Blog #101 – Using atomic bombs on Japan
So, we talked about the use of the atomic bombs on Japan to end the war. In the notes on Okinawa’s influence on the decision to use the bomb taken from the book, Ripples of Battle by Victor David Hanson, he listed several reasons why he thought the bombs should have been used. One of the most persuasive points that he stated was the “Manchurian bloodbath” that could have been expected between the 1.6 million Soviet troops vs. 1 million Japanese troops if Japan did not surrender.
However, a lot of second guessing has gone into America’s use of atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945, even starting with former general and future president Dwight Eisenhower in 1948 who did not want America to be the first to use nuclear weapons.
According to the article in Portrait of America, “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb” by Robert J. Maddox, the author worked on dispelling some of the myths that have popped up since 1945. The generals may have overestimated the Allied casualties, but the June 8 meeting with Truman stated that General George Marshall estimated that only 31,000 casualties would be inflicted during the invasion of Kyushu (Operation Olympic). What intelligence sources had discovered in the days before Hiroshima, the Japanese Imperial Command had correctly guessed what the Allies were planning and had reinforced Kyushu with over 500,000 (actually over 900,000 but the Allies didn’t know that at the time).
So, logic follows that Truman made the decision to drop the bomb in order to spare more lives, mainly American lives, from a costly invasion.
But did Truman drop the bombs to intimidate the Soviets? The war in Europe was over, and critics have claimed that the U.S. was trying to get the Soviets to either withdraw from Eastern Europe or at least be more open to agreeing with U.S. demands. However, Stalin was given the info about the success of the Trinity test (from spies) and therefore knew about the atomic bomb while at the Potsdam Conference in July 1945. Whether or not he felt intimidated was not recorded, therefore is not known.
Another sticking point was whether Japan was ready to surrender. According to the Maddox article, Japan had sent peace feelers out through the Soviets but some members of the Japanese government (those with the power) wanted to continue fighting to protect Emperor Hirohito from 
prosecution of war crimes (because German leaders were going to be tried for the Holocaust). What role Hirohito played has been (and still is) debated, but the military could see the writing on the wall with the prosecutions beginning in Germany after the discovery of the concentration camps. Would the emperor be retained as part of the Allies sticking to unconditional surrender terms? Or, as Truman had mentioned, would they soften on this one sticking point in order to end the war earlier to save hundreds of thousands of lives? The problem with interpreting the signals sent by the Japanese government at this time is that it sent mixed signals depending upon who was being asked. If it was a military officer, he was willing to fight to the end. If it was a politician, some kind of compromise was possible by the summer of 1945.
Furthermore, what would have happened to the Allied prisoners of war captured by the Japanese scattered throughout Asia if the Allies had invaded Japan in November 1945? Chances are, they might have been killed or tortured so they wouldn’t be of any use to an invading Allied army.
Is it possible to judge an historical era from 70 yrs later, especially one so fraught with controversy since the 1994 Smithsonian exhibit? See links below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/for-64th-anniversary-the_b_252752.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/08/30/us/smithsonian-alters-plans-for-its-exhibit-on-hiroshima-bomb.html
Your job: examine at least 2 of the issues discussed in the blog (things Truman probably had on his mind when weighing the decision to drop the bomb), and use/reference at least two of the documents (the notes on Okinawa, “The Final Act” article, and the Portrait).
What would you have advised President Truman do under these circumstances especially if you didn’t know what the outcome would be? Why? (You can pretend you don’t know the results of the bombing or not – I leave it up to you).
I would advise President Truman to drop the bombs. The Pacific conflict had been raging for roughly four years. The Japanese fight to the death of the last man mentality had been costly to them but it was also costly for us. An end to the war was being sought out, and the bombs looked like the most likely way to get Japan to surrender. Japan was not looking like they were going to surrender without a fight, and an invasion of the mainland would have been costly on both sides.
