The Atomic Bomb…..Was it Necessary in 1945

There is no secret that the Atomic Bomb was used on two Japanese cities in WWII. Some say it was the end of the war and some say it was not necessary. Some say that without the United States “forcing” Japan to war, it would not have been necessary. There are theories on both sides of the isle making the claim that they are correct. But the more important question is how has the nuclear age changed the world and is it a necessary deterrent. But since it was used on Japan first and last (so far), why was it used and what effect did it have? Did Japan deserve such? Could it have been avoided? It has been widely believed that the United States forced Japan into the war. I do not subscribe to that theory but let us delve into some facts.

Imperial Japan had been on the rise for some time…long before American Imperialism. Japanese Imperialism dates back to 500 AD. American Imperialism did not really take hold until the early 1900’s when America became one of the leaders, if not, the leading industrialized Nation. But even then, the furthest that the United States had expanded any major influence was Midway Island and the purchase of Alaska and the Aleutians. Japan did, however, wish to become like the “Western Powers” in the 1930’s and the Western Powers at that time did NOT include the United States. England, France, and Germany were considered the major Western Powers at that time….even after the advent of WWI.

Japan, on the other hand, was a very aggressive Imperialistic nation and not as a result of anything that the United States did. Few are aware of, or fully appreciate, Imperial Japan’s even more vast and equally merciless aggression in Asia, which began with the 1931 invasion of Manchuria. This act was very likely the true beginning of World War II and the global upheaval that followed. “There was a holocaust-a great devastation, a reckless destruction of life -in Asia as well as in Europe. The war Imperial Japan started in one part of the world had much in common with that started by her Axis partners in the other. The Holocaust in Europe included the planned genocide of Jews and others in death camps. It also included open-air shootings and internment in forced labor camps. Death came in ghettos from fighting and starvation. Brutal death came to the Slavic peoples in Poland and the USSR. Other fighting took its toll. Likewise, the holocaust in Asia resulted in massive death and suffering from terror killing, retribution, biological weapons, and other violence against civilians throughout invaded East Asia. This included maltreatment and neglect of forced labor, refugee flight ordeals, and war and Japanese policy- caused malnutrition, sickness, and disease. “ (Holocaust, as defined by Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 1995 addition: 1. A great or complete devastation or destruction, esp. by fire.)

Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata writes: “The Manchurian incident, the war in China, and the war in the Pacific should not be viewed separately but as one continuous war.” In this regard, an often-overlooked fact is that the United States after Pearl Harbor became allied with China and fourteen Western and Far Eastern nations and territories attacked by Japan. The Allies soon grew to 26 countries and by 1945 to at least 45. They were all part of the initial United Nations, which was formed in early 1942 to defeat and demilitarize the Axis. Of all the 1931 to 1945 Asian-Pacific War deaths, approximately 87 percent were Asian victims of Japanese aggression, one percent were Western Allies, and 12 percent were Japanese. The list of victim nations and their peoples is a long one. They include Korea (annexed by Japan in 1910), China (including Manchuria), Hong Kong, Indochina (Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam), and the Philippines. The list continues with Thailand, Burma, eastern India, Malaya (Malaysia), Singapore, the vast East Indies (Indonesia), Timor, New Guinea, and Pacific and Indian Ocean islands.

Iris Chang’s best selling book, The Rape of Nanking: the Forgotten Holocaust of World War II (1998), is the first book to successfully bring passion to the reality of a large part of the war in China. It began the overdue process of educating the American public that there was more to the Asian-Pacific War than Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima. A typical example of the state of public knowledge is illustrated in an article in the Baltimore Sun on September 1, 2000, and was entitled “War to preserve civilized world won 55 years ago.” It lists the World War II dead of the Soviet Union, Poland, Germany, Japan, and the United States. It remarks on the death camps in Europe and the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Not a word or count is offered for other Asian war victims who perished in numbers approximating the extraordinary loss of life in Poland and the Soviet Union combined, and eight times the loss of Japanese lives.

Japan was not the poor little kid on the block. It’s appetite for the resource rich countries of Asia preceded that of ANY appetite of the United States. So, when the United States, as well as over, 30 other countries embargoed Japan, it was NOT the United States that forced Japan into war. Japan was already at war with the whole East. So, it now begs the question as to why Japan wanted war with the United States. Japan’s military leaders already knew of the industrial might of the United States, but the military hierarchy wrongly surmised that a surprise attack on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor would prevent the United States from entering the war in the East as well as stymie the US economically forcing it to rebuild its fleet and, therefore, not focus on supplying China. With Hawaii isolated, Japan could then take the Aleutian’s and Midway creating a barrier. It was a strategic gamble that did not work…the carriers were not at Hawaii and the Japanese suffered a huge defeat at Midway. After midway, the Japanese empire was in peril.

