Hiroshima
Tweet
Seeing as how its in the news today, thought I’d add my two cents. I think President Truman did the right thing. Yes, the dropping of the A-Bomb created mass casualties on a biblical level, but you have to consider what the Japanese would have done if the shoe were on the other foot. This was a war to the death – period, and for Truman to have stepped backwards would have led to the deaths of thousands of Americans.
28 Responses to “Hiroshima”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I’m going to disgree with you on this, OW. And I’m very sure I don’t understand what you meant by this: ‘but you have to consider what the Japanese would have done if the shoe were on the other foot.’
I believe the Japanese were already beaten by the time we dropped the bombs and that a planned invasion of Japan may well not have been necessary. The Japanese were already looking to sue for peace, virtually all our military leaders at the time are on record as suggesting the use of the bomb wasn’t militarily necessary, and there were other options for demonstrating we had a new weapon to speed the end of the war.
I’d also look to why Hiroshima and Nagaski were targetted, since they posed virtually no military capability. Additionally, there is an argument to be made that we dropped the bombs not out of the military necessity to end the war with Japan but to provide a warning to our ally, Russia.
Amen, Jadegold.
Notice that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor; they didn’t invade or attempt to occupy it. They were only interested in crippling the U.S.’s Pacific naval strength so that they could facilitate their seizure of U.S. and European Pacific colonial territories. OW’s fancifully dramatic assertion that the Pacific War was “a fight to the death” may have been true for many of the individual U.S. and Japanese soldiers doing the actual fighting, but nothing could have been further from the truth in the larger political picture. The War in the Pacific was a fight over resources and territory; the Pearl Harbor attack was a response to the U.S. and its European allies instituting a potentially crippling trade embargo against would-be imperial rival Japan.
By the summer of 1945, the Japanese were beaten. They were attempting to pursue a peace that would help them save some sort of face and keep their country largely intact. Meanwhile, the Soviets were marching toward Japan from the East. Stalin was already getting his hooks into Europe, and Truman didn’t want Uncle Joe to get anywhere near the industrial and strategic prize that was Japan. That’s why Truman stalled Japanese peace talks by ludicrously demanding unconditional surrender (the only condition upon which the Japanese consistently insisted was that the Emperor be left on the throne; this wound up happening anyway), and claiming that the “japs” were obstinately refusing. All those wildly varying estimates about U.S. and Japanese casualties from an invasion of Japan were little more than propaganda.
As to why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targetted, it was precisely because they were ripe civilian targets. Since they had no heavy military value (and the Japanese were defeated, anyway), they would be lightly guarded. A small group of bombers flying at high altitude over these unlikely targets would have no trouble delivering their satanic payload. (Remember, the Enola Gay and its Nagasaki counterpart weren’t alone; they were accompanied by planes who were assigned to compile data from the blasts– further evidence that the bombings were as much military experiments as political showcases.)
Sorry, but looking at the attrocities Japan committed in China and Korea towards Chinese, Korean, Russian, American, British and Canadian civilians, I have trouble seeing how bad Hiroshima was.
The worst thing yet, the Japanese refuse to acknowledge their war crimes.
So “boohoo”!
And wait… “by ludicrously demanding unconditional surrender”
What the fuck?!?
Some liberals are just as crazy as the Neo-cons…
This might get a bit long, but… hey, why not?
I’ve been reading a few letters to various newspapers and blogs that supported Truman’s decision. Most make the same claim: big potential invasion, nasty Japanese, thanks for saving my life, Mr. Truman. It is a legitimate argument: the Japanese had a whole string of atrocities to account for, from the Bataan Death March to Pearl Harbor to the massacre of Chinese and Koreans. Our deaths at their hands paled to what they had done to their Asian neighbors. And there’s a good chance that they might have fought to the death in regards to an invasion. They had shown such tendencies in lesser engagements.
As an aside, I really honestly wonder why so many people hold up WWII as a great war. It was a horrible war. The Nazis did horrible things, the Japanese did horrible things, Stalin did some horrible things in his quest to win (and he also did quite a few horrible things outside of WWII — nice guy to have as an ally. But as they say — enemy of my enemy and all that.) No one can lay claim to an exact figure, but somewhere between 40 and 50 million people died in a six-year period across the world. Exactly what is great about this war?
