EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hiroshima’s Consecrated Legends
Every August, as the anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki approach, comments resume about American decisions at the end of World War II. Despite the passage of 65 years, heated opinions are repeated as fact and myths become immortalized as truths. Beyond distorting the historical record, wishful thinking about it leads us to repeat past mistakes in new ways against new enemies.
Among the inaccuracies are these:
1) Japan was ready to fight to the end. Facts: In an intercepted cable of July 12, 1945, Emperor Hirohito revealed his decision to intervene to end the war. In Truman’s journal he characterized the message as “telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace.” Tokyo was prepared to surrender unconditionally if the monarchy would be retained, the very position the Allies accepted after Hiroshima.
Five days later Truman predicted that Stalin would “be in the Jap war by August 15. Fini Japs when that comes about.” Nevertheless, he ordered the bombing of Hiroshima on Aug. 6. The U.S.S.R. entered the war on Aug. 8. Truman ordered the bombing of Nagasaki anyway.
2) Dropping the bomb was necessary to prevent an American invasion. Facts: In 1946, a U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey report based on intelligence available to the White House concluded: “certainly prior to Dec. 31, 1945 and in all probability prior to Nov. 1, 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russian had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
3) Dropping the bomb saved lives. Facts: Stanford historian Barton Bernstein’s study of declassified documents found that the worst-case scenario by military planners was 46,000 deaths if the U.S. invaded both Kyushu and Honshu islands. Since Hiroshima, these estimates have grown exponentially as if to justify using the bomb. In notes, Truman cites 250,000 casualties (dead, wounded, missing). His published memoir raises the number to 500,000 dead. Still later, he referred to saving a million lives. In 1991, President H.W. Bush claimed that the bomb saved “millions.” Since both presidents, among countless others, ignored the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey conclusion that an invasion was unnecessary, it is no wonder average Americans do the same. All of these morbid calculations ignore the stark fact that more than 187,000 humans died at Hiroshima.
4) At the time, military and civilian leaders agreed the bomb was necessary. Fact: Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower told Secretary of War Stimson, “Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.” Fleet Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, wrote in his memoirs, “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” Among the few civilians who knew about the bomb, 155 Manhattan Project scientists signed petitions raising moral concerns about bombing Japanese cities. The report issued by Nobel physicist James Franck in June 1945 recommended a demonstration bombing on a deserted island and also anticipated creating a dangerous arms race.
5) Japanese citizens were warned in advance. Fact: They were not.
Americans properly disparage countries that manipulate their own histories, whether it is Stalinist revisionism or Japanese amnesia about the forced prostitution of “comfort women.” Yet, powerful belief in American ideals and in the nobility of our motives, leads us to do the same. The result, as with Hiroshima, is a chasm between public perception and historical truth, between ideals and reality.
If we had not used the bomb to end a war that was already won, we might not have had to negotiate with one “evil empire” (N. Korea) to stop developing nuclear weapons, or be anxious that another “evil empire” (Iran) is secretly developing them, while all the while supporting an unstable ally (Pakistan) that possesses them already.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
37 Comments so far
Show AllYou're preachin' to the choir here, Professor. Mostly.
Remember those poor isolated, marooned Japanese soldiers who hid out on Pacific islands for decades after WWII ended, either unaware of this development, or refusing to believe that their cause was finished?
Well, there are still a few reactionary military-historian types around here with blind spots like manhole covers.
They'll be along by and by to set your foreign-sounding ass straight!
They've got defense mechanisms that make the A-bomb look like a firecracker. They won't idly stand by while you rudely confirm that their beloved You Ess of Eh has some egregious blots on its escutcheon!
What was not included in this article was that there was a proposal to bomb a nearby uninhabited island so that the Japanese could see the results of the bomb (not that it really mattered, because they were ready to surrender).
Instead, we dropped the second bomb in rapid succession before the Japanese could understand the implications of the first bomb.
It was a mass human atrocity, but the pro-war spinners won and the US has been unsuccessfully bombing countries ever since, much to our detriment.
The best recounting of everything that led up to the U.S. dropping both bombs is the book "Bomb Power" by Garry Wills, which I have heard very little about and would unhesitatingly recommend. The book's thesis is that much of the troubles that we're in stem from giving the president the power of "the button."
Neither Wills nor I are justifying the bomb droppings, but the explanation of what they were thinking does clear things up.
The real miracle is that no nuclear weapons have been detonated (except "tests") since . . . yet.
