The beginning of the Cold War: why the US leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki, despite all evidence both military and scientific, in the presence of peaceful and concrete alternatives, in the sight of God and all the moral men in the world.
[Originally published on August 6th, 2020]
Today is the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima by the United States. This unprecedented act of violence killed an estimated 100,000 people. Irrefutable historical evidence proves that the bombings were militarily unnecessary and morally reprehensible.
There were at least two ways to swiftly and perhaps even peacefully ensure Japanese surrender, which the US was aware of as early as July 1944. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended not the last acts of WWII, but rather the first acts of the Cold War. In this piece I’ll be outlining in detail the journey to the American decision to use the bomb — The origins of the Manhattan project, Truman’s rise to power, behind the scenes deliberations from the US and Japan, the Soviet Union’s influence, and Japan’s efforts for peace.
I cannot state in clearer terms that the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki should never have happened, and that it is every leftist and moral beings’ duty to combat the historical revisionism that continues to excuse these atrocities.
In the midst of everything going on it is easy to forget that we are closer now than ever before to using these weapons again. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ “Doomsday Clock” puts us at 100 seconds to midnight, the closest we’ve been since 1953. (https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/)
The 9 nuclear states are the USA, Britain, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, France, North Korea, and Israel. There are approx. 13,000 nukes today, down from 70,000 at the peak of the Cold War. Back then, the world’s arsenal was equivalent to 1.7 million Hiroshima bombs. The sanitization of Hiroshima plays directly into the second Cold War currently underway between the US, Russia, and North Korea. It enabled Obama’s $1.2 trillion dollar modernization of the US nuclear arsenal that Trump is now implementing.
This thread will be divided into sub-threads where I discuss each topic in detail. I’ll start by outlining the historiography of the bomb, and how the narrative has shifted to continue to justify the bombings, by warhawks and liberals alike, 75 years on.
This section outlines popular historical narratives about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the overall popular view of the US’ role in WWII and how it was ended. From the outset, the narrative did not align with the scientific, political, or strategic facts.
There are 3 historical narratives about Hiroshima and Nagasaki that emerge roughly in chronological order: the “heroic” narrative, the “tragic” narrative, and the “apocalyptic” narrative.
The “heroic” narrative touts that US were the good guys in WWII, a “good war”, a war to defeat fascism. The atomic bombs were dropped to end the war hastily and spare a land invasion, blockade, and continued strategic bombing, ultimately saving lives. According to US intelligence in 1945, the highest estimate for a land invasion of Japan was 46,000 casualties. Later in his life Truman upped that number to 500,000 in his memoirs, secretary of war Stimson claimed a “million” casualties were averted, i.e. around 250,000 dead. George HW Bush claimed the atomic bombings saved “millions” of American lives. Estimates have steadily risen over the years along with criticism. Japanese and other Asian casualties began to be grouped in, in the same manner that Nazis are grouped in as “victims of communism.” From the outset, the estimated “lives saved” by nuking Japan was deliberately inflated by those in power to overshadow the massive amount of life lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the highest estimates at 210,000 people killed.
The “tragic” narrative asserts that the atomic bombings were not necessary. Japan was already defeated and pursuing options for surrender, and with military targets wiped out by 1945, the primary victims were civilians, women and children, and enslaved Koreans and Chinese. This narrative emerged in the late 60s and early 70s, at the peak of the American anti-nuclear movement. Though most Americans today regard the bombings as a tragedy, this narrative was unsuccessful in challenging the establishment narrative that the bombings were unavoidable.
The “apocalyptic” narrative asserts that dropping atomic bombs unnecessarily was not only a war crime, but sets a potentially omnicidal precedent. Truman knowingly began a process that could threaten the existence of all life on earth. He claims he “never lost a wink of sleep.” We have been lucky to avoid another Hiroshima. In the past 75 years there have been over 80 nuclear “near-misses” in the form of comms blackouts, false intel, and standoffs like the Cuban missile crisis that, if cooler heads had not prevailed, could have ended life as we know it.
