When I purchased one episode of "The World at War" (1974), I was dismayed at finding how tendentious it really is (at least the episode in question). The chapter I bought was 13, on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It dawned on me that "The World at War" may very well have been the origin of public opinion ever since. Regrettably, it is crammed with misrepresentations of facts.
It subtly avoids telling us that the two Japanese cities were military targets - home of a very aggressive and still active war industry (almost every single one of 230,000 inhabitants of Nagasaki worked in arms factories). However, since footage of dead and injured children is all we see, the impression created in this film is that the targets of bomber pilots Tibbetts and Sweeney were kindergartens.
The film also creates an impression of an 'already fatigued Japan that only wanted peace' (according to statements from a very distinguished Japanese official with plenty of prime time in the programme). Facts are that Japan had not surrendered in 2,600 years, and were not inclined to do so in 1945. According to more reliable sources, such as historian Richard B. Frank, the Pacific War might well have lasted a few years more (as it actually did on certain Pacific isles where Japanese forces were neither fatigued nor peaceful. In fact, the last Japanese soldier surrendered in 1974!). It is more than likely that two or three more years of war would have claimed far more than 200,000 lives. The fallen would undoubtedly have counted the American POWs, already alarmingly emaciated at the liberation in 1945: they looked like the prisoners from the German death camps. By 1946 they would have been dead. The bombs not only spared American POWs, they also ended the bloodiest war in history, at two fell swoops, both of which were justified by Japanese decisions to ignore ultimatums. When forced to admit that an ultimatum WAS in fact delivered, the film chooses to focus on Truman's "unreasonable" demand for unconditional surrender, implying that this was ungenerous. This disregards the fact that the 'fatigued nation' (words like 'humbled', 'defenseless', 'starved' and 'helpless' occur time and again in reference to Japan) tenaciously held on to occupied China and Manchuria. Can we imagine a European peace treaty that let Nazi Germany keep Scandinavia, Poland, the Netherlands and Southern France? Furthermore - there is another deliberate confusion of events in this film: Truman's ultimatum was delivered on July 26. The only Japanese reply came on July 29, when Japan was not too fatigued to sink the USS Indianapolis at the cost of 883 lives. The Indianapolis is not mentioned at all in the documentary, although this was the incident that convinced the Truman administration to proceed with the bombs.
Equally alarming in this film is the question of another Japanese gentlemen who asks himself whether the US can be regarded as a civilized nation after using such a weapon, and this statement - left blowing in the wind as a question that needs no answer - leads to the fundamental omission in the film: its resounding reticence concerning Japanese atrocities during the war (not to mention the fact that Japan actually started the whole bloody business with the invasion of Manchuria in 1931). The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki claimed 200,000 lives, whereas the Japanese assault on Nanking in 1937 cost 300,000 (not to mention other victims of Japanese aggression such as the rest of China, Manchuria and the Philipines). The Nanking victims died under conditions as frightening as the bomb. Thousands of women were gang-raped before they were murdered or forced to serve as prostitutes for the invading army. Two Japanese commanders competed who could decapitate most victims in succession (what a civilized pursuit!), and reportedly landed on 105 and 106. On the whole, Japan was in utter contempt of the Geneva Conventions: bayoneting and beheading of POWs and massacres on hospitals - patients, staff and all. But what we get in "The World at War" is an appalled narrator telling us that the "Tokyo bombings killed 80,000 more than died in the London Blitz". We must admire this cunning comparison between US and the Luftwaffe! A comparison with the invasion of Manchuria and China would be more appropriate. Are we to understand that Japan is excused because they butchered people in the old-fashioned way?
Decisive factors such as Japanese atrocities and the ill-advised trust in Soviet aid which prompted Japan to disregard fair warnings from the allies are left out of the programme. While claiming to be a documentary,"The World at War, episode 13: the Bomb", actually borders on fiction about a proud nation that should be pitied as victims of American aggression. We are informed with undue emphasis - that "the emperor cried" when he announced the capitulation. We get an American president who dropped the bombs, not to end the war or to save American lives, or because so urged by Japanese insolence, but primarily because he wanted to impress Stalin! This film is spin doctoring, well-made and profusely coated in the slightly indignant voice of narrator Laurence Olivier who forgets to mention that his countryman Churchill doggedly pushed for the use of the bombs. Well, the Brits do not share the American taste for guilt complexes, and "The World at War" being British, it prefers to leave all the blame to the Yanks, since they are so eager to have it. The series is from 1974, and probably exploiting public opinion on Vietnam so close at hand back then. To be honest, I cannot recall whether Japan is equally beautified in earlier episodes, but since, on the strength of this episode, I have decided forgo the rest, I shall find out only if they re-air the series on TV. I prefer better-documented documentaries for my money.