Now we fast forward past all of the battles in the Pacific and Asia to the invasion of Okinawa and succeeding plans for the invasion of the Japanese mainland and the decisions to use Atomic weaponry. The battle for Okinawa was eye opening for the American leadership at the time and proved to be one of the decisions to use the bombs. Alongside, the territorial re-conquest of land in the Far East, the Americans wished to destroy what was left of Japan’s merchant fleet and use airstrips in the region to launch bombing raids on Japan’s industrial heartland. Okinawa is the largest of the Ryukyus islands at the southern tip of Japan. Okinawa is about 60 miles long and between 2 and 18 miles wide. Its strategic importance could not be underestimated – there were four airfields on the island that America needed to control. America also faced the problem that they had not been able to get much intelligence information about Okinawa. The Americans estimated that there were about 65,000 Japanese troops on the island – with the bulk in the southern sector of the island. In fact, there were over 130,000 Japanese troops on the island with more than 450,000 civilians.

The Japanese troops on the island were commanded by Lieutenant- General Ushijima who had been ordered to hold onto the island at all costs. And in the Japanese bushido….all costs meant to the death. The attack on Okinawa had taken a heavy toll on both sides. The Americans lost 7,373 men killed and 32,056 wounded on land. At sea, the Americans lost 5,000 killed and 4,600 wounded. The Japanese lost 107,000 killed and 7,400 men taken prisoner. It is possible that the Japanese lost another 20,000 dead as a result of American tactics whereby Japanese troops were incinerated where they fought. Civilian casualties were no less. It is estimated that over one third of the civilian population died as a result of being pressed into service by the Japanese Army, used as human shields, died in artillery and air bombardments, and suicide. My own father, in the navy during that battle, even noted the scores of Japanese civilians throwing themselves off cliffs, sinking their own boats in the harbor and drowning, and ritual suicides. Out of 450,000 civilians, only 196,000 were left.

Here is the dilemma. You have to take into consideration the code of the Japanese at that particular time. They knew the American forces were coming and they set defense for it. Very formidable defense. It would have been the same or worse on the mainland. So, in the planning of the invasion of Japan, several factors all of a sudden came into play OTHER than military considerations.

Japan had sought for surrender on three different occasions. The only stumbling block was the use of the term “unconditional surrender” as it applied to the Emperor. Japan wanted to keep the Emperor as a figure head and not tried as a war criminal. But it did not end there as the military generals in control of Japan were still militant and were willing to fight to the end regardless of the fact that Japan was surrounded, cut off, and starving. For the most part, Suzuki’s military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been invaded or lost a war in its history. Only Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy minister, was known to desire an early end to the war. Japanese leaders had always envisioned a negotiated settlement to the war. Their prewar planning expected a rapid expansion, consolidation, eventual conflict with the United States, and then a settlement in which they would be able to retain at least some of the new territory they had conquered.

In February 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe gave Emperor Hirohito a memorandum analyzing the situation, and told him that if the war continued, the imperial family might be in greater danger from an internal revolution than from defeat. According to the diary of Grand Chamberlain Hisanori Fujita, the emperor, looking for a decisive battle (tennōzan), replied that it was premature to seek peace, “unless we make one more military gain”. The signals were so mixed, no one could make a definitive judgment, and therein, was another problem.

To exacerbate the problem, enter now the role of the Russians. Since peace negotiations were at a standstill with the Americans and the British, the Japanese tried to go through the Soviet Union. Security concerns dominated Soviet decisions concerning the Far East. Chief among these was gaining unrestricted access to the Pacific Ocean. The year-round ice-free areas of the Soviet Pacific coastline—Vladivostok in particular—could be blockaded by air and sea from Sakhalin island and the Kurile Islands. Acquiring these territories, thus guaranteeing free access to the Soya Strait, was their primary objective. Secondary objectives were leases for the Chinese Eastern Railway, Southern Manchuria Railway, Dairen, and Port Arthur.

Because we can trust Joe, right?

