I agree with the overall message that nuclear weapons shouldn't be used on humans again. But I do want to emphasize that the Japanese belief in bushido is b.s. It's an honor code for samurai--certainly not applicable to the vast majority of Japanese who descend from peasants. It's important also to understand that the bushido b.s. (even if a part of Japanese state propaganda during WWII) was used during the war in US public discourse to kill Japanese--in that old racist stereotype that Asians don't value life as much as European/Americans. As a US historian of the period, I saw plenty of comments about "sending them to Heaven sooner." This has parallels, of course, in today's Islamophobia.
Also, what were the facts, as understood by US leaders by summer 1945?
1. Military leaders understood that Japan was already a defeated nation.
a. Imperial forces shattered—in retreat everywhere
b. Massive firebombing was devastating Japan.
i. June & July 1945, US B-29s were saturating Japan with bombs. 59/66 largest cities were hit, killing over 1 million people and leaving 20 million homeless. The US forces under MacArthur were planning to wait them out.
c. Complete US naval blockade of Japan by this time slowly strangling resource-poor Japan
(Initially US wanted Soviets to get into the war to pin down Japanese forces in Manchuria—so they couldn’t be diverted home to fight the invasion. But by this time, the US navy controlled the seas so that the Japanese forces were stuck in Manchuria anyway)
d. Combination of air power and naval power meant that an invasion was not necessary—so thought General Henry Arnold, Army Air Force Chief.
But as intellectual exercise, the Joint War Committee presented to Truman on June 13, 1945, estimates of casualties stemming from an invasion.
1. 40,000 deaths
2. 150,000 wounded
3. 3,500 missing
4. for a total of 193,500 casualties (not a million casualties, much less a million deaths)
Military leaders didn't an invasion was necessary. (Starvation and bombing, we know from the present situation in Gaza, is a horribly effective strategy & of course & understandably, there was no outside support for Japan at that time.)
This was why, among others, opposing the use of atomic bombs were:
-Gen. Douglas MacArthur, commander of Allied forces in the Pacific
-Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, commander of Allied forces in Europe
-Admiral William Leahy, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Adm Leahy later said: The “bomb was of no material assistance. The Japanese were defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. . . . My own feelings was that in being the first to use it we had adopted the ethical standards common to barbarians of the dark ages. . . I was not taught to make war in that fashion. . . wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
2. The US gov't also knew that the Japanese had been trying to sue for peace through intermediaries since spring 1945—from just before FDR died.
a. Japanese leaders, realizing that the severe misery of their people might foment a Bolshevik-like social revolution, *wanted* to surrender to the US. Japanese elites feared communism. This is why, after the war, they became such great partners/"junior allies" of the United States.
b. Nevertheless, the Soviets were a neutral power, and so in June 1945, the Japanese cabled the Soviet Union seeking help with the surrender. These communications were intercepted by the US.
3. Emperor the sticking point
a. Diplomats and negotiators told Truman in June 1945 that the Japanese were seeking to surrender on one condition—to be able to keep the emperor. Secretary of State Stimson had no regrets for how the US waged the war, but he later thought that the U.S prolonged the war
by not being more forthright about its position on the emperor until much later.
(The Japanese finally said they would surrender on August 10, after getting assurances about the emperor.) (Stimson & Bundy, "On Active Service in Peace and War" pg. 628-629).
_Saturday Review_ editor Norman Cousins also later reported that Gen. Douglas A. MacArthur told him that he saw no military justification for using the atomic bomb. MacArthur said, "The war might have ended weeks earlier . . . if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway,
to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
So why didn’t Truman yield on the emperor point? I have thoughts on that I regularly lecture to my students. But this is already too long.
Truman had only recently become president after the death of FDR. The policy of unconditional surrender was almost sacrosanct. Truman, probably rightly, kept that policy intact. Privately, he could have offered reassurances that "unconditional" didn't mean the overthrow of the Emperor. I think such reassurances would have expedited Japan's surrender, though at the time there were those who said the Japanese might interpret any such compromise as a sign of weakness, i.e. motivation to fight on.
We must not forget, as John Dower wrote, that this was a "War Without Mercy" in the Pacific with racism and atrocity on both sides. Consider the Japanese treatment of Allied POWs and experiments conducted on POWs by Unit 731.
From the Internet: "Unit 731, led by Shirō Ishii, conducted biological and chemical experiments on over 3,000 prisoners, resulting in mass casualties; Japanese POW camps had a 27% Allied prisoner death rate due to severe malnutrition and torture, while the Nanjing Massacre and Three 'Alls' Policy led to the deaths of millions."
It isn't my intent here to defend or justify the A-bomb attacks. As a historian, I seek to understand them and contextualize them. Certainly, there were prominent Americans who disagreed with Truman's decision, as in the examples you cited.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both horrific attacks in a war that was characterized by mass atrocity, e.g. the Nazi Holocaust, the Japanese rape and massacre of Nanking (Nanjing).
The lesson to be learned is war is atrocious, and that mass war enables mass atrocity. Certainly, no side was innocent.
Again, I repeat that military top brass didn't think the atomic bombs were necessary. To say that some thought back then that a "concession"--which the US ended up making before the Japanese surrendered--would embolden the Japanese to keep fighting was also unfounded. Again, it seems to reify the notion that the Japanese were die-hards, except some of the military top brass in the emperor's cabinet. No, not Tojo--he was already ousted. Mass suicide after surrender didn't occur, even among that military top brass in or out of the cabinet. (General Nogi and his wife committed seppuku after the Meiji emperor died in 1913.)
I'm also a historian, so it's very important to me to point out the fallacy of the apparently ongoing American notion--even among trained US historians--that the Japanese were so willing to die. This is not about pointing fingers at US decisions at the time, but to point out an ongoing racist belief.
My 95-year-old father remembers only feeling relief at the surrender. The war hadn't killed him. He found out about the Showa emperor's surrender as he waited at a bus station. On the bus, everyone was either relieved or excited. One guy, referring to all the reconstruction that would be needed in the postwar period, said, "I'm going to open up a business for scrap metal!" The Japanese relief about the end to dying was widespread, as Dower also documented.
Also, I'm not trying to make argument about which of these two imperialist powers was worse. I think that would be a pointless exercise. What is important to know is that Japan responded to the global depression with autarky because they believed that it would be safer (ha!) to rely on "self-sufficiency" through imperial conquest rather than the international market.
Yes, Unit 731 was infamous. And guess what--they weren't prosecuted by the SCAP because the US wanted their research on biological warfare. The death rate in Japanese POW camp was atrocious. The Japanese were material-poor to begin with, so they had this idea of making their prisoners grow their own food (!), particularly because they quickly lost secure supply lines. The march through Bataan to Camp O' Donnell after the fall of Corregidor became a "death march"--in which many, many more Filipino scouts died than US soldiers--because the poorly supplied Japanese had no means of transport to relocate the already starving Filipino and US soldiers. This is not to excuse the brutality, but to point out: (1) how popular US discourse then and waning memory now usually doesn't consider the Filipino dead; (2) how the march became even more terrible and brutal in the jungle heat due to lack of transport.
It was indeed a "war w/o mercy"--then what's a war w/ mercy in this age of total warfare? Historiographically, Dower's 1986 argument was "pathbreaking" in US scholarship in that he argued that the Asia-Pacific War was racist. I remember being amazed when one of my grad advisors told me this in 1989. It took that long for American historians to argue this. Dower, as we know, specialized in Japan.
Re: Truman, here's what I tell my students, based on Arnold Offner's 1999 SHAFR address. Said Offner: Truman’s policymaking was shaped his parochial and nationalistic heritage.
• Truman was a sickly Midwestern boy with poor eyesight—an indoor piano player in contrast to his rugged, feisty father.
• Baptist Bible-reading-->abiding religiosity or system of morals but that the world was filled w/ “liars and hypocrites” and transgressors who had to be punished.
• Like many, he engaged in casual racism: “Chink doctor,” “dago,” “nigger,” “Jew clerk,” “bohunks and Rooshans.” But he disturbed by lynching, and he approved partial redress to Japanese Americans for their wartime incarceration.
• He was parochial by common definition: Had served in WWI, but deplored Europe—its politics, its foods, its morals. And while he was there, only wanted to return to “God’s country.” Didn’t want to leave the US after coming back home and went reluctantly to Potsdam to his first and only European summit.