Diplomacy in Japan would have ultimately saved the most lives, Japan at the time did not look ready to surrender. Many politicians of Japan at the time were ready to find a way to end that they had no chance of winning. America wanted unconditional surrender, which even the politicians were very keen on. However Japanese military executives was even further from unconditional surrender as they were still prepared to fight to the last man. “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had To Drop The Atomic Bomb” talks significantly on the military effort to fight to the very end. Atomic bombs were probably the easiest way to get Japan out of that mentality and surrender. Without a quick end, there would have likely been a war until nearly all Japanese soldiers had died
Truman’s military advisors were estimating a bloody conclusion to the Pacific conflict if there was to be an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The invasion of Kyushu was estimated to result in 31,000 American casualties by General George Marshall. Japanese casualties from invasion were likely to be much higher than that of Americans. Also news of invasion could have resulted in the execution of 350,000 Allied prisoners of war according to the notes on Okinawa. Invasion would have also greatly prolonged the war. If the war were to continue it was likely that the Soviet Union would likely get involved and enter Manchuria which the Japanese were occupying at the time. This would have been a battle between 1.6 million Russians and 1 million Japanese, which could not have possibly ended with a low casualty count on either side. Invasions cost to the Allies was much higher than using nuclear bombs. Dropping of atomic bombs would have likely brought an end to the war in the Pacific quicker than any other way, which would save many Allied lives and possibly some Japanese.
Atomic bombs were the most powerful and devastating weapons ever discovered. However they were essential in ending the bloodiest conflict ever. Without the Japanese ready to surrender and and a bloody invasion as the other choice, I would have advised that President Truman use the atomic bombs. They looked like the best way to end a brutal war that otherwise would not have taken much longer to finish.
If I could have advised Truman back then I would have told him to let the Japanese know what we were capable of and willing to do and I would have told him to try and get the Soviets to declare war on Japan earlier. Representatives from Japan were present at the trinity bomb testing, then they would have known what we could and would have done to any Japanese city if they didn’t surrender soon. If the soviets had joined even a little over a week earlier then japanese officials may have gotten enough pressure to surrender and we wouldn’t have even had to have invaded the Japanese mainland. If they still had not surrendered by the time they knew what we were capable of and were being sandwiched by two superpowers then we could have, if we thought necessary, used nuclear weapons. We may not have even needed to bomb Nagasaki if we had the Soviets there with us. We may not have even needed to bomb Hiroshima according to “The Final Act” by Herbert Bushman, “But critics-some at the time, more after the event-have said the bomb was not necessary. ‘The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the successful sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons,’ Admiral William Leahy, one of the war’s to military planners, wrote in 1950.” (21) So i would have told President Truman to try and put as much stress on and push Japan into surrendering as quick as possible, but be ready to dish out what you were threatening if need be.
If I were Truman I would be going absolutely crazy. The fate of the world for possibly centuries to come was held in his hands. I would be thinking obviously about whether or not to drop the bombs. Would Japan even surrender if we dropped the bombs? Japan has fought through everything we have thrown at them so far, who is to say they will not stop? How would the American people reacted? Would an invasion be more successful? What would be the best way of preventing American losses if we invade? If we really are concerned most with possible American losses why don’t we just drop a bomb? Would each battle be as gory as Okinawa? Can we expect the Japanese to use kamikaze tactics again? What would the Japanese do with their 350,000 American prisoners if we had invaded? Can we count on The Soviets to help us when we invade? What will happen to the pacific after the war? What will The Soviets get? Are The Soviet developing nuclear weapons as well and are they willing to use them? On us? How will our relationship be with The Soviets and the rest of Europe after the war? If we did drop the bombs would I be remembered as the man who ended the war or the man who murdered thousands of Japanese citizens? If I were Truman I wouldn’t be able to sleep a minute. (I got many of the details in this paragraph from “The Effects of Okinawa on the Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb”)
Blog 101 Using Atomic Bombs on Japan
A question asked by many historians is should President Truman have dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan? While it was clear that Japan was not yet ready to give in to the U.S. It also wasn’t clear if we needed to use such a damaging weapon. However I think that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was a good decision made by president Truman. I believe it was a good choice because it made the Japanese submit the U.S. and it set the tone for other countries wanting to test America.
