Introduction
Historians assert that World War II was fought by millions of people, especially in Central America, the Caribbean, Alaska, Greenland, Syria, Iraq, and other major countries. The conflict in the Pacific saw Japan invade the Chinese province of Manchuria. The United States and its allies criticized the Japanese aggression, although they shied away from any major military and economic punishment (Gill, 2016). As the relationship between the two countries worsened, the US placed an embargo on oil and scrap metal and froze Japanese assets in the States. In 1914, Japan planned an attack on Pearl Harbor, bringing the US officially into World War II. According to Giovannitti & Freed (2021), the Japanese were vicious fighters costing Americans time, lives, and materials. When Harry Truman became president after the demise of Roosevelt, he discovered that the Japanese engaged in the fight because of their emperor, who thought that surrendering was not an option. Truman became aware of the Manhattan Project aimed at creating an atomic bomb upon becoming president. He ordered his men to drop the bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Gill, 2016). In the recent past, policy analysts and historians have questioned why he decided to use the atomic bomb against the Japanese. Below is an analysis of why he decided to drop the atomic bomb.
Arguments for and against the Decision
Over the years, historians have argued why the president decided to use the atomic bombs. Traditionalists say that the atomic bombs were necessary to save the Americans and prevent invasions that could have cost more lives than the bombs. The traditionalists justify his decision to use the atomic bombs to bring the war to a speedy conclusion (Giovannitti & Freed, 2021). The atomic bombs were dropped to force Japan to surrender. On the contrary, revisionists argue that using the atomic bombs to end the war was unnecessary. They assert that Japan was ready to surrender, and the US could have avoided using the bombs if they guaranteed that the emperor retained his throne (Myers & Gibson, 2016). They further argue that the invasion by the Soviet Union in 1945 could have forced Japan to surrender.
How Historians differ on the Interpretation of the Decision
Over the years, historians and policy analysts have had a raged debate over whether the US made the correct decision to drop two atomic bombs in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the final weeks of World War II (Myers & Gibson, 2016). Some historians argue that few actions in war are morally justifiable. President Truman was concerned with coming up with an idea to minimize the loss of lives. Since the Japanese were adamant about surrendering, President Truman had no option but to drop the atomic bomb (Winkler, 2018). Some historians argue that his decision was largely due to an approximation of 500,000 allied casualties that would have occurred while invading the Japanese mainland (Giovannitti & Freed, 2021). There was also a likelihood of death from starvation for civilians and allied prisoners of war. Since the Imperial Japanese Army could never think of surrendering, which motivated all men to fight till the last man. They had to force civilians to act as suicide bombers and fight with spears made from bamboo; the Imperial Army was ready to sacrifice up to twenty-eight million civilians. Indeed, the reason for dropping the atomic bombs was justified.
Some policy analysts argue that although the bombs were horrible, they were the least abhorrent choice. According to these analysts, a bloody Japanese invasion could have caused a higher death toll than the two bombs (Winkler, 2018). As a matter of fact, the atomic bombs saved millions of Japanese and thousands of Americans’ lives. Therefore, the atomic bombs were the best way to force Japan to surrender, and this is what the US leaders wanted. Nevertheless, critics say that the bombing was a tragedy and a mistake (Myers & Gibson, 2016). According to the critics, the atomic bombs did not make the Japanese surrender, but rather, the Soviet Union’s entry into the war could have forced them to do so (Winkler, 2018). When the Soviet Union entered the war, the Japanese were keen on convincing them to mediate better surrender terms. Truman could have delayed for a while till the Soviet Union entered the war, but the US was not keen on letting the USSR occupy Japan (Giovannitti & Freed, 2021). By dropping the atomic bombs, the US signalled that nuclear weapons were legitimate weapons of war.
How the Culture of the US might have affected the Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb
Two weeks after Truman resumed office as president of the United States of America, he received a report from the secretary of war. The letter indicated that the US could have completed the most terrible weapon ever known (Blake, 2014). According to military analysts, Japan was already on its knees, and the bombs were unnecessary. Based on America’s culture of racism, it could never use the bombs against white civilians. Since the Soviet Union had entered the war, the US dropped the atomic bombs to pass a strong message to the Soviets to trade carefully (Espinosa, 2016). Generally, the atomic bombs might have acted as the first shots of the Cold War and the final shots of the 2nd World War.
What eventually Influenced Truman’s Decision
Truman’s decision to drop the two atomic bombs was eventually influenced by his temperament and his perspective on the war objectives defined by Roosevelt. His decision was to achieve quick victory and send a strong message to the Soviet Union (Espinosa, 2016). Although there have been debates on whether the bombings were ethically justified, all American military and political leaders believed that his decision was correct and was due to his urge to force Japan to surrender (Blake, 2014). Therefore, Truman’s decision was largely due to Roosevelt’s legacy where the war was to end with Japan’s unconditional surrender.
Conclusion
It is evident from the above literature that historians and policy analysts differ in interpreting Truman’s resolve to drop two atomic bombs in Japan. Some argue that atomic bombs were necessary to save the Americans and prevent invasions that could have cost more lives than the bombs. On the contrary, critics say that Japan was ready to surrender, and the US could have avoided using the bombs if they guaranteed that the emperor retained his throne. The article further asserts that the bombs acted as the final shots of World War II and the first signs of the Cold War.
References
Blake, D. J. (2014). Truman’s Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan in World War II.
Espinosa, A. (2016). Review of The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs, and the Defeat of Japan and Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. Armstrong Undergraduate Journal of History, 6(2), 103-107.
Gill, S. (2016). Presidential Modernity: Harry Truman and the Foreign Policy Decision Making Process. Scholarly Horizons: University of Minnesota, Morris Undergraduate Journal, 3(1), 2.
Giovannitti, L., & Freed, F. (2021). The decision to drop the bomb. Routledge.
Myers, M., & Gibson, T. (2016). The American Presidency: An Examination of the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.
Winkler, C. (2018). Rational Model for Analyzing US Foreign Policy Advocates and Decision Makers: The Newman Legacy. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 21(4), 683-694.
write