from Britain and the USA. Its antecedents are the past ages of patient research. From the 1890’s when the Curies conducted experiments in radio-activity, up to the recent perverted achievement, the efforts of such scientists as Professor Rutherford of Manchester, Niels Bohr of Copenhagen, Dr Lawrence of California University, Professor Joliot of France, and others in Germany, Japan, Russia and elsewhere, prove indisputably that in the modern world production is a social function. In brief, as reported by the US War Department the bomb was created “not by the devilish inspiration of some warped genius, but by the arduous labour of thousands of normal men and women”. (Sunday Despatch, August 12th, 1945), i.e., members of the working class.

Needless to remark the news has produced a spate of advice, comments, explanations, warnings, and prophecies from people qualified and otherwise. Among the latter, Mr G. B. Shaw, in the Sunday Express, August 12th, 1945, unable to explain, yet urged to say something reverts to hollow flippancies, and reminiscences of childhood days. Dr Joad, emulating Churchill thanks God, “for one of the innumerable dispensations of Providence by which this country has been preserved”, and asks querulously, “Will nobody stop these damned scientists, put them in a bag, and tie them up! Or into a lethal chamber?” (Sunday Despatch, August 12th, 1945). Although goaded to repeat the question when we see such waste of print, or hear his brain storms distorting the ether waves, we know that the fault lies not with the scientists, but with the system of society which corrupts their discoveries.

General Fuller in the Sunday Pictorial, commenting on the cause of war, says “there are several . . . but in the economic age in which we live, the one which seems to me to tower above all others, is the ‘profit motive'”. To socialists the profit motive is the only explanation of war in the modern world.

As long as Capitalism remains, there will be no slackening of research for even “better and more beautiful” methods of destruction, no tightening of the purse-strings which have already disgorged £500,000,000. Meanwhile the producers of wealth will be sampling the elusive fruits of rationed victory amid Portal shanty-towns and unemployment queues.

There is no need to enlarge on the physical results of atomic warfare. Combined with jet-propulsion, mass-murder is possible by remote control.

It is, however, relevant to examine a few of its effects on the current political fallacies of the defenders of “private enterprise”.

The USA is now as vulnerable to attack as the rest of the world. Geographical situation offers no advantage, and in consequence the last crumbling bastion of isolationism is breached. This is clearly demonstrated by her policy of expansion especially in the Pacific.

All ideas of warfare are obsolete, or at least require drastic revision, and already, at the end of the worst war in history, the spectre of the next conflict haunts the celebrations of peace.

Sooner than we realize nuclear power may be harnessed to industry. In the inevitable scramble for production and profit gluts, slumps and unemployment figures will reach new levels and defy solution by the obsolete plans of the Beveridge type.

These are just a few of the problems of Capitalism: that Hydra-headed system which the Labour Party now administers in Great Britain; but will never control. Many supporters of the Labour Party are still deluded by the idea that Nationalisation is a major step in a policy of gradualism which will “reform capitalism out of existence”. The sledge-hammer blows of events will nail this tragic error!

Wars are inherent in the private-property system itself, and are likely to wipe millions of workers out of existence, while the futile pin-pricks of reform leave its structure untouched.

Who can now suggest that the policy of the Socialist Party of Gt. Britain, though correct in theory, is one for application only in some remote future? Who would question the practicability of our case?

There is no time for complacency! Let us face the fact that time is on our side only if we seize it by the forelock and use it to our advantage.

Socialism, the only solution to the problems which confront us, is the need not of the century, but of the hour!

Sympathisers, men and women of the working class, we urge you to join with us in the struggle for emancipation.

You have but two alternatives! Either the poverty, servitude and degradation of Capitalism, culminating in war, or Socialism in which the inventive genius of man will be used for the welfare of all society.

Your choice is as simple as it is vital! On it rests the future of humanity!

R. V.

Power ! Atomic or Political? (1948)

Pamphlet Review from the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The charge is made in certain quarters that, since the dropping of atom bombs on Japan, there has been deliberate damping down on discussion, particularly of the danger to life and health of the workers in the atomic plants. One of those who make the charge is Mr. J. C. Thomson, of Edinburgh, who puts in strong terms his own views and those of writers from whom he quotes. If there is an answer to his charges we do not know it.

“Our Expanding Atomic Stupidity” is a sixpenny pamphlet by James C. Thomson of the Kingston Clinic, Edinburgh. It is a strongly-worded exposure, not only of atomic bombs, but also of its extravagant promises for use in industry and therapy. Mr. Thomson collects a mass of evidence to show that the production of atomic energy in nuclear plants is, in itself, a menace to all forms of life, animal and vegetable. As a matter of fact, it would appeal from the statements of those intimately acquainted with the subject, that the rot has already started and is well on the way, that the radio-active material released by bombs or escaping from factories, has got beyond the control of man.