• Likewise, Truman disdained others whose styles/ways were unfamiliar.
o State Department’s “striped pants boys,” or the military’s “brass hats,” or “prima donnas” like FDR or TR.
o While FDR was the master people manager—never revealing his cards—even had his advisors guessing about his intentions. His method was to get his advisors together to argue out their positions in front of him. (famous bio: FDR fox or lion?)
o In contrast, Truman grabbed on to people he trusted/admired (Secretaries of State George Marshall or Dean Acheson, whose manner and firm viewpoints he found reassuring).
• Was self-taught in history by reading the biographies of “great men” and empires—stories that reduced complexity and ambiguity in favor of strong characters making their mark on the world stage in stirring narratives.
o The expectations of clear stories and outcomes left him little equipped to deal with the subtleties of diplomacy as his predecessor, FDR, was able to do.
o Confident that everything he needed to know he learned in American society and life, Truman naively compared Stalin to the urban city boss who was his political mentor.
o Truman’s desire to appear decisive by making quick decisions and his instincts to be “tough” spurred his belief that he could get “85%” from the Russians on important matters and that they could go long or “go to hell.”
Truman’s parochialism led to him:
• disregard contrary views
• engage in simplistic comparisons/analogizing (1930s appeasement for all situations: Soviets, Greece, Turkey, Korea.)
• show little ability to comprehend the basis for other nations’ policies
So what led to Truman's decision to drop the bombs? Lack of imagination.
• While Truman had some harsh words about his predecessor, he was quite reluctant to move away from precedent.
o The bombs were being made to be used.
o FDR, when he died, had not been planning to share the technology w/ the Soviets.
Lots of discussion among scientists & politicians on what to do.
Ethical questions
Pragmatic ones: using the end of monopoly to wrest concessions—knowing that the Soviets also had a nuclear program and would eventually get the bomb.
Ending monopoly & sharing technology so as to stop an arms race from spinning out of control
o These raised to Truman, but rejected in the end.
o Also rejected was the possibility of not using the bomb & using it as demonstration:
might be a dud
its cost
still believed it would bring quick end to war w/o conceding on emperor point earlier
• FDR also left it as unconditional surrender when he died.
o Emperor position not taken seriously by Truman. Didn’t have much ability to comprehend the basis for other nations’ policies.
• Did see the bombs as an “ace” in his hand in dealing w/ the Soviets. Successful test of bomb led to:
o refuse Russian access to the Ruhr
o rejecting their $4 billion in industrial reparations
o withdrawing from Yalta accords.
Truman had an uncritical belief in the superiority of American values and political-economic interests; he was convinced that the Soviet Union and communism were the root cause of international strife.
I agree that then, as now, we have to analyze & think about whom a war serves. Usually not most of its victims. That said, the US victory ended up making Japanese society more democratic and tie its economy closely to the US economic in an unusually favorable way. This is why, as John Dower also argued, the Japanese "embraced peace." After all, the main objective of the US war was to protect free trade capitalism/Open Door, especially in China.
I would submit that the lesson that needs to be learned isn't simply that war is atrocious and enables mass death. We need to better understand the material, as well as the political, origins and waging of war.
I have always enjoy what you, a veteran and military historian, have to say. That's why I subscribed. But as historian of US empire & race, I simply have to point out unconscious bias when I see it.
I'm not sure how to respond to the charge of "unconscious bias."
I'm not aware that I said the Japanese "were so willing to die." What I did suggest was that, to U.S. troops in the Pacific, the Japanese preference for mass suicide rather than surrender, as well as the Japanese suicide Kamikazes, suggested to those U.S. troops that they faced an implacable enemy, almost one that couldn't be understood, one that was wholly different. Add racism to this and vengeance for Pearl Harbor etc. and you have a war of brutality and atrocity on both sides.
I've read accounts that, to some in Japan, the Emperor's radio broadcast in which he announced Japan's surrender broke a spell of sorts. Certainly, I'm sure it came as a profound relief to most Japanese, recognizing as they did they no longer were expected to die in the service of the Emperor.
We must be very careful not to fall prey to the "Oriental" bias of people like General William Westmoreland, who suggested "the Oriental" didn't place as much value on life as Westerners. Westmoreland was rightly attacked for this statement.
The point here isn't that the Japanese were willing to commit suicide like emotionless robots. The point is that Japan was a heavily militarized society in which enormous pressure was put on young men to fight fanatically for the Emperor and, if need be, to die as a unit to the last man. To give it their all, including their lives.
This doesn't mean these men went happily to their deaths or they desired death. What's remarkable is how many young Japanese men did their duty as they conceived it to be in a war they had clearly lost by 1943.
Could you be more specific about my "unconscious bias" and how it's causing me to misread evidence?
I'm admittedly only a student of history, not privy to extraordinary knowledge or expertise; and that extends to the atomic bombings that took place 6 years before I was born.
But I do find this article by journalist/historian Taylor Noakes adds considerably to the evaluation of the decisions to obliterate the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ; and wonder how you'd respond to the points made therein.
"The decision to drop the bombs was not driven by a military necessity to conclude the war but was deliberately undertaken to end the war on American terms and to put the United States in the best possible negotiating position.
The argument of military necessity is further undermined by the stance taken by three of the most prominent American military figures of World War II: Generals Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower, along with Admiral William Leahy. These leaders opposed the use of the atomic bomb against Japan because they felt it was completely unnecessary. "
"Roosevelt’s last known thought on the matter was that the bomb could be used against Germany or Japan, if necessary, yet he proposed a preliminary demonstration in order to give the Japanese the opportunity to reconsider American terms for surrender. This approach was the option preferred by 46 percent of 150 Manhattan Project physicists polled in the summer of 1945."
"An editorial published in a September 1946 edition of Saturday Review questioned the bombings’ necessity and suggested that they were done deliberately to intimidate the Soviet Union.
..This idea was explored in Gar Alperovitz’s 1965 book Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam — The use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation With Soviet power. Alperovitz was the first to thoroughly articulate the idea that the bombs were dropped to both bring about an immediate end to the war and to avoid large-scale Soviet involvement that could potentially replicate in the Far East what had already occurred in Eastern and Central Europe."
...
Other conclusions were that the bombings were done both to initimidate the Soviet Union and to preclude its involvement in any resolution of Pacific interests; and also that they were used because they represented massive sunk costs, and a project "too big to fail".
"Ronald Takaki’s 1995 book Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb concludes that some of the motivation to use the weapons was simply a consequence of the immense cost in developing them (foreshadowing Eisenhower’s later warning of the military-industrial complex).
Roger, many factors went into the decision to use the atomic bomb, but the primary one was that we had it and that it promised "shock and awe" that would end the war quickly.
We'll never know whether alternatives would have worked. It's fascinating to speculate, but it will always remain speculation.
Some historians and journalists, I think, argue backwards from what they know or feel now about U.S. imperialism and war crimes rather the considering the options and events of 1945. Faced with stalled negotiations and a "wonder weapon" that might unstall them, Truman did what most American leaders would have done. Whether that was "right" and morally justified will be debated intensely and inconclusively until we're all dead and buried.
Bill, yes, much is debatable. I certainly can't know what the primary consideration actually was, however. Perhaps it was as you say, the desire to end the war quickly (to prevent further Allied losses); though it strikes me as odd that while some knowledgeable folk had argued that a demonstration blast in a civilian-less location might well have been sufficient to that end, it was not tested. And the bombing of Nagasaki is especially curious given that not much time had lapsed for Japan to grasp what had happened much less to respond with surrender.
In the end, of course, we can't know with any certainty precisely why the decision was made to bomb the two cities; and as you and others say, the most important thing is never to allow it again.
Roger: The author of that piece is Timothy P. Carney, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where, according to AEI, “he works on civil society, family, localism, religion in America, economic competition, and electoral politics. He is also a Senior Columnist at the Washington Examiner newspaper in Washington.
Back nine years ago, on August 6, 2015, Mr Carney posted to AEI a longer and more detailed ethically-based argument about the ethically-based morality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: HIROSHIMA AT 70: IN FOG OF WAR, LET PRINCIPLE BE THE COMPASS
He concludes:
The future is not ours to predict, though. We don’t know what would have happened had we not dropped the bomb. We didn’t know back then exactly what would happen if we did.
