Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Escobedo 1

Pablo Escobedo
Professor Jared Wait
U.S. History 1302
July 23, 2015
Truman and the Atomic Bomb
World War II usually brings to peoples minds an image of terrible destruction and an era
of fascist oppression in several parts of the world. However, it was in the late stages of the war
that an everlasting image of the war was created, the atomic weapon. The development of this
devastating use of atomic energy for war was developed by the United States under the
Manhattan Project, and it ultimately fell to President Harry S. Truman whether or not to utilize
the weapon in the war. This, however, was no simple matter, faced with a heavy moral dilemma
and even though on its last legs, an unwavering Japanese resistance, coming to a decision was
understandably difficult. Controversial as it was, the choice to go ahead with the use of atomic
weapons was approved, and with that came the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover,
this decision and the justification of it can only be understood by taking a look at the reasons for
and against the use of the atomic bombs.
In order to understand the position President Truman was in one must really understand
the way the war was looked upon in the U.S. and also the casualties the war had brought about.
Firstly, the U.S. before having to enter the war was strictly isolationist. Not only did people
oppose involvement in the war, congress had gone so far as to pass several acts that would cut
off any financial and military backing to both the allied powers and the axis powers. Spirits had
quickly shifted with the bombing of Pearl Harbor by Japan, but the war would only drag on for
another three years until Japanese surrender. During those three years many casualties were seen

Escobedo 2
and a number of those were lost in Okinawa. By the time General Willoughbys report
circulated in late July, American casualties on Okinawa were estimated to be 49,000 (Atomic
Bomb). And so, with this in mind, President Trumans first priority was to end the war with
least amount of U.S. casualties possible(Donohue).
Not only were casualties a consideration for President Truman but also matters of
political standing were also highly influential. For example, the simple fact that Manhattan
project had totaled almost 2 billion dollars in expenditure could easily be represent a gross
mishandling of governmental resources. Therefore, the costs needed to be justified to the
American people, and bringing the war to a quick and decisive end was sure to quell most of the
opposition towards this expensive project. The bomb also posed an important opportunity for the
United States to show its superiority compared to Russia. The Soviets had a strong position in
Eastern Europe and were, at least in ideological terms, considered enemies of the United
States(Donohue). So, the bombing of Japan would serve as a cautionary reminder to the Soviets
of what the United States was capable of, were the Russians to consider spreading their sphere of
influence any further.
Now, even though the United States would succeed in a number of ways with the use of
the atomic bombs, it can also be said that a different approach could have just as easily been
employed to end the war. One solution that negated the use of the atomic bombs was voiced by
General MacArthur. He stated that simply by a continued assault on Japanese mainland with air
assaults in conjunction with a naval blockade could easily bring the Japanese to surrender with
minimal U.S. casualties (Donohue). This was easily plausible since, By the summer of 1945
Japan had already lost the war, and the American government knew it. The U.S. Navy had
established a tight blockade that cut off the delivery of any raw materials. Allied bombers

Escobedo 3
conducted regular raids on Japan without meeting resistance (Atomic Bomb). Another point
of contention in terms of an alternate plan to the atomic bomb, were the terms of Japanese
surrender. It was firmly believed by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of State, that had the
Japanese been offered a surrender which kept the emperor in power as opposed to a demand of
unconditional surrender, the Japanese might have willingly given up the fight (Donohue). In light
of these facts, had the normal strategy been left to do its work, and the U.S. government been
more appeasable and understanding of Japanese culture, an end to the war without the use of
atomic bombs would surely have happened.
Although it can be argued that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were overkill, several
reasons justified their use back in 1945. For starters, even though people argue that the atomic
bombs being dropped on civilians was shocking and wrong, the firebombing of cities and the
widespread killing of civilians had become accepted military practice. The use of atomic bombs
on Japanese cities was thus seen as a logical next step to end the war(Tindall).. Both President
Truman and military leaders were towing the military line, and were merely reacting to the
situation because of Japanese refusal to surrender. Therefore, when it came down to it, a mixed
need to be done with the war in the quickest way possible, and simple reactionary tactics gave
way to the use of atomic bombs. Bombs which justified, a single-handed end to a long war the
United States did not even want to participate in from the very beginning.
Atrocities and destruction were the headlines of WWII, and the atomic bombs were a
major contributor to that fact. And so, given the fact that decisions of politics and war seldom
have short lived effects, the ramifications, made the use of the bombs, at the time logical. For, if
the United States, and more specifically President Truman, had not acted the way he did, massive
public unrest would have been seen, had the war carried on. At the same time, the development

Escobedo 4
of the atomic bombs had been a serious project which needed to show results, coupled with the
fact that military tactics at the time were heading in no other direction, but atomic bombs, its
quite fathomable that they were indeed used. And, despite the fact that the Japanese were almost
a defeated nation, the argument paled in comparison, when it came to the things the United
States stood to gain from their use. So, all in all such a decision, because of its complexity in
political and wartime endeavors, I would say was justified, the war was not exactly humane and
so we cant expect the methods to have been so either.

Escobedo 5
Works Cited
Donohue, Nathan. "Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki."
Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Center for
Strategic and International Studies, 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 23 July 2015.
"Atomic Bomb: Why did President Harry S Truman Order the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki?" History in Dispute. Ed. Robert J. Allison. Vol. 3: American Social and
Political Movements, 1900-1945: Pursuit of Progress. Detroit: St. James Press, 2000. 1016. U.S. History in Context. Web. 22 July 2015.
Tindall, George Brown, and David E. Shi. "The Second World War." America: A Narrative
History. Brief Ninth ed. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. 933,934. Print.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi