Hiroshima, Nagasaki, And Our Attitudes Towards Them

[SithDoughnut]

I'm bored, and I should be revising this topic at the moment, so I thought I'd make a thread about it.

If any of you pay attention to Japanese news, you'll know that there is growing debate within the government as to how and when apologies for war crimes should be made. On one side, you have people who agree that Japan should keep apologising for their war crimes, but on the other side, you have people pointing out atrocities carried out by the Americans and the Allies, especially the nuclear attacks. One important event was in 1994, when Hirohito's son almost went to visit Pearl Harbor to apologise for the attack, but didn't go when it was decided that as the US hadn't apologised either, so there was no need.

So, after that long ramble, my questions follow as thus:

1) Were the nuclear attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki ethical or not?

2) Should the US apologise for the attacks and subsequent behaviour towards the survivors (hibakusha) during the occupation?

3) Is it ethical to keep expecting the Japanese to apologise (as both the US and China regularly do) when the others have not?

4) How are/were the nuclear attacks and the Japanese war crimes taught in the US? Is their any bias? If there is, is this an ethical thing to do?

It's a pretty wide range of questions, but I like to keep the discussion open. Who knows, some of this might even be useful to me.

I'll give my opinions when I see what other people have to say about it.

 

[DRD4Him]

I'm bored, and I should be revising this topic at the moment, so I thought I'd make a thread about it.

If any of you pay attention to Japanese news, you'll know that there is growing debate within the government as to how and when apologies for war crimes should be made. On one side, you have people who agree that Japan should keep apologising for their war crimes, but on the other side, you have people pointing out atrocities carried out by the Americans and the Allies, especially the nuclear attacks. One important event was in 1994, when Hirohito's son almost went to visit Pearl Harbor to apologise for the attack, but didn't go when it was decided that as the US hadn't apologised either, so there was no need.

So, after that long ramble, my questions follow as thus:

1) Were the nuclear attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki ethical or not?

Yes.

2) Should the US apologise for the attacks and subsequent behaviour towards the survivors (hibakusha) during the occupation?

Yes.

3) Is it ethical to keep expecting the Japanese to apologise (as both the US and China regularly do) when the others have not?

No. The Japanese were monstrous towards prisoners and innocent civilians during the war of domination they started in the pacific theatre. They do NOT have to apologize for their intense guilt. They lost the war and were crushed and rebuilt a better nation by the USA. That's good enough.

4) How are/were the nuclear attacks and the Japanese war crimes taught in the US? Is their any bias? If there is, is this an ethical thing to do?

The A-Bomb saved American lives and were used to crush a fanatical and warring people. That's true history.

It's a pretty wide range of questions, but I like to keep the discussion open. Who knows, some of this might even be useful to me.

I'll give my opinions when I see what other people have to say about it.

The Japanese were teated by their victors incredibly well and by far more beautifully then they would have their vanquished, whom they would have enslaved or slaughtered.

The USA shows its beauty even to those it defeats in war.

 

[Mystman]

1. I believe they were an attempt at choosing the lesser evil. I don't know enough about the situation to say whether they chose correctly. By itself, the attacks were of course horribly unethical - killing hordes of innocent civilians. But were there better alternatives? I don't know.

2. The US shouldn't portray it as a "good" event; I don't know if they do. As long as they recognize and admit that "yes it was a horrible thing to do, but still the lesser evil", it's ok. Apologizing to me carries the hint of "we shouldn't have done that", and I don't know if that's the case.

3. No. AFAIk, everyone who was in charge back then is now dead or at least no longer in charge of anything. Expecting the sons to apologize for the sins of the father is not right imho.

4. No idea.

 

[Texan40]

War is just a nasty business that should be avoided at all costs. If you are going to engage in war the only goal should be victory or else don't bother. I can't say I agree with the nuclear strikes on Japan but I understand that they were a "trump card" at the time and had some part in destroying Japan's will to fight. I don't know if Japan or the US should "apologize" but rather express compassion and sorrow for the loss of life on both sides and energize the peaceful relationship with the spirit of that love and compassion. In school back in the 70's and 80's here in the US we were taught straight facts and dates, not a lot of social commentary so I can't really answer that part of your post. War breeds atrocities as we can see from many instances in WW2. All sides of the war were guilty of it. I don't think that the way the Americans behaved in Japan is any "worse" than what the Japanese did in mainland China and all such matters should be addressed equally. I think ethics in war is a very hard subject at the very least... surely "all's fair" is not a good basis for human conduct but war is not a simple boxing match either. It is certainly a fine line.