TO PUSH THE BUTTON — TO MURDER TENS OF THOUSANDS, AND LEAVE COUNTLESS OTHERS HOMELESS, DEFORMED, SICK AND ORPHANED — INVOLVES A PRAGMATIC CALCULATION THAT REQUIRES CLAIRVOYANCE, WHICH NO HUMAN POSSESSES.
IN THIS FOG OF WAR, THEN, WHAT CAN GUIDE US? MORAL PRINCIPLE. THE RULE — WHETHER YOU HOLD IT AS ABSOLUTE OR NOT — THAT DELIBERATELY KILLING CIVILIANS IS WRONG, IS AT THE CENTER OF WESTERN ETHICS, EVEN IN TIMES OF WAR.
HARRY TRUMAN MURDERED, ORPHANED, DISPLACED AND DISMEMBERED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT JAPANESE. HE DID SO DELIBERATELY — THEY WERE NOT COLLATERAL DAMAGE. THEY WERE HIS TARGETS. NO FORM OF ACCOUNTING CAN WEIGH THE LIVES OF SOLDIERS YOU PUT AT RISK AGAINST THE LIVES OF DEFENSELESS INNOCENTS YOU KILL. THAT IS NOT A CALCULUS HUMANS ARE FIT TO UNDERTAKE.
Seventy years ago, Harry Truman and the men of the Enola Gay helped end World War II. Let us hope those bombings also mark the end of nuclear war.
NOTE: To get a good overview of where Mr. Carney is coming from, his published books are: FAMILY UNFRIENDLY: HOW OUR CULTURE MADE RAISING KIDS MUCH HARDER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE [2024]; ALIENATED AMERICA; WHY SOME PLACES THRIVE WHILE OTHERS COLLAPSE [2019], OBAMANOMICS [2009]; and THE BIG RIPOFF: HOW BIG BUSINESS AND BIG GOVERNMENT STEAL YOUR MONEY [2006]
In addition to his Washington Examiner columns, Mr. Carney has been published widely, including in the Atlantic, National Review, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. His television appearances include CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and PBS NewsHour.
And today, there is speculation that Israel may preempt any attack by Hezbollah or Iran by using its nuclear weapons on Iran; Israel supported, of course, by the U.S. - the only country to have used nuclear weapons.
I would ask what are we as country - but I already know the answer.
Rem. the USS Indianapolis -- one of the Worst Maritime disaster, and worst mass shark attack ever in history as well being attacked by hundreds of them day & night for several days!!! See Quints speech in "Jaws" not a Hollywood story, but the truth... Incredible stories of survival, and how many were lost 1 out of every 4. Anyhow as Quint says Out of 1196 men who went in the water, just 316 survived-- the sharks, torpedos & elements took the rest " "Anyhow We delivered the Bomb" I read a book about it years ago incredible story!
Referring to the current fart flap about VP Candidates Vance’s and Walz’s “military service,” The Future of Freedom Foundation’s Jacob G. Hornberger concludes his 9 Aug 24 piece: BOTH VANCE AND WALZ EXPERIENCE MORAL BLINDNESS ON “SERVING” IN IRAQ... :
Unfortunately, both men are operating under a severe moral blindness when it comes to Iraq, a country against which the U.S. government initiated and waged a brutal, vicious, deadly, and destructive war in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and the principles set forth at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.
WHERE IS THE “SERVICE” TO ONE’S COUNTRY IN THAT TYPE OF WAR? IT IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. INSTEAD, SUCH “SERVICE” INVOLVED OBEDIENCE TO ILLEGAL ORDERS TO ATTACK A COUNTRY, KILL AND INJURE UNTOLD NUMBERS OF PEOPLE, AND DESTROY PROPERTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
WHEN A FOREIGN REGIME LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE, U.S. OFFICIALS, U.S. POLITICIANS, AND THE U.S. MAINSTREAM PRESS ARE SOMEHOW ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE WRONGFULNESS OF SUCH AN INVASION. BUT WHEN IT’S THE U.S. NATIONAL-SECURITY STATE THAT IS DOING THE INVADING, IT’S CONSIDERED TO BE A “PATRIOTIC” ACT INTENDED TO PROTECT U.S. “NATIONAL SECURITY.”
The U.S. Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war as a prerequisite to waging war against another country. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the law that we the people place on federal officials. They are supposed to obey it.
It is undisputed that the president, the Pentagon, and the CIA never secured a declaration of war against Iraq from Congress. That means that THE WAR THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT INITIATED AGAINST IRAQ WAS ILLEGAL UNDER OUR FORM OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.
The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal held that any regime that initiates a war against another regime is guilty of the war crime entitled “WAGING A WAR OF AGGRESSION.” It is undisputed that Iraq never attacked the United States and that it was the U.S. government that attacked Iraq. THAT MAKES THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, WITH RESPECT TO ITS WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAQ, GUILTY OF THE WAR CRIME ENUNCIATED AT NUREMBERG.
IT IS THE DUTY OF EVERY U.S. SOLDIER TO REFUSE TO OBEY ILLEGAL ORDERS. Even though Vance and Walz were both enlisted men rather than officers, the moral duty to disobey illegal orders applied to them just as it applied to officers. Thus, both of them, like every other soldier, had the duty to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq, as Lt. Ehren Watada did. See my article “Lt. Ehren Watada, War Hero” at https://www.fff.org/2023/07/20/lt-ehren-watada-war-hero/ .
NOTE: After examining the evidence, US Army First Lieutenant Watada concluded, correctly, that the U.S. war on Iraq was illegal. Under U.S. law and the principles set forth at Nuremberg, every soldier is required to disobey illegal orders. Thus, in 2006 he refused orders to deploy to Iraq, citing his obligation to refuse to obey unlawful orders.
NOW, IT’S VERY POSSIBLE THAT YOUTHFUL IGNORANCE AND FALSE “PATRIOTISM” BLINDED VANCE AND WALZ TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S ILLEGAL WAR ON A COUNTRY THAT HAD NEVER ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES. THAT HAPPENS WITH LOTS OF YOUNG PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE INDOCTRINATED IN AMERICA’S PUBLIC (I.E., GOVERNMENT) SCHOOLS.
But what about today, when both men have had some twenty years to recognize the truth about the U.S. war on Iraq? Youthful ignorance can no longer serve as a valid excuse for supporting an illegal and immoral war, one in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed and injured and the country of Iraq was entirely destroyed with U.S. bombs and missiles.
Both Vance and Walz need to come to terms with the Iraq War. NO SOLDIER WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE U.S. WAR ON IRAQ WAS “SERVING” HIS COUNTRY OR FIGHTING TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. INSTEAD, SOLDIERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THAT WAR WERE SIMPLY FOLLOWING ILLEGAL ORDERS — ORDERS THAT VIOLATED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH AT NUREMBERG. How can such a war legitimately be considered “the American way”?
Instead of talking about Vance's and Walz's military "service," let's talk about Biden's, Trump's, Obama's, Cheney's and Bush II's, Clinton's, and Reagan's, shall we?
A quick Google search for "fbi raid on scott ritter's house" showed nobody but FOX with anything; and nobody saying or showing anything new. Which would be just about absolutely normal, eh?
From what i have read, Bill, i believe that impressing the Soviets was a much bigger factor than any desire to “end the war.”
The biggest reason for the desire to end the War and have Japan surrender now and not after a protracted conflict, was to keep the Soviet Union from getting involved in the Pacific War, and establishing a presence on Japanese territory. Like they had established presences in France’s Indochinese Colonies and in Chang Kai-Shek’s China, for starters.
Soviet Russia controlled all of Eastern Europe, and it was eager to expand its influence and ultimately, its control all the way East to the Pacific Ocean. It is important to note that the USSR formally declared War on Japan and launched its invasion of August 8, two days after Hiroshima. And Nagasaki happened on August 9. i think that sent a very loud and clear message to The Kremlin; exactly as it was intended to do.
And even if it was ready any time before V-E Day [8 May 1945], i do not believe that the US would have A-Bombed Berlin; or anyplace else of what was left of Nazi Germany after the Battle of Stalingrad. There was no danger of every German down to the “last Man, Woman, and Child” fighting against the Allies, as was presumed to be what would happen if the US had to invade Japan.
