Dombrowski 1

Andrew Dombrowski
History 4994W
Apology in Waiting
The United States and Japan have had an eventful history with each other. The two
countries went from being on the same side in World War I to enemies in World War II. The US
entered WWII after the events of December 7th, 1941 in which Japan launched an attack on the
United States military base Pearl Harbor. On August 6, 1945 the United States dropped the first
atomic bomb in the history of warfare on Hiroshima, Japan instantly killing over 100,000 people.
Three days later on August 9, another bomb was dropped on Nagasaki killing close to another
100,000. These two bombings are the only incidents in history of the use of atomic bombs in
warfare.
A fierce debate lies within whether the United States should apologize for the use of the
atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The two countries are strong allies and a case
can be made that because of this an apology is not necessary. Currently Japan is the United
States second largest overseas trading partner. The United States has long been the dominant
country in its relationship with Japan. Japan looks to the US for military protection in the
Pacific. Another point of discussion involves that if there should be an apology which side
should apologize first. Should the US only apologize for dropping the atomic bomb if Japan first
apologizes for the attack on Pearl Harbor? The problem with this theory is that current
leadership in Japan has made it clear that they would not consider apologizing to the Americans
for Pearl Harbor if the United States did not first apologize for the atomic bombs. If one side
takes the initiative and apologizes the other side might feel obligated to return the gesture. If this
occurs then the apologies might lose their value and just be empty words. Another possibility is
that both sides apologize. The focus of this paper is to discuss whether the United States should

Dombrowski 2

apologize. The intention is not to focus on if dropping the atomic bomb was the correct military
move or not; it is a discussion over whether the United States should apologize for doing such
acts. However you cannot have this discussion without first debating whether the use of the
bombs was the right decision. In short, what it comes down to is this; in order to decide if the
United States should apologize, it must first be determined if the atomic bombs were the
necessary course of action, or if alternate routes could have possibly been taken in ending the
war with less death and destruction.
There is a saying that all is fair in war, but the atomic bombings challenged that unwritten
rule. Japan attacked an American military base whereas the United States dropped two atomic
weapons on two highly populated civilian centers.1 An essay by Mark Selden discusses the
relationships of the attacks by the two nations. While not giving Japan a pass on their attack of
Pearl Harbor, Selden makes a point that in addition to the use of atomic weapons, the US used
firebombing tactics in an attempt to completely destroy Tokyo. Selden says, The US threw the
full weight of its air power into campaigns to bomb whole Japanese cities to the ground, and
terrorize, incapacitate, and kill their virtually defenseless populations in an effort to force
surrender. Selden also adds that by the end of World War II the US had attacked and destroyed
all but five cities in Japan.2 President Harry Truman had stated that Hiroshima was a military
base, however in reality it was one of the most populated cities in Japan.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower had written a letter to Secretary of War Henry Stimson a
few weeks before the bombs were dropped expressing his concern over the use of the weapons.
Eisenhower would write that Japan was already defeated thus making the bombs unnecessary.
1 Hiroshimas Shadow, (Connecticut: The Pamphleteers Press, 1998), xxxv
2 Hiroshimas Shadow, xxxv

Dombrowski 3

Eisenhower was also in disagreement with the use of the bombs because he wanted to avoid
shocking world opinion by dropping the bombs. He would go on to write that It was my belief
that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of
face.3
Eisenhower makes the case that if Japan was on the verge of surrendering then it was
unnecessary to drop the bombs. Secretary of War Henry Stimson argues that the United States
should not have assumed that the Japanese would easily surrender. He also explained that the
United States were not just after Japanese surrender, but rather they strived for complete
surrender. Stimson disagreed with Eisenhower and believed the best course of action for the
United States was to use the bombs. He expressed the United States desire to stay ahead of the
Germans in atomic development in 1942. He thought it was vital for the US to be the first to
introduce a weapon of this power so that they would gain control of the course of the war.
Stimson made it clear that the principal, political, social, and military objective of the United
States in the summer of 1945 was the prompt and complete surrender of Japan. Only the
complete destruction of her military could open up the way to lasting peace.4 Stimson believed
the most efficient way to be successful in this goal was to utilize the nations atomic weapons.
Henry Stimson wrote an essay titled The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb in 1947.
Stimson did not downplay the power of the weapon. In fact he referred to it as the most terrible
weapon ever known in human history.5 Despite this, he gave his full support to the use of it.
Stimson was not convinced that the Japanese would easily surrender in the event of an invasion,
3 Hiroshimas Shadow, xxxiii
4 Hiroshimas Shadow, 203
5 Hiroshimas Shadow, 199