On the bomb tests at Bikini he quotes Vice-Admiral W. H. P. Blandy, U.S.N., who witnessed the tests, as saying: “The atomic bomb is a poison weapon.”

Mr. Thomson says that the ships from Bikini are still contaminated, the Atoll remains uninhabitable, and the radio-active cloud blown into the upper atmosphere still coheres and continues to move around the world. Early in May, 1947, it was claimed that the “death cloud” was circling the world for the sixth time. According to Dr. Rebman of the University of California, “The danger from the cloud was so great, that during its passage over U.S.A. planes were warned to stay below 17,000 feet to avoid it.” Dr. Stafford L. Warren, chief radio safety officer at the bomb tests, and Dean of the Medical School of the University of California, describes it as: “A blast that grows more and more sinister the longer scientists study its results . . . But that second one at Bikini really ties this business up in a knot. . . Literally astronomical quantities of radio-active materials had become intimately mixed with the sea water, mist and spray which accompanied the formation of the giant mushroom of water which rose from the lagoon. Such atomic mist will deposit huge amounts of radium-equivalent; anywhere from a ton to 100 tons. When this mist moves in over a city you have to evacuate the people right away or they will die from gamma radiation. You couldn't clean the area. The fissionable material would get into the water—into everything. It would get into next year’s crop. I'm not so worried about the killing of 50 to 75 million people as I am about the wiping out of resources.”

But bombs are no longer required, says Mr. Thomson: “More slowly, but quite as efficiently, the same result is being achieved through the fumes given off from atomic fission factories. Every wind that blows through such a factory comes out radio-active. The screening devices used in atomic factories slow down the spread of radio-activity, but even these absorbent and reflecting materials present danger. No matter how much, or what particular substance is used, it gradually acquires radio-activity, and a point comes when it must be broken up and dispersed. Not that dispersal solves all difficulties. It merely takes the danger to a new area. At the American factories the isotope garbage is placed in concrete chests and dumped in the sea or into swamps.”

But it is not only the screens that become radioactive. The scientists and workers in the factories become affected; though this is denied by Professor Mott, President of the Atomic Scientists' Association, who says: “Protection of these workers is so easily and strictly applied that it is inconceivable that workers could be affected.” in reply to this Mr. Thomson says:

“I wonder if Professor Mott has heard of the great hospital built to accommodate the damaged workers from the Manhattan Project? And how soon it was filled to overflowing? And of how a great annexe was hurriedly constructed to be likewise filled to capacity? And of how still another annexe had to he improvised to keep the radio-active workers from filtering back home to contaminate their families and neighbours? (And, incidentally, to prevent them from talking).”

According to Mr. Thomson the bodies of the victims remain radio-active. Cremation does not quench it. And grave yards can be affected. While the Daily Graphic (8/4/47) mentions a notice in a New York paper offering “atomic burial vaults with concrete walls, interlined with lead, ready for delivery in May. That, at the moment is the insoluble problem of the U.S.A. morticians (undertakers to you); how to dispose of their radio-active clients without exposing themselves to danger.”

In some sections of the press there have appeared strongly-worded attacks on scientists as a body. They have been blamed, not only for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but for all the indications of worse to come in the future. The truth is that those who control the political machinery of the state are alone responsible. It was the heads of the capitalist state who saw, in the splitting of the atom, the promise of a new force that would revolutionise war and industry in their class interest. In the early days they could not foresee the dangers, though scientists, with experience of radium, knew that precautions would be more than ever necessary. The press could see nothing but benefits for mankind. The press is still registering that opinion. When the dangers appeared; a mysterious sickness, lassitude, danger of contagion to families and friends, and sterility; the entire industry was sworn to secrecy. What mattered a few thousand wage-slaves with this colossal power within their grasp? But the demand goes on, and must increase because of wastage of manpower in these factories. "There is to be a training school for boys and girls of 15 and over, who have studied chemistry at school, to be opened by the Ministry of Supply at the Government atomic energy factory at Springfields, near Preston ... the first course would begin in August. . . Salaries will start at £140 a year at the age of 15, rising to £276 for men and £257 10s. for women by the age of 26.” (Scotsman, 5/5/47.)

On this Mr. Thomson comments as follows: "Is It possible that nobody at the Ministry of Supply knows of the biological disruption awaiting the majority of these youngsters? Not one word of warning appears. Just an alluring offer of free training to be followed with good wages.”

