Here is another sign of how President Yoon and Prime Minister Kishida are working together on not allowing historical issues derail their bilateral relationship:
President Yoon Suk Yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Sunday paid tribute to South Korean victims of the 1945 Hiroshima atomic bombing at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park, in a symbolic gesture to transcend the two countries’ historical issues and normalize their ties.
During a summit that followed, just two weeks after their previous meeting in Seoul, the leaders agreed that their visit was “a courageous act toward the future” and the two countries should cooperate to tackle various global challenges.
“Today, I and Prime Minister Kishida together paid a tribute to the monument,” Yoon said during the summit. “It was about paying condolences to the South Korean victims of the Hiroshima atomic bombing and at the same time will be remembered as the prime minister’s courageous act toward a peaceful future.”
I understand that having a nuclear weapon used against you is a horrible experience, but the two atomic bombs were a key factor in ending World War II which ultimately brought independence to the entire Korean peninsula:
A special monument commemorating Korean victims stands in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. (Yonhap)
A group of South Korean victims of the U.S. atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Thursday demanded an apology and compensation from both the United States and Japan.
“Nuclear bombs were dropped and Koreans in Japan at the time were victims,” a shelter for bombing victims in Hapcheon, South Gyeongsang Province, said in a press release.
The demand comes as U.S. President Barack Obama will visit Hiroshima later this month, making him the first sitting American president to do so.
The victims pointed out that “Japan has thoroughly hid its own war crimes while only emphasizing the fact that it was victimized by the bombing.” [Yonhap]
You can read the rest at the link, but I recommend readers check out this link to see why I think the US has nothing to apologize for in regards to using nuclear weapons to end World War II.
In what would become the final days of World War II, the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were destroyed by atomic bombs dropped by the US Air Force, first on August 6, 1945 and then again on August 9, killing at least 120,000 people initially, and around twice as many over time due to radiation poisoning.
The primary reasons given for dropping the two bombs was that it would force Japan to unconditionally surrender. Japan did ultimately surrender on August 15, 1945. The other reason was that it would save American and Japanese lives overall due to the US military not needing to invade the Japanese main land.
With this week’s anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there has been a run up of articles in the media and elsewhere chronicling the anniversary of this event.
Setting up surrender talks sanctioned by both the U.S. and the Japanese governments would likely have been difficult. But there is no easy way of ending a war. The primary question is not what is the easier path, but what path will bring a lasting peace while sparing the most Allied lives and, secondarily, “enemy” civilian lives.
While it cannot be proven, had officially sanctioned communication been made by the Allies or the U.S. to Japan thru Konoye, the various peace feelers, or other credible diplomatic channel stating that Japan’s time had completely run out due to the impending threats of nuclear destruction and Soviet invasion, and that immediate surrender would mean the opportunity to retain their throne, there is a good chance the Japanese doves would have enlisted the Emperor to bring Japan to surrender in late July or early August of 1945.
I disagree that setting up surrender talks would of led to the unconditional surrender of Japan. The Japanese at the time practiced the samurai code of Bushido where they would not surrender. Any deal made in peace talks would likely not be called a surrender but a cease fire to save face for the Japanese militarists in charge of the country. Plus I believe the militarists would never of allowed a complete American occupation of Japan because then that would be a symbol of defeat.
With a cease fire in a place and no occupation how different would Japan be today? The militarists would of still been in power after the war and deeply bitter about their failure to win the war. This scenario sounds very familiar to World War I when the Germans were not forced to unconditionally surrender due to the allied armies, particularly the French and English, being worn down with heavy casualties and looking to end the war any way possible, thus the Armistice Agreement was reached. The Armistice directly led to Hitler’s popularity and rise because the Germans never felt defeated after World War I.
The attitude in Japan would of been much the same way if the militarists stayed in power. Why do I think this you ask? It is pretty clear that the mentality in Japan would never accept a complete surrender through negotiations. It took the fire bombing of Tokyo, the bloody fights on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the Russian entry into the war, plus not one but two atomic bombs before they finally surrendered nearly a week after the second atomic bomb on August 15th. The Japanese did not initially feel compelled to surrender when they believed they could win a bloody fight on their home islands which could of caused the US to eventually seek a ceasefire instead of conquering all of Japan.
So yes, I agree surrender talks may have potentially worked and saved the lives lost from the atomic bombings, but without the unconditional surrender of Japan would it have led to another war years later? Who knows, but this is the thought that General MacArthur and many other people of this generation that fought in World War I had in the back of their minds. They did not want to repeat the mistakes of World War I, thus MacArthur’s famous saying, “There is no substitute for victory.”
