Was the Nuclear Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified
On 6th August 1945, the first nuclear weapon was dropped by an American aircraft on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later on 9th August 1945, another nuclear device was exploded over the city of Nagasaki. Both cities were largely destroyed in the explosions the total number of causalities from the two nuclear explosions has been estimated at around 199,000. Since the nuclear destruction of non-military targets is such an obviously horrendous act, the supporters of the bombing have had to work hard to put a positive spin on it. The orthodox view in the United States is that the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki through the use of Nuclear weapons in 1945 was a military necessity in order to force Japan to surrender. President Truman, who gave the executive order to detonate the nuclear weapons claimed in his defense that had the Japanese not been forced to surrender through the nuclear bombing, a ground invasion of Japan would have been necessary, he had been advised by General George Marshal that a ground invasion of Japan could cause heavy losses among the US troops (Wainstock 1996).
Even if this conjuncture was supposed to be true, there is no way that the intentional killing of unarmed Japanese civilians, including women and children can be held to be of preferable to the deaths of American fighting men in war.
There was a lot of opposition to the deployment of the nuclear weapons within the American government circles even within the military, there were people who believed that the nuclear bombing was unnecessary. General Dwight Eisenhower wrote in his autobiography
Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan.... 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 secondly 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. (Eisenhower 1963)
A look at the primary sources related to the nuclear bombing shows that the American government officials knew fully well that the Japanese were seeking peace, their motivation for the nuclear bombing was a desire to be the top dog in the East Asian region and to deny the USSR influence in the post-war Japan. If the Japanese surrendered to the Soviets, it would give the USSR a great strategic and diplomatic advantage and allow them to dominate East Asia.
Walter Brown, an aide to the Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes records in his notes President, Leahy and JFB agreed Japan looking for peace. President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden (Brown 2010)
Based upon interviews with hundreds of Japanese military and public official, the US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the nuclear bombing was certainly not crucial to the Japanese surrender rather. it is the surveys opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (The United States Strategic Bombing Survey 2010)
According to General Henry Arnold of the US Airforce
It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse (Wainstock 1996)
The Japanese rejection of the Potsdam ultimatum, that was the immediate trigger for the deployment of the nuclear weapons, happened because the Japanese were not willing to surrender unconditionally without assurances that the Japanese monarchy would be allowed to continue (Wainstock 1996). Before the nuclear attack, the allied side continued to insist on unconditional surrender, but after the nuclear attack, they agreed to accept a conditional Japanese surrender which allowed a continuation of the Japanese monarchy. It is clear that the Japanese were looking for a face-saving way to give their surrender. Had the Potsdam declaration included a promise to allow the Japanese Emperor to remain upon his throne, it is likely that the Japanese would have accepted it. If the US were insistent upon displaying their might, a less densely populated area than the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could perhaps be chosen to make that demonstration. It is also possible that if the wording of the Potsdam declaration had been more explicit and it were made clear to the Japanese that the Americans intended to use nuclear weapons upon their urban centers, the Japanese would have been more inclined to surrender unconditionally.
Even if this conjuncture was supposed to be true, there is no way that the intentional killing of unarmed Japanese civilians, including women and children can be held to be of preferable to the deaths of American fighting men in war.
There was a lot of opposition to the deployment of the nuclear weapons within the American government circles even within the military, there were people who believed that the nuclear bombing was unnecessary. General Dwight Eisenhower wrote in his autobiography
Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan.... 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 secondly 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. (Eisenhower 1963)
A look at the primary sources related to the nuclear bombing shows that the American government officials knew fully well that the Japanese were seeking peace, their motivation for the nuclear bombing was a desire to be the top dog in the East Asian region and to deny the USSR influence in the post-war Japan. If the Japanese surrendered to the Soviets, it would give the USSR a great strategic and diplomatic advantage and allow them to dominate East Asia.
Walter Brown, an aide to the Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes records in his notes President, Leahy and JFB agreed Japan looking for peace. President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden (Brown 2010)
Based upon interviews with hundreds of Japanese military and public official, the US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the nuclear bombing was certainly not crucial to the Japanese surrender rather. it is the surveys opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (The United States Strategic Bombing Survey 2010)
According to General Henry Arnold of the US Airforce
It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse (Wainstock 1996)
The Japanese rejection of the Potsdam ultimatum, that was the immediate trigger for the deployment of the nuclear weapons, happened because the Japanese were not willing to surrender unconditionally without assurances that the Japanese monarchy would be allowed to continue (Wainstock 1996). Before the nuclear attack, the allied side continued to insist on unconditional surrender, but after the nuclear attack, they agreed to accept a conditional Japanese surrender which allowed a continuation of the Japanese monarchy. It is clear that the Japanese were looking for a face-saving way to give their surrender. Had the Potsdam declaration included a promise to allow the Japanese Emperor to remain upon his throne, it is likely that the Japanese would have accepted it. If the US were insistent upon displaying their might, a less densely populated area than the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could perhaps be chosen to make that demonstration. It is also possible that if the wording of the Potsdam declaration had been more explicit and it were made clear to the Japanese that the Americans intended to use nuclear weapons upon their urban centers, the Japanese would have been more inclined to surrender unconditionally.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment