The myths of Hiroshima
By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are
coauthors of "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J.
Robert Oppenheimer," published earlier this year by Knopf.
SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning
on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty
thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children
and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of
radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after
Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar
fate.
The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 — just five
days after the Nagasaki bombing — Radio Tokyo announced that the
Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many
Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that
the bomb had ended the war, even "saving" a million lives that might
have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan.
This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded
in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on
the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at
the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped
the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising
political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an
officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed
them as a necessary act in a just war.
But although patriotically correct, the exhibit and the narrative on
which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the
Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs
"caused many tens of thousands of deaths" and that Hiroshima was "a
definite military target."
Americans were also told that use of the bombs "led to the immediate
surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the
Japanese home islands." But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi
Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, "Racing the Enemy" —
and many other historians have long argued — it was the Soviet Union's
entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima
bombing, that provided the final "shock" that led to Japan's
capitulation.
The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the
assertion that "special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities"
warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning
leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and
Nagasaki had been destroyed.
The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million
lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first
popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of
thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine
essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson.
The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of
the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on "an essentially
defeated enemy." President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary
of State James Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the
Soviets from sharing in the occupation of Japan. And they used it on
Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among themselves as they returned
home from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were
looking for peace.
These unpleasant historical facts were censored from the 1995
Smithsonian exhibit, an action that should trouble every American.
When a government substitutes an officially sanctioned view for
publicly debated history, democracy is diminished.
Today, in the post-9/11 era, it is critically important that the U.S.
face the truth about the atomic bomb. For one thing, the myths
surrounding Hiroshima have made it possible for our defense
establishment to argue that atomic bombs are legitimate weapons that
belong in a democracy's arsenal. But if, as Oppenheimer said, "they
are weapons of aggression, of surprise and of terror," how can a
democracy rely on such weapons?
Oppenheimer understood very soon after Hiroshima that these weapons
would ultimately threaten our very survival.
Presciently, he even warned us against what is now our worst national
nightmare — and Osama bin Laden's frequently voiced dream — an atomic
suitcase bomb smuggled into an American city: "Of course it could be
done," Oppenheimer told a Senate committee, "and people could destroy
New York."
Ironically, Hiroshima's myths are now motivating our enemies to attack
us with the very weapon we invented. Bin Laden repeatedly refers to
Hiroshima in his rambling speeches. It was, he believes, the atomic
bombings that shocked the Japanese imperial government into an early
surrender — and, he says, he is planning an atomic attack on the U.S.
that will similarly shock us into retreating from the Mideast.
Finally, Hiroshima's myths have gradually given rise to an American
unilateralism born of atomic arrogance.
Oppenheimer warned against this "sleazy sense of omnipotence." He
observed that "if you approach the problem and say, 'We know what is
right and we would like to use the atomic bomb to persuade you to
agree with us,' then you are in a very weak position and you will not
succeed…. You will find yourselves attempting by force of arms to
prevent a disaster."
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
07 Aug 2005 05:03:11 PM |
|
|
Dear oh dear Japan would not have gone to war if the West had not
blocked Japan's oil in the 30's.
The fact that Tokyo fire bombing claimed more lives than Hiroshima,
and that 70% of civilain housing was destroyed in bombing campaigns,
but the real reason for the surrender was not atomic, The Red army was
moving down, and the choice was Russia or America, the bomb was dropped
to warn Stalin, which he did not really pick up on.
But myths are harder to kill than truths
Remember Japan had the half population of the US.
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
12 Aug 2005 06:33:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
But myths are harder to kill than truths
Amen to that!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
09 Aug 2005 11:35:55 AM |
|
|
it was the Soviet Union's
entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima
bombing, that provided the final "shock" that led to Japan's
capitulation.
So you believe his book? I don't believe. I still think droping AB was
absolutely necessary. The only problem is that they only had 2 AB in
1945. Damn!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
09 Aug 2005 07:15:59 PM |
|
|
Was it neccesary?
