This is some surprising news coming out of Japan concerning an issue from World War II that doesn’t involve comfort women for a change:
Japan’s defense minister said Saturday that the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States during World War II was an inevitable way to end the war, drawing criticism from atomic bomb survivors.
“I understand that the bombing ended the war, and I think that it couldn’t be helped,” Fumio Kyuma said in a speech at a university in Chiba, just east of Tokyo.
The United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of World War II, in the world’s only nuclear attacks.
Kyuma, who is from Nagasaki, said the bombing caused great suffering in the city. Part of his speech was aired by public broadcaster NHK.
He also said he did not resent the U.S. because the bombs prevented the Soviet Union from entering the war with Japan, according to Kyodo News agency.
The remarks, rare for a Japanese Cabinet minister, were quickly criticized by atomic bomb victims.
I think the AP mistranslated what Kyuma said because when the bombs were dropped on Japan, Russia had already entered the war on August 8, 1945 before the second bomb was dropped. Thus the bombs did not prevent the Soviets from entering into the war. The bombs were dropped to get Japan to surrender more quickly before the Soviets gobbled up to much Japanese territory. Coming Anarchy has some good commentary on this issue and provides a better translation of what Kyuma said:
“I understand the bombings brought the war to its end. I think it was something that couldn’t be helped.”
The United States “dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki although it knew Japan would lose the war” without having to resort to using an atomic bomb, Kyuma said.
Noting that the Soviet Union was preparing to wage a war against Japan, he said the United States must have thought the use of an atomic bomb could prompt Japan’s surrender, thus preventing the Soviet Union from carrying out its intentions.
“Luckily Hokkaido was not occupied. In the worst case, Hokkaido could have been taken by the Soviet Union,” he said. “I don’t hold a grudge against the United States.”
This logic is correct because Hokkaido today probably would be in Russian hands if the bombs were not dropped. If Hokkaido fell to the Soviets, Japan to this day would not have gotten the island back. This is validated by the Russians still holding on to the Japanese Kuril Islands just north of Hokkaido which they refuse to return to Tokyo.
I actually did a post on this a couple years ago about the decision to drop the atomic bomb compared to the proposed US invasion of Japan called Operation Olympic. Read the posting and decide if you think the US should have dropped the bomb or not. Now if only somebody in the Japanese government could show this much historical clarity about the comfort women issue instead of arguing over the definition of “coercion” and publishing unconvincing newspaper ads.
Popularity: 5%
My StumbleUpon Page
8:19 pm on July 2nd, 2007 1
“I think the AP mistranslated what Kyuma said because when the bombs were dropped on Japan, Russia had already entered the war.”
The Soviet Union didn’t declare war on Japan until after the first atomic bomb was dropped. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 and on Nagasaki on 9 August. The Soviet Union declared war on 8 August.
3:16 am on July 3rd, 2007 2
What was Russia’s war-making capability against the Soviets?
I would imagine they did not launch any really significant amphibious operations throughout the war, right…?
The US and other Allies had worked it out and geared their manufacturing base for such operations.
Could the Soviets have realistically moved against Japanese territory with land forces?
I mean, considering what the US was expecting to lose if it moved against the Japanese main islands, what would Russia have faced in the northern area? How soon would they have run into that stiff of Japanese resistance, and did they have the tools necessary to win?
6:37 am on July 3rd, 2007 3
I wonder what it is like have Japan was cut in half and Korea was left as unified instead? Instead of 38th parrallel, where would the Superpower would draw the line in the middle of Honshu Island? Which side the Emporer Hirohito would be on? Would Korea would be all under Communist?
7:01 am on July 3rd, 2007 4
Thanks Haksaeng I misspoke, what I meant was that the article must have been mistranslated because the nuclear bombs did not stop the soviet from entering the war as the AP claims Kyuma said because they did in fact enter the war like you said on August 8th.
You can read more on my thoughts about this on my prior posting that is linked above.
CPT Kim,
Korea probably would have been unified under communism with the strong possibility of Hokkaido occupied by the Soviet Union. The Soviets would have had a much greater geo-strategic advantage in NE Asia and the Pacific. The economy in Korea today would not exist and the growth of Japan as a nation may have been vastly different if Japan had to compete with a North Japan and had to militarize a northern DMZ.
It is safe to say the Soviets probably would have installed a puppet North Japan dictator just like they did with Kim Il-sung. Would Japan have been able to achieve democracy and economic growth so quickly if they had to simultaneously defend the nation from North Japan? Could a Japanese Civil War have broken out like what happened in Korea? All possibilities that did not happen because Japan surrendered so quickly.
9:30 am on July 3rd, 2007 5
I see no reason to single out this one particular official when his argument is basically the orthodox one. Perhaps his statement was rhetorically poor, but it’s what Americans have come to believe based on what the Truman administration presented to the public.
However, American intelligence knew of considerable division in the Imperial government for surrender. Numerous US military officials, including Eisenhower and MacArthur, expressed reservations. It is believed that an offer to allow Hirohito to remain as titular head of state would have convinced the Japanese to surrender. Reading those excerpts alone, I believe the decision to drop the bombs was unnecessary.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm
11:48 am on July 3rd, 2007 6
Emperor Hirohito surrendered when he did because he wanted to remain emperor after the war. He forced the military committee to accept his decision to surrender. Ultimately, Hirohito was afraid of a popular revolt that would dethrone him and he knew he had a better chance of staying in power if he surrendered.
The best book available on the subject is “Downfall” by Richard Frank. He draws on Emperor Hirohito’s daily diary for information, along with a number of other primary Japanese sources.
2:52 pm on July 3rd, 2007 7
5:57 pm on July 4th, 2007 8