日本投降70周年纪念-投原子弹的美国空军在50周年的听证发言

“日本投降”，与“太平洋战争结束”，表面上是同一段历史，但是这两个词却隐含截然不同的意义。

以下是在日本广岛和长崎投放两颗原子弹的美国空军上将查理斯韦尼（Charles W. Sweeney）在美国参议院上的发言原文。1995年5月11日。该听证会有几个目的：纪念二次大战，同时制定美国史密森研究所的管理方针。斯韦尼的发言很长，但是值得大家仔细阅读。他毫不忌讳地抨击史密森研究所对投放原子弹造成日本人民伤亡模糊地归咎于战争和美国，为日本发起侵略亚洲国家的战争开脱的错误思想，义正词严地指出日本人民对自己国家发动战争应负的责任，不能说日本人民无辜，等同其他亚洲国家被日本杀害的千千万万人民。可以说日本人民的灾难是自作孽，死者中当然有无辜的，甚至有反战的，但是日本民族总体不能逃避发起战争的责任。二次大战，美国难免有军火商操弄的阴影（布殊家族就以卖军火起家），毕竟是美国参与的一次正义战争，以后的就很难说了。阅读该文，可以重温历史，学习分析历史。1941年12月8日，日本轰炸香港，窃据香港3年零8个月，我的幼年一半时间在防空洞和躲难中度过。今天台湾，香港一些没有经历过日机轰炸、屠杀、屈辱的年轻人，对殖民主义存在幻想，这是清醒剂。历史的因果不能模糊，不能误读。目前世界正在处于另一次军国主义复萌的危机，正需要重温这历史教训。重温历史，不是要挑起对一般日本人民的仇恨，相反，正是为他们免受第二次苦，敲响警钟。

愿意看中文翻译的，请看微信（附图片，但与原文略有出入）：http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5NTk3OTMxMA==&mid=208998940&idx=1&sn=f4c3c46971516379635b6b6a3cae55fb&scene=5#rd

下面英文原文载：http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?view=plaintext;size=100;id=pur1.32754065391769;page=root;seq=8;num=4（文中有若干误植，明显的已经更正，不解的，原文照录）

THESMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION:
MANAGEMENTGUIDELINES FOR THE FUTURE
THURSDAY,MAY 11, 1995
U.S.SENATE,
COMMITTEEON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION,
Washington,DC.
Thecommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in Room
106,Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,
chairman,presiding.

-----------

TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL CHARLESW.
SWEENEY, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, RETIRED
General SWEENEY.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the committee. I am Major General 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
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.
Fifty years ago millions of my fellow citizens served our
country in a time of national crisis—a crisis which engulfed our
panel; a crisis in which the forces of fascism were poised to
extinguish the democracies of the world. It was a crisis in which
the forces of evil were clearly defined, or at least I thought so
until last fall when I read the first accounts from the Air Force
Association of the proposed script for the exhibit of the Enola Gay
at the Smithsonian Institution.
It was obvious to me that the Enola Gay was being used to
advance a theory about atomic missions and the United States’
role in World War II that transformed the Japanese into victims
and cast the United States as a vengeful aggressor engaged in a
war to destroy an ancient culture. My first reaction was, as you
can imagine, personal disbelief. I just could not believe that the
Smithsonian, an institution whose very name signifies honesty
and integrity in the preservation of American artifacts, could be
so wrong.