Perhaps but it also gives precedent, so if it is good enough for one
it is good enough for another, and also there are other precedents
following so it says all is fair in love and war, you only get back
what you put in.
Or as PK ***** quoted "no one wins a war"
Or was it Jesus wot said do unto others, what they shall verily do
unto you.
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
10 Aug 2005 10:08:27 AM |
|
|
Absolutely it's necessary. It's common sense that Japs would not
surrender and many many more US soliders would be killed w/o AB.
You should ask: was it necessary for Japan to invade Asian countries
and attack US in WWII? AB was the consequence which they're well
deserved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
10 Aug 2005 05:06:34 PM |
|
|
Or was it neccesary for the West to cut the Japanese out of the Oil
deal in the first place, they did not attack Pearl Harbour on a whim
neither did Bin Laden attack NY for a whim but to bring to to attention
of the West, some of the crap, being played out in their lands, and see
how you like it.
You may not agree with the methodology, but a smashed building sure
gets attention, neither did India go nuclear for energy, like in Roman
times the slaves only got parity when they were similarly armed as
their masters.
MAD has some inducements.
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
11 Aug 2005 09:56:16 AM |
|
|
"Or was it neccesary for the West to cut the Japanese out of the Oil
deal in the first place,"
Do you really think Japan was for OIL when they invaded Asia and
attacked US? Come on. Even if it's sure, they already controled most
parts of Asia before Japan attacked US. What else could they gain for
'oil' when they attacked US?
" neither did Bin Laden attack NY "
Listen, he tried to destroy WTC in 93 unsuccessfully. No matter what US
policy is, he tries to destroy western all.
Anyway, Japanese were well deserved for AB, the only problem is they
only got 2.
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
12 Aug 2005 06:31:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Do you really think Japan was for OIL when they invaded Asia and
attacked US?
Yes. The attacks on Singapore and Pearl Harbor were specifically to
stop the Western powers from blockading the Japanese oil routes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
30 Aug 2005 03:22:56 PM |
|
|
"Yes. The attacks on Singapore and Pearl Harbor were specifically to
stop the Western powers from blockading the Japanese oil routes."
No, I don't think so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
06 Sep 2005 04:55:23 PM |
|
|
It would have been interesting, if they had taken Pearl Harbour, not
just a bombing run, wonder why they didn't!
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
07 Sep 2005 10:17:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
It would have been interesting, if they had taken Pearl Harbour, not
just a bombing run, wonder why they didn't!
LB
Invading Hawaii would have been a whole different ballgame with troop
ships and etc. It would have tripled the size of the task force and
made secrecy very difficult.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
07 Sep 2005 05:00:32 PM |
|
|
Yes but and here is an "IF" they had taken out the Oil reserve on the
Island, it would have kept the US out of the Pacific for 3 years, known
as the oppurtunity missed, but never discussed!
Then defending that Island would have been hard as well.
LB
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea™" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
07 Sep 2005 06:19:05 AM |
|
|
On 6 Sep 2005 14:55:23 -0700, "leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au"
<leigh8bee@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
It would have been interesting, if they had taken Pearl Harbour, not
just a bombing run, wonder why they didn't!
LB
I think the intention was to take out the US naval capability. Japan
knew it could not stretch it's resources that far. The idea was to
give themselves free sea room, so they could consolidate their gains
before the US got mobilised. They underestimated.
--
Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
12 Aug 2005 06:14:43 PM |
|
|
Listen, he tried to destroy WTC in 93 unsuccessfully. No matter what US
policy is, he tries to destroy western all.
92 was it not?
Yes the precedent is set, and therefore expect them as part of arsenal
in next conflicts, that is why they are going birko over Iran and N
Korea, notwithstanding the subcontinent, which in the near long term
are going more than problematic.
Dominant I think.
But one does reap, what one sows!
