|
|
此文章由 tinyshare 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 tinyshare 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
Statement OF Major General Charles W. Sweeney, USAF (Ret.)
I am Maj. Gen. Charles W. Sweeney, United States Air Force, Retired. I am the
only pilot to have flown on both atomic missions. I flew the instrument plane on
the right wing of General Paul Tibbets on the Hiroshima mission and 3 days later,
on August 9, 1945, commanded the second atomic mission over Nagasaki. Six
days after Nagasaki the Japanese military surrendered and the Second World War
came to an end.
The soul of a nation, its essence, is its history. It is that collective memory which
defines what each generation thinks and believes about itself and its country.
In a free society, such as ours, there is always an ongoing debate about who we
are and what we stand for. This open debate is in fact essential to our freedom.
But to have such a debate we as a society must have the courage to consider all
of the facts available to us. We must have the courage to stand up and demand
that before any conclusions are reached, those facts which are beyond question
are accepted as part of the debate.
As the 50th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki missions approaches,
now is an appropriate time to consider the reasons for Harry Truman's order that
these missions be flown. We may disagree on the conclusion, but let us at least
be honest enough to agree on basic facts of the time, the facts that President
Truman had to consider in making a difficult and momentous decision.
As the only pilot to have flown both missions, and having commanded the
Nagasaki mission, I bring to this debate my own eyewitness account of the times.
I underscore what I believe are irrefutable facts, with full knowledge that some
opinion makers may cavalierly dismiss them because they are so obvious — be-
cause they interfere with their preconceived version of the truth, and the meaning
which they strive to impose on the missions.
This evening, I want to offer my thoughts, observations, and conclusions as
someone who lived this history, and who believes that President Truman's
decision was not only justified by the circumstances of his time, but was a moral
imperative that precluded any other option.
Like the overwhelming majority of my generation the last thing I wanted was
a war. We as a nation are not warriors. We are not hell-bent on glory. There is no
warrior class — no Samurai — no master race.
This is true today, and it was true 50 years ago.
While our country was struggling through the great depression, the Japanese
were embarking on the conquest of its neighbors — the Greater East Asia Co-Pros-
perity Sphere. It seems fascism always seeks some innocuous slogan to cover the
most hideous plans.
This Co-Prosperity was achieved by waging total and merciless war against
China and Manchuria. The Japanese, as a nation, saw itself as destined to rule
Asia and thereby possess its natural resources and open lands. Without the
slightest remorse or hesitation, the Japanese Army slaughtered innocent men,
women and children. In the infamous Rape of Nanking up to 300,000 unarmed
civilians were butchered. These were criminal acts.
THESE ARE FACTS.
In order to fulfill its divine destiny in Asia, Japan determined that the only real
impediment to this goal was the United States. It launched a carefully conceived
sneak attack on our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. Timed for a Sunday morning it
was intended to deal a death blow to the fleet by inflicting the maximum loss of
ships and human life.
1,700 sailors are still entombed in the hull of the U.S.S. Arizona that sits on the
bottom of Pearl Harbor. Many if not all, died without ever knowing why. Thus
was the war thrust upon us.
The fall of Corregidor and the resulting treatment of Allied prisoners of war
dispelled any remaining doubt about the inhumaneness of the Japanese Army,
even in the context of war. The Bataan Death March was horror in its fullest
dimension. The Japanese considered surrender to be dishonorable to oneself,
one's family, one's country and one's god. They showed no mercy. Seven thou-
sand American and Filipino POW's were beaten, shot, bayonetted or left to die
of disease or exhaustion.
THESE ARE FACTS.
As the United States made its slow, arduous, and costly march across the vast
expanse of the Pacific, the Japanese proved to be a ruthless and intractable killing
machine. No matter how futile, no matter how hopeless the odds, no matter how
certain the outcome, the Japanese fought to the death. And to achieve a greater
glory, they strove to kill as many Americans as possible.
The closer the United States came to the Japanese mainland, the more fanatical
their actions became.
