August 6 and August 9
The bombs of August: A parallax view
1. “Apart from the moral questions involved, were the atomic bombings militarily ecessary? By any rational yardstick, they were not. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.”
2. “America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.”
3. General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."
4. The fact is that as far as the Japanese militarists were concerned, the atomic bomb was just another weapon. The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of 3,100,000 homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million of them. It was the ruthless firebombing, and Hirohito's realization that if necessary the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve "unconditional surrender" that persuaded him to the decision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan's surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day.
Click below to read e-mail exchange between Charles and a blog reader.
________________________________________________________________________
On Aug 7, 2008, at 12:03 PM, ten44@nospam.com wrote:
Charles -- I've always enjoyed your blog - I was there at the start.
Methinks that a change to the limitations are warranted.
Would you, as the supreme master of blogdom, consider an extension to the restriction of "two comment only" after a discussion has started to die.
I think the Japanese Bomb post would take off again if maybe after three days those that were restricted of posting were allowed to continue the debate as a post a day.
It can't get any worse, but it could get a bit better. No?
Ten 44"
Norton, MA
________________________________________________________________________
Dear Ten44
First, just know that I originally labeled this post as the Parallax view, knowing that it was a hotpoint issue.
That being said, I have to turn you down on this one. I was chomping at the bit to kill you guys on this whole controversial question, but I have found through experience (and we both know this) that you really can't change people's minds when they get to a certain age. You, me and Danny are great examples.
The linked article I cited was as good as any history textbook in supplying information and commentary. It was backed up by the Commander of Armed Forces during WW2 and Admiral Leahy as well- and it was STILL challenged by yourself and others, because (as someone pointed out, “McArthur was pissed at Truman,” and, of course, Danny questioned the motives of the authors, predictably labeling them as “revisionists”).
This proves something that we are slowly finding out since the advent of the Internet: Nothing is true and everything is true- there is no “final answer” to any question- be it Global Warming, who Killed the Kennedy's (or even Lincoln) and whether the Federal Reserve Board are the good guys or the bad guys. What was right may now be wrong- and visa versa; just click on Google and you can find a fact that agrees with your thinking. Danny is a master at this.
I think when we were younger, life was much simpler. You may recall the days when we knew that racism was bad, tree-hugging was adviseable and the only good war was WW2. Now everything has changed; and- without placing the blame on any people, political party or group- I can only say that it's a different set of rules we are all playing by now.
Hope you understand the 2-comment limit. What you may not know is that most of the criticism I get about my blog is that it is like an AOL chat line, with the same 10 people commenting all the time. The way you can relate to it best is to imagine you are listening to your favorite talk radio station, and the same 10 people are calling in every day- how long would you listen? I have that 2-comment limit because it works to give others out there, who don't normally comment, the chance to do so- without feeling like they are going to be crucified by the Dannys, h's, noochs, Duanes and Almond Joys of the world, and it seems to be working.
I am going to post this exchange, by the way. I think others should read it, as well.
-charles
Comments
It would have been more PC to invade Japan and suffer the estimated 2 Million casualties and laid waste to the whole Country and killed Tens of millions of Japanese in the process.
Give me a Fucking BREAK!!
Posted by: Danny | August 5, 2008 4:41 PM
Danny:
Not that you are physically, psychologically, mentally and spiritually incapable of ever admitting that you may possibly be wrong once you commit to a dumb statement, but here goes- and please, everybody- don't fault me for trying.
(In a weaker moment, the big lummox once actually thought he might vote for Obama, but those of us who know him, knew better).
Here's the real deal on Hiroshima/Nagasaki- with more info than Danny's brain can swallow in one take- but what the hell, like I said- no harm in trying: http://tinyurl.com/ohbo8
Posted by: Charles Laquidara | August 5, 2008 5:26 PM
The fierce fighting of The Battle of Okinawa convinced the Allied Forces that the Invasion of Japan would be a costly and prolonged effort.
Hundreds of thousand of Japanese military and civilians died during the fight for Okinawa, mass suicides of the civilians were called for by the Okinawa leaders, allied troops suffered over 50,000 casulties.
