The 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are upon us. Last night I watched a program on the History Channel which tried to strike a middle ground between those who disagree whether or not the use of these weapons was more good than bad.
On the “pro” side are those who argue that the bombings prevented millions of deaths (American and Japanese) by avoiding an inevitable invasion of the Japanese homeland. Other “pro” arguments included sending a message to the USSR to keep out of Japan (they declared war on Japan at the very end), and revenge for Pearl Harbor and the brutalities of the Japanese prison camps, etc.
On the “con” side are those who argue that the Japanese would have surrendered anyway and that Truman simply wanted to punish the Japanese and show the USSR how powerful we were. Many predicted (incorrectly) that the Japanese would never be able to accept a surrender which removed Hirohito from power and that for the US to demand such a thing was simply “piling it on.” Other “con” arguments include the atrocity of dropping an atomic bomb on a clearly “civilian” target–over 200,000 civilians were killed immediately with several thousand deaths resulting from the subsequent effects of burns and radiation.
What would you formulate as your personal “Christian” response to this debate? Are you proud of your country’s decision? If faced with exactly the same circumstances again, would you support the use of these weapons in this way again?
I saw a show on the pacific theater a few months back. It implied that the bomb didn’t have much to do with the surrender at all.
We had already used similar tactics that didn’t phase the enemy a bit.
That was the most death the world had seen in one day before — second only to Hiroshima in world history, which means even more than Nagasaki. In regards to sending a message to Russia to keep out of Japan, the allies were begging Russia to join in the fight. The land invasion would have put Normandy to shame in the losses we would have sustained and we desperately could have used their help.
In fact, the messages sent out by Japan informing their forces of the surrender had no mention of the bomb, just that the Reds were coming.
That’s the picture that the History Channel painted. As for to use the bomb or not? It changed the way the world thinks. We have peace through MAD, as crazy as the potential is. It exists and there’s not much we can do about it now. So I think we would still be in the same place we are today whether we actually used it or not. Thank God that the war ended when it did before another land invasion was required.
Aug. 6 – Hiroshima
Aug. 8 – Russia declared war on Japan
Aug. 9 – Nagasaki
Aug. 15 – Emperor surrender broadcast
There are many documented accounts of Japan working toward a surrender that would save them some face — no land invasion needed.
So knowing what we know now and being faced with the exact situation again I would say wait just a bit longer.
I hate this kind of thing because I think of all the people saying that 9/11 was GWB’s fault. Imagine if airport security was stepped up to where it is today in July 2001. The people wouldn’t stand for it and label him the worst President ever — ironic. “All this to find someone with a box cutter?”
The pride of the Japanese military complex prevented those in the Japanese heirarchy who were surrender-minded from making overtures directly to the U.S.
Essentially, a horrific event such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki being unleashed by a single weapon was the only thing that would force the military to see the hopelessness of their cause.
Had we waited even only a few days, We might have seen a North Japan and South Japan just like we had a North and South Korea and an East and West Germany.
For me it is very easy. They started it and we ended it. How is that for being concise and to the point? 😉
So David, “knowing what we know now,” you would “wait just a bit longer” before dropping the bomb?
But what about the report you just cited? It said the Japanese were about to surrender anyway. If that’s true, there would be no need to drop the bomb – knowing what we “know” now.
If you are going to “wait just a bit longer,” what determines how long you will wait: events, or the passage of time? If events, what events? If time, how much time?
And “…being faced with the exact situation again…” strikes me as unfair. You cannot possibly be in the “exact situation,” since you are predicating your decision to “wait just a bit longer” on a report issued in 1946.
Krista and I just finished watching Band of Brothers. Watch this series. It’s about the European theater, not the Pacific, but there was a great exchange in Part Nine that marked one of the few times I burst out laughing during the ten-part series:
It is April, 1945, and Easy Company of the 101st Airborne Division has been in Europe since D-Day. The surviving members are just getting word that Roosevelt has died, Hitler has committed suicide, and everyone senses that the war is coming to an end. In fact, 300,000 Germans are presently surrendering to them.
