[Peace] a short history of Hiroshima bomb, from Frank Brodhead (via UFPJ)

[Stuart Levy]

Worth remembering, especially since AWARE's monthly demonstration,
this Saturday from 2-4pm at Main and Neil in Champaign,
will be on the 66th anniversary of our dropping of the nuclear bomb
on Hiroshima -- August 6, 2011.

----- Forwarded message from FBrodhead at aol.com -----

Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 11:24:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: FBrodhead at aol.com
Subject: [ufpj-activist] a short history of Hiroshima bomb
To: ufpj-disarm at yahoogroups.com, ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org,
	upj-bayarea at lists.riseup.net

Hello All - In case it might be useful for local events, etc., here's a  
short history (2 pages) about the "decision" to use the atomic bomb. Modify  
however, etc.
 
Best wishes,
Frank Brodhead
Concerned Families of Westchester
 
 
 
Hiroshima Yesterday and Today
Concerned Families of Westchester
Saturday, August 6th, marks the anniversary of the  atomic bombing of 
Hiroshima in 1945.  Sixty-six years later, we’re still learning about what 
happened and why.  It’s a dark and surprising story. 
The atom bomb story was once pretty simple.  Fifty years ago, when I was in 
college,  the question was whether or not using the atomic bomb was “
justified.”  At that time there was a near-consensus  that using the atomic bomb 
ended the Pacific War, preventing the deaths of up to  a million US soldiers 
who might have been killed if winning the war required an  invasion of 
Japan. 
In this light, killing 100,000+ civilians at Hiroshima could be  said to be 
the “lesser evil.”  Also,  as the US policy for several months had been to 
fire bomb Japan’s cities,  killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, it 
was argued that probably fewer  civilians died by ending the war with the 
atomic bomb than would have died if  the war and fire bombing had gone on for 
several more months.  Additionally, of course, there was a  strong element of 
revenge, many arguing, as did Truman, that in light of Japan’s  bombing of 
Pearl Harbor, mistreating US prisoners, and killing so many innocents  in 
Asia, Hiroshima helped to establish a balance of  justice. 
Today, the picture is much different.  For one thing, archives that were 
closed  to historians in 1961 are generally open.  We now know in great detail 
what US “decision makers” were doing in the  spring and summer of 1945.  
Equally  important, we also know how and why the Japanese war makers decided 
to  surrender.  And we also know how the  Soviet Union and its role in the 
Pacific War were perceived by the United States  and Japan during the last 
months of the war. 
The “new history” of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki  is a 
pretty dark story. In a nutshell, it is now clear that Japan decided to  
surrender not because of the atomic bombs, but because of the Soviet declaration  
of war and attack on Japanese forces in Manchuria on August 9th.  The 
Japanese had been hoping that the  Soviets, with whom they had a neutrality 
treaty, would somehow mediate an end to  their war with the United States.  
Instead, Japan now faced the prospect of Soviet occupation, as well as US  
occupation, if the war continued.  Japan surrendered the next day.  The Japanese 
records make clear that it was the Soviet declaration of  war, and not the 
atomic bombs, that shifted the balance of power among the  Japanese war makers 
from continued resistance to immediate  surrender. 
A critical point in this story is that the United States (at  Yalta, 
February 1945) urged the Soviet Union to intervene, that Stalin pledged  to attack 
Japan three months after the end of the war in Europe (May 8, 1945),  and 
that US military commanders thought that Soviet intervention was critical to  
ending the war, this “shock” perhaps causing Japan to surrender  
immediately. 
Why was the atomic bomb used, then, if the war was  all-but-over?  The “
dark side” of  the story begins here. 
By the spring of 1945, conflicts with the Soviets over the postwar  
settlements in Eastern Europe were interpreted by many US policy makers as a  
strong reason to keep the Soviets out of the postwar settlements in the Far  
East: not only in Japan, but in China and Korea as well.  When Truman became 
president in April,  his advisers – especially his Secretary of State James 
Byrnes – supported this  position very strongly.  Truman and  Byrnes also 
realized that, if the atom bomb “worked” – if it could be used  against Japan – 
the Soviets would probably be more accommodating to US positions  in 
postwar Europe and the Far East. 
Japan, meanwhile, had taken some first steps in trying to  surrender while 
saving the life of the Emperor.  “Contacts” were made in several  
embassies, and diplomatic negotiations to this effect were begun with the  Soviets.  
The United States, having  broken the Japanese diplomatic codes, was reading 
all this and was aware that  Japan would surrender if the Emperor would not 
be  executed. 
In April and May, then, Truman and Byrnes faced a dilemma.  They could 
encourage and accept an  immediate surrender by Japan and keep the Soviets out 
of the Far Eastern postwar  settlements.  But this would mean  not using the 
atomic bomb.  Or they  could let the war continue until the atomic bomb was 
ready and use it against  Japan, demonstrating to the Soviet Union its newly 
acquired nuclear weapon.  But delay opened the door to Soviet  
intervention, scheduled for mid-August.  Truman took the chance. The bomb was 
successfully tested on July 16.  It was ready to go at the beginning of  August, and 
100,000 civilians were killed in Hiroshima on August  6th.  The era of “
atomic  diplomacy” had begun. 

So the picture that seemed pretty simple 50 years ago is not so  simple 
now.  The question, “Was the  atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 
justified?” now has nothing to do with  preventing the deaths of US soldiers in a 
scheduled invasion of Japan.  It has to do, rather, with the decision  to 
demonstrate the power of the United States’ new atomic weapon to the  Soviets.  
The civilians of Hiroshima  and Nagasaki were tragic victims, but  we know 
now that they were murdered  by the Cold War, collateral damage of the new 
atomic  diplomacy. 
Frank Brodhead 
August 3, 2011 
PS – This is just a sketch of a complicated  story.  If you would like to 
learn  more about the “new history” perspective on Hiroshima, I recommend 
two excellent  books: Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and 
the  Architecture of an American Myth (1995); and Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing  
the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan (2005). 

_______________________________________________
ufpj-activist mailing list

Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org
List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist