What's new

Koizumi's latest war apology

Silverpoint

後輩
17 Jul 2005
419
44
38
I admit I hadn't read his speech at the Hiroshima Memorial Ceremony until today. The important part as far as reflecting on Japan's past is as follows:

"In the past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. Sincerely facing these facts of history, I once again express my feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology, and also express the feelings of mourning for all victims, both at home and abroad, in the war. I am determined not to allow the lessons of that horrible war to erode, and to contribute to the peace and prosperity of the world without ever again waging a war."

There some fairly significant words in there, and he uses the words "heartfelt apology". So, is this acceptable as the apology people have been waiting for. If not, exactly what is required?
 
Actually, maybe it's not so much of a step forward. After reading some of his earlier speeches, he's used almost exactly the same text several times in the past. If it wasn't good enough then, it's unlikely to be good enough now.

If you're interested, there's a pretty good page listing all the apologies and expressions of remorse since the 1970s.

News and Photos of Japan - Shortlist of War Apologies by Japan
 
Actions speak much louder than words

I want to believe what he said and his apology. But until he take concrete steps to correct the lies being told at Yasukuni and remove Tojo and the other war criminals from the list of people being rightfully honoured there, I find it very hard to think all his speeches are sincere.

How Japan honours her wartime past is not her own affairs since the war deeply wounded her neighbours. Japan should at least try to listen to the anguish of Korea and China and remediate to it. Lots of unnecessary bad feelings between these nations will be dissipated very easily.

So far this year, Mr Koizumi hasn't made a visit to the controversial shrine and that's a good step. No problem for him visiting if Tojo and co weren't enshrined there since every country rightfully honours its war heroes. However, war criminals and war heroes are not to be mixed together. I find it a disgrace to the souls of the other thousands of true heroes enshrined there and of those who died an abominable death because of the scheming of these little few

I think enough apologies have been made now. Korea and China need to accept them sincerely but then, Japan needs to show that they were really meaningful. And no, money alone will never heal the deep wounds of a crazy war
 
Why didn't Japan apologise for 27 yrs ?

Silverpoint said:
If you're interested, there's a pretty good page listing all the apologies and expressions of remorse since the 1970s.

News and Photos of Japan - Shortlist of War Apologies by Japan
Thanks for digging these up, Silverpoint, as the content of the so-called apologies, the manner in which these so-called apologies are dealt to victims of Imperial Japan, and the congruity of words and conduct of Japanese gov't and citizens with the so-called apologies issued will deeply affect the future history of east Asia. Here is how wikipedia describes the apologies in full:

Words of so-called apologies:
List of war apology statements issued by Japan
Apologies by Seth Stevenson / Sunday, July 13, 1997, at 12:30 AM PT

Words cancelling the so-called apologies:
Slips of Tongue ? (pdf)

Conduct:
Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes

War crimes, trials, and follow up (or foul up):
Japanese war crimes
International Military Tribunal for the Far East

Nuremberg Trials
Thre Proceedings of Trials of War Criminals before the Nurenberg Military Tribunals
Subsequent Nuremberg Trials
The Subsequent Nuremberg Trials: An Overview by Doug Linder
The Subsequent Nuremberg Trials: A More Detailed Overview
A Summary of the Nuremberg Trials by Ben Ferencz, for Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity


My first question would be the obvious:

Japan gave up its war of aggression on August 15, 1945.
The first apology from Japan came on September 29, 1972, by then Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka.
What took them 27 yrs, 1 month, and 2 weeks to deliberate on their so-called wording of the apology ?
Was there something they did not understand about the war into which they dragged everybody else around them ?
What did they do for 27 yrs :?
This really bugs me because by then, many of the victims were already dead.
 
Last edited:
lexico said:
...