Like the overwhelming majority of my generation I did not
want a war. We are not a Nation of warriors.There is no warrior
class, no master race, no Samurai. Yet duringthe years when my
generation and our parents were strugglingthrough the Great
Depression, the Japanese were engaged in theconquest of their
neighbors. That is an unfortunate fact ofhistory. Without the
slightest remorse or hesitation the Japanese military slaughtered
innocent men, women, and children. In the end,they would kill
over 20 million of their Asian neighbors.
The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, timed forSunday morning
to inflict the maximum loss of ships and humanlife, thrust the
United States into a war in the Pacific whose outcome then was
far from certain. Seventeen hundred sailorsare still entombed in
the hull of the U.S.S. Arizona that sits onthe bottom of Pearl
Harbor. Many, if not all, died without everknowing why.
The fall of Corregidor and the resultingtreatment of Allied
prisoners of war dispelled any remaining doubtabout the
inhumaneness of the Japanese army even in thecontext of war.
The Japanese military considered surrender adishonor to one’s
self, one’s family, one’s country, and one’sGod, and thus they
showed no mercy.
This was the true nature of the enemy wefaced. This was the
reality which President Harry Trumanconfronted as he
considered sending yet even more Americansoldiers, sailors,
and airmen into the horror of the war in thePacific. Declassified
transcripts of the secret codes which we hadbroken during the
war and were available to President Truman andhis military
advisors underscore the Japanese attitude 50years ago. The
transcripts show the Japanese had no intentionof surrendering
unconditionally. They were stalling for timeand fully prepared
to continue to sacrifice their own citizens.And as time passed
more Americans died.
The Japanese military was fully prepared tofight on, even
after the Hiroshima mission. In fact, evenafter the Nagasaki
mission, some Japanese military leaders werestill advocating
fighting on.
We know that in a pre-invasion meeting at theWhite House
on June 18, 1945 Admiral William Leahypredicted to President
Truman, based on the experience of Iwo Jimaand Okinawa, 30
to 35 percent of the 770,000—man invasionforce would be killed
or wounded in the first 30 days of an invasionof the Japanese
mainland. That calculates out to about aquarter of a million
American men. President Truman remarked thatthe invasion
would create another Okinawa from one end ofJapan to the
other; one of the most horrendous battles weever fought. Now
it would be expanded the whole length ofKyushu, the southern
island of the four main islands of Japan.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed. General Macarthur's chief
surgeon, Brigadier General Guy Dennett,estimated that in the
120—day campaign to invade and occupy only theisland of

Kyushu,395,000 casualties would be sustained. For President
Truman, for me and for my crew, the probability of so many
casualties was not an abstraction but asobering reality.
The world is a better place because German andJapanese
fascism failed to conquer. Japan and Germanyare better places
because we were benevolent in our victory. Theyouth of Japan
and the United States, spared from further needless slaughter,
went on to live and have families and growold. Today millions
of people in America and Japan are alivebecause we ended the
war when we did. This is not to celebrate theuse of atomic
weapons. Quite the contrary. It is my ferventhope that my
mission is the last such mission ever flown.But that does not
mean that back in 1945, given the events ofthe war and the
recalcitrance of our enemy, President Trumanwas not obliged to
use all the weapons at his disposal to end thewar.
Now, 50 years later after their defeat, someJapanese officials
claim they were the victims, ignoring theclear evidence of their
own brutality and mind set. Incredibly, how can any American
academic support such a proposition, thus aiding and giving
support to a 50-year attempt by the Japanese to rewrite their own
history and ours in the process. Such aneffort to rewrite history
does a disservice to both countries. There isan entire generation
of Japanese who do not know the full extent oftheir country's
conduct during World War II.
By forgetting our own history we contribute toJapanese
amnesia, to the detriment of both nations.Unlike the Germans
who acknowledge their guilt, the Japanesepersist in the fiction
that they did nothing wrong. That they werethe victims ofcircumstances. This only forecloses anygenuine prospect that
the deep wounds suffered by both nations canbe healed. We
must know and remember history.
I have always had the utmost respect for theSmithsonian
Institution and its mission. I do notunderstand how it could
have planned to so unfairly mistreat theUnited States’ role in
World War II, to denigrate the bravery of ourAmerican soldiers,
sailors, and airmen and the courage ofPresident Truman. By
canceling the proposed exhibit and simplydisplaying the Enola
Gay, has the truth won out? Maybe not. Maybethis exhibit
reveals a deeper problem.
Imagine taking your children or grandchildrento the original
proposed exhibit. Would they learn of the sacrifices their fathers
and grandfathers endured in that war in thePacific so that all of
us could be free in 1995, free to visit theSmithsonian or
anywhere else we choose? Would they understand the important
historical context which led the President ofthe United States to
make the decision to end that brutal conflict using all the
weapons at his disposal? I think not.
In the end, what would our children and grandchildren think
that their country stood for? In trying tounderstand the reason
why the Smithsonian did this I certainly donot get any clue from

