| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| The Unnecessary Apology |
| 2010-08-06 |
| It hasn't been confirmed, but there was reportedly a small seismic event in northwest Missouri yesterday. The temblor was centered near the town of Independence, where President Harry S. Truman is buried. Mr. Truman, it seems, can no longer rest in peace, given the U.S. decision to send a representative to this Friday's ceremony in Japan, officially marking the 65th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. More from AFP, via Breitbart: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday that US President Barack Obama "thought it appropriate" to recognize Japan's atomic bomb anniversary as he wants to rid the world of nuclear arms. Why has the U.S. never dispatched a representative to the event in the past? Because its solemnity is something of a fig leaf; the annual ceremony has anti-American, anti-nuclear and anti-military overtones, with no effort to explain the events in the broad sweep of history. Listening to some of the participants, you'd never know that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was preceded by almost four years of bloody war that began at Pearl Harbor. That important context is typically missing from the Hiroshima remembrance, but we're still dispatching our ambassador in Tokyo to attend the event. His presence will be widely interpreted as a de facto apology from the United States. That's hardly surprising; some wags have described President Obama's foreign travels as a global apology tour, and there's genuine speculation that he will offer some sort of mea culpa for Hiroshima and Nagasaki when he visits Japan in November--after the mid-term elections. Of course, this entire episode leaves us wondering: what does the U.S. have to apologize for? Looking for the quickest way to end the war--and reduce casualties on both sides--Mr. Truman made the fateful choice to use atomic weapons. His decision is more remarkable when you consider that Truman had never been briefed on the Manhattan Project as a senator or Vice-President; he didn't learn of the nation's nuclear program until after President Roosevelt died in April 1945, leaving it up to Mr. Truman to give the final okay. Harry Truman was every inch a realist. He understood the terrible new weapons would inflict horrendous casualties, and Japanese civilians would not be spared. But Mr. Truman also realized that a planned invasion of Japan's home islands would be even more horrific. U.S. commanders expected our troops would suffer a minimum of 250,000 casualties during Operation Olympic the preliminary invasion of Kyushu (the southernmost of Japan's main islands), scheduled for November 1946. Olympic would be followed by Operation Coronet, the main landings on the island of Honshu and the Tokyo Plain. Enemy resistance was expected to be determined and fierce; Japan hoped to shatter the invasion forces on land and at sea with massive suicide attacks. Japanese kamikaze pilots sank 32 American vessels during the battle for Okinawa; they hoped to destroy up to 800 U.S. ships supporting the invasion of Japan, using more than 12,000 aircraft still at their disposal. By comparison, U.S. intelligence believed the Japanese military had only 3,000 planes to defend the home islands, and our estimates were off in other areas as well--mistakes that would have added to the carnage during the planned invasion. Intel officers believed the U.S. would suffer 1,000,000 casualties by the fall of 1946 (less than a year after the first landings on Kyushu), and that estimate was considered conservative in many circles. Casualty totals among enemy military personnel and civilians was expected to be much, much higher, as the Japanese literally fought to the death. Against that backdrop, President Truman made his decision to unleash atomic weapons. An estimated 64,000 Japanese died at Hiroshima, while 40,000 perished at Nagasaki. While tragic, their deaths were less than 10% of the estimated U.S. casualties in the planned invasion of Japan. When you factor in projected Japanese military and civilian casualties, the death toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki represents (perhaps) five percent of those who would have been killed, wounded or maimed in a U.S. invasion of Japan. That is another, vital contextual elements that is missing from the Hiroshima ceremony, but it won't deter the White House or Mrs. Clinton's crew at Foggy Bottom. They view the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities as a wrong that must be corrected, to enhance America's standing in the world. Harry Truman never saw any need for that; he understood that war is a terrible business that sometimes requires leaders to make the most difficult decisions. From what we've read, Mr. Truman had no regrets over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and felt no need to apologize for ending a war that Japan started. As Sarah Palin would say, the man from Independence had "cajones." That used to be a requirement for the presidency. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #15 It would have taken up to six months to produce another bomb. I'm aware of that. My proposed scenario after Japan's refusal to surrender after being nuked twice, would have had the US face a population bent on death before surrendering while producing the maximum number of casualties on US invasion forces. The US then would have had to choose an invasion or then taking the time to produce & then use further nukes. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-08-06 23:32 |
| #14 "Why is this man laughing?" Because he (Albert Einstein) believed in the America that existed when this picture of him was taken---We've devolved considerably since then. Today, we would NEVER mention the BATAAN Death March or the Japanese atrocities upon an unsuspecting, undeserving Chinese population. FUC* these LIB crybabies who have no sense of our history! Stupid Ass-H*les |
