Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageOp-Ed: The truth about Hiroshima

By Brett Wilkins     Aug 6, 2013 in World
Hiroshima - The central theme of the official Hiroshima narrative-- that the United States waged nuclear war against defenseless Japanese cities and civilians as a life-saving last resort-- is deeply flawed.
What follows is a fact-based exploration of the real reasons the US committed one of the great atrocities of the 20th century.
"The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." -Supreme Allied Commander and, later, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Today in 1945 the United States launched the only nuclear war in human history. Our government did this, as you no doubt learned in high school, to save millions of lives-- not only the lives of the American troops who would have to invade Japan to bring the war to a close, but also the millions of Japanese who would, we were told, die defending their homeland and their Emperor.
This is one of the biggest lies in US history, but many Americans still think dropping the bomb was the right thing to do-- 61 percent, according to a 2009 poll. Well, what follows is for that 61 percent. Perhaps if you knew the seldom-acknowledged facts behind the bombing of Hiroshima, you'd change your mind at once. Here's the truth about one of the greatest crimes against humanity of the 20th century:
The Japanese had been trying to find a way to surrender for months before the atomic bombings and American leaders were fully aware of this, as the Eisenhower quote at the beginning of this article demonstrates. Militarily, Japan was utterly defeated. It had no natural resources and its cities were so devastated from years of constant American bombardment that Gen. Curtis LeMay, commander of the Air Force, complained that there were nothing left to bomb in Japan but "garbage can targets."
Ralph Bard, Undersecretary of the US Navy:
"The Japanese were ready for peace and they had already approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. The Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atomic bomb. It wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing." (US News & World Report, 8/15/60)
Here is a declassified top secret memo from Bard to the War Department dated 28 June 1945 stating that he "had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium for surrender.
Paul Nitze, US Strategic Bombing Survey:
"While I was working on the new plan of air attack, I concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. Japan would capitulate by November, 1945." (Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost pp. 44-45)
Japan could mount no defense of itself whatsoever against the relentless might of the American war machine. The people of Japan were completely broken by years of war and the nation's leadership had had enough. The US had intercepted and decoded secret transmissions from the Japanese foreign minister Shigenori Togo to Naotaki Sato, the Japanese ambassador in Moscow. These messages were nothing less than attempts to negotiate an end to the war. But the Japanese wanted a way to save face and retain their Emperor, who was considered a sacred figure. Right up to July 26 Sato was desperately trying to negotiate a very reasonable surrender that included retention of the Emperor in order to keep Japanese national identity and dignity intact. The US knew all about his futile efforts.
But Washington would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. On July 26 the Potsdam Declaration was issued, demanding just that.
Ellis Zacharias, Deputy Director of US Naval Intelligence:
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had every seen and, in fact, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over eastern Asia. It was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on moral grounds." (Ellis Zacharias, "How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender" Look 6/6/50)
Again, Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer mandatory 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." (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change p.380)
Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the war against Japan, was shocked by the Potsdam demands of unconditional surrender. "Retaining the Emperor was vital to an orderly transition to peace," he opined, fully aware that there was no way the Japanese would accept a future without their god-like monarch. But that did not mean the much-touted land invasion of Japan would have been necessary to bring the war to a close...
Paul Nitze:
"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a US invasion of the islands (scheduled for November 1, 1945) would have been necessary." (source: US Naval Historical Foundation)
Remember what Nitze said about the war already being over by then?
Nitze had another great idea. It would have been quite simply to give Japanese leaders a live demonstration of an actual atomic bomb explosion. Tell them the US had more than one (it had three) and that if they did not surrender at once, the bombs would be dropped on their cities. Nitze suggested detonating the horrific weapon over a Japanese redwood forest: "It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will. Secretary (of the Navy) Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation."
Besides, Japan was so bombed out by the summer of 1945 that dropping the atomic bomb would be of little practical use. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson knew this. On June 6, he told President Harry S. Truman that "the Air Force would have Japan so bombed out that the new weapon would not have a fair background to show its strength." Stimson later said that the American leadership made no attempt to induce a Japanese surrender in order to avoid using the atomic bomb. He knew unconditional surrender was mere propaganda and that the bombs would be used no matter what.
"His majesty is extremely anxious to terminate the war as soon as possible."
-Japanese communication intercepted by US just before the atomic bombs were dropped. (source: Journal of Political Science; Clemson University, 1979)
Not possibly soon enough; the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, more than 100,000 people died.
