US Dropping of Two Atomic Bombs on Japan - Research Paper Example

?US Dropping of Two Atomic Bombs on Japan The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are some of the historic mid 20th century events and up to they have remained to be the only events where nuclear weapons were used in war. The bombings led to devastating momentous and long lasting negative effects both on the people and the environment. Over time, there have been serious debates as to whether the US was justified to drop the two bombs in Japan and whether the Potsdam Declaration was intended to be acceptable without the use of nuclear weapons. The historical event During the final stages of the World War II (WWII), United States of America dropped two atomic bombs on the Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Under the executive order of Harry Truman, the US president, the US dropped Little Boy, a uranium atomic bomb, on the city of Hiroshima, the 7th largest city in Japan. This was on 6th August, 1945. The uranium bomb was so powerful that within minutes half of Hiroshima city vanished. The city was unbelievably destroyed. Out of its 90,000 buildings, more than 60,000 were utterly demolished (Rezelman et al, 2000 and Adamsand Crawford 2000). Information from Harry S. Truman Library & Museum (1946) reveals that as brief as it was, the flash of the explosion emitted intense radiant heat travelling through the air at the speed of light. The explosion was, therefore, followed instantly by flash burns. The US estimates that 60,000-70,000 people were killed and 140,000 others were injured (Rezelman et al, 2000). On 9th August, 1945, three days after the bombing of Hiroshima, Fat Man, next nuclear weapon was dropped in Nagasaki over the north factory. It was exploded at a height of 1,800 feet above the city in order to attain a maximum blast effect. At its blast, buildings collapsed, there was shortages of electric systems and as a result of this, as well as a wave of secondary fires which contributed to massive deaths. Most of the casualties to the inhabitants of the city were caused by primary heat waves. Many others were burnt and killed when their homes, offices or other buildings were burst into flames. Flying debris also contributed to more injuries. 39% of the buildings standing were destroyed. Air was being drawn back to the middle of the burning area, a firestorm of winds immediately followed and because of this, trees were uprooted. The bomb killed 42, 000 people and injured over 40,000 more (Rezelman et al, 2000 and Adamsand Crawford 2000). The Radiation Effects Research Foundation (2000) estimates that within the 2-4 months after the bombings, 90-000-166,000 people in Hiroshima were killed by acute effects of the blasts, while 60,000-80,000 were killed in Nagasaki but roughly half of the death in each case occurred on the first day. During the two explosions, the causes of deaths were generally the same. Thousands died instantly from flash or flame burns, falling debris and other secondary causes; over the following months others died from acute radiation sickness and other conditions arising from compounded effects of injuries and sicknesses. Most of the people who died were civilians (Harry S. Truman Library & Museum, 1946). Analysis of the historical and contemporary causes of the event On 7th December, 1941, Japan invaded Thailand. It then moved to invade British Malaya and the Pearl Harbor in the US territory of Hawaii. This war was referred to as the Pacific war or the WWII. The war saw the US, China and UK as members of the Allied Powers coming together against the Empire of Japan. The allied power wanted Japan to withdraw from the WWII. On 26th of June 1945, the Harry Truman, the US president, Winston Churchill, the UK Prime Minister and Chian Kai-shek, the chairperson of the Nationalist government of China, issued a document called the Potsdam Declaration. The Potsdam Declaration document which was agreed upon during the Potsdam conference outlined the terms of surrender for Japan. The ultimatum clearly stated that, if Japan did not pull out of the WWII, it would face quick and utter destruction (Villa, 1976). The initial rejection of this ultimatum by Japan led to Truman ordering the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although it was going to cost many lives, there were reasons for using atomic bombs as a way of pressurizing Japan to surrender. Invasion of the Japanese mainland by the US would have been very costly in terms of the lives of US military. It was not also easy to estimate how long it would take to end the ongoing Pacific War through the use of conventional means. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki compelled Hirohito and his government to revise their position in regard to the war. Finally, Japan yielded to all the demands of the Potsdam Declaration and on 15th August, 1945, Japan declared its surrender to the Allied Powers. On 2nd September, it signed the Instrument of Surrender, officially terminating the WWII (Adams and Crawford 2000).The bombings however did not mean that Japan had totally rejected the demand to surrender. It was already seeking for terms of surrender but unfortunately, the US wanted Japan to surrender unconditionally and immediately (Villa, 1976). Historical interpretations of the event The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US has received different historical interpretations. The first interpretation is the orthodox interpretation. This interpretation focuses on military considerations. People supporting this interpretation believe that the conventional justification for the bombing was the best measure for making sure that Japan surrenders. Prominent men, like Stimson and Truman, cast the framework for what became referred to as the orthodox interpretation. Miles (1985) states that this group of people