Never in U.S. History has the fate of millions laid in the hands of one man, President Harry S. Truman. Truman became president after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt in April, 1945. This shift into presidency left Truman with the choice to use atomic weaponry for the first time in human history. Truman’s decision to use atomic bombs depends on scenarios provided by the Secretary of War Henry Stimson and the Secretary of State James Byrnes. Both secretaries have substantial justifications for their arguments in which either decision possesses implications that will change the status of the war and the world. While Truman’s decision will be elaborated on at the end of this piece it is beneficial to establish an appropriate standpoint for Truman. Ultimately, Truman’s choice to utilize an atomic bomb is up to him. Nonetheless, it is justifiable to claim that implementing an atomic bomb against Japan is a suitable decision because there is a higher probability of saving more military and civilian lives than a full-scale invasion. One side of the discussion about atomic weapons comes from The Secretary of War Henry Stimson. Stimson is adamant about his position and Truman takes his opinions seriously. To convince Truman, Stimson argues that a negotiated surrender should be sought after since the war is nearing its end. The result would have Emperor Hirohito left as a symbolic head of state with the U.S. adopting full political power. Stimson says this will be more acceptable to the Japanese people because the civilians view Hirohito as a spiritual leader. Stimson also points out there is an increasing tension between the imperial army, which has no intention of surrendering, and the Japanese civilian population. An example of this c... ... middle of paper ... ...d to continue fighting. The surrender includes an agreement of the Potsdam Declaration in which the U.S. can have complete political control over Japan; except, the only difference is Hirohito will remain in control as head of state. On August 14th conventional bombing ceases on Japan and the following day Hirohito announces Japan’s unconditional surrender. The notion that one man can determine the fate of millions is an unbelievable concept that is difficult for anyone to wrap his or her head around. While this statement seems unlikely to happen it did, however, occur for President Harry S. Truman. Truman basically had the weight of the world on his shoulder in that no matter what decision he made, whether it was Henry Stimson’s plan to avoid using a nuclear bomb or James Byrnes’s idea to exploit an atomic bomb, many peoples’ lives would be affected by his choice.
In Prompt and Utter Destruction, J. Samuel Walker provides the reader with an elaborate analysis of President Truman’s decision behind using the atomic bomb in Japan. He provokes the reader to answer the question for himself about whether the use of the bomb was necessary to end the war quickly and without the loss of many American lives. Walker offers historical and political evidence for and against the use of the weapon, making the reader think critically about the issue. He puts the average American into the shoes of the Commander and Chief of the United States of America and forces us to think about the difficulty of Truman’s decision.
Upon reading “Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan” by J. Samuel Walker, a reader will have a clear understanding of both sides of the controversy surrounding Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The controversy remains of whether or not atomic bombs should have been used during the war. After studying this text, it is clear that the first atomic bomb, which was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, was a necessary military tactic on ending the war. The second bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki, however, was an unnecessary measure in ensuring a surrender from the Japanese, and was only used to seek revenge.
The United States entered WW II immediately following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The U.S. entry was a major turning point in the war because it brought the strongest industrial strength to the Allied side. The Americans helped the Allies to win the war in Europe with the surrender of Germany on May 7, 1945. However, the war in the Pacific continued. The war with Japan at this point consisted primarily of strategic bombings. America had recently completed an atomic bomb and was considering using this weapon of mass destruction for the first time. The goal was to force the “unconditional surrender” of the Japanese. Roosevelt had used the term “unconditional surrender” in a press conference in 1943 and it had since become a central war aim. Truman and his staff (still feeling bound by FDR’s words) demanded unconditional surrender from the Japanese. Consequently on July 26, 1945 Truman issued an ultimatum to Japan. This ultimatum stated that Japan must accept “unconditional surrender” or suffer “utter devastation of the Japanese Homeland”. This surrender included abdication of the throne by their emperor. Japan was not willing to surrender their dynasty and ignored the ultimatum. On August 6th and August 9th, atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively.
The United States of America’s use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has spurred much debate concerning the necessity, effectiveness, and morality of the decision since August 1945. After assessing a range of arguments about the importance of the atomic bomb in the termination of the Second World War, it can be concluded that the use of the atomic bomb served as the predominant factor in the end of the Second World War, as its use lowered the morale, industrial resources, and military strength of Japan. The Allied decision to use the atomic bomb not only caused irreparable physical damage to two major Japanese cities, but its use also minimized the Japanese will to continue fighting. These two factors along with the Japanese neglect of the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria, proved that the Allied use of the atomic bomb was the definitive factor in the Japanese decision to surrender.
Maddox, Robert. “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb.” Taking Sides: Clashing View in United States History. Ed. Larry Madaras & James SoRelle. 15th ed. New York, NY. 2012. 280-288.
One of the most argued topics today, the end of World War II and the dropping of the atomic bombs still rings in the American ear. Recent studies by historians have argued that point that the United States really did not make the right choice when they chose to drop the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Also with the release of once classified documents, we can see that the United States ...
The initial terms of surrender were laid out in the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, in which the United States, Great Britain, and China all participated. But unlike post World War II Germany, which was split into four quadrants among the Allies, the occupation of Japan was solely and American endeavor. This document was by no means tame. Military occupation would see to it that its measure would be properly carried out. Justice would be served to those "who deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest," Disarmament of the military, reparations as the Allies saw fit, and the "remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people" were also to be enacted. At the head of this revolution, as spelled out in Potsdam, was Douglas MacArthur.
