Truman Had No Alternative: Hirosima & Nagasaki Part II

FIFTY-SIX YEARS AGO, ON AUGUST 6 AND 9, 1945, the Americans dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In my last article, I argued that President Truman had no alternative, since the use of the bombs was the quickest way to end the war with the least amount of casualties on both sides.

Many critics, however, have insisted that the U.S. could have devised a way to "demonstrate" the awesome power of the bomb to make the Japanese surrender. For instance, it has been argued that the Americans could have dropped the bomb on some built-up area, after giving notice to the inhabitants to evacuate.

A failure under those crucial circumstances could have done enormous, if not fatal, damage to American credibility. There were only two bombs available at the time, and the actual bomb devices were new and scarcely tested. Americans could not ignore the psychological effect on Japanese leaders if the bomb did not work.

To broadcast a "warning" was to risk the operation in other ways. It would have been child's play for the Japanese to intercept an incoming airplane, especially if they knew where and when it was expected.

Truman and his officials agonized over the fact that the Japanese could end such an endeavor altogether by placing American POWs into the "announced" target area. The Japanese had, after all, given the order to kill all POWs once an invasion of the islands began.

In pursuit of their anti-American odyssey, critics have also alleged that a "tactical strike" could have been carried through. In other words, the bomb could have been dropped on a purely military target, an arsenal or a harbor, and without advance notice. They have also theorized that the bomb could have been dropped, without advance warning, over a relatively uninhabited stretch of Japanese territory where the Japanese high command could witness it first hand, and would, therefore, finally accept the futility of their struggle.

There were, even at that time, many suggestions that advocated an explosion at night over Tokyo Bay, which might have served as a satisfactory example. Still another alternative proposed that the bomb could be detonated not on Japan but in some remote corner of the world, and that this would have been enough to scare the Japanese.

First, all of these scenarios imply that the Americans were dealing with a sane Japanese leadership. That was not the case.

Second, no known military target had a wide enough compass to contain the total destructive capacity of the bomb – and to allow it to show what it was capable of doing.

No one could suggest, or even be sure, of a way in which the bomb could be used in so convincing a manner that it would frighten a leadership that worshiped "death before dishonor." The very idea of "demonstrating" the bomb ran counter to its very purpose: to shock the Japanese out of their faith that dying in war was a noble enterprise.

Not even the scientists who made the atomic bombs were fully certain about the destructive potential of the bomb and its radioactive fall-outs. A test in a remote area, therefore, even if successful, could prove useless. It would be done on neutral soil and the Japanese could think it was a fake, accomplished with a massive amount of ordinary TNT. In addition, the Truman administration feared that advance notice of this kind of demonstration would simply give the Japanese too much useful information.

In May 1945, four distinguished physicists who served as advisers to the interim committee met in Los Alamos to consider the proposed "demonstration" theories. They were Arthur H. Compton, Enrico Fermi, Ernest Lawrence and Robert Oppenheimer. After the meeting they concluded: "We can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use."

America did not develop a weapon that could end the war only to put it away while American servicemen died, and American POWs were tortured, every day. The slaughter of civilian populations was not initiated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; such was accepted military practice on all sides. The now infamous rape of Nanking exceeded the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined (approximately 200,000). The forced prostitution of Korean women, the Bataan death march, the terror of the Kempai-Tai (the Japanese secret police), and its concentration camps for the civilian population across occupied Asia, all manifested the barbarity of the Japanese regime.

Truman could have easily demonstrated to the Japanese the effects of the bomb quite sufficiently 3 miles off the coast with 24 hours notice. And then to justify our version of mass murder, he trots out the dirty laundry of our enemies thinking that an eye for an eye is somehow acceptable for a nation founded on Christian principles.

The carpet bombing of Dresden and the deployment of the atomic bombs will forever be two of the blackest days in American history.

It is even a greater tragedy that FDR gave *no* encouragement to German generals who tried to kill Hitler during the war. As to this tragedy, some of us think mass murder of thousands of children is an immoral method of carrying on a war. Sometimes civilian deaths can't be avoided but that doesn't mean that we should kill babies on purpose.

The issue of "demonstration" is discussed at length in a book called Day One. There are several good reasons why it was discussed in the administration but ruled out.

My favorite part of WW2 is all the arguments poised by people who didn't live through it as adults. I assure you that if all the people who currently oppose our dropping of atom bombs had actually lived through the early 40's, 99.9999% of them would have been all "Hell ya, do we have a 3rd one? Drop that bad boy."

