Anniversary of the Atomic Bomb Attacks on Japan

The Deseret News carried an opinion by Kai Bird and Martin J Sherwin that the U.S.’s use of the atomic bombs against Japan was unwarranted. They cite for evidence a book written by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (Racing the Enemy) even claiming it “definitively” shows it was the Soviet Union’s entry into the Pacific war on Aug 8 that spurred Japan to surrender.

Well I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment on whether it “definitively” answers the question. I am, however, skeptical such a conclusion of such finality can be made when I have rattling between my ears the following questions:

Did the bombing of Hiroshima spur the Soviets into attacking Manchuria because they thought our use of the bomb (two days before they attacked) was going to end the war soon and they wanted to quickly gain territory?

The Japanese fought tooth and nail everywhere the U.S. encountered them. Think of Tarawa, Io Jima, and Okinawa. All of a sudden the Soviets attacked Manchuria and the thought of fighting tooth and nail on the homeland gets chucked? Come on, the Soviets didn’t even have a navy for the invasion needed in the Japanese Islands (much less the experience gained by the Americans at this time for such an invasion).

I may concede on the argument that a million American lives were saved by not having used the bombs. Experience with the Gulf wars seems to indicate pessimistic estimates before hostilities; but do Bird and Sherwin have a more “reasonable” estimate? It certainly wasn’t going to be zero. I would have dropped the bomb to save 100,000 American lives, a mere 10 percent of the number they call inflated. Obviously Truman thought there were a significant number of Americans who would have been killed if he didn’t order the atomic attack. If the 1 Million number was made up in 1947, what number was Truman using in 1945?

It is no secret that the U.S. and the Soviets didn’t like each other and that the U.S. did not want the Soviets moving in a land grab once the war seemed near a close. The only way that both sides (Soviets and US) could presume the war was near a close was the fact that the US had nuclear weapons. Otherwise the Soviets did not have the capability to invade Japan and the U.S. would have been looking at a protracted effort.

Finally, suppose Bird and Sherwin’s premise is correct. What if the U.S. only dropped the bombs because they were racing the Soviet Union in a conquest of Japan? What if the Soviets had the means to occupy more than Manchuria and a few unprotected islands in the North. Do Bird and Sherwin think life would have been better for those Japanese under a Soviet occupation? Do they think fewer Japanese would have been killed under a Soviet occupation then would have been killed by the Atomic bombs? Do they think fewer Japanese would have been killed if the U.S. had to invade?

Because they don’t ask these questions, their analysis falls short of objectivity. It would appear their only object is to attack the U.S.