WAS THE NUCLEAR BOMBING OF JAPANESE CITIES HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI A NECESSITY? A CRITICAL REVIEW DR. ANAND SAGAR Department of Management, Shri Jagdishprasad Jhabarmal Tibrewala University, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, India E-mail: anandsagar1973@gmail.com Abstract- After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan's cities, including the hellish fire-bombings of Tokyo and Osaka. The Japanese position was hopeless and they had lost control of their own air. Hence, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War. The United States and Britain felt that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a way to demonstrate their military power and pre-empt Soviet dreams of Communist expansionism. But dropping of nuclear bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not end the war. It was, in fact, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which ended the war, because it suddenly convinced Japan that no negotiated settlement with the Western powers was possible. But the use of the nuclear weapon did not surprise the Soviet Union, but it did spur them into action and by 1949, Soviet scientists had developed the country's first nuclear bomb. What followed was a nuclear arms race during the Cold War. US used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as testing grounds for the new weapon. It is horrifying to think that millions of non-combatants were used as guinea pigs for a cruel Allied experiment. US action constituted state terrorism, and even genocide. The present nuclear warheads are capable of far greater and more lasting destruction. The prospect of global destruction is very real if such warheads are at all used in the present age. Key words- Nuclear Bomb, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Cold War, Genocide, Mamchuria. I. INTRODUCTION The question of military necessity of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been hounding for more than 70 years now. In fact, the "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan's cities, including the hellish fire-bombings of Tokyo and Osaka. "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air." Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War. The United States and Britain felt that the Soviets were not to be trusted, and a demonstration of Western military power was necessary to avoid Soviet Communist expansionism in the east. Thus, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a way to pre-empt Soviet dreams of Communist expansionism. The use of the nuclear weapon did not surprise the Soviet Union, but it did spur them into action. By 1949, Soviet scientists had developed the country's first nuclear bomb. What followed was a nuclear arms race during the Cold War. It was, in fact, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which ended the war, because it suddenly convinced Japan that no negotiated settlement with the Western powers was possible. It is said that emperor Hirohito was unmoved by the destruction of Hiroshima, but balked when the USSR invaded. There is a theory that the US used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as testing grounds for the new weapon. It is horrifying to think that millions of non-combatants were used as guinea pigs for a cruel Allied experiment. Some have argued that the US action constituted state terrorism, and even genocide. The use of the N-bomb would have been completely incompatible with modern standards of war, and international laws governing war. The present nuclear warheads are capable of far greater and more lasting destruction than the first two atomic bombs could ever achieve. The prospect of global destruction is very real in the present age. II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE : (1) Robert Freeman (2006) Few issues in American history are as charged as the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Was it necessary? The decision to drop the bomb has been laundered through the American myth-making machine into everything from self-preservation by the Americans to concern for the Japanese themselves-as if incinerating two hundred thousand human beings in a second was somehow an act of moral largesse. After the Japanese fleet was destroyed at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, the U.S. was able to carry out uncontested bombing of Japan's cities, including the hellish firebombings of Tokyo and Osaka. This is what Henry H. Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces, meant when he observed, "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air." Also, without a navy, the resource-poor Japanese had lost the ability to 147