It subtly avoids telling us that the two Japanese cities were military targets - home of a very aggressive and still active war industry (almost every single one of 230,000 inhabitants of Nagasaki worked in arms factories). However, since footage of dead and injured children is all we see, the impression created in this film is that the targets of bomber pilots Tibbetts and Sweeney were kindergartens.
The film also creates an impression of an 'already fatigued Japan that only wanted peace' (according to statements from a very distinguished Japanese official with plenty of prime time in the programme). Facts are that Japan had not surrendered in 2,600 years, and were not inclined to do so in 1945. According to more reliable sources, such as historian Richard B. Frank, the Pacific War might well have lasted a few years more (as it actually did on certain Pacific isles where Japanese forces were neither fatigued nor peaceful. In fact, the last Japanese soldier surrendered in 1974!). It is more than likely that two or three more years of war would have claimed far more than 200,000 lives. The fallen would undoubtedly have counted the American POWs, already alarmingly emaciated at the liberation in 1945: they looked like the prisoners from the German death camps. By 1946 they would have been dead. The bombs not only spared American POWs, they also ended the bloodiest war in history, at two fell swoops, both of which were justified by Japanese decisions to ignore ultimatums. When forced to admit that an ultimatum WAS in fact delivered, the film chooses to focus on Truman's "unreasonable" demand for unconditional surrender, implying that this was ungenerous. This disregards the fact that the 'fatigued nation' (words like 'humbled', 'defenseless', 'starved' and 'helpless' occur time and again in reference to Japan) tenaciously held on to occupied China and Manchuria. Can we imagine a European peace treaty that let Nazi Germany keep Scandinavia, Poland, the Netherlands and Southern France? Furthermore - there is another deliberate confusion of events in this film: Truman's ultimatum was delivered on July 26. The only Japanese reply came on July 29, when Japan was not too fatigued to sink the USS Indianapolis at the cost of 883 lives. The Indianapolis is not mentioned at all in the documentary, although this was the incident that convinced the Truman administration to proceed with the bombs.
Equally alarming in this film is the question of another Japanese gentlemen who asks himself whether the US can be regarded as a civilized nation after using such a weapon, and this statement - left blowing in the wind as a question that needs no answer - leads to the fundamental omission in the film: its resounding reticence concerning Japanese atrocities during the war (not to mention the fact that Japan actually started the whole bloody business with the invasion of Manchuria in 1931). The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki claimed 200,000 lives, whereas the Japanese assault on Nanking in 1937 cost 300,000 (not to mention other victims of Japanese aggression such as the rest of China, Manchuria and the Philipines). The Nanking victims died under conditions as frightening as the bomb. Thousands of women were gang-raped before they were murdered or forced to serve as prostitutes for the invading army. Two Japanese commanders competed who could decapitate most victims in succession (what a civilized pursuit!), and reportedly landed on 105 and 106. On the whole, Japan was in utter contempt of the Geneva Conventions: bayoneting and beheading of POWs and massacres on hospitals - patients, staff and all. But what we get in "The World at War" is an appalled narrator telling us that the "Tokyo bombings killed 80,000 more than died in the London Blitz". We must admire this cunning comparison between US and the Luftwaffe! A comparison with the invasion of Manchuria and China would be more appropriate. Are we to understand that Japan is excused because they butchered people in the old-fashioned way?
Decisive factors such as Japanese atrocities and the ill-advised trust in Soviet aid which prompted Japan to disregard fair warnings from the allies are left out of the programme. While claiming to be a documentary,"The World at War, episode 13: the Bomb", actually borders on fiction about a proud nation that should be pitied as victims of American aggression. We are informed with undue emphasis - that "the emperor cried" when he announced the capitulation. We get an American president who dropped the bombs, not to end the war or to save American lives, or because so urged by Japanese insolence, but primarily because he wanted to impress Stalin! This film is spin doctoring, well-made and profusely coated in the slightly indignant voice of narrator Laurence Olivier who forgets to mention that his countryman Churchill doggedly pushed for the use of the bombs. Well, the Brits do not share the American taste for guilt complexes, and "The World at War" being British, it prefers to leave all the blame to the Yanks, since they are so eager to have it. The series is from 1974, and probably exploiting public opinion on Vietnam so close at hand back then. To be honest, I cannot recall whether Japan is equally beautified in earlier episodes, but since, on the strength of this episode, I have decided forgo the rest, I shall find out only if they re-air the series on TV. I prefer better-documented documentaries for my money.