Was there a better way to end the war with Japan? While American scholarship has undercut the U.S. moral position, Japanese historical research has bolstered it. The Japanese scholarship, by historians like Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized upon the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later. Blood on Our Hands? Nicholas D. Kristof New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Tuesday, August 5, 2003 Tomorrow will mark the anniversary of one of the most morally contentious events of the 20th century, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. And after 58 years, there's an emerging consensus: we Americans have blood on our hands. There has been a chorus here and abroad that the U.S. has little moral standing on the issue of weapons of mass destruction because we were the first to use the atomic bomb. As Nelson Mandela said of Americans in a speech on Jan. 31, "Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?" The traditional American position, that our intention in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki was to end the war early and save lives, has been poked full of holes. Revisionist historians like Gar Alperovitz argue persuasively that Washington believed the bombing militarily unnecessary (except to establish American primacy in the postwar order) because, as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey put it in 1946, "in all probability" Japan would have surrendered even without the atomic bombs. Yet this emerging consensus is, I think, profoundly mistaken. While American scholarship has undercut the U.S. moral position, Japanese historical research has bolstered it. The Japanese scholarship, by historians like Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized upon the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later. Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by summer 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting, "sacrificing 20 million Japanese lives." The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven." Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia. This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed 14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and in the main islands the toll would have run into the millions. "The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later. Some argue that the U.S. could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and we should have tried. We could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki. But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would not have worked. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb — on Tokyo. One of the great tales of World War II concerns an American fighter pilot named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on Aug. 8 and brutally interrogated about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that the U.S. had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days." The war minister informed the cabinet of this grim news — but still adamantly opposed surrender. In the aftermath of the atomic bombing, the emperor and peace faction finally insisted on surrender and were able to prevail. It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse.
No...there wasn't a better way. The bombs were the slap to reality that brought the Japanese leadership to their senses. As someone who is of Japanese ancestry and was born there, I hated to see so many die. But if not for the horror and deaths of those few, we would've lost hundreds of thousands of troops in an invasion resisted by suicide squads everywhere. In a way, the bombs actually saved Japan as well, because Japanese casualties would've been even higher and even more damage would've done to the already decimated infrastructure.
The author of this article does a good job of summing up what is obviously a difficult and highly charged subject. I believe everyone knows that saving American and Japanese lives was far from the only reason we dropped those bombs. I also believe though that using "the bomb" did in fact save many lives, but it’s still difficult to justify dropping atomic weapons on a city. Conventional bombing and napalming would have eventually accomplished the same thing. Of course this would have taken much longer which has its own moral implications. We will never know the exact reasons the decision was made to drop atomic bombs on Japan, but in my opinion these are some of the reasons. The most obvious was to break the will of the Japanese leadership and force surrender without a massive invasion; this did save Japanese and American lives. The bombing served, as a warning to any nation particularly the Soviet Union-- that attacking the US would result in an atomic response. It was no longer necessary to devise a massive conventional bombing campaign and invasion; retaliation was now instantaneous and absolute. This display was also a bargaining chip of sorts in the negotiations that divided up land with the other allies--again mainly the Soviet Union. The most disturbing reason some pushed for the actual bombing of cities in Japan-- was I believe a motivation by some in power to witness a live fire test of the most powerful weapon ever designed. They had a general idea of what would happen of course, but it took the real item to know for sure the extent of radiation poisoning, blast effects, heat, etc. on the population and infrastructure of the city. I'm sure there was also a sense of revenge for some; the American population certainly supported and continues to support the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are probably many more reasons some of critical importance while others were probably just small factors in the overall plan to go ahead with the mission. Without a doubt this had to be one of the most crucial decisions ever made by a group of people in our entire history.
maybe we should actually look at the japanese perspective before trying to throw our own ideas onto the situation. even more compelling evidence that the bomb was a necessary evil to end the war.
