Paul Fussell — “Thank God for the Atom Bomb”

I'm sure some folks here have heard of the eminent historian John Dower, who specializes in the Asian and Pacific theaters of World War II. No one who has read Dower's works would accuse him of being a Japanese apologist. Yet, in his award-winning book Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Illustrated Edition, 2000), Dower documents Japan's prostate condition at the end of the war:

The imperial navy had long since ceased to exist. Apart from a few thousand rickety planes held in reserve for suicide attacks, Japan’s air force—not only its aircraft but its skilled pilots as well—had virtually ceased to exist. Its merchant marine lay at the bottom of the ocean. Almost all of the country’s major cities had been fire-bombed, and millions of the emperor’s loyal subjects were homeless. The defeated imperial army was scattered throughout Asia and the islands of the Pacific Ocean, its millions of surviving soldiers starving, wounded, sick, and demoralized. . . .​
In mid-October, in a memorandum to President Truman summarizing conversations with MacArthur and his aides, the special presidential envoy Edwin Locke, Jr., reported that “the American officers now in Tokyo are amazed by the fact that resistance continued as long as it did.” Indeed, so great was the economic disarray, he added, that in the opinion of some Americans, the atomic bombs, “while seized upon by the Japanese as an excuse for getting out of the war, actually speeded surrender by only a few days.” Locke went on to note that “the entire economic structure of Japan’s greatest cities has been wrecked. Five millions of Tokyo’s seven million population have left ruined city.”​
Later investigative missions from Washington, led by the analysts for the prestigious U.S Strategic Bombing Survey, similarly concluded that pre-surrender estimates of Japan’s capacity for continuing the war had been greatly exaggerated. (pp. 43-44)​

Of course, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) also concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than the end of December, and probably before November, even if we had not dropped nukes, even if the Soviets had not attacked, and even if we had not planned or contemplated an invasion:

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. (USSBS, p. 26)​

In another section of his book, Dower gives further details about the conditions in Japan in the last months of the war, noting, among other things, that starvation became a major cause of death in the Japanese army by mid-1945:

Factory absenteeism rose nationwide, in large part because workers took time off to bargain and barter for food in the countryside. By July, absentee rates in major cities stood at 40 percent or more, with the food problem being cited as a major contributing factor.​
The Allied policy of “economic strangulation” had sent most of the navy and merchant marine to the bottom of the ocean by mid-1945, choking off supplies to the home front as well as to the war front. In the Southeast Asian and Pacific theaters, starvation became a major cause of death among fighting men.​
The home islands themselves were heavily dependent on Korea, Formosa [Taiwan], and China for basic foodstuffs. Before Pearl Harbor, imports from these areas accounted for 31 percent of Japan’s rice consumption, 92 percent of its sugar, 58 percent of its soy beans, and 45 percent of its salt. . . .​
As the war neared its end, it was a rare family anywhere that regularly ate white rice as a staple. The most common household diet consisted of barley and potatoes, but even these had fallen into short supply. It was in such circumstances that authorities in Osaka recommended an emergency diet that suggested how precarious daily subsistence had become. Based on a research report by local army officials, the emperor’s loyal subjects were encouraged to supplement their starch intake by introducing such as items as acorns, grain husks, peanut shells, and sawdust to their household larder. . . . For minerals, people were encouraged to introduced used tea leaves and the seeds, blossoms, and leaves of roses to their diet. Protein deficiencies could be remedied by eating silkworm cocoons, worms, grasshoppers, mice, rats, moles, snakes, or a powder made by drying the blood of cows, horses, and pigs. . . .​
The average calorie intake per person had by this time declined to far less than deemed necessary even for an individual engaged in light work. Elementary school children were on the average physically smaller in 1946 than they had been in 1937. Births had dropped precipitously. Infant mortality rose. (pp. 91-92)​

And let there be no mistake: We knew that Japan was prostrate and starving. In a post-war effort to justify the nuking of Japan, Truman and his apologists vastly exaggerated Japan's August 1945 fighting ability. However, there is ample evidence that internally the White House and the War Department were well aware of Japan's desperate condition--and they also knew about Japan's several peace feelers, including one authorized by the emperor himself, weeks before the nukes were dropped.
 
Now Unkotare's . . . his fellow Jap lover. . ..