 

[Wicked Willow]

1) Were the nuclear attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki ethical or not?

They were not. At least part of the "logic" behind the attack was testing these weapons of mass destruction upon "soft targets", that is: densely populated cities filled with civilians.
One atrocity does not justify another.

2) Should the US apologise for the attacks and subsequent behaviour towards the survivors (hibakusha) during the occupation?

Probably.

3) Is it ethical to keep expecting the Japanese to apologise (as both the US and China regularly do) when the others have not?

*shrugs* Oh well, considering that Japan pretty much initiated aggression against them, it probably is somewhat reasonable to accept them to "go first" - although it's a symbolic gesture, anyway. And as I said: one atrocity does not justify another.

 

[mont974x4]

The Japanese nation is welcome to apologize for their war crimes whenever they wish. However, I am not sure there are that many people alive today that really have anything to apologize for.

 

[Wirraway]

the OP demonstrates the usual poor understanding of the air war against Japan in '44 and '45. the relentless bombing of japanese military targets in cities starting in '44 would have probably have brought the war's end some time before the first of the planned invasions in November '45. this is according to the post-war interviews with japanese military and civilian leaders done by the US Strategic Bombing Survey.

the atomic bombings were different in kind but not overwhelmingly in destructiveness compared to the 200 plane raids the air force was routinely flying. hiroshima and nagasaki could have been leveled by the usual mix of high explosive and incendiary bombs from one or two such visits and would be a footnote in history.

except that the atomic bombings did finally break the government's will to continue the war. without the A-bombs, the B-29 raids would have gone on for another two months, with more destruction, hundreds of thousands of more dead directly or indirectly. as much as the japanese deserved that, they got spared, a little.

for what its worth, during WW2, the japanese military machine was killing chinese at there rate of about 200,000 per month averaged over the months between '37 and '45. so you can add in chinese not killed to the US aircrew not shot down for those two months of war the A-bombs prevented. the handwringers never acknowledge things like this.

 

[SithDoughnut]

The A-Bomb saved American lives and were used to crush a fanatical and warring people. That's true history.

By the time the A-bomb was dropped, Japan was no longer a fanatical group of warring people. It was a country of people trying to survive, many of whom were pushing for surrender.

The military was pretty fanatical, but I doubt you could extend that to the populace who were bombed. Not to mention many of the casualties were Americans of Japanese descent or Koreans, who had become stuck there as a result of the war.

The Japanese were teated by their victors incredibly well and by far more beautifully then they would have their vanquished, whom they would have enslaved or slaughtered.

The USA shows its beauty even to those it defeats in war

I've got to disagree here. The US imposed a strict system of censorship, refused to give any aid at all to those suffering as a result of the bomb, and even arrested any hibakusha who publicly grieved in any way about the bombs.

That's not to say that Japan was not guilty of horrific actions, but the US were not exactly wonderfully humane either.

 

[Wirraway]

They were not. ....

you'd be happier if hiroshima were leveled by a raid of 200 B-29s? comparable levels of destruction and death.

 

[SithDoughnut]

the OP demonstrates the usual poor understanding of the air war against Japan in '44 and '45. the relentless bombing of japanese military targets in cities starting in '44 would have probably have brought the war's end some time before the first of the planned invasions in November '45. this is according to the post-war interviews with japanese military and civilian leaders done by the US Strategic Bombing Survey.

Yep. Exactly how that shows a poor understanding, I do not know, seeing as I did not comment on it, but I agree.

the atomic bombings were different in kind but not overwhelmingly in destructiveness compared to the 200 plane raids the air force was routinely flying. hiroshima and nagasaki could have been leveled by the usual mix of high explosive and incendiary bombs from one or two such visits and would be a footnote in history.

Again, I agree.

except that the atomic bombings did finally break the government's will to continue the war. without the A-bombs, the B-29 raids would have gone on for another two months, with more destruction, hundreds of thousands of more dead directly or indirectly. as much as the japanese deserved that, they got spared, a little.

There is disagreement about that among historians, and there was disagreement as the time of the bombing. Depending on what sources you look at (and I've spent the past few weeks looking at loads) you can conclude anything from Japan's imminent surrender without any further effort from the US to the Japanese never surrendering without the A-bombs.

for what its worth, during WW2, the japanese military machine was killing chinese at there rate of about 200,000 per month averaged over the months between '37 and '45. so you can add in chinese not killed to the US aircrew not shot down for those two months of war the A-bombs prevented. the handwringers never acknowledge things like this.

