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 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Aug 06, 2005
I suppose America and China should simply have accepted being slaughtered by the Japanese in order to remain on the good side here.

What about Chinese women and children? Should the Japanese have been allowed to continue slaughtering them in order to save the more valuable Japanese women and children in Hiroshima?

The left always pretend that the alternative to violence is peace. But in reality the alternative to violence is usually being slaughtered.
on Aug 06, 2005
"The left always pretend that the alternative to violence is peace. But in reality the alternative to violence is usually being slaughtered."


Nothing more peaceful than a tomb...

I would also suggest that anyone who discounts the 'Stalin' excuse go look at the death toll of the purges. I wonder how the Japanese would have tolerated the treatment, and how many million would have been slaughtered as a result?

If Stalin killed millions of his own people, I kind of doubt he would have had many qualms wiping Japan off the face of the earth.
on Aug 08, 2005
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 U


Bakerstreet is welocome to his opinion:but my purpose was more serious. To reduce a serious discussion on the morality and tactical utility of the use of the atomic bombs over two defenceless cities that were incenerated within seconds to an anto US joke is to mock at the suffffering of people. It is in the same order of macarbre ratiocinations that some denialists are making about the Holocaust. My agument is that USA could have won the war without thwe use of the Atomic bombs and even if yiou justify the use of the first strike there is not a single argument infavor of the Nagasaki attack Since the Soviets had broken their Treaty with Japan on the prompting of the Americans at Postdam and declared war on 8th August 1945, there was need to keep the Sovits at bay and hence the atomic bombings. I do not say that Truman was a "war criminal" but he was certainly aware of the horrendous conseuences of the Atomiv bombing. You only need to visit the Harry Truman Library web site to access the Secret Document presented by Secy of State Brymes to the C in C. Kindly do not see the important political and historucal issues of the day from a narrow partisan perspective. Do not take my word:read Gar Alerrovitz's great book The Decision to Use the Atomicv Bomb.
on Aug 08, 2005
suppose America and China should simply have accepted being slaughtered by the Japanese in order to remain on the good side here


Now you are right the Japanese War Crimes Tribunal handed out sentences of death to the entire political and military establishemnt for war crimes. The Atomic Bombling did not come in the way of a war crime trial and so to say that the atomic holocaust is punishment for Japanese war crimes is to forget the fact that the Japan Military and Political Establishent with the exception of the Emperor paid for their culpability. Then what about other war crimes.
on Aug 08, 2005
Bahu, could you rephrase your entire last posting? I didn't understand any of it.
on Aug 08, 2005
The sad reality of WWII is that while the allies did a lot of good and helped many nations remain free of the AXIS forces, and liberate man more, towards the end there are some events which shall blemish what was otherwise a great contribution to the freedome of many, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to name some of these events, having said this the US was not he only Nation to make these mistakes. While we may not agree with these events we should remember much good was also acomplished, and this needs to be remembered, sdaly people are quite happy to focus on the negative.
An interesting comment was aired on Australian TV tonight, this was made by a catholic nun who was part of the nursing team that tended the victims/survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I will quote as much as I remember. "While the bombs may not have been the reason why the war stopped, it stopped, and so did the Military ambitions of Japan".
I agree that the bombs were gastly way to end the war just as is the killing of innocent children, but if we can forgive the Japanese for what they did, then it is also encumbent on us to forgive and forget mistakes made by the Allies., interestingly one survivor of Hiroshima, who was interviewed expressed the very same sentiment. WWII is over we should never forgot those who died, but thats as far as it needs to go.
on Aug 08, 2005
We must remember that Eienstien, Oppenheimer and a host of other scientsts justified the Manhattan Project by drawing attwntion to the nuclear program of Germany. Japan did not have a nucvlear program and the ImperialJapasene Army did a whole host of horrible things like the Rape of Sanghai and the killings in the so-called co-presperity sphere. However, the bomb was not used against the White nation against which the justificaTION WAS DRAWN AND USED ONLY AGAINST THE NON-wHITE civillian non combattnnts. The Bomb itself was tested after Germany had fallen and hence there was no justification for its use against Japan. Now people will say:PPearl Harbour and justify the nuclear bombings. Remember that Pearl Habor was a Naval target the Headquarteers of the Pacificv Fleet and the civillian part of Honolulu was barely touched. Therefore to justify the nuclear Holocaust by pointing out the attack on Pearl Habor will not wash. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings as Gar Alperovitz has argued stemmed from a racist mind and even consevatives like Buckley were horriified at the Nuclear Holocaust. Also remember that the Japanese Americans in states like California were interned in camps for the duration of the War. This is the only other case in History of the 20th century of a Government putting its own innocent citizens in Camps for being Japanese. Is that not Racist. The attack on Hiroshima stemmed from the same impulse.
on Aug 08, 2005
"I agree that the bombs were gastly way to end the war just as is the killing of innocent children, but if we can forgive the Japanese for what they did, then it is also encumbent on us to forgive and forget mistakes made by the Allies., interestingly one survivor of Hiroshima, who was interviewed expressed the very same sentiment. WWII is over we should never forgot those who died, but thats as far as it needs to go."