There are 3 prevailing myths about WWII: that the US won the war in Europe, that the Cold War started during WWII because of Soviet aggression, and that the atomic bombs ended the war and saved lives. In 1945 7 out of 8 5-star admirals and generals agreed that the bombs were militarily unnecessary or morally reprehensible. The 8th was MacArthur, who had “no doubt” that altered surrender terms would’ve ended the war. MacArthur would heavily advocate for nukes in the Korean war. According to the US Navy museum: “[The] vast destruction reaped by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki […] made little impact on the Japanese military. However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria on Aug. 9 changed their minds.” The invasion, promised by Stalin at Yalta, was the biggest factor in forcing Japan’s hand. Hokkaido was in their sights, and above all, Japan feared losing their emperor to a communist takeover. I’ll elaborate on this in another section. Truman and his advisors knew of other ways to end the war months sooner, but refused to do so. Why? Because the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended not as the last acts of WWII, to defeat Japan, but rather the first acts of the Cold War. to threaten the USSR.
To understand the contested nature of the bomb among American leadership, and its transition from a feared world-ending device to a necessary tool of a moral crusade, we must start at the beginning, with the Manhattan project. The Manhattan project was first intended to be a deterrent against potential Nazi nukes. From the outset, doubt was cast about the potential danger of the bomb and the precedent it would set, outweighing any strategic advantage.
Germany, December 1938: the Uranium atom is split. In January 1939, Niels Bohr informs the US that two German scientists had split the Uranium atom, and the possibility of an atomic bomb began to be theorized. European scientists who had fled Nazi Germany were terrified of the possibility of a Hitler nuke. Despite their warnings, American authorities doubted the Nazis were capable of making such a weapon. The Nazi nuclear program is almost caricature, and worth looking up.
Later in 1939, 2 Hungarian scientists, Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner approached Albert Einstein to warn him. Einstein then wrote to Roosevelt urging the US to begin atomic bomb research as a potential deterrent against the Nazis. Roosevelt then authorized the Manhattan project. At the end of his life Einstein cited his urging of Roosevelt to begin the bomb project as his greatest regret.
In late 1941 J. Robert Oppenheimer, “father of the Atomic Bomb,” joins the project. They began to theorize that detonation of H-bomb could potentially ignite all the oxygen in the atmosphere and incinerate the entire world. Among the earliest doubt cast on the safety and morality of atomic weapons, Oppenheimer called for an end to the project, saying “Better to live in thralldom to the Nazis than to bring down the final curtain on mankind.”
Later recalculated, the predicted chances of incinerating the atmosphere were about 3 in 1 million. The project was resumed, and on July 16th 1945, US tested an 18kiloton atomic bomb at the Trinity test in Alamogordo, New Mexico.
Harry Truman was a complicated man, who through political conniving and sheer dumb luck maneuvered his way from being a relentlessly bullied nobody in MO to the man who ousted the immensely popular VP Henry Wallace in 1944, and ultimately became President — his biggest fear. Before we talk about Truman it’s essential to contrast him with the previous VP, Henry Wallace. One of the most radical and beloved politicians in US history, his spot as VP was stolen from him in one of the least talked about coups of the 20th century.
Henry Wallace was Roosevelt’s VP from 1941–45. A beloved progressive and outspoken antifascist, he’s been largely wiped from historical memory. His father was Coolidge and Harding’s Sec. of Agriculture, and Henry was also Sec. of Ag. during the New Deal. Wallace was a champion of civil rights, women’s rights, and unions. He was a staunch opponent of British and French colonialism. This made him extremely popular with the American people, but an enemy to the Democratic establishment as well as Republicans. As VP, Wallace declared the 20th century to be the “century of the Common Man.” He called for a worldwide people’s revolution in the vein of the French and Russian revolutions, global full employment, an end to poverty, and the proliferation of science and tech research. Wallace summarized his politics as “Nation first, wall street second.” He labeled Wall Street “America’s fascists.” Considering how radical he was, especially for his time, it’s not hard to imagine why virtually no one knows about him despite his popularity.
