60 years ago

[j_b]

Hiroshima arguments rage 60 years on

 

By Paul Reynolds

World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website

 

 

On the 60th anniversary of the destruction of Hiroshima, new questions are being asked about whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb - and whether the bomb was really responsible for the Japanese surrender.

 

[...]

 

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4724793.stm

[ChrisT]

One of the last three remaining crewmen of the Enola Gay was just asked by Brian Williams if he felt any remorse said he felt none. 70,000 killed on the spot.

[Peter_Puget]

Some missing context:

 

The Tokyo fire raid on the night of March 9/10, five months earlier, was far worse, incinerating somewhere around 150,000 civilians, and burning out over 15 acres of the downtown. Indeed, “Little Boy,” the initial nuclear device that was dropped 60 years ago, was understood as the continuance of that policy of unrestricted bombing — its morality already decided by the ongoing attacks on the German and Japanese cities begun at least three years earlier.

[Ireneo_Funes]

Is morality something that shifts around like that, Peter?

 

I guess I consider it more of an ever-fixed mark, you know, like the poet says.

[JAFO]

Everyone who is interested in this topic should watch the movie "the fog of war" It interviews Robert Macnamera on how it all went down. We burned 60 major cities in japan. It is amazing that we have any relationship at all with japan.

[SemoreJugs]

Of course he feels no remorse. If he allowed himself to, it is likely he would have hung himself... He must be living a hell that you and I cannot even imagine, at least in dreams, the poor bastard.

[SemoreJugs]

another reason I try to avoid paying taxes. I dont want my money funneled into atrocities!

 

Is that the only way we can lead the world? By carrying the biggest stick? What about leading by love and opportunity rather than fear.

 

You catch more humans with honey than vinegar.

 

Iraq: Bush did the vinegar route.

 

China, Tienneman Square: More of the honey route

 

Which has more lasting change? You cannot win hearts and minds by force. I wish history was still taught in congress. Now there's an idea.

[MisterMo]

It is regrettable that morality is a moving target, but that is the case. In war morality is often determined by whether one is on the winning or losing side.

 

In the context of the war against Japan it may be helpful to recall that the capture of Okinawa, the last island 'before' Japan, consumed approx 50,000 American casualties. Estimates of American casualties in an invasion of Japan itself ranged around a million. The defeat of Japan was, of course, deemed essential, not elective..........hence the Atomic bomb.

[crazyjizzy]

I think that this arguement will rage (hopefully) for another six hundred years. I believe that the answer is difficult to decipher

 

1) Did we do it to lessen the spoils of war to the Soviets? In reality, we had been trying to get the Soviets into the war since 1942, but by that point there was a concern that the Red Army would gobble up lots of eastern Asia like it had eastern Europe.

 

2) Could we have starved them out by a Naval Blockade? Probably, but would have more civilians died?

 

3) Were the Japanese putting out surrender feelers? Yes, through the Swiss. And those in Washington were getting prepared to accept them. The role of the Emperor was of vital importance to the Japanese, he was almost a God King, and they wanted his safety and dignity preserved. Washington was prepared to accept these terms, because a fight to the death appeared to be the alternative.

 

4) When would have the Invasion have taken place? 1946. And there was true fear that the Japanese could have invented some specialized or "super" weapons in the intereme. What if they developed a "A" or "H" bomb? Or a superflu? And put it on a sub?

 

Therer were many reasons to end the war quickly; political, geo-political, humanitarian, and militarian. I don't know if it was the right decision, but I do think that Truman was a straight forward person, and did what he thought was best to end the war. I do not think that Truman wanted to show the Russians, or to punish the Japanese, but that is not to say that those who helped him form his decision did not hold those ideas.

[ChrisT]

"Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into her side, Chief. We was comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte. We'd just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in 12 minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about a half-hour. Tiger. 13-footer. You know how you know that in the water, Chief? You can tell by lookin' from the dorsal to the tail. What we didn't know, was that our bomb mission was so secret, no distress signal had been sent. They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin' by, so we formed ourselves into tight groups. It was sorta like you see in the calendars, you know the infantry squares in the old calendars like the Battle of Waterloo and the idea was the shark come to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin' and hollerin' and sometimes that shark he go away... but sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark looks right at ya. Right into your eyes. And the thing about a shark is he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, he doesn't even seem to be livin'... 'til he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'. The ocean turns red, and despite all your poundin' and your hollerin' those sharks come in and... they rip you to pieces. You know by the end of that first dawn, lost a hundred men. I don't know how many sharks there were, maybe a thousand. I do know how many men, they averaged six an hour. Thursday mornin', Chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland. Baseball player. Boson's mate. I thought he was asleep. I reached over to wake him up. He bobbed up, down in the water, he was like a kinda top. Upended. Well, he'd been bitten in half below the waist. At noon on the fifth day, a Lockheed Ventura swung in low and he spotted us, a young pilot, lot younger than Mr. Hooper here, anyway he spotted us and a few hours later a big ol' fat PBY come down and started to pick us up. You know that was the time I was most frightened. Waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a lifejacket again. So, eleven hundred men went into the water. 316 men come out, the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945. Anyway, we delivered the bomb."

