Before Truman, we had Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. However, closer to the end of WW2 Roosevelt died, leaving Vice-President Truman to take his place. The US and the USSR relationship was built with Stalin and Roosevelt, however when Truman took his place this relationship began harder to upheld. Stalin was comfortable with working with Roosevelt, and his first impression of Truman was his strong stance toward a capitalist economy and a democratic government, both opposing Stalin's views. “Stalin [had] anticipated rougher modes of deliberation on world affairs”(pg 468) in relation to Truman. This shows that while Stalin had appreciated the relationship that the USSR had with the US, he was not looking forward to relationship with Truman, someone who was very against what Stalin believed in. Beginning a relationship with this negative base, is setting it up to fail. So when both Truman and Stalin had already decided this was someone who I needed to keep a relation with and not who I wanted; they were only holding onto this relationship as long as they needed to, to end WW2. While the Soviet Union had the army to …show more content…
This was the Atomic Bomb that was dropped into Japan, by the US. While this action was thoroughly supported it was this action that Stalin had hoped would introduce him as the most dominant in this powerful relationship. That said it was still the US who had the money and the resources to drop this bomb. Truman took this moment in history and dropped the bomb becoming the man who ended the second world war. Understanding Truman’s contribution to the end of the war, however there is no evidence that “to indicate an appreciation of Truman’s talents”(pg 480), or his additions to the war. This is significant because it shows us how Stalin had underappreciated Truman, and how he had hoped he would have a more important impact on the war, and have a larger role in the
President Truman took the time to talk to Stalin about the Manhattan Project. Truman only told Stalin a few things about the Manhattan project at the Potsdam Conference. As he breaks the news of the Manhattan project to Stalin, in Truman Tells Stalin, July 24, 1945, Truman considers telling Stalin about the Manhattan project in a few words "a new weapon of unusual destructive force." This conference between Truman and Stalin was seen by different observers, the observers in Truman Tells Stalin, July 24, 1945 write “each describes the same event, but the event appears in a different light to each observer”.
“The distinct differences in the political systems of the two countries often prevented them from reaching a mutual understanding on key policy issues and even, as in the case of the Cuban missile crisis, brought them to the brink of war” (Library of Congress). The Soviet Union and The United States were complete opposites, The United States was a democracy whereas The Soviet Union was a dictatorship. This only began their differences though, their economies, beliefs, goals, and even their fears, everything about them made them different except for their enemy. The
The war was coming to a victorious conclusion for the Allies. Germany had fallen, and it was only a matter of time until Japan would fall as well. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was at the forefront of the American war effort, and saw atomic weaponry as a way out of the most monumental war ever. As discussed in Cabell Phillips’ book, The Truman Presidency: The History of a Triumphant Succession, Stimson was once quoted as saying that the atomic bomb has “more effect on human affairs than the theory of Copernicus and the Law of Gravity” (55). Stimson, a defendant of dropping the bomb on Japan, felt that the world would never be the same. If the world would change after using atomic weapons, could it possibly have changed for the better? One would think not. However, that person might be weary of the biased opinion of White House personnel. He or she should care more for the in depth analytical studies done by experts who know best as to why America should or should not have dropped the atomic bomb. As more and more evidence has been presented to researchers, expert opinion on whether or not the United States should have dropped the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has also changed. More and more researchers seem to feel that the atomic bomb should never have been used (Alperovitz 16). Despite several officials’ claims to enormous death estimations, an invasion of Japan would have cost fewer total lives. In addition, post atomic bomb repercussions that occurred, such as the Arms Race, were far too great a price to pay for the two atomic drops. However, possibly the most compelling argument is that Japan would have surrendered with or without the United States using the atomic bomb. In defiance of top...
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.
President Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan during the Second World War is the most controversial decision in history. While it was an undoubtedly difficult decision, it was indeed necessary in order to end this six-year war that had ravaged the world. While many critics argue that the bomb was used primarily as an act of vengeance toward Japan, simplifying such a crucial moment in human history downplays the very real risk invading Japan posed to the United States. While avoiding strained relations with the other Allied countries, Truman had to assess the possible danger of the Soviet Union in a post-war world. Furthermore, the possibility of an arms race, the moral implications of using this weapon, and the number of American lives that would possibly be lost invading Japan were among the numerous pros and cons Truman had to consider when contemplating the use of this powerful weapon never before unleashed on humanity.
Criticisms of Truman’s actions fail to consider that he entered a leadership position set on an ideological collision course, was forced to further an established plan for an atomic monopoly, and dealt with a legacy of US-Russian tensions mobilized by Roosevelt prior to his death, all while being influenced by an alarmist and aggressive cabinet. Upon reviewing criticisms of Truman’s negotiations with Soviet diplomat Vyacheslav Molotov and his involvement in the atomic bomb drop, the influence of Roosevelt’s legacy and Truman’s cabinet will be discussed in order to minimize his blame for starting the Cold War. History does not often remember President Harry Truman fondly, with many revisionist scholars characterizing him as an ornery and undiplomatic politico who severely damaged US and Soviet relations.... ... middle of paper ...