Saipan — 3,100 Americans killed, 1,500 in the first few hours of the invasion
Iwo Jima — 6,700 Americans killed, 25,000 wounded
Okinawa — 12,500 Americans killed, total casualties, 35,000
These are facts reported by simple white grave markers.
Kamikazes. The literal translation is DIVINE WIND. To willingly dive a plane
loaded with bombs into an American ship was a glorious transformation to
godliness — there was no higher honor on heaven or earth. The suicidal assaults
of the Kamikazes took 5,000 American Navy men to their deaths.
The Japanese vowed that, with the first American to step foot on the mainland,
they would execute every Allied prisoner. In preparation they forced the POW's
to dig their own graves in the event of mass executions. Even after their surren-
der, they executed some American POW's.
THESE ARE FACTS.
The Potsdam Declaration had called for unconditional surrender of the Japan-
ese Armed Forces. The Japanese termed it ridiculous and not worthy of consid-
eration. We know from our intercepts of their coded messages, that they wanted
to stall for time to force a ne gotiated surrender on terms acceptable to them.
For months prior to August 6, American aircraft began dropping fire bombs
upon the Japanese mainland. The wind created by the firestorm from the bombs
incinerated whole cities. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese died. Still the Jap-
anese military vowed never to surrender. They were prepared to sacrifice their
own people to achieve their visions of glory and honor — no matter how many
more people died.
They refused to evacuate civilians even though our pilots dropped leaflets
warning of the possible bombings. In one 3-day period, 34 square miles of Tokyo,
Nagoya, Kobe and Osaka were reduced to rubble.
THESE ARE FACTS.
And even after the bombing of Hiroshima, Tojo, his successor Suzuki, and the
military clique in control believed the United States had but one bomb, and that
Japan could go on. They had 3 days to surrender after August 6, but they did not
surrender. The debate in their cabinet at times became violent.
Only after the Nagasaki drop did the Emperor finally demand surrender.
And even then, the military argued they could and should fight on. A group of
Army officers staged a coup and tried to seize and destroy the Emperor's re-
corded message to his people announcing the surrender.
THESE ARE FACTS.
These facts help illuminate the nature of the enemy we faced. They help put
into context the process by which Truman considered the options available to
him. And they help to add meaning to why the missions were necessary.
President Truman understood these facts as did every service man and woman.
Casualties were not some abstraction, but a sobering reality.
Did the atomic missions end the war? Yes . . . they . . . did.
Were they necessary? Well that's where the rub comes.
10
With the fog of 50 years drifting over the memory of our country, to some, the
Japanese are now the victims. America was the insatiable, vindictive aggressor
seeking revenge and conquest. Our use of these weapons was the unjustified and
immoral starting point for the nuclear age with all of its horrors. Of course, to
support such distortion, one must conveniently ignore the real facts or fabricate
new realities to fit the theories. It is no less egregious than those who today deny
the Holocaust occurred.
How could this have happened?
The answer may lie in examining some recent events.
The current debate about why President Truman ordered these missions, in
some cases, has devolved to a numbers game. The Smithsonian in its proposed
exhibit of the Enola Gay revealed the creeping revisionism which seems the rage
in certain historical circles.
That exhibit wanted to memorialize the fiction that the Japanese were the
victims — we the evil aggressor. Imagine taking your children and grandchildren
to this exhibit.
What message would they have left with?
What truth would they retain?
What would they think their country stood for?
And all of this would have occurred in an American institution whose very
name and charter are supposed to stand for the impartial preservation of signif-
icant American artifacts.
By cancelling the proposed exhibit and simply displaying the Enola Gay, has
truth won out?
Maybe not.
In one nationally televised discussion, I heard a so-called prominent historian
argue that the bombs were not necessary. That President Truman was intent on
intimidating the Russians. That the Japanese were ready to surrender.
The Japanese were ready to surrender? Based on what?