Dombrowski 4

thus producing the possible chance that the invasion could have lasted over a year. This
potentially could have resulted in producing tens of thousands additional causalities. Stimson
even believed he was doing Japan a favor by sparing the ancient capital Kyoto, a place of
important culture and art, as a target of an atomic bomb. The United States only had two atomic
bombs to utilize and if they had not been used B-29 bombs would have been used in their
absence. It is argued that these potential fire-raids would have been more destructive of life and
property than the very limited number of atomic raids which we could have executed in the same
period.6 The period he is referring to is from August until his projected invasion date of
November 1. He defends his point by using the March 1945 air raid of Tokyo as an example. In
a more conventional air raid, the Air Force inflicted more damage with more casualties than the
atomic bomb produced in Hiroshima. According to him, the atomic bombs made quick work of
what he predicted would happen over time anyway, while saving time and lives. The essay
seemed to be a form of damage control on both Stimsons and the United States end.
In 1945 eighty percent of Americans approved of the use of the atomic bomb. However
these Americans did not know that the Japanese were in secret talks about soon surrendering
before the events occurred. This is due in part to the persuasion of President Truman who
claimed that the United States had no other alternatives.7 The only other possible option that was
considered was a military invasion of Japan. This, as Truman explained, would have cost even
more American lives to an already depleted military.8 He had persuaded most Americans that this
was a legitimate reason and anyone who disagreed with the action was seen as anti-American.
6 Hiroshimas Shadow, 209
7 Hiroshimas Shadow, xxxviii
8 Hiroshimas Shadow, xl

Dombrowski 5

The fact is that over time the estimate of the number of people the bombings saved by ways of
avoiding invasion kept increasing. After leaving the White House, Truman estimated that as
many as 500,000 lives were saved by successfully avoiding a military invasion.9 Inflating the
number was just another way to justify the use of atomic weaponry and, as a result, the
avoidance of an invasion.
Those who believe in Trumans rationale for using the bomb see no need to apologize
because the bomb saved potentially millions of peoples lives. However, many histories find
flaws in this reasoning. Political scientist Robert Pape wrote a piece called Why Japan
Surrendered and argued that Japan would have surrendered before a military invasion even if
the United States had not used atomic weapons. The threat of the power of the weapons alone
might have been enough to persuade Japan to surrender. Pape argues that Japans military
position was weak and in no shape to fight the United States in the event of an invasion. Their
military was low on ammunition, fuel, and trained personal. The Soviet invasion on August 9 in
Manchuria was a clear example that the Japanese military was vulnerable. The Soviets made
easy work of the Kwantung Army which was believed to be the top of the line in Japans
military. Pape makes the case that based on this evidence, Japan would not have been able to
handle an attack from the US and would have surrendered; all without the atomic bombs ever
coming into play.10 Other evidence suggesting the war between the United States and Japan could
have ended without the use of the bombs included a message encoded by the US on July 12,
1945. In the message the Japanese Emperor had intervened in an attempt to end the war. Many
historians argue that the United States should have warned Japan of the power of the atomic
9 Hiroshimas Shadow, 130
10 Hiroshimas Shadow, 6

