Atomic Bomb (3)

Bob Choi & Others

23 September 2013

C.C. Lin:

That was a tragic miscalculation. The result was the Battle of the Bulge, which resulted in tens of thousands of needless Allied casualties and potentially allowed Germany to prolong the war and force negotiations. Thus the assessment that Japan was vanquished may have the benefit of hindsight rather than foresight. It is certainly fair to conclude that the Japanese could have been reasonably expected to be even more fanatical than the Germans base on the history of the war in the Pacific. And, finally, a present-day theory making the rounds espouses that even if an invasion had taken place, our casualties would not have been a million, as many believed, but realistically only 46,000 dead. ONLY 46,000! Can you imagine the callousness of this line of argument? ONLY 46,000- as if this were some insignificant number of American lives. Perhaps these so-called historians want to sell books. Perhaps they really believe it. Or perhaps it reflects some self-loathing occasioned by the fact that we won the war. Whatever the reason, the argument is flawed. It dissects and recalculates events ideologically, grasping at selective straws. Let me admit right here, today, that I don't know how many more Americans would have died in an invasion - AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE! What I do know is that based on the Japanese conduct during the war, it is fair and reasonable to assume that an invasion of the mainland would have been a prolonged and bloody affair. Based on what we know - not what someone surmises - the Japanese were not about to unconditionally surrender. In taking Iwo Jima, a tiny 8 square mile lump of rock in the ocean, 6,700 marines died - total casualties over 30,000. But even assuming that those who now KNOW our casualties would have been ONLY 46,000 I ask - Which 46,000 were to die? Whose father? Whose brother? Whose husband? And, yes, I am focusing on American lives. The Japanese had their fate in their own hands, we did not. Hundreds of thousands of American troops anxiously waited at staging areas in the Pacific dreading the coming invasion, their fate resting on what Japanese would do next. The Japanese could have ended it at any time. They chose to wait. And while the Japanese stalled, an average of 900 more Americans were killed or wounded each day the war continued. I've heard another line of argument that we should have accepted a negotiated peace with the Japanese on terms they would have found acceptable. I have never heard anyone suggest that we should have negotiated a peace with Nazi Germany. Such an idea is so outrageous, that no rational human being would utter the words. To negotiate with such evil fascism was to allow it even in defeat a measure of legitimacy. This is not just some empty philosophical principal of the time - it was essential that these forces of evil be clearly and irrevocably defeated - their demise unequivocal. Their leadership had forfeited any expectation of diplomatic niceties. How it is, then, the history of the war in the Pacific can be so soon forgotten? The reason may lie in the advancing erosion of our history, of our collective memory. Fifty years after their defeat, Japanese officials have the temerity to claim they were the victims. That Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalent of the Holocaust. And, believe it or not, there are actually some American academics who support this analogy, thus aiding and giving comfort to a 50-year attempt by the Japanese to rewrite their own history, and ours in the process. There is an entire generation of Japanese who do not know the full extent of their country's conduct during World War II. This explains why they do not comprehend why they must apologize- for the Korean comfort women. for the Medical experimentation on POW's which match the horror of those conducted by the Nazi's. for the plane to use biological weapons against the United States by infecting civilian populations on the West Coast. for the methodical slaughter of civilians. and for much more. In a perverse inversion, by forgetting our own history, we contribute to the Japanese amnesia, to the detriment of both our nations. Unlike the Germans who acknowledged their guilt, the Japanese persist in the fiction that they did nothing wrong, that they were trapped by circumstances. This only forecloses any genuine prospect that the deep wounds suffered by both nations can be closed and healed. One can only forgive by remembering. And to forget, is to risk repeating history. The Japanese in a well orchestrated political and public relations campaign have now proposed that the use of the term "V-J Day" be replaced by the more benign "Victory in the Pacific Day". How convenient. This they claim will make the commemoration of the end of the war in the Pacific less "Japan specific". (Maj Gen Charles W. Sweeney, USAF (Ret) May 11,1995)

Bob Choi:

Like many Hongkongers, I am ambivalent towards Japan. I appreciate their arts and culture and some (not all!) of their ethnic traits and yet their government often appears to be arrogant and stubborn, especially in their attitude towards their role in WWII. It further reinforces my belief that even under the best political environment, the people must actively oversee and guide the government and not the other way round. In fact, I regard it the first duty of any patriotic citizen to scrutinize the government's actions and policies. It's a difficult task and one runs the risk of being labelled "unpatriotic", but true democracy depends on it.

-The End-