Well, to answer my own question, America’s involvement was the great thing. We went in, we won, case closed, right? Forget the great death and destruction the world incurred, we can simply remember our glorious part in all this and largely forget the horrors of war.
The black eye to our legacy are those indiscriminate bombings. Well, that and the internment of Japanese Americans, but one injustice at a time. The truth is that we had been bombing cities with largely civilian populations, first with firebombs and then with nuclear bombs. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians dead, and we didn’t bat an eye. They’re guilty, right? They’re brutal and cruel, all of them. They would’ve done it to us, right?
I don’t know if the Japanese would have surrendered with anything less than those nukes, just as no one can truly claim that their life was saved thanks to those nukes. But we cannot deny it: justified or not, we committed atrocities on Japan. The fact that many of us do not want to acknowledge it is as bad as the Japanese ignoring their own dark history (which, sadly, many of them do).
No matter what military or political arguments one might throw at the wall for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there is one thing that America has yet to do that they must before this sorry chapter in history can be put to rest. Show remorse. As necessary as it may have seemed at the time, it was horrific. Real remorse, coupled with a promise to never do something like that ever again, is necessary before the wounds can heal.
I would say that what makes a war a good war or a bad war depends on what happens afterwards. WWI ended with the imposition of ridiculous sanctions on Germany that predictably caused the rise of Naziism along with the US’s retreat into isolation. WW II, however, was a good war because its end ushered in a new era of international cooperation. GATT, UN, NATO, and other IOs succeeded in integrating the Western economies to such a degree that another such war could not occur. The West has enjoyed a mind-boggling era of success since WW II. It’s only sad that the world had to take such a long look into the abyss before we realized something had to be done.
“America has yet to do that they must before this sorry chapter in history can be put to rest. Show remorse.”
You mean show the same kind of remorse the Japanese have yet to show? And by doing that piss off the Chinese who never got and probably never will get an apology? (knowing full well America protected Japanese war criminals from prosecution)
America, you’re fucking nuts…
It is a legitimate argument: the Japanese had a whole string of atrocities to account for, from the Bataan Death March to Pearl Harbor to the massacre of Chinese and Koreans. Our deaths at their hands paled to what they had done to their Asian neighbors.
Sorry, RTK, I just don’t buy into the premise that atrocities justify one another.
And there s a good chance that they might have fought to the death in regards to an invasion.
We now know the vast majority of military leaders at the time didn’t think an invasion would be necessary.
At the time the bombs were dropped, we knew the Japanese were already looking to surrender.
Not likely.
Sirkowski, it’s true that not everyone in Japan feels remorse about their WWII atrocities, just as everyone in the US doesn’t feel remorse about the atrocities currently taking place in Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. However, just because some aren’t remorseful doesn’t mean that public remorse does not exist. There’s more about that here in the Japan Times.
…I have trouble seeing how bad Hiroshima was.
The worst thing yet, the Japanese refuse to acknowledge their war crimes.
So boohoo !
So, since the Japanese committed atrocities, it was the job of the U.S. to commit atrocities against the Japanese? Since the U.S. committed atrocities against Muslims, it was the job of ‘al Qaeda’ (or whomever) to commit atrocities against the U.S.? “Boohoo” to the 3000 or so who lost their lives on 9/11?
You can go around and around with that kind of childish rationalization, but aren’t we as U.S. citizens supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard? Intentionally unleashing a horrible weapon against a civilian population, when there was no military purpose for it (other than to make lab rats and political calling cards out of thousands of defenseless women and children), was every bit as reprehensible as the rape of Nanking or the works of Dr. Mengele.
Furthermore, if it was such an act of necessity, why did the U.S. military censor its own footage of the aftermath of the attacks? If the “japs” had it coming, then why not let the U.S. public see the whole bloody truth about the effects of the bombs?
As to the following rather cryptic bit:
And wait& by ludicrously demanding unconditional surrender
What the fuck?!?