import the food, oil, and industrial supplies needed to carry on a World War (2) David Starr (2015) At the conclusion of World War II, most U.S. citizens felt (and still feel) that to end the war and thus avoid further casualties, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary. It is perceived as the final victory the U.S. military accomplished in ending WW II. It is hard to break through the myth-making within the U.S. mindset that atomic bombs needed to be used. But back then after the fighting was done, there were some who thought the bombings were not necessary; and this includes U.S. military leaders. Daniel Ellsberg, who was part of the secret Manhattan Project-involving the creation of and experimenting with atomic weapons-also says that conventional bombing was enough to thrust Japan into defeat. On the night of the 14 th [August], the [U.S.] Pacific Air Force put 1,000 bombers in cities over Japan. About 15,000 Japanese were killed by conventional bombing between August 5 th and August 15 th. On the night of March 10 th 1945-five months before Hiroshima-the United States had 300 bombers over Tokyo and killed between 80,000 to 100,000 people in one night. We tried to do it again night after night against Kobe, Yokohama and 60 other Japanese cities. We never got the same firestorm going, and never killed as many people as in that one night. We killed about 500,000, altogether, with firebombing. It s nothing we needed atom bombs to do. The United States and its allies confronted the evils of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. But with most U.S. citizens believing that atomic bombs were necessary against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, questioning the official narrative is not acceptable to them, even though conventional bombing was enough. (3) Pranav Joshi (2015) It has been often believed that the use of the bomb caused Japan to surrender. However, not all historians, scholars and military men agree that it was justified or necessary to use this weapon of war. There has always been a debate on the necessity of the bomb, but its implications were so severe that such an attack has never been carried out again. Let us examine some of the arguments for and against the bomb. The first argument in favour of the US action is that the Allied Powers estimated that Japan would fight out a long and bloody war if a decisive weapon was not used. The Allies, consisting of the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union in essence, realised that Japan was ready to fight until there was mass destruction of the country or a military coup overthrew the emperor Hirohito. 148 By August 1945, Germany had surrendered and the war in the Pacific refocused mainly on Japan. The Allies had planned an invasion of Japan in the autumn of 1945, code named Operation Downfall. This operation was divided into Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet. Set to begin in October 1945, Operation Olympic was intended to capture the southern third of the southernmost main Japanese island, Kyushu. Operation Coronet was supposed to target the Konto Plain near Tokyo, and was planned for spring in 1946. However, the Allied military chiefs, especially of the US and Britain, believed that Operation Downfall would result in many military and civilian casualties on both sides. US President Harry Truman had been informed that US military casualties could range from 2,50,000 to 1 million - depending upon the length of Operation Downfall. Some estimates put the figure at 1.6 million. In addition, Japan was expected to lose up to as many as 10 million men. The conservative estimate was 2,00,000 to 3 million Japanese. Some 400,000 additional Japanese deaths might have been suffered in the expected Russian invasion of Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan's main islands. Russia however did not possess the naval capability to take Hokkaido, which could further prolong the war. This was the first reason provided for seeking a 'quick end' to the war through the use of atomic weapons. The second reason was the attitude of the Japanese government to war. Under a National Mobilization Law passed in 1938, Japan engaged in a 'total war', meaning that the war was not restricted to the military of Japan. It involved the diversion of all resources, money and materials to the war effort. But most horrifyingly, it involved the use of noncombatants - civilians - as soldiers to fight the war. Essentially, the entire able population of Japan was expected to fight a lethal war. In fact, the Japanese armed ordinary civilians with a wide range of weapons. Some of these were as crude as bamboo spears, but in other cases, civilians strapped explosives to their bodies and blew themselves in front of advancing armies. Lakhs of Japanese also died by ritual sacrifice, as a traditional code of honour meant surrender was considered intolerable. There was a philosophical argument that Japanese civilians were not innocent non-combatants once they took up weapons in a total war. III. FINDINGS: 1. U.S. leaders had long hated the communist Russian government. In 1919, the U.S. had led an invasion of Russia - the infamous "White Counter Revolution" - to try to reverse the red Bolshevik Revolution that had put the communists into power in 1917. The invasion
