SCRUTINIZING THE HIROSHIMA MYTH (A REPOSTING)

Hiroshima After the Bomb 

August 6th marked the 75th anniversary of the dropping of the “Little Boy” atomic bomb on Hiroshima. As has been the case on every anniversary of the bombing, the event has been commemorated by politicians, media sorts, and most Americans as being responsible for ending the war and thus negating the need for an invasion of Japan’s home islands that would have caused enormous losses on both sides. This belief has achieved numinous status in the United States; most Americans accept it as an article of faith. It has become, as historian Christian Appy put it, the most successful legitimizing narrative in American history. There’s only one thing wrong with the Hiroshima narrative: it's not factual. There is perhaps no greater myth in U.S. history than the belief that the atomic bomb was the "winning weapon" that ended World War II. It’s what I call the Hiroshima Myth.

Despite doubts about the necessity to use the bomb expressed by a number of top military and political leaders at the time (and later in their personal reflections), challenges to the traditional Hiroshima narrative by several historians, and declining overall American attraction to nuclear weapons, the Hiroshima Myth remains deeply embedded in the consciousness of the overwhelming majority of Americans. How did it get so embedded? Why didn’t the highly authoritative 1947 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, which concluded that the Japanese would have surrendered "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to November 1 1945--even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, the Russians had not entered the war, and no invasion had been planned or contemplated," establish a different narrative?

Were the bombings instrumental in ending the war? Did they avert an invasion of the Japanese homeland and thus save lives? There’s much at stake in the answers to these questions, for if the bomb wasn't necessary to end the war, then its use on Hiroshima and, especially Nagasaki, was wrong, militarily, politically and morally, especially when one considers that these two cities were not vital military targets.

At the risk of being called unpatriotic, un-American, or worse, because the issue still touches raw emotions (Americans don't take kindly to questioning the morality of our country's purposes), I will attempt to refute the Hiroshima Myth. Fortunately I am able to draw upon information that wasn’t available when early histories of the bombings were written. This information includes a declassified paper written by a Joint Chiefs of Staff advisory group in June 1945, the personal accounts of a number of top Japanese leaders, and various bits of documentary evidence uncovered by enterprising historians. These discoveries enable a more accurate picture of bomb’s role in ending the war.

In a previous two-part essay, posted in August of 2015, I argued that Truman’s atomic bomb-use decision was not primarily motivated by a desire to end the war quickly in order to save American lives that would have been lost in a land invasion and that the use of the bomb was not the main factor inducing Japan to surrender.  I also argued in a Part III that our enduring belief in the bomb as “the winning weapon” has had a profound impact on American culture and on how we approach national security.  These essays challenged the prevailing beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Americans.  In the hope of stimulating an ongoing dialogue on the Hiroshima Myth and its implications, I’ve decided to re-post these essays as a single post on this, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. I will re-post it every August 6.  Critical comments are encouraged.  

JULY 2020 IGNOMINIOUS ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH: THE IGGY

1. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tx). America’s dumbest congressman is back, and on cue. I nominated the moron last month for an IGGY, not just because he was a COVID-19 denier, has been contemptuous of the dangers of the virus, and has been, as usual, eagerly embracing crackpot theories about how to cure it (what if we, like, douse everything in a fine hydroxychloroquine), but because of his comment that he would not wear a mask unless he got the virus, then “you wouldn’t see me without a mask.” He has also, as usual, been eager to call Democratic measures to contain the virus "Marxism," possibly out of genuine ignorance as to what either Marxism or infectious disease safety measures entail.

Gohmert wasn't wearing a mask for most of the day Tuesday (28^th), when he huddled with other House Republicans to discuss how best to defend Trump Attorney General William Barr during Barr's House Judiciary Committee hearing. He wasn't wearing one when he spoke to Barr outside the hearing room from just a few feet away. Gohmert has now tested positive for COVID-19.

The proud Texan has steadfastly refused to wear a mask while at the Capitol during the pandemic. He has spent ample time on the House floor during votes speaking to aides and lawmakers — without a mask or social distancing.

The moronic one had been scheduled to fly aboard Air Force One with President Trump to Midland, Texas,  where he is fundraising and touring an oil rig. He tested positive for the coronavirus on Wednesday morning during a pre-flight screening at the White House, a person familiar with the situation told CNN. Because of the positive test, Gohmert is not traveling with the President.

Gohmert’s positive test sent shudders throughout the capitol. So far at least four colleagues and several aides who had contact with him announced they would quarantine. Dozens more aids, reporters, and the attorney general have scrambled to get tested. News that Gohmert had returned to the Capitol to tell his aides in person of his test results (can you expect anything different?) unleashed a firestorm of terror and indignation across the House as everyone from interns to lawmakers scurried to try to retrace Gohmert’s steps.

The partisan divide that has gripped our country has played out in the response of Members to the virus, with Republicans reluctant to wear masks, socially distance, or take other sensible precautions. Perhaps this will change. In light of Gohmert’s irresponsible idiocy, Speaker Pelosi announced that lawmakers and their staff members would be required to wear masks when on the House floor or moving through House office buildings. With Republican lawmakers banned from appearing on the floor, maybe the Congress can get some things done, like providing adequate assistance to small businesses and the unemployed.

How has the country’s dumbest congressman responded to the furor he caused?

Smiling in a video recorded in his Capitol Hill office, he declared he has probably gotten the “Wuhan virus” because he had started wearing a mask over the past week or two—not despite it. So, if you want to avoid getting COVID-19, get rid of your mask. Thanks, Louie.

If there is any justice in this sordid affair, perhaps Republican coronavirus deniers will come down with the disease. Wouldn’t it be something if the president got sick?