"Every August, there are some Americans who insist on wringing their hands over the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945," opens Thomas Sowell's syndicated column "Trashing our History; Hiroshima."
Victor Davis Hanson begins his article on the subject at National Review Online with almost the exact same words, "For 60 years the United States has agonized over its unleashing of the world's first nuclear weapon on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945." They both go on to defend the decision giving the usual reasons, with Hanson quoting General Sherman in his defense.
The purpose of this column is not to debunk their arguments, which Gene Callahan ably did a few days ago. Rather, I merely wish to point out the irony that the men are fellows at the Hoover Institution, yet they neither mention that the man who gave the institution its name, former President Herbert Hoover, was one of those Americans who insisted on wringing his hands over the horrific decision.
Hoover had many flaws and was by no means a great president. However, like most people, he was much better man out of power, and became a vocal opponent of American entry into World War II. Although like many Old Right conservatives he occasionally fell for the folly of an "Asia First" foreign policy, he was a pretty reliable opponent to of the Cold War as well.
During World War II, President Hoover was a vociferous opponent of Roosevelt and Truman administration's demand for the unconditional surrender of Japan. He met with many military and political leaders urging them to negotiate a peace with the Emperor. Describing a meeting with Douglas MacAuthur, he wrote in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria.”
Two days after the dropping of the bomb, Hoover wrote, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." He testified to Congress later that year that the act was "barbaric." President Hoover was not alone. As Leo Maley III and Uday Mohan demonstrate at the History News Network, virtually all conservative voices from Human Events to the Chicago Tribune and even National Review continued to criticize the decision well into the 1950s.
The full name of the Hoover Institution is the Hoover Institution on the Study of War, Peace, and Revolution. The last eight words are rarely uttered for the sake of brevity, but it may also be in part that the justification of mass murder by Sowell and Hanson go completely against its 1959 mission statement that stated
The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication, to recall man’s endeavors to make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the American way of life.
Hoover believed that only by recognizing the errors of the past, could we prevent making them in the future. Sowell and Hanson instead decide to celebrate our mistakes, and unsurprisingly, they are both vociferous supporters of the war in Iraq.
I do not want to be too negative because both men, especially Thomas Sowell, have done important work on domestic issues, and the Hoover Institution still produces some great scholarship. Nonetheless, it speaks volumes on the state of the American Right where even fellows at an Institution founded for the preservation of peace, become apologists for some of the worst horrors of war.
August 16, 2005
