This actually came up in a conversation I had over the weekend. I was surprised to hear a rather liberal friend of mine come out strongly in favour of the use the Bomb on Japan. I must confess that I myself, until six or seven years ago, toed the line that it was a necessary evil to stop the war. But when I started reading things like James W. Loewen's book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" and hearing about the things that Westerners don't talk about, I had to change my mind. We like to tar the Japanese for papering over their history in WWII, but I found my own friends uncomfortable and dismissive of the fact that Admirial Leahy and Generals Eisenhower and McArthur all counselled Harry Truman against dropping the Bomb; that Truman acknowledged in a meeting on August 3rd (three days before Hiroshima) that Japan was "looking for peace"; and that his primary concerns were actually sending a message to the Soviet Union and making use of the horrendously-expensive new weapon lest he be charged with wasting all that money. On the flip side is the idea that the destruction of two cities of no military value whatsoever (other than that they were so far untouched by bombings and would provide excellent test sites for blast effects) and the immolation of 300,000 or so civilians was required to end a war Japan was, we know now, attempting to bring to a close. Apparently, though, it's always the other guy who can't face his demons... after all, Western demons are forever angels.
3 comments:
This actually came up in a conversation I had over the weekend. I was surprised to hear a rather liberal friend of mine come out strongly in favour of the use the Bomb on Japan. I must confess that I myself, until six or seven years ago, toed the line that it was a necessary evil to stop the war. But when I started reading things like James W. Loewen's book "Lies My Teacher Told Me" and hearing about the things that Westerners don't talk about, I had to change my mind. We like to tar the Japanese for papering over their history in WWII, but I found my own friends uncomfortable and dismissive of the fact that Admirial Leahy and Generals Eisenhower and McArthur all counselled Harry Truman against dropping the Bomb; that Truman acknowledged in a meeting on August 3rd (three days before Hiroshima) that Japan was "looking for peace"; and that his primary concerns were actually sending a message to the Soviet Union and making use of the horrendously-expensive new weapon lest he be charged with wasting all that money. On the flip side is the idea that the destruction of two cities of no military value whatsoever (other than that they were so far untouched by bombings and would provide excellent test sites for blast effects) and the immolation of 300,000 or so civilians was required to end a war Japan was, we know now, attempting to bring to a close. Apparently, though, it's always the other guy who can't face his demons... after all, Western demons are forever angels.
To the victor go the spoils... and the history books!
Peter
I must confess that I myself, until six or seven years ago, toed the line that it was a necessary evil to stop the war.
I grew up hearing that from my liberal parents, and I believed it. I was never quite sure how Nagasaki fit in.
Loewen's book is excellent. I also learned otherwise from Howard Zinn. You've probably already read People's History, but if you haven't...
Peter: there's that nutshell again. That's it exactly.
Post a Comment