War to Mobilize Democracy, LLC
Waiting for Another Hiroshima
Andrew L. Jaffee, August 18, 2005
Home   Search   Forum   Terms

August 6th marked the 60th anniversary of America's use of an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. While some still argue that President Truman's decision to use the A-bomb was "controversial," they are afflicted with the scourge of our time, the loss of a sense of moral proportion and certainty. Unfortunately, those with relativistic morals will lead us to see the day when nuclear weapons are used again -- this time to end once and for all the barbaric savagery of Islamism.

Green Left Weekly (GLW) calls the U.S. putting a swift end to WWII -- using atomic weapons -- the "worst terror attacks in history." These moral relativists and historical revisionists claim,

A tiny group of US rulers met secretly in Washington and callously ordered this indiscriminate annihilation of civilian populations. They gave no explicit warnings. They rejected all alternatives, preferring to inflict the most extreme human carnage possible. They ordered and had carried out the two worst terror acts in human history.

GLW advocates the capitalist conspiracy theory: the U.S. wanted to dominate the world economy, so its real intention in dropping the A-bomb was terrorizing everyone, especially the Soviets, into utter submission.

GLW is, of course, an extreme example, but not unusual. According to the BBC:

On the 60th anniversary of the destruction of Hiroshima, new questions are being asked about whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb - and whether the bomb was really responsible for the Japanese surrender. …

Now, a new book offers the most radical re-interpretation of these events. In Racing the Enemy, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, professor of history and director of the Center for Cold War Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, blames both Stalin and Truman for not doing more to negotiate a surrender.

He also claims that it was the Soviet entry into the war against Japan, just after Hiroshima, which really worried the Japanese and which made them give up.

Mr Hasegawa says that Stalin rejected peace feelers put out by Japan because he was determined to win spoils from joining the war.

And, he suggests, the Americans ignored the feelers - which they knew about from breaking Japanese codes - because they did not like them.

Truman refused to modify the "unconditional surrender" demand because he wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor, courted popularity at home and needed to demonstrate strategic power.

Thus, Mr Hasegawa claims, opportunities were lost. The myth that it was only the atom bomb which could have ended the war was invented in order to assuage "Truman's conscience and ease the collective American conscience".

Is that how it really happened? Mr. Hasegawa is nothing more than an amateurish historical revisionist, apologizing for crimes which he knows his own people committed, and for which he feels very guilty.

Why is the left-wing, like GLW, so eager to harp on Hitler's atrocities, but sweep those of the Japanese under the rug? It is just white guilt.

Caucasian American and European leftists, living in safety and economic prosperity, feel guilty about their cushy lifestyles. They want a quick and easy fix to the world's ills, without sacrificing their safety and comfort, or taking the time for rational political action. Of course, this mix causes further emotional consternation, as the "end result" is unattainable -- like having your cake and eating it, too.

Here is an example of extreme white guilt, published yesterday in Dayton City Paper. The author is upset with New York Times writer Thomas Freidman because "can never accept suicide bombings as part of a nationalist struggle:"

Friedman can only accept gigantic, systematic, white-skinned wealthy American crimes, not the smaller retaliatory crimes of dark-skinned impoverished people. Suicide bombings and "terrorism" are tactics, like night attacks or ambushes.

The author makes short shrift of non-white crimes, which takes us back to guilt-driven attempts at rewriting the history of the Japanese in WWII. Far earlier than Hiroshima, the Japanese were busy committing unspeakable atrocities.

In 1937 and 1938, Japanese soldiers massacred approximately 300,000 Chinese in an and around Nanking. They raped between 20,000 and 80,000 Chinese women. The Japanese "beheaded, burned, bayoneted, buried alive, or disemboweled" during their orgy of evil.

Question to the leftists: Can the Rape of Nanking be rationalized because non-whites were killing other non-whites?

Nanking is just one example of Japanese war crimes. The leftists would edit Pearl Harbor, the unprovoked slaughter of 2,500 Americans, from history. They would press the "delete" key on documentation of the

…Bataan death march beginning April 9, 1942, during which 72,000 exhausted Filipino and American defenders of the Bataan peninsula were marched for four days a distance of 50 miles without food and water, while Japanese soldiers shot or bayoneted hundreds of stragglers.

The "liberals" would have you forget that 12,000 Americans were killed and 38,000 Americans injured in the battle for one island, Okinawa. They would edit Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Luzon from history.

The leftists would forget the kamikazes. They would forget the ferocity and insanity of Japanese soldiers during the Pacific campaign and the images of Japanese civilians jumping off cliffs rather than surrendering to American soldiers.

To end WWII, President Truman and his advisors were faced with ordering thousands of American soldiers to their deaths in taking the Japanese mainland. How many men would we have lost? 250,000? 500,000?

American soldiers who fought in Europe were tired. After cleaning up Hitler -- the battles of the Bulge, Anzio, Normandy -- how much more could we have asked of these men? Men like my father. He and his compatriots were certain they would have been killed in an invasion of mainland Japan. They read Stars and Stripes. They knew that thousands of Americans were killed taking tiny Pacific islands.

"It's us or them." Call me old-fashioned, but I believe this saying is true when you are fighting for survival.

What are we to expect in our war to preserve civilization -- the war against Islamo-fascism? The choice should be clear, but because of human nature, it is not. God forbid, but it just may come to scorched earth -- again.

In one scenario, we will continue fighting a half-hearted, Vietnam-style, war of attrition -- our "war on terror" -- and things will never seem to get better… Until the Islamist savages do something horrendous on an unimaginable scale: set off a dirty bomb in downtown Chicago; use a suitcase nuke in Moscow; unleash a canister of cyclosarin in Tokyo or Paris.

Then the wrath of the West will be finally awakened. "ENOUGH!," the people will cry. "We fight and fight, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel." Then an American, French, British, or Russian cold-war missile will be aimed and fired on Tehran, or Medina, or Lahore. If this does not convince the Muslim world to give up terrorism, one more nuke will. Just like the second bomb on Nagasaki convinced Hirohito to surrender.

Of course, this scenario is completely avoidable if we finish the fight sooner rather than later. Whether the Western world has the resolve to do so remains to be seen.




© 2005 War to Mobilize Democracy, LLC
This site developed and maintained by microIT Infrastructure, LLC