No mention in the article of Truman's need to instill fear into the Soviet Union's head brass with the nuclear destruction of two Japanese cities. This motive was crucial to the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki as America's wealthy were already eyeing "strategic resources" after the war. Finally there is the racism aspect in which the American leaders felt that if the bomb is to be tested, it is better to test it on 'people of color' rather than on our white brethren.
Having said all that, if the bomb hadn't been used in 1945, I'm sure that the U.S. would have used it generously durng the Korean conflict or else in Indochina two decades later. The horror of the bomb took a while to sink in for most Americans who were still willing to believe anything their government told them.
Garry Wills' book goes into that part of the motivation in detail.
Poor fools.
The only thing that can justify the use of those bombs is that the results were so fucking horrific that they have never been used since.
Is that a lame justification?
Fuck yah.
It's a pathetic indictment of the war-loving nature of humanity's diseased heart. We seek to glorify that which is horror. We praise the killers of hundreds, thousands and millions, yet damn the ones who kill only one or two.
There may be intelligent life in the universe, but sure as shinola, there's none down here.
WE dropped hundreds of bombs in the atmosphere from 1945 to 1962 when the test ban treaty went into effect. Since then China, India , Pakistan , France and probably So. Africa have set off a few more as well. The collective effect of all these weapons is still being felt by the generations of people born in those times. These age groups are suffering from higher levels of cancer and other radiation related diseases. We might not have dropped them on cities but we still in essence fought a nuclear war with the fall out spread everywhere.
>>>SEAGLASS wrote: WE dropped hundreds of bombs in the atmosphere from 1945 to 1962 when the test ban treaty went into effect. Since then China, India , Pakistan , France and probably So. Africa have set off a few more as well.
Actually the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was adopted by the UN General Assembly in September 1996, and France went on testing until January or February that year, in the Pacific, near inhabited islands. India and Pakistan did not sign the CTBT. Maybe you're referring to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963? The one that bans nuclear tests "in the atmosphere, underwater and in space"?. India and Pakistan did sign and ratify the PTBT, but France and China did not sign. China, USA and Israel have signed the CTBT, but not ratified it yet.
Despite many people being aware of this, good to read it. It needs to be repeated again and again even more so than the lies are continuously spilled forth.
I for one, was not aware of these facts until now and greatly appreciate knowing them. Not that it makes the dropping of the bombs anymore wrong.
There is no country that does not have bloodstained hands. And there are probably barely a handful of peoples remaining that have not committed atrocities in their time.
Unshakeable Peace
____________________________________________________________________________
[The strength of the humand mind lies in the ability to think of OUR future]
http://principlesofbeing.blogspot.com/
The scientists were worried that Germany would prepare a bomb first. This was an arms race and that changes the moral climate. If you are building a bomb to head off your enemy from dropping one on you, then you are working to achieve survival. That is different from lobbing a bomb on defenseless civilians just to prove to the USSR that you are one bad dude.
The Bomb has a deterrent value, though I do not think that concept was understood in 1945. Most of the scientists involved in the Manhatten Project saw the Bomb as an experiment; I do not believe most of them had a clear idea about the suffering it would bring about. That does not excuse them, exactly, but it does explain something about them.
In the end, fear made the bomb. Einstein's letter to Roosevelt talks about the possibility of the Germans making such a weapon and the about the importance of us building one to beat them to the punch. That is fear, straight and simple. I do think that motivation is different from Teller's embracing the hydrogen bomb. That was sheer swagger. The atomic bomb unleashed enough horror to make it an adequate deterrent. The H Bomb was nothing more than insanity shared by governmental leaders and a cadre of scientists.
"If these assholes were so concerned, you would think they wouldn't have participated in....building the atomic bomb. They must have told themselves that the bomb would never ever ever be used on people and that they were manly, sweaty techno-heroes in the desert. It must have been exciting and ego-pumping to work on a historic project - much like the boost soldiers get out of warfare."
Eat shit.
Trylon: Manhattan Project Family, Dupont; Oak Ridge, Washington.
Let's dispel another myth: "Harry S. Truman was a great President." He always used to say, "The buck stops here!" Well, Harry, you are nothing but a war criminal. You are right up there with Hitler and the rest of that ilk. You dropped atomic bombs on the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No matter what may happen in the future, the world can always point to the United States as the first country to use an atomic weapon on civilians. He not only killed those innocent people but he also injured generations to come. Yes, a war criminal.
and you are a fool
Sounds like a fair point to me!
Maybe you should reasses who the fool really is for not even considering.
Killing defenseless civilians on purpose is a war crime. No interpretation needed.
