Hiroshima

Every year or so, I hear some America basher, here or abroad, bring up the issue of Hiroshima and “the Bomb”. That the U.S. is the only country to use the atomic bomb in war, that this was the first use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction, that the Japanese were ready to give up without the Bomb thus we caused the unneeded deaths of more than a hundred thousand lives, and so on. It seems appropriate during the anniversary of Hiroshima (August 6th) and Nagasaki (August 9th) to remember what really happened, and not what the revisionists, biased, or ignorant are saying.

The First weapon of mass destruction?

The Atomic Bomb was not even close to “the first weapon of mass destruction”. I’d say the use of fire-bombing cities out of existence goes back thousands of years (athenian fire anyone?), and was not an uncommon practice in war. The Atomic bomb was an easier way to do that, but the ends was the same; burn the enemy en masse. Chemical, nerve agents and gas weapons, all considered WMD’s, were used in WWI or before. The gassings in WWI may have estimates ranging from a few hundred thousand to tens of millions because of delayed effects. Biological weapons were used for thousands of years before that. So the atomic bomb by the U.S. wasn’t close to the first use of a “Weapon of Mass Destruction”

More importantly are the the policies of Ghengis Kahn or others involved in total war; they would kill every man in a city, and sometimes the women and children, as well as salt the fields. That’s at least a policy of mass destruction. Germany and Japan started these policies in WWIII, with attacking civilian targets in London with V1’s and V2’s terrorist weapons (no military value). The Japanese with the rape of Nanking puts anything we did to shame; mass rape, executions, throwing babies into the air and catching them on bayonet’s in front of their mothers? Death marches, starvation, torture, forced prostitution, and so on. That is a policy of mass destruction. Our fire-bombings of Japanese cities like Tokyo killed more people than an atomic bomb did. So the policies of mass destruction were in place long before the use of the Atomic bomb. Those that claim otherwise are trying to alter meanings to fit their agenda. They also focus on the tool, instead of what is important; the policies of usage, who has it and how/when they will use it, and why.

The Japanese, Germans, Russians, etc., would not have hesitated to use the Atomic bomb on us. Those claiming that we were somehow wrong for using it on them first, are choosing not to see the times/attitudes and context in which it what used. Two wrongs do not make a right, but there is a huge difference ethically between assaulting someone, and defending against that assault using the same means they would and had already used. In war, the biggest bastards set the rules. And the Germans and Japanese had set the rules long before we came along and fought by them. Our choice was to lose or to win, and in order to win a war, you need to do bad things. Still we chose to fight more honorably than our enemies; but frankly we didn’t ethically have to choose that path.

The Japanese were ready to surrender? We only needed to drop the first bomb (the second was spite)?

They were training girls to fight fires, and attack American soldiers using spears. They were training the rest in mass suicide bombings; how to throw themselves in front of trucks and tanks with bombs strapped to their chests. This was after Kamikaze planes, boats and subs, suicidal mass charges, throwing themselves from cliffs rather than surrender, and so on. They were taught that they were going to die either way, only they could choose to die gloriously in defense of the homeland (sacrificing themselves), or as a shameful coward. These are not the preparations of those who plan surrender.

Certainly, there were elements in Japan that wanted to surrender, the same elements that didn’t want to go into China and didn’t want to attack America/Hawaii in the first place. But they didn’t have the power. They had repeatedly failed. The Military was running the country, and they did NOT want to give up. They felt there was glory in dying. That they could win by showing more heart than the Americans had stomachs. The “Potsdam Declaration” gave the terms for Japans surrender at the end of July: Japan must immediately agree to unconditionally surrender, or face “prompt and utter destruction”. The Japanese promptly refused. Those that think the Japanese were ready to surrender should ask, “why didn’t they?”. There was ample opportunity.