The japanese were very brave and were willing to deplete every resource to win the war. They would destroy whole airplanes and ships and suicide bombers ambush troops just to dent our supplies. The japanese were clearly not ready to give up in the war efforts. Truman felt the only way to get japan off the frontlines was to bomb them with a weapon of mass destruction. Hiroshima was a city of military operations and a heavily populated city. To further inflict damage this area was bombed to really give a message to Japan of we aren’t giving in either.
The other reason why I think it was a good decision was to show other countries our fire power. While the soviets were struggling with germany at their doors they still had a good military. Other powers were also increasing their ranking in the world. In order for these countries to back away I feel the atomic bomb stands as a reminder. We had capabilities that other countries at the time didn’t.
So in conclusion I feel the the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was a necessary investment. It created space between us and other countries and got Japan to bag down slightly from attacking us. Without us dropping the bomb unforeseen circumstances and tragedies would’ve most likely happened. This bomb being dropped on Japan helped secure the win for the U.s. and allies and keep countries like japan in check.
Alex S
Devin R
I would drop the bomb on Japan because even if I did not know what would exactly happen in the future is because it is the right decision to protect our nation and to protect americans.The violence and tragedy that took place in Hiroshima was not the best way to achieve peace with the Japanese. This is a direct example of the foreign policy strategy that is called Peace through strength. Peace Through Strength is a philosophy that means using military strength and power and not peace through diplomacy. I know that was an extremely terrible thing that happened to hundreds of thousands of people but the choice was clear. The severe penalties and even worse things that could have happened if we the United States of America the world’s superpower did not drop that bomb are unimaginable. In the 1940s the world was relying on us. The world was relying on us to do what was right. They were relying on us to save the world if we had to because that was our job. That was the American way. As we continue to be the world’s great superpower this is something that we need to keep in mind. I firmly believe that we would have lost against Japan and have our place in the world and our place maybe even as a country would have been diminished significantly. It was something that we had to do after we didn’t protect those millions of innocent Jewish people in Germany. We knew that we had neglected our place behind in this war as the world’s superpower and that we needed to do something about or we were going to let millions of people die. It sure wasn’t the prettiest or even the best way but it was the only choice that we had and we had to do what we had to do to protect our country and the rest of the world. I think that nuclear weapons should always be used as a last resort in foreign and international conflicts but the truth is we were in the middle of a world war and it’s the thing that we needed to do.
I think that Truman’s staff had good judgement on their part on dropping the bomb. Though the nuclear bomb was horrific, it did what the bomb was targeted their before. Based on what could’ve occurred if we haven’t dropped the bomb is too great.First, the idea of what to come if we don’t drop the bomb. For example, having a Japanese Holocaust would be awful. This is what the notes from Ripples of battle had to say about the probability of what would occur if we don’t drop the bomb. “If Okinawa was not invaded, the chance is more likely that America would have invaded Japan This could have started a japanese Holocaust” .This shows what may happen if we don’t drop the bomb. We already had the Japanese in Internment camps. And At the time America was Afraid of the japanese because they did not want another Pearl Harbor. Many of these people, that they put in internment they were in fact, american.Second The Truman believed it was a no brainer and was the best option to reduce human deaths. In the context on how I feel about the issue it’s about human casualties. Human casualties or human deaths always defines what’s the better alternative for war. So result in a longer war with 350,000 Allied soldiers killed along with more human deaths from China because of the Manchurian invasion or stop the war quickly with deaths from one side. To president Truman that was the best option. From the article THe Final Act, it talks about how it was a no brainer for how the war was end. To him it was to make these warlords come to their senses. This is a very controversial subject. For example: why was the bomb dropped in a heavily populated areas? Why did two have to be dropped? I have a theory for at least one of these question 2 had to be dropped to make it seem like we had an unlimited supply of bombs. Unlimited supply equals entire Japan supplies. Another reason is they warned the emperor and asked for them to surrender or else they would bomb them. The ideals (though after an allied war ) was still our people over theirs. This idea carries over from the america first idea. Not to mention Americans were still salty over Pearl Harbor. Well I hope that showed adequate reasoning for why we had to drop the bomb. Whether you agree or disagree you can’t change history unless you find a Delorean. Bye!
Cariel