My first question would be the obvious:

Japan gave up its war of aggression on August 15, 1945.
The first apology from Japan came on September 29, 1972, by then Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka.
What took them 27 yrs, 1 month, and 2 weeks to deliberate on their so-called wording of the apology ?
Was there something they did not understand about the war into which they dragged everybody else around them ?
What did they do for 27 yrs :?
This really bugs me because by then, many of the victims were already dead.
Before 1972, Japan recognized Taiwan as the only legitimate power in China.
Now she has recognized PRC as the only nation since then. Now J government as well as media is so sensitive in considering the current relation with PRC even when a retired Taiwanese politician just makes his trip to Japan.
I think it's the same even in your country after the korean war.

Though I still don't know why your government sticks to hide most diplomatic document between the J-K or K-J, I should say here, normalization talk, do you think both parties would have other alternatives then? For example, some J liberals strongly opposed to the diplomatic relationship only with your country then as the only legitimate country in the peninsula.

lexico said:
This really bugs me because by then, many of the victims were already dead.
Agreed, but I don't think it's good to use sad stories only for argument's sake.
 
Why the 27 yr delay ?

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. I asked a simple question, "what was Japan doing for 27 yrs" ?
To elaborate, what was Japan doing without an apology to each country it violated since the Meiji aggressions down to WWII ?
To my knowledge, Germany issued an aplogy to the Jews in 1948, and possibly earlier. What was the Japanese people and its gov't doing all that time ?
Your reply does not address my question at all.
pipokun said:
Before 1972, Japan recognized Taiwan as the only legitimate power in China.
Are you implying that Japan apologised to Taiwan before 1972 for IJ aggressions against all Taiwanese individuals and all Chinese individuals from 1874 to 1945 ? Please note I am referring to genocidal crimes in this historical context.
Now she has recognized PRC as the only nation since then. Now J government as well as media is so sensitive in considering the current relation with PRC even when a retired Taiwanese politician just makes his trip to Japan.
Sorry I don't understand. What does that have to do with my question ?
I think it's the same even in your country after the korean war.
Sorry, I don't understand. What does Korea have anything to do with Japan's apology to IJ's victims ? Are you talking about the 23 Korean war criminals of IMTFE ?
Though I still don't know why your government sticks to hide most diplomatic document between the J-K or K-J, I should say here, normalization talk, do you think both parties would have other alternatives then? For example, some J liberals strongly opposed to the diplomatic relationship only with your country then as the only legitimate country in the peninsula.
Sorry, I don't understand what that has to do with Japan's apology to IJ victims. Those doc's were declassified several yrs ago. They have ABOULSUTELY NOTHING to do with Japan's apology to IJ victims because those documents you mentioned were NOT apologies admitting war-time guilt of numerous violations.
Agreed, but I don't think it's good to use sad stories only for argument's sake.
I'm not trying to be melodramatic. In legal terms, Japan's delay in apologies can be considered evasion of the war-time/post-war responsibility of three categories.

1) sesou sekinin for the Japanese people (Japan's internal matter)
2) sensou sekinin for non-Japanese peoples, whether under colonial rule, occupation rule or not.
3) sengo sekinin for the non-Japanese peoples

These are serious allegations that either Japan needed to face immediately after its surrender Aug 15, 1945. I would like to know what caused the delay and reluctance on the Japanese people's part and the officials they voted into office.

For a rundown of what is involved, I have provided a summary this summary list of Imperial Japan's unprovoked aggression in east Asia, a sample limited to Korea, Taiwan, and China.
 
Last edited:
To lexico,

You're right. The Korean War is not relevant to WWII at all, but I think your question is nothing but the same in essence.
How would you explain them to your unified Korean people, if they would assert:
Why our government did not demand any apologies/ reparations from the parties such China, Russia, the US, or maybe even Japan:), after the Korean War?
In case all parties would do the right things as the Korean think in the future,
Why the 50, 60, or more year delay after the Korean War?

Sorry for my ignorance, I didn't know the secret diplomatic documents had been disclosed to the public at your side. I don't know exactly when your government did it, but why the over 30 yr blank after the treaty? I suppose the blank caused a lot of unnecessary disputes between the countries and the people.