Unshakeable Peace
____________________________________________________________________________
[The strength of the humand mind lies in the ability to think of OUR future]
http://principlesofbeing.blogspot.com/
I really hope Iran acquires "the bomb" before the US and Israel decide to attack. Neither will attack North Korea because NK has a crude nuclear weapon. If I was Iran why would I not want a bomb? The US has been fucking with Iran since 1953. They may be getting tired of it. OF COURSE Iran wants "the bomb". So do I !!!! The ONLY way to avoid MORE WAR in the Middle East will be for Iran to acquire "the bomb".
Left out of this list of facts is the firebombing of Japan...
Which was worse? Both...of course
"The bombs fell [on Tokyo], and within thirty minutes the resulting fires were out of control, driven by 40 mph winds. Tokyo, hit by strings of incendiaries, became a holocaust. Water boiled in the canals after the temperature reached over 1800 degrees F. For three hour the B-29s kept coming. Only a few fighters appeared causing little damage. We lost 14 planes with damage to 42. An official Japanese count reported nearly 84,000 killed, 41,000 injured, and over 250,000 buildings destroyed in this one raid. 16 square miles burned out.
The Japanese called the raid "Slaughter bombing". LeMay was driving his crews to exhaustion, as he launched four more raids in the next eight days against Osaka, Kobe, and twice on Nagoya. In only five raids the B-29s wiped out 32 square miles in four major cities."
http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/firebombing/firebombing3.html
Great points, needed reminder. For someone so knowledgeable, it's surprising that the author forgot about the biggest "ally" that has the nuclear weapons too - when he wrote this:
"...all the while supporting an unstable ally (Pakistan) that possesses them already".
Robert MacNamara was a murdering bastard involved in planning the fire-bombings of wwii and the napalming and agent-oranging of Vietnam.
As Sec. of Defense (war) he came up with MAD (mutually assured destruction).
He spent the last years of his life atoning for his admitted stupidity.
Too little too late, but still worthy of respect.
Don't know if I qualify as a "reactionary military-historian," but I do want to dispute several of Professor Vandenbroucke's claims.
1. Japan was not ready to surrender before the bombing of Hiroshima. The intercepted cable of July 12, 1945, was sent by Togo, the Japanese foreign minister, to Sato, the Japanese ambassador in Moscow. Togo told Sato to ask the Soviets to receive a peace envoy, as part of a plan to get the Soviets to mediate peace between Japan and the US. (A futile plan, since Stalin was planning to invade Manchuria in mid-August.) Sato asked Togo what terms Japan was seeking; Togo replied that they could not be anything like unconditional surrender. When Sato (no fool) said the only hope for Japan was to surrender with a guarantee that the Emperor be retained, Togo replied on July 21 that this was unacceptable, but that Japan could not yet state its terms. At this time the "Big Six" (prime minister, foreign minister, army and navy ministers, army and navy chiefs of staff) who governed Japan had not yet even tried to reach a consensus on peace terms. While US intelligence was reading the Tokyo-Moscow diplomatic messages, it was also reading military signals revealing Japanese plans to use thousands of kamikazes against an invasion of Kyushu.
The first time the Big Six would discuss concrete terms would be on August 9, after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. At that time, only three of the six were willing to make retaining the emperor the sole condition of surrender; the only three wanted three additional conditions that were clearly unacceptable to the US.
2. Truman wrote the diary entry quoted above on July 17. The next day, July 18, he noted the "success" of "Manhattan" (the New Mexico nuclear test of July 16), and wrote "Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland." It's unclear whether his prediction of July 17 that the war would end on August 15 was based on the use of nuclear weapons before then.
3. It's worth clarifying that Truman issued only one order (through General Handy, the acting army chief of staff in Washington while Marshall was at Potsdam) for use of nuclear weapons. It was sent to Gen. Spaatz, commander of the Strategic Air Forces, on July 25, and directed that the first "special bomb" be used as soon as weather permitted visual bombing after August 3 on either Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki, and that additional bombs be used as soon as they were made ready. Hiroshima was bombed on August 6 because of weather conditions and decisions made in the Marianas. The primary target on August 9 was Kokura, but because it was covered in haze, Nagasaki was destroyed instead.
4. The US Strategic Bombing Survey report of 1946 was not based on intelligence available to Truman in 1945, but on post-war investigations in Japan. No one told Truman in the summer of 1945 that bombing and blockade alone would force Japanese surrender by December 31, 1945. Bombing and blockade might have forced a surrender by then, but at considerable cost to civilian life in Japan and elsewhere. It is possible that US air raids could have wrecked the Japanese rail network in the fall of 1945, preventing the internal movement of food and causing mass famine in Japanese cities. It is also estimated that in 1945 at least 100,000 civilians died every month in Japanese occupied Asia.
