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 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Aug 09, 2005
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.


We built the bomb to drop on Germans, would it have been considered anti-Germanic to drop the bomb on Germany alone? People always cry about equal opportunity. (I know that was a bad one) With the Japanese Honor belief system in place, the fanatical blood bath of an invasion would have happened because of their loyalty to their own race. Just look at the mass suicides of Japanese citizens on islands leading up to Japan.

Years later we have learned that even the final surrender from the emperor himself almost did not happen. The surrender notification had to be hidden from the Japanese military government in power at the time. This is an indication that even dropping of the atomic bombs was almost not going to stop the war. It was the Emperor’s own self preservation that ended Japan's fight. The US could have bombed the Imperial palace long before, but never did because of cultural sensitivity and the belief that ultimately it would take the Emperor to defies his Government to end the war and not an uprising by the people. The bombing was not a second thought; it was a calculated move playing on the fears/sorrow of one semi westernized man, because the Japanese racial superiority beliefs at the time prevented the common Japanese citizen to even think about dishonoring themselves by surrender.
on Aug 09, 2005
I just love how all mention of how the cities in question were also, war factories, slave labor camps, weaponry inserted into hospitals, schools.

But this is what to expect from america hating children, 1/2 truths the rest fabrications.
on Aug 09, 2005
Interesting article, but if you asked my 90-year old uncle Arthur, who had been in the war in Europe since 1942, and was headed for the South Pacific after the surrender of Germany, he'd tell you that it was worth the deaths of the few thousand who died in an instant and even those who died from the effects, rather than to live through the hell of yet another destructive war. And with an even more fanatical enemy, at that. The Germans didn't throw their babies off cliffs, then jump after them, I might inject.
It's easy to judge the actions or inactions of people like Truman, or anyone who lived in the past.
What if he hadn't dropped the bomb at all, and been a humanitarian and spared those two cities? What if he'd done that, and the war actually had dragged on for another horrible, bloody year or two? You'd be calling him a fool rather than a terrorist and war criminal. You'd be saying things like "he had the chance to end it all right quick, and he didn't take it! Idiot!"
Truman may have dropped a terribly destructive weapon on innocent people, but at least he didn't herd them into camps and execute them en masse or work or starve them to death. He didn't send armies to rape and pillage their cities (*cough* Nanking *cough*).
No, we destroyed their cities, then occupied them, then rebuilt them to the tune of tens of billions of (1940s) dollars, then helped the people in them on the road to recovery. A road on which they have since outraced us and have irreparably damaged our economy and became an economic powerhouse of the world. Shame on us for such barbaric behavior. Terrorists!
on Aug 09, 2005
To those Americans that say no, you shouldn't have dropped the bomb think on this. Would you rather than things like the "Death March on Battan" be allowed to continue, or to go unpunished?
on Aug 09, 2005
Would you rather than things like the "Death March on Battan" be allowed to continue, or to go unpunished?


They don't care about things like that RedNeck
All they care about is condemning America for anything they can; everything and everyone else just falls by the wayside. America the Great and Terrible. That's us.
on Aug 09, 2005
My dad was in the Pacific in the summer of 1945 and he said all he could say after they were dropped was WHEW!!!
on Aug 09, 2005
My dad was in the Pacific in the summer of 1945 and he said all he could say after they were dropped was WHEW!!!


The sentiment of every soldier, sailor, Marine and airman at the time. I'm sure the two people kissing in Times Square, and all the smiling, cheering people around them in that famous picture, were really concerned about the Japanese atomic bomb victims. Boo-hoo.
on Aug 09, 2005
two defenceless cities
---Bahu

Two defenseless cities that were, as industrial sites and such, protected by anti-aircraft weapons, just as was every other major city. Let's not pretend that Japan was some martyr state that left itself wide open to attack or sacrificed its innocents or something. Nothing would be further from the truth.
on Aug 10, 2005
All they care about is condemning America for anything they can; everything and everyone else just falls by the wayside. America


The sentiment of every soldier, sailor, Marine and airman at the time. I'm sure the two people kissing in Times Square, and all the smiling, cheering


execute them en masse or work or starve them to death. He didn't send armies to rape and pillage their cities (*cough* Nanking *cough*). No, we destroyed t


