Do you think the decision to bomb Hiroshima was also influenced by resentment of Japan's war atrocities (E.g. rape of Nanking, Bataan death march)?
Dower, Chapter 9
The emperor was kept as a "puppet" for General Macarthur to smoothly demilitarize and democratize Japan, would it have been any different if the emperor was not acquitted of war crimes?
Sato, The Anatomy of U.S- Japanese Antagonisms
Article Abstracts
Bailey, The Beginnings of Anti-Japanese Agitation
In this article, Bailey's major argument was that the sentiments of anti-Japanese Agitation in the United States was caused by many factors; e.g. earthquake and fire of 1906, Russo-Japanese War and Japanese immigration.
The article examines how the American attitude towards the Japanese changed, and how the factors above led towards the increasing contempt for the Japanese immigrants, who were mainly congregated in the West Coast of the United States. The anti-Japanese sentiments were first stirred when Japanese labourers were entering the United States in large numbers; from a rate of 1000 labourers a year, to 12,000. Many Americans were already feeling the sting of Japanese competition and feared a lowered standard of living.
Additionally, the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War had also planted the seeds of anti-Japanese agitation. Firstly, Russia had managed to turn the tables on Japan regarding American public opinion, manipulating the press and putting down the previous notion that the Japanese were fighting against the Russians because they were altruistic. Secondly, because Japan won the war, a wave of uneasiness and jealousy swept through the Americans, as Japan was now able to threaten the Pacific interests of the United States. The Russo-Japanese war also played a second part in anti-Japanese feelings. The influx of Japanese soldiers, weary from the War, started to emigrate to Hawaii, Mexico and California. This alarmed the Californian citizens, and it only took a provocative anti-Japanese campaign, such as that launched by the Chronicle, to light the spark. These built up tension over the years led to the segregation policies and the boycott of Japanese restaurants and racial attacks.
With reference to the article "Imperialism - Japanese and American" by Iriye, who excerpted a paragraph from the San Francisco Examiner; the rival of Chronicle as mentioned above; "Once the war with Russia is over, the brown stream of Japanese immigration would inundate California". I believe that because the anti-Japanese campaign was promoted by the press, the flames of racism that were fanned by the media were also one of the factors for the heightened anti-Japanese sentiments in the West Coast.
Also, the article by Iriye further examined the feelings of "uneasiness if not of jealousy" that the Americans felt after the Japanese won the Russo-Japanese War. Bailey pointed out that it was because Japan was now able to threaten the Pacific interests of the United States. Iriye noted that it might be because it was a sign that "the East rising against the West" and Japanese wanted to "expel Western influence from Asia" though they were "still Oriental, which by definition meant hostility".
After reading both articles, I think that the roots of the anti-Japanese sentiments actually sprouted from fear of an Eastern civilization overpowering the West. America might have looked upon Japan as a protégé, but with the Japanese gaining much power and catching up rapidly, the "master" might have feared that its "disciple" might one day overpower and clamber over his head. Comparing both Iriye's and Bailey's articles, the strong feelings of uneasiness and jealousy was because the Russo-Japanese War had demonstrated the power of an Eastern civilization; which was seen as threatening America's economic interest and influence. I think this resulted in fear, altering American attitude to the Japanese and finally, translating itself into anti-Japanese agitations and racism.
Alperovitz, "Hiroshima, Historians Reassess"
Alperovitz's main point in his article would be about the reassessment of the bombing of Hiroshima. His main argument would be to question if the widely debated bombing of Hiroshima was indeed needed to end the Pacific War with Japan.
Alperovitz starts off by explaining that "the consensus among scholars was that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time". Important documents; one from a top-secret War Department study; points to the fact that "Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group" was found in 1989, coinciding with the consensus among scholars. Alperovitz then highlights the fact that Truman and his advisors knew of alternatives to the bomb, and that the Japanese emperor was personally intervening, asking for peace. Many American officials were aware that the emperor was revered much like the Christian God, and deemed assurance for the emperor as necessary for the surrender formula for Japan. Alperovitz further examines Truman's diaries, and that the critical factor was now not when the war would end, but how, and on whose terms. He then provided many extracts from recognized people; deeming the bombing of Hiroshima was "debatable" and Nagasaki "unnecessary"; and that "the war could have been ended without dropping the atomic bombs". Many top-level American figures have also used strong words, such as that of "revulsion", "completely unnecessary", "no longer mandatory as a measure" and "awful thing" to describe the atomic bomb, leaving readers of the article with a clearer picture as compared to that of the traditional idea of the atomic bomb. Alperovitz then moves on to examine other reasons why the atomic bombs were used, and showed various sources that pointed readers to the direction that the bomb was used to "make Russia more manageable in Europe" and was deemed as the "master card" of diplomacy toward Russia. (10)
I think that this article is a highly persuasive article. Throughout the article, Alperovitz's tone does not take the side of neither the Japanese nor the Americans, but rather, from a third person point of view. He substantiated many of his points with excerpts and quotes and provided many extracts from important documents and journals, further adding to the credibility of the article.
I find the most eye-catching extract was that of Admiral William Leahy, President Truman's chief of staff. He, as a high ranking American official, termed the atomic bomb "barbarous", and it provided "no material assistance" towards the war against Japan. The fact that he found the use of atomic bombs being similar to standards of "barbarians of the Dark Ages", certainly tells the intensity of his disapproval towards the bombing.
Before reading this article, I had always had the preconceived idea that the dropping of the atomic bombs were a necessity to stop Japan from their wartime brutality, since my grandparents were from Singapore, which fell under the Japanese occupation. As mentioned in the article, the bombing is usually entangled with anger at Japanese war conduct. However, the article has also shown me a second side to the story, which, as stated by Admiral William Leahy, that "wars cannot be won by destroying women and children", and I now find that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as questionable because the article has highlighted that there were actually many other ways to win the war without the loss of lives, but America chose their "preferred option" with the hidden agenda of showing their military superiority to Russia by destroying civilians.
Sato, The anatomy of U.S.- Japanese Antagonisms
Hawaii's Last Queen
Hawaii's acceptance to modernization is similar to Japan in many ways. In both countries, western influence has brought about much change to social systems. However, Japan did not suffer the same fate as Hawaii - it was not annexed by the United States and managed to retain her identity.
Missionaries had arrived in both Japan and Hawaii to spread their "manifest destiny" of bringing the Gospel westward; Japan had a high of 2% of Christians during the Tokugawa Era, and one third of the Hawaiians were Christians. Also, as more foreigners arrived, the local population was struck by disease. 80% of the native population in Hawaii had perished. Similarly, in Japan, foreigners brought Cholera, which devastated the local population and 100,000 lives were lost over a span of 10 years. The Hawaiians started to dress in the Western way, giving up the traditional Hula and clothes. In the same manner, Japanese had also thrown their kimonos aside, donning western clothes instead, and the tradition of Samurais was also given up.
I think that this video provokes much thought regarding what we learnt in class about Japan. Japan had the Meiji Emperor, Hawaii had their Queen. Both had started their march toward modernization, but ended up on very different paths.
The Road To War: Japan
Occupied Japan: An Experiment in Democracy
The Pacific Century, Inside Japan, Inc