asserted that the atomic bombs were used to minimize the agony of war and save American lives. Iokibe (1981) states that Truman ordered the use of atomic bombs as a way of getting a quick resolution to the war through the infliction of utter destruction and instill fear for more destruction in failure to surrender. Towards the end of the WWII, Simson recognized that the empire of Japan was near defeat but never surrender. He, therefore, looked upon atomic bombs as the best way to make a crucial difference. This means that although considerations were being made for alternative plans, they were more riskier compared to dropping a bomb. An example of such alternatives was an invasion of Japan that was scheduled to be undertaken on 1st November 1945. In his 1955 autobiography memoirs, Truman estimated that the atomic bomb was likely to save about 500,000 U.S. lives and not to mention the many Japanese casualties. Together with his advisors, Truman had good reasons to be cautious in going ahead with the invasion plan. At the same time, the battles fought in the Pacific campaigns from 1944-45 were a good proof that the Japanese would fight until the very end. For example, in the Okinawa battle which lasted from April to June 1945, a total of 13,000 U.S. troops were killed and almost 36,000 others were wounded (Sherwin, 1995). However, this interpretation ignores other hidden motivations. For example, the US had invested a great deal of money on the project and it could be so worthless and even lead to investigations and heavy criticism if the worth of the Manhattan project was not demonstrated to the public and the congress by using the bombs in a combat situation. This could explain Truman’s reason to stick to the point that Japan was to surrender quickly and unconditionally. The second interpretation is that given by revisionist historians. This interpretation states that the bombing was a way of impressing the Soviets. There was evidences to deconstruct the myth that the atomic bombs were necessary to save a half million American lives. Truthfully, U.S. leaders had alternative ways to pursue in ending the Pacific War. For example, they could intensify conventional warfare, provide an explicit warning to Japan, modify the surrender terms to give room for the continuation of the imperial institution of Japanese, await Soviet entry into the war or use a non-combat demonstration of the new nuclear weapon. The emphasis of this interpretation is on the choice that was given to the American leaders in making a decision. The main argument propagated by the revisionists historians is that, while they were aware that Japan were going to surrender in the summer of 1945, the US policymakers rushed to use the atomic bomb because they thought that the entry of the Soviet Union into the Pacific might could lead to a speedy surrender by Japan (Iokibe, 1981).According to them, such a thing would deny the U.S. a chance to use the bomb to “impress” the Soviets. Given this evidence, the revisionist historians have made arguments claiming that the U.S. dropped the bombs not to defeat the empire of Japan but to project the primacy of the US in the imminent Soviet-American conflict. There is, therefore, no doubt that American leaders simply wanted to take advantage of the actual and psychological power that the atomic bombings would give the U.S. in the postwar world. The conclusions of the revisionists are not likely to receive much support because they are easy to refute because of their primary aim of assaulting the integrity and honesty of policymakers. This interpretation gives a political or diplomatic perception of the event. The third interpretation of the event focuses on racial considerations. This interpretation states that the US was radicalizing the war. The group of historians supporting this view argues that reality of race and racialism in American culture was cutting through the volatile political situation that was present in the US at this time. Goldberg (1995) notes that Anti-Asian prejudices, which trace their roots to the 19th century, contributed to the manner in which Americans quickly radicalized Pacific War in Asia. During the aftermath of the very destructive surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, racist views towards the Japanese escalated and reached its peak. Americans began to categorize WWII as two wars – the Pacific war and the European war. In Europe, America singled out Hitler and the Nazis as the enemies and separated them from the German people. The situation was converse in the Pacific. In this region, American anger was generally directed at the entire group of people, the Jap or Japanese. The aspect of racialism clearly came out during the war because the Americans often characterized the Japanese as savages, beasts, demons and subhuman. Sherwin (1995) details the real mindset of a typical US soldier in war against the Japanese. He states that the American soldiers developed an attitude of no mercy towards the Japanese because they (Japanese) did not have mercy on them either, thus, it was a reciprocation thing. Some of the soldiers would shoot Japanese wounded yet it was very unnecessary. They went ahead and knocked their teeth out of their mouths in the crudest way. The fact that these inhuman acts were not carried out on the European front against the Germans gives a clear indication that the hatred America had towards the Japan was not only based on their status as an enemy. In citing that racial motivations might have led to the quick decision to use the bomb, it might seem easy to overlook the fact that it could be used against the Germans if it had already been available before to their surrender on 7th of May. The Manhattan Project was established as a direct response to advances in nuclear capabilities by German. It is, therefore, quite evident that President Roosevelt