Blogcritics: Comments on Remembering Hiroshima - or the revenge of the disgruntled flower children?

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:22:51 EDT

RJ, a response like: RJ: Yeah, lots of rational people there isn't meaningful in any way. Dismissiveness simply indicates to me that the author doesn't really understand the issue, but feels that he has to say something. Let's address the issue: Eric asked a question and I answered it. Because of the unilateralist U. S. invasion of Iraq, tens of millions of Moslems were added to those that dislike the U.S. Most of the populations of most of the Middle Eastern countries, including formerly-friendly people in Jordan and Turkey fit into that category now where they did not before the U. S. occupation. And many of them have been pushed past simple dislike into virulent hate. Does your response indicate that you think otherwise? That you don't care? Or what? If you are right in your implication and there are lots of irrational people in the Middle East, do you think making them dislike and hate the U.S. is a good thing for the U. S.? That this will aid us in the war on terrorism? That this will make the U. S. safer? I thought even the neocons had learned better by now.

Comment by SFC SKI

Wed, 11 Aug 2004 06:37:23 EDT

Bataan Death March, anyone? It wasn't merely that the Japanese killed their prisoners, it is how it was done. Read "Ghost Soldiers" .

Comment by Purple Tigress

Wed, 11 Aug 2004 05:13:45 EDT

I am aware of what the word bushido means, probably more so than most since this is a code that is espoused by half of my family, but not most Japanese. In looking at WWII, there is a lot of revisionism. The US didn't join the war to save the Jews, thus my reference to the S.S. St. Louis. At that time, there was a lot of prejudice against the Jews. Factors leading up to anti-American feelings in Japan began with Manifest Destiny which was the reason behind the opening up of Japan. Japan was a nation isolated from the rest of the world save the Chinese, Koreans, and Dutch. The US needed a port for its whaling expeditions. The initial fear in Japan was that it would, like many other Asian nations be taken over by a European country when Perry forcibly entered Japan. The question of what could have been comparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor in reference to US actions? 1. Extraterritoriality 2. Uneven treaties 3. When the treaties were revised, the US still had discriminatory laws against Asians in the U.S. 4. The demand that Japan in its imperialistic expansion get out of China. 5. The cutting off of Japan's oil supply (the first oil shock for Japan...the second came in the 1970s which resulted in high anti-Arab feelings in the US because our oil supply was cut off as well) when Japan would not get out of China. 6. This action predicted the invasion by Japan of Indonesia which was a colony of a European power. 7.The lack of respect for sovereignity during the Civil War when a union war ship blasted its way through the Inland Sea searching for confederate ships. Since the decision to use the A-bomb never came for Germany it's hard to say if it would have been used. As for which race was more cruel, that's hard to decipher and judge what is the cruelest punishment. Cruelty was not a value of bushido however. The concept that bushido was the behavior of Japanese soldiers is like saying Camelot and chivalry are the code of American soldiers--and we know from recent events it is not. Hitler used Christianity as did American racists. Japan is a small country with limited resources. By tradition, they do not take prisoners. They weren't like the UK that sent prisoners to Georgia and Australia. What's interesting is reading accounts by Americans and British soldiers who refused to bow because culturally it meant something different. In English, the expression kow-tow comes from the Chinese ke tou but the meanings are different. In Japan, bowing is a matter of courtesy and doesn't denote inferiority. But did Americans and British want to show common courtesy to Asians? Did they treat Asians in their countries with common courtesy? Further, what happens when you have a race that believes it is superior to all races is held captive by another race? Asians and Asian Americans gained rights due to World War II because they were allies (Filipinos and Chinese). But there is a feeling among some Chinese historians that the US government didn't feel as much empathy toward China to help with rebuilding (in comparison with Europe) and this was in part a factor in the fall of Nationalist government. I asked if it was easier to kill people that weren't thought equal. The answer, of course, is yes. e.g. James Byrd. Doesn't it make it harder to surrender if you know your adversary will treat you as sub-human? The answer is again, yes. And if it wasn't necessary to use the A-bomb in Germany why was it necessary in Japan? Timing is everything, but people were starving. Just because the war ended doesn't mean that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military importance. With the A-bomb it could have been any two cities including Kokura. What does history really show when your reading is limited to American scholars? The Arab American scholar feels that racism played a role in the Tokyo Trials, making it dramatically different from the Nuremberg Trials. One of the trial judges felt that way as well (He was Asian Indian). If the Japanese couldn't expect fairness before the war, could they expect it afterwards and what were the implications of such expectations? Another question to ask: Where did a country like Japan with its code of bushido learn imperialism? Bushido kept Japan in isolation for 200 years.

