This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
A Tribute on Hiroshima Day
Published on August 5, 2005 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
The great historian E J Hobsbawm has rightly caalled the twentieth century an "age of extremes". The German Holocaust during the course of the World War and the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will for ever be seared in the momory of humankind as the most horrendous instances of mans' inhumanity ro fellow human beings. The moral evivalence between the two cannot be disputed because both were political decisions taken in order to achieve certain strategic and political goals during the course of the war. To this litany of horrors can be added,of course, the brutalities of Stalin and the Pol Pot genocide making the history of the 20th century a history of genocide. In fact the century began with the massacre of the bushmen by the Germans in Africa and the often forgotten Armenian Massacre carried out by Turkish Troops.

The American intellectuals are always uncomfortable over the issue of Hiroshimaa and Nagasdaki. Afterall the USA is the only country in the world to have used atomic weapons against civillian non combatants in History and Harry Truman's decision to use the boms will not ever be justified by right thinking people including quite a few conservatives who feel that it was an immoral and immproper decision.

An American historian Gar Aperovitz has come up with an excellent book on this decision. Entitled The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb this book is an indepth analysis of the factors both political and military that prompted the decision and on Hiroshim,a Day as we remember the Victims of the Atomic Bombing let us see whether that fateful decision was indeed justified.

One of the myths ardently propagated by the proponents of the decision to use the Atomic Boms is that the Japanese wopuld have otherwise faught on leading to several thousand casualities. This argument is essentiaslly a non sequter and like the case of the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction rests soley on unbridled speculation and mmotivated inlelligence. The precurssor of the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services estimated a few thousand deaths in the evwent of an invasion of the mainland of Japan.

The most controversial feature of the decision to use the Atomic Bomb was the fact that the American Military establishment had advised against its use. In fact the Admiral of the Pacific Fleet Admiral Nimitz was vehement against its use and cautioned against the use of the weapon of mass destruction on a civillian target. The military brass of the American Army was also gaaist the use saying that the Atomic Bomb was developed only for use against Germany which was known to have had a nuclear research programme and even by the time the first test took place on July 16 1945 at Nevada the German Army had surrendered and the US Air Borne Division was in command over Berlin. So the justification for using the weapon was not there on the ground, so to speak.

The real reason seems to be to forestalll the possible Soviet moves in the Japanese Islands. At Postdam, the American leadership virtually begged Stalin to break his treaty with the Japanese and declare war. Stalin ever alert to ther possibllity that the Americans may be making him pull their chestnuts out of the fire wanted to make sure that any projected Soviet invasion of Japan would be to the advantage of the Russians and not the Americans. Once the America acquired the nuclead bombs, the pressure to stop the war before the Soviets came on tio the scene became acute and therefore the decision to use the nuclear boms not once but twice. In fact even before Hiroshima there were indications of a possible Japanese surrender and the US leadership knew this because the codes had been broken. Yet the Truman Adminiustration took the extreme decision to drop the bomb making the conscience of the American Nation for ever seared like the German conscience is by the guit of the Holocaust.

Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Aug 05, 2005
I've said it before on another forum: Harry S. Truman is a terrorist and a war criminal. That is what you call someone who uses WMDs on civilians, correct? Of course, US officials have rarely, if ever, been punished for their crimes. I can think of a few who should have been brought up on charges of crimes against humanity *cough cough Kissinger cough* but for some reason they are allowed to commit these crimes with impunity.
on Aug 05, 2005
An excellent article. Well worthy of debate. Sadly the commentators on this site will have trouble thinking in more than one dimension so even if you do get feedback it will be of the "you hate America" type (i.e. that is attacking you personally rather than commenting on what you say.) Keep up the indidual thinking....whether we agree or disagree constructive thinking is our greatest defense against tyranny - whether that comes from the likes of Saddam Hussein or GW Bush
on Aug 05, 2005
*Yawn*

Wow, never read that before... (not). Is it that time of year again? These anti-US catechisms have become religious ritual with folks, haven't they. They laugh at the jingoistic talk of pearl harbor or "remember the alamo", but they have just as as many ritualistic, hateful litanies.

