James Michener : A Letter to a Pacific Veteran

The following letter was written in October of 1995 by author James Michener to Austin attorney Martin Allday. Allday, former chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, was wounded in action on Okinawa in 1945. In October 1995, Michener, also a Pacific veteran, wrote Allday a letter about President Truman's decision to use atomic weapons to end World War II. Michener asked Allday not ro publish the letter until after Michener's death. Michener died in 1997.:

I'm glad you spoke to me at the Nancy Wilson wedding about your strong reactions to the recent re-evaluations of the Hiroshima bomb. And I appreciate the various clippings you sent me in your follow-up letter, I shall keep a file of your clippings and your letter to give me support if I am forced to speak out on the atomic bombing.

I had only a brief moment to respond to your vigorous statements, so I wish now to state once and for all my own reactions to the bold rewriting of history.

In the summer of 1945 I was stationed on Espiritu Santo close to a big Army field hospital manned by a complete stateside hospital staff from Nebraska and Colorado. I had close relations with the doctors, so I was privy to their thinking about the forthcoming invasion of Japan. They had been alerted to prepare for moving onto the beaches of Kyushu when we invaded there and they were prepared to expect vast numbers of casualties when the Japanese home front defense forces started their suicide attacks.

More important, I was on my own very close to an Army division that was stationed temporarily in a swampy wooded section on our island. They were a disheartened unit for the Japanese had knocked them about a bit in the action on Saipan; their assignment to our swamp was a kind of punishment for their ineffective conduct on Saipan. Now they were informed unofficially that they would be among the first units to hit the beach in our invasion of Kyhushu, and they were terrified. In long talks with me, they said that they expected 70 (percent) or 80 percent casualties, and they could think of no way to avoid the impending disaster.

So it was with knowledge of what the doctors anticipated and what the Army men felt was inescapable, that I approached the days of early August, and I, too, became a bit shaky because the rumor was that I might be attached to the Army unit because of my expertise in keeping airplanes properly fitted and in the sky. Then came the astounding news that a bomb of a new type had been dropped on Hiroshima, a second one on Nagasaki, and that the Japanese emperor himself had called upon his people to surrender peacefully and await the Allied peace-keeping forces to land and establish the changes required by the recent turn of events.

How did we react? With a gigantic sigh of relief, not exultation because of our victory, but a deep gut-wrenching sighs of deliverance. We had stared into the mouth of Armageddon and suddenly the confrontation was no longer necessary. We had escaped those deadly beaches of Kyushu.

I cannot recall who was the more relieved, the doctors who could foresee the wounded and the dying, or the G.I. grunts who would have done the dying, or the men like me who had sensed the great tragedy that loomed. All I know is that we said prayers of deliverance and kept our mouths shut when arguments began as to whether the bombs needed to be dropped or not. And I have maintained that silence to this moment, when I wanted to have the reactions of the men understood who had figured to be on the first waves in.

Let's put it simply. Never once in those first days nor in the long reconsiderations later could I possibly have criticized Truman for having dropped that first bomb. True, I see now that the second bomb on Nagasaki might have been redundant and I would have been just as happy if it had not been dropped. And I can understand how some historians can argue that Japan might have surrendered without the Hiroshima bomb, but the evidence from many nations involved at that moment testify to the contrary. From my experience on Saipan and Okinawa, when I saw how violently the Japanese soldiers defended their caves to the death, I am satisfied that they would have done the same on Kyushu. Also, because I was in aviation and could study battle reports about the effectiveness of airplane bombing, especially with those super-deadly firebombs that ate up the oxygen supply of a great city, I was well aware that the deaths from the fire bombing of Tokyo in early 1945 far exceeded the deaths of Hiroshima.

So I have been able to take refuge in the terrible, time-tested truism that war is war, and if you are unlucky enough to become engaged in one, you better not lose it. The doctrine, cruel and thoughtless as it may sound, governs my thought, my evaluations and my behavior. I could never publicly turn my back on that belief, so I have refused opportunities to testify against the United States in the Hiroshima matter. I know that if I went public with my views I would be condemned and ridiculed, but I stood there on the lip of the pulsating volcano, and I know that I was terrified at what might happen and damned relieved when the invasion became unnecessary. I accept the military estimates that at least 1 million lives were saved, and mine could have been one of them.

Not sure how long that link at the paper will last, so posted in its entirety here. To anybody who wants to dispute the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, show them this article. I can see why James Michener held off publicizing his views - he would have been crucified for them, being such a popular and respected writer.

And, his "crucifixion" would have been at the hands of the "ruling intelligentsia" of the day: the people with the power to silence him :by giving his books bad reviews;by seeing to it lucrative writng assignments for major magazines never came to pass;by making sure nothing he wrote would ever be considered for films.

These same people:these self-appointed Censors would have done all these things without thinking twice...AND while screaming about "McCarthyism".

The bombings were best for the US and Japan. Had the war gone on longer, the Russians would have taken Hokkaido and perhaps more of Japan (they still hold 4 small islands and do not have formal peace from WW2 as a result). Had the US accepted a conditional surrender, the Japanese would not have been protected by the American occupation from the communism that swept China, Korea, an Southeast Asia and Japan would have missed the American-crafted democracy it has. And had atomic bombs not been dropped then, frightening everyone, they would have been used a few short years later in Asia or Europe because the nuclear deterrant wouldn't have been as strong and the Cold War might not have stayed so "cold". No matter how you cut it, the atomic bombs ended the war at the right time (before the Russians became fully engaged) and in the right way (unconditional surrender, allowing the US to occupy Japan and recreate its government).

The only potential point of debate concerns the targets and the civilian deaths. To that, I'll simply say that hindsight is 20/20 and we had no way then of knowing what the impact of a demonstration explosion or a more remote target would have been, nor can we really know now. And while Hiroshima and Nagasaki had many civilians, the US spared the Imperial household in Tokyo and the temples of Kyoto.

This is interesting in that the letter was written in 1995 after Michener had made the complete transition into the "liberal" persuasion. I sort of question his request that this be published after his death. I suppose it can be understood in the fact that Michener was already an old man, and of possibly deteriorating health at the time.

Yet why should someone of Michener's stature wait for 50 years to pen his response. I noticed when he was writing memoir-like works, he didn't hesitate if he deemed criticism of western institutions, religious institutions etc. as necessary.

Why not defend a decision against revisionists, especially when the dicision may have save his life?

"Not sure how long that link at the paper will last, so posted in its entirety here. To anybody who wants to dispute the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, show them this article. I can see why James Michener held off publicizing his views - he would have been crucified for them, being such a popular and respected writer."

And not to mention gutless for not standing up for the truth as he knew it at the time it mattered.

And not to mention gutless for not standing up for the truth as he knew it at the time it mattered.

The timing should not take away from his message, nor should it impact how important his message is. I have a feeling you will not see this reprinted very widely as it is, since it's an unpopular view from a popular author, as it is. I'm not saying you should e-mail the letter to everybody you know, but at least file it away for a rainy day or an argument with a revisionist.

Considering he wrote this just a few years before he died, I get the feeling, from what I've read, that he knew he didn't have too much longer, and he had a lot of unfinished things to do do. Getting into debates and/or arguments over his views over the atomic bombs (which were very firm, even after 50 years had passed) was probably a waste of time to him.

Would you want to spend the last few years of your life arguing with people over something which you most definitely would not change your mind? It may sound like I'm defending him, but I believe I understand where he was coming from when he chose to have this published after his death.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.