Do you get tired of all the news coverage of the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at this time each year?

Saturday 02nd August, 01:20 PM JST

Latest 15 of 74 Total Comments Show All

DanManjt at 11:56 PM JST - 5th August

The truth is, President Truman and the Top Brass agonized over this decision, and President Truman almost didn't give the order to do it...

Blue Tiger,

Another myth. There are no records showing anyone agonized over "the decision" before the atomic attacks on Japan. Truman agonized after the fact, as he recorded in his dairy. Not before.

Second, Truman never authorized the specific attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Rather, he authorized the use of the bomb, which then got turned over to the military. Truman then rescinded his authorization, taking the use of the bomb away from the miliarty and back in the CIC hands.

The point: there never was a cabinet level meeting to on the specific issue of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let alone the Bomb. At one point in July, if memory serves, there was a 15 minute period during a meeting which covered all aspect of the war where the use of the Bomb was discussed.

15 minutes.

Hardly a full vetting of the issue, wouldn't you say...
usaexpat at 12:21 AM JST - 6th August

DanManjt: The conditions the Japanese sought in surrender as far as I know were the preservation of the imperial house, the retention of its pre-war empire and the return of former European colonies with the condition that they be granted independence. The Japanese were trying to broker a peace through Russia in June and July of 1945 on these tenants but got no where. I never said the US wasn't interested in ending the war, I said they weren't interested in accomodating Japanese demands. As for how the baptismal fires of Nagasaki and Hiroshima as you called them work you were correct. Collective punishment equals collective penance that's all wars ever leave the defeated.
OhioDonna at 12:47 AM JST - 6th August

Zurg, for me all war documentaries are painful to watch. War does not make a lot of sense and it never has.
usaexpat at 12:50 AM JST - 6th August

WMD I don't think the mayors of Nagasaki or Hiroshima particularily had any involvement in the war so their appologies will not be required.
RepublicofTexas at 12:54 AM JST - 6th August

The purpose of remembering the A-bombings is not to whitewash history or direct anti-US sentiment, but to show the folly and tragedy of war, as well as the destructive power of WMDs. Of course I believe that the bombings should be put in perspective (as in why they happened in the first place).

The truth is, President Truman and the Top Brass agonized over this decision, and President Truman almost didn't give the order to do it...

If President Truman had assured the Japanese that he wouldn't overthrow the monarchy as was the case post-WWI, the Japanese would probably have surrendered earlier, without any need for the A-bomb.
DanManjt at 04:51 AM JST - 6th August

USexpat

There were four conditions: Retention of the Japanese Emperor, Japanese control over disarmament, Japanese control over any war-crimes trials, and above all no Allied occupation of Japan.

In short, a conditional surrender that would keep Imperial Japan's domestic structures intact. Which was a very big deal.

This conditional surrender was a far cry from the Allies policy of unconditional surrender which, though somewhat ambiguous in the details, clearly articulated the US's intent to refashion Japan's and Germany's domestic structures to fall in line with US's vision of how the international system should be structured.

No amount of the so-called "peace feelers" that Imperial Japan had been half-heartedly sending the Soviets (!) could ever have amounted to any cessation of hostilities so long as Imperial Japan held onto the vain hope that Japan could avoid defeat, occupation, trials and restructuring of her society. Which the Big Six, particularly Anamai, Umezu and Toyoda, insisted she do -- even after the two bombs -- thereby deadlocking that council's ability to act.

The "peace feelers" were cynical attempt to buy time, wedge the Allies apart, and a naively desperate attempt to forestall or prevent the Soviet's from entering the war against Japan.

They got no where because the US was intent upon beating Japan into unconditional surrender, and with a "preponderance of force," as Churchill said, dictate terms to a prostrate Japan.