| Posted by: Asymmetrical Triangulation 2010-08-06 23:19 |
| #13 Not to mention the Comfort Women. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-08-06 23:13 |
| #12 Let me know when the Japanese send a representative to Manila. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-08-06 22:34 |
| #11 Anyone that says the bombs were bad is ignorant. Intelligence is finite. There are just a hell'va lot more people around today than back then. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2010-08-06 22:24 |
| #10 I've said it before so forgive me if you've read this bit but... In his autobiography Akira Kurosawa talked about how everyone expected the Emperor to order everyone to suicide rather than face the shame of occupation. Kurosawa was one of the most western folks in Japan at the time and his response to this thought was to get married so he'd be married before he suicided. Let that sink in a bit. The entire nation was expecting to kill themselves and a large chunk of them probably would have. Add that to the number of Americans that were expected to be casualties of an invasion of the main Japanese islands and the number of folks saved by those two bombs is incredibly, astronomically high. Anyone that says the bombs were bad is ignorant. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2010-08-06 21:50 |
| #9 Anguper, we only had three nukes at the time. The first one was tested at Trinity Site, the second dropped on Hiroshima (Kyoto had been first choice as of May '45, but that changed) and the third on Nagasaki (secondary target to Kokura, the primary target, which was too clouded over that day to make a valid assessment of the damages). It would have taken up to six months to produce another bomb. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2010-08-06 21:39 |
| #8 After the war, Gen. MacArthur ran Japan for several years. He saw to it that the Japanese were fed. When Americans said we should just let them starve, his reply was "We're better than that" There were other possible outcomes. There was a faction of Imperial militarists who attempted to depose Hirohito secretly & then speak in his behalf. They would never have surrendered under any circumstances. Hirohito himself was so little known to his subjects that when he did address them over the radio after the nuke attacks, his subjects had trouble recognizing the emperor's dialect. There were plans for Imperial forces to murder all the POW's and civilian internees should the Home Islands be invaded. Consider if this had all happened, there had been no surrender after the first 2 nuke strikes, and then all the prisoners had been executed. I suspect the Allies would have been quite content to let the Japanese starve at that point. Either that, or build up a larger nuclear arsenal & repeat the nuclear attacks until there was no possible further resistance. We were basically good people, but there are limits to what any nation will tolerate in extremis. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-08-06 20:48 |
| #7 As I've said before, I used to be ambivalent about the bombings until I read "Downfall" by Richard Frank. He covered the events leading up to the bombing, including the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities, which also caused horrendous civilian casualties. If we had not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and if the Japanese had not surrendered, we would have started bombing the railroads and bridges that went from the farms to the cities. The result would have been mass starvation. This is besides the civilian casualties that would have resulted in an invasion. The civilians were being trained to resist the Americans in any way they could - even if it meant their deaths. Not to mention, if the Japanese had not surrendered when they did, the Russians were getting ready to invade the northern islands, which they would have claimed as war booty. What the bombings did is to give the Japanese Emperor a face saving way of surrendering. Even though it was obvious that Japan was losing the war, there were still elements in the military that wanted to keep fighting to the very end. After the war, Gen. MacArthur ran Japan for several years. He saw to it that the Japanese were fed. When Americans said we should just let them starve, his reply was "We're better than that". And we are. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2010-08-06 20:34 |
| #6 Sari for the spelling -- PIMF. |
| Posted by: Gabby 2010-08-06 19:17 |
| #5 Let's not go there, 'k? Twas not an endorsement, Doc. My favorite characters supported the contitution, even though they thought the President and Congress were wrong to support the unilateral disarmament. I seem to remember Kirk Douglas, George Kennedy and the guy that played the conservative senator. Burt Lancaster's general and the others were not admirable characters. The point is/was that people sometimes act irrationaly out of perfectly rational fears. |
| Posted by: Gabby 2010-08-06 19:14 |
| #4 Think of the endorsement opportunities Barry will have after his Dear Leader gig. Hallmark Cards. Vaseline. Kneepads... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2010-08-06 19:02 |
| #3 Let's not go there, 'k? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-08-06 18:54 |
| #2 Obummer never saw Seven Days in May. |
| Posted by: Gabby 2010-08-06 17:58 |
| #1 "President Obama is very committed to working toward a world without nuclear weapons," I See the gonorrhea (Liberal, not physical) has spread to the brain. HE WANTS TO DISARM AMERICA? Isn't that an impeachable offense? the commander in Chief wants to surrender without even attempting a defense? |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2010-08-06 17:46 |