Comment by RJ

Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:42:56 EDT

And as far as imperialism goes, what US action is comparable to Japan's behavior up to and including the attack on Pearl Harbor? "The unilateralist[sic] U. S. invasion of Iraq springs to mind - ask almost anyone in the Middle East." Yeah, lots of rational people there... :-/

Comment by Duane

Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:08:06 EDT

Purple Tigress says, "And remember, the places that were bombed weren't places of military importance." Yes they were, as history shows. The war with Japan ended. Purple Tigress says, "My question is: was it easier to justify the use of the A-bomb on a group of people that were already treated as second-class citizens in the US?" The A-bomb was being designed to use against the Germans. Do you think the color of their skin lessened our desire to kill them to death? V-E Day was May 8, 1945. The Trinity test occurred July 16, 1945 --- the bomb was not ready in time to use in the war in Europe. Read Comment #5, then go look up the Dresden firebombing raids. Racism or not, the bomb would have been used. Without the bomb, millions more Japanese would have died. Have you heard the term bushido? The Field Service Code issued by General Tojo in 1941 said: "Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you." Japan's military at war's end numbered 2.5 million. We would have annihilated them, along with countless non-military Japanese citizens, beginning with Honshu, and in the process tens of thousands, if not more, of our own would have died.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:51:15 EDT

And as far as imperialism goes, what US action is comparable to Japan's behavior up to and including the attack on Pearl Harbor? The unilateralist U. S. invasion of Iraq springs to mind - ask almost anyone in the Middle East.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 10 Aug 2004 14:42:30 EDT

I agree the second bomb was overkill and maybe a little demo would have reinforced what should have been amply evident after Hiroshima. But remember the time: it was desperate and the whole fucking world wanted the war done, now. The administration viewed this as a way to save lives, American especially but Japanese also. I've been to Hiroshima and visited the museum and sat through the film, and this was a totally horrific event in human history, but so was the war that led up to it.

Comment by HW Saxton Jr.

Tue, 10 Aug 2004 13:34:04 EDT

I have to agree with Shark here.We could have shown the force of the bomb without the massacre of innocent lives.And for the record I am vehemently Anti-Nuclear. However,to play Devil's advocate,why is it that we tend to overlook the reality of the widespread destuction,rape and wholesale brutality committed by the Japanese Army against not only American soldiers but even more so against other Asian people all over the Pacific Rim ? Their atrocities are equal to the Third Reich and often sadly surpass it in far too many cases.

Comment by JR

Tue, 10 Aug 2004 11:33:39 EDT

In hindsight, it seems pretty clear that Japan was going to surrender even without the atomic bombs or an invasion; the leadership had pretty much decided this by mid-Summer. And the Americans had intercepted plenty of intelligence indicating the Japanese desire to surrender, although there was still a big question over the terms. Of course, Americans also had plenty of experience telling them Japan wouldn't surrender. Truman could have done things differently. But then, the Japanese government could have accepted unconditional surrender when they knew they were destined to lose and were suffering casualties every additional day the war carried on, so they were the worse criminals. "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing ... I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon" - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Comment by Shark

Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:48:54 EDT

They could have dropped the big one in the ocean off the coast and it would have been just as effective. "See what we can do?" Unfortunately for a few hundred thousand Japanese women and children, they were more interested in kickin' some ass. (Where's Toby Keith when ya need him?) And ditto to what Booey said.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:26:06 EDT

PT, your points are well taken and there was without question racism at play in the characterization of the Japanese in WW2 and everyone knows the internment of American citizens was a disgrace, but you are also exactly right about context: who started the war? This was a very desperate time. And as far as imerialism goes, what US action is comparable to Japan's behavior up to and including the attack on Pearl Harbor? Bernard, unfortunately Japan HAD NOT surrendered before Nagasaki, that's why it was bombed.

Comment by Purple Tigress

Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:32:19 EDT

This was the country that turned back the S.S. St. Louis in 1939. My question is: was it easier to justify the use of the A-bomb on a group of people that were already treated as second-class citizens in the US? They didn't throw Joe DiMaggio and his family in a concentration camp.

Comment by Bernard

Tue, 10 Aug 2004 03:40:58 EDT

Even if you can say the A-bomb was an appropiate measue in ending the war. I never understood the second bomb. Japan already capitulated after Hiroshima. Was Nagasaki just in the way?