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
30 Aug 2005 03:24:41 PM |
|
|
"Yes the precedent is set, and therefore expect them as part of arsenal
in next conflicts, that is why they are going birko over Iran and N
Korea, notwithstanding the subcontinent, which in the near long term
are going more than problematic.
Dominant I think.
But one does reap, what one sows! "
Back to the original topic, US should feel bad that they only had 2 ABs
in 1945. 2 obviously was NOT enough for Japan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
31 Aug 2005 03:57:41 AM |
|
|
<ibm_97@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125433481.851305.111050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Yes the precedent is set, and therefore expect them as part of arsenal
in next conflicts, that is why they are going birko over Iran and N
Korea, notwithstanding the subcontinent, which in the near long term
are going more than problematic.
Dominant I think.
But one does reap, what one sows! "
Back to the original topic, US should feel bad that they only had 2 ABs
in 1945. 2 obviously was NOT enough for Japan.
Well, it obviously was, seeing as they surrendered within days of the second
one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
05 Sep 2005 06:51:48 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
<ibm_97@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125433481.851305.111050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Yes the precedent is set, and therefore expect them as part of arsenal
in next conflicts, that is why they are going birko over Iran and N
Korea, notwithstanding the subcontinent, which in the near long term
are going more than problematic.
Dominant I think.
But one does reap, what one sows! "
Back to the original topic, US should feel bad that they only had 2 ABs
in 1945. 2 obviously was NOT enough for Japan.
Well, it obviously was, seeing as they surrendered within days of the second
one.
That logic is like saying that a rooster crowing is what causes the sun
to come up. There is an old (but true) saying: "Time coincidence does
not imply causality."
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
06 Sep 2005 03:27:32 AM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125964308.555651.203230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
tw wrote:
<ibm_97@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125433481.851305.111050@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Yes the precedent is set, and therefore expect them as part of
arsenal
in next conflicts, that is why they are going birko over Iran and N
Korea, notwithstanding the subcontinent, which in the near long term
are going more than problematic.
Dominant I think.
But one does reap, what one sows! "
Back to the original topic, US should feel bad that they only had 2
ABs
in 1945. 2 obviously was NOT enough for Japan.
Well, it obviously was, seeing as they surrendered within days of the
second
one.
That logic is like saying that a rooster crowing is what causes the sun
to come up.
Only if you're particularly fucking stupid, can't read and and don't know
anything about the history of WWII. Besides, all I wrote was that they
surrendered days after Nagasaki was bombed, thus no more atomic bombs needed
to be dropped (it was "enough"), There is no implied or explicit causal link
in that sentence. Besides, roosters crow AFTER the sun comes up, idiot.
There is an old (but true) saying: "Time coincidence does
not imply causality."
No, it's called confusing cause and effect. You are trying to argue that the
surrender caused that dropping of the atom bomb, you dumb *****. The fallacy
you are looking for is "post hoc ergo propter hoc"
Of course, you could always educate yourself:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/62.pdf where the inability to
defend against air-raids, particularly atomic ones is cited as a major
reason for the surrender.
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
06 Sep 2005 11:42:59 AM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Well, it obviously was, seeing as they surrendered within days of the
second
one.
That logic is like saying that a rooster crowing is what causes the sun
to come up.
Only if you're particularly fucking stupid, can't read and and don't know
anything about the history of WWII. Besides, all I wrote was that they
surrendered days after Nagasaki was bombed, thus no more atomic bombs needed
to be dropped (it was "enough"), There is no implied or explicit causal link
in that sentence. Besides, roosters crow AFTER the sun comes up, idiot.
Tsk, tsk! I assure you that my knowledge of WWII history exceeds yours
by several orders of magnitude. Anyway, your insults and profanity
only serve to reflect on YOU, not me. The original article of this
thread was essentially correct. The bombs were not needed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
06 Sep 2005 03:23:40 PM |
|
|
" The bombs were not needed."