5. I think an invasion of both Kyushu and Honshu would have cost more than 46,000 American dead--historian Richard Frank has projected 33,000 killed on Kyushu alone. But what of Japanese dead in an invasion? Based on what happened on Okinawa, an invasion of Kyushu would have killed 200-250,000 Japanese soldiers and more than 300,000 Japanese civilians.
6. Eisenhower recalled telling Stimson the bomb was unnecessary in a 1948 memoir; Stimson's 1945 diary records no such remark. In any case, Eisenhower ran the war in western Europe, not the Pacific. There is no record that Leahy objected to using the bomb at the time, regardless of what he said later. Many Manhattan Project scientists supported using the bomb against Japan, and there were valid objections to the island demonstration scheme.
7. It's true that Japanese civilians were never warned about the bomb, but the Potsdam Declaration of July 26 did warn the Japanese leadership that they faced "prompt and utter destruction" if they did not immediately surrender. The Japanese prime minister responded by saying that Japan would ignore the declaration. If the immense horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demands that we blame someone, perhaps we should turn our attention to Suzuki, Togo, Anami, Yonai, Umezu, and Toyoda--the Big Six who should have surrendered after the fall of Okinawa, but who instead continued the war in the hopes that a bloodbath on Kyushu, or some pipe dream of Soviet mediation, would allow the preservation of military rule in Japan.
Interesting points.
But the dropping of nuclear bombs on cities is still a war crime.
I am quite certain that dropping the bomb on an uninhabited area would have had a very similar effect without killing thousands of people.
In a war either side has despicable individuals who commit atrocities. Russians, Germans, Japanese and the Allied all had them.
Blaming the Japanese for the bomb by saying they should have surrendered greatly diminished the value of your post however. The US had direct power and knowledge over the bomb. Any indirect relations to this are in comparison of no consequence as you could just as well blame any multitude of other people for it. The responsibility for this event lies solely in the hands of the US. No excuses needed.
Unshakeable Peace
____________________________________________________________________________
[The strength of the humand mind lies in the ability to think of OUR future]
http://principlesofbeing.blogspot.com/
The objections raised in the US to demonstrating the weapon on an uninhabited area were: the plane might be shot down if the Japanese knew it was coming; US POWs might be moved into the test area; the bomb might not work; the power of the bomb might not be effectively demonstrated. The last strikes me as the most persuasive. Considering that it took the destruction of Nagasaki to convince some Japanese that the US had more than one nuclear bomb, I believe many Japanese die-hards would have dismissed a demonstration as a pyrotechnic stunt with no military consequences.
The US had no means of bringing about Japanese surrender in 1945 that did not involve killing Japanese civilians. Dropping nuclear bombs would kill civilians; invading the Home Islands would; starving Japan would. Continuing the war also meant death to thousands of civilians in Vietnam, the East Indies, China, etc.
But the Japanese leadership could end the war without further death, by giving up. They didn't know about the bomb, but they knew what US fire raids could do (at least 84,000 dead in Tokyo in one night), and they certainly knew what defending Kyushu would mean to its civilian population, which they were planning to turn into combatants. I stand by my earlier comments: if we want to morally judge those in power in August 1945, why not look at the Japanese leadership?
When a nation claims the terms of surrender MUST BE UNCONDITIONAL it is THAT nation that does not want peace.
It was the USA that set those terms. Not Japan.
That in and of itself condemns the United States of America because that in and of itself proves the USA had no interest in NEGOTIATING a surrender.
Further to that you conveniently ignore all the other Japanese attempts at surrender which the USA rebuffed.
It seems to me if an entity trying to surrender IF The other side interested in ending the war, the other side would not refuse to hear offers to surrender.
It is you that is being the revisionist.
Let us use this as an example.
A City is under siege in 1200 AD. They offer to surrender if their women and children are protected and allowed to leave freely. The side outside the walls states "No we will not spare your women and children...You will surrender UNCONDITIONALY and we will dispose with them as we please"
Is it the City under siege that are the "fanatics" if they keep fighting and is it the city under siege that is refusing PEACE?
>>The US had no means of bringing about Japanese surrender in 1945 that did not involve killing Japanese civilians. Dropping nuclear bombs would kill civilians; invading the Home Islands would; starving Japan would. Continuing the war also meant death to thousands of civilians in Vietnam, the East Indies, China, etc.
An outright and complete fabrication as evidenced by General Macarthur forwarding Japanese surrender terms to President Truman after the fall of the Philipines which Truman rejected outright.