Dombrowski 6

bomb and made it known that the Emperor would have been spared. This forewarning,
combined with informing them that the Soviets would be entering the war, would have made
Japan very likely to surrender.11
A poll taken in 1994 showed that Americans were nearly split down the middle as to
whether they would have dropped the bombs or have tried to find an alternate solution. As more
research is done around these events the peoples collective memory begins to change which is
reflected in the 1994 poll. Peoples opinions are being altered showing that it might be time for
the government to take action and issue an apology. It would not be the first time the United
States would be issuing a formal apology to Japan.
The United States has apologized in the past to Japan for events that stemmed from
World War II. In February 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed Executive Order 9066
which called for the relocation of all Americans of Japanese ancestry on the West Coast to
concentration camps in the interior of the United States. This would go on to impact more than
120,000 people. Those affected by the order quickly sold their homes and assets well below their
true value because of the uncertainty that they would still be there when they returned home.
Over 60 percent of those sent to internment camps were US citizens. These innocent citizens
were punished solely because they were of Japanese ancestry. The order even forced JapaneseAmericans that had fought on side of the United States in WWI to leave their homes for the
camps.12 In 1988 President Ronald Regan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The act granted
$20,000 in compensation to each surviving internee. It also gave those affected an official
apology on behalf of the United States. In September of 1992 President George H.W. Bush
11 Hiroshimas Shadow, 7
12 Japanese-American Internment, Retrieved from
http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp

Dombrowski 7

signed the Civil Liberties Act Amendments of 1992, which helped insure that each victim would
receive the compensation promised to them. A year prior to this on December 7, 1991, the 50th
anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack, President Bush issued another formal apology to those
affected by the internment camps.13
It is interesting that President Bush would issue a formal apology for Japanese internment, even
after an official apology on behalf of the United States was already made 3 years prior, but he
would also go on to say that he would never apologize for the use of the atomic bombs. In an
interview on December 2, 1991 Bush responded to talks of Japan apologizing for Pearl Harbor
on its 50th anniversary. Bush was adamant that with or without an apology from Japan that he
would not apologize for the atomic bombs. Bush was a Navy pilot during World War II and was
shot down by the Japanese. Bush stated that he agreed with Trumans logic that the bombs saved
the military from invading Japan which would have resulted in a loss of even more lives on both
Japanese and American sides then the atomic bombs accounted for. Trying to explain his point
of view Bush commented, Do we mourn the loss of innocent civilians? Yes. Can I empathize
with a family whose child was victimized by those attacks? Absolutely. But I can also empathize
with my roommate's mother, my roommate having been killed in action."14 It is clear that Bush
has a personal and emotional connection to the relationship of the two countries during WWII
and it is likely that he is very biased in his beliefs of how the war transpired. His friends were
killed by the Japanese and even he, himself, was shot down by the Japanese military. This would
lead one to believe that it is highly unlikely he would issue an apology to a nation that had
13 Japanese-American Internment
14 U.S. Will Not Apologize For Hiroshima, Bush Says. Seattle Times. Last modified
December 2, 1991, Retrieved from
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19911202&slug=13
2060

Dombrowski 8

caused him so much pain and suffering. However, on that 50th anniversary President Bush gave
an apology for those affected by internment, but at the same time admitted that he would never
consider apologizing for the bombs.
From this example of President George H.W. Bush it is clear to see that he was directly affected
by World War II and it had made an impact in how he approached the idea of issuing an apology
40 years later. It goes without saying that people still have emotional attachment to these events,
whether it be direct or indirect. It might be possible that an apology might only be possible once
the smoke clears. In this instance almost 70 years have passed and the smoke still hasnt
completely cleared and may never fully disappear. Perhaps an apology will only be able to
happen if it comes from someone who isnt as directly affected by the events.
There was speculation that President Obama wanted to visit Hiroshima in the spring of
2009 to apologize for the use of the atomic bombs on Japan. This act has neither been confirmed
nor denied by the United States. It was reported that Japanese officials rebuffed this idea
because it would have been premature for the newly elected president at the time to be
apologizing for something that has caused tension for decades. This raises further moral
questions into if and how the United States should apologize. If the idea of Obama apologizing
months into his presidency was premature would a future apology towards the end of Obamas
time in the White House be more accepting by the Japanese? Also it can debated if an apology
coming from President Obama would mean as much as it would from a past president who either
lived through the events or even had an active role in them.15 Another interesting dilemma to
think about is if President Obama did issue a formal apology to Japan and the next President of
15 Jake Tapper, Japanese Government Nixed Idea of Obama Visiting, Apologizing
for, Hiroshima. Last modified October 12, 2011, Retrieved from
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/ japanese-government-nixed-idea-ofobama-visiting-apologizing-for-hiroshima/

