The Nagasaki Principle
An editorial over at The Boston Globe is explores a historical event that occured 61 years ago today: the decision to proceed with the dropping of a second atomic bomb in the wake of Hiroshima’s destruction. The author, James Carrol, writes of something he calls the “Nagasaki principle”, which is basically an unstoppable destructive force that wars create:
Historians debate the justification of the Hiroshima attack, but there is consensus that Nagasaki, coming less than three days later, was tragically unnecessary. President Harry Truman’s one order to use the atomic bomb, given on July 25, established a momentum that was not stopped.
Carrol goes on to describe a kind of “amnesia” on the part of many Americans, who continually refuse to examine the morality of the atomic bombings. While this point is pretty valid, he damages it by going on to drawing a foggy link to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and declaring that the use of the term “ground zero” is an expression of unconscious American shame. Why couldn’t he have just stuck to a discussion of the Pacific War?
Full RSS Feed
I think the author of the Boston Globe editorial is trying to make a valid point on the historical denial of a very valid penchant for the American government to blindly start fires without thinking about their consequences. While indeed, he does a rather pitiful play on semantics to justify his argument, the psychological bent is quite clear – that the hypocritical foreign policy and habitual forgetfulness of the United States will end up doing more harm the good to the general populace of that country, long after the term of the current President.
Case in point was the use of the term “ground zero”. If history has changed the definition of the term to mean something akin to the “epicenter of a disaster”, why has a public enquiry on the basis for the bombing of Nagasaki never been opened? Why have no officers been held accountable for what could have been a crime against humanity? On a related note, why does the US refuse to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and why did it back Asian Authoritarian regimes despite their dismal human rights record during the cold war?
One would think that a skewed set of morality would have no place in International Relations, but apparently the maintenance of being the status quo hegemony demands it.
By the way, how is this entry is related to the “more interesting aspects of Japan”?
Substitute “any” with “american” when talking about governments and you are basically correct.
Governments don’t start wars they think they will lose. Governments do not choose disaster and misfortune. Governments do not in fact have crystal balls that tell them the future outcomes that will spin out of control based on which choices are made. Governments almost never have all the important information needed to make the best decision. Governments can never read minds and know what other leaders will do, might do, or consider doing in full fact. Most often even on clear matters, they don’t choose the best option because of cost- political, economic, whatever.
Governments are led by flawed, vain, proud men (or women) who gain power by leading in some fashion- exploiting an opportunity to lead, and they are often caught up in circumstances they do not chose, cannot fully understand at the time, and rarely can control completely successfully. Google for “Maximilien Robespierre”. How many overthrown leaders survive to die of old age?
When you have held the kind of awesome power that the U.S Presidents of the 20th century had (for just one example), and seen the kind of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” choices they’ve faced… well then you will have some better understanding of what you speak. Then you will understand that hindsight is 20/20, and what it is to have every choice judged by history not just for what you faced that day, what you knew that day, what you thought you were doing that day, but for everything that ever could be blamed on that choice forever after as well.
Until then, you can bring up every little flaw, lesser-evil, and bad choice ANY government has made in the past. If you want to…. it’s called a rant. It doesn’t mean people have to take you seriously.
And by the way, I hope to God that nuclear weapons are never again used under any circumstances. However, notice what I said about governments above, and the historical precedent that we haven’t learned to live together peaceably yet. I wish nobody had ever invented the damn things. If somebody hadn’t started WW2 maybe it would have taken a lot longer, who knows.