Oh, wow. So in your mind anyone who points out Japan's prostrate condition and argues that nuking Japan was unnecessary is a "Jap lover"? Is that how you rationalize your barbaric, ignorant, and bigoted approach to the subject? Did you just beam back from the 1940s or something?

I guess you've missed or could not process all the times in threads, including this one, when I've condemned the war crimes and barbarity of the Japanese army. Ah, but I bet you dismissed those comments because I also pointed out that some Japanese commanders and soldiers fought honorably and did not commit war crimes. I guess it's all or nothing with you when it comes to Japan, due to your apparent all-consuming hatred of the Japanese.
 
And here is part of Dr. Sherry’s eloquent condemnation of Truman’s decision to nuke without first trying negotiation:

Since precisely this issue of the emperor’s fate held up surrender even after Hiroshima and Russia’s entry into the war, until Byrnes and Truman offered firmer assurances, their decision at Potsdam has been widely and rightly condemned as the most tragic blunder in American surrender policy, even by insiders who otherwise supported the bomb’s use. There can be no certainty would have accepted in July what it submitted to in August, but the chance was there, and as Ralph Bard had argued earlier, the risks of pursuing it were small. Moreover, the moral risks in the opposite direction, in pursuing an atomic solution before attempting to break the diplomatic impasse, were large. Michael Walzer has explained them persuasively:

“If killing millions (or many thousands) of men and women was militarily necessary for their conquest and overthrow, then it was morally necessary—in order not to kill those people—to settle for something less. . . . If people have a right not to be forced to fight, they also have a right not to be forced to continue fighting beyond the point when the war might justly be concluded. Beyond that point, there can be no supreme emergencies, no arguments about military necessity, no cost-accounting in human lives. To press the war further than that is to re-commit the crime of aggression. In the summer of 1945, the victorious Americans owed the Japanese people an experiment in negotiation. To use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting such an experiment, was a double crime.”

Of course, the double crime extended beyond use of the atomic bomb. A larger failure in surrender policy had sanctioned the razing of Japan’s cities. (pp. 329, 334-335)​
Eloquent perhaps, but also rather one-sided.

There was all sorts of conflicting advice regarding the Emperor. Some thought that giving Japan assurances regarding the Emperor would make them less likely to surrender because Japan would see it as a sign of weakness on our part.

Grew's initial advice regarding the Emperor was to assure Japan that we would allow his dynasty to continue. That was opposed by people who feared that it would be perceived as intent to execute Hirohito and install his son as Emperor.

Also, the US is a democracy, and the idea of letting Hirohito off the hook was about as popular as the idea of letting Hitler off the hook. US leaders could afford to let Hirohito off the hook in a moment of victory, but what if Truman promised to let Hirohito off the hook and Japan disregarded the offer and continued the war?

At any rate, we can be reasonably sure that the timing of the surrender was not impacted very much by the choice to not address the issue of the Emperor. Japan was dead set on ending the war only through Soviet mediation. Therefore Japan would never have accepted our terms, whatever they were, until after the Soviets declared war.

However, if we could have gotten Japan to understand that the Soviets planned to go to war with them, that might have shaken things up in Japan and made them surrender sooner.

This does not make it a crime to have used the atomic bombs. Opportunities are missed all the time. That's not a crime. It's just life.
 
So, there were 3 Japanese hardliners who wanted to fight to the bitter end and 3 moderates who were considering surrender. The emperor had the deciding vote.

Potsdam decree was a decree signed by Russia, America and Britain that called for Japan's immediate surrender or Japan would face utter annihilation, a hint that America had the bomb.

Japan didn't respond.

The first draft of the Potsdam decree said the emperor could keep his job. This was removed from the decree in later drafts.
Actually the first draft said that we'd let his dynasty continue. That included the possibility of executing him and installing his son.


Hiroshima was nuked. Over a hundred thousand Japanese died. Then Nagasaki.

Japan didn't respond.
Actually Japan did respond after Nagasaki. They finally asked to surrender. As a condition they asked that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power.


A week went by.

Our Secretary of State sent a note to the Japanese via the Swiss embassy. There was no communication between America and Japan at that time.
There was the communication where Japan asked to surrender. The note was our reply to that communication.


The note strongly hinted that the emperor could keep his job, if it was okay with the Japanese people.
The note made it clear that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.

So in other words, no to unlimited dictatorial power.


The emperor decided that was good enough, so he voted with the moderates and Japan surrendered.