failed and the U.S. did not extend diplomatic recognition to Russia until 1932. 2. During the Great Depression, when the U.S. economy collapsed, the Russian economy boomed, growing almost 500%. U.S. leaders worried that with the War's end, the country might fall back into another Depression. And World War II was won not by the American laissez faire system, but by the top-down, command and control over the economy that the Russian system epitomized. In other words, the Russian system seemed to be working while the American system was plagued with recent collapse and a questionable self-confidence. 3. The Russian army had marched to Berlin through eastern Europe to dfeat Germany. It occupied and controlled 150,000 square miles of territory in what is today Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. At Yalta, in February 1945, Stalin demanded to keep this newly occupied territory. Russia, Stalin rightly claimed, had been repeatedly invaded by western Europeans, from Napoleon to the Germans in World War I and now by Hitler. Russia lost more than 20,000,000 lives in World War II and Stalin wanted a buffer against future invasions. 4. In February 1945, the U.S. did not know whether the bomb would work or not. But it unquestionably needed Russia's help to end both the War in Europe and the War in the Pacific. These military realities were not lost on Roosevelt: with no army to displace Stalin's in Europe and needing Stalin's support, Roosevelt conceded eastern Europe, handing the Russians the greatest territorial gain of the War. 5. Stalin agreed at Yalta that once the War in Europe was over, he would transfer his forces from Europe to Asia and within 90 days would enter the War in the Pacific against Japan. This is where timing becomes critically important. The War in Europe ended on May 8, 1945. May 8 plus 90 days is August 8. If the U.S. wanted to prevent Russia from occupying territory in east Asia the way it had occupied territory in eastern Europe, it needed to end the war as quickly as possible. 6. So, on August 6, 1945, two days before the Russians were to declare war against Japan, the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. There was no risk to U.S. forces then waiting for a Japanese response to the demand for surrender. The earliest planned invasion of the island was still three months away and the U.S. controlled the timing of all military engagements in the Pacific. But the Russian matter loomed and drove the decision on timing. So, only three days later, the U.S. dropped the second bomb on Nagasaki. The Japanese surrendered on August 14, 1945, eight days after the first bomb was dropped. 149 7. This issue of territory in east Asia was especially important because before the war against Japan, China had been embroiled in a civil war of its own. It was the U.S.-favored nationalists under General Chiang Kai Shek against the communists under Mao Ze Dong. If communist Russia were allowed to gain territory in east Asia, it would throw its considerable military might behind Mao, almost certainly handing the communists a victory once the World War was ended and the civil war was resumed. 8. Once the bomb was proven to work on July 15, 1945, events took on a furious urgency. There was simply no time to work through negotiations with the Japanese. Every day of delay meant more land given up to Russia and, therefore, a greater likelihood of communist victory in the Chinese civil war. All of Asia might go communist. It would be a strategic catastrophe for the U.S. to have won the War against the fascists only to hand it to its other arch enemy, the communists. The U.S. needed to end the War not in months, or even weeks, but in days. 9. Major General Curtis LeMay commented on the bomb's use: "The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all." Except that it drastically speeded the War's end to deprive the Russians of territory in east Asia. 10. The United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 th August and August 9, 1945. It has been often believed that the use of the bomb caused Japan to surrender. However, not all historians, scholars and military men agree that it was justified or necessary to use this weapon of war. It is hard to break through the myth-making within the U.S. mindset that atomic bombs needed to be used. But back then after the fighting was done, there were some who thought the bombings were not necessary; and this includes U.S. military leaders. Writer and historian Gar Alperovitz mentions four: Adm. 149illiam Leahy, President Harry Truman s Chief of Staff The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender...in being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. Henry Arnold, commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces: The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air. Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commanderin-Chief of the Pacific Fleet The atomic
bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower I voiced to him [Secretary of War Henry Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. 11. It is often questioned whether the bombing of Nagasaki was necessary after Hiroshima had been destroyed. The Western powers however felt that Japan would not be cowed by a one-off bombing. Indeed, the Japanese leaders refused to acknowledge that a nuclear weapon had been used on Hiroshima in the days following August 6. There was an erroneous belief that the US possessed just one bomb and that they would take a long time to create another. Thus, the subsequent bombing of Nagasaki was intended to scare the Japanese into believing that the US possessed many such devices. Indeed, the US had prepared for the use of a third bomb on August 19, and a fourth in September. CONCLUSION 1. The growing bitterness between the United States and the Soviet Union is one of the reasons that US wanted to demonstrate its military power or supremacy at the end of the World War-II. The United States and Britain felt that the Soviets were not to be trusted, and a demonstration of Western military power was necessary to avoid Soviet Communist expansionism in the east. Many issues such as repatriation of POWs, division of captured and disputed territory etc would come up in the aftermath of the war, and the US desired to have an upper hand in negotiations. Thus, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a way to pre-empt Soviet dreams of Communist expansionism. 