X Close

The drawbacks of Japan’s cult of peace 75 years after the atomic bomb, it may be time for the nation to outgrow pacifism

A student wait to float a lanterns on Hiroshima's river during the 71st anniversary activities. Credit: Richard Atrero de Guzman/NurPhoto via Getty Images

A student wait to float a lanterns on Hiroshima's river during the 71st anniversary activities. Credit: Richard Atrero de Guzman/NurPhoto via Getty Images


August 6, 2020   5 mins

At 8.15 am on 6 August 1945, the USAAF B-29 Bomber Enola Gay dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima. The innocuously nicknamed “Little Boy” obliterated the city’s urban centre, instantly killing an estimated 80,000 people, and claiming 60,000 more lives by the year’s end. An atomic attack on Nagasaki followed three days later. 75 years after those horrific events — just in time for today’s anniversary of the bombing of the city — the Hiroshima District Court, on 29 July, made a widely reported ruling.

It extended to 84 plaintiffs, with ages ranging from late 70s to 90s, the certification of atomic bomb victims. In other words, it recognised them as having been exposed to radioactive “black rain”. These plaintiffs were just outside the area, officially designated after the fact, where radioactive droplets from the nuclear explosion fell. In spite of their long struggles with radiation-linked diseases, they had been denied the same level of medical benefits that were given to “certified” atom bomb survivors.

For those plaintiffs and other survivors, the nuclear summer of 1945 is never a distant memory. For most Japanese today, it is. Nevertheless, all Japanese people grow up with ample knowledge of the horror and cruelty of nuclear weapons — be it from obligatory lessons at schools, or from popular manga and movies. (Barefoot Gen, a semi-autobiographical manga by Keiji Nakazawa that has sold 10 million copies worldwide, is but one example.) As a result, Hiroshima — Hiroshima more than Nagasaki, for being the “first” — has become a quasi-religious abstraction that reigns at the heart of Japan’s pacifist ideology.

During the Second World War, Japan’s national ideology revolved around the cult of emperor worship. After Japan’s defeat, the cult of peace worship took its place. This worship draws its moral strength from two interconnected sources. One is Article 9 of the US-drafted postwar constitution, which renounces “war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes”. The other is Japan’s broad-based anti-nuclear arms sentiments, of which Hiroshima is the most potent symbol. And so every year, on 6 August, the city makes national headlines as Japan commemorates the anniversary of the bombing.

“Peace” is everywhere on that occasion. The “Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony” is held in the “Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park”, built near the bomb’s detonation point. Top politicians and dignitaries join in silent prayers with ordinary citizens at 8.15 am, followed by the tolling of “peace bells”, the mayor’s “peace declaration”, and a releasing of doves into the sky once shrouded by a mushroom cloud. Around the anniversary, many commemorative events are held, including art exhibitions, flower shows and concerts featuring the world’s top musicians. (The late pianist Peter Serkin, in 2017, played with the Hiroshima Symphony Orchestra at its “Music for Peace Concert”. He also gave a moving private performance on a Baldwin piano that once belonged to Akiko Kawamoto, an American-born teenager. The piano survived the bombing. Akiko didn’t.)

Due to fear that Covid-19 will spread, many of this year’s 75th anniversary events have had to be cancelled, and the main ceremony will be drastically downsized. Even so, Hiroshima’s essential importance as a galvanising point of postwar Japanese identity will remain unchanged.

Three is nothing inherently wrong with a country valuing and praying for peace. Peace is hard not to like, and it is also unifying. It can act as the lowest common denominator to bring together people of different political persuasions — as well as former enemies. (The Japanese welcomed Barack Obama when he made a peace-making visit to Hiroshima in May 2016, the first US President to do so while in office.) Adopting pacifism as a national ideology also helped Japan regain its international legitimacy in the Cold War era. Going pacifist meant that Japan, an erstwhile rogue state with expansionist designs, could begin identifying itself as a reformed, benign power — and the most dependable US ally in East Asia.

But peace, or more precisely, the kind of pacifism that Japan has cultivated over the past three quarters of a century, has its drawbacks. For one, it has hindered a meaningful political debate. By emphasising Japan’s own wartime sufferings and its current desire for peace, the conservative Japanese regime, in power for most of the postwar period, has tended to downplay Japan’s record as an imperialist aggressor, first in East Asia, and later in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. And until recently, the Right’s narrative generally overlooked the fact that the nuclear casualties included Allied POWs, as well as Chinese and Korean forced labourers.