[AlpineK]

One point that gets overlooked is that a real life lesson in the concequences of an action is much more efective than a hypothetical one.

 

Did we stop a nuclear war with the Russians when we both had enough firepower to destroy human life because everybody had a real understanding of what nuclear weapons did?

[Fairweather]

It is regrettable that morality is a moving target, but that is the case. In war morality is often determined by whether one is on the winning or losing side.

 

In the context of the war against Japan it may be helpful to recall that the capture of Okinawa, the last island 'before' Japan, consumed approx 50,000 American casualties. Estimates of American casualties in an invasion of Japan itself ranged around a million. The defeat of Japan was, of course, deemed essential, not elective..........hence the Atomic bomb.

 

It was the efforts against Iwo Jima and Okinawa - where tens-of-thousands of Japanese civilians comitted suicide rather than face surrender - that so horrified American military and political leaders they concluded (correctly, or not) an invasion of the main islands would be a nightmarish event for all involved. FDR promised America a total victory. Truman delivered on his promise.

 

I'll admit that I do have problems with the Nagasaki attack. Three days was not adequate for the Japanese government to understand what they were up against. I think the US just wanted to see if a plutonium-based weapon would work as effectively as the uranium-based Hiroshima bomb did. Oh well.

 

Also, let's not ever lose sight of Japanese brutality throuought the western pacific in the years prior to their demise. It was far worse, and it was much more personal...if that really matters.

[Stonehead]

Ok, what gets me, is the way the situation is frameworked. When you present the issue as one of invasion vs. bomb, then it seems so parsimonious. And, that has always been the official line.

 

Conceivably, given enough time the Japanese could have developed weapons of mass destruction such as the germ warfare research spearheaded by Unit 731, just as the Germans could have produced the atomic bomb. Seems ironic that the US through OSS (predecessor to CIA), brought German and Japanese military research scientists to safe haven to acquire their knowledge.

 

Anyway, my point is that there is always the sense of a collective guilt and punishment. Someone mentions Nanking or Pearl Harbor and that justifies the dropping of the bombs without remorse. I hate to see civilians bear the brunt of war, war that is often precipitated by governments with a special agenda. Even though the people have nationalist sentiment, it's being harnessed by government for their purposes. As far as Pearl Harbor, that was a military target of strategic benefit and involved soldiers against soldiers. I can't speak to things such as Bataan and Nanking. It seems that the animal nature of all of us emerges from underneath the thin veneer of civiliation under the stress of war. Might I mention My Lai?

 

So, it's for all the innocents that I take pause for. You might say that there really are no innocent people because they're actually a part of the 'war machine' that furthers the cause and means of war. That's the real tragedy and true cost of war.

[MisterMo]

Somewhat randomly:

The atomic genie was very much out of the bottle well before Hiroshima. Once the technology was developed its use somewhere, sometime, by someone was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Maybe the best use of ones mental energies on the topic is to work to ensure that it is never used again.

 

Curtis Lemay, the architect of the firebombing of Japanese cities, was once quoted, by Manchester I think, as saying that had Japan won the war he would have undoubtedly been hung as a war criminal.

 

As big as the numbers of dead at Hiroshima are, they must, I believe, be viewed in the context of the war as a whole: what was it? 30 million dead worldwide....a whole lot of whom were civilians. Civilian deaths at the hands of the Japanese are said to have been, if I recall correctly, 100,000 in Manila alone.

[archenemy]

I can't speak to things such as Bataan and Nanking. It seems that the animal nature of all of us emerges from underneath the thin veneer of civiliation under the stress of war. Might I mention My Lai?

 

So, it's for all the innocents that I take pause for. You might say that there really are no innocent people because they're actually a part of the 'war machine' that furthers the cause and means of war. That's the real tragedy and true cost of war.

 

I can't help but notice that the "animal nature of all" (in reference to violence) usually emerges in men. And the innocents you mention are most often the women and children. If by war machine you include women producing sons, then I suppose they are guilty of adding to the fights between men. I realize there are violent women and there are armies that include women, but this is by far the minority. It is men who kill, rape, burn, and bomb.

 

I don't know where to go with these observations. I read a lot of history books (to make up for the bullshit they teach us in school), and the more stories I read by women the more horrified I am. Of course, war is an issue so much bigger than any gender concern; but I still cannot help but wonder what other people think about this.