By 1944, the establishment had had enough. At the DNC convention on July 20th in Chicago, a coup was staged to get Wallace off the ticket. That day a Gallup poll was released stating only 2% of Americans wanted Truman on the ticket. 65% wanted Wallace back as VP. The first night of the convention, Sen. Claude Pepper attempted to call for a vote that would secure Wallace’s nomination as VP. When he was 5 feet away from the microphone, a motion to adjourn was called by the party bosses. 5% said Aye, 95% said Nay, but the motion carried. All of history changed with that moment. If Wallace remained VP and eventually became President, not only would the atomic bombings likely never happened, but the Cold War could have been avoided and the 20th century could have truly been the “century of the Common Man.”
On April 12th 1945, months after a grueling trip to Yalta, FDR dies. Truman, his greatest fears realized, becomes president. His presidency is one of the deadliest examples in history of the dangers of incompetent and unstable men in positions of power.
On Truman’s first day in office, a reporter told him: “Good luck Mr. President!” Truman responded: “I wish you didn’t have to call me that.” Here’s a thread about Truman’s rise to power, his background and psychological profile.
Per his diaries, Truman often had nightmares about becoming President. He nearly fainted the moment Eleanor Roosevelt told him the news. In 82 days as VP, Truman met with Roosevelt twice. He wasn’t privy to anything regarding foreign policy. He had virtually no accomplishments as a senator before becoming VP. He was not aware of the existence of the Manhattan project or the atomic bomb until he became president.
Truman was born in 1884 Missouri to a poor farming family. As a child he was diagnosed with hyperopia, and couldn’t fight or play sports. In his diaries he refers to himself as a “sissy”, and he was bullied by his peers, who called him “Truwoman.” He struggled with his masculinity constantly. His mother often said he was “meant to be a girl,” and he was hyperfocused on his feminine attributes, often expressing his insecurities in letters to his wife. This psychology played into his desperate need to appear strong.
After service in WWI, he was picked up by the Kansas City Pendergast machine. He was elected to senate, but shunned by his peers as a hack. Another machine secured his re-election. He led an investigation of the defense industry, his only real achievement before becoming VP.
Throughout his tenure as President, Truman expressed explicit doubt over the safety, morality, and international implications of using the bomb at least three times. However, hardline anti-communists who were shooed away by Roosevelt manipulated Truman to their advantage. His most trusted advisor James Byrnes warned Truman that the atomic bomb was great enough to destroy the whole world.” From the beginning, Truman understands that nukes are not just an upgraded weapon, but a potentially omnicidal one. On April 25th 1945 Secretary of war Stimson and brigadier general of Manhattan project Groves brief Truman on a bomb capable of wiping out entire cities, which would be ready in 4 months. Truman agrees with them that bomb may be too dangerous to use.Finally, after the Trinity test, he writes in his journal: “We’ve discovered the most terrible bomb in history […] this may be the fire destruction prophecy of the Euphrates valley era, after Noah and his fabulous ark.”
There is vast and irrefutable historical evidence of two ways Japan could be defeated without the use of nuclear weapons: First, altered surrender terms, and two, waiting for the Soviet invasion of the Eastern front promised by Stalin at Yalta, in February 1945. Japan was considering surrender as early as July 1944. After the battle of Saipan, the air force was crippled, the army cornered, food supplies were shrinking, and infrastructure was beginning to crumble. Feelers for peace talks began to be sent out. Japan’s new government decided to hold out for one last major victory, in order to leverage better peace terms with the US. That victory never came.
In February 1945, Prince Konoe writes to Hirohito “I regret to inform you that defeat is inevitable,” and warned of a communist takeover upon Japan’s defeat. By spring, defeat was widely recognized as inevitable, and the focus shifted to negotiating ideal surrender terms. The United States was aware of all of these considerations, as Japanese codes had been broken at that point and the US was actively intercepting their cables. But if defeat was acknowledged and surrender was considered by Japan in February, why didn’t they surrender sooner?