Strong words from the mayor of Hiroshima, but I must say I agree with most of what he is saying. "The chief cause is US nuclear policy that, by openly declaring the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear first strike and calling for resumed research into mini-nukes and other so-called 'useable nuclear weapons,' appears to worship nuclear weapons as God," he said. Hiroshima mayor lashes out at Bush on atomic bombing anniversary HIROSHIMA, Japan (AFP) - Hiroshima's mayor lashed out at the United States' nuclear weapons policy during ceremonies marking the 58th anniversary of the city's atomic bombing, which caused the deaths of over 230,000 people. Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba said the United States worshipped nuclear weapons as "God" and blamed it for jeopardising the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. "The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the central international agreement guiding the elimination of nuclear weapons, is on the verge of collapse," Akiba said Wednesday in an address to some 40,000 people. "The chief cause is US nuclear policy that, by openly declaring the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear first strike and calling for resumed research into mini-nukes and other so-called 'useable nuclear weapons,' appears to worship nuclear weapons as God," he said. The mayor also slammed as unjust the US-led war on Iraq, which he blamed for killing innocent civilians. "The weapons of mass destruction that served as the excuse for the war have yet to be found," he said. Akiba strongly urged US President George W. Bush and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il to personally visit Hiroshima and "confront the reality of nuclear war". As the clock clicked onto 8:15 am (2315 GMT Tuesday), the exact time the United States dropped the bomb on August 6, 1945, those at the ceremony at Hiroshima's Peace Memorial Park bowed their heads for a minute's silence in memory of the victims of the attack. During the 45-minute ceremony, officials added 5,050 names to the register of victims who died immediately or from the after-effects of radiation exposure in the bombing, bringing the total toll to 231,920, an official said. The Hiroshima bombing was followed by the dropping of a second atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, which killed another estimated 74,000 people. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told the service that Japan would stick by its pacifist constitution and its non-nuclear principles because the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "can never be repeated." This year's ceremony came ahead of six-nation talks over North Korea's nuclear weapons development programme, which Pyongyang agreed to last week. Koizumi told reporters after the ceremony that North Korea's abduction of Japanese nationals would be a high priority at the talks. "At the six-nation talks, obviously, nuclear weapons will be the focus, but for Japan, the abduction issue is just as important," he said. "We will naturally have close cooperation with the United States and South Korea, but we must make efforts to have China and Russia understand our position as well," he said. Last week, North Korea said it would accept six-way talks to include North and South Korea, Russia, Japan, China and the United States to end the nuclear crisis that began in October last year. Washington had accused the Stalinist state of reneging on a 1994 bilateral nuclear freeze accord by running a clandestine nuclear programme based on enriched uranium.
I think this is a very healthy approach for both countries. It is nice to see people from both nations acknowledge they are less than perfect and have the humility to admit to wrongdoing.
Still, the principal reason that Truman dropped the bombs was to scare the Russians. We were already rattling sabers at each other, looking at who would rule the world after the war. Nimitz and Eisenhower were both soundly against using the bomb. Unfortunately, Japan was in the hands of its militarists. I think we could have starved them out, but then again, people wanted an end to the war. I wonder how things might have gone differently if we had simply gathered Japanese and other nations' diplomats to witness the nuclear torching of some remote atoll---"this is what we'll drop on Japanese cities until you surrender". We had only two bombs at the time and we used them both; but fire-bombing Tokyo had taken 100,000 lives, far more than the casualties at Nagasaki and Hiroshima (subsequent nuclear poisoning notwithstanding). Or why not torch the Japanese army still in residence on mainland China and say, Japanese cities are next? No options are good options in war but killing a bunch of civilians in a defeated country wasn't the best way to go. You hawks may screech now.
Dear Mayor of Hiroshima: We, the United States, agree to dismantle every last one of our nuclear weapons. Your Friends, The Americans p.s. Good luck with China and N. Korea
There's always a better way or another way to do things... looking from the outside, it did initiate a surrender, but at a huge cost to human life and of course, morality issues... There's a cause and effect to everything and if it didn't happen, who knows how many more people would have died...