And America and all of Europe would need to see a recovered, rehabilitated, and recreated Germany ready and able to be on one of the front lines of Cold War I. Starting with the former fellow-Germans over to their east.
And just for the Record: As regards concern about American Casualties in an invasion of Japan, i have a very hard time believing that anybody at the highest levels of military, diplomatic, economic, and political Command and Control of the Pacific War at that time had Any actual, real concern about how many Americans would be killed or physically and/or psychologically maimed for life.
And what little ~ if any ~ concern they had about American Military Casualties was massive compared to their concerns about Japanese Civilian Casualties.
Jeff, in World War II we still had a citizen-military, and some leaders were genuinely concerned about casualties and war weariness in the U.S. In fact, when WWII was over, that citizen-military basically demobilized itself.
The leaders learned from this. They created the DOD to replace the Department of War and the National Security Act of 1947 ensured a permanent war state. After the revolt of soldiers against the Vietnam War, the AVF was created to create a "professional" military, now described as "warriors" and "warfighters" and expected to go where they're told without question and without Congressional approval (as you know).
i agree, Bill, and am sure that there were "SOME leaders who were genuinely concerned about casualties and war weariness,,, [EMPHASIS added]..
But i seriously doubt that any of them were at those highest levels of Command and Control of the Pacific War that i cited.
And if that "citizen-military" demobilized itself after WWII, the Military Industrial Congressional Complex was just getting cranked up, as planned, and as mandated and guaranteed by that 1947 NSA.
In any event, what do You think was the more important factor in the use of the A-Bombs? Concern about American Casualties, or sending a message to the USSR as to how Cold War I is going to be run? At least at that point in time.
And in any further event, that "citizen-military" and then that "professional military" of "warriors" and "warfightrers" has not won a War in 79 years [unless one counts Panama, Grenada, and Kuwait as "Wars"].
Thank you Roger for supplying both articles that provide much more information about the US decision to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was 11 when we did that and I was horrified, and have remained so all my life. I am especially horrified by our bombing of Nagasaki which I believe was just a nasty job for no reason at all except to emphasize to the Japanese the totality of their defeat. At the time, I wondered why we hadn't dropped the Hiroshima bomb in the ocean near Hiroshima or someplace uninhabited so people could see what was coming and surrender. But we didn't do that, and I have always wondered why Truman nixed that idea, along with why he allowed Nagasaki to happen.
I'm rather astounded by the coldness that you use to describe these events, Bill. Perhaps you have never known any japanese; or perhaps you are unaware of the complexity of their culture. I know you are aware of how badly we treated our own japanese citizens. The stories I heard from my japanese hawaiian roommate and others at the U. of Colo, the year I was there, would make your heart cry out.
I think the generals who were advising Truman, like Curtis LeMay and others gave bad advice tinged with the usual assortment of racism, but I think whoever it was who posited that what was really going on , that it was a warning to Russia, was correct. We wanted them to know that we could destroy them at the drop of a hat. And while his name has not publicly come up in this sad story about Japan, I strongly believe that Alan Dulles, the head of OSS and then the CIA, had a strong hand in this decision, as it seems he had in so many things, with the help of his brother, and his virulent hatred of Russia always seemed to be in play.
Historical objectivity can be mistaken for coldness. I was trying to be objective and truthful to the facts as I know them.
I could denounce the U.S. action as war crimes and get all emotional, but what purpose would that serve after almost 80 years? I'm wary of those who get all righteous and holier-than-thou, those who sit so casually in judgment of the past and of those back then who made difficult decisions.
For the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima was debated, intensely by some, in the context of devastating battles at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, of Kamikaze attacks, and of fears that Japan might never surrender unless the Home Islands themselves were invaded and conquered.
I understand that Bill and I agree with your attempt to do that, but what struck my heart was your short and rather casual dismissal of the bombing of Nagasaki, which from my view, says quite a bit about the people who were making bombing decisions. Everything you say abut the choice to bomb Hiroshima I'm sure is accurate, but it changes when we look at Nagasaki. By then they had an idea of what this bomb could do, even though the fullextent of the fallout and radiation had not yet occurred . But they had a good look at the results, and yet they didn't think twice about doing the same thing to another city of innocent people. That says something to me about the people who were choosing to do this to a second city for no real reason other than that they had a second bomb and wanted to use it. That, to me, is cold and I was surprised that you had nothing to say about that.
I'm not sure which comment you mean jg, but I assume you mean the one about impressing Russia. As I mentioned in my first remarks, I think the US was indeed sending notice to Russia, largely because Alan Dulles had a raging hate of Russia and communism and infused that hate in the minds of the people around him. Even though Russia was our ally in WWII our military and OSS people were planing to destroy the country and split it up into smaller nations that we could control. At the end of WWII Russia was in no shape to try to take over other nations whether in Europe or Asia. They had defeated the Germans, but at the cost of 28 million people out of a population of only 150 million. Also the Germans had destroyed most of the major cities and much of the farm land, The country was on its knees and working to put it back into a positive economic position. It had no interest in attacking anyone despite the propaganda that Dulles and others put out during the cold war. So yes I agree that we were sending messages to Russia - but for all the wrong reasons, because, as usual, the US was arrogantly projecting its own plans to rule the world, and assumed Russia had the same desires.
i have a hard time believing, ranney, that US policy and action with respect to the USSR and its newly-created Empire in Eastern Europe after WWII was driven "largely because of Allen Dulles' raging hate of Russia."
You need to remember who Dulles worked for, and whose agenda he was advancing, selling, and implementing. And it wasn't the President or the Government of the United States.
The end of World War II saw the birth of both America's Military Industrial Congressional Complex, and what has become the Secrecy Security Surveillance Censorship Propaganda proto-Police State Panopticon; two of the major components of what's called "The Deep State."
And the first thing those folks needed was an "Enemy." And in the USSR and its Empire, they found exactly what they were looking for.
And if Russia was in "no shape to try to take over other nations whether in Europe or Asia," how did they manage to put together on 9 August 1945 an Invasion of Japan force of "89 divisions with 1.5 million men, 3,704 tanks, 1,852 self propelled guns, 85,819 vehicles and 3,721 aircraft. One third of its strength was in combat support and services.[5] Its naval forces contained 12 major surface combatants, 78 submarines, numerous amphibious craft, and the Amur River flotilla, consisting of gunboats and numerous small craft" ?
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Yes, there were other options, but we don't know and never will know the outcome of the war had any other option been chosen. We don't know what was going on in Truman's mind and we never will. You can guess all you like, but it's useless because you can't prove a thing. And all the theories about the why's and wherefore's are pointless and a waste of time and energy. The simple truth is that you don't know the unknown.
The bottom line is that we did it - we dropped the a bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, mostly in ignorance of the consequences until afterwards. But then we learned right after we did it - and the lesson we learned should never be forgotten. NEVER DO IT AGAIN!
Well, the last point of your comment, and Bill's essay, is certainly the most important conclusion. I agree, it's for us impossible to know any other outcome than the one that followed the choice made.
At the same time, it does seem important to consider the contextual realities that surrounded that choice; and most of us were never fully informed about what factors and understandings led to the event. And without such, we can easily be misled to horrific choices.
After using the 2 atom bombs we apparently told the Japanese that we had many such weapons all ready to use and that we would reduce all their cities to radioactive rubble. That of course was not true. We had exactly two bombs and we used them both. But I wonder how much that threat encouraged the leadership to finally give up.
I agree with the overall message that nuclear weapons shouldn't be used on humans again. But I do want to emphasize that the Japanese belief in bushido is b.s. It's an honor code for samurai--certainly not applicable to the vast majority of Japanese who descend from peasants. It's important also to understand that the bushido b.s. (even if a part of Japanese state propaganda during WWII) was used during the war in US public discourse to kill Japanese--in that old racist stereotype that Asians don't value life as much as European/Americans. As a US historian of the period, I saw plenty of comments about "sending them to Heaven sooner." This has parallels, of course, in today's Islamophobia.
Also, what were the facts, as understood by US leaders by summer 1945?
