Interviews with US experts (1)

INTERVIEW/ Tsuyoshi Hasegawa: U.S. should face up to the 'war crime' of dropping A-bombs on Japan

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/opinion/AJ201509190029

By MASATO TAINAKA/ Staff Writer

Editor's note: This is part of a series of interviews with U.S. experts on whether the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified.

* * *

SANTA BARBARA, Calif.--A prominent historian on Russia, who was born in Japan but obtained U.S. citizenship, believes the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki amounted to war crimes that should have been brought to and tried by the International Military Tribunal of the Far East.

"Unless we Americans face this fact squarely and come to terms with it, I fear that the mistake of using nuclear weapons could be repeated," Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told The Asahi Shimbun in a recent interview.

But he added that Japanese would be wrong in thinking of themselves solely as victims of the atomic bombs without accepting their nation's responsibility for the war.

"Despite the seemingly close bilateral alliance, Americans and Japanese have the largest perception gap when it comes to the atomic bombs," Hasegawa said. "If the U.S. president were to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki to express condolences to the victims of the atomic bombings sometime in the future, this would have to be reciprocated by the Japanese prime minister's contrition that Japan was responsible for waging the war."

Excerpts of his interview follow:

* * *

Question: Do you believe it was necessary for the United States to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to induce its surrender?

Hasegawa: The action was not necessary, nor can it be justified. The traditional thinking in the United States rests on the premise that dropping the atomic bombs was the only available option to force Japan to surrender without invading the Japanese mainland, which would have cost numerous lives of U.S. soldiers.

But President Harry Truman did have two other options. One was to call on Josef Stalin to sign the Potsdam Declaration and have the Soviet Union enter the war against Japan. The other was to urge Japan to surrender by making it clear that Japan would be allowed to retain its "monarchy under the current dynasty."

Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s initial draft for the Potsdam Declaration included wording for allowing Japan to retain its "monarchy under the current dynasty" but Truman intentionally deleted it because he saw the atomic bombs as a means to force Japan to accept unconditional surrender.

Stimson’s initial draft also included the possibility of inviting Soviet entry into the war. But Truman wanted to end the war before the Soviets entered, and the atomic bombs provided the means to achieve his goal.

Q: In your book “Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman and the Surrender of Japan,” you wrote that Japan’s "Big Six" leaders, who constituted the Supreme War Council, continued to hope, even after the Aug. 6, 1945, atomic bombing of Hiroshima, that the Soviet Union would remain neutral and act as an intermediary between Japan and the United States. Could you elaborate further?

A: It was downright wishful thinking. Japan’s political leaders at the time lacked lucid strategic thinking. Moscow had already decided to enter the war against Japan, but the Japanese leaders placed the last hope to terminate the war on Moscow's mediation. When Japan's highest leaders received the news that an atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, they still clung to the hope to seek Moscow's mediation. The prevailing U.S. interpretation assumes the atomic bombings prompted Japan to surrender, but a careful analysis of the decision-making process in Tokyo to end the war reveals that the more decisive factor was the Soviet Union’s entry into the war against Japan. It meant that a diplomatic option, which Japan had counted on, had vanished.

Q: How do you view the Enola Gay controversy of 1995 over a plan by the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum to portray the atomic bombings in a self-reflective light?

A: Arguments can be made on two levels. One is over the U.S. political decision to drop the atomic bombs and the other is over the effects of the bombs at ground level. What was taking place above the mushroom clouds cannot and should not be divorced from the unprecedented human tragedies caused by the bombs on the ground not only immediately but also many years afterward due to the illness from radiation. The question is: Can those who justify dropping the bomb still do so after examining the horrifying effects of the bombs, brushing aside the victims' sufferings as the necessary cost of the war?

The Smithsonian’s original exhibit plan was the first attempt in the United States to display what took place below the mushroom clouds, but it only got under the skin of so many U.S. citizens and the exhibit had to be canceled. The atomic bombings were events that many Americans feel a pang of conscience about, so they don’t want the subject to be raised. That is exactly why the action had to be justified as a necessary evil.

I believe the use of atomic bombs constitutes a war crime. Unless we Americans face this fact squarely and come to terms with it, I fear that the mistake of using nuclear weapons could be repeated.

Q: Discussions in the United States tend to return to the rationalization of the use of the atomic bombs by asking, “How about the atrocities that the Japanese committed during the war?” How do you respond to that?

A: At issue here is whether the United States is allowed to use whatever means is available that may go against “jus in bello” (acceptable wartime conduct) if it engages in “jus ad bellum” (a just war)--for example, the permissibility of the array of strategic bombings on civilians, such as air raids on Dresden, Germany, and Tokyo, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The use of poison gas is banned under international law because it goes against acceptable wartime conduct. If poison gas is illegal, atomic bombs should also be illegal because they are an even more atrocious weapon.

Q: Do you believe that those who justify the use of atomic bombs do so partly because the United States, not Germany or Japan, used them?

A: Yes, I do. But let me just note that representatives of the Allied Powers got together in Germany to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the (Feb. 13-14, 1945) bombing of Dresden. Gerhard Schroeder, German chancellor at the time, remorsefully said, before he mourned the war dead, that he grieved for the victims of Nazi Germany.

But the prime ministers of Japan, when they attend peace ceremonies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only talk about the destruction caused by atomic bombs without expressing remorse over the war waged by Japan. If the U.S. president were to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki to express condolences to the victims of the atomic bombings sometime in the future, this would have to be reciprocated by the Japanese prime minister's contrition that Japan was responsible for waging the war.

Had Japan surrendered before Aug. 6, there would not have been atomic bombings nor would have the Soviet Union entered the war. I believe it is wrong only to emphasize the victimization of Japanese without first placing the blame on their own leaders who invited these calamities by delaying surrender.

Despite the seemingly close bilateral alliance, Americans and Japanese have the largest perception gap when it comes to the atomic bombs. Most Americans believe that the use of atomic bombs is justified, whereas most Japanese believe they were victimized by the atomic bombs, and the use of the atomic bombs cannot be justified. This perception gap lies at the heart of a somewhat uneasy mistrust under the surface between the two nations.

Q: Do you believe the use of atomic bombs should have been brought before the tribunal as a war crime?

A: Yes, I do. But leaders of the Allied Powers--the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France--met after the Aug. 6, 1945, atomic bombing of Hiroshima to discuss standards for a future war crimes tribunal, and they decided to exclude the so-called strategic bombings and atomic bombings from war crimes. An Indian judge, Pal, raised the issue of whether the use of atomic bombs constituted a war crime during the postwar International Military Tribunal for the Far East, only to be ignored.

Q: What do you think U.S. citizens can do with regard to the U.S. responsibility for dropping the atomic bombs?

A: American opinions may differ on whether or not the U.S. dropping the atomic bombs can be justified. But whatever views we may take, it is essential for U.S. citizens to confront and learn about what really took place to the people below the mushroom clouds. Little known is the fact that among the victims were at least 12 U.S. prisoners of war in Hiroshima. Were these American POWs, killed by their own bomb, a necessary price to pay to end the war? A small memorial plaque lies inconspicuously on the wall of the building where they were incarcerated when the bomb was dropped. I visited it last year along with University of California students to lay flowers. Grieving for the American POWs, together with all the people killed by the atomic bombs, may help to achieve mutual reconciliation between the two nations that are at odds with one another in the debate over the atomic bombings.

* * *

Born in Tokyo in 1941, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, a graduate of the University of Tokyo’s Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, earned a Ph.D. from the University of Washington. He became a U.S. citizen in 1976 and now teaches Russian history at the University of California, Santa Barbara.