Nuking Japan: Bloody Evil

The last issue of The Taney County Times ran a jingoistic piece justifying the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I was provoked to send a response (the TCT printed it on 11-23-11).

Mr. Groman’s defense of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki expressed the politically correct version of history so replete in textbooks and so confidently asserted by both Conservatives and Liberals.

The dilemma of whether to end the war by nuking Japan, or permit many more people to die by continuing the war was resolved in favor of the former option, thereby saving many lives. This narrative provides true comfort in the face of our having caused hundreds of thousands of children, women, and old men to die horrific deaths by fire.

Correction: This narrative provides FALSE comfort in the face of our having caused hundreds of thousands of children, women, and old men to die horrific deaths by fire. False, because there was a third option besides, 1.) nuking Japan, and 2.) continuing the war.

Option three was as follows: Instead of holding to our demand for Japan’s unconditional surrender Truman could’ve offered peace feelers granting one concession - that being an assurance that Emperor Hirohito would be allowed to remain enthroned. This likely would’ve resulted in Japan’s earlier surrender, particularly in the aftermath of the massive conventional firebombing of Tokyo by B-29s.

Of course, allowing the Japanese to keep their Emperor would arguably have been too much to concede.

Except for one fact. That’s what we ended up doing, anyway. Emperor Hirohito remained Japan’s figurehead ruler until his death in 1989.


(see quotes from American leaders who disagreed with the decision to use atomic bombs on Japan here:)

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm