President Harry Truman’s Dilemma: To Drop or Not to Drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan Essay

Assignment Question

For this assignment, you should create a 5-minute video in which you brief the new President, Harry Truman, on the war vs. Japan, and explain why the U.S. should / should not drop atomic bombs on Japan. Read Revel source 27.2 “Franklin Roosevelt, speech after Pearl Harbor,” watch Revel source video 27.6 “Japanese Internment Camp Items.” Also watch the video at Revel 27.4.3 “Harry Truman: Do you Drop Atomic Bombs on Japan?” Follow this outline for creating your response: Summarize Roosevelt’s speech. What were the main complaints against Japan? Why did Roosevelt call for immediate military action? Make 2 specific references to this speech, as you prep new President Truman on the attack. Based on the Internment camp video, was the treatment of Japanese civilians justified? What items did they bring to the camps? What can we learn about life in the camps from these physical items? Watch the video on Truman’s decision. Take one of these viewpoints…….. The Japanese have “paid their dues” for the Pearl Harbor attack. Civilians were put into camps. The war has been successful. The bomb is too dangerous and un-tested to use in combat. This has been a total war vs the Japanese, at home and abroad. The bombs need to be dropped on Japan to complete the mission of defeating the enemy.

Assignment Answer

In his speech after the Pearl Harbor attack, President Franklin D. Roosevelt outlined the main complaints against Japan and called for immediate military action in response to the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor (Roosevelt, 1941). He highlighted Japan’s aggression and expansionist policies, including the invasion of China and their occupation of French Indochina. Roosevelt’s speech emphasized the need to protect American interests and global peace. He argued that Japan’s actions had created a state of war, leading to his call for a declaration of war against Japan.

As we prepare President Truman for the pivotal decision regarding the use of atomic bombs on Japan, it’s essential to consider the context provided by Roosevelt’s speech. Firstly, the attack on Pearl Harbor, as mentioned by Roosevelt, was a severe breach of international law and a blatant act of aggression. Secondly, Roosevelt’s call for immediate military action reflected the urgency of the situation and the need to protect American interests in the Pacific. These aspects should be kept in mind as we evaluate Truman’s options.

The video on Japanese Internment Camp Items sheds light on the treatment of Japanese civilians during World War II. The question of whether their treatment was justified is a matter of historical debate. Japanese Americans were subjected to forced relocation and internment during the war, leading to the confiscation of their possessions. The video showcases the items they brought to the camps, which were often meager and reflected their efforts to maintain a sense of normalcy. While some may argue that these actions were justified in the name of national security, others contend that they were unjust and a violation of civil liberties.

Truman’s decision on whether to drop atomic bombs on Japan is a complex one. There are multiple viewpoints to consider:

The Japanese have “paid their dues” for the Pearl Harbor attack: Some argue that Japan had already suffered significant losses, and further destruction was unnecessary. The firebombing of Tokyo and other cities had already taken a toll on Japanese civilians and military forces (Chambers, 1996).

The bomb is too dangerous and untested to use in combat: Critics of using the atomic bombs on Japan express concerns about the unknown long-term consequences and the ethical implications of deploying such a destructive weapon. They argue that the risks outweigh the potential benefits (Walker, 2005).

The bombs need to be dropped on Japan to complete the mission of defeating the enemy: Proponents of using the atomic bombs contend that it was necessary to hasten Japan’s surrender, saving both American and Japanese lives. They argue that Japan’s militaristic government was unlikely to surrender without a significant display of force (Alperovitz, 1995).

This has been a total war vs. the Japanese, at home and abroad: Some argue that Japan’s actions in the war, including the treatment of Allied prisoners of war and the atrocities committed in occupied territories, justify a comprehensive effort to bring the war to a swift conclusion (Dower, 1986).

Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 remains one of the most controversial and consequential actions in modern history. The use of these devastating weapons not only brought about the swift end of World War II but also raised profound moral, ethical, and strategic questions.

