Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unrepentant progress

(611 posts)
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 06:00 PM Nov 2014

Why Americans Have Been Duped over the Use of the Atomic Bomb

Stimson’s least persuasive claim was that the atomic bombs prevented hundreds of thousands of American casualties (dead, wounded and missing). This number has since been rounded up to 1 million or ‘millions’, and has become a particularly stubborn zombie. Yet a school child’s arithmetic is enough to do the job of killing it: in 1945, the number of American (and allied) combat troops earmarked for the planned (but never approved) invasion of Japan numbered about 750,000. That is well short of a million, of course. Yet for the sake of clarity, let’s believe the post-war consensus of a million casualties. If true, that means every American soldier would have been killed, wounded, or MIA during the land invasion of Japan. The notion is absurd, of course, and hardly reflects well on the fighting ability of the US armed forces, who would have confronted a hungry and demoralized nation whose airforce and navy had been destroyed, and whose skies were totally controlled by American bombers and fighters. Yes, Japan retained substantial ground forces, as well as the fierce loyalty of its people, but they were undersupplied, ill-equipped and lacked artillery and air cover: sitting ducks, in other words, to US strafing raids.

In truth, the actual estimate of likely casualties of a land invasion, drawn up by the Joint Chiefs in a meeting with Truman in July 1945, was 31,000. The count was later lifted to between 60,000-90,000, nowhere near the post-war estimate of up to one million, which can now be seen for what it was: a post-facto justification for the bomb, conjured by Washington out of thin air, to ease America’s troubled conscience.

The Harper’s article also claimed, wrongly, that the atomic bombs had forced Japan to ‘unconditional surrender’. While the bombs obviously contributed to Japan’s general sense of defeat, not a shred of evidence supports the contention that the Japanese leadership surrendered in direct response to the atomic attacks. On the contrary, when they heard of the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan’s hardline militarists shrugged off the news - that a ‘special bomb’ had destroyed two more cities - and vowed to continue fighting.

If you disbelieve this, read the Minutes of the epic meetings of the samurai leadership in August 1945. The ‘Big Six’, the ministers who ran Japan from a bunker beneath Tokyo at the time, barely acknowledged Nagasaki’s destruction when a messenger arrived with the news on 9th August. The messenger, who had interrupted their meeting to discuss Russia’s invasion of Japanese occupied territory the day before, was abruptly dismissed. The loss of another city of civilians was hardly of interest. In fact, state propaganda responded to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by girding the nation for a continuing war – against a nuclear-armed America.

Full article: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/157392
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why Americans Have Been Duped over the Use of the Atomic Bomb (Original Post) unrepentant progress Nov 2014 OP
Not this too. azmom Nov 2014 #1
I don't think Paul Ham is lying unrepentant progress Nov 2014 #2
I believe Paul Ham azmom Nov 2014 #3
Oh, I see. Sorry! unrepentant progress Nov 2014 #4
2. I don't think Paul Ham is lying
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 06:24 PM
Nov 2014

The Stimson article has never been accepted at face value except by propagandists. And Ham did do extensive research on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

azmom

(5,208 posts)
3. I believe Paul Ham
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 06:43 PM
Nov 2014

What I can't believe is that I have never questioned this part of history, but it makes sense that America had to justify using the bomb. The history books used in schools need to be burned. I tried to supplement my child's education with library books so she had a better understanding of history, but it wasn't easy. I keep reading and keep learning.

Thank you for the post.

4. Oh, I see. Sorry!
Tue Nov 11, 2014, 08:18 PM
Nov 2014

I will say that you shouldn't necessarily take Paul Ham at face value either. He's fairly well respected as a journalist and amateur historian in Australia, but I just don't know enough about this particular topic to say whether or not he's correct in his interpretation of the facts. Plus since he's essentially digesting his book for this article, I'd bet dollars to donuts that he's left out a lot of nuance.

Despite how conservatives (and Paul Ham!) use the term, revisionism isn't a dirty word in historiography. Rather it's how history works.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Why Americans Have Been D...