Unconditional surrender terms were established by the US at Casablanca in Jan. 1943. Japan feared annexation (by US or Soviets) + removal of the emperor. MacArthur July 1945: “the execution of the emperor would be like the crucifixion of Christ. All would fight to die like ants.” Truman was pressured to alter surrender terms multiple times by Stimson, Forrestal, and almost all of his top advisors to hasten the end of the war. Byrnes was the only one opposed, fearing Truman would be “politically crucified” given the amount of racist public sentiment. At Potsdam in July 1945, Truman meets Stalin and Churchill for the first time. Stimson begs Truman to change surrender terms, but he refuses, drunk off power after the news of the successful Trinity test in New Mexico.
Three months after the end of the war in Europe, the Soviets were set to enter the war on the Eastern front, and invade Manchuria. August 9th at midnight was the date set, exactly 3 months after V-E day. The role of the Soviets in influencing Japan’s surrender cannot be understated. America’s threats against Japan failed to sway the imperial war council, who were always primarily concerned with a Soviet invasion and takeover.
On May 16th, the Japanese say a Soviet invasion will “deal a death knell to the Empire.” Their biggest fear at that point is Stalin, and they shift focus to negotiating with the USSR. Japan was unaware of the agreement for the Soviets to enter the war on the Eastern front. Japan offered the USSR concessions: everything lost in 1904–5 war: islands and major ports, railroads in Manchuria, parts of Mongolia. On June 3rd and 4th, Fmr. PM meets with Soviet ambassador to discuss ending the war. Soviet ambassador: “Japanese are desperate to end the war.” The US was aware of these negotiations as well: intercepted Japanese cables claimed “Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.” If the emperor was retained in a symbolic position only, the war could end “tomorrow.” Truman explicitly states his knowledge of Japan’s desire to surrender in a July 18th cable: “Telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.” He knew the Japanese were desperate and willing to surrender if given one concession. So why was surrender not granted?
Mounting doubt about the bomb and opportunities for peace stood no chance against the American public’s bloodlust. The air campaign against Japan was unprecedented in its cruelty, decimating their infrastructure beyond the point of return. A lesson well learned from the Nazis, America engaged in the systemic persecution and dehumanization of Asians and Japanese-Americans to fuel the war effort. While we spared some humanity for the Nazis, Japan was subject to relentlessly brutal tactics from the start.
After Pearl Harbor, Anti-Japanese racism was at an all time high. 120,000 Japanese-Americans were placed in concentration camps. “Extermination sentiment” was rampant in US, being compared to rats, monkeys, and vermin. “Perhaps the J*ps are human, nothing indicates it.” The 1942 Bataan death march was not public knowledge in the US until 1944. The brutal atrocities committed against US and Filipino soldiers ensured that the Japanese were never going to be allowed surrender without some kind of payback.
Truman was deeply racist and antisemitic. In a letter to his wife, he states “I think one man is as good as another, so long as he is decent and honest, and not a n***er or a Ch*namen …The lord made the white man from dust, the n***er from mud then threw up what was left and it came out a Ch*namen.”
Unlike in Europe where the US took great care to avoid bombing civilians until late in the war, the Asian strategic bombing policy from the outset was “urban and indiscriminate bombing.” The US aimed to incinerate all of “Japan’s paper cities.” When the head of US bombing Maj. Gen. Hansel refused to start bombing civilians, he was replaced by general Curtis LeMay, who led the firebombing of Tokyo. The destruction was unprecedented, and the stench of burnt flesh was so strong that pilots were vomiting in their planes.
The US firebombed over 100 Japanese cities. The firebombing of Tokyo remains the deadliest air campaign in history. The city of Toyama was 99.5% destroyed. By summer 1945, the US ran out of important military targets and began targeting secondary, unimportant “military” targets. Per Physicist Freeman Dyson: “I have found this continued slaughter of defenseless Japanese more sickening than the slaughter of well-defended Germans, but still I didn’t quit. By that time, I had been at war so long that I couldn’t remember peace.”
“No living poet had words to describe that emptiness of the soul that allowed me to go on killing without remorse, but Shakespeare understood it, and he gave Macbeth the words: “I am in blood steeped in so that should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as going o’er.”
