The New Criterion

America’s leading review of the arts and intellectual life
- Harry Mount, the London Telegraph

Weblog

About ArmaVirumque


( AHR-mah wih-ROOM-kweh)


In the Aeneid, the Roman poet Virgil sang of "arms and a man" (Arma virumque cano). Month in and month out, The New Criterion expounds with great clarity and wit on the art, culture, and political controversies of our times. With postings of reviews, essays, links, recs, and news, Armavirumque seeks to continue this mission in accordance with the timetable of the digital age.


Recent posts

Archives


Archive for July 2008

Archive for June 2008

Archive for May 2008

more archives

 

Info

 

Recent contributors

 

Shortcut

www.armavirumque.org

 

To contact The New Criterion by email, write to:

letters@newcriterion.com.

To contact The New Criterion by mail, write to:

The New Criterion

900 Broadway

Suite 602

New York, New York 10003

USA

 

Blogroll



Aug 06, 2007 10:18 AM

Political wisdom from The Guardian

by Roger Kimball


It is not often that I agree with the politics espoused by The Guardian, England’s most left-wing serious newspaper. But an article by Oliver Kamm today in that newspaper wins my wholehearted endorsement. Today, August 6, is the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. As Mr. Kamm points out, that action, together with its successor at Nagasaki on August 9, ended World War II. It saved hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of Japanese lives. Were those bombings terrible? You betcha. But as Mr. Kamm notes, if they caused suffering, they saved much greater suffering that would have ensued had the United States invaded Japan. This was understood at the time. But in recent years a revisionist view has grown up, especially on the Left, which faults President Truman for his decision to drop the bombs. "This alternative history," Mr. Kamm argues. "is devoid of merit."

New historical research in fact lends powerful support to the traditionalist interpretation of the decision to drop the bomb. This conclusion may surprise Guardian readers. The so-called revisionist interpretation of the bomb made headway from the 1960s to the 1990s. It argued that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were less the concluding acts of the Pacific war than the opening acts of the cold war. Japan was already on the verge of surrender; the decision to drop the bomb was taken primarily to gain diplomatic advantage against the Soviet Union.

Yet there is no evidence that any American diplomat warned a Soviet counterpart in 1945-46 to watch out because America had the bomb. The decision to drop the bomb was founded on the conviction that a blockade and invasion of Japan would cause massive casualties. Estimates derived from intelligence about Japan’s military deployments projected hundreds of thousands of American casualties.

It will be interesting to see what sort of response Mr. Kamm’s article elicits. I predict howls of rage and vituperation. But he is right:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are often used as a shorthand term for war crimes. That is not how they were judged at the time. Our side did terrible things to avoid a more terrible outcome. The bomb was a deliverance for American troops, for prisoners and slave labourers, for those dying of hunger and maltreatment throughout the Japanese empire - and for Japan itself. One of Japan’s highest wartime officials, Kido Koichi, later testified that in his view the August surrender prevented 20 million Japanese casualties. The destruction of two cities, and the suffering it caused for decades afterwards, cannot but temper our view of the Pacific war. Yet we can conclude with a high degree of probability that abjuring the bomb would have caused greater suffering still.
Read the whole thing here.

What is the essence, the core, of conservative wisdom? One part is that when it comes to the real world, the choices we face are often not between good and bad but between bad and worse. This is particularly true in times of war. A difficult lesson. But crucial for those who wish to do good as well emit good-sounding slogans.

comments, click to read

E-mail to friend

add a comment

you must be a new criterion subscriber to post a comment. {subscribe now}

Subscriber login

The New Criterion

Already a print subscriber? click for online access

login

Remember:

New from The New Criterion:
40 page special issue
on our conference

‘Free speech in
an age of Jihad’

Webcasts

Encounter Books at 10, an interview with Roger Simon


'The Face of Libel Tourism,' OPENING REMARKS AND PANEL ONE from Free Speech in an Age of Jihad:
Libel Tourism, “Hate Speech,” and Political Freedom a conference held by The New Criterion and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies


'Suppressing Discussion of Islam,' PANEL TWO from Free Speech in an Age of Jihad:
Libel Tourism, “Hate Speech,” and Political Freedom a conference held by The New Criterion and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Go to webcasts >

Events

October 22, 2008

GALA EVENT: The New Criterion Benefit Art Auction


January 25, 2009

TRAVEL EVENT: The New Criterion Cruise


More events >