Some liberals are just as crazy as the Neo-cons&
When the conditions asked by the Japanese included things the U.S. wound up doing anyway (i.e. leaving the emperor on the throne), it was obvious that demanding ‘unconditional surrender’ was just a way of stalling until the nukes were ready for deployment. If anyone has trouble grasping that concept, I can try to spell it out with smaller words…
“You mean show the same kind of remorse the Japanese have yet to show?”
Where is it written that for America to show remorse for America’s actions, that Japan has to go first? If that is your standard, then no one will ever go first and we’ll continue to have a festering sore in the middle of world affairs forever. Someone has to go first – then there is no excuse for the others. Why not make the guesture?
Personally, I’m not into the whole remorse and apology thing. In most of these cases the people responsible for the acts in question are long since dead, so an apology from the descendants of the perpetrators to the descendants of the victims seems pointless. I would never apologize for the deeds of my parents or grandparents; they were and are responsible for their own actions.
That said, however, I do believe that “the debts of the past are paid for by the future.” At the very least, we have a responsibility to understand that the worlds we live in (our families, communities, nations, and the planet) were shaped by the deeds and misdeeds of our forebears. It is our duty to learn from their sins and mistakes so as not to repeat them, and in order to make whole that which was torn apart by them. When the Truman administration unnecessarily dropped nukes on Japan, it set in motion an horrific chain of events with which me must still contend today.
For my money, all the talk about ‘nook-ya-ler’ proliferation in the Third World is hypocrisy at its worst. For nimrods like Powell, Rice, Cheney, and Bush to get up in front of the world and bleat on about tin-pot dictators threatening (or nook-ya-ler) armageddon was nothing better than cheap, historically myopic hypocrisy (in addition to being bald-faced lying).
Dozens of countries have built and tested nuclear devices, and some have even built nuclear arsenals. Only one nation has ever used them against a civilian population, and it did so twice. The dangerous hypocrisy at work with us now lecturing other nations on nuclear proliferation– even while our corrupt government considers the development of new ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons– shows the value of our electorate knowing the full, ugly history of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.
Let me clarify my position, since I did ramble on a bit.
I don’t think committing atrocities is ever justified. And I don’t care if Japan shows remorse or not. It shouldn’t matter. Life doesn’t support the school-yard mentalitiy of “Well, they did it first. He should say he’s sorry.” If the Japanese forget their past, the rest of the world won’t. And they will be the weaker for it.
Living up to a standard of honor means just that; we have to be the example that shows the rest of the world that being powerful doesn’t mean being irresponsible. “Living the example” means actually living it, and by God, that’s hard work. Killing civilians is an easy way to get at an enemy, and in the end we took the easy way out. What I was saying is that it was, perhaps, an understandable mentality given the kind of brutal war that had been going on. The value of life had gone done a bit. War does that to even the best of us. That’s why war is a horrible deal, even if done for the best of reasons.
Truman defended his decision to the end. Perhaps he believed his thinking, perhaps he didn’t. If I had ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, I probably would justify it to my grave. The alternative would be to go crazy with guilt. To be honest, I don’t know what to make of him.
RTK
The bombings bother me quite a bit as does the general post war carnage in places like Yugoslavia – where and when the world stopped paying attention – while in effect sanctioned genocide was carried out. At some point, I understand we are at war and there will be civilian casualties, but to kill thousands and thousands of civilians when their demise – in places like Dresden- really probably had no impact on our troops or casualties.
On the A Bomb, big factors were Okinawa and the Kamikaze attacks. it created the expectation that we would lose thousands and thousands due to fanatical suicide attackers. I think Truman did the right thing. I’m not so sure about the fire bombings.
Dugger
Only problem is that the dropping of the bombs didn’t speed Japan’s surrender – as evidenced by recently released historical Japanese govt. docs – it was Russias declaration of war. Japan didn’t want to get caught fighting a 2 front war, and loose everything to the Russians.
In that context, I have a problem with dropping the bombs… just as I have a problem with the firebombings which killed more people and destroyed more property than either WMD did.
