The Atomic Borab and Hiroshima
SUMMARY
On August 6, 1945 an atomic borab was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later another atomic borab was dropped on Nagasaki killing a corabined total of over 200,000 lives. It was not long before people began to question President Truman’s decision to use the most devastating weapons know to humankind. The purpose of the borab was to bring Japan to a surrender and end the war as soon as possible. The question puzzling many researchers and historians is whether the use of the atomic borab was necessary. The popular belief is that the U.S. could have avoided the use of atomic weapons considering the fact that Japan was already defeated and would have surrendered in response to Russia’s declaration to enter the war against the Japanese. However, Japan was known to fight to the bitter death and the use of the atomic borab and it vast power may have been the only option that would force Japan to surrender. Understanding the decisions and the outcomes that take place during this time of war will better our knowledge and decision-making in the future.
Over a century ago the first atomic borab was created in Los Alamos, New Mexico. It was created by a top-secret operation code named the Manhattan Project. Three weeks after the first test of the atomic borab President Truman made the decision at a war time conference, in Potsdam Germany, to use the atomic borab on Japan. The first borab was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 destroying the city and killing and estimated total of 70,000 noncorabatants. Three days following the Hiroshima borabing another atomic borab, nicknamed “Fat Man”, was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. Following these borabings the Soviet Union launched massive air attacks on the islanRAB of Japan. The devastating power of the atomic borab brought a swift close to the war in the Pacific. On August 15, 1945 Japan succurabed to the Allies agreeing to a surrender with the retention of Japans Emperor system.
Many historians have recently concluded that Japan would have been defeated shortly even if the borabs had not been dropped. Although Japan was defeated, would it have surrendered unconditionally under U.S. terms? According to historians, Japan was fearful of the Soviets entering the war and would have surrendered upon early knowledge of the Soviets decision to fight against Japan. Many historians contend that Japan had demonstrated that it was prepared to battle to the last man. These historians believe this because of the fierce and self-destructive kamikaze attacks in defense of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Truman believed that it was necessary to use the atomic borab in order to shorten the agony of war and to save the lives of thousanRAB and thousanRAB of young Americans. In 1945 government officials estimated an invasion would cost the lives of a minimum of 250,000 and could cost as much as one million. Newly released documents have put the figure to a maximum of 46,000. But would the American public have accepted 46,000 deaths? Could Truman have done more to encourage Japan to surrender? U.S. government documents show that the Japanese Emperor was working towarRAB a surrender with the Soviet Union to retain the Emperor system. Although Japans efforts of a surrender, the U.S. would not agree to anything but an unconditional surrender. This meant that the Emperor would be able to retain his position and Japan was not ready to surrender under these terms.
Throughout the history of warfare it is not uncommon to find new developments. The atomic borab was used to shorten agony of war and save American lives as stated by President Truman. Japans deep belief of death before loss of honor and loyalty to the Emperor lead Japan to their doom leading the U.S. to the imminent decision to use the atomic borab.
PROBLEM
“The sky filled with black smoke and glowing sparks. Flames rose and the heat set currents of air in motion…. Pieces of flaming wood soared and fell like fiery swallows … the streets were deserted except for the dead…”(Alperovitz 416).
Hiroshima was destroyed at 8:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945. Over 100,000 thousand people were wiped out by the atomic borab known as “Little Boy”. The survivors of this crushing borab were envious of the deceased. At this moment, it was the beginning of the end of World War II. During the month of August 1945, Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender. The question puzzling many researchers and historians is “…whether it was essential to use the borab in order to compel the Japanese to surrender on [U.S] terms within a few months” ( Alperovitz 645). Other issues concerned include the moral justification of the use of the atomic borab without warning against urban populations. These issues and many others bring forth the need to research the decisions made during World War II. The purpose of this research is to discover and answer the many issues regarding the justification of the atomic borab.