History is polticized, no doubt. There are about as many takes on Hiroshima as their are current political philosophies. Coincidence? Or the bias of political ethos on historical study? When someone like Bahu pretends to objectively spotlight history from an anti-US pulpit, it's a joke.

Sure, the Soviets had a lot to do with our decision. So did the tens of thousands of US deaths that would have occured during an invasion. So did the hundreds of thousands, some estimated up to a million civilian deaths that would have occured.

Add to that the number of casualties that would have occured had Stalin decided to take Japan for himself. He killed millions of Russians during the purges. I wonder if he'd have been more sympathetic to the Japanese?

People speculate this and that, but when their speculation stinks so much of their usual anti-US diatribe, I tend to discount their 'historical perspective'. We wanted unconditional surrender from the Japanese, and we wanted Stalin to think twice about invading it. We achieved our goals, the people of South East Asia didn't have to worry about the Japanese crimes against humanity, and Japan has enjoyed decades of peace.

This isn't about Japan. Bahu could care less that North Korea threatens Japan, lobs missles over it, kidnaps its citizens. No, he hadn't bitched about the US for a while and there was an anniversery of an event coming up, so here we are. Predictable to the extreme.
on Aug 05, 2005
...and then there is BakerStreet, someone intlligent who sadly refuses to see the light.
on Aug 05, 2005
haha: Anyone who really studies history knows that there is no "light".

Do you REALLY think, in a nation that had never before heard the voice of their emperor, people would have believed it if the surrender had come during an active invasion? After THEY had been broadcasting propaganda and misinformation of that sort for years?

Do you really think that Stalin wouldn't have killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you really think that anything short of an atomic bomb would have stopped the invasion? Hiroshima didn't just end a war with Japan. We were poised for war on two continents with the USSR. Our own generals were advising to push straight on through Germany, balanced by Soviet advisers who wanted to do the same thing.

Can you imagine the death toll?

I don't "refuse to see the light", I just differ on the existance of the light. Do I think killing hundreds of thousands of people is a 'moral' thing to do? No. Do I think that war is a horrible thing, and that imposing Liberal 'morality' on it is unrealistic? Absolutely.

Do we see Bahu here on the anniversary of German or Japanese atrocities? I wonder why? One wonders if Bahu has even bothered to look into Japanese crimes against humanity, or if he can even imagine what Japan would have had in store had Stalin invaded.

That isn't the point, though, is it?

on Aug 05, 2005
"I've said it before on another forum: Harry S. Truman is a terrorist and a war criminal. That is what you call someone who uses WMDs on civilians, correct?"

Uhm, no.
on Aug 05, 2005
Do we see Bahu here on the anniversary of German or Japanese atrocities? I wonder why? One wonders if Bahu has even bothered to look into Japanese crimes against humanity, or if he can even imagine what Japan would have had in store had Stalin invaded.


Great point. Where are the articles about those people. This posts are nothing but the usual anti-U.S. bs that they use.
on Aug 05, 2005
Concerning the atomic bombing of Japan, it was a good decision then and it would be a good decision now if same circumstances existed.
They had plenty of time to surrender.
on Aug 06, 2005
Do you really think that anything short of an atomic bomb would have stopped the invasion?

Actually the reason for the surrender had nothing to do with the two A bombs, it was purely to halt the Russian advance, the Japs new that if the war went on any longer they may end up being partitioned just as Germany, which would have meant they would loose territority to Rissia and China. If you where to spend some time reading research on this very subject you would know this Bakerstreet,

As for this comment " Concerning the atomic bombing of Japan, it was a good decision then and it would be a good decision now if same circumstances existed.
They had plenty of time to surrender."
Critising actions of the US is not anti american, the US has done its fair share of good deeds in the modern history of this planet, however sometimes they get it wrong , this was one of those time. You guys need to learn that all countries get it wrong sometimes, and need to be able to wear it when it happens.

