Last year, in early August to be specific, I wrote an article about why Americans shouldn’t be shamed into feeling bad about our country’s use of nuclear weapons against Japan at the end of World War II.
This article was in specific response to the inundation of media articles I saw at the time discussing how, I perceived, the US was so horrible for using nuclear weapons – but their use was written about in a vacuum, without proper, or in most cases, any context regarding why we decided to use nuclear weapons against Japan. I also wished to call attention to the fact that other mass deaths of civilians at the hand of the Allies were not given such special recognition, or in fact any recognition at all, even if their death tolls exceeded that of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There were many comments on the article, including some overtly racist ones which I quickly sent to the trash bin, but also some very thoughtful comments criticizing and/or disagreeing with my conclusions.
Many, many articles and books and papers have been written about whether or not the bombings constituted the right thing to do, with many saying that Japan was on the verge of surrender and a blockade of a few months would have pushed them over the edge, while the other side says an invasion would have been necessary and would have ended up costing more lives. I do not really wish to rehash all of these arguments, but as today is the 71st anniversary of the raising of the American flag on Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima, I felt it necessary to say a few things.
I have in the interim read (truth be told, listened to) the book The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, 1936-1945. I think it is a fantastic work, and would encourage anyone with the time to pick up a copy. The author, John Toland, told the story from as much of a Japanese perspective as possible, including many interviews with primary sources – essentially making the reader a fly on the wall of many important meetings on both sides throughout the war. I felt that I was fairly well educated on the topic of the Pacific war prior to reading this book, but learned numerous important facts over the last few weeks.
Still, it should not surprise anyone that the writer of an article called “We Shouldn’t Feel Bad About Nuking Imperial Japan” went into the reading of such a book with a few preconceived notions and came out of it with those notions strengthened and reinforced.
Japan was not united on the concept of continuing the war to its bitter end, but those with the real power – the military – were almost to a man absolutely committed to fighting no longer to win, but to preserve what we can loosely translate as the “national essence” of Japan. To this end a number of last-ditch efforts were underway in the expectation of an invasion including arming civilians with spears and bows.
Many of the primary Japanese actors were not viewing the situation in a manner I as an American would consider rational. Despite the fact that the Japanese military and political leadership knew since 1943 that they were losing the war and by no means had the industry to win, they continued fighting “for the Emperor.” Their decisions led to mind-boggling losses on both sides.
In mid-August, when the Emperor decided to use his influence to force his government into (more or less) accepting the terms of surrender set forth by the Allies, a coup was attempted by very “loyal” Japanese troops who believed that the Emperor had been misled and that his surrender declaration must not reach outside ears.
In other words, “for the Emperor” to them no longer meant fighting for the actual Emperor but for the idea of an Empire. From 1931 to 1945, in fact, the military of Japan essentially did whatever it wanted and said it was “for the Emperor.” This thought process was derived from the, again, loosely translated concept of “insubordination.”
As stated previously, today is the 71st anniversary of the flag raising on Mount Suribachi. I find today to be an especially poignant time to argue that the use of atomic weapons against Japan was more than justified, both at the time and in hindsight. Although American troops captured the highest point on the island on the fifth day of the battle, fighting continued for another month as virtually every Japanese fighting man on the island fought to the death or hid out in the complex network of caves and tunnels that had been prepared for the defense of the island.
This for a tiny bit of rock that held little strategic significance other than that it was one step closer to the Home Islands. I find it hard to believe that the Japanese would fight so tenaciously for little gain in February and March of 1945 and yet be on the verge of surrendering their homeland in August of that same year – without the psychological shock of the use of atomic weapons.
Truman made the correct decision. If we invaded and lost 100,000 men or more, then found out about the bomb, he would have been roasted. I just finished reading With The Old Breed (highly recommended) and without a doubt the Japanese would have fought to the death.
You have terrific insight. Write a book and I’ll buy it. Good luck!
Over and above the estimated one million Allied casualties, based an their experience on Saipan, Allied planners estimated Japanese casualties would run in the 10 to 12 million range. The Japanese people and culture would have ceased to exist.