There are scores of testimonials from high-ranking US military, scientists, and politicians advocating against the use of the bomb, long before and immediately after it was used. These accounts have been largely buried by history.
An “Interim committee,” chaired by Stimson and heavily influenced by Byrnes, was established to come to a final decision about how to use the bomb. Oppenheimer warned that within 3 years, bombs would be up to 7,000 times more powerful than Fat Man, between 10 and 100 megatons. Manhattan project scientists began to staunchly, publicly oppose the use of the bomb, stating it would cite an “uncontrollable arms race between the US and USSR that will lead to total mutual annihilation.”
7 of the 8 5-star generals at the time pressured Truman against using the bomb. Admiral William F. Leahy, chief of staff, described the bomb as “A violation of every Christian ethic, and all the laws of war.” Also from Leahy:” “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material use in the war against Japan. I was not taught to make war in that fashion. Wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
Supreme Commander Eisenhower was against using the bomb on two grounds: “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.” Supreme Commander MacArthur, who frequently advocated for nuking Korea, described the use of the atomic bombs on Japan as an “outrage.” He was confident that, as early as May 1945, the Japanese would gladly accept the revised surrender terms Hoover had urged Truman about.
Former president Hoover wrote a memo in May 1945 urging Truman to find another way to end the war by altering surrender terms. MacArthur called it “a wise and statesman-like document, which if enacted would have obviated the slaughter at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
Dozens of high-ranking admirals openly stated that the Japanese were ready to surrender. Chester Nimitz, 2nd-in-command of the Navy stated in October 1945 that “The Japanese had already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced, before Hiroshima and before the Russians.” Brigadier Gen. Carter Clarke said “We brought them down to an abject surrender, through accelerated sinking of their merchant marines and hunger alone. We didn’t need to do it, we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew we didn’t need to do it. We used them as an experiment.” The War Department later issued a memo claiming there was little discussion of the US bomb in the Japanese cabinet. To Japanese leaders, there was little difference between the firebombings and nuclear bombings. They accepted that the US could continue to wipe out their cities.
Some of the most respected US generals in history overwhelmingly came out against the bomb, and the nuclear threats failed to carry any weight in the imperial war council. The decisive factor in Japan’s surrender was always the Soviets. So what changed? On April 11th and July 6th, internal JSC memos state that “Soviet entry into the war will convince all Japanese that further resistance is futile.” Truman was aware of all of this. Truman wrote in his diary: “Stalin will enter the war by August 15th. Japs finished when that occurs.” He later wrote to his wife: “The Russians are coming in, we’ll end the war a year sooner now. Think of all the boys that won’t be killed.”
Truman was a troubled man, an insecure leader with deeply racist tendencies. However, he was not evil in the same way Hitler was. So why, amid so much doubt and against the urging of his conscience, did he still decide to go ahead and drop the bomb?
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended not the last acts of WWII, but rather the first acts of the Cold War. The bombs were detonated over Japan, but their true target was the Soviet Union. In Roosevelt’s final letter to Truman, he urged caution with the Soviets and implored him to maintain peace. Upon entering office, at the insistence of his staunchly anti-communist advisors, Truman began treating the Soviets as an enemy. At Potsdam, Truman received word of the successful Trinity test. Churchill remarks that his demeanor changed entirely. It became a trump card, and gave him the confidence to begin to play above the rules. He then began to consider the use of the bomb to threaten the Soviets.
No one in the Japanese war cabinet changed their minds based on the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Soviet invasion was the only thing that mattered. It undermined the “Ketsugo” strategy of inviting an American invasion, to inflict casualties to leverage better peace terms. And of course, upon Soviet invasion, the peace talks that were starting to take shape would be null and void. The Soviet invasion begins at midnight on August 8th. Japanese cable: “What we have feared has finally happened, the Soviet invasion means we are forced to surrender”
The Kremlin interpreted the bomb as a direct assault on the USSR. Stalin, Zhukov, and others knew it was an act of imperialism and war. After the USSR suffered 27 million casualties in WWII, they were enraged that another war had immediately begun, and their efforts were in vain.