2. The US and Britain wrongly believed that the Soviet Union had no clue about the development of an extremely powerful, new weapon of war - the atomic bomb. But the Soviets had already discovered the US, British and Canadian nuclear project - the Manhattan Project - through a wellentrenched network of spies working in the West. Hence, the use of the nuclear weapon did not surprise the Soviet Union, but it did spur them into action. By 1949, Soviet scientists had developed the country's first nuclear bomb. What followed was a nuclear arms race during the Cold War. 3. One interesting factor in the strategic equation was the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact. The Japanese, at the beginning of the war sought a pact with the Soviet Union, in the face on rapidly 150 deteriorating relations with the USA and the never-ending war with China. It was felt in Japan that the country could secure its northern frontier against the Soviets, who had entered the war on the Allied side. Stalin signed the treaty because he believed it would ensure that the USSR did not have to fight a land war against Germany as well as a war in or against Japan. 4. Crucially, the USSR had not been a signatory to the Potsdam declaration which called for unconditional Japanese surrender. Japan had always intended to use the neutrality pact to enable a negotiated settlement with the Western powers in case the country found itself unable to win the war. When such an eventuality did arise in 1945, Japan made overtures to the USSR for negotiations with the Western powers. The USSR however decided not to renew this treaty in April 1945, indicating to the Japanese that the treaty would be void after the mandatory 12- month notice period. Then they resorted to delaying tactics. Concurrently, the US and UK had extracted a promise from Stalin (in exchange for many concessions) that the USSR would attack Japan in the face of an Allied invasion. In fact, the Soviets unilaterally broke the pact in August, just following the bombing of Hiroshima, and invaded Manchuria on August 8 th, 1945. It was, in fact, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which ended the war, because it suddenly convinced Japan that no negotiated settlement with the Western powers was possible. It is said that emperor Hirohito was unmoved by the destruction of Hiroshima, but balked when the USSR invaded. 5. The ethical concerns of using a nuclear device can never be ignored. Pacifists have argued that the use of a weapon of mass destruction was bound to kill innocent civilians in huge numbers, and it did. The fact that Hiroshima was an army base was not sufficient excuse for the use of such a powerful weapon. Moreover, the effects of the atomic bombings lasted decades, even generations. Japanese citizens even today continue to suffer from the radioactive effects of the bomb. 6. There is a theory that the US was first one to develop the nuclear bomb and used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as testing grounds for the new weapon. It is horrifying to think that millions of non-combatants were used as guinea pigs for a cruel Allied experiment. Interestingly, the Allies kept Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kyoto and some other Japanese cities untouched by conventional bombing in the autumn and winter of 1944-45. It is alleged that some cities including Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kyoto and Tokyo had already been designated as test cases for the subsequent use of the nuclear weapon.
7. Some have argued that the US action constituted state terrorism, and even genocide. The use of the N-bomb would have been completely incompatible with modern standards of war, and international laws governing war. During World War II, laws against massacre of civilians through land and sea attacks existed, but there were very few injunctions against an aerial strike on non combatants. 8. The present nuclear warheads are capable of far greater and more lasting destruction than the first two atomic bombs could ever achieve. The prospect of global destruction is very real in the present age. The very fact that nuclear weapons have never been used after 1945 reveals how horrific and total their consequences are. Nevertheless, these weapons continue to exist and the world is now constantly engaged in preventing both proliferation and the passage of nuclear secrets into the hands of global terrorists REFERENCES: [1] Robert Freeman (2006) Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary? Common Dreams, 6 th August, 2006 [2] David Starr (2015) Was the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Necessary? Daily KOS News, 15 th September, 2015 [3] Pranav Joshi (2015) Were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary? DNA, 9 th August, 2015 151