thestated reason the director gave for canceling the proposed
exhibit. As I recall, he said the Smithsonian realized that it had
been too ambitious by combining a highly emotional
commemorative event for veterans with anhistorical analysis.
This reason is at best condescending to theveterans. I suggest
that the forces behind the revisionism of ourhistory at the
Smithsonian were flat out wrong in their analysis, and they
should have said so.
The soul of a nation, its essence, is itshistory. It is that
collective memory which defines what eachgeneration thinks
and believes about itself and its country. Forthis reason the facts
must always be preserved. This does not meandebate should be
stifled. It does mean that any debate must befounded upon are cognition of all the facts. At theSmithsonian there was an
absence of some rather basic facts and aconclusion which was
unsupported by those basic facts.
My fellow veterans and I were impelled to askhow could the
Smithsonian have been so terribly wrong aboutthe true nature
and meaning of the war in the Pacific and theatomic missions?
Fortunately, this threat to our national identity was aired out in
the open because the proposed exhibit of theEnola Gay was so
devoid of factual support. Other historic events may be too
subtle to be seen as clearly. Certainly the country was fortunate
that millions of veterans of the war, and citizens of the United
States who are not necessarily veterans, werestill alive to report
on what really happened. I might point to onespecific class of
Americans, and they are the ones whose husbands, sons, loved
ones were poised to conduct, to participate inthat invasion.
So I come before this committee to ask you as Members of
Congress to do all in your power to protectand preserve the
integrity of the process by which our nationalidentity is formed
and debated. Our history is a precious asset.In a free society
such as ours there must always be an ongoing debate about who
we are and what we stand for.
The key question, however, is what role isappropriate for the
Smithsonian in this ongoing debate and whatprocess is to be
employed in making decisions about historicinterpretation at
the Smithsonian? Of course, this assumes thatthe Smithsonian
should expand its role beyond the preservationand exhibition
of significant American artifacts—Americanartifacts.
The fact that you are holding these hearingsis an encouraging
sign for many Americans that such an inquirywill prevent future
attempts to revise, rewrite, or slant ourhistorical record in any
way by any Government-supported agency. Iwould like to ask
this committee to help the American peopleunderstand how the
decisions as to what history the Smithsonianwill display are
made. Are these decisions based on ideology orsome agenda, or
are they the product of careful review and presentation of
historical facts? The issue is not that agroup of pesky, aging veterans raised
questions about a proposed exhibit. The issueis one of trust. Can
the American people trust the Smithsonian everagain to be
objective and unencumbered by ideology? Thisis an important
debate and I thank this committee for holding these hearings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of General Sweeneyfollows:]
STATEMENT or MAJOR GENERAL CHARLES W. SWEENEY,USAF (RET.)
I am Maj. Gen. Charles W. Sweeney, UnitedStates Air Force, Retired. I am the
only pilot to have flown on both atomicmissions. I flew the instrument plane on
the right wing of General Paul Tibbets on theHiroshima mission and 3 days later,
on August 9, 1945, commanded the second atomicmission over Nagasaki. Six
days after Nagasaki the Japanese militarysurrendered and the Second World War
came to an end.
The soul of a nation, its essence, is itshistory. 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 isalways an ongoing debate about who we
are and what we stand for. This open debate isin fact essential to our freedom.
But to have such a debate we as a society musthave the courage to consider all
of the facts available to us. We must have thecourage to stand up and demand
that before any conclusions are reached, thosefacts which are accepted as part of the debate.
As the 50th anniversary of the Hiroshima andNagasaki missions approaches,
now is an appropriate time to consider thereasons for Harry Truman's order that
these missions be flown. We may disagree onthe conclusion, but let us at least
be honest enough to agree on basic facts ofthe time, the facts that President
Truman had to consider in making a difficultand momentous decision.
As the only pilot to have flown both missions,and having commanded the
Nagasaki mission, I bring to this debate myown eyewitness account of the times.
I underscore what I believe are irrefutablefacts, with full knowledge that some
opinion makers may cavalierly dismiss thembecause they are so obvious—be-
cause they interfere with their preconceivedversion 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 whobelieves that President Truman's
decision was not only justified by thecircumstances of his time, but was a moral
imperative that precluded any other option.
Like the overwhelming majority of mygeneration the last thing I wanted was
a war. We as a nation are not warriors. We arenot hell-bent on glory. There is no
warrior class—no Samurai—no master race.
This is true today, and it was true 50 yearsago.
While our country was struggling through thegreat depression, the Japanese
were embarking on the conquest of itsneighbors——the Greater East Asia Co-Pros-
perity Sphere. It seems fascism always seekssome innocuous slogan to cover the
most hideous plans.
This Co-Prosperity was achieved by wagingtotal and merciless war against
China and Manchuria. The Japanese, as anation, saw itself as destined to rule
Asia and thereby possess its natural resourcesand open lands. Without the
slightest remorse or hesitation, the JapaneseArmy slaughtered innocent men,
women and children. In the infamous Rape ofNanking up to 300,000 unarmed
civilians were butchered. These were criminalacts.
THESE ARE FACTS.
In order to fulfill its divine destiny inAsia, 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 fleetby inflicting the maximum loss of
ships and human life.

