Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, September 4, 1994 TAG: 9409210019
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: D-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By KENNETH P. WERRELL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Meanwhile, the Japanese, who gave new meaning to the word ``brutal'' in the war that they began, have been transformed by those same writers from the vanquished into victims.
These writers are not only Japanese, which might be expected from a country that teaches its children little about that war, but also - as evidenced by two commentaries that appeared on this page in August - by American writers who criticize America's use of atomic bombs against Japan.
If the issue is why the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, six points need to be made:
First, there is the matter of responsibility. We should never forget that the Japanese started two major wars that led to World War II, first against China and then against the United States, plain and simple aggressive acts. They attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor, not the other way around, and Pearl Harbor came years before either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Second, the Japanese waged an exceedingly savage war. Millions died, not just in battle but also by intended slaughter. Most Japanese are unaware of it, and some would deny it, but 200,000 to 300,000 Chinese were killed in a few weeks in Nanking alone.
One-third of U.S. prisoners did not survive Japanese captivity, compared with a 1 percent death rate in German prison camps. American treatment of Japanese prisoners of war during the conflict, and of Japanese civilians after the war, stands in sharp contrast to Japanese conduct. There is nothing in the American record that remotely approaches such Japanese actions as the infamous Bataan Death March or medical experiments on prisoners.
Third, there is the issue of intent. While much of the Japanese killing was deliberate and wanton, American actions were designed to end the war as quickly and cheaply as possible. Yes, hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were killed by U.S. bombs, but these bombs were intended to destroy Japanese factories. This doesn't bring back the dead, but it does refute critics' allegation that Japanese and American actions are comparable, and that therefore there is a moral equivalence between the two countries' conduct in the war.
Fourth, when the bombs were dropped the United States was planning an invasion of Japan, an operation that would have been very costly in American and, even more, Japanese lives. The conduct of Japan's troops during battles outside their homeland (most notably six months earlier on Iwo Jima, where only 1,000 out of 22,000 Japanese troops surrendered) led to the reasonable conclusion that the much greater forces in Japan would fight even harder (if that were possible) to defend their homeland.
Any estimate of an event that didn't take place must be suspect. But had Japan been invaded, certainly tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Japanese would have died.
Fifth, could the war have ended without either an invasion or dropping the bombs? Perhaps. But this is debated in clear hindsight, not in the context of a long, costly, brutal war.
Working on the information available at the time, American leaders would have been derelict if they had not used all the weapons they could against their enemy, as they essentially did. (In fact, the United States did not employ poison gas, although some urged its use.) Also remember that Japan could have surrendered at any time; the war ended when Japan chose to quit. Further, had the bombs not been dropped the war might well have gone on longer, at the cost of not only more military lives on both sides, but also Japanese civilians.
Sixth, did the atomic bombs win the war? Not alone. However, in combination with other influences such as the bombing of Japan's cities, the submarine and mining blockade, the defeat of her armies in the field and the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, Japan reluctantly surrendered.
The Japanese military wanted to fight on despite the situation. Even after the dropping of the second atomic bomb, the Japanese military tried to stop the surrender in defiance of the emperor. It was the emperor and civilian decision-makers who were convinced that the war must end, mainly because of the bombing (conventional and atomic) and the blockade.
In view of these six elements, was dropping atomic bombs on two Japanese cities justified? In the context of the times, I think so. While it is regrettable at the very least that so many civilians died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is also regettable that the war was fought in the first place, and so many people died in so many other places.
On the other hand, what would the critics be saying if America had not entered the war, or had lost it, leaving Japan in control of the Far East? Perhaps that question is misdirected and can best be answered by those who saw the Japanese at close hand, those who were conquered.
Certainly, World War II looks different today from 50 years ago, and the decisions made during the heat of battle are open to criticism. In the light of hindsight, the war would have and should have been fought differently. We therefore should more profitably and fairly direct our attention to the intentions and results, rather than the details that are always open to criticism.
Kenneth P. Werrell is a professor of history at Radford University, where he teaches U.S. and military history. He has just completed a manuscript, entitled ``The Setting of the Rising Sun,'' on the bombing of Japan.
by CNB