I just got through watching something on the History Channel called ‘The Decision to Drop the Bomb’. It was a sort of a documantary about Truman’s decision to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. According to this film, Truman dropped the bomb to impress the Soviets, test the new weapon, and revenge against the Japanese. Convincing Japan to surrender had nothing to do with it. Opinions will naturally vary by individual, but after watching this show three words came to my mind: Liberal Revisionist History. It seems about this time every year we have a new round of intellectuals with new guilt about this decsion. For example, there was the recent Enola Gay exhibit which was so skewed to the left one lawmaker commented that you would think America started the war after seeing it. People have the right to their own opininos, and to present alternative views, but I was very disturbed that the content of this program was presented not as an alternate viewpoint, but as cold hard fact. What struck me was not what was in the documentary, but rather what was left out. For instance:
There was already reason to believe large numbers of Japanese were capable of fighting to the last man. As example, there was an entire Japanese army in Southease Asia of a quarter million men which fought until only about 2,000 finally surrendered. This is, of course, in addtion to the many island garrisons who fought to almost the last man. Even in 1945, the Japanese army was over two million strong.
Recon photographs of literally thousands of suicide torpedoes, boats, and mini-subs waiting on the Japanese mainland. This was, of course, in addition to the dreaded Kamakazis.
Even after the dropping of the first atomic bomb, the Japanese cabinet was divided over whether to surrender or not. And even after Hirohito decided to surrender, there was an attempted coup of officers to try to prevent the surrender. To me it is obvious a Japanese surrender was by no means assured.
People have , of course, the right to any opinion they wish.
I think the answer is, like just about everything else in life, that the situations was not a binary, black-or-white one. In this case, most people only get to see one side of the argument, usually. I’d have to see the episode myself to make a judgement…
If any lawmaker said that, he was a fool. Certainly, the editorial that Charles Krauthammer published in Time magazine at that time was an incredible piece of dishonesty. There were legitimate complaints regarding some features of the Smithsonian’s original Enola Gay proposed exhibit, (it was successively redesigned to accommodate opponenets until it was turned into ahistorical papa), but it was nothing resembling “revisionist history” and the nonsense that the opponents of the exhibition insisted upon was far more revisionist than the actual proposal, even with its initial flaws.
Truman’s decision has been debated multiple times on this board and, if the History Channel presentation said that intimidating the Soviets was the only purpose and intimidating the Japanese was no part of the decision, then they went too far in the other direction. However, that does not make it a “Liberal revision.” The most outspoken opponents of the nuking of Japan at the time were voices on the Right, while a number of Leftist groups applauded the action.
In the modern day, it is the liberals who have repeatedly yammered on and on about how “evil” it was to use the bomb. Thus, revisionist history that says that the only reason it was used was to intimidate the USSR is liberal, since it adheres very strongly to the current liberal party line. Remember, the liberal line is “USA bad, no matter what, USA bad”.
Dogface, had you stopped at the end of the first sentence you would have answered Mr2001’s question adequately, if a bit snarkily. OTOH your last sentence is just gratuitious provocation.
This was obviously Truman’s most difficult and most important decision, and I believe he chose well. Part of the equation was getting the Japanese to surrender before the Soviets entered the war. Had he opted for conventional invasion, the Soviets would have cooperated as per their agreement, and the result would have been a divided Japan similar to Germany. Part of the equation was the anticipated fierce resistance to a land invasion and the expected high casualty count. All things considered, I don’t fault the decision.
**Dogface, **I don’t think you have to be a liberal to feel horror at the affects of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I weep whenever I see the videos and still photos of horribly burned children.
Justified or not, the affects of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were to horrific for words. Unfortunately, some people seem to feel that any sympathy directed towards the victims is anti-American.
The attitude of “No Matter What, USA Always Right” is just as harmful as constant criticism. There can be a balance in accepting that the decision to drop the bombs felt correct to our leaders at the time, yet still recognize the horrible suffering that decision caused to civilian men, women, and children.
Haven’t seen the documentary, so can’t comment directly on it, but I’m familiar with the endless revisionist “Monday-morning quarterbacking” regarding that decision, and the reason it rings so hollow: Putting yourself in the place and time of that situation, knowing what you know and not knowing what (at the time) you didn’t know, the only sensible option Truman was left with was using the bomb.
The first two bombs had no true “deterrent” effect, in the same way that two atomic bombs would if used as a threat today. Their mere existance didn’t translate into any sort of bargaining chip with the Japanese-- they had to be used to realize their potential.
