Posted on 08/06/2012 1:03:34 PM PDT by Shout Bits
Today is the 67th anniversary of the US's bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. As with each anniversary, many Japanese hold a ceremony designed to promote peace and prevent the use of nuclear weapons. It is hard to judge these people, as the bombing is of course regrettable, but like the Austrians and Italians, these people have a convenient lapse in memory regarding their culpability in WWII. Most regrettable, however is the attendance of Pres. Truman's grandson at the event. While Clifton Daniel stopped short of decrying his grandfather's leadership in the decision to end the war, his presence was a blithe insult to the seriousness of the war against Japan.
Japan, like the other nations the US defeated in WWII, is now a peaceful and stable nation whose government cannot pursue war without the consent of its people. It is easy to condemn an atomic attack against today's Japan, but 67 years ago Japan was a vicious and intractable enemy. While the Japanese considered their emperor a walking god, Japan was also controlled by a military-industrial complex that was every bit as brutal as was Germany's. Before the Pearl Harbor attack, Japan had been a blatant aggressor in its region. Japan's treatment of the Chinese and Malays was inhuman, and the Rape of Nanking will be remembered as one of history's worst crimes. It is beyond rational dispute that the Japanese would have defended Honshu to the last man, including civilians. In short, Truman did not have the option of not killing many Japanese.
Another angle of attack against Truman is that the atomic bombs killed mostly civilians. Apart from the fact that there were no real civilians in Japan, this criticism again misrepresents the nature of war at the time. Targeting individual buildings while avoiding civilian casualties is a luxury of modern technology that Truman did not enjoy. Even at the end of WWII, bombs were inaccurate. Because of this, it was necessary to use incendiary bombs in places like Dresden and Tokyo. While fire bombs sound less scary than atomic bombs, these raids were devastating to the civilians. The atomic bomb was an extension of this strategy. Long before WWII, the doctrine of total war required the destruction of civilian capabilities used to support industrialized war.
Misguided revisionists, of which Clifton Daniel appears to be one, will never rest until the US apologizes for its atomic bombs. A WikiLeaks document suggests that Pres. Obama may have been ready to issue such an apology in 2009, or at least diplomats had discussed an apology. Such a move might appeal to those who need to see the US as the perennial villain and aggressor, but it would not serve the truth. Truman was faced with a choice of unleashing a powerful weapon or authorizing a land invasion. The Japanese alone forced such a terrible choice. Viewed from a reasonable historical perspective, Truman made the only choice that ended the war quickly and likely saved more lives that it cost. Clifton Daniel should not allow himself to be a political pawn to those who would rewrite the truth of Truman's call 67 years ago.
Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/ShoutBits
You have no idea what you are talking about. Learn a little bit and dig deep into the invasion of Okinowa and what the civilians did to avoid not only capture, but simple contact with our forces. Ask the Marines who bore the brunt of the assault on Iwo Jima. The closer we got to the main islands the worse it got.
I'm not nearly as well read as I should be. But it's a very basic fact about the end of WW II; and what Japan was prepared to do.
Not even debatable....
Very basic research will show this.
BUMP!
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
How you like to have been Truman, and to have faced the American public, in December 1945 (as you propose), or 1946, or 1947 - and have said "yes, we had these really powerful bombs available in August 1945, but we decided to let the war run another year, rather than possibly seem cruel. It only killed another 50,000 or 100,000 of your sons and brothers."
At the cost of how many millions?
They didn’t breach that question now did they?
Maybe they are the same strategic planners who came up with the concentration camps that thousands of American citizens were thrown into just because of their heritage and not only Japanese whose families were here for generations.
Detailed investigations in hindsight are always 20/20. All we had to make that decision on was what we knew at the time but you want to cite an “investigation” on woulda, coulda, shoulda.
The reality is that we will never know any more than we knew at the time on the ground to make a decision with. Accept it, learn from it, and move on.
"All the facts" probably includes "Several hundred B-29s coming over every night shoveling out several thousands of tons of fire on every city, town, village and hamlet that hadn't already been burnt to the ground".
The surviving Japanese may have said that after the war.
To capture Iwo, we had to kill 99% of the defenders.
