Today is the 60th anniversary of dropping the atom-bomb on Nagasaki.
Some time back, I was inspired by the novel Cryptonomicon
Here is the sickening part first. We don’t actually have an appreciation for how bad World War II was. The atom bombs killed around 3.5 lakh people, all put together. But the scale of devastation in WWII was such that the deaths would be considered somewhat above average for a single incident, nothing out of the ordinary. I am serious. Take a look at these figures.
Bataan Death March: 10,000 deaths.
Manila Massacre : 100,000 deaths.
Battle of Leyte 54,000 deaths.
Battle of Iwo Jima – for an island smaller than South Mumbai – 27,000 deaths
Battle of Okinawa: 220,000 deaths.
I’ve included all kinds of events, not just battles. But this is just a sample of the kind of casualties we are talking of, not an exhaustive list. I have included deaths among both Americans and Japanese, both military and civilian. Many of the civilian deaths were due to suicide, especially in the Battle of Saipan. They jumped off the cliff because they could not bear the shame of having been conquered by the Americans.
Also note that as the fighting got closer to the home islands of Japan, the number of casualties shot up exponentially. The actual invasion of Japan, if it took place, was estimated to cause 3 lakh American deaths (and if history was any guide, many times more Japanese casualties)
Here is a description of the choices facing the Americans at that time. They weren’t pretty. As I understand it, the Japanese were intent on fighting to the last. The civilian population was highly motivated and sincerely believed that it was better to die than surrender. The choices were 1) Leave Japan as it was, with the military government intact (something like what Bush I did in the first Gulf War) 2) Blockade Japan and watch millions die, 3) Invade Japan and have millions die or 4) Drop the bomb.
Given the circumstances, I cannot bring myself to condemn the decision – even if it was a mistake, it was an honest mistake. At those levels of deaths and devastation, arguing over a few lakh here and there seems like arguing over peanuts.
*From the Emperor’s Radio Address
In 1945, Japan had already communicated the decision to surrender to USSR and in any case the country was in no position to continue the fight. It had withdrawn from all the occupied territories, so even if it had not surrendered, there was very little harm it could have done. Nothing that others could not have dealt on a case to case basis. So America did not need to enter Japan at all.
It is very clear that America had denotated the weapon just to test the effectiveness of the weapon. Precisely why it had used the weapon in those cities that had not been impacted by the war at all.
The article I have linked to answers precisely that point.
You have referred to a dozen articles, but I presume you are referring to “Operation Downfall”. It talks about Japan’s preparations in the case of an all out attack, a la Germany. The article does not say that Japan was not planning to stop the war. The article also says that Japan had no more strike capability which means that it was not a threat to its neighbours much less to US. A ceasefire through conventional means was very much possible and a blockade could plainly have worked
All these rationalisations would have atleast made sense if US had nuked to impair Japan’s military capabilities, but attacking a civilian location at the death of the war lends us to only one conclusion. Even Bharat Karnad who made much of the same arguments as you have sneaked out an admission, “Firstly, there is no instance in history of a new or novel weapon being invented and not used … had expended close to a tenth of its gross national product on the secret bomb project”
I am referring to this article.
Your post raises a couple of issues about libertarian attitudes to war.
Is it logical for a libertarian to say that the bombing of Nagasaki was a “mistake” ? Is not war in fact the ultimate evil that the state does ? Or do you consider WW2 as a “just war” by the American govt?
The US did not start the war. It entered the war only after its territory was bombed by the Japanese. By what stretch of imagination can WW2 be called an unjust war started by the Americans? Defending a country’s territory and her citizens is certainly considered a legitimate function of the government by libertarians.
There can be questions about the conduct of the war. We can argue about whether it is okay to target innocent civilians in some circumstances. We can argue over whether only defensive wars should be fought, or whether pre-emptive wars would be okay. We can argue over whether it is a government’s legitimate brief to enter into wars on behalf of one’s allies, and if so, what kind of allies. Libertarians differ over all these issues. But no libertarian questions the need for defensive or retaliatory wars.
If there was no other option, definitely, dropping the bomb was very much okay. But a couple things that make me wonder are:
* Both General Mcarthur and Eisenhower did not think bombing was necessary. They were leading the military. One would think they knew about the situation the best. Gen Eisenhower later told in an interview “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thingâ€.
* I was listening to a public radio broadcast (http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R508051000) in which one of the guests commented that the option of surrender was not even offered to japan.
Firstly, it is incorrect to claim that the option of surrender was not even offered to Japan. The Potsdam Declaration was available for them to accept. The only claim that can be made was that it was non-negotiable.
I don’t think Eisenhower was privy to the discussions that the weekly standard references. He wasn’t handling the Pacific war. As for McArthur, the only sense in which he thought that the bombing was “not necessary” is that he wanted to invade Japan using his army. I am not saying that there was “no other option”. Invading Japan was certainly an option. Blockading Japan was another. I am saying that the other options were much worse.
Incidentally folks, it is one thing to argue that it was a mistake. It is another to impute motives to Truman. You don’t discard a theory(1) that has insufficient evidence in favour of a theory(2) that has no evidence whatsoever going for it.
(1)”Atom-bombing of Japan was justfied”
(2) “Atom-bombing of Japan was carried out to intimidate the Soviets”
Ravikiran, you certainly make strong arguments.
It is easy to just dismiss the suggestion that Eisenhower was not fully aware of the discussions. But the much quoted interview happened sometimes in 1963. He would’ve fully appreciated the cause and effects in the 15+ years since the war I would imagine.
Also, in hindsight, the bombings might have been good for Japan. But I bet the leaders at the time of the bombings were not debating (a) the long term effects of each strategy (b) the level of destruction each strategy would lead to (c) which of the strategies were good for Japan.
Finally, just to clarify, I do agree with the most of your post though. My comments are some of the things that I am not too clear on.
I am presently writing a book on survivors of Japanese captivity. I was shocked to see an assertion posted that the Japanese had withdrawn from the occupied territories before the bombs were dropped as would Surprise millions of Filipinos, Indonesians, Burmese, Malaysians, Singaporeans, Chinese, and the entire population of Hong Kong, New Guinea and the Solomons. Moreover, we now know that the Japanese order had gone out to kill all prisoners of war, including 3 camps supplying subjects for Unit 731’s abomindable germ warfare and medical experimentation site. Everywhere the Japanese invaded, war crimes were committed affecting hundreds of thousands of persons, as compared to the 350,000 killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
One achieves a new view of these ‘tragedies’ if studying the nature of Japanese rule in the Andamans and Nicobar alone, as handed over to those other war criminals, the INA, responsible for the torture and execution of unknown numbers in the ANT and elsewhere.
The Allies were faced with the choice in 1945 of invading Japan as would have required 1 million servicemen, amid ongoing High daily casualties throughout Asia, aware that POWS all over Asia would be executed, — drop the bomb.
The responsible militarists and industrialists backing the IJA responded to the post-surrender situation by venturing to promote propaganda as to the Bomb, while building up national industry, trying again, once the economy had achieved the strength it will soon have. ‘Bonzai’
What I find incredibly sad was around the security fences of Camp Hansen or another Marine Corp base were the names of Okinawian men or women who treid to sneak in and were killed either by the Japanese or American gaurds. These memeories have haunted me for at least 1 decade.