1. Military leaders understood that Japan was already a defeated nation.
a. Imperial forces shattered—in retreat everywhere
b. Massive firebombing was devastating Japan.
i. June & July 1945, US B-29s were saturating Japan with bombs. 59/66 largest cities were hit, killing over 1 million people and leaving 20 million homeless. The US forces under MacArthur were planning to wait them out.
c. Complete US naval blockade of Japan by this time slowly strangling resource-poor Japan
(Initially US wanted Soviets to get into the war to pin down Japanese forces in Manchuria—so they couldn’t be diverted home to fight the invasion. But by this time, the US navy controlled the seas so that the Japanese forces were stuck in Manchuria anyway)
d. Combination of air power and naval power meant that an invasion was not necessary—so thought General Henry Arnold, Army Air Force Chief.
But as intellectual exercise, the Joint War Committee presented to Truman on June 13, 1945, estimates of casualties stemming from an invasion.
1. 40,000 deaths
2. 150,000 wounded
3. 3,500 missing
4. for a total of 193,500 casualties (not a million casualties, much less a million deaths)
Military leaders didn't an invasion was necessary. (Starvation and bombing, we know from the present situation in Gaza, is a horribly effective strategy & of course & understandably, there was no outside support for Japan at that time.)
This was why, among others, opposing the use of atomic bombs were:
-Gen. Douglas MacArthur, commander of Allied forces in the Pacific
-Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, commander of Allied forces in Europe
-Admiral William Leahy, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Adm Leahy later said: The “bomb was of no material assistance. The Japanese were defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. . . . My own feelings was that in being the first to use it we had adopted the ethical standards common to barbarians of the dark ages. . . I was not taught to make war in that fashion. . . wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
2. The US gov't also knew that the Japanese had been trying to sue for peace through intermediaries since spring 1945—from just before FDR died.
a. Japanese leaders, realizing that the severe misery of their people might foment a Bolshevik-like social revolution, *wanted* to surrender to the US. Japanese elites feared communism. This is why, after the war, they became such great partners/"junior allies" of the United States.
b. Nevertheless, the Soviets were a neutral power, and so in June 1945, the Japanese cabled the Soviet Union seeking help with the surrender. These communications were intercepted by the US.
3. Emperor the sticking point
a. Diplomats and negotiators told Truman in June 1945 that the Japanese were seeking to surrender on one condition—to be able to keep the emperor. Secretary of State Stimson had no regrets for how the US waged the war, but he later thought that the U.S prolonged the war
by not being more forthright about its position on the emperor until much later.
(The Japanese finally said they would surrender on August 10, after getting assurances about the emperor.) (Stimson & Bundy, "On Active Service in Peace and War" pg. 628-629).
_Saturday Review_ editor Norman Cousins also later reported that Gen. Douglas A. MacArthur told him that he saw no military justification for using the atomic bomb. MacArthur said, "The war might have ended weeks earlier . . . if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway,
to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
So why didn’t Truman yield on the emperor point? I have thoughts on that I regularly lecture to my students. But this is already too long.
Thanks so much for your comment.
Truman had only recently become president after the death of FDR. The policy of unconditional surrender was almost sacrosanct. Truman, probably rightly, kept that policy intact. Privately, he could have offered reassurances that "unconditional" didn't mean the overthrow of the Emperor. I think such reassurances would have expedited Japan's surrender, though at the time there were those who said the Japanese might interpret any such compromise as a sign of weakness, i.e. motivation to fight on.
We must not forget, as John Dower wrote, that this was a "War Without Mercy" in the Pacific with racism and atrocity on both sides. Consider the Japanese treatment of Allied POWs and experiments conducted on POWs by Unit 731.
From the Internet: "Unit 731, led by Shirō Ishii, conducted biological and chemical experiments on over 3,000 prisoners, resulting in mass casualties; Japanese POW camps had a 27% Allied prisoner death rate due to severe malnutrition and torture, while the Nanjing Massacre and Three 'Alls' Policy led to the deaths of millions."
It isn't my intent here to defend or justify the A-bomb attacks. As a historian, I seek to understand them and contextualize them. Certainly, there were prominent Americans who disagreed with Truman's decision, as in the examples you cited.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both horrific attacks in a war that was characterized by mass atrocity, e.g. the Nazi Holocaust, the Japanese rape and massacre of Nanking (Nanjing).
The lesson to be learned is war is atrocious, and that mass war enables mass atrocity. Certainly, no side was innocent.
Again, I repeat that military top brass didn't think the atomic bombs were necessary. To say that some thought back then that a "concession"--which the US ended up making before the Japanese surrendered--would embolden the Japanese to keep fighting was also unfounded. Again, it seems to reify the notion that the Japanese were die-hards, except some of the military top brass in the emperor's cabinet. No, not Tojo--he was already ousted. Mass suicide after surrender didn't occur, even among that military top brass in or out of the cabinet. (General Nogi and his wife committed seppuku after the Meiji emperor died in 1913.)
I'm also a historian, so it's very important to me to point out the fallacy of the apparently ongoing American notion--even among trained US historians--that the Japanese were so willing to die. This is not about pointing fingers at US decisions at the time, but to point out an ongoing racist belief.
My 95-year-old father remembers only feeling relief at the surrender. The war hadn't killed him. He found out about the Showa emperor's surrender as he waited at a bus station. On the bus, everyone was either relieved or excited. One guy, referring to all the reconstruction that would be needed in the postwar period, said, "I'm going to open up a business for scrap metal!" The Japanese relief about the end to dying was widespread, as Dower also documented.
Also, I'm not trying to make argument about which of these two imperialist powers was worse. I think that would be a pointless exercise. What is important to know is that Japan responded to the global depression with autarky because they believed that it would be safer (ha!) to rely on "self-sufficiency" through imperial conquest rather than the international market.
Yes, Unit 731 was infamous. And guess what--they weren't prosecuted by the SCAP because the US wanted their research on biological warfare. The death rate in Japanese POW camp was atrocious. The Japanese were material-poor to begin with, so they had this idea of making their prisoners grow their own food (!), particularly because they quickly lost secure supply lines. The march through Bataan to Camp O' Donnell after the fall of Corregidor became a "death march"--in which many, many more Filipino scouts died than US soldiers--because the poorly supplied Japanese had no means of transport to relocate the already starving Filipino and US soldiers. This is not to excuse the brutality, but to point out: (1) how popular US discourse then and waning memory now usually doesn't consider the Filipino dead; (2) how the march became even more terrible and brutal in the jungle heat due to lack of transport.
It was indeed a "war w/o mercy"--then what's a war w/ mercy in this age of total warfare? Historiographically, Dower's 1986 argument was "pathbreaking" in US scholarship in that he argued that the Asia-Pacific War was racist. I remember being amazed when one of my grad advisors told me this in 1989. It took that long for American historians to argue this. Dower, as we know, specialized in Japan.
Re: Truman, here's what I tell my students, based on Arnold Offner's 1999 SHAFR address. Said Offner: Truman’s policymaking was shaped his parochial and nationalistic heritage.
• Truman was a sickly Midwestern boy with poor eyesight—an indoor piano player in contrast to his rugged, feisty father.
• Baptist Bible-reading-->abiding religiosity or system of morals but that the world was filled w/ “liars and hypocrites” and transgressors who had to be punished.
• Like many, he engaged in casual racism: “Chink doctor,” “dago,” “nigger,” “Jew clerk,” “bohunks and Rooshans.” But he disturbed by lynching, and he approved partial redress to Japanese Americans for their wartime incarceration.
• He was parochial by common definition: Had served in WWI, but deplored Europe—its politics, its foods, its morals. And while he was there, only wanted to return to “God’s country.” Didn’t want to leave the US after coming back home and went reluctantly to Potsdam to his first and only European summit.
• Likewise, Truman disdained others whose styles/ways were unfamiliar.
o State Department’s “striped pants boys,” or the military’s “brass hats,” or “prima donnas” like FDR or TR.
o While FDR was the master people manager—never revealing his cards—even had his advisors guessing about his intentions. His method was to get his advisors together to argue out their positions in front of him. (famous bio: FDR fox or lion?)
o In contrast, Truman grabbed on to people he trusted/admired (Secretaries of State George Marshall or Dean Acheson, whose manner and firm viewpoints he found reassuring).