To this end, Stalin and Molotov strung out the negotiations with the Japanese, giving them false hope of a Soviet-mediated peace. At the same time, in their dealings with the United States and Britain, the Soviets insisted on strict adherence to the Cairo Declaration, re-affirmed at the Yalta Conference, that the Allies would not accept separate or conditional peace with Japan. The Japanese would have to surrender unconditionally to all the Allies. To prolong the war, the Soviets opposed any attempt to weaken this requirement. This would give the Soviets time to complete the transfer of their troops from the Western Front to the Far East, and conquer Manchuria (Manchukuo), Inner Mongolia (Mengjiang), Korea, Sakhalin, the Kuriles, and possibly, Hokkaidō (starting with a landing at Rumoi). This was very significant considering the favoritism to the Soviets in Europe allowing them to control all of Eastern Europe and part of Germany. This was a huge mistake of the allied powers but it was necessary to procure the Soviet cooperation on their Western front.

This is where it really becomes a “sticky wicket” , to coin a well-used phrase. Political considerations became more of a focus than saving lives of American soldiers and Japanese civilians. With the negotiations that created a buffer zone in Eastern and Southern Europe vastly in favor of the Soviets, Truman was saddled with the prospect of creating another “buffer zone” in Southeast Asia. With the Soviets moving quickly to attack and conquer Mongolia and eventually China and Southeast Asia, and, thusly, gaining control of the Trans Siberian Railway, creating a stronger economic advantage, soon put the Soviets in a much greater hegemony expansion. The Japanese had been fighting the Soviets since 1917 anyway, and the Soviet Union was not very interested in peace with Japan…..hence the stalling of the peace talks AND the insistence upon total and unconditional surrender. After controlling the Southeast Asian region, the Soviets had designs on turning west to conquer the old Persian Empire thus creating a total buffer zone to the Mediterranean. The amount of natural resources that the Japanese were after would have been in the hands of the Soviets.

So, did the United States use the atomic bomb indiscriminately with just the idea of annihilating Japan or was there more to it? Was the use of the Atomic bomb justifiable? Let us look at the results of the Atomic Bomb OTHER than its destructive power.

First, it did save American lives. There is no doubting that.

Second, it did save Japanese lives. There is no doubting that.

Third, it is considered to have saved a Japanese culture. I am not so sure about this one. Under McArthur, most of the Japanese culture as well as that of the Emperor would have been saved anyway, so I will discount that. Only the military dictatorship would have been dissolved and disarmed never to go on the offense again.

Fourth, it did stop the Soviet Union from its hegemonic designs and did not allow them to conquer the areas it had its eyes upon. This is probably the most significant factor in the decision to use the bomb, in my estimation.

Fifth, it established the United States as the world’s leading military power.

Sixth, it sent the message to the world that the United States would not hesitate to use the bomb since it was the first to develop and use the bomb.

Seventh, the most awesome destructive power was unleashed on a relatively small area with long range implications of health and economic recovery that it became a deterrent automatically. Remember, the conventional invasion of Okinawa proved that more military and civilian casualties occurred than the combined bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Eighth, the fact that the United States became the leading world power which allowed its own hegemonic designs to take the forefront and made future negotiations in regions much easier to accomplish than before. Right or wrong, it was the way of the world at that time.

Ninth, it sparked a remarkable economic recovery and prosperity for the United States. The spoils of war. Right or wrong, it is what happened.

Tenth, it did end the war earlier than predicted. There was no time to wait for the surrender from a starving and defeated country. It is what prompted the Emperor to get involved. I can only imagine what the feelings of futility might have been.

Was the decision to use the atomic bomb a good decision? History is still judging that, but I wanted to point out some other reasons as the decision to use it. Do I, D13, agree with the decision? I would have to say….reluctantly, I would agree, given all the consideration, it was the correct decision….from the United States point of view. I put all the factors on a scale and tried to take human emotion out of it….just a scale of the pros and cons as it pertained to America. I give no credence to the world at all and the fact that we have to live in it. I am not a one world believer. The question boils down to…..would I use it again.

The answer is I would not use it again in an offensive manner. I do believe in deterrent use and would not hesitate to use it defensively. And no, to those of you whom will ask, the use of nuclear weaponry is not to be used as a preventative measure. It has already been used as a preventative measure and the result over the last 65 years is…..it has never been used again. I will close saying, that I also believe that the use of the bomb at that time prevented an almost immediate and larger war with the Soviet Union. I believe that a larger and more destructive war was mitigated by the advent of the start of the Cold War. I think that the bomb was the sole reason for that. The Soviets could not have won a hot war and they knew it…not at that time. I believe that they stopped their aggression to the Southeast because the bomb was dropped. I actually believe the use of the bomb in 1945 has prevented further use of the bomb.