Oh brother--MM where does he say, "United States get rid of all your nuclear weapons"? He rightly disagrees with the Bush administrations push to build new mini-nukes for use as a first strike weapon. Hey non-US allies get rid of all your WMD while we build increasingly more sophisticated weapons to hang over head. Your Pal, Uncle Sam
I think the argument on the morality of the bomb mostly misses the big moral question of World War II. Apologists for the bomb point out that we killed more people with firebombings than with the atom bomb. Why were we killing so many people with firebombing? The real morality question in WWII is was it right for the Americans to fight a war of attrition. Dropping a nuclear bomb is just another instance of fighting a war of attrition -- doing everything possible to knock out the opponents' ability or willingness to wage war, even if it means hitting below the belt. Not that the Americans were the only ones doing it or even the first. The Germans and the Japanese both targetted non-military targets to get easy victories in their campaigns. (The Japanese mostly abused the Koreans and Chinese in this way, being to far from the US. After a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese weren't able to reach much of anything of the US', though they did contemplate a plan to deliver biological weapons to the West Coast.) The English and the Americans responded in kind, and thus the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and a host of other civilian targets. But should we have? I think that is the morality question really at hand.
I will always remember this day. It is my birthday. I was born on the 25th anniversary of the bombing. My mother had postpartum depression and cried and cried about it. This is from a few years ago: This morning in Hiroshima, a few hours ago, 30,000 people gathered in the Hiroshima Park. They meditated together. The Prime Minister of Japan was there this morning, and in his speech, he demanded that all atomic bombs be destroyed. Thirty thousand Japanese gathered today to commemorate the 52nd anniversary of the first atomic bomb, the bomb that fell on Hiroshima exactly on the sixth of August. It was a small bomb, but it was a new kind of bomb that had the power of killing a lot of people. At that time in 1945, the United States of America was the only country that possessed atomic bombs. Japan and Germany were associated closely with each other. The first atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima killed 140,000 people right away. In less than 30 seconds, more than 140,000 people. Not many countries on earth have atomic bombs, but the bombs they have now are a thousand times more powerful. The atomic bombs of today can destroy a whole city of Paris, of New York. They can kill millions of people in just 20 seconds. The little bomb in Hiroshima only killed 140,000 people, but after that, the Japanese who were in Hiroshima, if they did not die right away, continued to die until several decades later. I was there. I met with these people who were dying, several years after the bomb was dropped in Hiroshima. On the eighth of August, two days later, another bomb was dropped in Nagasaki and the destruction was equivalent and Japan surrendered. If you visit the Hiroshima Park today, you will come to a place where there is a little arch and inside, if you look carefully, you will see an inscription in Japanese. The inscription said, "Please lie still. We shall not do it again. Please be still there. We promise that we will not do it again." We promised not to do it again, but we have manufactured so many other bombs and nuclear warheads. Now, not only the United States of America has them, but France has them, Great Britain, India, China and many other countries. We, mankind, have the power to destroy humanity, to destroy the earth. That is why the Prime Minister of Japan this morning called on all the other nations to abolish the nuclear bombs and warheads.
Thats a chilling statement and also a bit creepy. Its amazing this all happened 58 years ago---imagine the horror of a modern weapon being used -- very creepy.