The vociferous Right — for some time now represented by the hawkish leadership of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe — insists that a revision of the postwar pacifist constitution is necessary so that Japan can become a truly sovereign nation-state. Unless it becomes an active military power, this line of argument goes, Japan cannot preserve peace. But that same need to preserve peace is invoked by the political Left too, which regards any intimation of a constitutional revision as a sacrilege.

“Peace”, in this instance, is tautological. It serves as a reason for Japan to have an active military and at the same time, to continue rejecting that option. A lack of dialogue between those two opposite camps is worrying, when changing conditions — primarily in the forms of China’s rise and a nuclear-armed North Korea — are making it necessary for Japan to examine what kind of peace Japan wants and how best to achieve it. Does Japan need to alter its constitution? How active should the Japan Self-Defense Forces be? Can Japanese peace — and by extension, regional peace — be secured without the strong backing of the United States? If pressed on any of these questions, Japanese individuals would likely have different answers. Yet, the Japanese version of pacifism, anchored in the horrific experience of the atom bombings, has long created a misleading sense that the nation is more united than it really is.

Another disadvantage of Japanese pacifism is the selective historical memory it has helped to forge. In this retelling, nuclear weapons become overly exceptional. In 1945, they were an extension of strategic preferences that had led all the belligerent parties to bomb their enemies’ civilians. The world was initially shocked by the German bombing of Guernica in April 1937. But all the powers would adjust to the dehumanising idea that civilian deaths were a necessary part of total warfare, either because precision-bombing of military targets was deemed too difficult, or because targeting civilians was regarded as an effective demoralising strategy — or, more and more, as the war dragged on, both.

Before the Blitz, Japan was one of the first countries to bomb civilians, most notably in Chiang Kai-shek’s relocated capital Chongqing from late 1938 onwards. Once the Allied forces, too, got started, they went all out — in Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden, and many other cities, followed by a series of B-29 fire-bombings of Japan. Too few Japanese individuals nowadays, even those who whole-heartedly preach “No More Hiroshima”, remember that Tokyo sustained the biggest air-raid on the night of 9/10th March 1945: 80,000 to 100,000 people perished in one night.

This is not to minimise the exceptionally destructive power of the nuclear weapons or the subsequent moral controversy that emerged as radioactivity’s horrifying and long-lasting effects became known. It is only to stress that one cannot assume, from what we have learned since, that explicit calculations of an immoral or an even racist nature propelled the US decision to drop those atomic bombs on Japanese cities. While those calculations could have existed alongside more urgent strategic preferences. The foremost US priority in the summer of 1945 was to win the war with Japan through extensive bombing, be it incendiary or atomic.

By the time Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945, more than 200 Japanese cities of various sizes had been bombed. Okinawa had fallen. And the civilian population had been thoroughly starved by a blockade of US-planted sea mines that prevented the transportation of food supplies. The prospect of a two-fronted invasion by the Soviet Union and the United States terrified the Japanese leadership. (Stalin was poised to declare war on Japan even before Hiroshima.) With the Soviet Union’s entry into the war on 9 August, Japan’s surrender was imminent. The atomic bombs might have influence the timing somewhat, but the fear of the Soviet invasion and a potential revolution were compelling enough reasons for Japan to give up the fight.

With more than 80% of Japan’s population having grown up in peacetime, war is understandably a remote notion. It is also understandable that for most of today’s Japanese, “peace” — or at the very least, the absence of war — feels like a sui generis condition given to them in response to their earnest prayers for it. But without an active political debate, based on a more balanced view of history, that peace might not last.


Eri Hotta is the author of Japan 1941: Countdown to Infamy, which examines the Japanese leadership in the run-up to the Pacific War.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

17 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gina Jennings
Gina Jennings
3 years ago

How depressing that this article ignores the appalling atrocities committed by the Japanese during WWII and wilfully forgets that Japan had publicly decreed that the many thousands of allied POWs who had survived thus far were to be instantly murdered should any foreign soldier set foot on Japanese soil. The bomb, while savage, ended this mindless attitude and saved the lives of what poor POWs remained, ended their brutal slavery and also saved the lives of the thousands of other nationalities, particularly Tamils and Chinese who were abused and murdered by Japan as slave labour. The bomb also saved the lives of millions of Japanese – as it is widely accepted, even in Japan by more considered thinkers, that the war would not have ended without it. The poor victims of Japanese atrocities who still live and continue to suffer are greatly insulted by this one-sided view. Their suffering continues – unrecognised and unremarked by this revisionist sentiment. The world is encouraged to remember the bomb but to ignore the tragic victims of Japanese nationalism and brutality.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
3 years ago
Reply to  Gina Jennings