Japanese Prime Minister Kintaro Suzuki, addressing the Japanese cabinet three days later:
"Under the present circumstances I have concluded that our only alternative is to accept the Potsdam Proclamation and terminate the war." (Charles L. Mee, Meeting at Potsdam pp.288-289)
Still not good enough for the US government. Later that day, the second bomb fell on Nagasaki, and over 100,000 more people died.
Why on earth would our government do such an awful thing?
Eisenhower talk about "shocking world opinion" by dropping the bomb and that's precisely what the US wanted to do. Especially Soviet opinion. American leaders knew very well that the Soviet Union would feature prominently in the postwar world order. The US wanted to maximize its own position as the dominant world power, and what better way to do this than to show the Russians that the United States had the cold resolve necessary to unilaterally wage nuclear war, even when the US enjoyed an atomic monopoly and dropping the bomb wasn't even necessary?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't only the final battles of World War II, they were the first battles of the Cold War.
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson:
"In the State Department there developed a tendency to think of the bomb as a diplomatic weapon. Some of the men in charge of foreign policy were eager to carry the bomb as their ace-in-the-hole... American statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip." (source: Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb p.482)
Historian Charles L. Mee Jr.:
"The Americans had not only used a doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it was not militarily necessary. It was this last chilling fact that doubtless made the greatest impression on the Russians."
New York Times, 8/19/46:
"Professor Albert Einstein said that [the atomic bombing] was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."
Then there was the more sadistic matter of trying out a new weapon in which so much time and treasure had been invested. But as you know from Gen. LeMay's "garbage can targets" comment, good un-bombed Japanese cities were hard to come by in the spring of 1945. There were, however, two cities which had remained unscathed-- Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They would make perfect laboratories for testing the atomic bomb, and there were hundreds of thousands of unwitting human guinea pigs ripe for incineration.
Brigadier General Carter Clarke, US Intelligence Officer in charge of intercepted Japanese cables:
"When we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we didn't need to do it, we used [the Japanese] as an experiment for two atomic bombs." (source: Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb p.359)
These were, after all, just 'dirty Japs.' Since 1924, they'd been banned from even immigrating to the United States and all Japanese in America, whether citizens or not, were rounded up and forced into concentration camps for the duration of the war.
There was also the issue of cost. Unprecedented sums of money had been expended developing this awesome new weapon. Admiral William Leahy, chief of staff to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, believe this had much to do with the decision to use the bombs. He also said that:
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
Adm. Leahy also prophetically stated:
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." (all Leahy quotes from: William Leahy, I Was There)
Many of the very men who invented the dreadful bomb also had grave misgivings, even before the bomb was used. These Manhattan Project scientists wrote what came to be known as the Franck Report in May 1945, three months before their horrific invention was utilized. It recommends a demonstration of the bomb to the Japanese and questions whether atomic bombs would bring Japan to its knees when overwhelmingly devastating conventional bombing had failed to do so. Prophetically, the report predicted:
"If no international agreement is concluded immediately after the first detonation, this will mean a flying start of an unlimited armaments race."
One notable participant in the events of August 6, 1945 has no regrets. He's Paul Tibbets, and he flew the B-29 bomber, named Enola Gay after his mother, that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima that fateful morning. Asked at age 87 about doing it again, Tibbets said:
"Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: 'You've killed so many civilians.' That's their tough luck for being there."
Well, there you have it. Unnecessary, high immoral-- downright criminal, surely, and with historical implications for the rest of humanity's existence. That's the legacy of Hiroshima. We say the Japanese deserved what they got for attacking Pearl Harbor. But for all the treachery of December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military installation. It was both retaliatory (the US had choked off Japan's lifelines to natural resources) and preemptive (George W. Bush would have been proud). The US response was disproportionate beyond the wildest imagination, with more than a million Japanese killed and the nuclear destruction of two defenseless cities after Japan had attempted to surrender. Americans have the audacity to blame the Soviet Union for 'starting' the Cold War when it was our side that fired the first fiery salvo and forced their side to develop atomic countermeasures.
Isn't it time we Americans took a long, honest look in the mirror?
"I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal." -Gen. Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay
One last thing: Following Japan's surrender on August 15, 1945, Emperor Hirohito was allowed to remain on the Chrysanthemum Throne. So much for unconditional surrender.
This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of
More about Hiroshima, Atomic bomb, Nuclear war, Hiroshima Day, hiroshima truth
More news from
Latest News
Top News