Japanese Defense Chief: Atomic Bombing 'Couldn't Be Helped'

Obscene is a good word for all of it. For war in general, and for the accompanying horrors of it. The bigger question might be, is war itself ever justifiable? Is force justifiable, ever? And if so, how much? How much force does one apply to a determined and deadly foe?

Obscene it is. The whole notion, the whole ugliness of seemingly civilized societies, comprised of mostly good, decent folk, now getting down into the primeval muck and mire and wallowing like cavemen, battling in the gore until one or both die a brutal death.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are obscene. Omaha Beach was obscene. The Battle of the Bulge and the Sicily campaign. Anzio. The Rape of Nanking. All of it, to think of it, makes one want to vomit when they consider it. The horrors could not be adequately described by a million tongues in a million lifetimes.

And, lest we forget, Auschwitz.

To listen to some of the men who were there, in those places, as I have, is a deeply humbling and even terrifying experience. Movies such as Saving Private Ryan or The Sands of Iwo Jima capture hints - shadows - of the reality. And I don't know how we could adequately understand what it was like to be in Hiroshima that fateful August day. Or in Nagasaki. One of my college roommates was from Hiroshima and his parents were survivors. He couldn't talk about it. He took me by the arm one day, to a map on his wall, pointed to Hiroshima, and started crying. I was 21 and he was 35 - a genius and deeply spiritual man. What could I do but cry with him.

It's easy for us today in the 21st century world to pass judgement against those who made the decision to drop those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And it's very hard to put ourselves back in that time. I could have been one of those children on the ground in one of those cities. You could have been one of the pilots of those planes. Or visa versa.

War, good God, y'all, what is it good for?

And yet, there is a time to fight - there are causes and lives worth fighting and even giving our own lives to save. There is a time when absolute and darkest evil manifests itself and must be opposed. That's why I love Lord of the Rings so deeply. These peaceful little people, not wanting to fight at all, stood tall against all odds and did what they had to do. The gore, the pain - as Johnny Cash said, "The mud and the blood and the beer."

Historical revisionism is an interesting concept. It happens all the time, because history seems to be so malleable, and it is always told by whoever is winning the cultural battle at the moment. The initial thinking on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that they were "necessary obscenities." A vicious, bloody intractable war was being fought against a mightily determined and violent enemy - an enemy that had initiated the hostilities, enslaved millions, and perpetrated untold horrors upon the Pacific Rim.

Every available estimate on a Japan invasion predicted millions of casualties, most of them civilian innocents. For better or worse, the decision was made to put an end to the madness. Perhaps the "solution" was also madness. But, then again, war tends to affect people that way. Most historians from 1945-1960 tended to believe that the bombings, as horrible as they were, had to be done to prevent even worse atrocity and loss of life on both sides.

Historical revisionism began in earnest in the West in the 1960s, as the counter-culture pushed back against their elders - their elders who had fought in WW2. In America, it became chic to loathe the military, especially anything that represented the American military. The story was changed, here and abroad, to paint America as the heartless aggressor.

And Americans, seeing the undeniable horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki documented - Americans who had always felt queasy about those events, Americans who had been told for years that it was a bad actor on the world stage, Americans who were already wracked with guilt over slavery, Japanese internment camps, and other actions - Americans began to experience crippling self-doubt.

That is why an American wasn't making that statement now. What is shocking is that it is coming from a Japanese official who has zero known motive for saying what he said. Was he trying to score political points? No. Was it to curry favor with Americans? No, our culture has already deemed the act as wrong. It strikes me that the official was doing his best to make a principled and objective statement of what he perceives as fact - even at the risk of everything he's ever worked for or attained socially in his life.

What will the outcome be? Will America become emboldened to nuke Japan or another nation because of this statement. Not hardly. But it does help all of us to re-engage this subject and re-examine the "official" history told to us for the past 40 years - to go back to the event and begin to understand the forces and events that were at work in that day which motivated those who decided to drop those bombs.

War is not called hell for no reason.

Thanks, NB, I'm honored. This whole thread challenges me - in a good way, I suppose.

Claus, who is one of my favorite writers on Newsvine, is touching on something very deep and it is a good reminder that on this issue of all issues, glibness won't get it. The agony and pain of war almost inevitably outweighs the glory, and victory in war is seldom lasting.

And yet, still we fight. And often we must.

I am reminded of this gut-wrenching plea from Paul the apostle in his letter to the Romans:

I am carnal, sold under sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do...O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Thankfully, Paul found an answer that brought him peace. But mankind is still looking.

That quest, and the fear implicit in it, is expressed well in the song "Hammer to Fall" by Queen;

Here we stand or here we fall
History won't care at all
Make the bed light the light
Lady Mercy won't be home tonight yeah

You don't waste no time at all
Don't hear the bell but you answer the call
It comes to you as to us all
We're just waiting
For the hammer to fall

Oh ev'ry night and every day
A little piece of you is falling away
But lift your face the Western Way
Build your muscles as your body decays yeah

Toe your line and play their game yeah
Let the anaesthetic cover it all
Till one day they call your name
You know it's time for the hammer to fall

Rich or poor or famous
For your truth it's all the same (oh no oh no)
Lock your door the rain is pouring
Through your window pane (oh no)
Baby now your struggle's all in vain

For we who grew up tall and proud
In the shadow of the mushroom cloud
Convinced our voices can't be heard
We just wanna scream it louder and louder louder

What the hell we fighting for?
Just surrender and it won't hurt at all
You just got time to say your prayers
While your waiting for the hammer to hammer to fall

There is hope. But it doesn't seem to be found solely within the heart of humanity alone. That letter from Paul ... keep reading it. The story gets better.

