If you are even considering to read this book, you are most likely already aware that mainstream history is not always truthful. Therefore, we can skip that part and jump right in. This book explores the scientific evidence pertaining to the ‘atomic’ bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My inquiry into this subject began one morning when, on the web, I stumbled upon someone’s assertion that the nuclear bombings had been a hoax; I don’t recall now who had said it or where. However, I remember that, when trying to learn more, I found Swedish engineer and entrepreneur Anders Björkman. On his website, Anders argues that atomic bombs won’t work in principle. Having trained as an MD only, I will abstain from judging the merit of this far-reaching claim. Nevertheless, Anders also shares some intriguing personal experiences with direct bearing on the story of the Japanese ‘atomic’ bombings and on the early stages of nuclear arms development. It thus was Anders’ work which first convinced me that at least the story of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings must be false.
Of course, if one believes that, then the question arises: what is the matter with all the science which surrounds these two events? What about the fallout, the cancer, the radiation sickness? There cannot be two truths: either Anders is crazy and the science is right, or Anders is right and the science is crazy.
The book before you argues that indeed the science is kaput, and that this has been so since the very beginning of the ‘atomic age’. It considers both the physical and the medical evidence, supplemented where necessary with eyewitness testimony, to unequivocally reject the story of the atomic bombings of both cities. In its place, the book develops a scenario of conventional killing and destruction with poison gas, napalm, and high explosives. In detail, this interpretation may be incomplete or mistaken, but overall it fits the available evidence far better than the atomic tall tale. The final chapter examines the motives behind the staged bombing; while the result is less solidly grounded than the analysis of the scientific evidence, I felt that this question should not be left out.
This treatise attempts to get at the truth, but cannot lay claim to the whole truth; too much evidence remains hidden from view, even 75 years after the events. While it contains no deliberate falsehoods, it most likely will contain some errors. If you find one, be it in substance or in detail, I will be grateful to you for pointing it out, so that the book can be improved.