Atomic bombings of Japan deemed needless by U.S. historian

While many in the United States believe the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki hastened the end of World War II, a renowned U.S. historian argues that these attacks were needless because Washington knew that Japan intended to surrender.

"Bombing the second city, Nagasaki, was not necessary. Also, I would argue that even Hiroshima was not necessary," Kai Bird said in a recent online interview with Kyodo News.

The United States dropped an atomic bomb over Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, killing an estimated 140,000 people by the end of that year. Three days later, a second one was detonated over Nagasaki, with an estimated 74,000 people dead there by year's end.

"It's quite clear that by the summer of 1945, Harry Truman, the president of the United States, was reading intercepted cable traffic called 'Magic' of Japanese diplomatic cables," Bird said.

He wrote the book "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer" with the late historian Martin Sherwin.

The movie "Oppenheimer," which depicts the life of Robert Oppenheimer, known as the "Father of the Atomic Bomb," was based on their book.

Under the "atomic bomb justification theory," the use of these devastatingly powerful weapons on the two cities hastened Japan's surrender and spared countless lives on both the American and Japanese sides.

"It's very important to remind the world of the atomic bomb. I think we've become far too complacent after more than 70 years living with the bomb," Bird said.

"And it's important to understand the history, why it was created. Oppenheimer himself understood how dangerous they were, and (that) we, human beings, could still destroy ourselves with these weapons. But at the same time, he was in anguish worrying about whether humanity was ready to deal with the atomic age."

In a lecture in November 1945, three months after the end of the war, Oppenheimer made startling remarks regarding the atomic bombing of Japan.

"Most interestingly enough for a Japanese audience, he said that these were weapons that had been used in the first instance on an enemy that was already, essentially, defeated," Bird said.

"So this raises a question about whether they were 'necessary.' And that's an argument that, here in America, is very controversial because the standard historical narrative is that the bombs were necessary to end the war early and to avoid a massive American invasion of the Japanese home islands."

Bird and Sherwin have made full use of many official documents to challenge the justification theory that persists in United States.

"Truman was shown intercepted Japanese cables between Tokyo and its ambassador in Moscow, and they were explaining that...Japan was militarily defeated, and that it was necessary to negotiate a surrender, and that the only obstacle to peace was an assurance that the institution of the emperorship would survive."

On July 12, Japanese Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo sent an urgent cable to Naotake Sato, the ambassador to the Soviet Union, on behalf of Emperor Hirohito, instructing him to ask Moscow, which still maintained a neutrality pact with Japan, to mediate a peace process.

However, the Soviet Union, which had decided behind the scenes to enter the war against Japan, did not accept, and on July 20 Sato advised Togo to conclude a peace deal close to unconditional surrender on the premise that the emperor system would be maintained.

"Truman scribbled in his handwritten diary dated July 18, summarizing the cable, received a cable from the Japan Emperor today 'asking for peace.' And there was a vigorous debate going on inside the White House, the State Department and the War Department about whether we could take this seriously, whether the Japanese would surrender if we gave this assurance about the emperorship."

Bird indicated that the U.S. administration, which was looking ahead to the postwar period, used atomic weapons against Japan in an apparent attempt to restrain the Soviet Union as well.

"And there were some advisors of Truman who were arguing that we needed to demonstrate the bomb, and use it in a dramatic fashion. And part of this argument was that it would be good to use the bomb to end the war in Japan in this dramatic fashion because it would also send a message to the Russians," he said.

Atomic bombings of Japan deemed needless by U.S. historian

Atomic bombings of Japan deemed needless by U.S. historian

Atomic bombings of Japan deemed needless by U.S. historian

Atomic bombings of Japan deemed needless by U.S. historian

Atomic bombings of Japan deemed needless by U.S. historian