Hiroshima in Historical Context
Well, its that time of year again and folks on the Left are out there with their annual rants against the bombing of Hiroshima as a great crime against humanity.
All war is a crime against humanity by those who start them. And I am certainly uncomfortable that we let the atomic genie out of the steel casing in August of 1945. But I think much of what is written about Hiroshima strips the decision to drop the bomb from its historical context. A few thoughts:
- We loath the Hiroshima bombing because we in 2015 know of the nuclear proliferation that was to follow and the resulting cloud of fear that hung over the globe for decades as most everyone was forced to think about our new ability to destroy humanity. But all that was in the realm of science fiction in 1945. And even if they knew something of the Cold War and fear of the Bomb, would many have had sympathy, living as they were through a real war that represented possibly the worst self-inflicted catastrophe man has ever faced?
- Several other bombing raids, notably the fire-bombing of Tokyo, took more lives than Hiroshima. Again, we differentiate the two because we experienced the Cold War that came after and thus developed a special fear and loathing for atomic weapons, but people in 1945 did not have that experience.
- The ex post facto mistake many folks make on Hiroshima is similar to the mistake many of us make on Yalta. Lots of folks, particularly on the Right, criticize FDR for being soft on Stalin and letting him get away with Eastern Europe. But really,what were they going to do? Realistically, Russia's armies were already in Eastern Europe and were not going to leave unless we sent armies to throw them out. Which we were not, because folks were absolutely exhausted by the war. This war exhaustion also plays a big part in the decision at Hiroshima. Flip the decision around. What would have happened if a war-weary public later found out that the government had a secret weapon that might have ended the war but refused to use it? They would have been run out of office.
- I once heard a government official of the time say that it was odd to hear people talking about the "decision" to bomb Hiroshima because there was not a decision to make. We were in a long, horrible, bloody war. We had a new weapon. It was going to be used.
- The Japanese were not showing a willingness to negotiate. Yes, some members of the Japanese state department were making peaceful overtures before Hiroshima, but they had no power. None of the military ruling clique was anywhere in the ballpark of surrendering. Even after Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and the Russian declaration of war, the government STILL would not have voted for surrender except for the absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented intervention of the Emperor. And even then, the military rulers were still trying to figure out how to suppress the Emperor or even take him hostage to stop any peace process.
- It is argued sometimes that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were irrelevant and that the Japanese surrendered when the Russians declared war. The Russian declaration was certainly an important part of the mix, but I find it hard to believe the Emperor would have taken his unprecedented actions without the atomic bomb attacks. Besides, even if the Russian declaration was critical, it could be argued the bombs played a huge role in that declaration. After all, we had tried to get the Russians to make such a declaration for years, and it suddenly came coincidentally a couple of days after the atomic bombs start dropping? I doubt it. A better theory is that the Russians were waiting for signs that the war was nearly won so they could jump in and grab some costless booty from defeated Japan, and the bombs were that sign.
- It is argued that the invasion of Japan would have cost fewer lives than the bomb. This is a crock. Sorry. There is absolutely no way to look at military and civilian casualty figures from Iwo Jima and Okinawa and come to any conclusion other than the fact that the invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath.
- It is argued that we could have blockaded Japan to death. This is possible, but it would have 1. Taken a lot of time, for which no one had any patience; 2. exposed US ships to relentless Kamikaze attacks and 3. likely have cost more Japanese civilian lives to continued conventional bombing and starvation than the atomic bombs did.
- It is argued that we dropped the bombs on Japan out of some sort of racial hatred. We can't really test this since by the time the bombs were ready, Japan was our only enemy left in the field. Certainly, as a minimum, we had developed a deep hatred of Japanese culture that seemed so alien to us and led to atrocities that naturally generated a lot of hatred. For the soldier, the best simple description of this culture clash I ever heard (I can't remember the source) was a guy who said something like "for us, the war was about winning and going home. For the Japanese, the war just seemed to be about dying." In a time where racism was much more normal and accepted, I would say that yes, this cultural hatred became real racism. But I would add that it was not like we entered the war with some sort of deep, long hatred of Asians. If anything, we stumbled into the Pacific War in large part because Americans felt a special friendship and sympathy with China and would not accept Japan's military interventions there.
Actually, you failed then, and apparently still do, to understand the basics of the concept.
There are nukes -- usually called "tactical nukes" -- which are not the familiar "mushroom weapons", possessing a far, far lower yield -- some designs allowed for a sub-critical mass to go critical, meaning the actual yield amount is not far from a modern "bunker buster" conventional weapon.
Theory was, these would possibly be used on an actual battlefield without them being used against civilian targets, thus leaving a reasonable distinction between their use and all-out nuclear war.
Not to suggest I'm not grateful that theory was never tested, but it's not like they were saying "you lob 2, then I'll lob 2, and we'll stop after that point and tally up the losses to decide who gives in..."
}}} Of course, they also, had the brilliant idea of the neutron bomb, kill the people, leave the infrastructure, although radioactive infrastructure.
Also wrong. The neutron weapon was low-fallout, and would not have strongly irradiated the local structures. It was a short, sharp burst that was mainly harmful to larger animal life forms, which, for the purpose of this discussion, included humans.