So why did America remove the bit about how the emperor could keep his job from the Potsdam decree?

85% of Americans in a Gallop poll wanted the emperor executed. Truman wasn't going to throw the election to the Republicans, so he had the text removed.
There were all sorts of reasons. But yes. Truman was not about to give the Emperor any guarantee unless that guarantee was a component of a major American victory.
 
An interesting apology for the mass-murder of the USA in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
No such murders. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.


Do you apologize the reasons for 9/11 also in such an "excellent" way?
The World Trade Center attack targeted civilians. It was a crime against humanity.


(2) The best thing that ever had happened to the Yankees had been 9/11.
Which of this two sentences is more stupid?
Your sentence (2) is.

Our defeat of Japan did indeed massively improve their society.

The World Trade Center attack was merely the massacre of innocent civilians.

It is good that it led to our willingness to conduct dronestrikes all around the world however.


Without any doubt it had been an extremely heavy crime to do a nuclear strike against the Japanese cities Horishima - oh sorry Mr Freud: Not "Horrorshima" "Hiroshima" is the Japanese name - and Nagasaki.
That is incorrect. Attacks against military targets are not a crime.
 
Wilson shredded every standard argument put forward by those who defend the nukings.
He can't shred the fact that Japan was still refusing to surrender when the atomic bombs were dropped.

He can't shred the fact that the atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.


If nuking two cities was really a moral, necessary act, why did Truman and his military buddies lie through their teeth about the effects of the bomb? Why did they try to conceal the effects of radiation? Why did they deny that Japanese were dying of radiation poisoning?
Mr. Truman wasn't lying. He was mistaken. He believed that it was anti-American propaganda.


Why did Truman claim that Hiroshima was a "military target" when 85% of the city's population was civilian?
Because of that 15% that was military. And also because Hiroshima was the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion of Japan.


This book is especially useful because it discusses the fact that when the militarist crowd was attacking the Smithsonian's planned exhibit for the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima, the vast majority of the scholars who took part in the debate defended the exhibit and rejected the myth that the bombings were necessary and saved lives.
That conclusion by scholars hardly justifies the anti-American nature of the canceled exhibit.


Your refusal to acknowledge Japan's beaten, prostrate condition is typical of militaristic traditionalists.
If they were beaten then they should have surrendered.

They didn't surrender, and we were right to continue attacking them until they did surrender.


Two, by April 1945, nearly all of Japan's top civilian leaders, including Hirohito, wanted to surrender. This has been so well documented that it is amazing that you would get on a public board and claim that "the Japanese had no intention of surrendering." Good grief, that is inexcusable fiction given what we've known for at least two decades now. The whole reason that Hirohito and Kido engineered Tojo's forced resignation was to get a more moderate prime minister who would help them end the war, and in a few months they got just that person in Admiral Suzuki, who played a crucial role in overcoming the militarists' opposition to surrender. How can anyone who claims to be a serious researcher on this subject not know this stuff?
"Certain elements in the government wanting to surrender" is not "the government wanting to surrender".


Three, as for your pathetic exaggerations about Japan's military capability to repel an invasion, they are just laughable. On what planet did Japan have "thousands of suicide boats" and "tens of thousands of kamikaze aircraft" ready to repel an invasion?
I believe it was ten thousand kamikazes, not tens of thousands.

Other than that, he is not exaggerating. Japan did have an overwhelming number of kamikazes and suicide boats ready to strike our invasion. They also had a couple million troops ready to fight to the death against our invasion.


Japan's total number of military aircraft of any kind by mid-1945 was about 9,000, and many of those aircraft were not fit to be called "military" in any meaningful sense of the word, not to mention the fact that Japan was so low on fuel that they were training new pilots using movies instead of actual air training.
All those planes all had just enough fuel for a single suicide run.


And "thousands of suicide boats"???!!! Not on this planet.
Yes on this planet.


And, pray tell, what fuel would those alleged thousands of boats have used?
They had enough fuel for one suicide run.


Who would have piloted them?
Japan had a couple million soldiers waiting to fight to the death against our invasion.


How would they have even gotten near a U.S. Navy ship that had even minimal weaponry? The Japanese navy was virtually non-existent by early 1945, as was Japan's merchant sea force, especially in the waters around Japan.
Here's the thing about amphibious invasions: The invaders approach the shore. There is no need for kamikazes to go out in search of ships.