Back to the topic,
ROC represented all Chinese then? No.
The 27 yr diplomatic blank was morally right? No.
But PRC and Japan could have alternatives then? No.
Who is blaming the blank now? And what for? I don't know.
 
pipokun said:
ROC represented all Chinese then? No.
The 27 yr diplomatic blank was morally right? No.
But PRC and Japan could have alternatives then? No.
Who is blaming the blank now? And what for? I don't know.
Pipokun-san,

I know you are trying to say something meaningful, but unfortunately you couldn't, and only answered my question with a number of questions. I am not into playing the guessing game here, which is getting rather annoying by now.

Very well. Instead of being repetitive of my previous post, and which is pretty basic and obvious by now if you've read them, let me just point out where you are contradicting yourself.

1) To my question why Japan's apology to China came 27 yrs after the end of the war, you said it was because the PRC was not recognised until then, and that from 1945 to 1972 Taiwan was the only "legitimate" gov't in China.
Before 1972, Japan recognized Taiwan as the only legitimate power in China.
ROC represented all Chinese then ? No.
Why not ? You said Taiwan was the only legitimate gov't in China. Did you not mean that ROC rightfully represented the Chinese people ? And what of the atrocities against the Taiwanese and the Chinese immigrants to Taiwan ? Why was there no apology to them ?

2) So I ask you, well, then did Japan apologise to Taiwan then, before 1972 ? Your answer was ROC (I guess you mean Taiwan by this.) did not represent all Chinese.

I presume you mean

3) Japan did not recognise the Chinese people on the mainland for 27 yrs.

4) No, Japan did not apologise to the Taiwanese/Chinese on Taiwan who were victimised by IJ since 19874 down to 1945.

Did I understand you correctly in 3) and 4) ?
 
Last edited:
lexico said:
Pipokun-san,

I know you are trying to say something meaningful, but unfortunately you couldn't, and only answered my question with a number of questions. I am not into playing the guessing game here, which is getting rather annoying by now.
Very well. Instead of being repetitive of my previous post, and which is pretty basic and obvious by now if you've read them, let me just point out where you are contradicting yourself.

1) To my question why Japan's apology to China came 27 yrs after the end of the war, you said it was because the PRC was not recognised until then, and that from 1945 to 1972 Taiwan was the only "legitimate" gov't in China.
Why not ? You said Taiwan was the only legitimate gov't in China. Did you not mean that ROC rightfully represented the Chinese people ? And what of the atrocities against the Taiwanese and the Chinese immigrants to Taiwan ? Why was there no apology to them ?

2) So I ask you, well, then did Japan apologise to Taiwan then, before 1972 ? Your answer was ROC (I guess you mean Taiwan by this.) did not represent all Chinese.

I presume you mean

3) Japan did not recognise the Chinese people on the mainland for 27 yrs.

4) No, Japan did not apologise to the Taiwanese/Chinese on Taiwan who were victimised by IJ since 19874 down to 1945.

Did I understand you correctly in 3) and 4) ?

I simply said no, for politically or diplomatically ROC had been the only government in China, including the mainisland, but who believed the idea?
But Japan had no choice but to choose the legitimacy of Taiwan in China.

It is the same that Japanese govenment has recognized your country is the only legitimate power in Korea. Is it ture? Politically and in terms of diplomatic relations, "yes". But in reality, "no".

Still don't know why you are blaming the blank now? And what for, even using the white purge in Taiwan for your argument?
 
pipokun said:
I simply said no, for politically or diplomatically ROC had been the only government in China, including the mainisland, but who believed the idea?
But Japan had no choice but to choose the legitimacy of Taiwan in China.