In addition there was great thought put into determining the amount of American casualties that the US would potentially lose in an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Operation Olympic was the code name for the US military operational plan to invade the southern Japanese mainland island of Kyushu. The casualty estimate of the invasion of this island range anywhere from 63,000 – 100,000 US lives. Keep in mind these are just the estimates of the one southern Japanese island.
The Japanese were preparing for the all out defense of their homeland called Operation Ketsu-go. Read the link for an in depth look at the defensive plan to protect the Japanese main land. It is obvious that this would have been a bloody fight which was backed up by the American losses of 10,000 Americans dead and missing in the Marianas, 5,500 dead at Leyte, 9,000 dead during the Luzon campaign, 6,800 at Iwo Jima, 12,600 at Okinawa, and 2,000 killed at Peleliu that weighed heavily on the minds of America’s leaders.
The vicious fighting on Okinawa saw the US versus Japanese casualties approaching a 2-1 ratio. Just imagine if someone invaded the United States how hard would Americans fight to protect their homeland? I can guarantee that just about every able body person with a gun besides the citizens of San Francisco and Berkley would take up arms against the invaders. Plus the amount of civilians killed on Okinawa due to the fighting was heavy, not to mention villagers that killed themselves by jumping off of cliffs with their children instead of surrendering to the Americans. Would the Japanese mainland be any different.
Operation Olympic, the proposed invasion plan of the Japanese main land during World War II. Notice no plans were ever made to occupy Korea initially.
An additional factor weighing on the minds of US leaders was the fact this would be primarily a lone US invasion. The fall of Germany was helped by the combined allied armies in the western front and the Russian offensive in the east. In fact, the Russian Army during their 23 day invasion of East Germany lost 78,291 dead. Just an incredible number. Should the US leaders have expected anything different in Japan?
Then the final factor is the, Revenge Factor. Any politician that would of allowed the Japanese to end the war without unconditional surrender would have committed political suicide. The American public wanted revenge and complete victory after what happened at Pearl Harbor. Allowing the Japanese regime that initiated the attack on Pearl Harbor to stay in place would not be acceptable to the American public.
As you can see there are many factors that went into the nuclear bombings. This was not a rash decision made to kill as many people as possible. It was a shrewd calculated strategic decision made at the highest echelons of the US leadership to end the war quickly with the least amount of lives lost. I know many people would also dispute bombing civilians but World War II was fought by the rules of “total war” where civilians were considered legitimate targets in order to break national will power. Look what the Japanese did in China and other areas in Asia. Look what the Germans did in their bombing of Britian. The US military and other allied nations responded in kind in both theaters with the carpet bombings of Germany most notably Dresden and the fire bombings of Japan. In fact the fire bombing of Tokyo cost more lives than dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. “Total War” may not seem like a humanitarian concept, but when the survival of the nation is at stake countries will do whatever is necessary to save their nation. Does anyone doubt if the Germans or the Japanese developed the bomb before the Americans that they would of use it on American or allied targets?
I really do not see another alternative that would of worked that would of caused the unconditional surrender of Japan and the occupation of Japan that followed other than dropping the atomic bomb.
Now one thing I do dispute was the need to drop the second atomic bomb. I can understand Hiroshima, but Truman may have been to quick to bomb Nagasaki. The city must not have been a big military target since it had not received heavy bombing prior to the dropping of the nuclear bomb. So for stategic purposes it was not necessary to bomb for any other reason to break national will power.
A factor I think Truman probably took into account was the fact that the Soviet military entered the war on August 8, 1945 one day before the bombing of Nagasaki. The Soviet invasion had both pros and cons for Truman. The pro was that the invasion would put more pressure on the Japanese to surrender. The negative was that the Soviets were gobbling up territory before the US military could claim territory which I think Truman took into account. If the war dragged on any longer the Soviets could of very welled occupied all of Korea and the northern Japanese main land island of Hokkaido since they had already occupied the Kuril islands.
Maybe a few more days should have been alloted for the Japanese leadership to judge the effects of the Russian entry into the war. Maybe the threat of Soviet occupation would of finally made the Japanese surrender and allow the Americans to occupy them. If this didn’t work then the nuclear option was available.
I feel Truman didn’t take this option into account because he ordered the bombing of Nagasaki only one day after the Soviet entry into the war. I think the fear of the Soviets gobbling up large chunks of territory in Japan is what forced Truman’s hand to bomb Nagasaki. The American leadership felt that the occupation of Japan was critical in the soon to be developed containment policy of the Soviet Union. If the United States did not control all of Japan or ended up with a split Japan then the Soviets would have the advantage in controlling all of northeast Asia. This was definitely geo-politics at its most cunning level.
