August 10, 2010

Hiroshima, 65 years later

Critics claim that intercepted communiques indicatedthat Japan was considering surrender. But were theAllies supposed to assume that the diplomatic communiquesspoke also for the military? Because it's doubtfulthey did, and the military held the power.The Kamikazees were sinking U.S. shipping, withsailors dying, while Japanese civilians (includingwomen and children) were being trained tofight to the death. How long was President Trumansupposed to wait for Japan to decide to surrender?Weeks? Months? And after weeks ormonths the Japanese did not surrender, then what?Invasion**, and millions of military and civiliancasualties. While Truman was weighing these factors,he had to worry about the Soviets moving in to claimJapanese territory. Atomic bombs are horrible, butso is death in a fire storm which took more lives,yet there's not the outcry against fire bombing thatthe atomic bombs have. Keep in mind that in 1945, thedestruction caused by atomic bombs did not hold thehorror and condemnation it rightly gained after theiruse. There is something haunting about one bomb causingsuch devastation and human suffering due to burningand radiation. If the U.S. had fire bombed Hiroshimaand Nagasaki, perhaps more people would have burned todeath, and also, the Japanese may not have been convincedto surrender. Even with hindsight, we don't know. AndTruman did not have the advantage of any hindsight.

We sent our first delegation to the services marking the bombing of Hiroshima. Fine, but will we do the same with the Philippines, Manchuria, South Korea, and all the other places^^ where the Imperial Japanese Army by early 1945 was killing on average well over 5,000 a day in its occupied co-prosperity sphere? To understand why Hiroshima, understand 50,000 American casualties, 100,000 Japanese dead, and 100,000 Okinawan dead at the conclusion of Okinawa ten weeks earlier, and then multiply it by a factor of 10 for the upcoming Japanese homeland invasion.