As the Japanese homeland and culture were being destroyed by constant fire bombing, Japan's leaders could not come to terms with the accords of surrender as proposed by the Potsdam Declaration, and they rejected any thoughts of surrender promising a defense of the Imperial Throne at all costs.
It was felt that if the Allies were forced to invade the mainland many hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides would be lost.
When the first atomic bomb was dropped Japan's leaders did not act, thinking incorrectly that surely the Americans did not have more than one of these new weapons.
When the second bomb was dropped three days later, the war soon ended and the occupation of Japan began.
Japan's efforts to rule the world through their tactics of a sneak attack on the American Pacific Naval Operations at Pearl Harbor; their conquering of the many Pacific islands; the enslavement of the people of those islands along with the citizens of the Philippines, countries of the Pacific Rim, and the nations of the Indochina areas; the mistreatment, torture, and murder of the many prisoners of war that they captured; the rape and murder of countless of hundreds of thousands of civilians; it all came for naught.
Feel sorry for the leaders, the military, and the people of 1940 Japan? I think not.
Harry S. Truman did what a leader had to do to stop the final front of the Second World War. He warned them, "If they do not accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth."
They started the fight, the bomb ended the war.
Posted by: Ten 44 | August 5, 2008 6:10 PM
Charles,
Weber's revisionist take on this is laughable. Naturally Military Commanders will put a positive spin on any campaign in progress. “Five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials.”, didn’t mean squat they surrendered after the second bomb at Nagasaki. The Japs (not PC, sue me) were ready to fight to the last man to defend the god like Emperor and the Homeland. Like Ten 44 states the battle for Okinawa made this perfectly clear. Those are the facts Jack and Weber's rantings are merely convoluted "what ifs".
Regarding your response to my original post, I have to say I’m disgusted by your condescension and snobbery. Fuck you, the Red Sox and The Obamessiah!
P.S. Ten 44, outstanding understanding of actual History.
Posted by: Danny | August 5, 2008 6:54 PM
There followed the presidential letter, a version of his December 31 letter that reflects the changes suggested by Hechler and Lloyd.
The White House
Washington
January 12, 1953
My dear Professor Cate:
Your letter of December 6, 1952 has just now been delivered to me.
When the message came to Potsdam that a successful atomic explosion had taken place in New Mexico, there was much excitement and conversation about the effect on the war then in progress with Japan.
The next day I told the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Generalissimo Stalin that the explosion had been a success. The British Prime Minister understood and appreciated what I'd told him. Premier Stalin smiled and thanked me for reporting the explosion to him, but I'm sure he did not understand its significance.
I called a meeting of the Secretary of State, Mr. Byrnes, the Secretary of War, Mr. Stimson, Admiral Leahy, General Marshall, General Eisenhower, Admiral King and some others, to discuss what should be done with this awful weapon.
I asked General Marshall what it would cost in lives to land on the Tokyo plain and other places in Japan. It was his opinion that such an invasion would cost at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties, and might cost as much as a million, on the American side alone, with an equal number of the enemy. The other military and naval men present agreed.
I asked Secretary Stimson which cities in Japan were devoted exclusively to war production. He promptly named Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among others.
We sent an ultimatum to Japan. It was rejected.
I ordered atomic bombs dropped on the two cities named on the way back from Potsdam, when we were in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
In your letter, you raise the fact that the directive to General Spaatz to prepare for delivering the bomb is dated July twenty-fifth. It was, of course, necessary to set the military wheels in action, as these orders did, but the final decision was in my hands, and was not made until we were returning from Potsdam.
Dropping the bombs ended the war, saved lives, and gave the free nations a chance to face the facts.
When it looked as if Japan would quit, Russia hurried into the fray less than a week before the surrender, so as to be in at the settlement. No military contribution was made by the Russians toward victory over Japan. Prisoners were surrendered and Manchuria occupied by the Soviets, as was Korea, north of the 38th parallel.