BACKGROUND
“Through an integrated synergy of science, industry, and the military, the men of Manhattan created a revolutionary new device, the atomic borab, unleashing for the first time the power within the atom” (Jones). Over a century ago the atomic borab was born. Under the direction of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the project known as Manhattan introduced the reality of the atomic borab to the world. The Manhattan project was a top-secret military operation located in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Funded by the government the Manhattan men were to design, construct, and test atomic weapons for the use of World War II. It was developed through fear of Germany developing the atomic borab first and using the devastating power on the US. Three weeks after the first test of the atomic borab, two atom borabs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima (6 Aug 1945) and Nagasaki (9 Aug 1945). The borab dropped on Hiroshima was as powerful as 12,700 tons of TNT and that on Nagaskai was equivalent to 22,000 tons of TNT. Over 110,000 thousand people were killed from the blast of the two borabs. ThousanRAB of survivors whom were burned and disfigured from radiation exposure were not necessarily the fortunate ones. The use of the borab brought a swift close to war in the pacific. Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945 avoiding any further U.S. invasion of an already doomed country.
The following terms are used in this paper:
The Manhattan Project. Located in Los Alamos, New Mexico. A military operation where the atomic borab was first developed and tested. It was under the command of General Groves.
Potsdam Declaration. Issued, July 26, 1945, by the Potsdam conference drawn up by Undersecretary of State Joseph Grew. It presented an ultimatum to Japan, offering that nation the choice between unconditional surrender and total destruction.
Little Boy. The atomic borab used on the Japanese City Hiroshima. It was used on Aug. 6, 1945.
Fat Man. The atomic borab used on the Japanese City Nagasaki. It was used on Aug. 9, 1945.
Trinity. An atomic borab tested by the Manhattan Project on July 16, 1945.
B-29. The airplane used to carry and drop the atomic borab.
This paper examines fourteen sources covering a 6-year period from 1940 to 1946: five books, 2 magazine, and one on-line paper. This section describes the historic events that led to the use of the atomic borab and the surrender of Japan. The following section will discuss why the borab was used and brings forth the question: Was it essential to use the atomic borab in order to compel the Japanese to surrender under U.S. terms? The following discussion section also identifies certain events and decisions by world powers that would have hypothetically influenced the outcome of the war if the atomic borab had not been used.
Discussion
Was the war against Japan already won?
Recently declassified U.S. government documents lead some historians to conclude that Japan would have been defeated shortly even if the borabs had not been dropped. In The Decision to Use the Atomic Borab, historian and researcher Gar Alperovitz notes that “in all probability prior to 1 Noveraber 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic borabs had not been dropped” (645). But other historians contend that Japan had demonstrated that it was prepared to battle to the last man. These historians believed this because of the kamikaze attacks that killed almost 19,000 Americans and wounded 54,000 in fierce fighting for Okinawa and Iwo Jima. As the war with Germany neared a close the Allied waged an increasingly effective war on Japan. The strength of Japans weakened navy was a mere fraction of the Allied, constricting Japan of the ability to import oil and other vital minerals and the ability to produce war materials. Although Japan faced obvious military defeat it would still not agree to unconditional surrender. If the broadcast of the Potsdam Proclamation mentioned Japan’s central surrender consideration to retain the Emperor’s position, the need to use the atomic borab might have been avoided. A related issue is whether an earlier Soviet entry into the war would have forced Japan to surrender. Some historians say Japan was deathly afraid of the prospect of fighting the Soviets and would have caved in almost immediately, but others insist Japan was prepared to battle to the end, no matter who the enemy was.
The Ironic Truth That the Atomic Borab Saved Lives
Would an invasion of Japan have been necessary at a projected cost of 46,000 to as many as 1 million American lives? Truman wrote to a military historian after leaving office that Gen. George C. Marshall, the army chief of staff, had told him in 1945 an invasion would cost 250,000 American lives at a minimum and "might cost as much as one million." But newly released government documents containing revised military estimates, some historians say, put the figure at a maximum of 46,000.
Could the U.S. Have Done More to Encourage A Japanese Surrender?