No, you are TOTALLY wrong. The bombs were much needed. Just to revenge
Japs killed many many innocent people (Americans, Asians, etc).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
06 Sep 2005 03:42:37 PM |
|
|
<ibm_97@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126038220.910642.297840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
" The bombs were not needed."
No, you are TOTALLY wrong. The bombs were much needed. Just to revenge
Japs killed many many innocent people (Americans, Asians, etc).
Well if revenge is your thing.. Personally, I subscribe to the possibly
slightly mainstream view that the Japanese were preparing for one hell of a
fight to defend their home islands. It's possible more fire-bombing would
have achieved a capitulation, but that's as inhumane as nuking the place
really. An invasion would have cost untold lives on both sides, and
probably resulted in more bombs being used anyway (that's what was in the
plans after all).
The Japanse certainly did commit many vile atrocities during WWII, but as a
skinny guy in a skirt once said "an eyef or an eye leaves the whole world
blind". I'd rather live in a society that showed mercy rather than one which
demanded revenge. Especially if it's one armed to the teeth with nuclear
weapons...
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
06 Sep 2005 07:27:18 PM |
|
|
"Well if revenge is your thing.."
Yes, revenge is the thing.
Just in east asia countries during wwii:
Koreans killed by Japanese: 5+ mils
Chinese killed by Japanese: 10+ mils
How many Japanese were killed by those ABs? Not even close.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
06 Sep 2005 04:33:43 PM |
|
|
wrote:
" The bombs were not needed."
No, you are TOTALLY wrong. The bombs were much needed. Just to revenge
Japs killed many many innocent people (Americans, Asians, etc).
Revenge is absolutely the worst reason for any action. Look at the
middle east and the thousands of years of taking revenge and what it
has cost. Luckily, MacArthur did not attempt to extract any revenge on
Japan, proving that he was a better statesman than he was a general.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
06 Sep 2005 07:24:22 PM |
|
|
"Revenge is absolutely the worst reason for any action."
So why does US try to capture Bin Ladin?
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
07 Sep 2005 10:20:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Revenge is absolutely the worst reason for any action."
So why does US try to capture Bin Ladin?
That is not revenge. That is beheading the dragon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
07 Sep 2005 10:31:46 AM |
|
|
"That is not revenge. That is beheading the dragon"
ok, why didn't US hunt him like this before? only after 9/11. Do you
think US will invade Afghanistan w/o 9/11?
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
07 Sep 2005 04:13:53 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"That is not revenge. That is beheading the dragon"
ok, why didn't US hunt him like this before? only after 9/11. Do you
think US will invade Afghanistan w/o 9/11?
I can't read the motives of people like GWB, but I still say that
revenge is a bad motive. As far as 9/11 is concerned, the gummint had
to appear to be doing SOMETHING! The dragon had more teeth than they
had expected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
07 Sep 2005 09:56:31 PM |
|
|
"The dragon had more teeth than they
had expected."
Let's put this way, if Laden get caught, will US get rid of homeland
security dept, which was built after 9/11?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
08 Sep 2005 02:07:56 AM |
|
|
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126106427.119609.36570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ibm_97@yahoo.com wrote:
"Revenge is absolutely the worst reason for any action."
So why does US try to capture Bin Ladin?
That is not revenge. That is beheading the dragon.
Do you really think it will all mgaically stop if Bin LAden gets captured or
killed? You're a fucking idiot if youdo, but then again we knew taht
already.
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Myths of Hiroshima |
08 Sep 2005 12:01:46 PM |
|
|
tw wrote:
"goozlefotz" <granteer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126106427.119609.36570@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ibm_97@yahoo.com wrote:
"Revenge is absolutely the worst reason for any action."
So why does US try to capture Bin Ladin?
That is not revenge. That is beheading the dragon.
Do you really think it will all mgaically stop if Bin LAden gets captured or
killed? You're a fucking idiot if youdo, but then again we knew taht
already.
I do not discuss issues with those who only know how to be rude and
insulting. That includes you, tw.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