It is the same that Japanese govenment has recognized your country is the only legitimate power in Korea. Is it ture? Politically and in terms of diplomatic relations, "yes". But in reality, "no".
...
Still don't know why you are blaming the blank now ?
An apology is not that complicated, pipokun-san, if there is remorse. The reason why everything regarding Japan's repairing of Imperial Japan's atrocities, war crimes, and illegal activities according to the standards of international law appears to you as something alien, unintelligible, bothersome, irritating, unnecessary hassel is because Japan as a nation does not see its past in full as it should as any civilised nation of high international standing.
And what for, even using the white purge in Taiwan for your argument ?
Where did I say that ? Please point out with exact quote. Acc. to wikipedia, the Taiwanese White Terror occurred in 1947, 2 yrs after Japan's surrender and returning of Taiwan to GMD-lead ROC "China."
Taiwanese White Terror
In reference to the 228 Incident on Taiwan in 1947, the "White Terror" describes the suppression of political dissents and public discussion of the massacre. In the decades following the 228 Incident, many thousands of Taiwanese were imprisoned or executed for their real or perceived opposition to the Kuomintang government, leaving many native Taiwanese with a deep-seated bitterness to the mainlanders.

Some prosecuted Taiwanese are labeled by the Kuomintang as "bandit spys" (窶敕吮?卍ウ), meaning spies for Chinese communists, and punished as such.

Fear of discussing the 228 Incident gradually decreased with the lifting of martial law in 1987, cumulating in the establishment of an official public memorial and an apology by President Lee Teng-hui in 1995.

Retrieved from White Terror - Wikipedia
 
I think this apology is a very positive step. (It's like his third and best yet.) It has been a week, and nothing has happened to undercut the sincerity of the apology yet. Usually the pattern is: say your sorry and then weaken the statement by saying something else in different company. And the issue of what textbooks and revisionists say hasn't come up yet, the shrine controversy, or some other politician undercutting the PM-- something tells me to just give it time. (And I keep saying "yet.")

Why did it take 27 years for the first apology? I couldn't possibly answer. Is any excuse for not making an apology good enough at this point? What kind of apology do you give because you forgot to apologize last time? I don't know that you can go back or should go back for this one. Why do the appologies always look somewhat insincere? Why do the Japanese seem to work hard at undermining any gesture of good will?
 
We should know this : One cannot become a billionaire if he just talk and talk for "I just wanna 1 billion dollars".

So for ,koizumi , it's just NO effect as what the rest asians wanna get is not the ORAL apology , it should be showed out.
 
I think Japan should have apologised much sooner... it is too hard to explain the delay. And of course, I agree that actions speak louder than words and it's necessary to see what happens in the future.

On the other hand it is difficult because what more words can he give?

It is hard to sound properly sincere in words even if your feelings are genuine.

I think people should accept the apology and now be thinking about next steps forward.
 
so ,yes ,usually , it's a very twisted point that Kozumi would have embrassment abroad in asian countries if he did not show the action; on the other hand , he should keep his president's position and fight against rightist.

But morally , the other asian people could most possibly only accept the action.

let's see the future , maybe he would apologize more or less,who konws ?
 
I am embarrassed because my reply is very brief and I like them to be longer and more well thought out. 😌

But . . .

I am sorry that it took 27 years for Japan to apologize to those it harmed grievously in WWII. I cannot explain that as I was not even alive until 1972 and thus obviously not possibly a important member of the Japanese government to be in the know about these things during that long interval of time.

I, however, do think that the fact that, combined with the apologies from 1972 onward, Japan has not since WWII engaged in waging war since WWII is the MOST significant step forward of all!!! Isn't that really what everyone wanted, for Japan to be so remorseful of it actions to give up warmongering? And did not Japan do this?

There is, of course, much more to this argument . . . but, I did say I was going to be brief . . . :sorry:
 
I really think that a fool like koizumi should watch some Kurosawa films and then perhaps he could learn how japanes should behave in the international forum. Learn from the master on how to be an international .....diplomat this guy doesn't get the basics!
 
celtician said:
I really think that a fool like koizumi should watch some Kurosawa films and then perhaps he could learn how japanes should behave in the international forum. Learn from the master on how to be an international .....diplomat this guy doesn't get the basics!


I completely do not understand what you are saying . . . :?

Which Kurosawa films do you think are most helpful for international politics and why?