Now let us flash forwars to today. The United States of America has invaded and currently occupies Iraq and Aghanistan. They have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and there NO END in sight to these occupations. Indeed Military leaders have stated they see themselves there for 20 years.
Contrary to the claims made that Japan "would never surrender" Leahy, Eisenhower and other Generals totally disagreed> Japan was on the brink of surrender as evidenced by their many attempts to do so all rebuffed. They would not have lasted another year let alone 20 yet people sugest it "Justified" to commit war crimes and drop nuclear weapons on cities.
Would these same people , the Mightymites and yourself also claim it "Justified" for iraqis or Afghanis to smuggle in Nuclear weapons into the USA and NUKE Chicago and St Louis? Would you support this using the same logic or would it be a war crime?
I suggest that would this ever to happen those committing the act would be labled as brutal murderers. There would be demands they be bought to justice. If caught they would very likely be hung.
Oh, come on now. Do you think that if the yanks caught someone who nuked one of their cities they'd be satisfied by just hanging the bugger(s)? Heck no. They'd nuke the hell out of the nation that gave birth to the person who dared do unto them what they had done unto others.
The policy of seeking the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan was framed by FDR in 1943 while Truman was still a senator. It was a correct decision, in part because it gave the Allies a free hand in remaking Germany and Japan after their surrender. I don't believe unconditional surrender "condemns" the US as anything other than a nation that sought victory over its enemies, and in particular the kind of victory that would prevent future wars with those same enemies. While we have fought a disheartening number of wars since 1945, none of them have been with Germans or Japanese.
I would welcome details regarding "all the other Japanese attempts at surrender," and especially the "surrender terms" you claim were sent to Truman by way of MacArthur after the "fall of the Philippines."
The first Japanese surrender offer I am aware of was made on August 10, 1945, when Japan offered to surrender on the sole condition that the Emperor retain his "prerogatives" as a "Sovereign Ruler." This was understood in Washington as an attempt to preserve military rule in the name of the Emperor, and the US responded on August 11 by saying the authority of the Emperor would be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied occupation. The Japanese then accepted these terms, and on August 15 Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender in a pre-recorded radio broadcast.
Your example about the city in 1200 AD seems irrelevant, since the Japanese government in 1945 was not seeking safe passage for its women and children.
Bad hypothetical example - because the genuine example was the Japanese Rape of Nanking, China. Journalists from 19 nations were resident when the armies of Japan arrived within a day's march. Among them was American Edgar Snow. The journalists bravely left the city and drove out to the front, under a WHITE FLAG. They brought maps of Nanking to the commander. They pleaded for a =zone of haven= in the very center of Nanking, a place where women and children and obvious noncambatants could be sheltered from harm. This was a condition that had been achieved in other battle settings. To the journalists's surprise and relief, they received the spoken agreement of the Japanese commander. The journalists raced back to the city, and the civilian population moved as rapidly as possibly to get their women and children into the haven.
The Japanese commander, however, had no intention of honoring his commitment to a Nanking Safety Zone. He made the deal because - like fish in a barrel - it would simplify control of the planned upcoming mass rape and slaughter. The first =act= of the Commander, 13 December 1937, was to declare that ALL NANKING FEMALES REGARDLESS OF AGE WERE PROSTITUTES. When read and understood, the details of what took place in Nanking over the next 6 weeks would make Attila the Hun vomit. Wm. J. Temperley of the Manchester Guardian managed an escape and,as soon as possible, began reporting the situation. Back in England he published an incredible book about the landmark atrocity. It was published in the United States two years before Pearl Harbor. When the U.S. went to war with Japan they knew EXACTLY who they were fighting, and knew what would befall any U.S. civilians ever caught in the hands of their armies.
The rise of Japanese imperialism, with attendant slaughter of Manchurian and other nationals, combatants and NONCOMBATANTS, began in 1931. It took 14 years for some bigger and tougher sonofabitch to make them stop killing and raping civilians. It is a crying shame that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not include having some Chinese military aboard the two aircraft - to write THEIR messages upon the bombs.
>>>Trylon wrote: It is a crying shame that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not include having some Chinese military aboard the two aircraft - to write THEIR messages upon the bombs.