• Was self-taught in history by reading the biographies of “great men” and empires—stories that reduced complexity and ambiguity in favor of strong characters making their mark on the world stage in stirring narratives.
o The expectations of clear stories and outcomes left him little equipped to deal with the subtleties of diplomacy as his predecessor, FDR, was able to do.
o Confident that everything he needed to know he learned in American society and life, Truman naively compared Stalin to the urban city boss who was his political mentor.
o Truman’s desire to appear decisive by making quick decisions and his instincts to be “tough” spurred his belief that he could get “85%” from the Russians on important matters and that they could go long or “go to hell.”
Truman’s parochialism led to him:
• disregard contrary views
• engage in simplistic comparisons/analogizing (1930s appeasement for all situations: Soviets, Greece, Turkey, Korea.)
• show little ability to comprehend the basis for other nations’ policies
So what led to Truman's decision to drop the bombs? Lack of imagination.
• While Truman had some harsh words about his predecessor, he was quite reluctant to move away from precedent.
o The bombs were being made to be used.
o FDR, when he died, had not been planning to share the technology w/ the Soviets.
Lots of discussion among scientists & politicians on what to do.
Ethical questions
Pragmatic ones: using the end of monopoly to wrest concessions—knowing that the Soviets also had a nuclear program and would eventually get the bomb.
Ending monopoly & sharing technology so as to stop an arms race from spinning out of control
o These raised to Truman, but rejected in the end.
o Also rejected was the possibility of not using the bomb & using it as demonstration:
might be a dud
its cost
still believed it would bring quick end to war w/o conceding on emperor point earlier
• FDR also left it as unconditional surrender when he died.
o Emperor position not taken seriously by Truman. Didn’t have much ability to comprehend the basis for other nations’ policies.
• Did see the bombs as an “ace” in his hand in dealing w/ the Soviets. Successful test of bomb led to:
o refuse Russian access to the Ruhr
o rejecting their $4 billion in industrial reparations
o withdrawing from Yalta accords.
Truman had an uncritical belief in the superiority of American values and political-economic interests; he was convinced that the Soviet Union and communism were the root cause of international strife.
I agree that then, as now, we have to analyze & think about whom a war serves. Usually not most of its victims. That said, the US victory ended up making Japanese society more democratic and tie its economy closely to the US economic in an unusually favorable way. This is why, as John Dower also argued, the Japanese "embraced peace." After all, the main objective of the US war was to protect free trade capitalism/Open Door, especially in China.
I would submit that the lesson that needs to be learned isn't simply that war is atrocious and enables mass death. We need to better understand the material, as well as the political, origins and waging of war.
I have always enjoy what you, a veteran and military historian, have to say. That's why I subscribed. But as historian of US empire & race, I simply have to point out unconscious bias when I see it.
I'm not sure how to respond to the charge of "unconscious bias."
I'm not aware that I said the Japanese "were so willing to die." What I did suggest was that, to U.S. troops in the Pacific, the Japanese preference for mass suicide rather than surrender, as well as the Japanese suicide Kamikazes, suggested to those U.S. troops that they faced an implacable enemy, almost one that couldn't be understood, one that was wholly different. Add racism to this and vengeance for Pearl Harbor etc. and you have a war of brutality and atrocity on both sides.
I've read accounts that, to some in Japan, the Emperor's radio broadcast in which he announced Japan's surrender broke a spell of sorts. Certainly, I'm sure it came as a profound relief to most Japanese, recognizing as they did they no longer were expected to die in the service of the Emperor.
We must be very careful not to fall prey to the "Oriental" bias of people like General William Westmoreland, who suggested "the Oriental" didn't place as much value on life as Westerners. Westmoreland was rightly attacked for this statement.
The point here isn't that the Japanese were willing to commit suicide like emotionless robots. The point is that Japan was a heavily militarized society in which enormous pressure was put on young men to fight fanatically for the Emperor and, if need be, to die as a unit to the last man. To give it their all, including their lives.
This doesn't mean these men went happily to their deaths or they desired death. What's remarkable is how many young Japanese men did their duty as they conceived it to be in a war they had clearly lost by 1943.
Could you be more specific about my "unconscious bias" and how it's causing me to misread evidence?
I'm admittedly only a student of history, not privy to extraordinary knowledge or expertise; and that extends to the atomic bombings that took place 6 years before I was born.
But I do find this article by journalist/historian Taylor Noakes adds considerably to the evaluation of the decisions to obliterate the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ; and wonder how you'd respond to the points made therein.
The Atomic Bombings of Japan Were Based on Lies
By Taylor C. Noakes
Jacobin, 2023/08 https://jacobin.com/2023/08/atomic-nuclear-bomb-world-war-ii-soviet-japan-military-industrial-complex-lies
"The decision to drop the bombs was not driven by a military necessity to conclude the war but was deliberately undertaken to end the war on American terms and to put the United States in the best possible negotiating position.
The argument of military necessity is further undermined by the stance taken by three of the most prominent American military figures of World War II: Generals Douglas MacArthur and Dwight D. Eisenhower, along with Admiral William Leahy. These leaders opposed the use of the atomic bomb against Japan because they felt it was completely unnecessary. "
"Roosevelt’s last known thought on the matter was that the bomb could be used against Germany or Japan, if necessary, yet he proposed a preliminary demonstration in order to give the Japanese the opportunity to reconsider American terms for surrender. This approach was the option preferred by 46 percent of 150 Manhattan Project physicists polled in the summer of 1945."
"An editorial published in a September 1946 edition of Saturday Review questioned the bombings’ necessity and suggested that they were done deliberately to intimidate the Soviet Union.
..This idea was explored in Gar Alperovitz’s 1965 book Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam — The use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation With Soviet power. Alperovitz was the first to thoroughly articulate the idea that the bombs were dropped to both bring about an immediate end to the war and to avoid large-scale Soviet involvement that could potentially replicate in the Far East what had already occurred in Eastern and Central Europe."
...
Other conclusions were that the bombings were done both to initimidate the Soviet Union and to preclude its involvement in any resolution of Pacific interests; and also that they were used because they represented massive sunk costs, and a project "too big to fail".
"Ronald Takaki’s 1995 book Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb concludes that some of the motivation to use the weapons was simply a consequence of the immense cost in developing them (foreshadowing Eisenhower’s later warning of the military-industrial complex).
...
Roger, many factors went into the decision to use the atomic bomb, but the primary one was that we had it and that it promised "shock and awe" that would end the war quickly.
We'll never know whether alternatives would have worked. It's fascinating to speculate, but it will always remain speculation.
Some historians and journalists, I think, argue backwards from what they know or feel now about U.S. imperialism and war crimes rather the considering the options and events of 1945. Faced with stalled negotiations and a "wonder weapon" that might unstall them, Truman did what most American leaders would have done. Whether that was "right" and morally justified will be debated intensely and inconclusively until we're all dead and buried.
Bill, yes, much is debatable. I certainly can't know what the primary consideration actually was, however. Perhaps it was as you say, the desire to end the war quickly (to prevent further Allied losses); though it strikes me as odd that while some knowledgeable folk had argued that a demonstration blast in a civilian-less location might well have been sufficient to that end, it was not tested. And the bombing of Nagasaki is especially curious given that not much time had lapsed for Japan to grasp what had happened much less to respond with surrender.
In the end, of course, we can't know with any certainty precisely why the decision was made to bomb the two cities; and as you and others say, the most important thing is never to allow it again.
Another, briefer critique that summarizes a couple of the points made elsewhere, is at https://www.aei.org/op-eds/japan-was-already-defeated-the-case-against-the-nuclear-bomb-and-for-basic-morality/ . Admittedly, I was surprised to find such an ethically-based argument published by American Enterprise Institute.
Roger: The author of that piece is Timothy P. Carney, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where, according to AEI, “he works on civil society, family, localism, religion in America, economic competition, and electoral politics. He is also a Senior Columnist at the Washington Examiner newspaper in Washington.
Back nine years ago, on August 6, 2015, Mr Carney posted to AEI a longer and more detailed ethically-based argument about the ethically-based morality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: HIROSHIMA AT 70: IN FOG OF WAR, LET PRINCIPLE BE THE COMPASS
He concludes:
The future is not ours to predict, though. We don’t know what would have happened had we not dropped the bomb. We didn’t know back then exactly what would happen if we did.