OK. So how would you answer the questions in the OP? It's not just about the bombings themselves, but about a modern view of them too.

 

[Wirraway]

By the time the A-bomb was dropped, Japan was no longer a fanatical group of warring people. It was a country of people trying to survive, many of whom were pushing for surrender.....

that's revisionist history at its worst and demonstrates a total misunderstanding of why the war was close to ending.

claims that the government was in the mood to accept the surrender terms of the potsdam declaration are false, or that the US, China or the other allies would have accepted anything else are uninformed. regardless of whether or not the country would have collapsed before November '45, the japanese people -- civilian and army -- were ready to fight it out to the death in August.

 

[SithDoughnut]

you'd be happier if hiroshima were leveled by a raid of 200 B-29s? comparable levels of destruction and death.

If Hiroshima was razed by conventional bombing, the immediate casualties would be similar, but the later fatalities would not have occured, due to no radiation poisoning. At least, that's what it is according to the books I'm looking at right now.

 

[Wirraway]

...

OK. So how would you answer the questions in the OP? It's not just about the bombings themselves, but about a modern view of them too.

a modern view of hiroshima is mostly irrelevant and mostly of interest to blame-america revisionism. it is colored by the cold war and atomic weapons magnitudes more destructive than the bombs in use in '45.

but..

1. yes under the just war doctrine.

2. no

3. I believe the japanese have apologized for some of their crimes.

4. japanese war crimes are an obscenity. I'd leave it to the professional educators on how to explain that. then again, I have no faith in the ability of public school educators to explain WW2. fortunately, most learning is done after school is over.

 

[Chesterton]

1) Were the nuclear attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki ethical or not?

If war can be ethical, then the attacks were ethical.

2) Should the US apologise for the attacks and subsequent behaviour towards the survivors (hibakusha) during the occupation?

Sure we should apologize for our attacks and they should apologize for theirs, but not for our subsequent behavior, because the subsequent behavior was giving them democracy.

3) Is it ethical to keep expecting the Japanese to apologise (as both the US and China regularly do) when the others have not?

One apology is enough if it's sincere.

4) How are/were the nuclear attacks and the Japanese war crimes taught in the US? Is their any bias? If there is, is this an ethical thing to do?

I was taught that the attacks were to end the war as soon as was possible, which would save the lives of potentially millions of Americans and Japanese that would have been lost if we had to invade the home islands. I've haven't seen evidence to dispute that, so I assume it's not biased.

 

[SithDoughnut]

that's revisionist history at its worst and demonstrates a total misunderstanding of why the war was close to ending.

Given that nobody has come to a real conclusion yet (if they had, then I wouldn't have bothered to create this thread), I can only assume you have access to information no one else does.

claims that the government was in the mood to accept the surrender terms of the potsdam declaration are false, or that the US, China or the other allies would have accepted anything else are uninformed. regardless of whether or not the country would have collapsed before November '45, the japanese people -- civilian and army -- were ready to fight it out to the death in August.

The civilians had largely given up. They would defend themselves, certainly - they had no other option. However, they cared little for the war as a whole, and a lot more about their own survival.

The government itself was largely beginning to stagnate as no conclusion was arising from the discussions about surrender. The Japanses had already approached the Soviets regarding the terms of a surrender. The Japanese were not desperate to continue fighting, but could not agree upon the terms they wanted for peace. However, the influence of the military, who wanted one last push before surrender (even they were entertaining the idea), was destabilising any proper momentum the peace supporters had.

 

[Wirraway]

If Hiroshima was razed by conventional bombing, the immediate casualties would be similar, but the later fatalities would not have occured, due to no radiation poisoning. At least, that's what it is according to the books I'm looking at right now.

ok, how about a second or third B-29 raid to equalize the numbers. and how about the half dozen or more cities that weren't burned out from B-29 raids that didn't take place?

 

[SithDoughnut]

ok, how about a second or third B-29 raid to equalize the numbers. and how about the half dozen or more cities that weren't burned out from B-29 raids that didn't take place?

They would potentially be much higher, yes.

I really should answer my own OP in order to give my view on the whole thing:

1) I would not say they were particularly ethical, but then neither was most of the war in general. Given the information they had at the time, the US made what it considered to be the decision in it's best interests, although they should have considered the alternatives more - that is largely agreed upon. Overall, they made the best decision with the information they had, as all the options they had involved mass death and suffering.