You sound like a typical Chinese apologist who can NEVER have enough of a revenge when it comes to Japan. For people like you, obviously the firebombing of Tokyo and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the subsequent humiliating occupation is NOT PUNISHMENT ENOUGH. You obviously regret that it was somebody else (the USA) that did the ass-kicking and not your beloved China. For you, it doesn't matter that Japan does not have a real military today, and the average Japanese people are generally against Japan militarizing or participating in overseas interventions. They have been against such interventions even in the name of "peacekeeping" because they fear that it would lead to an eventual militarization. This is not to say that there isn't a nationalistic fringe. But that's what it is - a fringe. But with continued needling from those who haven't had enough revenge, there's a chance that this fringe might grow. Try talking to about 100 Japanese people at random and see how many of them care for their past "glory" or a future role as "superpower". Try it. And also try talking to the same number of Chinese.
You have no way of knowing that the average Japanese people have internalized their punishment and humiliating defeat, and they also instinctively realize the root cause of it all - namely, Japanese imperialism - which was extremely brutal, but also rather short-lived by international standards. That is, short-lived from the point of view of history, but not from the point of view of those seeking endless revenge. And those that are trying to rewrite history. You have no way of knowing if your only source of information is from a Chinese (or Korean) nationalistic point of view. While war is glorified in many countries (just look at the number of documentaries and movies about the World Wars, and look at the point of view), some Japanese people even feel embarrassed to talk about their kamikaze pilots - even though from a certain point of view, it could look heroic.
Do you know the number of Chinese people who died directly as a result of Mao's Cultural Revolution? Can you even compare the numbers with those killed by the Japanese? This is not to justify imperial Japan's actions. Just trying to bring some perspective here - in terms of the number of people killed or left to die. And to remind those with an insatiable and ongoing need for revenge - that Japan was punished. Japan does not have a real military anymore. China is arming itself to the teeth, and no one is objecting. Japanese people have moved on, and they are not even bitter about the USA for the carnage unleashed. Of course, they directed their energy into other things and they are better off now. Is that the reason for the continuing envy on the part of some people?
You go too far in defending your point. The previous comment had already pointed out the illogic in Trylon's statements, but in your passionate attempts to defend the Japanese people, you've fallen into the trap of condescending dismissal of the Chinese people.
I'll venture a guess, given your consistent use of "they," that you are from neither country. As a Chinese person, I can tell you that those people who want "revenge" are also a fringe element. (Why so eager to label the nationalistic component of Japan as "fringe," but so reluctant to do the same with the revenge component of China?) This is not about revenge. For the most part, we want acknowledgment of the war crimes committed from the Japanese government (read: official apology instead of denial). This is something that the Japanese government has been notoriously bad at, so bad that even Japanese people have issues with it (http://www.salon.com/news/2010/03/31/as_film_japan_massacre_documentary/index.html), let alone the Chinese people who have actually been victims.
Have you considered that maybe Japanese people might not care as much about past glory and power because they are currently a rich, developed nation, while China is STILL DEVELOPING, still industrializing (yes, getting very far, very quickly, but no where near the level of Japan yet)? In your descriptions of the humiliations of Japan, you don't appear to have considered that China has also been humiliated in the past. Let me put it to you that maybe you also have no idea how the average Chinese person has internalized the atrocities of WWII and the previous humiliating interactions with other foreign nations.
I'm not sure what the point of your last paragraph is. Many Chinese people died at the hands of the Chinese so Chinese people shouldn't complain about war crimes not being acknowledged? Are you seriously implying that a Chinese person would NOT be aware of the damage of the Cultural Revolution, when those are the horror stories my friends and I hear from our parents? Or conversely, when the psychological damage from the Cultural Revolution is so indelible that the previous generation can't even find the words to express them? Here's an idea: we know, and that is not stopping us from demanding that war crimes be remembered. You keep going on about Japan being punished. You need to keep in mind that you feeling very sorry for Japan right now does not erase the atrocities the Japanese military committed in China, in Korea, in the Philippines. Expressing glee and a desire for blood is repulsive, and I have problems with Trylon's statements too, but honestly, your statements are equally problematic because you are also conflating two separate atrocities into one, and excusing one with the other. The bombings of Nagasaki & Hiroshima = terrible, inexcusable. The war crimes of the Japanese military and their imperialistic occupation = terrible, inexcusable. Just because the US bombed Japan and enforced demilitarization does not mean we should ignore the fact that the Japanese government refuses to acknowledge their war crimes. Two separate issues. (Also, since you repeatedly bring up "punishment," do you not realize how bizarre you sound with this earlier statement: "obviously the firebombing of Tokyo and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the subsequent humiliating occupation is NOT PUNISHMENT ENOUGH"? First, the US was not thinking of punishment. The US was scared and wanted to win a war. Second, it just boggles my mind that you think in these simplistic terms. I feel awful for the Japanese people that the US dropped atomic bombs on two major cities. Nobody deserves this. But I ALSO feel awful regarding the occupations of Korea and the Philippines and Taiwan, for things like the Bataan Death March or the Rape of Nanking or Unit 731 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) or the Sook Ching massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sook_Ching_massacre) in Singapore. Nobody deserves that either. I want these crimes to be remembered and acknowledged and not hand-waved away by Japanese politicians. This is not about ENVY. That's the most laughable sentiment pushed on the victims of the Japanese military that I have EVER heard. Yeah, I guess victims of imperialism all around the world are just envious of their oppressors. That's why they're fighting back.)