Killing innocent people is never a good decision ever.
on Aug 06, 2005
Concerning the atomic bombing of Japan, it was a good decision then and it would be a good decision now if same circumstances existed.


it was an expedient decision. one made without benefit of what we know today. in today's world, it would be a horrible decision.

using a nuclear weapon is very much like shitting in the community reservoir--ultimately you're inflicting illness and death on yourself.

fallout doesn't respect national boundaries. look what chernobyl has done...is doing...will do...to those who live hundreds of miles downwind.
on Aug 06, 2005
Any criticism of a decision made presumes to know what would have happened had the decision NOT been made. This is on both sides of the given decision - pro or con.

It's an irrational argument, but fun for some people who feel that somehow righteousness on the part of an individual or individuals will somehow change reality despite centuries of proof that it does not.

Writer, if you feel the US is some evil super power, fine. It is. But if it were gone, the next tallest tree in the forest is what everyone would call the evil super power. Surely this cannot escape you.

Look up somy body counts from wars/battles in history. The numbers are pretty staggering, they aren't all caused by Evil America. 99% of them occurred before America existed.

Humans are unenlightened as a whole, and we do stupid things. It's been that way forever, and who knows if or when it will stop. I know this - it isn't an American monopoly.
on Aug 06, 2005
I dunno what all the whining is about. The nips attacked another country without provocation and without declaring war. It was a complete miscalculation of the strength and ability of the US and they subsequently got their arses kicked for it.

Atomic bombs in WWII right on. Its their own stupid damn fault. A bomb is a bomb. If you want to run around the world provoking and killing people then you get whats coming to you. Theres no point in getting all girly about it by saying "oh but the bomb you dropped is so much bigger than the bombs we dropped on you". Stiff shit and harr bloody harr.

Stay the fuck home or suffer the consequences. The only downside to nukes is the fallout. You end up pissing in your own water well. If they could make a bomb that was "clean" and still killed a million people then id be the first to drop one on you if you try to invade me. Imperialist Swine.
on Aug 06, 2005
Atomic bombs in WWII right on. Its their own stupid damn fault


So, it is the fault of a women, children and old men in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that his country went to war with America?
on Aug 06, 2005
"bigrickstalion" has a point. even if he could have phrased it differently.

It was Japan's decision to attack China, to attack the US, and to attack everybody else in the area. It was the Japanese government who are to blame for what happened because of it.

The citizens of Hiroshima were just as innocent as other Japanese citizens. But it is Japan's government that is to blame for what happened to them, not the US. It was a Japanese decision that doomed them, not an American one.

Japan was given an ultimatum. They could decide between surrendering and seeing Hiroshima blown up. _They_ decided that they'd rather see Hiroshima been blown to bits than surrender. It was they, who doomed Hiroshima with that decision.

Nobody forced Japan to attack China and slaughter its population. Nobody forced Japan to treat Korea like a big slave camp. Nobody forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbour. And nobody forced Japan not to stop it when told about the upcoming bombing of Hiroshima. These were all decisions the Japanese government made.

And it is they who are to blame for the results of their decisions.

The victims of the Hiroshima bombings are victims of WW2 like any other. But it was the Japanese who made them victims, not the US.

Had the Japanese or the vast majority of them not co-operated with their government, none of this would ever have happened. Again, a Japanese decision made that support possible.
on Aug 06, 2005
So, it is the fault of a women, children and old men in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that his country went to war with America


No its the fault of all the Kamakazi nutcrackers that their women, children and old men were incerinated. Ive never understood all the waffle about women and children as if they are sacred or something. Children are by their very nature more innocent and far less responsible but the childs suffering is in this circumstance a direct result of its parents actions.

If i dont want my children to perish in a blaze of atmomic glory then i dont run about the world killing and raping the women and children of other sovereign nation states. Once i do i invalidate any special rights or standing of my own children.

If you step into my village and butcher mine on a warm sunny day, for no particular reason other than you want whats mine, then you can be sure im coming to yours with precisely the same intentions, and more, on a cold rainy night.

If they had been attacked or provoked by the US then i would have an entirely different point of view on the matter, but they weren't. To turn around and point a finger of blame at the US is just a sorry losers cop out.
4 Pages1 2 3  Last