All this applies to the rank and file workers. As in most industries there are supervisors, and others, known as high-ups. Mr. Thomson's records do not present them in a favourable light. He has been at some pains to collect evidence of their callous indifference to the sufferings of atomic victims. He says:

"As James Cameron reported (Express, 25/9/46) "The most scared man in the world today are the atom-splitters.’ But Cameron also provides an indication that not all workers in the fission field are sensible of their communal responsibilities: ‘Many of the atomic scientists arc honest men already somewhat stricken by the fruits of their energy. But—one of them I met on the island of Bikini—was, I am sorry to say, British, and so far as I am concerned he has no name. But he spoke in terms so crude and heartless, propounded a doctrine so pernicious, held the happiness of his fellow men so low, that he sent away even a bunch of shellback American newspaper men, revolted and appalled'." The same James Cameron also said: “Let us not be too kind to the scientists. They have a tendency to protect themselves as the reluctant tools of a relentless military, forced . . . to debase their knowledge to barbarism. In actual fact, a few weeks before Hiroshima a poll of more than 150 scientists working on the project was taken . . . More than half of them voted for demonstration in an inhibited area.”

No doubt these scientists were the high-ups. Never-the-less it was not their votes that decided the fate of Hiroshima; that decision was made by someone with real power. Mr. Thomson says: "One authority is quoted as stating that the decision to drop the bombs on inhabited cities ‘was made by the Army and Navy.’ That is a direct contradiction of President Truman’s claim that he alone made that ‘least objectionable choice'. "

Whatever attitude the scientists adopt the ultimate power always rests with the political heads of the state. Mr. Thomson presents his case against atomic bombs and fission factories with admirable precision, but on this side of the question he is indefinite. He says:

“With more and more stations and factories coming into action, a steady poisoning of our atmosphere is already taking place. Unless the public become enlightened enough to force our rulers to call a halt, the sum total of radioactive 'dew' in the atmosphere must slowly increase until life as we know it—vegetable, animal and human—can no longer exist on this planet.”

If Mr. Thomson holds that our rulers must be forced to call a halt, he should have indicated the nature of the force that would be equal to the task. He has not done so. So-called public enlightenment today rests on the capitalist press, and is merely enlightenment on matters affecting the capitalist way of life. At the moment capitalist interests determine that atomic factories shall continue, and that all criticism of the work must he discouraged.; hence there is no question of the press being divided on the subject. There is no opportunity for a study of the facts for and against. The factories are State-owned. They may never pay dividends, but they are experimenting in the capitalist interest. They are capitalist property, part of the means of wealth production owned by that class. The only solution is to make them the common property of the people, along with all the other means of life; to be democratically controlled by the people as a whole. Under such a system poison factories would be eliminated; while the people would operate the rest for the satisfaction of their needs. The working-class alone can do this by organising for control of the political machinery that capitalist control may be superseded by the Socialist way of life.

F. Foan

Why they dropped the bombs (2005)

From the October 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

Richard Headicar concludes his analysis of the reasons why the US dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. 

Link to Part 1

Understandably Allied servicemen involved in the Pacific war, many of whom experienced the unspeakable horrors of Japanese prisoner of war camps, welcomed the atomic bombs as a “miracle of deliverance”. With a few notable exceptions, even those historians who conclude that dropping the bombs was not necessary to obtain Allied victory – that it would not even have been necessary to invade Japan – generally accept that using the bombs probably shortened the war. Even if only by a few weeks. In the grim reality of war, the life of a single comrade saved is worth a thousand enemy slain.

But what would such men think if they knew that, far from shortening the war, the atomic bombs actually prolonged it? That for all the crocodile tears shed about the “terrible plight” of the captives; for all hollow praise heaped upon the “heroic sacrifices” of the armed forces they were, after all, merely expendable pawns in the unrelenting hostilities of power politics? That “bringing our boys back as soon as possible”, was not actually the first order of business?

Did the US want Russian intervention?

By the time the atom bombs were dropped, Allied victory through overwhelming military superiority was virtually assured. Also, at Potsdam in July 1945, Stalin had confirmed his intention to enter the war on 15 August. As President Truman, writing in his private journal, noted at the time: “Fini Japs when that comes about”. In fact Russia declared war on Japan on 8 August and the following day – just hours later in Far East time – Russian troops attacked in Manchuria and Korea. The rapidity with which they penetrated against the cream of the Japanese army is convincing evidence for many commentators that Japanese surrender would have swiftly followed. Surely such a potentially decisive intervention would have been welcomed by those pledged to “bringing our boys back as soon as possible”? Surely every effort would have been made to encourage the speediest possible participation of the Russian military as a matter of utmost urgency? Not so!