Unfortunately, there will be no inquiries nor investigations surrounding the bombing of Nagasaki. At the time of World War II, there was a unlimited full-scale war policy which included focusing on civilian targets to reduce the industrial and financial infrastructure of Germany and Japan and increase domestic pressure on the regimes to surrender. If there was any misunderstanding between the US and Japan at the signing of the treaty, the Japanese should have raised them then. Also when the UN was formed and Geneva conventions were drawn up during late 1940s to 50s to prevent member countries from delving into “war crime” territory, Japan could have raised concern at that time. Unfortunately, the truth is elusive here on what kind of backroom dealing there was between the two before the surrender was signed, but whatever deal was made, it prevented Japan from getting formal redress for the atomic attacks although the Marshall plan ended up being a better deal than what Iraq and Afghanistan is getting now in retrospect. At this point, its moot. The Japanese got what they wanted from the surrender, they saved face, the emperor stayed intact, all top secret and black ops army projects e.g. Unit 731 was transferred under American control, and only a subset of their war criminals were tried and hanged while the emperor and the rest of the criminals were left alone and were instead enshrined as war heroes. It was the Allies policy to not repeat the mistakes of Versailles and creating another Nazi Germany, instead the Marshall Plan had the opposite effect, financing, building, and forming trusted allies with both Germany and Japan. Today, the US needs Japan as much as Japan needs the US as the no.1 and 2 largest economies in the world. It’s too bad we forgot the lessons of World War I that eventually begat WWII and now the War on Terror looks like a cheap Walmart operation compared to the lessons learned in the aftermath of WWII. Will history repeat itself. Signs point to yes.
I’m sorry, I haven’t read up on it recently, but I don’t recall the Japanese government’s surrender coming between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, what I recall reading is that the government was still pushing resistance after Hiroshima, and Showa didn’t take things in hand until after Nagasaki.
Hindsight and second-guessing is all very good, but the notion that there was no reason for Nagasaki, or that it was the result of some implacable “force” other than the need to end the damn war, is simply stupid.
I think you will find this article interesting:
The Hiroshima Myth
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html
…The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945…..continued:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html
I’m surprised that the idea that the Japanese government was completely unwilling to surrender before or after Hiroshima still continues to survive in the minds of so many people. Sure, there were elements within the government that wanted to continue fighting, but there were a great many, including the Emperor, who intended to surrender.
Historians seem to be moving towards an interpretation of events that explains the dropping of the a-bombs as a show of force to the Soviet Union, rather than something which was believed necessary to ensure Japanese surrender.
>I’m surprised that the idea that the Japanese government was completely unwilling to surrender before or after Hiroshima still continues to survive in the minds of so many people. Sure, there were elements within the government that wanted to continue fighting, but there were a great many, including the Emperor, who intended to surrender.
Willing to surrender, perhaps. But not necessarily willing to surrender on terms we would find even remotely acceptable.
And more to the point, despite their willingness to surrender, they didn’t actually try to surrender to us until after Nagasaki.
>Historians seem to be moving towards an interpretation of events that explains the dropping of the a-bombs as a show of force to the Soviet Union, rather than something which was believed necessary to ensure Japanese surrender.
Just the opposite. Historians have soundly rejected that interpretation.
It is true that the US government hoped the bombs would intimidate the Soviets. However, the primary reason for dropping the bombs was the hope it would shock Japan into surrender.
>I’ve read Racing the Enemy, and it doesn’t out and say that the Japanese would surrender, but it makes lengthly mention of the Japanese desire to surrender and their many attempts to talk to the allies.
Many???
For about a month before the bombs, Japan attempted communications with the Soviets.
Japan hoped that, in exchange for warm post-war relations between Japan and the Soviets, Stalin would be willing to take the role of mediator and then bully us into giving Japan’s better terms.
But aside from that, the government of Japan made no attempt whatsoever to communicate with the allies.
What a lot of ignorant revisionist bollocks! Read this book and educate yourself. Japan wasn’t on the verge of surrendering to anybody before Nagasaki was nuked, and even afterwards it took Hirohito’s personal intervention to override the fanatics in the cabinet.
Read this book and this book. I’ve read Racing the Enemy, and it doesn’t out and say that the Japanese would surrender, but it makes lengthly mention of the Japanese desire to surrender and their many attempts to talk to the allies. If you think it’s revisionist bullocks, great.