You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
China-Japan-Koreas
Japan says US A-bombs 'couldn't be helped'
2007-07-01
Japan’s defence minister said on Saturday the 1945 atomic bombings on the country by the United States “couldn’t be helped” as they led to the end of World War Two.

The comments are likely to invite criticism from victims and opposition parties, and may further dim Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his ruling bloc’s prospects in a July 29 upper house election. “My understanding is that it ended the war and that it couldn’t be helped,” Defence Minister Fumio Kyuma said in a speech near Tokyo. “When it was dropped on Nagasaki, it was a tragedy,” Kyuma, whose electoral district includes Nagasaki, also said.

The 66-year-old minister later told reporters he did not intend to justify the bombings, but reiterated that from the US perspective, the use of atomic bombs at the time was inevitable.
Posted by:Fred

#15  The planned Imperial response to invasion of the Home Islands was: murder of all prisoners & internees along with a fight to the death a la Okinawa & Iwo Jima. This was what was set to take place had the Emperor not surrendered after the first 2 nukes. What would the point of a US-led invasion have been then? I think it was more than likely a fed-up US would have just stood offshore & rained nukes on the Empire until every Imperial subject was incapable to resisting. It might have taken a few more months/years to build the nukes, but no historian has ever probed the disgust of the US electorate in August 1945 with its mounting combat death toll combined with the unexpected & newly acquired ability to utterly devastate an enemy land by the square mile without risking a single serviceman. The Empire of Japan got off very, very easy.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-07-01 17:48  

#14  Saw an interesting article recently - the US is STILL using purple heart medals originally stockpiled for the invasion of the Japanese mainland. And there's over a hundred thousand left.
Posted by: DMFD   2007-07-01 17:40  

#13  my Uncle - saved from the Marine invasion by the bombing - was all I need to justify the bombing.
Posted by: Frank G   2007-07-01 16:24  

#12  IIRC, there were plans to drop up to six nukes on the Kyushu beaches during Olympic .
Posted by: mrp   2007-07-01 16:23  

#11  I read a long time ago that some Japanese who have a historical military background acknowledge privately it was a good thing. We saved them from themselves.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2007-07-01 16:22  

#10  I have been working on a historical novel based on the proposed invasion of Japan. My conclusion is that Japan was extremely lucky they surrendered when they did.

In August 1945, the British were ~1 month away from invading Malaya. The Japanese General in charge of SE Asia had given orders to kill any prisoners if it was likely they'd be liberated. This was 200,000 people, of which half were civilians (including women and children).

If they had been killed, I can't see Hirohito escaping a hanging. I also think the relatively benign occupation would have gone out the window.

In addition, the US 20th Air Force was half way through its campaign to bomb the 100 largest cities in Japan. In actual fact we stopped at number 52. Had the war not stopped, this campaign would have continued.

There is more, but I think you can see that Many more people would have died if the war had continued than died from the 2 atomic bombs.

Al
Posted by: Frozen Al   2007-07-01 13:50  

#9  #2
John, I think you're right. It will take a slow and subtle course to turn the populace from the fear and horror of any nukes to the acceptance of them as necessary for their own arsenal.This will take several years, but you can bet the Chicom ears shot up just like a fox trying to elude the hounds.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter2970   2007-07-01 12:45  

#8  I disagree with Mr Kyuma. Japanese defeat was inevitable. The atomic bomb was the quickest way to end the conflict. Had the Japanese population and American military been further decimated by an invasion, I believe that the Cold War would have proceded very differently. For instance, I can't see the Marshal Plan happening. I think Korea would certainly have been written off.
Posted by: Super Hose   2007-07-01 12:20  

#7  Mazda accounts for 30% of Hiroshima's GDP, itself larger than those of Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, and Austria.
Posted by: John Frum   2007-07-01 12:17  

#6  Nagasaki's GDP exceeds that of Australia and the Netherlands.
Posted by: John Frum   2007-07-01 12:12  

#5  Everyone in the nation dead, or two dead cities.

Ummmm, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are bustling cities today, not "Dead".
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-07-01 11:59  

#4  Since the Emporer had prepped the entire nation to commit mass suicide in the event of loss...

Everyone in the nation dead, or two dead cities. Seems a simple choice which was the better outcome for the Japanese.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-07-01 11:17  

#3  nice catch, John. I'd bet on that
Posted by: Frank G   2007-07-01 08:09  

#2  Preparing the public to accept nuclear weapons development by Japan itself?
Posted by: John Frum   2007-07-01 04:20  

#1  Â“My understanding is that it ended the war and that it couldnÂ’t be helped,”

An astonishing degree of Japanese clarity. Let's hope that our current crop of politicians are capable of similar insight should the need arise once again.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-07-01 02:37  

00:00