1,700sailors are still entombed in the hull of the U.S.S. Arizona that sits on the
bottom of Pearl Harbor. Many if not all, diedwithout ever knowing why. Thus
was the war thrust upon us.
The fall of Corregidor and the resultingtreatment of Allied prisoners of war
dispelled any remaining doubt about the inhumaneness of the Japanese Army,
even in the context of war. The Bataan DeathMarch was horror in its fullest
dimension. The Japanese considered surrenderto 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 tobe a ruthless and intractable killing
machine. No matter how futile, no matter howhopeless the odds, no matter how
certain the outcome, the Japanese fought tothe death. And to achieve a greater
glory, they strove to kill as many Americansas possible.
The closer the United States came to theJapanese mainland, the more fanatical
their actions became.
Saipan—3,100 Americans killed, 1,500 in the firstfew 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 gravemarkers.
Kamikazes. The literal translation is DIVINEWIND. To willingly dive a plane
loaded with bombs into an American ship was aglorious transformation to
godliness——there was no higher honor on heavenor earth. The suicidal assaults
of the Kamikazes took 5,000 American Navy mento their deaths.
The Japanese vowed that, with the firstAmerican to step foot on the mainland,
they would execute every Allied prisoner. Inpreparation 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 surrenderof the Japan-
ese Armed Forces. The Japanese termed it mmand not worthy of consid-
eration. We know from our intercepts of theircoded messages, that they wanted
to stall for time to force a surrender onterms acceptable to them.
For months prior to August 6, American aircraft began dropping fire bombs
upon the Japanese mainland. The wind createdby the firestorm from the bombs
incinerated whole cities. Hundreds ofthousands of Japanese died. Still the Jap-
anese military vowed never to surrender. Theywere 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, Toyo,his successor Suzuki, and the
military clique in control believed the UnitedStates had but one bomb, and that
Japan could go on. They had 3 days tosurrender after August 6, but they did not
surrender. The debate in their cabinet attimes became violent.
Only after the Nagasaki drop did the Emperorfinally demand surrender.
And even then, the military argued they couldand should fight on. A group of
Army officers staged a coup and tried to seizeand 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 Trumanconsidered 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 asobering reality.
Did the atomic missions end the war? Yes . . .they . . . did.
Were they necessary? Well that's where the rub comes.

Withthe fog of 50 years drifting over the memory of our country, to some, the
Japanese are now the victims. America was theinsatiable, vindictive aggressor
seeking revenge and conquest. Our use of theseweapons was the unjustified and
immoral starting point for the nuclear agewith all of its horrors. Of course, to
support such distortion, one must convenientlyignore 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 recentevents.
The current debate about why President Trumanordered 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 fictionthat 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 anAmerican 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, Iheard a so-called prominent historian
argue that the bombs were not necessary. ThatPresident Truman was intent on
intimidating the Russians. That the Japanesewere ready to surrender.
The Japanese were ready to surrender? Based onwhat?
Some point to statements by General Eisenhowermes after the war that Japan
was about to fall. Well, based on that sameoutlook Eisenhower seriously under-
estimated Germany's will to fight on andconcluded in December, 1944 that
Germany no longer had the capability to wageoffensive war.
That was a tragic miscalculation. The resultwas the Battle of the Bulge, which
resulted in tens of thousands of needlessAllied casualties and potentially al-
lowed Germany to prolong the war and forcenegotiations.
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 therounds 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 lineof argument? ONLY 46,000——as if
this were some insignificant number ofAmerican lives.
Perhaps these so-called historians want tosell 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 elective straws.
Let me admit right here, today, that I don'tknow how many more Americans
would have died in an invasion—AND NEITHERDOES 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 ofthe mainland would have been a
prolonged and bloody affair. Based on what weknow—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.

Buteven assuming that those who now JQNQW 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 ownhands, we did not. Hundreds of
thousands of American troops anxiously waitedat staging areas in the Pacific
dreading the coming invasion, their fateresting on what the Japanese would do
next. The Japanese could have ended it at anytime. 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 weshould have accepted a negotiated
peace with the Japanese on terms they wouldhave found acceptable. I have never
heard anyone suggest that we should havenegotiated a peace with Nazi Ger-
many. Such an idea is so outrageous, that norational human being would utter
the words. To negotiate with such evil fascismwas to allow it even in defeat a
measure of legitimacy. This is not just someempty philosophical principal of the
time—it was essential that these forces ofevil be clearly and irrevocably de-
feated—their demise unequivocal. Theirleadership 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, Japaneseofficials 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 actuallysome 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 gasin 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 ownhistory, we contribute to the
Japanese amnesia, to the detriment of both ournations.
Unlike the Germans who acknowledged theirguilt, the Japanese persist in the
fiction that they did nothing wrong, that theywere 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 politicaland 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 thisoutrage:
The reason it appears, is that some Japanesefind 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 defeatmillions celebrated in August 1945. In
further deference to Japanese sensitivities, aU.S. official (who wisely chose to
remain unidentified) also announced, with reference to the planned ceremonies,

