Trumans Decision regarding the Atomic Bombs - Research Paper Example

?Truman’s Decision regarding the Atomic Bombs Introduction The Atomic bombing of the two Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an event surrounded by controversy till date. The decision was taken by the then American President Harry Truman in order to destroy Japan’s power to continue the war. According to Truman he made this decision to save the lives of thousands and thousands of American men by forcing Japan to surrender. Although debates run high even after six decades concerning the use of nuclear weapons that killed and mutilated millions of Japanese, the outcome was what the Americans wanted which is the end of WWII. The general consensus is that Truman took the decision in order to put an end to an expensive war and save the national resources. This paper focuses on the question Why did Truman make this decision against a nation like Japan which never had the chance to win against America? Hiroshima bombing Immediately after Truman became the President of America, his first attempt was to end the war to save the lives of thousands of American people. He gave the order to drop the first Atomic bomb on Hiroshima as the final attempt to force the Japanese to surrender. The order was executed on August 6, 1945 the explosion of which killed 140,000 people. In later years thousands of others died from being exposed to the bomb’s radiation. Another Atomic bomb was dropped three days later on Nagasaki which killed an estimated 70,000 people (Shubert). Finally, on August 15, Japan surrendered after citing the devastating power of the most destructive bomb as the reason (The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Even before the beginning of WWII in 1939, American scientists were expressing concern over the fact that Nazi Germany was involved in research projects concerning development of nuclear weapons. It was in 1940, that the American government initiated funding of atomic weapon development programs under the joint venture of the Office of Scientific Research and Development and the War Department. A research and development program code named Manhattan project was initiated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in order to facilitate the testing of the Atomic bombs. In subsequent years, the key ingredients for nuclear fission were produced and finally in the early morning of July 16, 1945, the first successful testing of an Atomic bomb was conducted at the Trinity test site at Alamogordo, New Mexico. During this time, the allied forces had already captured Germany, but Japan continued to fight the war even with the clear indication of their little chance of winning. It was estimated that in the period between mid-April to mid-July in 1945 Japan displayed ferocity by killing massive number of allied forces. The Japanese government even rejected the proposal made in Potsdam Declaration that proposed the Japanese armed forces to surrender or else face “prompt and utter destruction” (The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Truman believed that the destruction caused by the Atomic bomb in the Japanese cities would place America in a formidable position amongst the other powerful nations of the world. Controversies President Truman experienced many dilemmas that influenced his decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Within two weeks of becoming president, he received a full report on the developmental process of the most expensive war material which stated it as “the most terrible weapon ever known in human history” (Hamby, 18). On 8th May 1945, after Germany surrendered, it was still necessary to defeat the Japanese. Truman’s decision was highly influenced by his past experience of being a combat artillery in the WWI. During that phase he developed a perspective of Japanese fanaticism, and also as American President he wanted to exhibit his diplomatic power by solving the existing difficulties with Soviet Union which was not yet at war with Japan. Many scholars in response to the utter calamity caused by the Atomic bombs professed that Truman deliberately killed and maimed millions of Japanese only to terrorize the Soviet Union. However, this kind of accusation was soon proved to have no merit after assessment of available evidence that indicated Truman to be a president who although was moved by the destruction caused by the bombs nevertheless acted under the belief that this was the only way to end the most ferocious war in human history. Another controversy surrounded the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki after just three days of Hiroshima bombing. According to critics, the Japanese would have surrendered if they would have the time to contemplate the disaster that occurred in Hiroshima. Although this cannot be known, it was still known that civilian officers were ready to surrender but the military leaders considered the unconditional surrender as unbearable (Hamby, 19-24). Hubbard has explored the continuing debate over Truman’s decision to drop Atomic bombs in the Japanese cities and has argued that lack of oppositions rather than existence of supportive views pushed the president towards the tragic events in the cities. At the time the issue was debated, leaders like Churchill and Stalin also expressed tacit approval. For instance, Churchill expressed that the matter of bombing Hiroshima was never a issue of negotiation for there was “unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around the table” (Hubbard, 372). However, according to Hubbard, these expressions were not any kind of manifestations of attitudes in the pre-bombing months. Since no evidence has been found that indicates Truman heard opposing views regarding the use of the bombs, Hubbard