Also, I thought Kurosawa was a film director rather than an 'international diplomat'. Was he both?
 
Hmmm. It is very easy to indulge in finger pointing, but the West can not claim to have hands any cleaner than those of Japan. When did anyone ever apologise for the European atrocities committed against the natives of the Americas, of the Pacific Islands, India, and Africa (just to name a few)?
There is SOME truth in Japan's claim to have entered WWII as a counter to Western Imperialist expansion in the Orient. The causes of the Boxer Revolution and the circumstances that led Britain's annexation (sorry, treaty with China for the lease) of Hong Kong (now there is a STORY) are but two examples of that expansion. Among a few other interesting minor incursions, Admiral Perry's "peace" mission to Edo in the mid 1800s should be examined before judgements are made.
While it is true that during WWII, atrocities were commited by Japanese troops; the people who ordered and committed those atrocities are most most of them dead, as are (as someone noted in a prior post) most of their victims.
I find the demands for a proper apology to be interesting - was unconditional surrender not enough? (and is someone going to claim that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not acts of atrocity?)
Japan's attempts to gloss over and rewrite the truths of her actions during WWII are, however, a different matter. Any attempt in Germany to rewrite the real history of Germany's actions during WWII would meet with swift and rather impressively heavy legal retribution.
 
Kaminari said:
I find the demands for a proper apology to be interesting - was unconditional surrender not enough? (and is someone going to claim that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not acts of atrocity?)
Japan's attempts to gloss over and rewrite the truths of her actions during WWII are, however, a different matter. Any attempt in Germany to rewrite the real history of Germany's actions during WWII would meet with swift and rather impressively heavy legal retribution.

A proper apology (ie. sincere and formal) in any case would reflect understanding of the truth and under such circumstances, any twisting of history is less likely to occur. On the other hand, if an apology is made and an attempt is still made to rewrite the history, then that apology cannot possibly be called "proper". The two things are linked aren't they?

Really I'm against the use of nuclear weapons... but then, I think to myself wouldn't more people die if the war didn't end sooner and Japan didn't surrender earlier? Was there a way to end the war sooner? These are some questions that have bothered me - I am by no means saying that yes killing innocent Japanese citizens was justified.

edit: having read the posts again, I think I agree with Masayoshi the most.

Also, nobody asks Germany to apologise to the world over and over again, but that's because Germany had done that voluntarily and sincerely right from after the war till now. And you don't see any denial there. But what seems to worry the Asian countries the most is that Japan has not made as much effort as Germany in telling its people what really happened
 
Bluubear: Your points are pertinent - the only part of that post that I question is
wouldn't more people die if the war didn't end sooner and Japan didn't surrender earlier?
I have some things to check before I address that issue properly, but in the meantime...
It is said that Japan's surrender post Nagasaki bombing was actually the third time she had surrendered. While I doubt the validity of the claim for three attempts at surrender, I have fewer reservations about the possibility of a surrender being offered between the bombing of Hiroshima and that of Nagasaki. In fact, I have very few reservations regarding that claim. The point of that surrender (and again, note that pre-amble, I have things that need to be checked.) which did not meet Allied forces satisfaction was - the offer of surrender was not completely unconditional. A number of similarities exist between Admiral Perry's offer of a treaty in the mid 1800s and the allies requirement for total and unconditional surrender in the mid 1900s.
 
Kaminari said:
Bluubear: Your points are pertinent - the only part of that post that I question is
I have some things to check before I address that issue properly, but in the meantime...
It is said that Japan's surrender post Nagasaki bombing was actually the third time she had surrendered. While I doubt the validity of the claim for three attempts at surrender, I have fewer reservations about the possibility of a surrender being offered between the bombing of Hiroshima and that of Nagasaki. In fact, I have very few reservations regarding that claim. The point of that surrender (and again, note that pre-amble, I have things that need to be checked.) which did not meet Allied forces satisfaction was - the offer of surrender was not completely unconditional. A number of similarities exist between Admiral Perry's offer of a treaty in the mid 1800s and the allies requirement for total and unconditional surrender in the mid 1900s.