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 avictory.
I say everything is in a word. Celebrate anEVENT!
Kind of like celebrating the opening of ashopping 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 isOrwellian 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 andhistory by the elimination of
accurate and descriptive words is far moreinsidious 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 byartfully playing the race card. They
were not engaged in a criminal enterprise ofaggression. No, Japan was simply
liberating the oppressed masses of Asia from ME Imperialism.
Liberation!!! Yes, they liberated over 20million 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 forvengeance, 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 atomicmissions Kyoto was included.
Although this would have been a legitimatetarget, one that had not been bombed
previously, Secretary of State Henry Stimsonremoved 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 thewar that under no circumstances
were we to ever bomb the Imperial Palace inTokyo, 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 thinknot.
At this point let me dispel one of manylongstanding myths that our targets
were intended to be civilian populations. Eachtarget for the missions had signif-
icant military importance—Hiroshima was theheadquarters for the southern
command responsible for the defense of Honshuin the event of an invasion and
it garrisoned seasoned troops who would mountthe initial defense.
Nagasaki was an industrial center with the twolarge Mitsubishi armaments
factories. In both Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese had integrated these
industries and troops right in the heart ofeach 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 onboth 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 moreappropriately directed to the
Japanese war lords who so willingly offered uptheir people to achieve their
visions of greatness. They who started the warand 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 withtheir past and their true part in the
war they would hold those Japanese military leaders accountable. The Japanese

peopledeserve an answer from those that brought such misery to the nations of
the Far East and ultimately to their ownpeople. Of course this can never happen
if we collaborate with the Japanese in wipingaway the truth.
How can Japan ever reconcile with itself and the United States if they do not
demand and accept the truth?
My crew and I flew these missions with thebelief that they would bring the
war to an end. There was no sense of joy.There was a sense of duty and
commitment that we wanted to get back to ourfamilies and loved ones.
Today millions of people in America and in southeast Asia are alive because
the war ended when it did.
I do not stand here celebrating the use ofnuclear weapons. Quite the contrary.
I hope that my mission is the last suchmission ever flown.
We as a nation can abhor the existence of nuclear weapons.
I certainly do.
But that does not then mean that, back inAugust of 1945, given the events of
the war and the recalcitrance of our enemy,President Truman was not obliged
to use all the weapons at his disposal to endthe war.
I agreed with Harry Truman then, and I stilldo today.
Years after the war Truman was asked if he hadany second thoughts. He said
emphatically, "No." He then askedthe questioner to remember the men who died
at Pearl Harbor who did not have the benefitof second thoughts.
In war the stakes are high. As Robert E. Lee said, "it is good that war is so
horrible, or we might grow to like it.”
I thank God that it was we who had this weaponand not the Japanese or the
Germans. The science was there. Eventuallysomeone would have developed this
weapon. Science can never be denied. It findsa way to self-fulfillment.
The question of whether it was wise to developsuch a weapon would have
eventually been overcome by the fact that itcould be done. The Soviets would
have certainly proceeded to develop their ownbomb. Let us not forget that
Joseph Stalin was no less evil than Toyo orhis former ally Adolf Hitler. At last
count, Stalin committed genocide on at least20 million of his own citizens.
The world is a better place because German and Japanese fascism failed to
conquer the world.
Japan and Germany are better places because we were benevolent in our
victory.
The youth of Japan and the United States,spared from further needless slaugh-
ter, went on to live and have families andgrow old.
As the father of ten children and thegrandfather of 21, I can state that I am
certainly grateful that the war ended when itdid.
I do not speak for all veterans of that war.But I believe that my sense of pride
in having served my country in that greatconflict is shared by all veterans. This
is why the truth about that war must bepreserved. We veterans are not shrinking
violets. Our sensibilities will not beshattered in intelligent and controversial
debate. We can handle ourselves.
But we will not allow armchair second guessers to frame the debate
by hiding facts from the American public and the world.
I have great faith in the good sense andfairness of the American people to
consider all of the facts and make an informedjudgment about the war's end.
This is an important debate. The soul of ournation, its essence, its history, is
at stake.