The attitude of the US policy makers regarding Russian intervention, even though initially positive, was never entirely free from fear-fuelled ambivalence. And, corresponding with increasingly encouraging reports from the Manhattan project, that attitude eventually hardened to become actively negative. Well-founded mutual suspicion governed every move; trickery and deception concerning their respective intentions was extensively employed by both sides. And, once again, American Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes, unashamedly declared his hand. He thought that it would be “regrettable” if Russia became involved in the war. He was desperately worried that if Stalin knew about the awesome power of the atomic bomb (he did) he might “immediately enter the war”. So Byrnes sought to delay Russian entry. That his attempts were unsuccessful is largely irrelevant and hardly the point, which is that the US leaders did not want Russian intervention. Firstly, because they were intent on using their atomic bombs before the war in the Pacific ended and, secondly, they were reluctant to share their prospective economic and political influence in the Far East with anyone else, friend or foe.

Although Stalin had no qualms about rescinding the Neutrality Pact with Japan, the likelihood of Russia entering the Pacific War any earlier than it did, even had it been urged to do so by America, was extremely remote. Yet there were two other avenues through which the US administration, had it had the slightest inclination to pursue them, could almost certainly have succeeded in shortening the conflict. Instead, to serve their own agenda, they approached these avenues with sufficient circumspection to frustrate every overture; each manoeuvre calculated to obstruct the least chance of any kind of rapprochement.

Was Japan really suing for peace?

The evidence that it was is overwhelming. Astonishingly, Japanese diplomats initiated peace feelers as early as late summer 1944. They continued to do so – through Sweden, Switzerland, Russia and even the Vatican. Particular efforts were made via Moscow in the (mistaken) belief that the Neutrality Pact that existed between Japan and Russia made it the most viable channel. Despite the fact that Stalin had previously declined to renew the pact, Japanese fears were somewhat mollified (but by no means quelled) by his assurance that it would continue to inform his decisions until its expiry in April 1946. But by the end of 1943 he had already made known to Allied leaders his intention to enter the war against Japan and signed an agreement confirming it, at Yalta in February 1945.

On the day following the collapse of Okinawa (21 June 1945), Emperor Hirohito told the Supreme Council for the Direction of War to reverse their “Basic Policy”, urging them to seek peace by diplomatic means: “You will consider the question of ending the war as soon as possible”. It was the specific mission of the new cabinet of Prime Minister, Baron Kantaro Suzuki (appointed 7 April 1945), to seek peace. But neither the US nor Russia were interested in Japan’s efforts for peace; the US wanted to wait until it could drop the atom bombs and Russia until it was ready to declare war. Not one of the messages imparted to Moscow by the Japanese ambassador was passed on to America. This made little difference, however, since all Japanese codes – diplomatic (“Magic”) and operational (“ultra”) had long been broken. An extract from “Magic” Nº 1205 (13 July 1945) deciphering a cable from Foreign Minister Togo to Ambassador Sato reads: “His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated”. The same transcript further states: “It is the Emperor’s private intention to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a Special Envoy . . .” And so he did, but Moscow would not receive him. Later President Truman “thanked” Marshal Stalin.

Stephen Harper, in his book Miracle of Deliverance, subtitled ‘The Case for the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki”, writes, with commendable honesty: “Ways could have been found to explore the Japanese peace moves had there been any desire to do so, but it seems clear that the doctrine of unconditional surrender . . . had become compulsive thinking – an Allied blindspot”.

Was it unconditional surrender?

On 21 July an ultimatum – the Potsdam Declaration – was given to the Japanese government. It was issued on behalf of the President of the United States, the President of Nationalist China and the Prime Minister of Great Britain; but not Russia. Its language was uncompromising as these extracts show:

“Following are our terms. We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay.

“There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest . . . We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces . . .”

Despite the inclusion of phrases such as : “We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved . . .”, “Freedom of speech, of religion and of thought . . .”, “. . . fundamental human rights shall be established” – the single non-negotiable concession, repeatedly demanded by Japan, was noticeably absent: a guarantee of the Emperor’s position. A crucial paragraph offering just such a guarantee was deleted by the US Secretary of State James F. Byrnes. Consequently, the Declaration was deemed unacceptable by Japan – just as the US hoped it would be.

Much discussion has ensued concerning the nature of the Japanese response. Some analysts consider it to be an outright rejection; others no more than a pause for breath. Confusion was sown by the use of the Japanese term “mokusatsu”, which can mean: “take no notice of”; “treat with silent contempt” or (most probably) “withhold comment”. Some writers have emphasised the jingoistic and defiant statements trumpeted in the Japanese media, but these were obviously face-saving propaganda exercises designed to boost national morale. Other compelling evidence makes it abundantly clear that, so far as Japan was concerned, negotiations were still very much ongoing. And that the US was aware of it.