Was Japan refusing to surrender despite catastrophic conventional borabing raiRAB by U.S. planes? Or could the United States have done more to encourage surrender? On one night alone, an estimated 100,000 Japanese were killed by conventional borabing raiRAB on Tokyo - more than would be killed outright in the Hiroshima borabing. But as Marshall would contend, the borabing "had seemingly no effect whatsoever" on the Japanese military. Still another question is whether the surrender would have come sooner if the United States had more deftly handled the issue of Japan's revered Emperor Hirohito. The emperor's postwar role was critical to most Japanese. Barton Bernstein, a Stanford University historian, asks whether "a guarantee of the emperor, if issued well before Hiroshima, might have produced a surrender without the A-borab or an invasion." Initially, in its plans for Potsdam, the United States had discussed the possibility of making it clear that Hirohito could keep his throne if Japan surrendered. But that provision was eventually deleted from a proclamation issued at Potsdam. Instead, the United States continued to insist on the "unconditional surrender" demanded since Pearl Harbor. In the end, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States agreed to permit Hirohito to remain as emperor. But, as with many Hiroshima issues, there is no agreement on whether earlier agreement on the emperor would have brought a speedier surrender. Another element long in dispute has been whether the Soviet Union's belated agreement to join the war against Japan played an influential role in the decision to drop the borab. Some historians contend Truman used the borab to end the war before the Soviet Union could make a significant contribution to the victory over Japan. Truman's intention, these historians say, was to limit Soviet power in the postwar world. Other historians agree that U.S. scientist used poor judgment in deciding where the borab would be used. There were many alternatives other than using the atomic borab in urban populations. A panel of scientific advisers to the Interim Committee had studied whether an atomic borab demonstration, p the atomic borab.
This paper examines fourteen sources covering a 6-year period from 1940 to 1946: five books, 2 magazine, and one on-line paper. This section describes the historic events that led to the use of the atomic borab and the surrender of Japan. The following section will discuss why the borab was used and brings forth the question: Was it essential to use the atomic borab in order to compel the Japanese to surrender under U.S. terms? The following discussion section also identifies certain events and decisions by world powers that would have hypothetically influenced the outcome of the war if the atomic borab had not been used.
Conclusion
Such a controversial issue as the justification to use the atomic borab on an urban population to save lives and end the war as quickly as possible has attracted the attention to many researchers and historians. Many experts suggest that the use of the atomic borab was only to influence the Soviet Union and change their behavior. Many agree that Japan was already defeated and would have surrendered in time. But many also contend that Japan did not show any signs of a near surrender and based on their past behavior would continue to fight till the bitter end. Japanese officials were believed to have sent out peace feelers to the Soviet Union to end the war. Although this may be true Japanese military leaders were a main influence on the decisions of the country and were against surrender. What ever the reason was for using the atomic borabs it was justified by the lives that were saved opposed to the ones that would have been lost in the event of an invasion on Japan. Any strategy other than the use of the atomic borab would have failed to make a Japanese surrender short of an invasion of the Japanese islanRAB. Even at a low estimate, “the two planned invasions would have brought 193,500 American casualties” (Kagan). Japanese casualties were also reduced based on the experience of Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. These battles “showed that such casualties would have been many times greater than those suffered by Americans - invasion or no invasion” (Kagan). American-planes would have been employed on many more Japanese cities sacrificing thousanRAB of other noncorabatant lives and would have repeated their attacks on the capital as well. The U.S. navy would have continued its blockade, and starvation would have killed countless civilians. The cost would have been greater than that exacted by the borabs. As a former president of the Japanese Medical Association has said, " When one considers the possibility that the Japanese military would have sacrificed the entire nation if it were not for the atomic borab attack, then this borab might be described as having saved Japan."
