I have written rather extensively about our tendency to see conspiracies everywhere. And, while our fascination with conspiracies does seem stronger in recent years, it would be a mistake to think our conspiratorial thoughts only concern modern events. While many conspiratorial minded individuals are fascinated with 9/11 or the Iraq War, others focus on more distant events such as the mishap with the USS Liberty or the Kennedy assassination

However, when I mention conspiracy theories, one subject few people consider is World War II. However, more conspiracy theories have surrounded that was than any subject, except perhaps 9/11. The theories range form the clearly bizarre, such as FDR acting to bring about Pearl Harbor or conspiring with Stalin to spread communism, to the slightly less bizarre, including allegations that we knew about death camps before we began liberating yet suppressed that information, to the almost plausible, such as charges that FDR may have known something was happening, though not the details, prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor¹. What makes World War II interesting is unlike the subject of most conspiracy theories², it attracts theories from both the right and the left, and, unlike many subjects, a handful of the conspiracy theories have entered, if not the mainstream, at least the common beliefs of certain ideological interpretations of the war³.

Today, I was thinking about nuclear warfare (perhaps because I have spent recent nights playing Fallout 3), and recalled all the bizarre theories surrounding the single use of nuclear weapons in our history, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, I specifically recalled an undergraduate history course I once took, in which the professor made a point of presenting, in addition to mainstream positions, a selection of the most extreme positions and beliefs on the day's topic. What struck me in that class, and still does, is how many of the more borderline beliefs about Hiroshima and Nagasaki are accepted as not just possible but probable by many who hear them.

Probably the least insane fringe belief about the bombings is the one I have heard form many non-academic Japanese individuals. This is the belief that the bombings were in direct retribution for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Nor is this meant in a metaphorical way, that they bombed Pearl and it led to these bombings, but the people I have heard seem to be saying exactly what that says, that because they bombed us once, we decided to bomb them twice, as retribution, direct payback. Obviously, this is not a mainstream historical perspective, but, as far as historical analysis goes, it is probably better than some of the fringe ideas developed by nominally academic historians in the US.

Most of these theories tend to accumulate around the specific question of why we bombed Japan rather than Germany. In fact, it was a question that arose principally as a way to inject race and racial conspiracy theories into the subject. Prior to the injection of this question, no one seriously thought that we fought any differently on one front than the other thanks to race. We fought the Japanese and we fought the Germans and Italians, in both cases doing all we could to win, without thought of race. However, at some point, left wing historians decided that simply wouldn't do. Clearly America of the 40's was a racist cesspool, so we had to have fought Japan differently, and they turned to the atomic bombs to prove it.

The other theories mostly arose as a backlash against this belief. Rather than argue for military necessity, however, these new theorists started to make conspiracy theories of their own, trying to explain away the bombings as a product of some sort of realpolitik rather than racism. Eventually, these theories mostly settled down into a familiar pattern, one which argued that it was not racism which had us bomb Japan, but our fear of Russia. As Japan was an area Russia considered in their sphere of influence, while much of Germany was not, by bombing Japan we were telling Russia we could bomb them too should they not abide the lines drawn at Potsdam, Casablanca and Yalta.

The truth is very simple, so simple one wonders why these theories arose at all.

Yes, we were taking casualties in Germany, but we were making progress, as were the Russians. Germany was down to the last remnants of her once mighty army, and they were calling up subpar home guard units. And, unlike the Japanese, they showed little interest in fighting for every inch of soil to the last German. There had already been assassination attempts on Hitler, the high command clearly had some members who were ready to discuss surrender, and the home guard was not exactly the fanatical force that there was every sign Japan's home guard would be.

On the other hand, we had not even touched the home islands of Japan. Estimates for Operation Olympic estimated anywhere form one half to one million casualties. We knew that Japan had prepared caches of gas, bunkers, weapon caches and other stores for the home defense units, and our experience with dug in Japanese units on other islands had persuaded us that a handful of entrenched units could do quite a bit of harm. It had also convinced us that the Japanese were not going to surrender easily, even when confronted with overwhelming odds.

So, why did we bomb Japan? Because we knew we could win in Germany, given enough time. We were not certain we could take Japan with anything less than a million casualties.

The other question asked, and the one used to support the argument that we were sending a message to Russia, is why we dropped two bombs, not one. The argument often goes that we bombed them twice to give Russia the impression that we had a large store of bombs and could just keep bombing if Russia broke our treaty.