To capture Okinawa, we had to kill 90+% of the defenders.
We're really supposed to believe the main islands of Japan would just roll over and surrender?
Quite true. In August 1945 the Japanese were dying at the rate of something above 250,000/week.
So if the Bomb shortened the war by more than a week or so, it was a net save for Japanese lives. Leaving American casualties out of it.
The whole argument over whether we should have used the Bomb is so idiotic I hardly know where to start. It is not based on the revulsion as to the number actually killed by the two Bombs dropped, which could have been (and was) easily duplicated using other methods of bombing. Instead it is based on retrospective acknowledgement that the more powerful Bombs developed later actually could mean an end to civilization or even all human life.
My favorite is the claim, which I’ve actually seen made, that we didn’t use the Bomb on the Nazis because they were white.
The Germans having surrendered before the Bomb was available had of course nothing to do with it.
The claim that the Bomb was dropped only to intimidate the Russians assumes (without bothering to make the argument) that this was an evil choice. Not even considering that an unintimidated USSR might have launched WWIII in a year or two.
Now that was rich. Accept a supposed abstract of a study from an anti-nuke site. You can’t do better than that? I have relatives who were there in both theatres and on both sides of the European. I’ll take that experience long before I will accept some anti-nuke outfit web site.
Oops.
My mistake.
I misread your link; I thought it pointed to the Strategic Bombing Survey.
It actually points to some peacenik’s interpretation of the Strategic Bombing Survey.
So, you shouldn’t be citing the Strategic Bombing Survey, you should be citing the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
"It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
> And let 50 million of them die of famine and disease?
It is extremely unlikely anything that severe would have happened. In a blockade, there would likely have been fewer deaths than resulted from the atomic bombs. Food and medicine would have been provided, but industrial capacity would have continued being destroyed.
> Wait - let me guess - you call yourself a “humanitarian”, right?
Not at all.
I’m a Christian. I endeavor to make my focus Christ, not humanity, though compassion for fellow human beings is part of what Jesus taught.
And I’m not the only one who believes the atomic bombs were not as necessary as is commonly thought, as moonshot925 posted here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2915320/posts?page=16#16
The second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki just three days after the first, even before the Japanese government had fully understood what had happened in Hiroshima.
Don’t know what I would’ve done in Truman’s shoes, though.
The U.S. had suffered a LOT of casualties, and the Japs were particularly maniacal. That did not work in their favor in the end.
Hindsight is almost always 20-20.
Had relatives and older friends who served in both theaters. They didn’t talk about it much.
Did watch the “Victory at Sea” series more than a few times, though. That was when most American journalists were still Americans first.
HelenInTheHeartland:
> Sheesh; shouldn’t have someone post that on a
> conservative website.
Being pro-life is conservative, and AFAIK, my post follows all the rules of this forum.
He’s a Democrat - any questions?
Yes so was Harry, but even stopped clock is right twice a day.
You are free to your opinion. I strenuously disagree with it based on historical fact.
I am glad the we dropped the 2 atomic bombs on Japan killing tens of thousands.
Not glad about the tens of thousands; but glad that leaders realized either hundreds of thousands could die in an invasion, or tens of thousands with atomic bombs.
They had a hard choice to make and made it correctly.
Could have said that about the Japanese forces on Iwo and Okinawa, too.
Didn't turn out that way.
Given the ferocity of resistance at those two islands, it doesn't make any sense that they would just roll over and surrender a couple of months later.
Even after seeing Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuked, there was still an attempted coup with a goal of preventing a surrender.
They may have been on the verge of collapse - doesn't mean they were on the verge of surrender.
Are you really suggesting that, absent Little Boy and Fat Man, in late 1945 we would have blockaded Japan, continued to bomb their industrial capacity, but ferried food and medicine ashore "for the starving chirruns"?
What color is the sky in your world?
> What color is the sky in your world?
Same as it is in yours, or we would not be able to converse.
Air-dropping humanitarian aid was not difficult to do, even if industrial capacity was still being hammered.
Personally, I don’t believe a blockade would have lasted very long.
Glad I didn’t have to make the call, though. Either way, a lot of people will reckon you a villain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.