Some point to statements by General Eisenhower years after the war that Japan
was about to fall. Well, based on that same outlook Eisenhower seriously under-
estimated Germany's will to fight on and concluded in December, 1944 that
Germany no longer had the capability to wage offensive war.
That was a tragic miscalculation. The result was the Battle of the Bulge, which
resulted in tens of thousands of needless Allied casualties and potentially al-
lowed Germany to prolong the war and force negotiations.
Thus the assessment that Japan was vanquished may have the benefit of hind-
sight rather than foresight.
It is certainly fair to conclude that the Japanese could have been reasonably
expected to be even more fanatical than the Germans based on the history of the
war in the Pacific.
And, finally, a present-day theory making the rounds espouses that even if an
invasion had taken place, our casualties would not have been a million, as many
believed, but realistically only 46,000 dead.
ONLY 46,000!
Can you imagine the callousness of this line of argument? ONLY 46,000 — as if
this were some insignificant number of American lives.
Perhaps these so-called historians want to sell books.
Perhaps they really believe it. Or perhaps it reflects some self-loathing occa-
sioned by the fact that we won the war.
Whatever the reason, the argument is flawed. It dissects and recalculates events
ideologically, grasping at selective straws.
Let me admit right here, today, that I don't know how many more Americans
would have died in an invasion— AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE!
What I do know is that based on the Japanese conduct during the war, it is fair
and reasonable to assume that an invasion of the mainland would have been a
prolonged and bloody affair. Based on what we know — not what someone sur-
mises — the Japanese were not about to unconditionally surrender.
In taking Iwo Jima, a tiny 8 square mile lump of rock in the ocean, 6,700 marines
died — total casualties over 30,000.
11
But even assuming that those who now KNOW our casualties would have been
ONLY 46.000 I ask
Which 46,000 were to die?
Whose father?
Whose brother?
Whose husband?
And, yes, I am focusing on American lives.
The Japanese had their fate in their own hands, we did not . Hundreds of
thousands of American troops anxiously waited at staging areas in the Pacific
dreading the coming invasion, their fate resting on what the Japanese would do
next. The Japanese could have ended it at any time. They chose to wait.
And while the Japanese stalled, an average of 900 more Americans were killed
or wounded each day the war continued.
I've heard another line of argument that we should have accepted a negotiated
peace with the Japanese on terms they would have found acceptable. I have never
heard anyone suggest that we should have negotiated a peace with Nazi Ger-
many. Such an idea is so outrageous, that no rational human being would utter
the words. To negotiate with such evil fascism was to allow it even in defeat a
measure of legitimacy. This is not just some empty philosophical principal of the
time — it was essential that these forces of evil be clearly and irrevocably de-
feated — their demise unequivocal. Their leadership had forfeited any expectation
of diplomatic niceties. How is it, then, that the history of the war in the Pacific
can be so soon forgotten?
The reason may lie in the advancing erosion of our history, of our collective
memory.
Fifty years after their defeat, Japanese officials have the temerity to claim they
were the victims. That Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalent of the
Holocaust.
And, believe it or not, there are actually some American academics who sup-
port this analogy, thus aiding and giving comfort to a 50-year attempt by the
Japanese to rewrite their own history, and ours in the process.
There is an entire generation of Japanese who do not know the full extent of
their country's conduct during World war II.
This explains why they do not comprehend why they must apologize —
• for the Korean comfort women,
• for the Medical experimentation on POW's which match the horror
of those conducted by the Nazi's,
• for the plans to use biological weapons against the United States by
infecting civilian populations on the West Coast,
• for the methodical slaughter of civilians,
• and for much more.
In a perverse inversion, by forgetting our own history, we contribute to the
Japanese amnesia, to the detriment of both our nations.
Unlike the Germans who acknowledged their guilt, the Japanese persist in the
fiction that they did nothing wrong, that they were trapped by circumstances.
This only forecloses any genuine prospect that the deep wounds suffered by both
nations can be closed and healed.
One can only forgive by remembering. And to forget, is to risk repeating
history.