TO PUSH THE BUTTON — TO MURDER TENS OF THOUSANDS, AND LEAVE COUNTLESS OTHERS HOMELESS, DEFORMED, SICK AND ORPHANED — INVOLVES A PRAGMATIC CALCULATION THAT REQUIRES CLAIRVOYANCE, WHICH NO HUMAN POSSESSES.
IN THIS FOG OF WAR, THEN, WHAT CAN GUIDE US? MORAL PRINCIPLE. THE RULE — WHETHER YOU HOLD IT AS ABSOLUTE OR NOT — THAT DELIBERATELY KILLING CIVILIANS IS WRONG, IS AT THE CENTER OF WESTERN ETHICS, EVEN IN TIMES OF WAR.
HARRY TRUMAN MURDERED, ORPHANED, DISPLACED AND DISMEMBERED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT JAPANESE. HE DID SO DELIBERATELY — THEY WERE NOT COLLATERAL DAMAGE. THEY WERE HIS TARGETS. NO FORM OF ACCOUNTING CAN WEIGH THE LIVES OF SOLDIERS YOU PUT AT RISK AGAINST THE LIVES OF DEFENSELESS INNOCENTS YOU KILL. THAT IS NOT A CALCULUS HUMANS ARE FIT TO UNDERTAKE.
Seventy years ago, Harry Truman and the men of the Enola Gay helped end World War II. Let us hope those bombings also mark the end of nuclear war.
Source: https://www.aei.org/articles/hiroshima-at-70-in-fog-of-war-let-principle-be-the-compass/ ; EMPHASES added.
NOTE: To get a good overview of where Mr. Carney is coming from, his published books are: FAMILY UNFRIENDLY: HOW OUR CULTURE MADE RAISING KIDS MUCH HARDER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE [2024]; ALIENATED AMERICA; WHY SOME PLACES THRIVE WHILE OTHERS COLLAPSE [2019], OBAMANOMICS [2009]; and THE BIG RIPOFF: HOW BIG BUSINESS AND BIG GOVERNMENT STEAL YOUR MONEY [2006]
In addition to his Washington Examiner columns, Mr. Carney has been published widely, including in the Atlantic, National Review, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. His television appearances include CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and PBS NewsHour.
And today, there is speculation that Israel may preempt any attack by Hezbollah or Iran by using its nuclear weapons on Iran; Israel supported, of course, by the U.S. - the only country to have used nuclear weapons.
I would ask what are we as country - but I already know the answer.
Rem. the USS Indianapolis -- one of the Worst Maritime disaster, and worst mass shark attack ever in history as well being attacked by hundreds of them day & night for several days!!! See Quints speech in "Jaws" not a Hollywood story, but the truth... Incredible stories of survival, and how many were lost 1 out of every 4. Anyhow as Quint says Out of 1196 men who went in the water, just 316 survived-- the sharks, torpedos & elements took the rest " "Anyhow We delivered the Bomb" I read a book about it years ago incredible story!
Referring to the current fart flap about VP Candidates Vance’s and Walz’s “military service,” The Future of Freedom Foundation’s Jacob G. Hornberger concludes his 9 Aug 24 piece: BOTH VANCE AND WALZ EXPERIENCE MORAL BLINDNESS ON “SERVING” IN IRAQ... :
Unfortunately, both men are operating under a severe moral blindness when it comes to Iraq, a country against which the U.S. government initiated and waged a brutal, vicious, deadly, and destructive war in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and the principles set forth at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.
WHERE IS THE “SERVICE” TO ONE’S COUNTRY IN THAT TYPE OF WAR? IT IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. INSTEAD, SUCH “SERVICE” INVOLVED OBEDIENCE TO ILLEGAL ORDERS TO ATTACK A COUNTRY, KILL AND INJURE UNTOLD NUMBERS OF PEOPLE, AND DESTROY PROPERTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
WHEN A FOREIGN REGIME LIKE RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE, U.S. OFFICIALS, U.S. POLITICIANS, AND THE U.S. MAINSTREAM PRESS ARE SOMEHOW ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THE WRONGFULNESS OF SUCH AN INVASION. BUT WHEN IT’S THE U.S. NATIONAL-SECURITY STATE THAT IS DOING THE INVADING, IT’S CONSIDERED TO BE A “PATRIOTIC” ACT INTENDED TO PROTECT U.S. “NATIONAL SECURITY.”
The U.S. Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war as a prerequisite to waging war against another country. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the law that we the people place on federal officials. They are supposed to obey it.
It is undisputed that the president, the Pentagon, and the CIA never secured a declaration of war against Iraq from Congress. That means that THE WAR THAT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT INITIATED AGAINST IRAQ WAS ILLEGAL UNDER OUR FORM OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.
The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal held that any regime that initiates a war against another regime is guilty of the war crime entitled “WAGING A WAR OF AGGRESSION.” It is undisputed that Iraq never attacked the United States and that it was the U.S. government that attacked Iraq. THAT MAKES THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, WITH RESPECT TO ITS WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAQ, GUILTY OF THE WAR CRIME ENUNCIATED AT NUREMBERG.
IT IS THE DUTY OF EVERY U.S. SOLDIER TO REFUSE TO OBEY ILLEGAL ORDERS. Even though Vance and Walz were both enlisted men rather than officers, the moral duty to disobey illegal orders applied to them just as it applied to officers. Thus, both of them, like every other soldier, had the duty to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq, as Lt. Ehren Watada did. See my article “Lt. Ehren Watada, War Hero” at https://www.fff.org/2023/07/20/lt-ehren-watada-war-hero/ .
NOTE: After examining the evidence, US Army First Lieutenant Watada concluded, correctly, that the U.S. war on Iraq was illegal. Under U.S. law and the principles set forth at Nuremberg, every soldier is required to disobey illegal orders. Thus, in 2006 he refused orders to deploy to Iraq, citing his obligation to refuse to obey unlawful orders.
NOW, IT’S VERY POSSIBLE THAT YOUTHFUL IGNORANCE AND FALSE “PATRIOTISM” BLINDED VANCE AND WALZ TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT’S ILLEGAL WAR ON A COUNTRY THAT HAD NEVER ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES. THAT HAPPENS WITH LOTS OF YOUNG PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE INDOCTRINATED IN AMERICA’S PUBLIC (I.E., GOVERNMENT) SCHOOLS.
But what about today, when both men have had some twenty years to recognize the truth about the U.S. war on Iraq? Youthful ignorance can no longer serve as a valid excuse for supporting an illegal and immoral war, one in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed and injured and the country of Iraq was entirely destroyed with U.S. bombs and missiles.
Both Vance and Walz need to come to terms with the Iraq War. NO SOLDIER WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE U.S. WAR ON IRAQ WAS “SERVING” HIS COUNTRY OR FIGHTING TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. INSTEAD, SOLDIERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THAT WAR WERE SIMPLY FOLLOWING ILLEGAL ORDERS — ORDERS THAT VIOLATED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE PRINCIPLES SET FORTH AT NUREMBERG. How can such a war legitimately be considered “the American way”?
Full article at https://www.fff.org/2024/08/09/both-vance-and-walz-experience-moral-blindness-on-serving-in-iraq/ ; EMPHASES added.
Instead of talking about Vance's and Walz's military "service," let's talk about Biden's, Trump's, Obama's, Cheney's and Bush II's, Clinton's, and Reagan's, shall we?
Necessary? Or expedient? When it comes to moral questions, the US typically fails to make the distinction.
A VIDEO RESPONSE TO THE FBI RAID ON SCOTT RITTER'S HOUSE by Scott Ritter 9 Aug 24
https://scottritter.substack.com/p/a-video-response-to-the-fbi-raid
A quick Google search for "fbi raid on scott ritter's house" showed nobody but FOX with anything; and nobody saying or showing anything new. Which would be just about absolutely normal, eh?
From what i have read, Bill, i believe that impressing the Soviets was a much bigger factor than any desire to “end the war.”
The biggest reason for the desire to end the War and have Japan surrender now and not after a protracted conflict, was to keep the Soviet Union from getting involved in the Pacific War, and establishing a presence on Japanese territory. Like they had established presences in France’s Indochinese Colonies and in Chang Kai-Shek’s China, for starters.