On the other hand, I think there are three argument for the two bombs which avoid all these conspiracy theories.

First, we dropped two bombs because we had two working bombs. Had Japan not surrendered, we also wanted our bombs to do as much damage as possible. That is why we picked two major areas which had both been left relatively untouched by the war and which were responsible for a fair amount of industrial production. We bombed them not just to force a surrender, but to cause the maximum amount of damage just in case Japan decided to continue fighting. So, since we had two bombs, we chose two targets. had we had three bombs, we would have hit three cities. If we wanted to do as much damage as possible, the obvious answer was to drop however many bombs we had in our arsenal.

Second, perhaps we were trying to convince someone we had an infinite supply of bombs by dropping one and then a second. however, rather than Russia, perhaps it was Japan we were trying to convince. After all, if we wanted them to surrender, how better than to let them think we would continue bombing cities with nuclear weapons until they gave up or nothing was left? So, rather than dragging Russia into it, does it not make more sense to think we were trying to deceive the Japanese into thinking we had more capacity to harm them than we really did?

Finally, there is an argument I have never seen made, but one which came to me while looking at a map. Our forces in the Pacific in the area of Japan were largely to the south of the islands. Had we invaded, our fleets would have come from that direction. If you check out a map, Hiroshima is on the most southerly part of the island of Honshu, while Nagasaki is on the southern tip of Kyushu. Thus, we had cleared all defenses and established a landing zone on two of the three islands, and the two most populous. Admittedly, the area was horribly irradiated but there are two argument against that being a concern. First, we were much less concerned or informed about radiation in the 40's than today. Second, it was war. If we lost a few thousand to radiation, it was better than tens of thousands to Japanese shore defenses. So, if the nuclear weapons cleared two landing zones at the expense of some radiation damage to the first troops to land, I doubt any commander would find that an unreasonable trade off.

So, looking at this rationally, we were worried that the Japanese were prepare dot fight to the last man costing us a million or more should we have to invade, while Germany was on the defensive and unlikely to cause anywhere near those type of casualties. By dropping the bombs we hoped to force a surrender, but even if we didn't the bombs did quite a huge amount of damage and also cleared two landing zones for the eventual invasion. So, why is there any mystery? To bring in race, political motives, or anything else, seems pointless. The military situation alone is more than enough to explain our actions.

And that, I think, is my real point. While I use this specific example, the principle is a general one. There are many people out there who will always look for the "real reason" behind any action. But the truth is, most things happen for obvious reasons. The reason most people believe is very often correct. The Crusades started to drive the Moslems from the Holy Land, we attacked Iraq because they continued to violate the ceasefire, al Qaida attacked the US on 9/11 because they were upset with our treatment of the Islamic world. There is no need to dig, the answer is simple and obvious.

Then again, I think the conspiracy theory people would argue, "perhaps a little TOO obvious..."

----------------------------------------------------------------

1. In may youth, when I was less stringent in assessing conspiracy theories, I accepted the possibility that FDR may have provoked Pearl Harbor, even known about it and done nothing. In part I accepted this as my grandfather was involved in an 1930's emergency drill in Pearl Harbor in which the ships were unable to evacuate. It caused me to think that it was clearly a bad idea to position a whole fleet in a harbor which could not be quickly clear. I also judged it peculiar that the carrier fleet was elsewhere, only the soon to be obsolete high seas fleet was in Pearl. However, as I aged, I realized no one knew the fleet was about to become obsolete and carriers would soon rule the seas, and it was more likely simple incompetence and inertia kept the fleet in a poor choice of harbors. While I still think FDR did behave provocatively toward both Japan and Germany, may even have hoped for an incident to allow him to get public support to go to war, I do not believe he intentionally orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor. However, it does show that even the most ardent conspiracy theorist can change. I overcame a youthful belief in a specific conspiracy, so it is possible to eventually get through to these people. At least sometimes.

2. Only the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 seem to share this trait, drawing conspiracy theories from both the political right and left. And even then, the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 both clearly attract more attention from the left than the right, making World War II the only subject which attracts equal attention from both the right and left of the conspiratorial ranks.

3. For example, the belief that we knew about the death camps, yet suppressed that knowledge as it was "only Jews" who were suffering, and we were not yet ready for a ground war in Europe, has entered the common beliefs of a certain select group of left wing ideological historians, mostly those obsessed with seeing race and class behind every decision.