Comment by RJ

Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:29:53 EDT

Harry Truman, liberal Democrat, as-yet unelected in his own right, decided to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. Maybe a couple hundred thousand died. Surely this is better than half a million Americans and millions of Japanese dying in order to achieve the same goal, Allied victory, a year or more later?

Comment by Bob A. Booey

Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:02:55 EDT

The fact that hippies and their stinky patchouli oil made that remembrance lame doesn't change the moral horror of Hiroshima and nuclear weapons, as Mark rightly points out. For all you right-wingers out there like Mark who are supposedly moved by the memory of Hiroshima, keep that in mind in November when you cast your vote for Bush and his plans to develop "bunker busters" and low-yield nuclear weapons for tactical strikes. Then we'll see if your principles precede your politics. Purple: that was hot. You tell em. That is all.

Comment by Purple Tigress

Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:35:41 EDT

Just who did the decision makers considered fellow countrymen is a question that one should ask. Ask Filipino veterans, Japanese American veterans, Chinese American veterans and African American veterans from that war. And were the lives of non-Europeans and non-whites given equal consideration? Emmett Till was murdered in 1955, a decade before the end of WWII. WWII was the last war where the troops were segregated I believe. It was a time of colored bathrooms and restaurants at home. There was plenty of anti-Asian legislation as well. One of the most interesting accounts of the Tokyo Trials was written by an Arab American historian. Victors' Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial by Richard H. Minear. Ironically, now Arab Americans are targeted in this current war and they feel the effects of the Patriot Act. Evaluating the war and American actions requires looking at all facets of the decision making.

Comment by Duane

Mon, 9 Aug 2004 18:05:27 EDT

"My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man, in our position and subject to our responsibilites, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face." --- Henry Stimson, 1947 "I had set as the governing factor that the targets chosen should be places the bombing of which would most adversely affect the will of the Japanese people to continue the war. --- Leslie Groves, on target selection for the atomic bomb "No matter how you slice it, you're going to kill an awful lot of civilians. Thousands and thousands. But, if you don't destroy the Japanese industry, we're going to have to invade Japan. And how many Americans will be killed in an invasion of Japan? Five hundred thousand seems to be the lowest estimate. Some say a million.... We're at war with Japan. Do you want to kill Japanese, or would you rather have Americans killed?" --- Curtis LeMay, on justifying firebombing raids on Japanese cities "The Strategic Bombing Survey estimates that 'probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any [equivalent period of] time in the history of man.' The firestorm at Dresden may have killed more people but not in so short a space of time. More than 100,000 men, women and children died in Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945...." --- On firebombing Tokyo, from The Making of the Atomic Bomb Remember the context.

Comment by Purple Tigress

Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:13:30 EDT

Just a correction. The Pacific War or the war against Japan wasn't six years long. Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec. 7, 1941. We declared war on Japan soon after. The US also soon declared war against Germany and Italy. Thus for Americans the WWII lasted less than four years in both Europe and the Pacific. The Patriot Act has been used to imprison people without charge as did Executive Order 9066 was used to imprison Japanese national and American-born Japanese ethnics. Perhaps both make white people feel more protected, but not non-white people.

Comment by Purple Tigress

Mon, 9 Aug 2004 17:01:35 EDT

The victims of the A-bomb weren't just the Japanese. And remember, the places that were bombed weren't places of military importance. Nagasaki was a secondary target. Kokura was the original target. When you write of bringing imperialist Japan to its knees, I can't help but wonder if anyone has thought bringing imperialist US to its knees could be justified by any horrific act. So remember that particularly at that time period American policy was highly racist. Imperialism was for European countries. Imperialism, whether as "Asia for the Asians" as was the Japanese slogan or as Manifest Destiny is essentially the same and therefore wrong. The victims of the A-bomb and the subsequent H-bomb include Americans who were downwinders during the first experimental explosions of the bombs. They were also Bikini islanders who were mislead by Americans who evacuated an island for an H-bomb detonation, making their former home uninhabitable. They were also the other islanders who happened to be downwind of that explosion and the Japanese fishermen who were also downwind. I also think you're confusing Joni Mitchell with Mary of Peter, Paul and Mary fame, but that's a different matter. Right or left, at least they are remembering someone outside of their own race, religion or nationality and that's a significant change from 1945.

Comment by Mark Edward Manning

Mon, 9 Aug 2004 00:12:20 EDT

You're only too right. No-one present at that demonstration was more of a fool than me.

Comment by RJ

Mon, 9 Aug 2004 00:05:57 EDT

I'm sorry, but this is all your fault. You actually expected Lefties to be honest about something?