Allied firebomb raids were already killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese every day. Casualties from the atomic bombs were little more than these firebomb raids. It was the prospect of hundreds of B29s each carrying atomic bombs finally broke Japanese resolve.
Another perspective on it would be the book:
The Pacific War: 1931-1945
by Japanese author Saburo Ienaga
Just getting the emperor’s surrender statement out of the palace almost didn’t happen due to the Bushido Bull$#!+.
You are spot on. My Dad Carl W Opitz was on the island of titian. And was the pilot of the B 29 that took the damage assessment photos . He has told me many times, that the dropping of the bomb was the only to end the war. Other wise thousands of solders would have been killed trying to take the main island of Japan. My dad is 95 year old and still sharp of mind. Body is a little worn but he gets around. If you want first hand info, let me know. I will arrange an interview for you. My Dad loves tell war story’s.
Another perspective is found in Richard Rhodes’s work detailing the monumental effort that was the Manhattan Project, The Making of the Atomic Bomb.
Aside from the fact that the Japanese were also working on an atomic bomb (as well as the Germans), he details quite a bit about the mentality of the time regarding warfare. We often forget that, at the time, our most recent experience in warfare was WWI. We looked at warfare as industrialized slaughter, where men and equipment were fed into a murderous machine in the hopes that our machine would chew up the enemy faster than theirs would. The goal was simple: end the war before the human cost became too high for your side.
There was a sense by many of the scientists on the Manhattan Project, particularly Niels Bohr, that the development and use of the bomb would forever change the nature of warfare between nations. He proved correct, and there really has not been a major war between world powers ever since- the potential cost would simply be too great. One could argue that 70 years of relative peace between nations (compared to the years before the bomb) was worth its use to end a terrible conflict and change warfare forever.
There is a really good read called “The Last Mission” that goes into detail with several of the meetings of the high ranking leaders in Japan at the time and how a B-29 raid inadvertantly helped to prevent the coup attempt from succeeding.
My favorite book on this subject is Downfall, The end of the Imperal Japanese Empire by Richard B Frank. Worth the time, and also his book on Guadalcanal by the same title. If you enjoy reading about the war in the Pacific, these two are very good!
I’ve read through some of the newer theories about the end of the war. At best, the make a pretty good case that Japan actually surrendered because of the entry of the Soviets into the war rather than the bomb. Even if we grant them that 100%, I still don’t think it changes anything about the morality of the bombings.
You can only judge the actions of the American commanders based on what they knew or reasonably could have known at the time. These theories about the weight of Soviet intervention on the minds of the Japanese commanders are based on a bunch of Historians having unlimited access to all of the records of the internal workings of the Japanese government and military, and all the time in the world to analyze and correlate everything, things none of the Allied commanders could have possibly had.
All they did know was that the Imperial Japanese had been prosecuting the war for years aggressively and brutally, without regard to lives of their civilians or soldiers, much less anyone else, and that attacks more brutal and deadly than the atomic bombings had failed to stop them. What possible reason could they have had for not using every weapon at hand as much as they possibly could? They had all the reason in the world to think that any hesitation or mercy would only make the Japanese think that they weren’t determined enough to force them to a surrender, no matter what it took.
Another good book on the decisions by both sides is Downfall by Richard B. Frank. He goes into the invasion plans, the casualty projections, and the alternative plans on the part of the U.S., and the defense plans and political intrigues by the Japanese.
I have often said that if the U.S. hadn’t dropped the bomb, quite a few of the anti-bomb protesters wouldn’t be here. Their fathers (or now, grandfathers) would have been killed in the invasion of Japan.
And to be fair, it’s quite possible some of those anti-bomb protesters would be OK with that.
I have had similar discussions with people in the past and came to the conclusion that it can be best simplified with pointing out that we had to do it twice. The initial shock of hiroshima still wasn’t enough to convince them. It took a second drop and nearly a 3rd.
Obviously thats an oversimplification but the half hour debates were getting exhausting.