The Soviet Union began to view the United States as a threat to communism, and the United States began to view the Soviet Union as a threat to democracy. On March 12, 1947, Truman gave a speech in which he argued that the United States should support nations trying to resist Soviet imperialism. Truman and his advisors created a foreign policy that consisted of giving reconstruction aid to Europe, and preventing Russian expansionism. These foreign policy decisions, as well as his involvement in the usage of the atomic bomb, raise the question of whether or not the Cold War can be blamed on Truman. Supporting the view that Truman was responsible for the Cold War, Arnold Offner argues that Truman’s parochialism and nationalism caused him to make contrary foreign policy decisions without regard to other nations, which caused the intense standoff between the Soviet Union and America that became the Cold War (Offner 291)....
However, it was not the case, the Soviets acknowledged the atomic bomb and wanted to create as many as possible so they could yield the control not only in the Pacific, but in the Eastern Europe. In the words of former US senator from South Carolina, James F. Byrnes, claimed “the bomb provided a unique opportunity to check Soviet control of Eastern Europe and Asia in the postwar years, and he very much wanted to delay or avert the entry of the Soviet Union into the war with Japan” (59). In the Potsdam Declaration on July 26, all the Allied countries, except the Soviets, stood together in preparing for the end of the World War 2. President Truman, learning of the success of the Manhattan project, and understanding that he must make a choice whether to drop the atomic bomb or not turned out to be the most difficult decision to make in his life. They came up with a decision to make Japan “unconditional surrender” (59) but they were afraid the Japan would not step down and refused to give up their fight.
Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration the atomic bomb was being developed. After Roosevelt died, his vice president Harry Truman was appointed President of the United States. Truman was never informed about the bombs development until an emergency cabinet meeting (Kuznick 9). Truman had to make the fatal decision on whether the bomb was to be dropped on Japan. With the idea of going to war, Truman had to think about the lives of the thousand American soldiers. The American soldiers had begun using the method of island hopping, because the bomb was not available. The idea of dropping a bomb was that the war itself could possibly end in its earliest points. The dropping of the atomic bomb could also justify the money spent on the Manhattan Project (Donohue 1). With a quote by Franklin D. Roosevelt “This will be a day that will live in infamy”, Pearl Harbor was a tragic day for Americans. The United States had lost many soldiers, which they had claimed that they will eventually get revenge. The alternates of dropping the bomb was also discussed at the Interim Committee. The American government was trying to get an invitation response from the Japanese government. If the United States did not drop the bomb and ‘Operation Downfall’ ha...
In 1945, Germany had surrendered, but the war in the Pacific raged on. The allies were becoming desperate to end the war before it was necessary to carry out a full scale invasion. New developments in science had made it possible for the United States to weaponize the atom, and the consequent bomb created was dropped on Hiroshima and later Nagasaki at the approval of President Harry S. Truman and his advisors. In years to come, Truman would have to face questions over the merit of his actions. Although some may believe the atomic bomb was needed because it ended WWII, it was unnecessary to drop the nuclear bomb because of the alternatives that existed, the effect it had on the Japanese people, and because of the unethical reasons for dropping it.
Throughout history, countless people have created their own identities instead of passively accepting the expectations bestowed upon them at birth or by others. Peoples identities are created by their actions, principles, and achievements, not by their social status or their name at birth. Although history is replete with such people, they were especially prevalent during the 20th century. Two of the most compelling examples are Vladimir Lenin and Harry S. Truman.
As evidenced by their correspondence and FDR’s actions, some historians argued that Stalin and FDR’s relationship was genuine during the war. To further support this, Roosevelt had been working to build relations with the USSR and Stalin years before the US ever entered the war. In 1933, Roosevelt recognized the Soviet Union, an action that had not been done by the United States government since 1917. This action marked the beginning of Roosevelt’s efforts to strengthen his relationship with the Stalin. Roosevelt also appointed multiple ambassadors to the Soviet Union, such as Joseph Davies, and instructed them to pursue a Good Neighbor policy. This meant that most of what Stalin requested of the ambassadors was fulfilled as swiftly as possible.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was president of the United States up until April 1945 and was then succeeded by Harry S. Truman. The change in leadership altered the foreign policy and the attitude the US had towards the Soviets. One reason why the grand alliance occurred and lasted, is due to Roosevelt’s appeasement to Stalin. Roosevelt’s main goal was to preserve the United Nations declaration and to sustain the wartime alliance during the peace, despite the fact that Stalin was making it difficult to minimize tensions during Yalta. However, when Truman became president on April 12, 1945, US foreign policy changed drastically. Truman was blunt and eager to halt the expansion of communism, one of his reasons being that “Russia may well outrank… the
During the 1940s, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were known as the vilest men in the world. Joseph Stalin was the dictator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) who rose to power in the late 1920s. In 1939, the peak of World War II, Joseph Stalin and German dictator Adolf Hitler signed a nonaggression pact. But very soon after they signed the pact, Germany broke the Nazi-Soviet pact and invaded the USSR. Stalin had ignored warnings from the Americans and the British about a potential invasion. Since Stalin seemed to listen to no one but himself was it a smart choice for America to become allied with Stalin? In my opinion, it was not a quick-witted choice for America to do so. Stalin killed a lot of people by starvation, and shooting innocent people. Stalin also only cared about himself and no one else, he made people