From the wiki entry:
The intense pulse of high-energy neutrons generated by a neutron bomb is the principal killing mechanism, not the fallout, heat or blast.
The problem with doing this with Islam is that it's very much a Shame culture, not a Guilt culture. While Japan certainly has elements of a shame culture remaining, for the most part, it's adopted many of the guilt culture elements from the west, as it has with so many other western ideas.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/shame-arab-psyche-and-islam.html
}}} There are pretty detailed books written by professional historians of high repute on why that's not the case;
You mean liberal academics. Pardon me if I take such with a grain of salt, and suggest you might investigate the background positions and attitudes of the authors prior to taking them seriously.
In my experience, one of the worst things about liberals is their utter lack of devotion to Truth, when it comes to counter-support for an Agenda. Remember Michael Bellesiles...
}}} often while using supplies we provided.
Or, more critically, created using factories we equipped and people we trained.
And then there's the T34 tank, the BEST tank in existence at the start of the war, by far. If not for that tank, which was strongly influenced by an American expatriot whose designs the US military had turned down (quite foolishly, almost certainly a political matter of crap) -- if not for it, the Germans would probably have overrun the Russians before they had time to develop an experienced cadre of veteran tankmen and infantrymen. As it was, there was a measure of balance between the soviet capacity to field lots and lots of great tanks manned by semi-competent tankmen, vs. the far less capable German Panzers, which were manned by the best tankmen in Europe at the time.
The German Army broke their backs against the Russians, first trying to take Moscow, then trying to take Stalingrad.
There were no lives saved. The American military leaders opposed dropping the bomb because Japan was finished and had offered to surrender as long as the Emperor got to stay as head of state. Truman did not accept, dropped two bombs on civilians, and let the Emperor stay anyways. For his crimes Truman should have been hanging from a lamppost. No wonder he had the lowest ratings ever when he left office.
Let us play some counterfactuals then. Imagine the lives that would have been saved had Wilson not taken America into World War I and stopped the illegal blockade that starved German civilians? The settlement would have come sooner. No Bolshevik coup and no Hitler. There would have been no war collectivism, not progressive movement, no need for atomic bombs, no failure of the Gold Exchange Standard, Bretton Woods, and other such nonsense.
We can all play this game but it gets us nowhere my friend.
Dropping atomic bombs on Japan was an appropriate end to the war started by the savage Japanese military leadership. End of story.
Really? Then why did the American military leaders disagree?
Sorry my friend but the bombs were not necessary. Japan had been trying to surrender honourably for months and had offered basically the same deal that it got after the bombs in April. Had Truman been honest and rational he would have accepted the surrender terms and saved many lives that were needlessly lost from April to August 1945.
First of all, Germany was defeated by Russia, not the United States. Its armies and planes were lost in the Eastern Front when few lives were lost on the Western Front. And Russia was also ready to enter the war against Japan so that Japan could surrender honourably without too much more destruction. Truman dropped the bomb two days before the Russian entry so that Japan would surrender to the US, not Russia.
As for the attack on Pearl, FDR knew all about it. He was actually trying to provoke Japan so that he could go to war and distract Americans from his failed policies that turned a sharp contraction into a Great Depression. The world would have been much better off if the US had minded its own business and not tried to provoke Japan into attacking. Hitler and Stalin would have destroyed each other's armies in the killing fields of Eastern Europe and millions of Chinese lives would have been saved because Mao would not have come to power as long as the Japanese were around to stop him.
When you post a commander that mattered maybe it will be more meaningful. Harry Truman and Douglas McCarthur had different views. So again, end of story.
But it is true. The Japanese had only one condition; that the institution of the Emperor would continue. That is exactly what it got after it surrendered. All those GIs and Japanese who died between April and August of 1945 died without reason. Truman should have been hanged from the highest tree that remained standing in Nagasaki.
A commander who mattered? Given the fact that 90% of the military commanders, including the highest ranking ones disagreed who would that be; the lapdogs?
Sorry my friend but the facts on this are very clear. Japan had lost the war. It had been trying to surrender for months. It would have surrendered to the Russians after Russia entered the war, which would do so a few days after the bombs were dropped. Truman was one of the worst and least popular presidents in your history. He was a war criminal who should have hung for his crimes, not be praised for them.
Again Harry Truman and Douglas McCarthur disagreed. So did George Marshall and earnest King.
As far as "the facts" you are mistaken. The facts are clear that the Japanese intended to continue to fight. The military junta tgst controlled the country intended to bleed the Americans to achieve better terms.
You have no clue what you are talking about my friend. McCarthur sent FDR a 40 page memo before Yalta. He explained that Japan wanted to surrender honourably with the only condition being that the institution of the Emperor remain. Truman knew of the memo and knew that Japan wanted to surrender. President Truman was advised not to use the bomb by his military commanders but was convinced to drop the bomb on Hiroshima by James F. Byrnes who thought that the bomb would be an important tool for dealing with Stalin after the war.
Japan's cities were mostly destroyed by fire bombing raids made by the American airforce, which managed to kill around 1 million civilians in the process. Note that the Japanese did not kill a single civilian at Pearl.