Tweet
Hiroshima: a (probably overly long) exposé
Recently, it has come to my attention that there are various myths regarding the pure motives of the United States in WWII. There are various actions in which the US was decidedly not as pure as we like to think, but for me, the most shocking example of historical revisionism going on now is the mass denial of what happened on August 6th, 1945.
[A warning to the credulous: the following is based entirely on hard sources, found in those places that are rumoured to still exist: libraries. Calling for a link will get you no-where.]
On March 9th, 1944, the US destroyed most of Tokyo in a massive firebombing attack. This, coupled with a campaign in the following weeks that had a similar, if slightly less severe effect, made the Japanese realize that they had, beyond the shadow of doubt, lost the Pacific war. On July 18th, the emperor sent Truman a telegram asking for peace, at basically any price but the disolution of the Japanese imperial throne. The US did not respond (Bruce Franklin, Star Wars: The Superweapon and the American Imagination). At least, not with words. The US did, however, respond with more bombs. They proceded to bomb every city that had more than 50k inhabitants, leaving only Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and two other cities relatively unharmed (Sven Lindqvist, A History of Bombing).
Meanwhile, the atomic bomb was being developed. Initially, it was being developed in competition with the Germans, yet by 1944, it had become clear that Germany had no credible atomic bomb program. But the beast had been unleashed, and development of the bomb continued. The rational was to intimidate the Soviets. This became one of the excuses for dropping the bomb on Japan. Yet, not only did dropping the bomb on Japan not stop the USSR from dominating Eastern Europe, but the dropping of the bomb on a Japanese city was certainly not necessary to demonstrate the power of an atomic bomb. In fact, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was not necessary to prove its destructive power to the Japanese. There were people in the US military who said that it would be a breach of everything the US stands for to drop the bomb on Japan without first demonstrating its power. One of these people was Ralph Bard, undersecretary of they navy. He was forced to resign (Sven Lindqvist, A History of Bombing).
Another excuse was the forcing of Japan's unconditional surrender. To achieve this a plan was formed for the invasion of Japan. An invasion which, according to Secretary of State Henry Stimson would cost 100k to 130k American lives. Suspiciously, this figure seems to have been made up. According to the US chiefs of staff, the invasion would have cost 25k to 50k American lives (ibid). As a sidenote, 200k Japanese (the great majority of whom were civilians) died because of Hiroshima.
However, it was wartime, and American lives are always to be valued over her enemies'. But, why did anyone have to die at that point? The Japanese were trying to negotiate with the US. In fact, according to the US Strategic Bombing Survey, "Japan would have surrendered even if 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 Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor...did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender (Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell, Hiroshima in America: 50 years of denial)."
The US government tacitly acknowledged the unnecessity of the bomb by organizing a cover-up. On August 6th, Truman said, "16 hours ago an American plane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army military base (ibid)." He made no mention of the fact that 400K people lived in Hiroshima, and that the bomb was aimed at the center of the city, and not the military base.
Alas, the destruction at Hiroshima was hard to keep the public from discovering. However, the government tried its best. Scientists were flown in and stated that there was no lingering radiation. Leslie Groves informed Congress that people who fell to the bomb died instantly, and that "they say [radiation] is a very pleasant way to die ((Sven Lindqvist, A History of Bombing)." (I hope I don't need to mention that radiation is in fact less than the most pleasant method of death. Though, to give Groves credit, they probably didn't know the exact effects of radaiation until later, so he is just making **** up, and not going against a known truth.)
Years passed, and basically everyone connected with the bombing left the public view. By the 1980s, the historical community agreed that the Hiroshima was unnecessary. Yet, on the 40th anniversary of Hiroshima, ABC stations across America said the following: "What happened over Japan 40 years ago was a human tragedy that cost tens of thousands of lives. But what was planned to take place in the war between Japan and the US would almost certainly have been an even greater tragedy, costing hundreds of thousands of lives (Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell, Hiroshima in America: 50 years of denial)."
Now, even if we ignore the fact that the invasion of Japan was unnecessary, this is still a spurious statement. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, to potentially save tens of thousands of lives. Are the people are ABC bad at comparative math, or is this more sinister than that?