And while we're on that last paragraph, you oversimplify and flatten the views of people from BOTH countries: there are Japanese people who haven't gotten over Hiroshima & Nagasaki yet (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06oe.html). Nor are they "fringe." Not bitter? How the hell can they not be bitter when the rhetoric is that the US shouldn't apologize for the bombings, that the US has done nothing wrong?
ykh, thank you for your considered response, even though I may have to disagree with some of what you have said.
>>Have you considered that maybe Japanese people might not care as much about past glory and power because they are currently a rich, developed nation,...
Actually, that's not right. The "confident" stage for Japan ended sometime around the 1990's. The average Japanese person is totally caught up in finding a job or retaining his/her job amidst uncertainty over the future. Many have to live very ordinary, embarrassing (that is, when they meet their old friends from abroad) lives because times have changed. But even during their "confident" stage, they were not nationalistic - that's my point.
In contrast, at the time of the 2002 soccer world cup, jointly hosted by Japan and Korea, I saw that Koreans were not only proud and confident, they were also quite nationalistic. I have spent time in Korea and with Koreans as well. (and ditto for Japan and Japanese). And I have spent time in China and with Chinese as well. While the average Chinese person I've met may not be as nationalistic as an average Korean (strictly anecdotal, and strictly based on my experience - so I know it's of limited value), I can make the same argument - that they are not **as** nationalistic because they are confident and proud of both their past as well as their current status as a kick-ass superpower.
More importantly, I have to point out the "official" role in propping up this nationalistic spirit in both South Korea and China. And I would say that it is even somewhat "understandable" in S. Korea because they still live under the shadow of war with their northern neighbor. In contrast, the only reason for the Chinese establishment to keep putting out nationalistic messages and shows from time to time is possibly to maintain their own control and to deflect people's anger towards Japan from time to time.
I'm sorry to say that, but that's what I really believe - that many Chinese people are **heavily** conditioned by their official position. I attribute this willingness to buy into their official version of events to a huge collective ego. Such an ego allows them to take pride in their past and present, allows them to ignore or condone their government's and military's aggressive actions and occupations, allows them to believe their government's version of suppression of religious and spiritual groups, and so on. I simply do not sense a completely independent and progressive line of thinking among the Chinese people that is opposed to their official line - in this, I have to include those living inside China as well as outside.
I know this would offend anyone when an outsider makes such a sweeping, generalized accusation. I also know it is of little value - because this is just based on **my** experience and interactions. However, if I can forget this nationalistic attribute, I have no hesitation in saying that the Chinese people I've met are some of the most wonderful people. I've spent time with them, invited them for dinner, and they've invited in return, share helpful tips on everyday things, and so on. I just have to remember never to mention topics such as Tibet, Taiwan, Burma, Tiananmen, Falun Gong, etc. Because on various occasions, they have let it be known as to where their opinions lie on these matters - and that is entirely in line with their official position.
Once again, I have to contrast my experience with the average Japanese. Many of them are vehemently opposed to their government's position on **various** matters. Even during their "confident" stage in the early 1990's, many Japanese - young and old - took to the street to protest the proposals at that time to send Japanese "peace-keepers", under PKO, because they feared that it would lead to an eventual militarization. I have seen protests in Korea about their military getting involved elsewhere as well. However, I have never seen Chinese people protesting against their military's actions in Tibet, or to question the heavy investment in new weapons. I have seen a readiness to buy into the official version, and to feel proud and justified in everything that China does.
I think you can see we hold vastly different opinions, and it is very likely that the truth would fall somewhere in the middle. And it would be difficult to convince the other person through an exchange like this. So my only request is for you to understand that outsiders may view certain things differently. You may think that's because outsiders do not know enough. That may be true. But also keep in mind that it takes extra work to see things outside of the official version.
For what it's worth, here's "List of war apology statements issued by Japan":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan
It is absolutely IMMATERIAL what the Japanese Soldiers and Commnader did at Nanking.
Yes that was a war crime but...