Dombrowski 9

the United States disagreed with the apology. Would the apology stand regardless, or could the
new president retract the apology and thus reopening the wounds of the past? These complex
ideas are not meant to shy the US away from apologizing, but rather to make the point that there
are a lot of other factors that are involved in the process of formally apologizing to another
nation, especially about something that has completely transformed a nation as well as
worldwide warfare.
Apologizing would be admitting that the United States was wrong in the actions they
took. It would mean that after almost 70 years they would finally admit that they have failed the
moral code; something the nation has always taken great pride in upholding. The United States
has always been a strong advocate for human rights and the value of life for every person, and
issuing an apology would mean they would admit to violating these rights by killing innocent
people. An apology could make the US look like hypocrites in that they violated their own moral
code and the code they advertise for the rest of the world to adapt. Apologizing might finally
help the two nations get passed this dark time in their histories, but at the same time it would
mean the US is admitting they were wrong in what they did which may show signs of weakness
for a country that is known as the worlds most powerful. Also, if one country apologizes then
would the other feel obligated to return the favor? Hypothetically, if the United States does
apologize to Japan some might say the proper etiquette for Japan would be to return the favor
and apologize for Pearl Harbor. If this happens then there is a chance they are viewed as
offsetting and that nothing was really accomplished with the pair of apologizes other than it
being a formality. However, if one side apologizes and the other fails to follow suite it can cause
serious tension between the nations. It seems as if one side is going to apologize they expect the
other side to reciprocate. Furthermore, neither country wants to apologize first. Japan has even

Dombrowski 10

publically stated that they will not apologize first. Even if both sides ultimately apologize to
each other, it will be the country that apologizes first that will be the one that takes the majority
of the blame; which would have to be the United States in this situation.
For the United States to issue an apology to Japan it seems two things will have to
happen. First, there will have to be a powerful leader, most likely the president, who believes
that using the atomic bombs was the wrong course of action and believes that an apology should
be in order. This leader must also be ready to handle the backlash that is sure to ensue both
domestically and possibly overseas from those who do not agree with the apology. Second, an
apology would mean that the United States would have to swallow their pride and admit they
were wrong after decades of defending their actions in the time since the bombings. If the
country wants to be sincere and show that the apology is real and not just a formality it might
also help to have a reason as to why it has taken almost 70 years to apologize for their actions.
Maybe it is just too late and instead of revisiting the past the best course of action would be to
just move forward.
One question that gets to the heart of this debate is what a formal apology would change.
A case could be made that a mere apology might not change much in the grand scheme of things;
the damage has already been done. One addition that could make an apology more meaningful is
to include reparations to the affected country. In the case of the atomic bombings reparations
might be near impossible to include. The first problem would be who receives the reparations.
Also, how does one decide how much to give? And if that calculation was ever solved where
would the US, already $16 trillion in debt, get the money to pay for them? Perhaps the US has
already given Japan their reparations by being trading allies and protecting them militarily.16 It is
16 Matthew Jones, After Hiroshima: The United States, Race and Nuclear Weapons
in Asia, 1945-1965. (Cambridge University Press. 2010), 35-40