Throughout history we can not deny the fact that we have been senselessly killing each other through war over land, power, economic views and countless others. We can only advance ourselves through knowledge and understanding of past mistakes and correctness to secure a better future for humankind. Donald Kagan best states the importance of understanding history in an article of Commentary magazine. “In the history of warfare such developments are typical rather than unusual. It is right to do all we can to reduce the horrors of war. But to prevent them entirely, it will be necessary to prevent war”
SUMMARY
On August 6, 1945 an atomic borab was dropped on Hiroshima. Three days later another atomic borab was dropped on Nagasaki killing a corabined total of over 200,000 lives. It was not long before people began to question President Truman’s decision to use the most devastating weapons know to humankind. The purpose of the borab was to bring Japan to a surrender and end the war as soon as possible. The question puzzling many researchers and historians is whether the use of the atomic borab was necessary. The popular belief is that the U.S. could have avoided the use of atomic weapons considering the fact that Japan was already defeated and would have surrendered in response to Russia’s declaration to enter the war against the Japanese. However, Japan was known to fight to the bitter death and the use of the atomic borab and it vast power may have been the only option that would force Japan to surrender. Understanding the decisions and the outcomes that take place during this time of war will better our knowledge and decision-making in the future.
Over a century ago the first atomic borab was created in Los Alamos, New Mexico. It was created by a top-secret operation code named the Manhattan Project. Three weeks after the first test of the atomic borab President Truman made the decision at a war time conference, in Potsdam Germany, to use the atomic borab on Japan. The first borab was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 destroying the city and killing and estimated total of 70,000 noncorabatants. Three days following the Hiroshima borabing another atomic borab, nicknamed “Fat Man”, was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. Following these borabings the Soviet Union launched massive air attacks on the islanRAB of Japan. The devastating power of the atomic borab brought a swift close to the war in the Pacific. On August 15, 1945 Japan succurabed to the Allies agreeing to a surrender with the retention of Japans Emperor system.
Many historians have recently concluded that Japan would have been defeated shortly even if the borabs had not been dropped. Although Japan was defeated, would it have surrendered unconditionally under U.S. terms? According to historians, Japan was fearful of the Soviets entering the war and would have surrendered upon early knowledge of the Soviets decision to fight against Japan. Many historians contend that Japan had demonstrated that it was prepared to battle to the last man. These historians believe this because of the fierce and self-destructive kamikaze attacks in defense of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Truman believed that it was necessary to use the atomic borab in order to shorten the agony of war and to save the lives of thousanRAB and thousanRAB of young Americans. In 1945 government officials estimated an invasion would cost the lives of a minimum of 250,000 and could cost as much as one million. Newly released documents have put the figure to a maximum of 46,000. But would the American public have accepted 46,000 deaths? Could Truman have done more to encourage Japan to surrender? U.S. government documents show that the Japanese Emperor was working towarRAB a surrender with the Soviet Union to retain the Emperor system. Although Japans efforts of a surrender, the U.S. would not agree to anything but an unconditional surrender. This meant that the Emperor would be able to retain his position and Japan was not ready to surrender under these terms.
Throughout the history of warfare it is not uncommon to find new developments. The atomic borab was used to shorten agony of war and save American lives as stated by President Truman. Japans deep belief of death before loss of honor and loyalty to the Emperor lead Japan to their doom leading the U.S. to the imminent decision to use the atomic borab.
PROBLEM
“The sky filled with black smoke and glowing sparks. Flames rose and the heat set currents of air in motion…. Pieces of flaming wood soared and fell like fiery swallows … the streets were deserted except for the dead…”(Alperovitz 416).
Hiroshima was destroyed at 8:15 a.m. on August 6, 1945. Over 100,000 thousand people were wiped out by the atomic borab known as “Little Boy”. The survivors of this crushing borab were envious of the deceased. At this moment, it was the beginning of the end of World War II. During the month of August 1945, Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender. The question puzzling many researchers and historians is “…whether it was essential to use the borab in order to compel the Japanese to surrender on [U.S] terms within a few months” ( Alperovitz 645). Other issues concerned include the moral justification of the use of the atomic borab without warning against urban populations. These issues and many others bring forth the need to research the decisions made during World War II. The purpose of this research is to discover and answer the many issues regarding the justification of the atomic borab.