This dubious figure must be heavily counting small fishing boats and other small commercial vessels, which would have been easily and quickly blown out of the water if they had tried to approach even a smaller-sized American destroyer, much less a heavy cruiser, a battleship, or an aircraft carrier.
The suicide boats would however have been targeting troop transports.


What would you say if I told you that Secretary of State James Byrnes, the most anti-Japanese member of Truman's cabinet and a staunch advocate of nuking Japan, admitted after the war that the atomic bombs did not force Japan to surrender, that Japan was already beaten before they were nuked, and that this was evidenced by Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intel?
I'd say that Japan was free to surrender at any time. It was their choice to wait until we had nuked them twice before they surrendered.


Here is just some of the evidence that Japan was beaten and prostrate by no later than June 1945:
Your list omits the millions of soldiers waiting to fight to the death when we invaded.

But anyway, Japan was free to surrender any time they wanted. If they waited too long to surrender, that's their mistake.


* By June 1945, the Japanese Navy’s surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) reported,

After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze air force and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (USSBS, p. 11)​
Yes. Except for all those thousands of kamikazes waiting to take out our troop transports when we invaded.


I'm sure some folks here have heard of the eminent historian John Dower, who specializes in the Asian and Pacific theaters of World War II. No one who has read Dower's works would accuse him of being a Japanese apologist. Yet, in his award-winning book Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Illustrated Edition, 2000), Dower documents Japan's prostate condition at the end of the war:

Apart from a few thousand rickety planes held in reserve for suicide attacks, Japan’s air force—not only its aircraft but its skilled pilots as well—had virtually ceased to exist.​
Thousands of kamikazes waiting to pounce on our troop transports isn't a minor threat.


Of course, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS) also concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than the end of December, and probably before November, even if we had not dropped nukes, even if the Soviets had not attacked, and even if we had not planned or contemplated an invasion:

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. (USSBS, p. 26)​
While I don't challenge the conclusion per se, note that the Strategic Bombing Survey is far from a credible source.


And let there be no mistake: We knew that Japan was prostrate and starving. In a post-war effort to justify the nuking of Japan, Truman and his apologists vastly exaggerated Japan's August 1945 fighting ability.
They did not exaggerate it even a little bit. Japan had millions of soldiers waiting to fight to the death when we invaded.


However, there is ample evidence that internally the White House and the War Department were well aware of Japan's desperate condition--and they also knew about Japan's several peace feelers, including one authorized by the emperor himself, weeks before the nukes were dropped.
Peace feelers that never went anywhere.
 
Oh, wow. So in your mind anyone who points out Japan's prostrate condition and argues that nuking Japan was unnecessary is a "Jap lover"?

Japan's condition was far from prostrate. Japan was killing American service members by the hundreds, every day.

Japan's condition was such that they would be able to defend the homeland for weeks, if not months, killing tens of thousands.

Mike knows this.

It is an outright lie to describe Japan as prostrate, at any point in world War II
 
An interesting apology for the mass-murder of the USA in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you apologize the reasons for 9/11 also in such an "excellent" way?
I am sorry that you and your family are foreign citizens and feel no connection whatsoever to our history.

War is hell. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the killing of our soldiers.

I am very happy that the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Japan allowed Pappy Boyington and Louie Zappareni to live, and thousands of other prisoners of War from the Japan to Burma, throughout China.

I can forgive you as well for being an immigrant poorly educated on the history of our just country.

You are forgiven for your ignorance.
 
No such murders. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets. ...

What a bullshit to call Hiroshima and Nagasaki "military targets" instead of "mass murder" - what unfortunatelly also shows that you are a structural Nazi on your own.
 
Not at all. They were military targets. And wartime strikes on military targets are not murder.



Godwin's Law. I've just won another debate.

You wan nothing. You have to fight not to lose your soul and not to suffer this what we call normally "the second death". Hiroshima and Nagasaki give an impression what the phrase "fire of hell" speaks about. Whose body suffers the radiation sickness loses the ability to hold the own cells together in one organism. Everywhere grows death and destruction in the whole body. Life becomes an impossibility under such conditions.

And I informed you only that I see in you a "stuctural Nazi". This is not a decision from me - this is an acceptance of reality.

On what reason do you try to tell Vladimir Putin it exist reasons which are justifying a nuclear attack?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top