In a history class I took in college a Japanese student explained in class that he believed the US should have dropped the first atomic bomb out in the ocean in order to show the ruling militarist the might of the atomic bomb without targeting civilians. I countered his point that if dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima did not force the militarists to surrender than how was dropping a bomb in the ocean going to make them surrender? In fact it took two atomic bombings of Japanese cities and the entry of the Russians into the war in order to get the Japanese to finally surrender.
The other argument the Japanese student brought up was why the US did not drop a nuclear bomb on Berlin. That is because the US did not have a nuclear capability by the time Germany surrendered and even if it did the casualty ratio of an invasion of Germany is much lower compared to Japan. First of all it was a land battle where US tanks were able to roll right into Germany from France, secondly Germany was beat and actually was fighting harder to stop the Russian advance in order to be occupied by the Americans. With Japan the US forces would have had to do an amphibious landing followed by a vicious fight against fanatical defenders, which would have made casualties on both sides extremely high. There are clear differences between nuking Japan and Germany.
With 50 years of hindsight it is easy to sharpshoot Truman’s decision, but ultimately he did what he felt was in the best interest of the United States; not the best interest of Japan. This is important to keep in mind because I’m sure he felt the cost of Japanese civilian lives were secondary to protecting the lives of US serviceman and the geo-politics of protecting US national security by implementing the containment strategy of the Soviet Union. I still think that the bombing of Nagasaki may have been to quick, but today you really can’t argue with the results because the Soviet Union is history and Japan is one of the world’s wealthiest countries with the world’s second largest economy. However, I do fully agree with the Hiroshima Peace Park’s motto of never letting this tragedy happen again.
Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki ended the war with Japan and saved millions of lives, both Allied and Japanese. The bombing of these two cities forced a surrender that was nearly unfathomable to the military leaders in Japan at the time. If it wasn’t for the atomic bomb, the US likely would have been forced into a long, deadly struggle to end the war with Japan, a struggle that might have been far too long and difficult for the American public to have accepted. While Japan would still have most likely surrendered, in my opinion, it would have been a negotiated surrender that would have meant more war in the future.
My thoughts have always been that World War II was a conflict that was fought with the “Total War” doctrine where the bombing of cities was justifiable to break national will power to gain “Total Victory”. After World War I no total victory was ever achieved which led to World War II. If the Japanese had not surrendered and just negotiated an end to the war who is to say they wouldn’t just rearm and 15 years later start fighting again which would take more lives?
I visited the Atomic Bomb Memorial in Hiroshima 4 years ago and it makes the US look really barbaric for nuking Hiroshima. They parade all the school children into there to indoctrinate them about why the US was wrong for nuking Japan. Seeing the pictures of all the melted bodies on display the kids looked at me like I was some kind of devil. No mention is made at the memorial about the US rational for using nuclear weapons or the mention that Japan started the war to begin with.
After the battles to take Iwo Jima and Okinawa it was becoming very clear that any battle to take over the Japanese home island would cost many American lives. The nuclear bombing was a way to get Japan to surrender without having to endure heavy US casualties. When I was in college I actually debated this point with a Japanese classmate who countered that the US should of nuked a nearby coastline to display the might of the atomic weapon. The display of the power of the atomic weapon would have surely caused the militarists to surrender. That is probably what the Japanese educational system taught him as kid as he toured the A-bomb Memorial. I countered his claim by simply stating that nuking Hiroshima didn’t get the Japanese to surrender. It took two nukes to get Japan to surrender. They didn’t get the message after one nuclear bombing what would have a display of the power of a nuclear bomb have done? Plus the US only had two operational nuclear bombs at the time. They couldn’t afford to expend one on a show of force. I always felt that if the US was so barbaric and just looking to kill people the US could of just as easily nuked Tokyo or Kyoto. Instead the US chose smaller, militarily significant cities to hit. So in short yes it was right to use nuclear weapons in that conflict.
However, this topic gets me thinking to why didn’t the US just nuke Pyongyang and Beijing during the Korean War to break the North Korean and Chinese will to fight. The Korean War wasn’t fought by the “Total War” doctrine which General MacArthur was used to playing by during World War II. The Cold War and the creation of nuclear weapons had made the “Total War” doctrine obsolete because the amount of destruction that would result on both sides would make any war to costly to wage.
General MacArthur couldn’t learn to play by the new “Limited War” Doctrine and was ultimately fired by Harry Truman because of it. The use of nuclear weapons during the Korean War had the possibility of bringing the Russians into the war which the US did not want to have happen. A combined fight against the Chinese and Russians in the mountains of Korea was the wrong war at the wrong time for the US. Preventing World War III was determined to be more important than achieving Total Victory.
History has shown that Truman was right and the “Limited War” doctrine did prevent World War III but the lack of Total Victory during the Korean War continues to cause problems here on the peninsula to this day and probably for many years to come.