The Big Six were intent upon preventing that through one last great battle -- ketsugo, or decisive battle. Anami et al pursausively argued that though Japan was down, she was far from out. Japan had a lot of fight left in her: three million plus soldiers in China and South East Asia, and another million in Japan. Casualties rates and fatalities rates for the US and Japan were steadily increasing with each campaign, Iwo worse than Saipan, and Okinawa ever more worse. Japan's military leaders had correctly deduced where the US would invade Kyusyu and during the summer had armed those areas to the teeth. Any attempt to establish a beach head on the main islands would have been a bloodbath, as would have the campaign up Honshu to take the capitol.

And that is what the Big Six wanted. They wanted to make the cost so great to convince the US to see the wisdom of a brokered peace.

As far as cleansing fire: your perspective assumes two things:

First, that the punishment fit the crime. I know many Chinese and Malasians and Koreans who would differ.

More importantly, punishment does not equal penance. The first comes as condemnation with force from the outside from those who speak on behalf of the victim; the second as recognition of wrongdoing by the aggressor.

If one does not understand the difference between the two, I question that persons or people's ability to sit in judgement of right and wrong in any fashion -- and by extension their perspective on the attendant moral issues surrounding the use of two atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki;

Indeed, their morality itself is under question.
usaexpat at 06:08 AM JST - 6th August

Danmanjt: I agree with you on the costs of an invasion of the home islands and the Japanese desire to make the costs so high as to force the US to broker a peace. I think the Japanese overatures to the Soviets were indeed genuine (although delusional) and they hoped to hold on to their empire et al. It was mostly Japanese pride and a fundemental misunderstanding of the aim of America as well as obviously a mis-understanding of the danger the Russians posed. I do agree with you on the motives of the US which you have clearly articulated. I think in the end the only points we really disagree on are whether or not Japan has somehow paid for its folly. I would say that the complete destruction of Japanese cities including Tokyo, the execution of the war criminals (although I'm well aware of the one's we let get away), years of occupation, reperations, and numerous appologies and admissions from PMs past and present represent payment in full. I would say that many of the Koreans and Chinese you mention probably still want blood but that doesn't make it rational, moral or redemptive.
DanManjt at 01:10 PM JST - 6th August

usexpat

Thank you for your response. It is nice to engage a poster such as you who, when difference of opinion emerge, adopts Jefferson's advice to not attribute insanity or malice to the person with whom you find yourself in disagreement. Rational discourse, after all, predicated on the belief that arguments be addressed on their merits, and not their source. Men, according to their constitutions and the circumstances in which they are placed, differ honestly in opinion.

I try to stomach to the best of my ability the right of others to thoroughly differ in judgment without attributing to them criminality or insanity; yet I also recognize, as did Jefferson, that ignorance is another animal. Ignorance can be overcome through effort and commitment to the to the search for truth, and not mere affirmation of what one wished were so. What I do not, cannot countenance, is willful ignorance.

The historical record is, for those who expend the effort, rather clear on the subjects we discuss. Imperial Japan's leaders were not interested in a peace treaty because they did not want peace. They wanted a cease fire -- to stave off defeat that go-round, regroup and try again another day. They did not misunderstand American war aims. They understood it all too well. And that is why they fought on after Midway, after Okinawa, after the fire bombings, and ultimately after an atomic attack. They did not misunderstand the danger Russia posed. They understood it all too well. They just chose to ignore the reports coming from the field of the Soviet buildup along their borders. That is why they surrendered with the double shock of the atomic attacks and the Soviet entry into the war.

I would think that on a subject as important as two atomic attacks on Japan that ended history's most bloody conflict with America straddling the planet, thus ensuring the continuance of Liberal Democratic global hegemony as well as ushering in the Atomic Age, more people would take the time to find out what was true, rather than rely on what they think.

RE: the baptismal fires of Hiroshima, I will follow up soon.
usaexpat at 11:26 PM JST - 6th August

Danmanjt: I am enjoying the debate as well, and also appreciate your civil discourse. I always try to achieve one of three things from these little exercises: to educate someone, to be educated myself or if those fail to truly try to get to the core of someone else's differing beliefs. None of those aims can be accomplished by ranting so I try not to.