Starting with the last post: Rape of Nanking is a WAR CRIME and the Japannese Military leadership paid for it with Death in the Tokyo War Cimes Trial after the WAr. Are you seriously saying that the Atom Bombings are justified on the bais of the behaviour of the Japanese Army. What role had the citizens in the Rape of Nanking. Are yopum not forgetting the Internmnet of Japanese Americans in Camps due to an Excecutive Order of the Great Liberal Roosevelt. These are facts and cay be verified from any book on American History writeen by a Professional historian.David Stanard is agood source. As for the other posts I can understand the feeling but soldiers are soldiers and must do their job. Dropping Atom Bombs on Women and Children is not the right way to win the war. The USA had other contingency palns to invade Japan and the death toll in that eventualuty would have been far less than what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The USA wanted to bring the war to a quick end because of the Soviet factor and demonstrate to Stalin that if they have used the Bomb once , twice, they will not hesitatye tom use it on him. Thus the Cold War.
on Aug 10, 2005
i can't prove it, but i'm pretty much convinced nobody but the physicists who created the bomb understood its power or its effects...and even they knew less about it than most of us. i'm basing this partly on the plan to use atomic bombs to clear a beachhead prior to any invasion of kyushu and partially on the experiments conducted during the late 40s/early 50s.
on Aug 10, 2005
Are you seriously saying that the Atom Bombings are justified on the bais of the behaviour of the Japanese Army. What role had the citizens in the Rape of Nanking. Are yopum not forgetting the Internmnet of Japanese Americans in Camps due to an Excecutive Order of the Great Liberal Roosevelt. These are facts and cay be verified from any book on American History writeen by a Professional historian.David Stanard is agood source. As for the other posts I can understand the feeling but soldiers are soldiers and must do their job. Dropping Atom Bombs on Women and Children is not the right way to win the war.


Bull puckey!

The USA had other contingency palns to invade Japan and the death toll in that eventualuty would have been far less than what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


To your first question...Hell YES! And you need to go study a little more at the war college on your other remark. Ain't NO way, ain't NO how the death toll would have been less. On top of Japanese casuties add the US ones! Sort of changes your figures, don't it? I just wish I could actually tell you where to stick your obvious anti-american attitude!
on Aug 10, 2005
Starting with the last post: Rape of Nanking is a WAR CRIME and the Japannese Military leadership paid for it with Death in the Tokyo War Cimes Trial after the WAr.


That wasn't my point, but okay. My point was that some here were trying to pin Truman as a war criminal. Horsedoody. He did what any good war leader would do with a new and powerful weapon. He used it. When faced, as he was, with possibly extending a prolonged, protracted conflict and possessing the means to end it quickly, who wouldn't use it?

Are yopum not forgetting the Internmnet of Japanese Americans in Camps due to an Excecutive Order of the Great Liberal Roosevelt.


Uuuh...Well, I'm not sure I ever heard of anyone at those internment camps being forced to work, starved to death or executed for minor infractions. It was a dark blot on our record, yes. It was wrong, but you can't seriously compare that to what the Japs did to our men on Bataan, for example? Unless they died of illness, accident or old age while incarcerated, all the people who went in those camps came out.

The rape of Nanking's death toll was 300,000 plus....the death toll of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less than 200,000.
The people of Nanking were just as innocent as the people in the two target cities, maybe less so, since none of them were aggressors, and the level of brutality and barbarism involved in the bombings was, oh, just a teensy bit less. On a cosmic scale, in my opinion, the Japs got what was coming to them. Justice was served and then some.

Dropping Atom Bombs on Women and Children is not the right way to win the war.


With a name like Bahu Virupaksha, if that's you're real name, you could only be Indian or Pakistani. Depending upon your age, I'd be curious to hear what your grandparents or older aunts and uncles would have to say about your position, considering that the Japanese adventures in Asia took them to the border of India. Would their outlook be as sympathetic to their former enemies as is yours?
on Aug 10, 2005
The USA wanted to bring the war to a quick end because of the Soviet factor and demonstrate to Stalin that if they have used the Bomb once , twice, they will not hesitatye tom use it on him. Thus the Cold War.


True and also to bring the war to a suceessful conclusion with the least number of Amerincan casualties.

IG
on Aug 10, 2005
infractions. It was a dark blot on our record, yes. It was wrong, but you can't seriously compare that to what the Japs did to our men on Bataan, for example? Unless they died of illness, accident or old age while incarcerated, all the people who went in those camps came


I am not equating the two and I agree that with the Apology of the Ameican Senate passed on the motion of Senator Dan Inoye of Hawaii in 1984, raking up the Intwernment iserves only to remind, as I did in my Blog that an anti oriental mind set was at work and the Atomic Bombing was a consequence of that. There are no credible estimates about the casualty fgures and in any case all historians now agree that the figures generated during the run up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki are gross exaggerations. Yet the horrible Japanese War Record of the Army does not still justify the atomic attack.
on Aug 11, 2005
age, I'd be curious to hear what your grandparents or older aunts and uncles would have to say about your position, considering that the Japanese adventures in Asia took them to the border of India.


You are close. The Japanese invaded Southeast Asia and did horrible atocities there. In Singapore the Japanese Army rounded up the Chinese and tortured them. No study has been made of the victims of the Imperial Japanese Army in the then Malaya and Singfapore and I do agree that the Japnese WAr Record is Horrible. Then there is Korea, China and Indonesia. Rightwinger, the point is not the denial of the horrible War Record of the Japanese. The only point is the legitimacy of the use of Atomic Boms on the defenceless citizens of the two cities.
4 Pages1 2 3 4