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 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Aug 11, 2005
The battle of Okinawa cost 130,000 civilian lives alone, not counting the military deaths and that was just one Island. Think how many more would have died on the main Islands. Link
on Aug 11, 2005
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.


But don't forget that the bomb was actually, and officially, earmarked for use first against the Germans, not the Japanese. It's just that Germany got lucky because they surrendered first.
on Aug 11, 2005
But don't forget that the bomb was actually, and officially, earmarked for use first against the Germans, not the Japanese. It's just that Germany got lucky because they surrendered first


The bomb was tested on July 16 1945 two months after the surrender of Germany. In fact the Manhattan Project was extended to deal with the Japaanese. There can be no contrafacuals in History, but my informed guess is that America would not have used the Bomb on Germany. Kar Alterovit's book Decision to Use the Atomic Bombs is simply too detailed and he makes out a fairly good case on the lines that we have been arguing. We cannot look at the record of World War II of both the Allies and the Axix from a present day perspective. That world, fortuantely, was far far different.
on Aug 11, 2005
But don't forget that the bomb was actually, and officially, earmarked for use first against the Germans, not the Japanese. It's just that Germany got lucky because they surrendered first


The bomb was tested on July 16 1945 two months after the surrender of Germany. In fact the Manhattan Project was extended to deal with the Japaanese. There can be no contrafacuals in History, but my informed guess is that America would not have used the Bomb on Germany. Kar Alterovit's book Decision to Use the Atomic Bombs is simply too detailed and he makes out a fairly good case on the lines that we have been arguing. We cannot look at the record of World War II of both the Allies and the Axix from a present day perspective. That world, fortuantely, was far far different.


You seem to forget something. The bomb may have been tested 2 months after Germany surrendered. But it was started loooong before that. By the time the testing actually started, a lot of work had gone into the prep. So the "Manhatten Project" really started "before" Germany surrendered. And "your" informed guess just may be wrong. And by the way try to do a little more research next time so that you at least get the authors name correct. It's Gar Alperovitz NOT Kar Alterovit. And the book is more about his opinion than historical fact.
on Aug 11, 2005
You must have failed your history classes in school.

1. The Manhattan Project was started to develop the bomb, the intention was to beat the germans to it since there was intel suggesting they were working on their own. The goal was to have one to use against Hitler if needed, to preempt any german bomb being used. The bomb was designed primarily to be used against the Germans as they were our main war target.

2. The bomb was tested after the germans surrendered, true. Just because the germans surrendered didn't mean the war was over, and honestly they had invested millions upon millions in the single largest scientific/technological project in human history, it makes NO sense at all to just cease work on it because Hitler shot himself and the European war ended. Continued effort on the bomb does NOT imply anything close to an anti-japanese mentality. It was simply the continuation of a war project while the war still raged on.

I suggest you pick up a copy of Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes... it's pretty much considered the authority on the development of the bomb, including a lot of political and military decisions and implications. It's probably the closest thing to an accurate record of what the project was really all about. Combine that with the recently (1995) declassified SIGINT materials regarding Japan's government and its position on surrender and how it wanted to handle the end of the war prior to the bombs being dropped.

Go to the history, the source materials and not the political analysis with personal spin. It'll give you a damn good idea of what ACTUALLY happened, not what you would like to believe happened.

Oh, and go apologize to your history teacher, you owe him/her at least that much.
on Aug 12, 2005
Oh, and go apologize to your history teacher, you owe him/her at least that much.


Whew! I'll say! And while he's at it, he should refund his portion of their salary, because all their efforts were wasted on him.
on Aug 16, 2005
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


I am afraid that you have got this point all wrong. Recently the Japanese cables exchanged between Tokyo and their army units have been declassified. The fall of Okinawa was preceded by the Firebombing og Tokyo that killed around 124,000 people in 24 hours of relentless bombing. The Japanese morale was down and at that time Roosevelt came up with the "unconditional surrender" a peculiar turn of phrase first used in the American Civil War. Churchill was none too pleased wioth this phrase saying that the Japanese needed to be given certain guarenttees and among them preservation of Hirohito and the Throne and the resposibility for the war will not be taken beyond the civillian and military leadership. These were accepted by the Ameriucans and the Japanese and according to declassified documents by May 1945 the terms had been accepted. There was no need for the Atomic Bombing at all. AS FOR THE SO CALLED CAUALITIES IN THE EVENT OF THE Normandy type landing there is a broad consensus amonst professional historians that the numbers given were grossly overstaned post facto as a kind of an alibii for the savegery perpetrated on Japan.
on Aug 16, 2005
amonst professional historians


I don't know, Bahu....WW2 is my hobby, and every book I've ever read on the subject projected a very high casualty rate.
Look at the enemy we'd have been fighting; they considered their emporer a god, for one thing. The Germans were fanatically devoted to Hitler, yes, but at least they knew and accepted that he was just a man.
Ever tried to fight a people who think it's their duty to die in the name of a god? We're doing it now, and the numbers on both sides are racking up; and that's against a comparitvely disorganized force of terrorists. I can only imagine what it might have been like to fight an entire, cohesive, disciplined army of fanatics.
on Aug 16, 2005
AS FOR THE SO CALLED CAUALITIES IN THE EVENT OF THE Normandy type landing there is a broad consensus amonst professional historians that the numbers given were grossly overstaned post facto as a kind of an alibii for the savegery perpetrated on Japan.


Okinawa: 70,000 dead
Owiugema (sorry about spelling): 120,000 civilians alone dead

Are you so blind to thing that the 140,000 at Hiroshima and another 70,000 at Nagasaki would have been a drop in the bucket to the main Island landings? Russia's Berlin assault would have been a cake walk to Tokyo. 190,000 civilians were from landing on two small Islands. We killed 140,000 at Hiroshima and didn't even make them blink. It took Russia's declaration of war, yet another Nuke bombing of 70,000, and a palace coupe to get them to surrender. Then you think they Japanese people would not have fought tooth and nail for their God Imperor?
on Aug 16, 2005
I think maybe Bahu reads the same "historians" Reiki-House consults for his Holocaust info.+LOL+
on Aug 16, 2005
I wonder if bahu really know where the uranium came from to make the bombs? Just an FYI...It came from "Germany" and was headed for "JAPAN" via submarine. It was enough uranium to build "several" bombs. Do not doubt for an instant that if they had recieved the cargo and built their bomb instead of us that they WOULD have used it. When Germany surrendered the sub surfaced and we took possession of it AND it's cargo. 2 weeks later the US Manhatten project acomplished their mission.
on Aug 16, 2005
I wonder if bahu really know where the uranium came from to make the bombs? Just an FYI...It came from "Germany" and was headed for "JAPAN" via submarine. It was enough uranium to build "several" bombs. Do not doubt for an instant that if they had recieved the cargo and built their bomb instead of us that they WOULD have used it. When Germany surrendered the sub surfaced and we took possession of it AND it's cargo. 2 weeks later the US Manhatten project acomplished their mission.
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4