has concluded that Truman was dominated by the realization as opposed to possibility that there was no other alternative to tackle the Japanese forces. The study conducted by Hubbard also proved that along with not hearing opposing views, Truman also did not get the opportunity to hear the existing dissenting voices. For instance, the previous President Roosevelt died before mentioning to Truman about a secret project, and also the committee that was responsible to give prudent advice to Truman suggested bombing as the only alternative. However, there was also political pressure on Truman to drop the bomb to utilize the result of Manhattan project on which $2 billion was spent since 1939. Hubbard has concluded that the atomic disaster “resulted from lost opportunity to make other choices and not from malicious power” (Hubbard, 374). Bernstein in his article has highlighted the two principle reasons behind the Atomic bombings on the Japanese cities – the brutality with which the Japanese conducted the war was manifested in their merciless killing of civilians, and also the political pressure faced by Truman to end the costly war. As for the first reason, many examples can be counted in favor of Japan’s brutality like the rape of Nanjing which was a mass murder and rape by the Japanese soldiers of hundreds and thousands of Chinese civilians and disarmed soldiers. Then there were other brutal attacks on Asians, the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor among others. However, Bernstein by focusing on the brutalities of the Japanese soldiers failed to come to make any single implication about his thoughts on Truman’s decision. He may have suggested that America was more inclined to take revenge on the Japanese, or he may have carried an entirely moralistic view on this by implying that in a war, moral values are more often than not violated. He may have also implied that the dropping of the Atomic bomb was the only viable way to stop the Japanese from further atrocities (Bernstein, 550). In another article, Dower criticized the Atomic bombs as merely a satisfaction of American ego in the name of rapidly ending the war in spite of facts and perspectives to the contrary. One such fact is Soviet entering into war with Japan just two days after the Hiroshima bombing which means the Japanese were already reeling from Soviet declaration of war. Moreover, America was always in favour of Soviet concerning the war and was also aware that it was imminent. Therefore, Dower found Truman’s decision unjustified because the bombs were dropped even before assessing the possible outcome of the war declared by Soviet (Dower, 49). Today, many historians consider that the bombings were done not to threaten the Japanese who were the enemies of the U.S. and were fatigued from the war, but actually to scare the ally Russians in order to warn the latter against postwar rivalry (Kifner). My opinion regarding the issue Japan was always a losing side since the nation’s military power was in no way a match for the U.S. military power. Moreover, by August 1995 fatigue had set in and it was highly possible that the Japanese would surrender by the end of the year. Moreover, I feel the first Atomic bomb could be dropped anywhere near the harbor if the intention was only to scare the Japanese and force them to surrender. Also, I feel the Potsdam Declaration should have been modified, and instead of ordering the Japanese to surrender unconditionally they should have given the chance to say something. There is also the fact that the bomb was dropped on two cities which resulted in deaths of more civilians than soldiers. Finally, the major reason why I cannot support Truman’s decision is that many Japanese people are still suffering from diseases that occurred from the bomb’s radiation. On such grounds which include both political and moral issues, it was an unjustified act by President Truman. Conclusion Truman’s decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a controversial issue even after six decades. During that time, the decision was regarded as prudent since it ended a war which was proving both expensive and disastrous for the Americans. Moreover, there was little sympathy over the death of thousands of Japanese firstly because of the atrocities exhibited by the Japanese army during WWII, and also because it was the Japanese who attacked America and not the other way round. Considering the fact that Japan never had the chance to win against America, it would have been a moralistic step for Truman to wait for few more days since the Japanese army was on the verge of capitulation after the long and ferocious war. References Bernstein, Barton J. “Truman and the A-Bomb: Targeting Noncombatants, Using the Bomb, and his Defending the Decision”, The Journal of Military History, 62.3 (1998) 547-570 Dower, John W. “Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Politics of Memory”, Technology Review, 98.6 (1995) 48-51 Hamby, Alonzo “Truman and the Bomb”, History Today, 45.8 (1995) 18-25 Hubbard, Bryan “Reassessing Truman, the Bomb, and Revisionism”, Western Journal of Communication, 62.3 (1998) 348-385 Kifner, John, “Hiroshima: A Controversy That Refuses to Die”, The New York Times, January 31, 1995, November 9, 2013 from: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/31/us/hiroshima-a-controversy-that-refuses-to-die.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Shubert, Atika, “Hiroshima still stokes controversy”, CNN, August 6, 2005, November 9, 2013 from: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/08/04/hiroshima.lessons/ “The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki” History, 2013, November 9, 2013 from: http://www.history.com/topics/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki Read More