In 1995, the National Air and Space museum prepared an exhibit of the never-before-seen Enola Gay, as well as explain Hiroshima, the history surrounding it, the reasons for and against the bombing, and show the effects of the bombing. In all, doing what a museum should, and giving a public venue for history. Yet, this was deemed unacceptable. The US airforce magazine demanded a "proud and patriotic" display of Enola Gay. The American Legion condemned the museum for its [obvious] intention to paint US airmen as war criminals. Even the Washington Post argued against such a display. These groups had influence with congress, which passed a resolution stating that the (as yet unsee) exhibit was "revisionist, unbalanced, and offensive. (Ibid)"
In order to continue funding, the directed, Martin Harwit, was forced to negotiate with the veterans, and allow them an oversight position regarding the exhibit. As a consequence, the scholarly debate over whether the bomb should have been dropped was removed. Almost everything concerning the effects of the atomic bomb was removed. Truman was depicted as not realizing that Hiroshima was not a military target (discovery of his journal from the potsdam conference proves that he knew that Hiroshima was not a military target, but, I mean, Hiroshima is a city! How do you confuse a city with a military installation!?), abd it was also pointed out that the entire population of Japan was armed with bamboo spears, thus meaning that no Japanese were civilians (this included childred, interestingly).
The coup de gras was when the American Legion insisted that it be mentioned that the bomb saved a million america lives. Let me repeat this. The American Legion insisted that the Smithsonian state that the invasion of Japan would have costed 1 million American lives. The highest estimate for the loses during an invasion of Japan is 63k, with the estimate generally being between 20K and 25K (smithsonian institute). Harwit categorically refused to go along with this. The response was Congress asking for his resignation, and threatening to reduce the funding for institute.
As a result, the entire exhibit was canceled.
On a personal level, I went through high school believing that an invasion was necessary, and that the bomb saved lives. Youth were (and still are) being taught a convienient version of history. But we are a democracy, and live in a country of free speech. Why must certain aspects of our heritage be hidden from us? Do we have to lie about everything we do that doesn't fit our image of ourselves?
The point, for me, is that, basically, I thought we were better than this.
Discuss.
[A warning to the credulous: the following is based entirely on hard sources, found in those places that are rumoured to still exist: libraries. Calling for a link will get you no-where.]
On March 9th, 1944, the US destroyed most of Tokyo in a massive firebombing attack. This, coupled with a campaign in the following weeks that had a similar, if slightly less severe effect, made the Japanese realize that they had, beyond the shadow of doubt, lost the Pacific war. On July 18th, the emperor sent Truman a telegram asking for peace, at basically any price but the disolution of the Japanese imperial throne. The US did not respond (Bruce Franklin, Star Wars: The Superweapon and the American Imagination). At least, not with words. The US did, however, respond with more bombs. They proceded to bomb every city that had more than 50k inhabitants, leaving only Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and two other cities relatively unharmed (Sven Lindqvist, A History of Bombing).
Meanwhile, the atomic bomb was being developed. Initially, it was being developed in competition with the Germans, yet by 1944, it had become clear that Germany had no credible atomic bomb program. But the beast had been unleashed, and development of the bomb continued. The rational was to intimidate the Soviets. This became one of the excuses for dropping the bomb on Japan. Yet, not only did dropping the bomb on Japan not stop the USSR from dominating Eastern Europe, but the dropping of the bomb on a Japanese city was certainly not necessary to demonstrate the power of an atomic bomb. In fact, dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was not necessary to prove its destructive power to the Japanese. There were people in the US military who said that it would be a breach of everything the US stands for to drop the bomb on Japan without first demonstrating its power. One of these people was Ralph Bard, undersecretary of they navy. He was forced to resign (Sven Lindqvist, A History of Bombing).
Another excuse was the forcing of Japan's unconditional surrender. To achieve this a plan was formed for the invasion of Japan. An invasion which, according to Secretary of State Henry Stimson would cost 100k to 130k American lives. Suspiciously, this figure seems to have been made up. According to the US chiefs of staff, the invasion would have cost 25k to 50k American lives (ibid). As a sidenote, 200k Japanese (the great majority of whom were civilians) died because of Hiroshima.