...or both sides; casualties were increasing. This was what mostly led to the U.S to drop the atomic bomb. The Japanese surrender did not occur until after the first bomb dropped of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and a second on Nagasaki. The atomic bomb was the result of a top secret experiment called the Manhattan Project (The Americans. Reconstruction to the 21st Century) the war was finally over when Japan surrendered on August 14th.
To choose whether or not it was morally sound to use the atomic bomb, we must first examine the background as to what circumstances it was dropped under. In 1945, American soldiers and civilians were weary from four years of war, yet the Japanese military was refusing to give up their fight. American forces occupied Okinawa and Iwo Jima and intensely fire bombed Japanese cities. But Japan had an army of 2 million strong stationed in the home islands guarding against Allied invasion. After the completion of the Manhattan Project, For Truman, the choice whether or not to use the atomic bomb was the most difficult decision of his life. First, an Allied demand for an immediate unconditional surrender was made to the leadership in Japan. Although the demand stated that refusal would result in total destruction, no mention of any new weapons of mass destruction was made. The Japanese military commander Hideki Tojo rejected the request for unconditional s...
Admittedly, dropping the atomic bomb was a major factor in Japan's decision to accept the terms laid out at the Potsdam agreement otherwise known as unconditional surrender. The fact must be pointed out, however, that Japan had already been virtually defeated. (McInnis, 1945) Though the public did not know this, the allies, in fact, did. Through spies, they had learned that both Japan's foreign minister, Shigenori Togo and Emperor Hirohito both supported an end to the war (Grant, 1998). Even if they believed such reports to be false or inaccurate, the leaders of the United States also knew Japan's situation to be hopeless. Their casualties in defending the doomed island of Okinawa were a staggering 110,000 and the naval blockade which the allies had enforced whittled trade down to almost nothing. Japan was quickly on the path to destruction. (Grant, 1998). Of course, the Allies ignored this for the reason that dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would intimidate Russia. Had they truly been considering saving more lives and bringing a quick end to the war in Japan, they would have simply waited them out without the major loss of life seen at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Continuing on, the bombing of Japan was also unnecessary due to the unacceptable terms of the Potsdam Declaration. After Germany’s surrender on May 7, 1945, the U.S. created a treaty, called the Potsdam Declaration, with terms of surrender for Japan (Lawton). Among those terms was one which stated, “We call upon the government of Japan to ...
On July 1945, there were messages gathered from Togo, Japan’s minister of Foreign Affairs, to Sato, Japan’s ambassador to Moscow, which displayed their desire in surrendering in the war. Theses messages included, “July 11 - ‘. . . we hope to terminate the war’ July 12 - ‘it is his [emperor Hirohito] majesty’s heart’s desire to see the swift termination of the war’” (Long). Truman, on the other hand, was well aware of these messages and did not feel the need to question the use of the atomic bomb, perhaps in retrospect, it all seemed fair. Although, there have been multiples debates whether Japan was going to maintain the same mindset, which is to surrender, without the use of the atomic bomb. When researching regarding the given topic, one would often find two sides of the argument, those who says, in this case: “The fact of the matter is that Japan was not preparing to surrender; it was preparing to fight to the death [emphasis added]. . .” (Nichols). Then, the other side which defends the Japanese. In which one would argue that “prior to the August bombings, most of [the] Japanese. . . had been wiped out by an extraordinary series of air attacks. . . millions were homeless. By July of 1945, both Japanese and American military knew the war was lost”7. Likewise, food also became a problem “most Japanese were subsisting on a sub-starvation diet” (Weber). They were physically incapable of
“It concluded by warning the Japanese that their alternatives were to agree to its term for unconditional surrender or to face ‘prompt and utter destruction’.” Dropping the bomb is our best way to unconditional surrender. We need to drop the bomb to end the war with unconditional surrender. Unconditional surrender is necessary because,” Japan must throw off the rule of the military and establish a new order of peace.” First off, we have already warned the Japanese’s of the ‘prompt and utter destruction,’ and Dropping the bomb will give us the opportunity to overthrow Japan’s military rule.
The way the war was going showed no sign of peacefully surrendering unconditionally. The continue fighting would have made the situation worse and would create an enemy out of Japan. The American interest wanted to surrender and start new. The atomic bomb seemed to be the only method of acquiring a final surrender. “ On the other hand, I think that the attempt to exterminate her armies and her population by gunfire or other means will tend to produce a fusion at race solidarity and Auntie basis which has no analogy in the case of Germany. We have a national interest in creating if possible, or condition wherein the Japanese Nation may live as peaceful and useful member of the future Pacific community.” the atomic bomb was not dropped without thinking of the consequences the United States sincerely hopes to create a better nation of Japan bringing it into the economy. Henry Stimson what are the decision offers and the supporters of dropping the bomb had a carefully designed a plan for rebuilding Japan. He And many others believe that the Japanese were civil and liberal enough to change and surrender after such a bomb. “ I think the Japanese nation has the mental intelligence and versatile capacity in such a crisis to recognize the folly of a fight to the finish and to accept the proffer of what will amount to an unconditional surrender;
Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1997