and his chief aides acted on the assumptions that the bomb was going to be a legitimate weapon that would be used against Nazi Germany first. Interestingly, all of Roosevelt’s advisors who were aware of the atomic bomb always said “when it is used,” or “after it is used” “and never “if it is used” (Iokibe, 1981). One cannot, therefore, but challenge the manufacturing timetable that made the first atomic bomb ready/available only after Germany had fully surrendered, leaving Japan as the only possible Axis target. Colonel Paul Tibbets was directed to train 2 bomber groups to conduct simultaneous droppings on Germany and Japan, thus, racism cannot be eliminated as a contributing factor in using the bomb. Although it may seem so convincing, this interpretation of radicalizing war alone is very insufficient in explaining the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Evaluation of the positive and negative outcomes of the event The major positive outcome of the event was the surrendering of Japan within three days after the Nagasaki bombing. Consequently, the WWII came to an end and this means many lives that could have lost through fights against Japan over the next months or years were saved. More casualties were also avoided and the US saved its military base from diminishing and becoming powerless through deaths in wartime. Many resources have been saved since the war ended. These includes resources that could have been used for warfare, payment of soldiers, treatment of casualties and giving humanitarian aid to affected people. The end of the war has also brought peace and this has created an environment conducive for economic development. There were stronger negative effects of the vent as compared to the positive effects. First, it led to the loss of many lives. Survivors, who were left, where mainly sickly, seriously injured or handicapped due to the effects of heat burns, excessive radiations or being hit by debris and other materials. Japan had to incur a lot of costs treating these people. People also lost their loved ones, for example, parents, children, relatives and friends who lived in Hiroshima or Nagasaki and did not survive the attacks. The event led to the loss of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This, therefore, threatened the economic position of Japan as a nation. Nagasaki, for example, was one of the industrialized cities in Japan at that. Apart from this, the environment was very much destroyed, as the effects of the radiations were very strong and took long to subside. Until today, the intensity of these effects is still felt through the birth of deformed children because of deformed human gametes. Since the event, doctors and midwifes became concerned about the high numbers of children born with various malformations deformations of the organs of smell and hearing, tongue, lips, brain and inner organs. Some have been born without brains, without eyes and eye sockets, with cleft palate and with degeneration of muscle, skin, bone or the nervous system. The nation has also had to cope with rising numbers of cancer cases. It also led to warfare between the survivors and the Japanese government, as the survivors blamed the government for not yielding to the demands to the Potsdam Declaration. They demanded to be compensated. The event also led to cold war, a state of economic competition, military tension, political conflict and proxy wars between the communist world, mainly the Soviet Union, and the powers of the western world, mainly the US. Conclusion The WWII has generated a lot of controversy among historians and scholars due to the complexity of the decision to drop two atomic bombs over Japan. In analyzing the various factors and motivations that contributed to Truman deciding to order the bombings, several things are worth considerations. The major considerations are military reasons, racism, desire to impress the Soviets, desire for atomic diplomacy and fear of congressional investigations regarding the $2 billion dollars spent. Each of these explanations has some level of sense and, thus, no serious historian exclusively believes that the bombings were used chiefly to save half a million American lives, even Japan casualties. References Adams, S. and Crawford, A. (2000). World War II. (1st Ed). Eyewitness Books series. New York. Doring Kindersley Limited. Allen, T. and Polmar, T. (1995). Code-Name Downfall. New York. Simon & Schuster. Goldberg, S. (1995). Racing to the Finish: the Decision to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Journal of American - East Asian Relations. (4) pp 117-129. Harry S. Truman Library & Museum (1946). “U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” President's Secretary's File, Truman Papers. Retrieved from: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/index.php?pagenumber=22&documentid=65&documentdate=1946-06-19&studycollectionid=abomb&groupid=. Viewed on 6th December, 2011. Iokibe, M. (1981). American Policy Towards Japan's “Unconditional Surrender.” Japanese Journal of American Studies. (1) pp 19-53. Miles,R. (1985). “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved.” International Security. (2) pp 121-140. Radiation Effects Research Foundation (2000).Frequently Asked Questions #1". Retrieved from: http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html. Viewed on 6th December, 2011. Rezelman, D. Gosling, G. and Fehner, T. (2000). The atomic bombing of Hiroshima: The Manhattan Project: An Interactive History. U.S. Department of Energy. Sherwin, M. (1995). Hiroshima as Politics and History. Journal of American History. [political use of Hiroshima to support U.S. heroic narrative] (3) pp 1085-1093. Villa, B. (1976). “The U.S. Army, Unconditional Surrender, and the Potsdam Proclamation.” Journal of American History. (63) pp 66-92. Annotated Bibliography References Adams, S. and