Posted on 08/08/2005 5:04:27 AM PDT by hildy123
August 6 marks the sixtieth anniversary of the devastating atomic bomb attack against the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki.
For the most part, up until the 1960s the predominant view was that the U.S. was justified in its decision to use nuclear weapons against the Japanese. There was a general consensus to accept, at face value, that American leaders had determined that Japan would not surrender, and that their determination to fight to the death against an invasion would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not a million U.S. soldiers.
But with the anti-establishment mentality of the 1960s came a new cadre of revisionist historians who began casting the decision to nuke Japan in the context of racism against the Japanese and political opportunism as a show of force to the Soviets. Consequently, for 40 years revisionists have used the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to flog America's conscience.
For years critics of the decision have asserted that the use of nuclear weapons was unnecessary because Japan was so weakened militarily that they realized their situation was hopeless. The revisionists argue that Japan was seeking to negotiate a surrender prior to the bombings. But information from top secret intelligence documents by the U.S. code breaking operation called "Magic" and the British operation called "Ultra" that was declassified in the mid-1990s disclosed a decidedly different situation.
American code breakers had been deciphering Japanese military and diplomatic messages since just before the Battle of Midway. By the summer of 1945, "Magic" was deciphering millions of messages. From these messages President Truman and U.S. military leaders concluded that Japan would not agree to an unconditional surrender.
The revisionists insist otherwise. They point out that in the summer of 1945 the Japanese were seeking a compromised peace to end the war through their envoy to Russia. But based on intercepted Japanese communications, what Japan was trying to do was make a deal to keep the Soviet Union out of the war. What the Japanese military rulers really wanted was a deal that would allow their brutal military regime that started the war to stay in power, something the U.S. and the Allies would never have accepted.
Yet the revisionists persist that the primary obstacle that kept Japan from agreeing to an unconditional surrender was the perception that Emperor Hirohito would not be allowed to continue as emperor. According to the revisionists, the Japanese were so loyal to the Emperor that they would have fought to the death to protect him. While that may have been true for the majority of the Japanese, some of the top military leaders did not hold the Emperor in such high esteem. In fact, when Emperor Hirohito announced his decision to surrender, a group of hard-line Japanese military leaders attempted a coup to overthrow him. The coup failed.
Finally, according to the revisionists, the use of the A-bombs were unnecessary because Japan's military was so devastated that the war would have ended in a matter of weeks anyway. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith even asserted that the use of the A-bombs only shortened the war by two or three weeks at most. But Galbraith and other revisionists couldn't have been more wrong.
The Japanese had been sheltering their resources in anticipation of an American landing. At the time of the bombings, Japan had over 12,000 aircraft for use against U.S. forces. In terms of land forces, some post war estimates indicate that the Japanese defense forces on Kyushu, the first island targeted for invasion, may have outnumbered U.S. forces by a ratio of 3:2. Typically, an invasion force must outnumber defenders by a ratio of 3:1 to be successful. In addition, the Japanese had been training civilians, including children, for attacks against U.S. troops.
The Japanese plan was to inflict such heavy losses that the war weary Americans would seek a negotiated peace. And had the U.S. gone forward with the plans to land on the Kyushu, they would have suffered horrendous casualties. Pre-invasion casualty estimates anticipated the loss of from 100,000 to as many as 1 million American soldiers and from 5-10 million Japanese military and civilian deaths. It has been estimated that for every month that the war continued, between 250,000 to 400,000 Asian civilians still under Japanese occupation would have died.
Revisionists dismiss these estimates as justification for using the A-bombs. But as Dr. James Tent, a professor of history at the University of Alabama-Birmingham, points out, such a dismissal is indicative of the sheer arrogance of the revisionists who, decades after the fact and far removed from the reality of the situation, would presume to judge those who had to make those decisions.
While the revisionists can second-guess the use of such catastrophic weapons on primarily civilian targets, the fact remains that the use of the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought about the end of the war much sooner than any of the other alternatives would have and in so doing saved millions of lives. Given that the Japanese were already responsible for 17 million deaths, it is not hard to conclude that using atomic weapons to end the war was justified.