I think you’re being a little unkind, Gina. The author states “By emphasising Japan’s own wartime sufferings and its current desire for peace, the conservative Japanese regime, in power for most of the postwar period, has tended to downplay Japan’s record as an imperialist aggressor, first in East Asia, and later in the Pacific and Southeast Asia.” I think that’s sufficient acknowledgement of Japanese atrocities before and during WWII, given that the article is about Japan’s response to regional tensions today.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago

Similar to Germany, Japanese society understandably took a pacifist line to try to atone for their widespread atrocities in the Second World War. Although, the former’s pacifism was somewhat tempered by the post war threat of the Soviets and being split into two. Japan was able to sit in a kind of pacifistic splendid isolation and focus on change and growth, somewhat insulated from the chaos in Korea and elsewhere in South-east Asia.

Pacifism is a superficially honorable position, but unless violence or the potential for violence magically disappears from reality, it’s a luxury.

F Healey
F Healey
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

Well said.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

Would people (you know who they are) be happy if Bundeswehr has the same fighting power as Wehrmacht?
Imagine Bill Cash in Parliament! (and he is already insane)

amurrayj
amurrayj
3 years ago

Dubious history about the likelihood of surrender absent the bomb. Sources please if we are to believe this.

The Japanese peace movement is about making one of the most aggressive aggressors in history look like the victim. And that is before Abe turns up at Shinto temples to worship Kamikaze pilots.

This country cannot face up to truth.

I have no problem forgetting and forgiving, but not on these terms. The Japanese need to be more mature if closure is what they want.

I knew people who were still suffering from their experiences of being prisoners 20 years later. Where is their peace I. This version of events?

Mike Smith
Mike Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  amurrayj

Well said. The author does not mention any of the atrocities carried out by Japan in WW2 – interesting that. She mentions the Blitz where Japan’s future ally attempted to obliterate London, but detailing that would have weakened her argument that the Japanese were unique in having its citizens bombed

Dan Poynton
Dan Poynton
3 years ago
Reply to  amurrayj

“Based on a detailed investigation of the facts…Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped” (1946, US Strategic Bombing Survey).
In recent years there have been plenty of credible sources talking to this taboo point in the US mythology. Japan feared being invaded by the Russians way more than by the US, and the Russian invasion of Manchuria was the final cause of their surrender. They still remembered what the Communists had done to the Romanovs for starters.

D Ward
D Ward
3 years ago

How to ruin an otherwise interesting article. You had to play the race card, didn’t you?

” explicit calculations of an immoral or an even racist nature propelled the US decision to drop those atomic bombs on Japanese cities”

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago
Reply to  D Ward

I would read that again – it starts with “….one cannot assume…”

It is not her saying that, rather repeating arguments that have been used against the bombing in the past.

Good article

F Healey
F Healey
3 years ago
Reply to  D Ward

Agreed, a cheap shot. War has hard equations and in life or death wars it is us or them whoever them is.

F Healey
F Healey
3 years ago

The morality of the atomic bombs has been argued ad Infinium. It is an interesting but pointless discussion at this time.
More appropriate to our current geopolitical situation is the fear of war and the role of pacifism in the rise of totalitarian regimes in post WW1 Europe.
China has world domination aspirations and if surrounded by impotent peaceful neighbors will quite effectively follow the piece by piece dismantling of independent Asian nations.
It has already begun.
Where is our Churchill?
Who will recognize this?
Japan can and must be a powerful deterrent to stop this ” Gathering Storm.”

Nick Whitehouse
Nick Whitehouse
3 years ago

Perhaps – with the benefits of hindsight – it was a mistake to bomb Pearl
Harbour?

Basil Chamberlain
Basil Chamberlain
3 years ago

No doubt… but it shows something about the way the moral framework of the world was coarsened over World War II that we moved from a situation where, in 1941, people could be shocked by a surprise attack on a military target to one where, in 1945, people were not shocked by the indiscriminate slaughter of children through intensive aerial bombing.

F Healey
F Healey
3 years ago

Ultimate and limitless evil exhibited by the Holocaust and Japanese rape of Nanking shocked all moral peoples but demanded it’s defeat.
Morality cannot follow the rules to it’s own destruction. You are left with guilt and the hope that your immorality in victory was the absolute least amount to endure victory over evil.
And that you take all possible preventive steps to avoid the same in the future.

F Healey
F Healey
3 years ago

Simple and effective comment.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
3 years ago

I visited Japan (2 weeks) in 2018. Absolutely amazing country.
Need to go again.