[Fairweather]

[ivan]

i'm a history teacher and i don't teach bullshit, though in truth all history contains warped perspectives. i think alpinek hit this as best as can be said - there is no denying that the cold-blooded murder of thousands is wrong, but hiroshima and nagaski did undoubtedly enter into the calculus of statesmen in both the usa and ussr in the cold war in a positive way - that is to say, because hundreds of thousand were incinerated in those 2 cities, the whole world might well have survived those tense moments when both sides felt inclined to dispense of their immediate problems w/ quick actions. yes, the usa could have ended ww2 w/o invasion or nuclear bombs, but who are you to know how history would have proceeded had it gone differently then it did? as it worked out, things haven't been too awfully bad - the nations to fear today are the nations armed w/ such terrible weapons who haven't experienced closely the results of those weapons. ultimately, the collective population of a county must accept the consequences of their governments actions (that does include liberal americans, who liv ein a bush controled world) - if your government inaugurates unholy depradations, then you must expect to reap the whirlwind.

[Norman_Clyde]

[quote

I can't help but notice that the "animal nature of all" (in reference to violence) usually emerges in men. And the innocents you mention are most often the women and children. It is men who kill, rape, burn, and bomb.

 

The above is a pretty well established fact. Women, however, even when forbidden to fight, often played a part. In Britain during World War I, young women routinely carried white feathers when in public. If they saw a young man out of uniform, they would press a feather into his hand (or sometimes shove it up his nose), the message being that he was a coward not to be a soldier. This behavior was so ubiquitous that it happened to soldiers home on leave, if they were out of uniform.

 

Aggressively patriarchal, masculine cultures probably do more than their share of the war-making in history. But knowing this does not gain us much. I don't expect male chimpanzees to suddenly start behaving like the females of their species; likewise, it would take a pretty dramatic biological shift for human males to suddenly become less aggressive. It's easy to see how as a species we evolved the behaviors we had. What is harder, now that our intelligence has handed us such lethal technologies, is to see how we can keep from annihilating ourselves. It's not a particularly happy or hopeful viewpoint, but I often feel that given the human combination of intelligence and aggression, only one outcome is possible. And after we're gone, the land will enjoy its sabbath.

[klenke]

One thought that struck me the other day was this:

 

Could we (the U.S.) in 1945 have dropped the atom bomb(s) in sparsely or unpopulated sections of Japan with the same ultimate effect but without the killing of so many Japanese civilians? That is, the mere threat of another drop on a large city could have brought capitulation from the Japanese. One could opine that, if we had done that (dropped on a sparsely populated area), then they could have successfully defensed the next threat to one of their cities and therefore the war would not have ended.

 

As is the case with everything, one never knows for sure.

[Fairweather]

I think I read that idea was considered, but since the bomb had never been tested in a "weaponized" form, there was a very real chance such an announced demonstration could turn out to be a 'dud' - thereby lessening the psychological effect on the Japanese audience.

[Mal_Con]

I taught English in a lodge run by the Quakers in Hiroshima for a little while. The question of the bomb often came up. I asked anyone who would listenen if they had the bomb would they drop it on the US? The answer was always , Yes!!. I had an uncle who was headed there on a roop ship in late 1945, he always said the bomb enabled him to have a life, family and children. The answer who knows?

[archenemy]

i'm a history teacher and i don't teach bullshit,

Refreshing--we need more educators like you

though in truth all history contains warped perspectives.

The perspectives that I was shown in school were those of men. I am not sure that they are "warped", but they are indeed one person's way of looking at the situation

i think alpinek hit this as best as can be said - there is no denying that the cold-blooded murder of thousands is wrong, but hiroshima and nagaski did undoubtedly enter into the calculus

Calculus deals with limits and the differentiation and integration of functions of one or more variables of an equation. I would hope that the decision making of any states<i>man<i> includes this complexity. of statesmen in both the usa and ussr in the cold war in a positive way - that is to say, because hundreds of thousand were incinerated in those 2 cities, the whole world might well have survived those tense moments when both sides felt inclined to dispense of their immediate problems w/ quick actions. yes, the usa could have ended ww2 w/o invasion or nuclear bombs, but who are you to know how history would have proceeded had it gone differently then it did? In truth, I don't even know history as it was. I can only speculate on what actually happened (as much as I speculate on what could have happened). I see history through the debate, collage, collection of perspectives that I hear about second hand. How do you see it? as it worked out, things haven't been too awfully bad - I think that living in fear is not good. the nations to fear today are the nations armed w/ such terrible weapons who haven't experienced closely the results of those weapons. I assume you have read The People's History of the United States and recognize that there are alternate explainations for the ending/starting of our late involvement in this war. I am curious what your views are on these. ultimately, the collective population of a county must accept the consequences of their governments actions (that does include liberal americans, who liv ein a bush controled world) - if your government inaugurates unholy depradations, then you must expect to reap the whirlwind.