The Japanese in a well orchestrated political and public relations campaign
have now proposed that the use of the term "V-J Day" be replaced by the more
benign "Victory in the Pacific Day". How convenient.
This they claim will make the commemoration of the end of the war in the
Pacific less "Japan specific."
An op-ed piece written by Dorothy Rabinowitz appearing in the April 5 Wall
Street Journal accurately sums up this outrage:
The reason it appears, is that some Japanese find the reference disturbing — and
one can see why. The term, especially the "J" part, does serve to remind the world
of the identity of the nation whose defeat millions celebrated in August 1945. In
further deference to Japanese sensitivities, a U.S. official (who wisely chose to
remain unidentified) also announced, with reference to the planned ceremonies.
12
that "our whole effort in this thing is to commemorate an event, not celebrate a
victory."
Some might argue so what's in a word — Victory over Japan, Victory in the
Pacific — Let's celebrate an event, not a victory.
I say everything is in a word. Celebrate an EVENT!
Kind of like celebrating the opening of a shopping mall rather than the end of
a war that engulfed the entire Earth — which left countless millions dead and
countless millions more physically or mentally wounded and countless more
millions displaced.
This assault on the use of language is Orwellian and is the tool by which history
and memory are blurred. Words can be just as destructive as any weapon.
Up is Down.
Slavery is Freedom.
Aggression is Peace.
In some ways this assault on our language and history by the elimination of
accurate and descriptive words is far more insidious than the actual aggression
carried out by the Japanese 50 years ago. At least then the threat was clear, the
enemy well defined.
Today the Japanese justify their conduct by artfully playing the race card. They
were not engaged in a criminal enterprise of aggression. No, Japan was simply
liberating the oppressed masses of Asia from WHITE Imperialism.
Liberation!!! Yes, they liberated over 20 million innocent Asians by killing
them. I'm sure those 20 million, their families and the generations never to be,
appreciate the noble effort of the Japanese.
I am often asked was the bomb dropped for vengeance, as was suggested by
one draft of the Smithsonian exhibit. That we sought to destroy an ancient and
honorable culture.
Here are some more inconvenient facts.
One, on the original target list for the atomic missions Kyoto was included.
Although this would have been a legitimate target, one that had not been bombed
previously. Secretary of State Henry Stimson removed it from the list because it
was the ancient capital of Japan and was also the religious center of Japanese
culture.
Two, we were under strict orders during the war that under no circumstances
were we to ever bomb the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, even though we could have
easily leveled it and possibly killed the Emperor. So much for vengeance.
I often wonder if Japan would have shown such restraint if they had the
opportunity to bomb the White House. I think not.
At this point let me dispel one of many longstanding myths that our targets
were intended to be civilian populations. Each target for the missions had signif-
icant military importance — Hiroshima was the headquarters for the southern
command responsible for the defense of Honshu in the event of an invasion and
it garrisoned seasoned troops who would mount the initial defense.
Nagasaki was an industrial center with the two large Mitsubishi armaments
factories. In both Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese had integrated these
industries and troops right in the heart of each city.
As in any war our goal was, as it should be, to win. The stakes were too high
to equivocate.
I am often asked if I ever think of the Japanese who died at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki?
I do not revel in the idea that so many on both sides died, not only at those two
places but around the world in that horrible conflict. I take no pride or pleasure
in the brutality of war whether suffered by my people or those of another nation.
Every life is precious.
But it does seem to me such a question is more appropriately directed to the
Japanese war lords who so willingly offered up their people to achieve their
visions of greatness. They who started the war and then stubbornly refused to
stop it must be called to account. Don't they have the ultimate responsibility for
all the deaths of their countrymen?
Perhaps if the Japanese came to grips with their past and their true part in the
war they would hold those Japanese military leaders accountable. The Japanese
|
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
新人报道帖！发一些之前拍的片子，跟各位来分享交流，更新至3月27日。（52楼有更新） (2013-3-25) 地球邮差 
发表于 2016-9-23 20:25