The two Atomic bombs killed less than 200,000 people. Far fewer than those that were killed by B-29 fire bombing attacks on Japan. On the Night of March 9, 1945, General Curtis LeMay's B-29s did a massive fire bombing of Tokyo. That night 100,000 Japanese died from the attack. The B-29 pilots on that mission reported that Tokyo looked like one giant fire ball.
Neither atomic bomb dropped on Japan killed 100 thousand people. Between March and July of 1945 our B-29s fire bombed over 60 Japanese cities killing at least 800,000 Japanese.
The question is, why did the Japanese surrender after just 2 nuclear attacks?
After the first Nuclear bomb was dropped Truman sent word to the Japanese that atomic bombs would be dropped until the Japanese surrendered or all Japanese were killed.
Truman was bluffing. He only had 2 atomic bombs and he only had one left. He dropped it and the Japanese surrendered.
There were only 3 atomic bombs in the world in 1945. There was no capacity to make more for use in 1945. One of the three was set off in Nevada to prove that they worked. The other two were dropped on Japan. Truman had been told in early august 1945, that it would be at least a year before any more Atomic bombs could be produced.
Truman was bluffing the Japanese, but the Japanese did not call his bluff.
Truman did one other thing that was designed to fool the Japanese. Both Roosevelt and Truman had been trying to get Stalin to help us attack Japan. No one knew for certain that the Atomic bomb would work. Truman first learned of the successful atomic bomb test while attending the Potsdam conference with Stalin and Churchill in late July 1945. Truman immediately told Stalin about it. At the same time Truman told Stalin that his help would not be needed in defeating Japan. Truman had to be aware that the Japanese were talking to Stalin. Years after world war II Truman revealed that he had told Stalin we had enough atomic bombs to defeat Japan. We would not need his help.
Some on the right were very angry that Truman had told Stalin about our atomic bombs.
But Stalin very likely concluded that we had many more than a total of 3 Atomic Weapons. He may very well have told the Japanese that Truman had rejected his help because the USA had a large supply of atomic weapons.
That could have been the calculus that caused the Japanese to surrender. They would have believed Stalin when he said Truman had a large number of Atomic Weapons.
It is interesting to note that Truman did not get an unconditional surrender from the Japanese. Truman agreed that Emperor Hirohito would not be charged with crimes or punished in anyway. With Hirohito spared, the Japanese surrendered.
I believe that had the Japanese known we had no more atomic bombs and would not have any for a year, they would not have surrendered at all.
The Japanese Cu lure prior to 1946 had many similarities with the Muslim culture. Both believed that suicide bombers go straight to heaven. Both taught that surrender was a direct path to Hell. Both had no problems using woman, children, and attacks on the innocent to further their quest for power.
The Japanese had only contempt for Americans that surrendered. Many were killed and others only allowed to live as long as they provided needed labor. They were feed poorly and treated miserably. The ratio of American dead to Japanese dead in our attacks on pacific islands held by the Japanese was 1 to 4. Four Japanese died for every American. The reason is the Japanese soldiers would not surrender when all was lost. They would not surrender. They made us kill them. The Japanese held beliefs that in many ways are far more contemptuous of human life than the Muslims.
Those that think the Muslim culture can't be changed to make them good world citizens know nothing of the Japanese culture and religion prior to their defeat in 1945.
Why don't any of these revisionist a-holes ever ask the Japs if Pearl Harbor was justified?
Yes, it resulted in unconditional surrender, which is what was needed.
The same applies to the present war, it must be fought with enough intensity and aggression to secure unconditional surrender from those that act and support the radical Islamic terrorist faith, whomever and wherever they are. Nothing else will end their terrorist acts.
CHORUS
Atomic power, Atomic power
Was given by the mighty hand of God.
Atomic power, Atomic power
Was given by the mighty hand of God
You remember two great cities
In a distant foreign land,
When scorched from the face of earth
The power of Japan.
Be careful, my dear brother,
Don't take away the joy.
But use it for the good of man
And never to destroy.
CHORUS
Hiroshima, Nagasaki
Paid a big price for their sins.
When scorched froom the face of earth,
Their battle could not win.
But on that day of judgment,
When comes a greater power,
We will not know the minute,
And we will not know the hour.