Soviet Russia controlled all of Eastern Europe, and it was eager to expand its influence and ultimately, its control all the way East to the Pacific Ocean. It is important to note that the USSR formally declared War on Japan and launched its invasion of August 8, two days after Hiroshima. And Nagasaki happened on August 9. i think that sent a very loud and clear message to The Kremlin; exactly as it was intended to do.
And even if it was ready any time before V-E Day [8 May 1945], i do not believe that the US would have A-Bombed Berlin; or anyplace else of what was left of Nazi Germany after the Battle of Stalingrad. There was no danger of every German down to the “last Man, Woman, and Child” fighting against the Allies, as was presumed to be what would happen if the US had to invade Japan.
And America and all of Europe would need to see a recovered, rehabilitated, and recreated Germany ready and able to be on one of the front lines of Cold War I. Starting with the former fellow-Germans over to their east.
And just for the Record: As regards concern about American Casualties in an invasion of Japan, i have a very hard time believing that anybody at the highest levels of military, diplomatic, economic, and political Command and Control of the Pacific War at that time had Any actual, real concern about how many Americans would be killed or physically and/or psychologically maimed for life.
And what little ~ if any ~ concern they had about American Military Casualties was massive compared to their concerns about Japanese Civilian Casualties.
Jeff, in World War II we still had a citizen-military, and some leaders were genuinely concerned about casualties and war weariness in the U.S. In fact, when WWII was over, that citizen-military basically demobilized itself.
The leaders learned from this. They created the DOD to replace the Department of War and the National Security Act of 1947 ensured a permanent war state. After the revolt of soldiers against the Vietnam War, the AVF was created to create a "professional" military, now described as "warriors" and "warfighters" and expected to go where they're told without question and without Congressional approval (as you know).
i agree, Bill, and am sure that there were "SOME leaders who were genuinely concerned about casualties and war weariness,,, [EMPHASIS added]..
But i seriously doubt that any of them were at those highest levels of Command and Control of the Pacific War that i cited.
And if that "citizen-military" demobilized itself after WWII, the Military Industrial Congressional Complex was just getting cranked up, as planned, and as mandated and guaranteed by that 1947 NSA.
In any event, what do You think was the more important factor in the use of the A-Bombs? Concern about American Casualties, or sending a message to the USSR as to how Cold War I is going to be run? At least at that point in time.
And in any further event, that "citizen-military" and then that "professional military" of "warriors" and "warfightrers" has not won a War in 79 years [unless one counts Panama, Grenada, and Kuwait as "Wars"].
Thank you Roger for supplying both articles that provide much more information about the US decision to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was 11 when we did that and I was horrified, and have remained so all my life. I am especially horrified by our bombing of Nagasaki which I believe was just a nasty job for no reason at all except to emphasize to the Japanese the totality of their defeat. At the time, I wondered why we hadn't dropped the Hiroshima bomb in the ocean near Hiroshima or someplace uninhabited so people could see what was coming and surrender. But we didn't do that, and I have always wondered why Truman nixed that idea, along with why he allowed Nagasaki to happen.
I'm rather astounded by the coldness that you use to describe these events, Bill. Perhaps you have never known any japanese; or perhaps you are unaware of the complexity of their culture. I know you are aware of how badly we treated our own japanese citizens. The stories I heard from my japanese hawaiian roommate and others at the U. of Colo, the year I was there, would make your heart cry out.
I think the generals who were advising Truman, like Curtis LeMay and others gave bad advice tinged with the usual assortment of racism, but I think whoever it was who posited that what was really going on , that it was a warning to Russia, was correct. We wanted them to know that we could destroy them at the drop of a hat. And while his name has not publicly come up in this sad story about Japan, I strongly believe that Alan Dulles, the head of OSS and then the CIA, had a strong hand in this decision, as it seems he had in so many things, with the help of his brother, and his virulent hatred of Russia always seemed to be in play.
Historical objectivity can be mistaken for coldness. I was trying to be objective and truthful to the facts as I know them.
I could denounce the U.S. action as war crimes and get all emotional, but what purpose would that serve after almost 80 years? I'm wary of those who get all righteous and holier-than-thou, those who sit so casually in judgment of the past and of those back then who made difficult decisions.
For the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima was debated, intensely by some, in the context of devastating battles at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, of Kamikaze attacks, and of fears that Japan might never surrender unless the Home Islands themselves were invaded and conquered.
I understand that Bill and I agree with your attempt to do that, but what struck my heart was your short and rather casual dismissal of the bombing of Nagasaki, which from my view, says quite a bit about the people who were making bombing decisions. Everything you say abut the choice to bomb Hiroshima I'm sure is accurate, but it changes when we look at Nagasaki. By then they had an idea of what this bomb could do, even though the fullextent of the fallout and radiation had not yet occurred . But they had a good look at the results, and yet they didn't think twice about doing the same thing to another city of innocent people. That says something to me about the people who were choosing to do this to a second city for no real reason other than that they had a second bomb and wanted to use it. That, to me, is cold and I was surprised that you had nothing to say about that.
See the comment i just posted, ranney. i'm curious if that makes sense to You.
I'm not sure which comment you mean jg, but I assume you mean the one about impressing Russia. As I mentioned in my first remarks, I think the US was indeed sending notice to Russia, largely because Alan Dulles had a raging hate of Russia and communism and infused that hate in the minds of the people around him. Even though Russia was our ally in WWII our military and OSS people were planing to destroy the country and split it up into smaller nations that we could control. At the end of WWII Russia was in no shape to try to take over other nations whether in Europe or Asia. They had defeated the Germans, but at the cost of 28 million people out of a population of only 150 million. Also the Germans had destroyed most of the major cities and much of the farm land, The country was on its knees and working to put it back into a positive economic position. It had no interest in attacking anyone despite the propaganda that Dulles and others put out during the cold war. So yes I agree that we were sending messages to Russia - but for all the wrong reasons, because, as usual, the US was arrogantly projecting its own plans to rule the world, and assumed Russia had the same desires.
i have a hard time believing, ranney, that US policy and action with respect to the USSR and its newly-created Empire in Eastern Europe after WWII was driven "largely because of Allen Dulles' raging hate of Russia."
You need to remember who Dulles worked for, and whose agenda he was advancing, selling, and implementing. And it wasn't the President or the Government of the United States.
The end of World War II saw the birth of both America's Military Industrial Congressional Complex, and what has become the Secrecy Security Surveillance Censorship Propaganda proto-Police State Panopticon; two of the major components of what's called "The Deep State."
And the first thing those folks needed was an "Enemy." And in the USSR and its Empire, they found exactly what they were looking for.
And if Russia was in "no shape to try to take over other nations whether in Europe or Asia," how did they manage to put together on 9 August 1945 an Invasion of Japan force of "89 divisions with 1.5 million men, 3,704 tanks, 1,852 self propelled guns, 85,819 vehicles and 3,721 aircraft. One third of its strength was in combat support and services.[5] Its naval forces contained 12 major surface combatants, 78 submarines, numerous amphibious craft, and the Amur River flotilla, consisting of gunboats and numerous small craft" ?
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War ]
Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Yes, there were other options, but we don't know and never will know the outcome of the war had any other option been chosen. We don't know what was going on in Truman's mind and we never will. You can guess all you like, but it's useless because you can't prove a thing. And all the theories about the why's and wherefore's are pointless and a waste of time and energy. The simple truth is that you don't know the unknown.
The bottom line is that we did it - we dropped the a bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, mostly in ignorance of the consequences until afterwards. But then we learned right after we did it - and the lesson we learned should never be forgotten. NEVER DO IT AGAIN!
Well, the last point of your comment, and Bill's essay, is certainly the most important conclusion. I agree, it's for us impossible to know any other outcome than the one that followed the choice made.
At the same time, it does seem important to consider the contextual realities that surrounded that choice; and most of us were never fully informed about what factors and understandings led to the event. And without such, we can easily be misled to horrific choices.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vMEgneKF10
After using the 2 atom bombs we apparently told the Japanese that we had many such weapons all ready to use and that we would reduce all their cities to radioactive rubble. That of course was not true. We had exactly two bombs and we used them both. But I wonder how much that threat encouraged the leadership to finally give up.