Truman saw the bombs as being a knockout punch that could end the most destructive world war in history, do it without a bloody invasion of Japan (which would have cost the Japanese far more people than the atomic bombings did, in addition to our own casualties), and do it before the Russians could “horn in on” a war that they had studiously avoided up until Japan was gasping her last breaths.
Only the clear and unequivocable demonstration that America’s technological advantage, already a large one, had just gone “off the scale” with its weaponry could hope to end the war. Conventional attacks just didn’t “register” in that way with the Japanese – or they would have been clamoring for peace after the March 9th firebombing of Tokyo, which killed more people than either of the two atomic bomb targets and should have sufficiently demonstrated to a reasonable foe that the game was over.
Maybe it’s time to stop watching such programs. I have. As politicians love to say, “It’s time to move on.” I believe that all the lessons about the use of nuclear weapons have been learned by reasonable people.
Whoa! When I listen to GW, Rummy, Wolfie, and Perle I realize that reasonable people aren’t in charge at the moment.
After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, still, the Japanese Emperor had to survive a military coup attempt to surrender. Anyone who thinks the Japanese were of one mind about surrendering, even at the very top, hasn’t learned all the nitty gritty details. For the History Channel to make this mistake seems impossible. They’ve done stories about the confict in the Japanese high command themselves.
Any alternative without the A bomb would have involved months and months of conventional bombing all over Japan. The Pacific commanders had no intention of repeating a Tarawa, et al, landing. There would have been strategic bombing, naval gunfire, precision dive bombing, strafing, and more before any invasion would have been undertaken.
All those suicide planes, boats, small girls training with pitchforks, etc., did exist. I do have sympathy for the victims of Hiroshima. OTOH, the Japanese would have strapped bombs on those kids and sent them running at US troops.
I watched some of that show last night. They covered a few things: the military dominating the Japanese government not willing to accept defeat, the military attempting to get the Soviet Union to help Japan arrange a negotiated surrender (as opposed to an unconditional surrender), the populace being upset with the military dominated government for the lies told them through the war years (as it was quite obvious they were losing the war which wouldn’t’ve been possible had the wartime propoganda been true), the fear instilled in the populace, and a few other things.
All in all, I think it’s just not possible to do the subject justice in a one hour television show.
it is also quite important to note that Roosevelt had kept Truman completely out of the loop as far as almost everything involving the war was concerned, especially the Manhattan Project, which Truman didn’t find out about until after Germany had surrendered IIRC.
I read The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes a few years ago. It was a riveting read. Especially powerful was the chapter where the effects of the bomb were discussed in detail. Heart rending to think of the people who died in that conflict, especially, for me, the children.
I have no doubt that one need not be a liberal to feel anguish over the suffering caused by the atomic bombs. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with expressing sympathy over the suffering of innocents, regardless of their nationality.
I believe, however, that DogFace’s claim that historical revisionism on this topic is usually done by ideologues, has some truth to it. Generally speaking, most informed people IMO realize that the atomic bombs were probably dropped for a number of reasons (i.e. sending a signal to the Soviets, Japanese refusal to surrender, a concern over the loss of life, justification of a 2 billion dollar weapons development program, etc.). Distortion of the reality of that situation usually comes at the hands of people with a slant they wish to sell. Some conservatives may downplay the part of real politik as the reason for dropping the bomb. Likewise some liberals down play or omit the attempt to save lives as a primary reason. I don’t think, in this case, that it’s a misnomer to call this particular “documentary” liberal revisionist history provided it occurred as described by the OP.
I would agree–except that I note the Monty watched only a part of the same show and saw them address several issues that the OP claims were not addressed.
The show may or may not have been balanced, but it appears that the OP was clearly not and that a true judgment of the show is still wanting.
Apparently the Anne Coultier virus has infected this board again. One would think that with the departure of the retired actuary from New Jersey the level of deliberately provocative posting would fall off. Regrettably, one would be wrong.
Thinking that nuclear weapons are not a bon to humanity is an exclusively liberal fetish? Seems a little strange since the damn’d things were developed under the guidance of a liberal president and the only time they have been fired in anger was at the order of a liberal president.
The History Channel show was not so much revisionist as superficial and one sided. When you have exclusive access to the stage that sort of thing tends to happen. Those people who support the Communications Commission regs that would permit consolidation of mass media ownership take notice.
Quite frankly, people who rely on TV for their information may only be capable of comprehending the superficial and one sided. The program was not so much revisionist as it was dishonest. At least no one has suggested that it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault and that Hillary would do something even worse.
What does a guy need to do to get an honest debate around here? I mean other than avoiding the baiting of political opponents.
Have you ever bothered to read what the abandoned version of the Smithsonian exhibition intended to say, or are you content to rely on what others said it would? The original text is readily available.