I am not offended by Claus' comments. I think he's trying to dig down into some important issues. Part of the difficulty is in trying to draw too many direct parallels between WWII in 1945 in Japan and, say, Iraq in 2007. While we can always learn lessons from the past, the present definitely gives us some new and unique challenges that a "cookie cutter" answer cannot adequately address.

Here's a timeless question: do the ends justify the means? And, more to the point, was the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan in any way justifiable?

I will be totally candid: I don't know if anyone in this thread - certainly not me - is wise enough to be able to definitively answer those questions. There is a theoretical "moral" answer we could give, and then there is the real life tangible response that you or I might have if someone we loved were in mortal danger.

For better or worse, "right and wrong" are often defined by the winners. I don't necessarily think that's a good thing. I believe there are higher moral standards to which we must all one day answer; but I am not the one who will be making that ultimate judgement. I do not believe the ends justify the means; but I am not convinced that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the wrong decisions to make. I am not convinced they were the right decisions, either.

In World War Two, it has been estimated that nearly 50 million civilians died, due to direct causes like bombs, bullets, and genocide, and indirect causes like famine and disease.

In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, approximately 200,000 died immediately, and many more died over time.

Stop for a moment and digest those sickening numbers. "Obscene" doesn't begin to describe any of it. Our minds simply cannot truly comprehend this.

But those civilians who died by other means besides the atom bombs are no less dead than those who did. In London, in Berlin, and in countless small towns, civilians were slaughtered by cruel bullets and bombs that didn't know German from Brit or civilian from soldier.

My point is, if all reliable military estimates indicated that an additional one million Japanese civilians would have died had the war for the Japanese islands been conducted by "traditional" means, then can we say the atom bombs were "more cruel" or "more obscene" than if we had used traditional bombs and bullets and killed 800,000 or more people?

It's all grotesque. Would you want to stand in the place where you had to decide between unleashing the most horriffic weapon ever devised by man to kill 200,000 civilians or to drag out a war that would kill one million or more without any guarantee of a conclusion?
God knows, I would not want any part of that decision-making process.

Complicating it all was that the Japanese troops were among the fiercest and most dedicated in the history of warfare. They had vowed to fight to the death, and it was generally agreed that if an invasion of Japan occurred, then the civilians would have joined in that fight.

It is known that President Truman agonized greatly over the decision. Many believe that he did the best he could with what he knew and with what faced him. Many believe the bombings saved many lives; others argue that it was inherently immoral. All of that is easy for us to debate today, but in 1945, decisions had to be made.

Fast forward to 2007 ... I do not see any connection between the Japanese defense chief's statement and the current US war in Iraq, or any other war. His remarks are very specific to that event and should not - could not - be construed to be justifying or condoning any current US action. This event in Japan is so amazingly significant that he would not dare to try to score cheap and questionable political points by using it to somehow manipulate someone into thinking it was an endorsement of current US military policy.

And besides, it hasn't helped him politically in Japan or in the USA. I believe the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that he said it out of principle; it is his honest assessment. Whether he is right or not is up for debate, but I don't think his motives are, and I just can't see any connection between his specific commentary regarding this significant and very unique historical event and current military activities.

For more reading:

Speedy End Saved Lives?

They diminished loss, but it was the loss of American servicemen - at the cost of Japanese civilians. When did civilians become a legitimate target?

Claus, I hope my answer above adequately addresses your question. Your premise about the costs and losses may be incorrect, but I'll let you determine that as you read the note above.

Claus, as you say ...

Well, let me just say this very briefly in response to the extensive comments: I am glad that nobody are offended that I take a slightly different view.

You're right - I am not in any way offended by your thoughtful and insightful comments. And, I do understand and agree that history is constantly being manipulated by politicians for their own ends.

Many good-willed and intelligent people believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not have to happen, for various reasons. Other good-willed and intelligent people believe that it was tragically necessary. I tend to fall in the latter camp, as much as the whole idea turns my stomach.

In listening to the Defense Minister attempting to clarify his remarks over the past day, I have gathered that he does not believe the bombings were the right thing to do, but that he can understand why Truman felt they were the right thing to do.

Well said, Yuriy.

Thanks, Yuriy. I'll look forward to reading it.

Kyle,

That is an interesting and well-presented perspective. Some of what you said, I had never considered. Thanks so much for contributing.

Coventry, London, Bremen, Berlin ... those who died in these bombings are no less human than those who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or Pearl Harbor.

It's all tragic, all grotesque.

I am glad I seeded this because it's giving us a chance to go deeper into an issue that - whatever side one takes - is a very troubling and challenging one. War is messy, war is hell.

Do I believe there are just wars? Yes, I do. And, I believe some actions are necessary. But we can still say that it's a tragic and awful thing.

If you have not yet read my Memorial Day Memory article, it does pertain to my thoughts on all of this.

There is no other choice. To them, there is no such thing as unthinkable.

The historical parallels are different, but the bottom line is true. In fact, they have thought about destroying us and Israel and Western Europe any way possible.

They see our culture as an aggressively encroaching affront to Allah, to Islam, and to their heritage. And some of them are very desperate to stop it.

The Japanese were amazingly fierce and determined in their fighting against us. Many of them were very heroic and honorable. But the enemy we fight against today does not fight by any rules that we have faced before.

The kamikaze would hit a military target, but I do not know of any record of them deliberately killing innocent civilians. It's a new day and a new war, but that ancient bloodlust within humanity is same as it ever was.