I too have a couple of things to check ... but off the top of my head ...

What you say here seems to be true. There were approaches by Japan to negotiate some sort of cessation of hostilities prior to Hiroshima ... but as you note, they did not meet the criteria of "unconditional surrender" as originally demanded by Roosevelt, and agreed to by the alllies.

There is evidence, I believe, that Churchill considered Franklin D's demand to be too harsh and uncompromising ... but the deed (Roosevelt's announcement of the demand) was already a "fait accompli"

ニ淡ニ停?。ニ停?
 
Who believe? In fact ,In my country ,most people treat Koizumi as a buffoon. he like act to apple-polish someone,~ then he is afraid of something ,so he say sorry to another one, but he can not do the two part well ,so he did a bad job as a buffoon!

one thing I remember is before Koizumi ,the PM of Japan changed very frequently, until Koizumi became PM of Japan in 2001, he is still PM of Japan now in 2005 . so it seems that "buffoon" strategy is helpful.
 
I hand a look on the web, wikipedia seems to provide a fairly succint summary of what went on just before Japan was to surrender, there appeared to be quite a few issues so here's the link for anyway who wants to read:

Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia

I also noticed something interesting, while reading through:

" In February 1945, Prince Konoe Fumimaro warned the Emperor that if the war continued, the Imperial house might be in greater danger from an internal revolution than from defeat. The Emperor replied that it was premature to seek peace, "unless we make one more military gain". "

If this were true then does it not suggest that the Emperor of Japan at the time could not be excused and was indeed responsible for the war?

edit: okies, although the dropping of A-bomb was an extreme measure taken, however now I believe that it did in fact catalyse Japan's surrender.

The original ultimatum date of July 26 was set out in the Potsdam Declaration by US, Great Britain and China. The Declaration did request for unconditional surrender of Japan, however only in such sense as to disarm Japan's military and strip her of all its pre-war empire as well as her recent conquests. This declaration was rejected on the 28th July despite the pleading of certain officials such as Kase Shunichi, Japan's ambassador to Switzerland, that

"the careful language of Potsdam appeared "to have occasioned a great deal of thought" on the part of the signatory governments—"they seem to have taken pains to save face for us on various points." "

At this stage, there appeared to be confusion within the Japanese government. On one hand many have realised that the war is no longer in Japan's favour and surrender is inevitable. On the other, the top officials refused "unconditional surrender" yet did not make a move to outline what exactly it was that they wanted. It's under this circumstances that the US decided that the dropping of A-bomb is necessary to forced the surrender from Japan, thereby ending the war as soon as possible.

If A-bombs were not dropped, Japan would eventually be forced to surrender anyhow, however that would have dragged the war even longer and cause more misery to Asian people elsewhere. It is not unreasonable to assume that more death would have resulted.

Although nuclear weapon poses enormous danger to mankind and all living organisms, had there not been war in the first place then it'd be unncessary. Of course that only happens in Utopia. But at the time, actually, even now, I think there would be divisions within society as to whether the bombs should have been dropped or not. It came down to a weighing of how many people would have died if it were not done vs. how many people died because of the bomb.

At the end of the day, civilians had to pay the debt owed by their government. Sad.
 
Last edited:
Bluubear - the Emperor in fact opposed the war from the outset, but had not the political muscle to force the point.

I had thought Japan was too disorganised to make overtures for peace prior to the Enola Gay's run on Hiroshima: turns out I was wrong (sort of). Note that the following declares America to have known prior to the bombing, that Japan was attempting to negotiate a peace.
On April 5, 1945, one week before Rooseveft's death, Japanese Prime Minister Kuniaki Koiso and his Cabinet resigned because of the increasingly disastrous course of the war--the second such resignation in less than a year. A peace faction in the military-dominated Japanese government had begun to realize that a way had to be found to negotiate an end to the war. The Allied demand for "unconditional surrender" was, however, regarded as intolerable. Emperor Hirohito approved the appointment of the aged Admiral Kantaro Suzuki as the new Prime Minister. But Suzuki's government was hobbled by severe tensions between the peace faction and militarists who vowed to fight to the bitter end. As a result, direct negotiations with the United States could not be undertaken, and Japan lost an opportunity to try to end the war early.