[JayB]

"The perspectives that I was shown in school were those of men. I am not sure that they are "warped", but they are indeed one person's way of looking at the situation."

 

Looks like the folks in the Women's Studies/Constructivist branch of academia certainly put their bootprint one someone's psyche.

 

Interpretations of history may vary, but their are limits to the extent to which alternate interpretations can be considered valid, and those limits are arrived at when one "interpretation" of history is clearly at odds with facts that are so thoroughly documented as to admit no dispute. Or, as Moynihan stated, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Therein lie the limits to the legitimacy of any school of thought that seeks to advance or reject a particular historical claim. Every subgroup with a particular identity and agenda to advance can do so if they wish, but their efforts should be judged solely on the weight of the factual evidence, methodological rigour, and logical force that they bring to bear in service of their arguments and claims.

 

"I can't help but notice that the "animal nature of all" (in reference to violence) usually emerges in men. And the innocents you mention are most often the women and children. It is men who kill, rape, burn, and bomb."

 

See above. In those cases where women have actually been invested with the responsibility for making such decisions, they [Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, etc, etc, etc]. haven't actually differed notably from the tendencies exhibited by their male counterparts - as such considerations come down to abstract considerations of necessity and advantage, proficiency in which seems to be distributed more or less equally amongst the sexes.

 

The fact that women haven't been engaged in the actual hostilities is the result of matters settled long, long before the arrival of our species, much less conscious thought - so it hardly seems like something worthy of congratulating oneself, or one's gender upon.

[archenemy]

"The perspectives that I was shown in school were those of men. I am not sure that they are "warped", but they are indeed one person's way of looking at the situation."

 

Looks like the folks in the Women's Studies/Constructivist branch of academia certainly put their bootprint one someone's psyche.

 

not that this is interesting, but my undergrad is in engineering and my master's is in business. So fuck yourself, you cunt.

 

Interpretations of history may vary, but their are limits to the extent to which alternate interpretations can be considered valid, and those limits are arrived at when one "interpretation" of history is clearly at odds with facts that are so thoroughly documented as to admit no dispute. Or, as Moynihan stated, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Therein lie the limits to the legitimacy of any school of thought that seeks to advance or reject a particular historical claim. Every subgroup with a particular identity and agenda to advance can do so if they wish, but their efforts should be judged solely on the weight of the factual evidence, methodological rigour, and logical force that they bring to bear in service of their arguments and claims.

 

"I can't help but notice that the "animal nature of all" (in reference to violence) usually emerges in men. And the innocents you mention are most often the women and children. It is men who kill, rape, burn, and bomb."

 

See above. In those cases where women have actually been invested with the responsibility for making such decisions, they [Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, etc, etc, etc]. haven't actually differed notably from the tendencies exhibited by their male counterparts - as such considerations come down to abstract considerations of necessity and advantage, proficiency in which seems to be distributed more or less equally amongst the sexes.

 

You don't think that this is due to having to succeed in a man's world, do you?

 

The fact that women haven't been engaged in the actual hostilities is the result of matters settled long, long before the arrival of our species, much less conscious thought - so it hardly seems like something worthy of congratulating oneself, or one's gender upon.

 

Nothing is settled, obviously, or else you wouldn't post on the subject. And if you think my questioning other people's views is self-congratulatory, then you must not read well.

 

But hey, thanks for playing.

[SemoreJugs]

4) When would have the Invasion have taken place? 1946. And there was true fear that the Japanese could have invented some specialized or "super" weapons in the intereme. What if they developed a "A" or "H" bomb? Or a superflu? And put it on a sub?

 

Wow, I am amazed at the logical leaps people will take to defend a reprehesible action so they can sleep at night.

 

Create a "superflu". Um sorry. Bio-Engineered viruses and bacteria were not feasible until restriction endonucleases were used to manipulate DNA in the late 80s. Up until then, germ warfare consited of spreading already isolated bugs from nature (like smallpox).

 

It just goes to show how people will believe nearly anything that plays off their fears. thats how the Iraq war was justified and sold to the american people.

 

Gee, what if we instead negotiated a truce after the firebombings, which actually killed more civilians?

 

You could make a strong case for America being the biggest terrorist in history next to Nazi Germany.

 

Dont think we were terrorists then and now? REmember the term Bonzai? It came from the Japanese men, women, and children that lined up to jump off a sea cliff named "Bonzai" from fear of being captured by Americans or killed on our terms. That was the terrorized mindset they lived and died with.

 

WE targeted civilians. We targeted cities. We should pay for our war-crimes. WE dont because we won and we think we are moral but we are assuredly not. Fight evil with more evil? Ummm, okay.

 

Einstein. Likely one of, if not the, the most intelligent people in modern history, was a hard-core pacifist nand activist. Despite popular legend, he lived in reality. He envisioned a way to settle differences other than by killing and terror. We just dont want to listen. I dont know why.