“Magic” intercept Nº 1218 (26 July 1945) revealed the text of another message sent from Foreign Minister Togo to Ambassador Sato. This was a reaction to a broadcast made to the Japanese on 21 July, on behalf of the US. The broadcast was made by Captain (later Rear Admiral) Ellis M. Zacharias, later to write an article for Look magazine (6 June 1950) entitled “How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender”. Part of the “Magic” summary stated: “It is impossible for us to accept unconditional surrender, no matter in what guise, but . . . there is no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the Atlantic Charter”. But once again Byrnes intervened and claimed that it was best to refrain from designating the broadcast as “official”.

That the issue of “unconditional surrender” was the primary stumbling block to the achievement of a peace settlement had been recognised long before. A Joint Intelligence Committee in March 1940 commented: “The crux of the political situation will lie in the all-important status of the Japanese Emperor”. After the war was over, both Secretary of War Stimson and the President recorded their conclusions. “[H]istory might find that the United States, by its delay in stating its position [on the surrender terms] had prolonged the war” wrote Stimson in his memoirs. Or as Truman succinctly remarked during the compiling of his: “It was because of the unconditional surrender policy against Japan that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wiped out”.

Two days after the Potsdam Declaration, Prince Konoye was still making frantic efforts to make contact with Russian diplomats, contradicting the generally accepted notion that the Declaration had been dismissed out of hand by Japan. In any event, the decision to drop the bomb had already been taken: finally confirmed on the same day as the Declaration.

On 10 August, the morning after the second bomb was dropped, an offer of surrender from Japan was received in Washington. Once more it stipulated that any agreement should “ . . . not compromise any demand which prejudiced the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler”. Stimson favoured its acceptance; Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal suggested a compromise; Byrnes opposed it. For once, Byrnes had to give way but, nevertheless, he was the one who drafted the reply, the key phrase of which permitted that vital Japanese proviso: “From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers”. It was enough. The bombs, apparently, had not persuaded Japan to drop its proviso concerning the Emperor.

Byrnes’s reluctance to bend, even at this juncture, is hard to fathom precisely. What is seldom mentioned in popular accounts of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, is that a third bomb would have been delivered and ready to drop by 17 August 1945.

Why were the bombs dropped?

A complex labyrinth of reasons lay behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs. Once the vastly expensive machinery of production had commenced, and the original purpose of its instigation forgotten, sufficient resolve not to use it ceased to exist. The astronomical investment of public funds needed to be justified; the widespread public antipathy of the American population towards the Japanese following the Pearl Harbour attack, demanded revenge – a mood of which the American leadership was acutely aware. As Secretary for War Stimson subsequently observed: “No man, in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities could have failed to use it and afterwards look his countrymen in the face”.

A number of ‘revisionist’ historians confidently assert that the primary motive was to gain diplomatic advantage: a powerful political lever allowing the US to dominate future negotiations with the Soviet Union. They make a powerful case and undoubtedly this was a major consideration in the formulation of atomic policy. But this could have been accomplished with just a single bomb and, surely, not necessarily on a heavily-populated city.

The fact that two bombs were dropped, however – without warning – on specifically targeted and crowded locations which had been spared aerial bombardment; the fact that each bomb had different technology (one uranium-explosion; one plutonium-implosion), each with different yields, dropped at different heights but both resulting in prolonged and deadly after-effects of which little was understood, suggests the conclusion that the primary motives might have been the seldom mentioned (almost unmentionable) one of “scientific” experimentation. A conclusion that seems to be confirmed by the grim recommendations of both the Interim and Target committees detailed in the first part of this article (last month).

The terrible war in the Pacific, in common with all wars between capitalist states, had its origins in the protection and expansion of economic interests. There seems to be no limit to the degradation and cruelty utilised to protect those interests. Anyone visiting the Hiroshima museum would be able to view the leaflets that were dropped warning of an atomic attack. In an act of macabre cynicism that almost defies belief, those leaflets were not dropped until 9 August – three days after the bombing. Things improved for Nagasaki – they were only one day late.

Richard Headicar

Blogger's Note:

The following correction appeared in the November 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard:

Two mistakes found their way into the article "Why They Dropped the Bombs" in the October issue. The date of the Potsdam ultimatum to Japan was 26 July not 21 July as stated and there was a reference to a comment of the Joint Intelligence Committee in "March 1940". Readers will have realised that this cannot have been since the US and Japan were not even at war at that point. It should of course have read "March 1944".