|
Nearly four years later, the memory still rankles: the steady stream of articles, panel appearances and speeches by revisionist historians who argued in 1995 that America’s use of atomic bombs to end World War II more quickly was “racist, immoral, and unnecessary.”
At a time when the nation should have been celebrating the end of the costliest, most destructive war in history, the occasion was dominated instead by a nasty controversy about the bombs and the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution. Rather than recalling how a united, determined,
resourceful nation had overcome the powerful German and Japanese military machines, we were caught up in a revisionist barrage that obscured and denigrated what the nation and its servicemen and women had achieved.
Much was lost in that debate and little gained.
We were told by the historians that if only our WWII leaders had told the Japanese we possessed an atomic bomb, if only we had reported that the Soviet Union was about the enter the war, and if only we had assured them Emperor Hirohito could retain his throne, Japan may have quietly laid down its arms without our use of the atomic bombs or an invasion of the Japanese home islands. May have surrendered.
The purpose of this article is not to debate those points again -- - although one cannot resist noting how little substantive information the revisionists unearthed, and how much harsh reality they were able to shrug off. They argued that a few of our leaders and scientists had reservations about the use of the atomic bombs (but many more supported it); that “only” 220,000 Allied casualties could be expected during landings in Japan rather than half a million or more; that the strength of the Japanese defenders was greatly exaggerated; and there were those in Japan who favored seeking peace (but many
who were enraged about talk of surrender); and so on.
The latter-day historians dismissed the barbarous record of Japanese troops across Asia and the Pacific and the suicidal ferocity with which they had fought. They ignored Japan’s declaration that a one hundred million of her people would die in the “Final Battle” for the homeland. They overlooked the several thousand Kamikaze aircraft hidden for the final Armageddon; the fate
of thousands of prisoners of war in Japanese hands; and the reluctance of Japan to surrender even after the second, Nagasaki A-bomb. The last-minute efforts of hard-core Japanese militants to kill those who favored ending the war and to intercept Emperor Hirohito’s surrender message to his subjects go unmentioned.
It is highly wishful thinking that Japan would have soon surrendered without the atomic bombs or an invasion. Japan would have capitulated eventually, to be sure, but only after massive losses as it was pummeled conventionally by air and sea. Many allied airmen and sailors would have been lost during that phase, as well. One revisionist’s estimate is that only 1,600 servicemen would have died each week. Our B-29 crew provided one example: late in the war, three men perished on our return to Guam from a routine mission. B-29s crashed often on take-off
|
or were forced to ditch at sea on the fifteen-hour round trips to Japan.
If the use of the atomic bombs was both “racist and immoral,” two questions remain for the revisionists: if Hitler had developed an atomic bomb and had dropped it on London (as he surely would have), would that have been a racist
act? And if the B-29 fire raids on Japanese cities killed more people than did the atomic bombs (which they did), were not those attacks “immoral,” as well? In the cruel calculus of war the atomic bomb was simply a more efficient
weapon to destroy cities and people. I suppose the carnage of the long Pacific war could have been avoided if America simply had surrendered to Japan immediately after Pearl Harbor.
What motivates the revisionists? They note that they are scholars in search of the truth, and that we should be able to accept their findings, no matter how they challenge cherished, long-held beliefs. There is something to that, for new information and the accounts of those who experienced events are the stuff history is made of. We must consider what the revisionists report.
But there may be more at work than that. For every thesis there is an antithesis; for every commonly accepted version of a major event, a counter-version. Men in search of new subject matter for their articles, books and academic careers can advance contrary theories, then proceed to develop the data to support them. Readers and audiences await sensational new charges, even if they lack real merit. “The need to disprove” is a powerful -- and profitable -- motive.
America-bashing also makes for good copy. The revisionists almost gleefully condemn the nation and its leaders, interpreting history to fit their
ideology. There is little that this country can do that gains their approval. Some are quick to question the integrity and good will of individuals and institutions, revealing much about themselves in the process.
One revisionst historian has chided WWII veterans for wanting to “feel good” about their war. Of course they do -- millions of them gave years of their lives to what they believed was a noble cause. They did so with little hesitation to avenge a wrong, set the world right, and ensure a better future.
Can it be that it is the revisionists themselves who enjoy “feeling good” by demonstrating a higher morality than the men who fought or led the war? By portraying others as mistaken or evil, can they be defining themselves as wiser or more virtuous? How satisfying for them to argue that they would have never considered using an atomic bomb to end the war against a brutal foe. One wonders how the historians would have felt had they been scheduled to land in the first assault waves on Kyushu in 1945 or on Honshu in 1946.
More than fifty years ago, young Americans who had seldom traveled more than fifteen miles from home fought air, sea and land battles in every quarter of the globe. More than 405,000 of them failed to return. The atomic bomb controversy tended to diminish the heroism and sacrifices of all those men and women. Let the survivors continue to feel good about what they did when it had to be done. Let the nation take pride in the way it united to meet one of the greatest challenges in its history.
|