Dombrowski 11

also important to look at the bigger picture; something that is debatably more important than a
formal apology is the spreading of the knowledge that these destructive weapons must never be
used again in war.
What can be seen without much study of the subject is the obvious fact that nuclear
weapons have not been used in warfare since 1945. The weapons today are even more powerful
and a war involving them could possibly end the world as we know it. What should be focused
on more than a formal apology is making sure these weapons are never used again. While more
and more testing is being done and more countries are developing the resources for these
weapons it has never been more important than it is now to prevent the bombs from being used
again in war. Even in 1945 the destructiveness of the bombs were being weighed. President
Truman stated, I dont think we ought to use this thing unless we absolutely have to; so terribly
destructive. You have got to understand that this isnt a military weapon It is used to wipe out
women and children and unarmed people, and not for military used.17 Interestingly, since the
United States did in fact use the weapon they must have then thought it was absolutely necessary,
despite the fact that Japan had all but surrendered. However, it seems that in the time since
Hiroshima and Nagasaki world leaders have taken Trumans warning more seriously than
Truman, himself, did. Even when the United States was on the losing side of a war, such as
Vietnam, they did not resort to using a nuclear weapon, but yet they used it in a war they had
almost complete control over. This is just an example of how the mood towards nuclear weapons
has changed since their initial use in 1945. If the world can take a moral victory out of the use of
the atomic weapons in 1945 it would be that it taught the world that underestimating the power
of these weapons could destroy the world as we know it. The Emperor Hirohito of Japan

17 Jones, After Hiroshima, 26

Dombrowski 12

commented in his Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War that continuing the war after
the bombings could lead in the end not only to the extermination of our race, but also to the
destruction of all human civilization18 There have probably been many instances where these
weapons could have been used, but they have not because humanity now understands the
consequences that will come as a result.
It is obvious that the atomic bombs sparked major debates on many different accounts.
Perhaps it was necessary for the United States to drop the bombs, but they were used
nonetheless. It can be argued how much of a difference an Im sorry 70 years after the events
occurred would make. Obviously the Japanese people want an apology, but at the same time
they want it to be sincere. As long as the United States stands by their decision of justifying the
use of the bombs then any apology they would issue would never be entirely sincere. President
George H.W. Bush remarked in 1991 that the two countries should use their energy in
progressing forward together rather than dwelling on their pasts. Even Japanese Emperor
Hirohito stated in his first public press conference in 1975 that while he had remorse for the
civilians and the country, nothing can be done about it because the bombs were dropped during
a time of war.
Instead of revisiting the past it seems that a more pressing concern for the state of the
world right now is making sure these weapons are never used again on another country. This
strategy might not directly help Japan deal with the pain that still exists from these attacks, but it
might prevent another country from experiencing the pain Japan did. It seems the first two uses
of atomic weaponry in the history of warfare were done to make a point and the rest of the world
got the message loud and clear. Atomic weapons have not been used in battle since 1945 and it

18 Jones, After Hiroshima, 32

Dombrowski 13

should be every countrys prerogative to keep that statement true; the state of the world truly
depends on it.

Dombrowski 14

Works Cited

Hiroshimas Shadow. Edited by Kai Bird and Lawrence Lifschultz. Connecticut: The
Pamphleteers Press (1998)

Japanese-American Internment. Independence Hall Association: Philadelphia, PA. (20082013) Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp

Jones, Matthew. After Hiroshima: The United States, Race and Nuclear Weapons in Asia,
1945-1965. Cambridge University Press. (2010)

Tapper, Jake. Japanese Government Nixed Idea of Obama Visiting, Apologizing for,
Hiroshima. (October 12, 2011) Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/
japanese-government-nixed-idea-of-obama-visiting-apologizing-for-hiroshima/

U.S. Will Not Apologize For Hiroshima, Bush Says. Seattle Times (December 2, 1991)
Retrieved from http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19911202&slug=13
20602