On the subject of wanting peace maybe I was unclear or my definition flawed. I will accept your term ceasefire as the peace America wanted meant the destruction of Japan's empire which of course they were not interested in. If you don't accept that the big 6 had a mis-understanding of American goals and the threats the Russians posed then you have to say that the leaders of Japan were wishful thinkers or willfully delusional in the continuation of the conflict. Do you believe that the Japanese leadership really believed that they could still win or that the Russians would broker a peace with the US or do you think by 1945 it was simply a suicide mission? I think to the end they didn't believe that the US would get the bomb or that they would actually try to invade the home islands. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki came as a surprise that was big enough to finally break the Japanese war machine. Again, I haven't and can't pass moral judgement on the use of the bombs. They ended the war with the unconditional surrender we wanted and I'm not sure that anything else would have brought about that result. Is the use of the bomb justified or would a brokered peace have been preferrable? That's the moral question I have such a problem with you see. 60 Years on you can say that the unconditional surrender and the bombs that brought them about have been the best thing that ever happened to Japan. The US really were the good guys in this as we re-built Japan into a stable, wealthy and democratic nation. The Japanese have had 60 years of prosperity and peace thanks to the fact that the US was compassionate to its former foe in conquest. At the end of the day my problem is that I just can't bring myself to love the bomb even if in the end the results were positive.
PepinGalarga at 11:41 PM JST - 6th August

I mind that the discussion only takes place on the anniversary dates. People should reflect on what happened and change their behavior on a daily basis.
imagawa at 09:18 AM JST - 7th August

Danmanjt & USAexpat.

Both of you give clear & intelligent arguements, both I susspect close to the reality of the day. If anything I would differ in detail, in that Japan did not know that the bombs were going to happen & were surprised by what they were, however I don't think the bombs played as much part in the end as did the Russian invasion, that was half expected, but under the peace treaty that existed between Japan & Russia Japan believed they had time to presure the allies into an agreement by making the taking of the main Honshu a very, very obvious expensive invasion. Add into this mix that Japan's "honest broker" was the USSR who were very intent on playing their own games & the possiblity of an agreed peace becomes even more unlikely. When Russia troops crossed into Korea Japan knew there was no game left to play out.

In answer to the question, am I tired of the coverage?

I am not Japanese so have no right to anwser about the coverage as such, do I get tired? No, I have no historical connection to this war so I have no axe to grind one way or the other.

There is one thing though that many seem not to understand, many talk about "the Japanese" as though they were a single embodiment of thought & feeling & they take no care in the remarks they make. I do talk to my wife & her family & my freinds, & they are not the people I read about on this site. I susspect that if many of you were to give the matter some thought you would say the same. I would hope so anyway.
bibric at 09:26 AM JST - 7th August

For last four decades, Japanese were successful to have it seen as victims of the WWII by propagating this Nuclear issue.

Yet, think about who was the Aggressor of the war II. Think about how many victims under the relentless rule of Japan were saved by the end of the war!

The ultimate target of the peace movements should be in the heart of Japan rather than others'. Neighboring countries are really tired of this strange story! Japan needs more US troops.
serindipity at 08:30 PM JST - 7th August

The fact the bombs were dropped is bad, but the reasons the west had to resort to such measures are very clear. It has nothing to do showing power to Russia. It was only because the Japanese would not stop their senseless and merciless onslaught throughout the pacific. The Japanese only have themselves to blame. As strange as it sounds, they were lucky. The option to the nuclear bombs was virtual genocide and having all the allied nations invade Japan with the same merciless vigor Japan had been using throughout the pacific. They got off lightly!
sensei258 at 08:46 AM JST - 8th August

Sometimes the news goes too far. I saw a report (not this year) where young adults were bowing, crying, and asking forgiveness from the Hiroshima survivors. Isn't that carrying the victim mentality too far? Those kids were obviously not even born yet, and were in no way responsible.
DirtyOldJoe at 02:11 PM JST - 8th August

I hope it continues for at least 500 years, reminds everyone what should never happen again...