Sincerely yours,
[HARRY S. TRUMAN]
from:
Truman and the Bomb, a Documentary History
Chapter 18: Selected White House Memoranda, 1952- 1953
Edited by Robert H. Ferrell
Posted by: Ten 44 | August 5, 2008 7:32 PM
Let's see.. Truman just authorized the unnecessary (see documented history from non-subjective sources above) killing of tens of thousands of civilians- and he wrote some memos which ten44 and Danny latch onto (any port in a storm, folks!) and now, good old Harry can sleep at night because he vindicated himself. It's kind of like the, “there is/there is no” global warming argument, everyone believe what is the most comfortable and convenient. A memo rationalizing why Truman did so, written by Truman himself, is not a great bit of evidence for making an argument, guys. Hitler could have written another book explaining why he did what he “had” to do to save Germany. Anyway, Danny and Ten 44- We have all reached our max of two comments, and this could go on forever. Just throwing it out there- Let's hear from others without any more of our subjective input. we three know where the others stand. Let's see what other readers have to say.
Posted by: Charles Laquidara | August 5, 2008 7:43 PM
Uh- These bombs were directed at Civilians not combatants.
Killing people is bad.
Killing lots of innocent people in order to stop war is bad.
No matter how you look at it- it is bad and it is wrong.
Folks who think using Excessive Uses of Force to kill civilians- whether by bomb or army or whatever- are wrong in their thinking.
Killing civilians is just bad- there is no rational justification for it.
War is Over if you want it.
Posted by: squeak | August 6, 2008 3:31 AM
Ummmmmm,it seems to me that the bomb was dropped,people died and the war was over.What next someone is going to say the hollocaust didn't really happen it was just a Jr. Bush smoke screen.I'm not for atomic weapons but it's easy to critisize now when all the supposed facts are right in front of us.I think this is the first time I'm reallt tired of reading something fro mthe "Big Mattress".Sorry Chucccccckkkkk it's been over for more years than you've been out of radio,or in radio for that fact!
Posted by: Bill Conway | August 6, 2008 6:03 AM
In Okinawa the Japanese force were told months before the invasion that they were not going to be resupplied and no one was coming to get them. They were low on food and ammo, vastly out numbered, abandoned by their country and they knew damn well to fight would be suicide yet they fought on for weeks and inflicted heavy US casualties with no air support and only light arms fire. Cut Truman a little slack Charles I don't think anyone even the biggest a-hole republicans would take that decision lightly. (And Truman was a Democrat)
Posted by: Bob | August 6, 2008 6:57 AM
There is ONE good thing that came out of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki---it graphically showed to the world the power and horrific results of the atomic bomb. Without that experience, no one in public life or government would have really grasped the devastation wrought by these weapons. This helped create a collective conscience which has been part of the reason nuclear weapons have not been used since. It is likely that without that awareness, and as more countries acquired the bomb, someone would have triggered a far, far worse scenario, perhaps even ending civilization as we know it.
Posted by: Richie | August 6, 2008 9:13 AM
America needs you
Harry Truman
Harry could you please come home
Things are looking bad
I know you would be mad
To see your favorite men
Prevail upon the land you love
America's wondering
How we got here
Harry all we get is lies
We're gettin' safer cars
Rocket ships to Mars
From men who'd sell us out
To get themselves a piece of power
We'd love to hear you speak your mind
In plain and simple ways
Call a spade a spade
Like you did back in the days
You would play piano
Each morning walk a mile
Speak of what was going down
With honesty and style
America's calling
Harry Truman
Harry you know what to do
The world is turnin' round and losin' lots of ground
Oh Harry is there something we can do to save the land we love
Posted by: nooch | August 6, 2008 10:28 AM
Great posts Richie and nooch -- oops over my limit -- sorry.
my bad.
Posted by: Ten 44 | August 6, 2008 12:33 PM
General Marshall and Admiral Leahy didn't know their asses from a hole in the ground as far as how to fight a damn war is concerned. Both of 'em dickhead homos and Truman ass-kissing sycophants.
Posted by: General Douglas MacArthur | August 6, 2008 1:56 PM
General Mac is just pissed that Truman fired him. The Japs started it, we finished it, and rebuilt Japan, and now they don't even own a tank. Fkers.
Posted by: Dave | August 6, 2008 4:58 PM
Richie is right on target. Enough said...
Posted by: Anomalous | August 8, 2008 5:21 AM