2) I would say that the US shouldn't need to apologise for the bombs, although acknowledging their devastation would be a good idea. They should, however, apologise to the remaining hibakusha for totally ignoring them while they rebuilt the rest of the country how they wanted it.

3) It is not ethical to keep expecting the Japanese to apologise, as they already have, and continue to do so.

4) Not being a US citizen, I'm not entirely sure, although I believe that there is much bias, just as some of the Japanese education system is biased.

 

[Wirraway]

Given that nobody has come to a real conclusion yet (if they had, then I wouldn't have bothered to create this thread), I can only assume you have access to information no one else does.

I have access to the best information available, as would you, if you'd bothered reading up on it.

The civilians had largely given up. They would defend themselves, certainly - they had no other option. However, they cared little for the war as a whole, and a lot more about their own survival.

source?

The government itself was largely beginning to stagnate as no conclusion was arising from the discussions about surrender. The Japanses had already approached the Soviets regarding the terms of a surrender. The Japanese were not desperate to continue fighting, but could not agree upon the terms they wanted for peace. However, the influence of the military, who wanted one last push before surrender (even they were entertaining the idea), was destabilising any proper momentum the peace supporters had.

the government was in the firm control of Army hard liners, preparation for defense of the home islands well under way, and you can cite no sources that indicate that surrender on terms offered by the allies was anywhere near close. by summer '45, the allies were not going to negotiate surrender terms.

I see you're not particularly distressed by the months of fire bomb raids, some of which were more destructive than the atomic bombings.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I have access to the best information available, as would you, if you'd bothered reading up on it.

What information is this? I've already read most of the transcripts of the war trials and interviews, along with various notes by both Japanese and American government official during the war. I've also read many historians views on the whole thing, as well as many official statements on the bombing and the war as a whole.

If historians can't even agree, and they've spent their lives on this, then I doubt your conclusions are as solid as you think they are.

source?

The essay Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender, by Barton J Bernstein, which is part of the book Hiroshima In History and Memory, Ed. Michael J. Hogan, (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

the government was in the firm control of Army hard liners, preparation for defense of the home islands well under way, and you can cite no sources that indicate that surrender on terms offered by the allies was anywhere near close. by summer '45, the allies were not going to negotiate surrender terms.

You haven't cited any sources either. If you want to look at the information yourself, I'd suggest you start with the aforementioned book.

I disagree that the government was under the firm control of Army hard liners, basically because it wasn't. It was heavily controlled by the army, but the army itself had many factions. You have to think in terms of individuals here.

I do however agree that the Allies had no intention to negotiate, especially as they knew of the A-bomb.

I see you're not particularly distressed by the months of fire bomb raids, some of which were more destructive than the atomic bombings.

Am I supposed to be distressed? This is history, it's important to look at all the facts and not blind yourself with emotion before you do so. The fire bomb raids killed many more than the atomic bombs, yes. I'm not opposing them either. You appear to be stuck in the delusion that I am actively opposing the Atomic Bombs.

 

[Wirraway]

the USSBS cited above, at p. 26, has this summary and conclusion:

The talks by the Japanese ambassador in Moscow and with the Soviet ambassador in Tokyo did not make progress. On 20 June the Emperor, on his own initiative, called the six members of the Supreme War Direction Council to a conference and said it was necessary to have a plan to close the war at once, as well as a plan to defend the home islands. The timing of the Potsdam Conference interfered with a plan to send Prince Konoye to Moscow as a special emissary with instructions from the cabinet to negotiate for peace on terms less than unconditional surrender, but with private instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price. Although the Supreme War Direction Council, in its deliberations on the Potsdam Declaration, was agreed on the advisability of ending the war, three of its members, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Navy Minister, were prepared to accept unconditional surrender, while the other three, the Army Minister, and the Chiefs of Staff of both services, favored continued resistance unless certain mitigating conditions were obtained.

On 6 August the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and on 9 August Russia entered the war. In the succeeding meetings of the Supreme War Direction Council, the differences of opinion previously existing as to the Potsdam terms persisted exactly as before. By using the urgency brought about through fear of further atomic bombing attacks, the Prime Minister found it possible to bring the Emperor directly into the discussions of the Potsdam terms. Hirohito, acting as arbiter, resolved the conflict in favor of unconditional surrender. ...

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's 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.

(emphasis added)

the peace initiative was deadlocked and the government still controlled by the hardliners, the atomic bombings tipped the scales. but it was the immensely destructive air war that brought japan to this point, and that would have continued for another two or more months if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.