No, while dropping the bombs sent a message to our future enemies at what we were capable of, you've got to believe the reason the bombs were dropped was because Truman was shown that he would lose millions of American lives in a ground invasion of the Empire of Japan, and the America of the 1940's, far less politically correct than the America we know today, would have been furious if they're sons and daughters dies during a Japanese invasion that could have been prevented with the drop of a couple A-Bombs. Whether the victims of the bombs were civilian or not would have had little importance to the type of American that lived back then. Also keep in mind how many lives America had all ready lost in that war and that the pressure was on to end it as soon as possible. I wasn't alive to see it firsthand, but history certainly records almost unanimous celebration from the western world when the US dropped these bombs. Oh, and Japan was far from defeated. They were contained to the island of Japan, but that was one fortified island and they were going to take hundreds of thousands of American lives with them before surrendering. As for your, "let's give them an example" idea, did you forget that the Japanese refused to surrender even after Hiroshima was annihilated by the bomb?? That was the resolve of the Japanese. If they weren't going to surrender after seeing an A-bomb dropped on one of their cities, what the hell makes you think they would surrender after watching us perform a test on an atoll? That doesn't make any sense. Would I have dropped the bombs? I just can't say? That goes down as one of the toughest decisions any world leader has ever had to make. It boils down to whether killing a couple hundred thousand Japanese civilians is more acceptable than killing millions of American and Japanese soldiers in a ground invasion of Japan? Really tough call.
I hear you, but the problem is our world does not seem to be free of tyranny yet by any means. There are power hungry rulers throughout the world, a handful of which wouldn't hesitate to use a nuclear weapon if they had one in their possession. The only thing that keeps these tyrants from doing such things is that they know there are much, much more powerful countries out there that would squash them like a bug if they ever tried anything. So as much as we hate the threat of nuclear war, I'm much more comfortable knowing that there are countries like the US and Great Britain that have stockpiled their weapons not in preparation for an imperialist move, but as a message to anyone who would. The world simply is not ready to be free of war. Maybe one day we will, but I think that day is not going to be in my life time.
So you think the U.S should have been more patient and play a "wait and see" game with respect to Germany and Japan in WWII. Well I'm certainly glad it wasn't your decision because that's a gamble I ,and I hope most Americans, would not be willing to take. You simply have to ask yourself what is the worst thing that could have happened in that scenario and the answer is that Germany and Japan could ally themselves against the US and team up for a ground invasion of America. We know damn well the Germans were contemplating an invasion through Mexico. Whether the US would have won such a war is not the point. The point is the war would have been fought on US soil. No thanks.
Even though I think it was probably one of the most difficult decisions for a leader to make, Truman made the right call. We can what if until we are blue in the face, but things turned out for the best. Sure, we killed a lot of civilians, but in the words of General Tecumseh Sherman, "war is hell." I think that the prevailing attitude of the 1940's toward civilian casualities was one of "defeat the enemy by destroying the will of his population to resist and continue to aid and abet their government." I think this falls under the concept of total war, where the entire resources of one nation are pitted against another, making everything a legit target. During Vietnam, our oversensitivity about civilian casualties and bombing some Russkies by mistake led us to lose thousands of pilots, victims of SAMS and AAA in civilian areas off-limits to bombing. When you tell or show someone you are not going to bomb somewhere, where do you think they will hide their important war material? Thus bombing of civilian areas is not the horrific "war crime" that is made out to be, but a legitimate military option. War crimes are absurd because war in of itself is a crime. The PM is naive in the least. Nuclear weapons have saved more lives by preventing war than they've taken by making world war so unthinkably costly for both sides. This doesn't stop regional conflicts, but I'm of the opinion that without nukes, there would've been a world war III between the communists and the free world. I sincerely wish the world could resolve conflicts without violence and not have to possess such terrifying weapons. But I'm a realist, not an idealist. The only governing principle in this world is brute force. Everything else is bull****. I believe a quote from Plato sums it up nicely.... -Plato
Always diplomatic and sensitive the Bush administration schedules a two-day meeting on the future of mini-nukes during the week of the anniversaries of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings... Mini-nukes on US agenda A two-day conference to plan the future of the American nuclear arsenal, including the development of so-called mini-nukes, is being held this week at StratCom, the headquarters of US Strategic Command in Nebraska. The Bush administration appears determined to build a new generation of small nuclear weapons, especially "earth penetrators", designed to attack nuclear, chemical or biological materials buried deep underground. The Pentagon advises moving away from old deterrents A new form of warfare is coming. It is the extension into the nuclear field of the highly accurate conventional bombs and missiles already in use... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3126141.stm