Remember, we were intercepting the Japanese communications; military and diplomatic; we knew where their heads were at. The Japanese seemed to be especially concerned about losing their emperor, and we knew they were an egomaniacal culture that was myopically focused on “saving face”. Truman, unilaterally, went out of his way to give them an out and be softer than the international agreement made on Postdam (of unconditional surrender). He broadcast a much softer demand for “the unconditional surrender of the Military of Japan”. The face saving (and emperor saving) out was meant to show compassion and give the Japanese that wanted surrender more leeway. But that compassion was seen as a sign of weakness. The Japanese Military felt the Americans are softening, thus if they could hold out and cost more lives in the invasion, that America would give them more concessions. Those communiqué’s are what sealed the fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Japanese were not ready to surrender before the first bomb. Proof of that is that they weren’t ready to surrender even AFTER the first bomb. The mayor of Hiroshima made defiant broadcasts after the bomb, telling his people about how casualties were to be expected in war, and to remain resolute. Truman gave a public warning that more were to come if they did not surrender. The Japanese had 3 days after Hiroshima, and still they did not surrender. They didn’t know if we could produce more, or if it was a fluke. They still wanted to figure out how to avoid the shame of surrender, and cost more American lives. If we had not forced that surrender, their culture would not have had to change, and we would have been fighting the same war in another 10 – 25 years, like what happened after WWI. So Nagasaki was a testament to Japans arrogance.

Even AFTER two bombs, the slaughters in the South Pacific, all the way to Okinawa, the Japanese Military still wanted to fight for terms. It took Prime Minister Suzuki going to the emperor himself to break the deadlock. It was this extreme measure that got the Emperor to accept the terms of Potsdam. When the Emperor finally did agree to surrender, there was an attempted coup! There were plans to assassinate the emperor before he surrendered or gave the radio address, so they didn’t have to give up. They still didn’t want to give up. They were going to fight, and there were many in power that wanted to kill their own God-on-earth, before surrendering or accepting the shame of defeat.

The U.S. was vindictive/doing it for revenge?

This is so out of character of the U.S., that it should be discounted out of hand as the raving hatred and ignorance that it is. The U.S. let the Japanese keep their emperor, despite knowing that the emperor was responsible; because it was in the best interests of the Japanese people and Democracy. We immediately setup massive food distribution programs to help the Japanese, who were starving. We also helped the country rebuild their economy and manufacturing (similar to the Marshall Plan). Americans were donating blood to help the Japanese. These are not the actives of a vindictive culture out to kill or harm as many Japanese as possible. Proof is that most Japanese know that they would have been far worse occupiers than we were.

Conclusion

Those that claim Japan’s surrender was imminent, or the U.S. didn’t have to drop the bomb are ignoring Japanese history/culture and almost of all of what was happening at that time. The Japanese from the era will tell you the truth; they were ready to fight to the last man, woman and child if necessary. Each death brought honor to the Japanese, by their way of thinking. The atomic bomb took that honor away, and made them face the cost of war, and accept the shame of defeat. Still, one bomb wasn’t enough to get the message to sink in. Two might not have been enough if Russia hadn’t declared war on Japan as well. It still took over another week.

Those that label Americans as doing it out of pure hate or revenge, ignore what we did before, during and after the war to help Japan, Germany, or the world. While there are always grays, and we can question whether the intent or analysis at the time was correct; we can get a much better idea of the motivations of the people involved. Those that repeat these myths and facts or implications raise questions not only about themselves; but about the very nations, schools, cultures that raised and taught them.

War sucks. I hate it. Almost every man who has ever fought in war, hates it. But look at the alternatives. Sometimes a small war now is better than a bigger war later. Sometimes the fastest way to save lives is to end a war as quickly as possible. The choice was to tolerate a xenophobic culture that was doing vivisections, biological and chemical testing on humans, and preparing to kill millions as a tribute to their own arrogance. A culture that had little value of life for their own kind, and none for anyone else. They had ignored all rules of war, starved and tortured their enemies. Not dropping the bomb would have meant the invasion of Japan; with the cost of a million American lives, and up to twenty or thirty times as many Japanese, or more. So perhaps the camera plane for the Hiroshima bombing said it best in its very name: Necessary Evil. Nuking Hiroshima sucked, but was still better than the alternative.

Links to more

http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/japan.html#hiroshima
http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hando/hando.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima
http://www.dannen.com/decision/