Hiroshima And Nagasaki Argumentative Essay

Much debate and controversy has been stirred in regard to the ethics and efficacy of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As such, numerous figures have come in with their own perspectives on the matter. Yet through Japanese Emperor Hirohito’s surrender speech, former Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s article in Harper’s magazine, and American historian and WWII vet Paul Fussell’s essay shared a similarity of perspective on the necessity of the atomic bomb. All three individuals were unanimously in favor or at least were not critical of the use of the atomic bomb. Though, there are striking differences that fundamentally shape the individual narratives. For Hirohito and Stimson’s respective pieces, they share commonality in the fact that these are the words of political figures who utilized similar arguments over the atomic bomb being effective in preventing further bloodshed as means to an end and galvanized their respective nations on the

possibility of a better tomorrow. Whereas, Paul Fussell would argue from the “common man” perspective with an emphasis on intimacy and pathos that the atomic bomb ended persistent suffering undergone by average American soldiers during combat that could not be fathomed by the “inexperienced” critics who were against the atomic bomb at the time.
Emperor Hirohito’s surrender speech is steeped in appeals to past glory and imperial prestige that would seek to resonate with the people of Japan. Specifically, he mentioned that the people should”… strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as
the security and well-being of our subjects [as] is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by [the] imperial ancestors and which [they] lay close to the heart” (Hirohito 2). What this is indicative of was the need for the Emperor himself to corral his people to have a feigned sense of hope. This would be reinforced with a later quote where he articulated for the Japanese people to “cultivate the ways of rectitude, nobility of spirit, and work with resolution so that [they] may enhance the innate glory of the Imperial State and keep pace with the progress of the world” (Hirohito 2). What this all establishes is the political need for the Emperor to unify the people in a renewed sense of cultural pride and values in light of the tragedies that had occurred then. Considering that he is an established part of Japanese history and culture, he had the power to soften the blow for some Japanese citizens upon hearing the news of them surrendering to their sworn enemies at the time. Thus resulting in relative stability to come about in Japan post-WWII.
Furthermore, he utilizes the impact of the atomic bomb as a catalyst to push the development and growth of Japan as a nation.

He stated that “should [Japan] [continued] to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization” (Hirohito 2). In this instance, he puts the spotlight on Japan to recognize that the atomic bomb was necessary to prevent further bloodshed for Japan and its citizens. He impact this statement further through proclaiming by “[they] cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to [their] allied nations of East Asia, who have consistently cooperated with the Empire toward the emancipation of East Asia” (Hirohito 1). What it further establishes was that Japan committed great misdeeds in spite of many in Japan being for those actions and thus needed a moment to be “aware” of them. Therefore Hirohito in his mind would then steer his people and his country to a more favorable

direction.
In that respect, former Secretary of War Henry L.Stimson would approach the similar argument about the atomic bomb preventing further deaths in his 1947 Harper’s Magazine article The Decision To Use The Atomic Bomb. He asserts clearly “The bomb… served exactly the purpose [it] intended. The peace party was able to take the path of surrender, and the whole weight of the Emperor’s prestige was exerted in favor of peace” (Stimson 10). What this would indicate in the mind of Stimson was that the bomb was an ultimatum that went to the favor of the Allies. He further argued that “the principal political, social, and military objective of the United States in the summer of 1945 was the prompt and complete surrender of Japan. [Thus] the complete destruction of her military power could open the way to lasting peace” (Stimson 5). In this quote, Stimson established that him and those involved with overseeing the atomic bomb project were in cohesion in spite of known disagreements among scientists and advisors. In addition, Stimson helped to illustrate this notion that the atomic bomb was final without any hint or indication of hesitation or anxiety about the situation at hand. The end result being that Stimson and his colleagues were portrayed in that article as men of character that made a firm decision for the betterment of Americans.
Alongside this, Stimson like Hirohito makes an appeal to his respective countrymen on the possibility of a better future. He made the point that “… [they] must never have another war. [That] is the lesson man and leaders everywhere must learn, and [he] [believed] that when they learn it they will find a way to lasting peace.” (Stimson 11). In this aspect, Stimson made himself out to be instead of a calculating political figure but rather as a wise statesman. In this image, Stimson would still be the one who recommended the president to utilize the atomic bomb and be able to justify it. But he was given leeway to criticize the existence of war being a constant in the twentieth century and thus shape his legacy to be a positive one in his opinion. In this context, Henry L.Stimson and Japanese Emperor Hirohito would touch upon the atomic bomb as a moment for both America and Japan to transcend their past in the war. At that moment, they would be the ones to herald a time for unity and prosperity for their respective nations.
However Paul Fussell in him not being tied heavily into the politics of the atomic bomb, he instead expresses a straightforward view focusing more on the common infantryman rather than the political futures of either Japan or America. This is expressed in how he felt that people “… [delayed] and [allowed] one more American high school kid to see' his own intestines blown out of his body and spread before him in the dirt while he [screamed]… (Fussell 7). What this would reflect in Fussell’s mindset was an empathy and compassion for his fellow soldiers that he served with and feel to be mitigated in the discussion on the ethics of the atomic bomb. Intrinsically, he separates the men who served in the war against atomic bomb critics who did not by emphasizing on “…the importance of experience, sheer…in influencing, if not determining, one's views about [the] use of the atom bomb” (Fussell 1). For critics who did not possess military service, Fussell viewed them as not having faced the dangers of combat and how that shaped the minds and hearts of average Americans engaged in the war front.
The end impact of Fussell’s analysis was that there was a grounded viewpoint in justifying and defending the use of the atomic bomb. Unlike Stimson and Hirohito, he was not a man of higher office or such esteem. Instead, he outright criticized elites like Galbraith and Sherry for not having “… the experience of one, or several, or many [soldiers], even if they possess very wide-ranging imaginations and warm sympathies” (Fussell 3). The sheer terror and awe that is found within war according to Fussell cannot be understood without experience. Though he sought to elicit that emotional situation by mentioning on how after the atomic bomb, him and his fellow soldiers were ecstatic that “…the killing was all going to be over, and peace was actually going to be the state of things” (Fussell 7). He was not merely selling a vision of a brighter future for citizens of either country. In reality, he portrayed a side that he felt to be underserved in its voice not being heard in the discussion and have certain citizens be considerate of the human costs of war that the atomic bomb may have further prevented in his mind through the strong emotional resonance that flowed throughout his essay.
Ultimately, this debate will still rage on among academics, citizens, and politicians alike as time will go. However the uniqueness in Hirohito’s speech, Stimson’s article, and Fussell’s essay cannot be denied. Through Hirohito and Stimson’s writings, one could view the intricate balancing act that political leaders in both Japan and the United States dealt with in regard to the atomic bomb and the world that exists after its use. The language and hints of hope and optimism could in some ways galvanize some of the citizens in either America or Japan to rally behind their respective countries. Though while the big picture is focused by Stimson and Hirohito, Fussell stands out in his focus on the little picture with his espousal of the experience and lives of average American soldiers who have friends, family, or loved ones. As a result, there can varying reasons or priorities that take place in supporting the atomic bomb which can be accurate in that respect. What those priorities were and how they were emphasized by these respective authors reflected their characters that they possessed and the times in which they lived and possibly defined through their words and actions.