Ther Children of Nagasaki and Hiroshima had NOTHING to do with it. Collective punishment and punishing one group of people just because they are the same race of another group that might have committed crimes IS A WAR CRIME.
Again using your rather feeble reasoning children in Chicago are responsible for what American Soldiers do in Afghanistan. I really do not see how any one can support this reasoning.
If one man is a rapist you do not strangle his children and call it justice or right.
I'll echo GWnorth and add a point to consider.
When the end of the war did happen, the Japanese were able to keep their Emperor. He did not face warcrimes trial, he reigned in Japan until the 1980s. So, in fact the usa did accept the terms that Japan proposed before the bombs were dropped.
The demand for unconditional surrender was justified when it was first formally made against Hitler's Germany in 1942. (even before then, the English gov't was utterly unwilling to make any sort of peace with them) The Nazis were not a bunch of people who could be trusted at all. But that demand should not have been made against Japan, it prolonged the war in the Pacific by years. The Japanese knew they had been beaten after the Battle of Midway in 1942.
"When the end of the war did happen, the Japanese were able to keep their Emperor. He did not face warcrimes trial, he reigned in Japan until the 1980s. So, in fact the usa did accept the terms that Japan proposed before the bombs were dropped."
No, the Japanese did NOT propose these terms until AFTER we dropped two nuclear bombs and the Soviets invaded Manchuria. Until then the Japanese had proposed no terms, not to us, or to their would-be Soviet mediators. In addition, it was at US insistence that the emperor was kept as the symbolic head of state of an elected constitutional government, and not of an authoritarian military regime.
"The Nazis were not a bunch of people who could be trusted at all. But that demand should not have been made against Japan, it prolonged the war in the Pacific by years. The Japanese knew they had been beaten after the Battle of Midway in 1942."
Considering that we were negotiating with the Japanese when they bombed Pearl Harbor, no one in the US after December 7, 1941, thought they could be trusted in the slightest.
I don't think the Japanese "knew they had been beaten" after Midway (June 1942)--they certainly didn't act like it. It was in July 1944, when Japan lost the Marianas and Tojo resigned as prime minister, that the Japanese finally realized that they couldn't win the Pacific War. Nonetheless, they fought on in hopes of inflicting enough US casualties that we'd settle for a compromise peace.
If demanding unconditional surrender was wrong, what should we have done--offered to let Japan hold on to Korea and Formosa? Agreed not to occupy the Home Islands, or to hold war crimes trials? Let them keep whatever was left of their navy? None of this was ever in the cards. Go back and read FDR's war message of December 8, 1941, and it will become clear why this was so.
The Japanese first formally proposed a peace based on the idea of keeping the Emperor as their absolute monarch in 1944. The usa refused that offer, reasonably I think. They kept repeating that offer until the bombs were dropped on H&N.
The policy of the us gov't until after the bombs were dropped was that Hirohito would be tried and hanged for the crime of waging aggressive war. That was the end for which they were fighting against Japan from 41-45.
There is no denying the fact that the Empire of Japan was a hyper-militeristic bunch of arseholes who committed some really foul crimes against other people. But they really weren't in the same league of evil that Hitler's Germany was (but they did give it their best shot)
The army, which was mostly engaged on the mainland, did not think they were beaten in '45, they still held most of the land they'd conquered in the last 15 years. The navy knew they were fucked right after Midway, their CIC knew they were fucked before the attack on Pearl Harbour. But from the appointment of Tojo as Prime Minister the government of Japan was an army government, and what the navy had to say didn't much matter.
Demanding surrender is not the same thing as demanding unconditional surrender. Don't forget that there was no quarter given (or received) by us forces in the Pacific from 42-45. By the middle of 1944 USN submarines had been reduced to sinking small fishing boats because nearly all of the merchant navy of Japan (as well as the ships that Japan had captured during the war) was on the bottom of the sea. After Leyte, the Japanese didn't have much of an ocean going navy to be surrendered anyhow. Do you really think I've not read FDR's words?
But of course, I've also read the works of other people. I didn't limit my reading of the wars of the past to the victors only. Nor did I limit my reading to what was wartime propaganda.
That might explain why you think the us was utterly justified in killing those whom they didn't have to kill. A habit that existed in the usa long before 1941, and has continued to this day.
"The Japanese first formally proposed a peace based on the idea of keeping the Emperor as their absolute monarch in 1944."
I would appreciate more detail about this--when was the offer made, how was it transmitted, how did the Roosevelt administration respond, etc.
"That might explain why you think the us was utterly justified in killing those whom they didn't have to kill."
So how should the US have brought about a Japanese surrender in August 1945?