With the end in sight, nobody wants to take any chances with their lives – to come so far only to perish just short of the finish line would be a bitter tragedy, even in wartime. (Consider that before putting yourself in Truman’s shoes!)
One of Easy’s platoons is on patrol in the woods near their battalion headquarters. The setting is very similar to Bastogne, the town in which an earlier episode about the Battle of the Bulge was set.
Someone says, “Hey… this is kind of like Bastogne, isn’t it?”
The reply comes back. “Huh. Yeah, it’s kind of like Bastogne. Except there’s no snow. And I’ve got a belly full of warm grub, and I took a hot shower this morning. Oh, and the trees aren’t f***ing exploding with Kraut artillery fire all around us, but other than that, yeah, it’s pretty much just like Bastogne. Somebody smack him, will ya?”
So yeah, sitting here and playing “what would you do” is pretty much the exact same situation that Truman was in.
Another thing about that 1946 report, “supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved…”
(This is speculation on my part, so I am completely in danger of having the rug pulled out from me on this one.)
Weren’t the Japanese officers supposed to commit suicide rather than surrender? Assuming that’s the case, let’s say all the anti-surrender guys commit suicide. Whom does that leave? The guys who say, “let’s surrender!”
Is it any wonder, then, that the report finds Japanese leaders saying “we were going to surrender anyway?”
How many of the Japanese leaders who did commit suicide did so because of Fat Man and Little Boy?
If those guys had not committed suicide, would Japan still have “surrendered anyway?”
Just wondering.
PS. I apologize if I’m unduly cranky on this issue. I confess I have a visceral contempt for ingratitude toward those who risk all and bleed and suffer and die so I can enjoy the life I have; that includes those (like Truman) who sought to minimize the risking and bleeding and suffering and dying. Like Captain Miller said in Saving Private Ryan, “Earn this…”
I find it interesting that the use of nuclear weapons to kill thousands in one raid becomes such an emotional symbol yet the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden are relatively “unknown” by the popular culture.
What is the difference? Where are the horrific images of charred bodies from the fire boming raids? Why does Hiroshima stand out as some kind of moral atrocity?
Oh, by the way, C.A., do two wrongs make a right? nyah nyah boo boo. :-/
To me it seems very possible that some or all the people in that report said that they were going to “surrender anyway” to make the bombing seem worse after the fact and to promote anti-US sentiment. Maybe?
Did we ever threaten them first and give them any warning to “surrender or have your cities leveled”? Not sure, but if so, then they definitely had a chance to surrender first.
Either way, bottom line is that they started it and we ended it. “All’s fair in love and war”
If we had wiped Japan off the face of the earth and had it sink into the Pacific, thinking that is what we needed to do at the time to end the war, protect our people, and save more lives in the long run, then I would be for that too.
I feel the same about the war on terror. If we are every attacked again on a large scale here such as a nuke and we know a country is as fault, I would not have a problem with an equal or greater response. Just me?
On your comment Ken, the difference is that Japan was wrong and we were right! 😉
But two rights do make an airp…..had to stop myself as you are the “pun king” Ken!
I am diligently looking for the article I read last week on the intelligence community and information that they had gathered up to the bombings. The article referred to very specific intelligence which indicated that the Japanese were not about to surrender unconditionally. It was a persuasive argument against the revisionist viewpoint of the state of the Japanese empire in the summer of 1945….. if I find it, I’ll post it.
As unfair as it is, that’s what Ken asked in his original post. E]
Interesting note … if Japan didn’t surrender then the military was considering using more a-bombs to clear the way for the land invasion. It would have been an easy fight but a bad way to learn about radiation.
Weren’t we bluffing about having a third bomb?
My Christian response to this debate would be “I don’t know what is right in this case. God appointed such men as were in a government for such a time as that. If they did wrong by Him, then they will stand in judgment.”