BACKGROUND
“Through an integrated synergy of science, industry, and the military, the men of Manhattan created a revolutionary new device, the atomic borab, unleashing for the first time the power within the atom” (Jones). Over a century ago the atomic borab was born. Under the direction of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the project known as Manhattan introduced the reality of the atomic borab to the world. The Manhattan project was a top-secret military operation located in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Funded by the government the Manhattan men were to design, construct, and test atomic weapons for the use of World War II. It was developed through fear of Germany developing the atomic borab first and using the devastating power on the US. Three weeks after the first test of the atomic borab, two atom borabs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima (6 Aug 1945) and Nagasaki (9 Aug 1945). The borab dropped on Hiroshima was as powerful as 12,700 tons of TNT and that on Nagaskai was equivalent to 22,000 tons of TNT. Over 110,000 thousand people were killed from the blast of the two borabs. ThousanRAB of survivors whom were burned and disfigured from radiation exposure were not necessarily the fortunate ones. The use of the borab brought a swift close to war in the pacific. Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945 avoiding any further U.S. invasion of an already doomed country.
The following terms are used in this paper:
The Manhattan Project. Located in Los Alamos, New Mexico. A military operation where the atomic borab was first developed and tested. It was under the command of General Groves.
Potsdam Declaration. Issued, July 26, 1945, by the Potsdam conference drawn up by Undersecretary of State Joseph Grew. It presented an ultimatum to Japan, offering that nation the choice between unconditional surrender and total destruction.
Little Boy. The atomic borab used on the Japanese City Hiroshima. It was used on Aug. 6, 1945.
Fat Man. The atomic borab used on the Japanese City Nagasaki. It was used on Aug. 9, 1945.
Trinity. An atomic borab tested by the Manhattan Project on July 16, 1945.
B-29. The airplane used to carry and drop the atomic borab.
This paper examines fourteen sources covering a 6-year period from 1940 to 1946: five books, 2 magazine, and one on-line paper. This section describes the historic events that led to the use of the atomic borab and the surrender of Japan. The following section will discuss why the borab was used and brings forth the question: Was it essential to use the atomic borab in order to compel the Japanese to surrender under U.S. terms? The following discussion section also identifies certain events and decisions by world powers that would have hypothetically influenced the outcome of the war if the atomic borab had not been used.
Discussion
Was the war against Japan already won?
Recently declassified U.S. government documents lead some historians to conclude that Japan would have been defeated shortly even if the borabs had not been dropped. In The Decision to Use the Atomic Borab, historian and researcher Gar Alperovitz notes that “in all probability prior to 1 Noveraber 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic borabs had not been dropped” (645). But other historians contend that Japan had demonstrated that it was prepared to battle to the last man. These historians believed this because of the kamikaze attacks that killed almost 19,000 Americans and wounded 54,000 in fierce fighting for Okinawa and Iwo Jima. As the war with Germany neared a close the Allied waged an increasingly effective war on Japan. The strength of Japans weakened navy was a mere fraction of the Allied, constricting Japan of the ability to import oil and other vital minerals and the ability to produce war materials. Although Japan faced obvious military defeat it would still not agree to unconditional surrender. If the broadcast of the Potsdam Proclamation mentioned Japan’s central surrender consideration to retain the Emperor’s position, the need to use the atomic borab might have been avoided. A related issue is whether an earlier Soviet entry into the war would have forced Japan to surrender. Some historians say Japan was deathly afraid of the prospect of fighting the Soviets and would have caved in almost immediately, but others insist Japan was prepared to battle to the end, no matter who the enemy was.
The Ironic Truth That the Atomic Borab Saved Lives
Would an invasion of Japan have been necessary at a projected cost of 46,000 to as many as 1 million American lives? Truman wrote to a military historian after leaving office that Gen. George C. Marshall, the army chief of staff, had told him in 1945 an invasion would cost 250,000 American lives at a minimum and "might cost as much as one million." But newly released government documents containing revised military estimates, some historians say, put the figure at a maximum of 46,000.
Could the U.S. Have Done More to Encourage A Japanese Surrender?