To better understand Truman’s decision, it’s crucial to delve into the historical background leading up to that fateful August. By 1945, the war in Europe had already ended with the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany in May. However, Japan remained resolute in its defiance despite suffering heavy losses. This refusal to surrender led to the belief among some American officials that an invasion of Japan’s home islands would be necessary. It’s important to note that the estimated casualties for both the Allies and the Japanese in such an invasion were staggering, and this weighed heavily on Truman’s mind.

The first atomic bomb was successfully tested in July 1945 in the New Mexico desert (Rhodes, 1986). This successful test provided Truman with a new and unimaginably powerful weapon. The decision to use the atomic bomb was not taken lightly. Truman formed the Interim Committee, which included prominent scientists and officials, to advise on the bomb’s use (Rhodes, 1986).

The Interim Committee’s recommendation was influenced by several factors, including the desire to end the war as swiftly as possible to minimize further American and Japanese casualties, the belief that a demonstration of the bomb’s power might not be sufficient to compel Japan’s surrender, and concerns about the Soviet Union’s growing influence in Asia (Walker, 2005).

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, followed by another on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. The devastation was immense, and the human suffering was unprecedented. The bombings prompted Japan to surrender on August 15, 1945, effectively ending World War II.

The decision to use atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki continues to generate debate. Proponents argue that it was a necessary, albeit tragic, step to end the war quickly and save lives in the long run. They contend that Japan’s fanatical resistance made an invasion the only alternative, and the potential casualties from such an invasion would have been far greater (Alperovitz, 1995).

Critics, on the other hand, question the morality of using such destructive weapons on civilian populations. They argue that Japan was already on the brink of surrender, and the use of atomic bombs was unnecessary and inhumane. Additionally, the long-term consequences of radiation exposure for survivors and the environmental impact of the bombings have raised ethical concerns.

The aftermath of the atomic bombings also led to significant changes in the global geopolitical landscape. The onset of the Cold War and the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union can be traced back to the use of atomic weapons on Japan. The fear of nuclear conflict, which persisted for decades, became a defining feature of the post-World War II era.

In conclusion, President Harry Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan was a momentous and controversial event in history. It brought a swift end to World War II but also raised profound moral and ethical questions. The decision was influenced by the desire to end the war, concerns about the potential casualties of an invasion, and geopolitical considerations. It remains a subject of debate and reflection, serving as a stark reminder of the destructive power of nuclear weapons and the importance of careful decision-making in times of conflict.

References

Alperovitz, G. (1995). The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. Vintage.

Chambers, J. (1996). The Japanese at War: An Oral History. Oxford University Press.

Dower, J. W. (1986). War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War. Pantheon.

Roosevelt, F. D. (1941). Speech after Pearl Harbor. Retrieved from [Source 27.2].

Rhodes, R. (1986). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Simon & Schuster.

Walker, J. S. (2005). Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan. University of North Carolina Press.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the significance of President Roosevelt’s speech after the Pearl Harbor attack in the context of World War II?

President Roosevelt’s speech served as a rallying cry for the United States, highlighting Japan’s aggression and expansionist policies and calling for immediate military action in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor. It marked the United States’ entry into World War II and set the stage for the conflict in the Pacific.

Why was the treatment of Japanese civilians during World War II a matter of historical debate?

The treatment of Japanese civilians, including forced relocation and internment, is debated because it raises questions about the balance between national security and civil liberties. Some argue that it was justified in the name of security, while others see it as an unjust violation of individual rights.

What factors influenced President Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan?

Truman’s decision was influenced by the desire to end the war quickly and save lives, concerns about potential casualties from an invasion of Japan, and geopolitical considerations, including the emerging Cold War dynamics with the Soviet Union.

What were the arguments in favor of using atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II?

Proponents of using atomic bombs argue that it was a necessary, albeit tragic, step to bring about a swift end to the war and save lives in the long run. They contend that Japan’s fanatical resistance left no alternative, and the potential casualties from an invasion would have been far greater.

What were the ethical concerns raised by the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Critics of the bombings raised ethical concerns related to the morality of using such destructive weapons on civilian populations. They argued that Japan was already on the brink of surrender and that the use of atomic bombs was unnecessary and inhumane. Additionally, the long-term consequences of radiation exposure and the environmental impact were points of ethical contention.