Very good suggestion, but one that relies on someone really caring about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Go read Bahu's blog. He doesn't give a hang about this, it is just another method to spear the US. You should be able to tell by glancing over the list of his articles that an even-handed discourse on the wrongs of the world isn't a capability he has.
on Aug 08, 2005
You should be able to tell by glancing over the list of his articles that an even-handed discourse on the wrongs of the world isn't a capability he has.


I not not a rabid leftwinger. In fact I detest Communism and I will condemn with equal vehemence the crimes of Stalin and Mao. In fact I have mntioned that in the first para of this blog. I have stated facts and these can be verified using the documents from the Harry Truman web site or the Great work:The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. Remember I do not say that Truman did not have any other alternatis. He just wanted to get the Soviets out.
on Aug 08, 2005
I'm not accusing you of being left wing, bahu. I am accusing you of having little interest in blogging other than being a constant, imbalanced critic of the US. Peruse your list or articles with an open mind, and then think of how it looks when you come up with an article like this. Forgive me if it appears that the Japanese aren't your focus of concern.
on Aug 08, 2005
Was it a horrible regretable act that we dropped the atomic bomb not once, but twice on civilian targets (though they both were home to large war plants and other key military infrastructure points)? Yes. It is always horrible and regretable when anyone attacks non-military targets. No one likes to see innocent civilians harmed.

Was it an unnecceary act? One that we could have avoided completely and seen the same quick cesation of hostilities through other peaceful means? We don't know. We simply do not know. Based on recently declassified intelligence filings from our global SIGINT network, it would imply that the Japanese were nowhere near surrender, and the diplomats in Moscow and Washington were lobbying for peace without the knowledge or support of their own governments. They were attempting to persuade the Allies to back down on their own. Military intercepts from Japan also indicated that if a surrender was to happen, Japan would dictate the terms, under no circumstances were they going to accept an unconditional surrender. They were in fact instructing their men and civilian population that they were to fight to the very last man, and to make the invaders pay in blood for every inch of ground taken. They wanted to make an invasion so incredibly unpleasant that the Allies would offer Japan the option of a conditional surrender to avoid bloodshed. They knew our civilian population couldn't support a war effort that saw us losing more than we gained.

We don't know all the circumstances that led to those bombings, we only know the results. A war that was looking to cost us a LOT more men was ended abrubtly and with minimal loss on our side. The effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only temporary. Both rebuilt, both are populated again and are normal cities. Many many people died in those bombings, many people who had nothing to do with the war directly, and that is a great tragedy that we must never forget (just as we must never forget the Japanese Internment camps, or the Holocaust, or Stalin's purges and gulags... they all represent Humanity doing the worst possible things to fellow humans in the name of a national cause). But what is done is done, those responsible for it are dead. Those who vividly remember WWII and the bombings are soon to be gone from us as well. We can not continue to punish a nation for what can not possibly be undone.

We know what happened, and we can but guess and what COULD HAVE happened if we didn't drop the bombs, but we simply do not know. We can't play the armchair quarterback with the assumption that we would have done it better, no one here was there, no one here has all the facts of the situation, and I don't think even with all the documents and intercepts could we really make a truely informed decision now since we'd be separate from the time, from the situation and the attitude.

We did it, we ended a bloody war fast, we had to get dirty doing it, but it was done. We can't undo it. We can't say for sure what the alternative results would have been. It's in the past, it's time to move on from it.
on Aug 08, 2005
Unconditional surrender was something that the Japanese people needed desperately. Not the *wink wink* sort where the leaders on either side agree to have each other's backs, but real, start-from-the-beginning, restructuring.

Why? Because had we conceded to allowing the Japanese to handle their rebuilding, we would have been inviting the same situation that plagued Germany after WW1. It was obvious that 'unconditional' wasn't what the the leaders there really meant when they talked about surrender.

So, had we accepted the kind of half-hearted surrender that was coming, we either would have starved Japan and left them to wallow under the same sickness that provoked and empowered Germany's Nazi era, or we would have allowed Stalin to march in and do far worse things.
on Aug 09, 2005
The Japanese did not quite understand the term "Unconditional Surrender". Maybe it was the difficulty of trasnlatingb English inot Japanese or else they did not think it proper that their Emperor should be made in any way responsible for the outcome. They only wanted time to mull over the point relating to the status of the Emperor. I think the USA dropped the bomb on Japan without a second thought probably due to the anti orientalist sentiment in USA at that time. Whatever be the justification, the Atomic Bombing was a great human tragedy, Baker Street , and not a tirade against the USA.
on Aug 09, 2005
So the bomb was dropped out of racism and the fact that the Japanese didn't have a good enough translator to understand "unconditional surrender?" Sorry, but you aren't even trying now. The Japanese knew exactly what unconditional surrender meant, they simply wanted to avoid it as much as possible. To allow them to do so would have been to invite the problems Germany suffered after WW1, and what eventually led to Hitler's reich.

I suggest strongly that you go back and look at the devestation that was suffered during the bombing of Tokyo. You're setting this apart because it was a nuclear weapon, and ignoring the fact that a full-scale invasion of Japan, whether by the US or the Soviet Union, would have been VASTLY more devestating.
on Aug 09, 2005
Bahu, do you have any understanding at all of history? Do you have any clue as to the culture in Japan at the time? The attitude towards war and honor? Do you have the first clue as to what led up to the decision to drop the bomb?

Your last comment implies that you actually know next to nothing about the war or the bomb.
4 Pages1 2 3 4