However, it was wartime, and American lives are always to be valued over her enemies'. But, why did anyone have to die at that point? The Japanese were trying to negotiate with the US. In fact, according to the US Strategic Bombing Survey, "Japan would have surrendered even if 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 Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor...did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender (Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell, Hiroshima in America: 50 years of denial)."
The US government tacitly acknowledged the unnecessity of the bomb by organizing a cover-up. On August 6th, Truman said, "16 hours ago an American plane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army military base (ibid)." He made no mention of the fact that 400K people lived in Hiroshima, and that the bomb was aimed at the center of the city, and not the military base.
Alas, the destruction at Hiroshima was hard to keep the public from discovering. However, the government tried its best. Scientists were flown in and stated that there was no lingering radiation. Leslie Groves informed Congress that people who fell to the bomb died instantly, and that "they say [radiation] is a very pleasant way to die ((Sven Lindqvist, A History of Bombing)." (I hope I don't need to mention that radiation is in fact less than the most pleasant method of death. Though, to give Groves credit, they probably didn't know the exact effects of radaiation until later, so he is just making **** up, and not going against a known truth.)
Years passed, and basically everyone connected with the bombing left the public view. By the 1980s, the historical community agreed that the Hiroshima was unnecessary. Yet, on the 40th anniversary of Hiroshima, ABC stations across America said the following: "What happened over Japan 40 years ago was a human tragedy that cost tens of thousands of lives. But what was planned to take place in the war between Japan and the US would almost certainly have been an even greater tragedy, costing hundreds of thousands of lives (Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell, Hiroshima in America: 50 years of denial)."
Now, even if we ignore the fact that the invasion of Japan was unnecessary, this is still a spurious statement. Hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, to potentially save tens of thousands of lives. Are the people are ABC bad at comparative math, or is this more sinister than that?
In 1995, the National Air and Space museum prepared an exhibit of the never-before-seen Enola Gay, as well as explain Hiroshima, the history surrounding it, the reasons for and against the bombing, and show the effects of the bombing. In all, doing what a museum should, and giving a public venue for history. Yet, this was deemed unacceptable. The US airforce magazine demanded a "proud and patriotic" display of Enola Gay. The American Legion condemned the museum for its [obvious] intention to paint US airmen as war criminals. Even the Washington Post argued against such a display. These groups had influence with congress, which passed a resolution stating that the (as yet unsee) exhibit was "revisionist, unbalanced, and offensive. (Ibid)"
In order to continue funding, the directed, Martin Harwit, was forced to negotiate with the veterans, and allow them an oversight position regarding the exhibit. As a consequence, the scholarly debate over whether the bomb should have been dropped was removed. Almost everything concerning the effects of the atomic bomb was removed. Truman was depicted as not realizing that Hiroshima was not a military target (discovery of his journal from the potsdam conference proves that he knew that Hiroshima was not a military target, but, I mean, Hiroshima is a city! How do you confuse a city with a military installation!?), abd it was also pointed out that the entire population of Japan was armed with bamboo spears, thus meaning that no Japanese were civilians (this included childred, interestingly).
The coup de gras was when the American Legion insisted that it be mentioned that the bomb saved a million america lives. Let me repeat this. The American Legion insisted that the Smithsonian state that the invasion of Japan would have costed 1 million American lives. The highest estimate for the loses during an invasion of Japan is 63k, with the estimate generally being between 20K and 25K (smithsonian institute). Harwit categorically refused to go along with this. The response was Congress asking for his resignation, and threatening to reduce the funding for institute.
As a result, the entire exhibit was canceled.
On a personal level, I went through high school believing that an invasion was necessary, and that the bomb saved lives. Youth were (and still are) being taught a convienient version of history. But we are a democracy, and live in a country of free speech. Why must certain aspects of our heritage be hidden from us? Do we have to lie about everything we do that doesn't fit our image of ourselves?
The point, for me, is that, basically, I thought we were better than this.
Discuss.
Comment