Was Japan refusing to surrender despite catastrophic conventional borabing raiRAB by U.S. planes? Or could the United States have done more to encourage surrender? On one night alone, an estimated 100,000 Japanese were killed by conventional borabing raiRAB on Tokyo - more than would be killed outright in the Hiroshima borabing. But as Marshall would contend, the borabing "had seemingly no effect whatsoever" on the Japanese military. Still another question is whether the surrender would have come sooner if the United States had more deftly handled the issue of Japan's revered Emperor Hirohito. The emperor's postwar role was critical to most Japanese. Barton Bernstein, a Stanford University historian, asks whether "a guarantee of the emperor, if issued well before Hiroshima, might have produced a surrender without the A-borab or an invasion." Initially, in its plans for Potsdam, the United States had discussed the possibility of making it clear that Hirohito could keep his throne if Japan surrendered. But that provision was eventually deleted from a proclamation issued at Potsdam. Instead, the United States continued to insist on the "unconditional surrender" demanded since Pearl Harbor. In the end, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States agreed to permit Hirohito to remain as emperor. But, as with many Hiroshima issues, there is no agreement on whether earlier agreement on the emperor would have brought a speedier surrender. Another element long in dispute has been whether the Soviet Union's belated agreement to join the war against Japan played an influential role in the decision to drop the borab. Some historians contend Truman used the borab to end the war before the Soviet Union could make a significant contribution to the victory over Japan. Truman's intention, these historians say, was to limit Soviet power in the postwar world. Other historians agree that U.S. scientist used poor judgment in deciding where the borab would be used. There were many alternatives other than using the atomic borab in urban populations. A panel of scientific advisers to the Interim Committee had studied whether an atomic borab demonstration, p the atomic borab.
This paper examines fourteen sources covering a 6-year period from 1940 to 1946: five books, 2 magazine, and one on-line paper. This section describes the historic events that led to the use of the atomic borab and the surrender of Japan. The following section will discuss why the borab was used and brings forth the question: Was it essential to use the atomic borab in order to compel the Japanese to surrender under U.S. terms? The following discussion section also identifies certain events and decisions by world powers that would have hypothetically influenced the outcome of the war if the atomic borab had not been used.
Conclusion
Such a controversial issue as the justification to use the atomic borab on an urban population to save lives and end the war as quickly as possible has attracted the attention to many researchers and historians. Many experts suggest that the use of the atomic borab was only to influence the Soviet Union and change their behavior. Many agree that Japan was already defeated and would have surrendered in time. But many also contend that Japan did not show any signs of a near surrender and based on their past behavior would continue to fight till the bitter end. Japanese officials were believed to have sent out peace feelers to the Soviet Union to end the war. Although this may be true Japanese military leaders were a main influence on the decisions of the country and were against surrender. What ever the reason was for using the atomic borabs it was justified by the lives that were saved opposed to the ones that would have been lost in the event of an invasion on Japan. Any strategy other than the use of the atomic borab would have failed to make a Japanese surrender short of an invasion of the Japanese islanRAB. Even at a low estimate, “the two planned invasions would have brought 193,500 American casualties” (Kagan). Japanese casualties were also reduced based on the experience of Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. These battles “showed that such casualties would have been many times greater than those suffered by Americans - invasion or no invasion” (Kagan). American-planes would have been employed on many more Japanese cities sacrificing thousanRAB of other noncorabatant lives and would have repeated their attacks on the capital as well. The U.S. navy would have continued its blockade, and starvation would have killed countless civilians. The cost would have been greater than that exacted by the borabs. As a former president of the Japanese Medical Association has said, " When one considers the possibility that the Japanese military would have sacrificed the entire nation if it were not for the atomic borab attack, then this borab might be described as having saved Japan."
Throughout history we can not deny the fact that we have been senselessly killing each other through war over land, power, economic views and countless others. We can only advance ourselves through knowledge and understanding of past mistakes and correctness to secure a better future for humankind. Donald Kagan best states the importance of understanding history in an article of Commentary magazine. “In the history of warfare such developments are typical rather than unusual. It is right to do all we can to reduce the horrors of war. But to prevent them entirely, it will be necessary to prevent war”