CHORUS
Fred Kirby, Sonora Records #H-7008, 1946
Yep. I interviewed Bill Verity, Reagan's Commerce Sec., some years ago. He was a "Higgins Boat" pilot, practicing for the invasion of Japan when the bomb went off. He said there was massive cheering, as the men realized that they likely weren't going to die soon.
The local talk radio host here is discussing a letter to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen; the letter writer apologizes "to all of humanity" because the U.S. was guilty of war crimes, since we bombed civilians.
Here's an email I just wrote to him:
_____________________________________
So Carolyn Parrish would try to bring down the Martin government if even one Canadian comes home in a body bag. And yet, people sharing her anti-American mindset think the U.S. bringing the war in the Pacific to an abrupt end by dropping the atomic bomb was immoral.
Well, as an American, I can agree with her on one thing--it may be politically incorrect, but I believe that every drop of blood shed by a soldier from my native country is precious. The bomb saved untold lives. It saved American lives, and that's good enough for me.
And by the way, for the sake of consistency, let's accuse the Germans of war crimes. After all, they bombed innocent civilians in London.
Oh, that's right... the Germans opposed Iraq and are therefore "good guys."
_________________________________
I doubt if anyone will ever know thw real truth, but it did stop Russia...
It was absolutely justified.
But we need to be true to history as well, and note that many conservatives and Republicans (i.e., Henry Luce, Robert Taft, Dwight Eisenhower, the National Review, William F. Buckley, among others) were on the wrong side of this issue for many years. I suspect it was based in partisan politics, as it was, after all, a Democrat, Harry Truman, that made the decision to drop the bombs.
And thanks be to God that he did, IMO.
"I don't think it's about 'wishing unpleasantness away'. It's about making sure that the US never again has the certainty and fortitude to defeat an enemy."
I agree 100%. I think that one needs to understand an adversary. The left is bashed for this kind of thing, but, they do have a misguided logic to this course. Oddly enough, the one world thing, the thing that GWB seems to be totally on board with, is what the left craves. The left thinks war will end, and we will all be happier with one world government.
The UN is an example of why that won't work.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/okinawa/default.aspx
The Battle of Okinawa is distinguished among battles, yet often unrecognized when referring to the great battles of the Second World War. Over 250,000 people lost their lives. Approximately 150,000 Okinawans, about a third of the population, perished.(1) At the battle's end, somewhere between a third and half of all surviving civilians were wounded.(2) No battle during the Second World War, except Stalingrad, had as massive a loss of civilian life. The stakes were high. The Japanese, determined to fight to the last man, almost achieved their objective, but in defeat 100,000 Japanese combatants died rather than surrender.(3) In the end, fewer than 10,000 of General Mitsuri Ushijimas's Thirty-Second Army were taken prisoner.(4)
The civilian deaths were exascerbated by the Emperor's call for the people to commit suicide rather than be captured. Many civilians took this to heart, killing themselves and their family members.
"How many civilians’ lives would have been saved with responsible coherent leadership on the Emperor's part? "
I was watching something on the History channel, and it said that the Emperor wanted to surrender even before the first A bomb. It was his military counsel that wouldn't accept surrender. After the 2nd A bomb, it gave the Emperor enough clout to override the military.
Very true. Another point is just as many people died in the Tokyo firebombing (over 100K) as in either fatman or little boy. I don't remember any protest on 10 March concerning never firebombing civilians again.
In 1985, Paul Tibbets was interviewed by Time and he said the the guy who led the Pearl Harbor strike was a guest in his house, and told him 'You saved more Japanese lives than you took!'
And even then, we carefully avoided firebombing the emperor's residence---contrary to the Tancredo-type call to destroy Mecca.
If Tokyo had already been roasted to a cinder by the earlier fire bombing, why nuke it?
Killing the emperor would have created a "herding cats" situation.
Exactly, which is why the occupation was so easy, and why, in Iraq, there is no comparable person to issue an edict saying, "Lay down your arms."
Off course it was for a lot of reasons, mainly lives saved. If the bomb had not been used, there is a good chance Russia would have entered the war and ended up controlling a large part of Japan, ala, East and West Germany.What would the outcome of the cold war have been if half of Japan was communist??
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.