Crawford, A. (2000). World War II. (1st Ed). Eyewitness Books series. New York. Doring Kindersley Limited. This book gives a comprehensive explanation of the events that led to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, when and how it happened and the effects they had on the two cities. It also explains why Truman decided to use atomic weapons and not other means to convince Japan to pull out of the World War II. Allen, T. and Polmar, T. (1995). Code-Name Downfall. New York. Simon & Schuster. This book focuses on the reasons held by Truman in his decision. It reveals that Truman had already re-examined the idea of using the bomb as he made his way to Potsdam. On coming back, he finally decided to act on it when Japan delayed to comply with the requirements of the Potsdam declaration where Truman was a major party in its formation. Goldberg, S. (1995). Racing to the Finish: the Decision to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Journal of American - East Asian Relations. (4) pp 117-129. This article outlines the views of historians who interpreted the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings as radicalization of war by the US. The article reveals that some of the people believe the manner in which the Us dealt with Japan even after issuing an ultimatum as how its soldiers treated the Japanese while on war was an indication of rooted hatred not only because of being enemies but also because of race. Justification for this in the article is given by comparing how the Germans who were once enemies of the US were treated compared to the US. In addition, the article focuses on making its readers believe that the Manhattan project, thought claimed to have been targeting Germans, was actually a dose meant for Japan. The article gives various explanations in relation to this. Harry S. Truman Library & Museum (1946). “U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” President's Secretary's File, Truman Papers. This is a report written by the Office of the President when Truman was still the US president. The paper contains findings relating to the numbers of the people killed in the Japan atomic bombings. The paper also breaks down these figures into percentages of people who died from things during the time. Iokibe, M. (1981). American Policy Towards Japan's 'Unconditional Surrender.” Japanese Journal of American Studies. (1) pp 19-53. This article represents a revisionist interpretation of the Hiroshima, Nagasaki bombings of 1945. The article insists that the American policy towards Japan's unconditional Surrender gained its force from the need for America so impress the soviets as a tough nation and so take advantage of the psychological and actual effects of this. The ideas of revisionists revealed in the article reveals that the bombings were conducted on the basis of outsmarting Soviet Union, an enemy, though not so public. However, the paper also makes reference to some points that support the interpretation indicating that the radicalized the war and gives a strong opposition on the myth of saving 500,000 American lives. Miles, R. (1985). “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved.”International Security. (2) pp 121-140. This article gives an overview of the orthodox interpretation of the atomic bombings in Japan in 1945. The book explains the myth stating that the Hiroshima bombings were important for the saving half a million American lives. It explores the reasons and beliefs held by the supporters of this interpretation, mainly Truman and Simson. It reveals that Simson recognized that the Japan was on the verge of defeat but not surrender and their lack of will to surrender prompted the use of bombings as a quick way for making crucial difference. Truman held the same view of using bombing as a way of achieving a quick resolution. Radiation Effects Research Foundation (2000). Frequently Asked Questions #1". Online: http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html. Viewed on 6th December, 2011. It is a report from the Radiation effects Foundation research answering the question, how many people died as a result of the atomic bombings? The paper gives the estimated populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima before the attacks and an estimate of those killed from the bombings. It also gives an explanation on the causes of death during these attacks. Rezelman, D. Gosling, G. and Fehner, T. (2000). The atomic bombing of Hiroshima: The Manhattan Project: An Interactive History. U.S. Department of Energy. This Book gives an overview of the state of affairs between Japan and the Allied Powers and the political positions that stimulated the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Book also reveals about the Manhattan project and portrays the bombings as the culmination of the Manhattan project. The book also outlines the various effects of the bombings on the people and the two cities. Sherwin, M. (1995). Hiroshima as Politics and History. Journal of American History. [ (3) pp 1085-1093. This article explains the reasons why some people have made an orthodox interpretation of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings. Generally, the article portrays a political use of Hiroshima to support U.S. heroic narrative of the Japan bombings. Villa, B. (1976). “The U.S. Army, Unconditional Surrender, and the Potsdam Proclamation.”Journal of American History. (63) pp 66-92. This article gives a good explanation of the reasons why Truman ordered the use of the two nuclear weapons against Japan. It reveals the call for unconditional surrender that was issued to Japan and why Truman insisted on this. It also gives an explanation of the Potsdam declaration and its role in fuelling Truman order the use of the two atomic bombs that changed the faces of Hiroshima and Nagasaki within a flash moment. Read More