Make no mistake, yes – war is hell, but committing acts of violence on civilians on this scale is wrong.
AlexCorrigan: Meanwhile, the Soviets were marching toward Japan from the East. Stalin was already getting his hooks into Europe, and Truman didn t want Uncle Joe to get anywhere near the industrial and strategic prize that was Japan.
Ok, you had me until this. I now know you are full of shit. Russia was neutral in the Pacific theater of WWII, because Stalin didn’t want to have to fight a war against the Japanese on the east and Germany on the west. Japan had the Korean peninsula and all of eastern China under its control and would make an excellent launching point for an offensive on the Soviets. Stalin had no interest in acquiring Japanese assets. He was too concerned with stealing American technology.
In fact, when three B-29s had to make emergency landings on Kamchatka(sp?) after bombing Japanese targets, Stalin impounded the three planes and kept the crews as semi-prisoners as was required of a neutral nation. Releasing them before the war’s end would have been considered a non-neutral move and would have been a declaration of war. It was later revealed that Stalin looked the other way when the crews escaped, and even had his men help them make it to Tehran to be picked up by the US. He kept the B-29s and reverse-engineered their own version after the war.
Had Truman not dropped the bombs, the US would be involved in not only a long, hard land war in Japan, but also in Japan-occupied China, which was mostly jungle at the time, and our bases in western China were not yet equipped to handle such a battle.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren’t military targets, they were industrial targets, where a large part of Japanaese manufacturing took place. They weren’t major civilian populations. If that’s what the US wanted, a ripe civilian target, why not strike at Tokyo, the heart of Japan?
So I agree with Oliver. It had to be done, because the Kamikaze nature of the rulers of Imperial Japan meant that it was a fight to the death.
Pionar: You’re wrong.
While Russia had a neutrality pact with Japan, nearly immediately after the surrender of Germany in May 1945–the Russians began massing troops against Japanese forces in Manchukuo and Korea as part of Operation August Storm. Moreover, it was not unknown to the Japanese that Russia had designs on several Japanese islands. Certainly, the agreement at Yalta effectively put an end to any notion of Russian-Japanese neutralty.
Had Truman not dropped the bombs, the US would be involved in not only a long, hard land war in Japan, but also in Japan-occupied China,
False. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find a militay leader of that time who believed the bomb was necessary to avoid an invasion.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren t military targets, they were industrial targets, where a large part of Japanaese manufacturing took place. They weren t major civilian populations.
Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were industrial centers.
“False. In fact, you d be hard-pressed to find a militay leader of that time who believed the bomb was necessary to avoid an invasion. ”
You sure? Truman as CINC decided to drop the bomb. He was THE military leader. Our intel was telling him about Japan’s “ketsu go” operation which envisioned an armageddon like defense; about Japan’s knowledge of where our invasion plans focused; and about Japans massive defensive build-up. This coming on top of the kamikazes and the fanatical defense of Okinawa.
BTW there’s no doubt that the A bombs were calculated to induce “shock and awe”. One of the reason’s Hiroshima was picked was because its geographical location would maximize destruction. But this came after general warnings to the Japanese about our ability to inflict massive casualties. Its arguable if it would have more humane in the long run to minimize casualties at Hiroshima and thereby not discourage the Japanese enough to give up. Casulties from convential bombing had been equally horrific. I think the belief was that the Japanese needed to be frightened to end the war.
Dugger
Dugger: In reality, Truman probably didn’t believe the bomb was necessary to win the war. We now know Truman suppressed sections of his memoirs dealing with the decision to drop the bomb; suppressed sectons indicated he knew Japan was on the verge of surrender and that the entrance of Russia into the war would push Japan over.
The invasion is largely a myth; if you look at the remarks of folks lke Eisenhower, Leahy, Nimitz, Halsey, etc–they didn’t think an invasion would be necessary.
Would it save US/Allied lives? Would it avoid the anticipated Okinawa-like wholesale carnage engenderd by their defense of the home islands?