In terms of destructive power, Fat Man and Little Boy did nothing that Operation Starvation and Curtis LeMay couldn’t have accomplished with more time.
The difference is that a lot more Japanese lived because of the nukes. When you read the effects that US Naval mining and USAAC firebombing were having, Japanese society was pretty much going to collapse by the end of 1945 without even an invasion taking place.
Another good read is Craig Symonds’ The Battle of Midway which goes into what was basically a military junta in Japan. Military officers actually assassinated the prime minister in 1932 as well. The 11 officers were court martialed but got off with a light sentence.
One thing we have to remember though is these were and are the only uses of a nuclear weapon in anger which is why it is so special. If it had been a fire bombing such as Dresdin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would likely have been minor footnotes. The entrance to the Atomic age certainly deserves more attention.
To promote the discussion so this doesn’t degenerate into a one-sided agreement fest let me end with Ike’s feelings which I’m sure most people are aware of. So, if Ike was right, and at that point Imperial Japan was soundly defeated, could a way have been found to give them a way to surrender without incurring the loss of “innocent” civilian life?
General Dwight D. Eisenhower: “In 1945 … , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act…. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.”
Imperialistic Japan was the “ISIS” of its day.. goes to show what it took to stop that ideology, they would literally commit suicide for their emperor.
Anyone can feel free to read up on the plans for their I-400 series submarine and their planned attacks on densely populated civilians cities.
I agree completely for all the reasons you talked about.
Okinawa was viewed as a minicosm of what waited on the Japanese home islands. It had a huge influence on dropping the bomb to end the war. This is from Battle of Okinawa: The Blood and the Bomb.
You could not be more correct. Actually READING what was going on can ONLY lead one to conclude that the bombs (or an invasion) were the only things likely to bring about unconditional surrender.
I’ve said it many time before and will say it once again here:
All it takes to believe that the Japanese were “about to surrender” is a complete and utter lack of knowledge of the facts pertaining on the ground in Japan at the time.
Some mid-level employee of the Foreign Ministry wanted to surrender? That’s nice… and totally irrelevant. He had no more chance of effecting a surrender on terms acceptable to the Allies than I do of bringing about Sharia law in Ohio, never mind the United States. And that of course leaves aside the fact that he’d NEVER publicly voice such a desire for fear of being beheaded by Tsuji Masanobu or one of his clones.
The military ran Japan, PERIOD. Until THEY were ready to quit, the war was going to go on… and in fact it almost did contrary to the EXPLICIT orders of the Emperor.
Dropping of the bombs forced the Imperial Surrender. Fact.
Douglas MacArthur and his staff saved the people of Japan. Fact.
He went in with total dictatorial authority and “altered” their culture, rather successfully. Otherwise Japan would have looked like the Gaza Strip by 1950 and would still today. That shock, that demonstration of raw military power, is what gave MacArthur that “authority”. His many years of service and living in the Orient gave him an unique window through which to do this.
Every time someone starts with the ” evil America bombed Japan” drivel I drag out “Bugout Doug” and his resounding success of the Occupation of Japan. Which I usually have to follow with “No, MacArthur did not lose the war in Korea to China, that was the UN”. And the expressions of incomprehension which greets the fact that American incendiary bomb raids killed and crippled many, many, many more Nipponese citizens than both atomic bombs combined, including traceable birth defects and direct radiation effects on survivors, are just f**king priceless.
Want an understanding of why and how America did what we did in the Orient in the 20th? Stilwell; The American Experience In China is an excellent read. Added to the authors several commenters in this thread have listed is also James Clavell. Much maligned for those TV miniseries in the ’80s and ’90s he did in depth, detailed and accurate research for his novels.
It is said that the nuclear bombs convinced the civilians that they had to seek peace. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria convinced the military. The latter may be dependent on the former.
Anybody who opposes the boms are a bigot and a racist. It si said that the occupied lands around 100 000 people/month were dying due to hardship from the Japanese occupation.
On quora someone reported that if elderly Japanese found out that people were American, they would thank them for the nuclear bombs. They probably saved their lives.