The problem with all of these pro A-bombing Japan arguments and
assumptions is that you (they) presume their is (was) no other choice.... The
possibility there may have been closed minds and a lack of creativity involved
This is true.
Of course, hindsight is a great teacher, but one they had to do without.
One concern, of course, was that the bomb wouldn't work, or wouldn't work particularly well. If they tried to drop it on a deserted area as a demonstration and it fizzled, it would be worse than not dropping it at all. Or even if it worked, people might realize that no harm happened and say "so what."
I was barely alive at the time it was dropped, so didn't have any insight into the arguments made at the time.
Your charge if racism might, of course, be a factor, but I think more of a factor was a) the fanaticism of the Japanese (exemplified by their kamakazi pilots) and the sense that conventional bombing wouldn't break their spirit (a valid concern since it didn't break the spirit of the English during the battle of Britain, and the bombing of German cities wasn't that big a factor in destroying the moral of the German people). Also that this was an isolated area where there were no Allied troops to put at risk (a reason for not using the bomb in Europe). We couldn't effectively hit the Germans without risking our own nearby troops.)
It was a complex decicision made by people exhausted from years of bitter warfare and anxious to end the war and get on with their lives. I think there was a feeling, after Guadalcanal and the other island battles, that we had lost more than enough of our troops to the Japanese, and if we could end it and save more American lives, that was fair and just. After all, it may be a schoolyard cry, but it's also true that "they started it," so they had no right complain when we finished it.
it's easy to criticize from 60 years after the events. It's a lot harder to think what we would have done in the same position. |