Still false. Intelligence noted Japan was on the verge of collapse–why would we need to invade a country that no longer was a viable military threat? Note we had complete air dominance over Japan, the IJN was no more, and the remaining in-theater Japanese forces had been rolled up or were in the process of getting shredded by the Soviets in Manchukuo.
Jade,
I fully agree that Truman or almost any knowledgeable military commander didn’t believe the bomb was necessary to ‘win the war’, but that wasn’t the main issue as regards the bomb. Would it save US/Allied lives? Would it avoid the anticipated Okinawa-like wholesale carnage engenderd by their defense of the home islands? Intelligence excerpts suggest the Japanese military thought they were losing the war but that unconditonal surrender was not necessary and that more acceptable terms could be gained by a strong defense. Hence the need, as Truman and the Staff perceived it, of a convincing display of terror via the two bombs.
I don’t know about the invasion plans not being necessary, but I know we had plans to that effect.
Dugger
Sadly, the short memory of many is rushing the World to a new nuclear arms race.
For those interested, Common Dreams has an editorial here:
The Hiroshima Cover-Up
Part of the story and photo’s that General MacArthur ordered destroyed (as part of a wholesale Journalistic cencorship campaign), has been published here:
60 Years On Hiroshima Photo Special
The Nagasaki Report by George Weller is here, in four parts:
“A Nagasaki Report” Part One
“A Nagasaki Report” Part Two
“A Nagasaki Report” Part Three
“A Nagasaki Report” Part Four
Astonishingly, and with an amazing show of spirit, 2 years after the atomic bomb destroyed Hiroshima, the survivors gathered every year between 1947 and 2005 to reaffirm their Peace declaration.
Hiroshima Peace Declarations 1947-2004
The 2005 Peace declaration is here:
Hiroshima declares 2005 as a ‘time of inheritance, of awakening, and of commitment’
America may have used their new Weapon of Mass Destruction to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I believe that America is ultimately the looser. The amazing people of Hiroshima show the World the true spirit of survival, of honor, and of true spirit! America could learn a few things from these people, and those of Nagasaki also. I feel humbled by them.
One other point,
NUclear Weapons were NOT even necesary! It was simply America showing off (as usual). The firbombing of Japan (which was an attrocity in itself) is what brought Japan to the negotiating table in the first place. One example (taken from the Nationmaster Encyclopedia: Bombing of Tokyo in World War II):
Given all that, I seriously doubt anyone could find a legitimate justification for using Nuclear weapons on civilians at that time, except to prove that America was a genocidal as Germany at that time. Especially when the Firebombing of the city of Dresden is also taken into consideration.
Since my previous comment is awaiting moderation (I put some links), I’ll make afew points here.
1. America was warned (strikingly similarly to 9/11) that there was an attack coming. And yet, (as with 9/11) was atrociously unprepared when it did come.
2. Japan attacked a valid military target (NOT civilians).
3. Japan was already negotiating the surrender when America nuked 2 civilian cities.
4. the Japanese people have spent every year since WW2 reaffirming peace, the USA has spent the time making war.
You may have thought the A bomb decison was complex, but Kryton42 cuts to the core with a startingly clear analysis.
On the A Bomb:”It was simply America showing off (as usual). ”
You may think Pearl Harbor was a nasty sneak attack. But no,
On Pearl Harbor Kryton says: ” Japan attacked a valid military target (NOT civilians).”
And Jade,
Intelligence (sources that i read) showed Japan preparing a vigorous defense – and they had guessed where we would come in. They talked about surrendering with the Russians – but not unconditonally. Military intelligence reported Japan could essentially meet our manpower force (on invasion) one for one. The planners did not like the odds – with the big bomb available as an alternative.
Dugger
The point you’re missing, Dugger, is that an invasion wasn’t necessary.
“The point you re missing, Dugger, is that an invasion wasn t necessary. ‘
Maybe, maybe not. My definiton of necessity would revolve more around te perception of casualties we would suffer as a result of an invasion. I’m sorry, rock-ribbed Repub that Iam, I can’t imagine Democrat Harry Truman deciding to drop the big one if Japan was going to surrender unconditonally, in the near future, anyway. But perhaps we have beat this to death.
Dugger