^Back to top
PEACE THROUGH MOSCOW?
The Soviet Union and Japan had remained at peace, although they were allied with opposite sides in the European war. In the fall of 1944, growing desperation drove the Japanese government to approach Joseph Stalin's communist regime for help in fending off defeat. After the Suzuki cabinet was appointed in April 1945, these initiatives were renewed. Two key civilian politicians -Marquis Kido, the Emperor's closest adviser, and Shigenori Togo, the new Foreign Minister-hoped to use this initiative to negotiate a conditional surrender with the Allies. But they had to conceal this intention from the militarists who vowed to fight on until the Allies gave Japan more concession. . As a result, the Moscow initiative remained weak and indecisive. Emperor Mrohito (1901-1989): A retiring and bookish man, the Emperor had traditionally been portrayed as a "living god" who exercised little real authority over affairs of state. The reality was more complex. While he was opposed to war with the United States and Britain prior to 194 1, he did not discourage Japanese expansionist policies in Asia. Although he tentatively encouraged the Moscow peace initiative in 1945, he also listened to military advisors who argued that one final victory would force Allied leaders to offer improved peace terms. He failed to take decisive action until the atomic bombs had been dropped and the Soviets had declared war.

^Back to top
"MAGIC AND "ULTRA": TWO PICTURES OF JAPANESE INTENTIONS
In 1940 American intelligence experts cracked the Japanese diplomatic code. This operation, codenamed "Magic," allowed the deciphering of messages between Tokyo and the Japanese Embassy in Moscow and gave the United States knowledge of the Japanese peace initiative in the spring of 1945. The intercepted messages showed that Japan was seeking Russian mediation to end the war, but also showed that it rejected "unconditional surrender" and hope for significant Allied concessions. American military intelligence was also deciphering Japanese military communications. These intercepts, codenamed "Ultra," revealed in the summer of 1945 that the Japanese had achieved an alarming buildup of forces in southern Japan--precisely in the areas American forces were scheduled to invade late in the year. Thus, despite the peace initiative,
Japan was preparing to fight to the bitter end.
(and with no assurance that peace initiatives would prove fruitful, who would do otherwise?)

Note that all this was before Hiroshima - note further that Japan was considered such a massive on-going threat that the Enola Gay was despatched on the mission with not a single fighter as escort (but two observation planes accompanying). The only opposition that they encountered was the sounding of air raid sirens.

At approximately 2:00 on the morning of August 6th, the Enola Gay, which was carrying an atomic bomb (Little Boy), started on the long flight from Tinian. Two observation planes carrying cameras and scientific instruments followed behind her.

After 6:00, the bomb was fully armed on board the Enola Gay. Tibbets announced to the crew that the the plane was carrying the world's first atomic bomb.

The trip to Japan was smooth. At about 7:00 o'clock, the Japanese radar net detected aircraft heading toward Japan, and they broadcast the alert throughout the Hiroshima area. Soon afterward an American weather plane circled over the city, but there was no sign of bombers. The people began their daily work and thought that the danger had passed.

At 7:25, the Enola Gay, at 26,000 feet, was cruising over Hiroshima. At 8:00 the Japanese detected again two B-29's heading toward Hiroshima. The radio stations quickly broadcast a warning for the people to take shelter, but many did not follow the advice. They thought that it was the same as first time.

At 8:09, the crew of the Enola Gay could see the city appear below; it was time to drop the bomb. Just then, they received a message indicating that the weather was good over Hiroshima. The bomb was released at 8:16 a.m.

The decision to bomb Nagasaki was made before the bombing of Hiroshima.
 
Back
Top Bottom