The best argument for why this would not have worked is that the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima.

If they didn't surrender after that city was destroyed, why should we think a "test" would have resulted in a different outcome?

It was only after Nagasaki was destroyed (and they realized we might have many more of these bombs available), did they surrender.

My father was ready to parachute into Japan and I believe he would have never come home unless Truman did what he did.

My favorite part of WW2 is all the arguments poised by people who didn't live through it as adults.

Armchair quarterbacking has it's pitfalls, but shouldn't disqualify us from second-guessing the choices made by historical figures. How else would History be a tutor to us (unless you're inclined to repeating the horrible mistakes our fathers made). As a homeschool father, it is my hope that my children learn to ask "Why?" when they study History, and I am personally not offended when they ask legitimate questions about my motives.

I assure you that if all the people who currently oppose our dropping of atom bombs had actually lived through the early 40's, 99.9999% of them would have been all "Hell ya, do we have a 3rd one? Drop that bad boy."

Remember when the ciitzens of Germany were taken by Allied troops to view the ovens and mass graves of the concentration camps near their towns. They were greatly horrified and ashamed of the monstrous acts of their fellow citizens. If American citizens had been taken to Dresden and the 2 Japanese cities, I believe that they would have been affected in like manner. So don't give me this line about 99.9999% of the American public being gung-ho about blowing people to smithereens.

You can second-guess all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Truman was absolutely correct.

After being at war with the Axis powers for 4 years, had you given the average American a chance to go to Dresden, they probably would've taken marshmallows to toast in the burning ruins.

I've had many conversations with my mother about WW2. She's never lost one night of sleep over Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

Sorry Kid, I was never home schooled. My parents encouraged me to read, then read some more. It paved the way for a 4 year academic scholarship at a prestigious Jesuit institution. Those Jesuits really taught me to question everything I read and did. I'm happy to impart what I can to my kids. I've been to Alamogordo, Dachau, Flossenburg, Hastings, and many other places where history changed forever. If you have truly studied WW2 (world history for that matter), there is no doubt that Truman made the right decision.

If you are slanting what you are teaching to your children, you are no better or worse than our public schools.

The objective of playing arm-chair quarterback is that you get a chance to get it right the second time around. You failed this lesson.

It was only after Nagasaki was destroyed (and they realized we might have many more of these bombs available), did they surrender.

Nagasaki wasn't even enough. On the 14th of August the largest air raid of the war, 2000+ aircraft, was unleashed on Japan. Charles Sweeney, the pilot of Bocks Car on the Nagasaki mission, wrote in his book "War's End" that from the air it was an unending stream of planes. "We were like trains coming and going in New York's Grand Central Station." The United States sustained nearly half of it's casualties in the Pacific Theater between the time Roosevelt died and the bombs were dropped. All the revisionists always forget to mention that.

Apples and oranges. Your examples have nothing to do with one another.

Here's everything I ever needed to know about the psyche of the US during WW2: When my grandfather was a teen he and his brother were playing "Three Stooges" and my grandfather lost an eye.

A few years later, right after Pearl Harbor, he tried to join the Army which, of course, wouldn't accept a one-eyed soldier. So, he spent most of the war as a supervisor over a bunch of "Rosie the Riveters" at a munitions factory in Ohio.

I say "most of the war" because in 1944 the Army accepted him. The military was THAT desperate. They accepted a one-eyed man to go into combat against Japan. Just think about that.

WW2 may have started civil and been honorable combat at the beginning but, after millions of deaths and years of combat, all bets were off. Everyone was sick of their friends, brothers and children being killed and maimed all over the world. If we had the atom bomb in 41 and dropped one on Berlin and one on Tokyo, the war would have probably been over in a week.

As to this tragedy, some of us think mass murder of thousands of children is an immoral method of carrying on a war. Sometimes civilian deaths can't be avoided but that doesn't mean that we should kill babies on purpose.

Unfortunately, cowardly adults hide behind children. I just don't understand those who, 55 years later, would have been willing to sacrifice thousands of their countrymen to save people who would have killed your children and never gave it another thought.

God bless Harry Truman for recognizing war for what it was.

My parents encouraged me to read, then read some more. It paved the way for a 4 year academic scholarship at a prestigious Jesuit institution. Those Jesuits really taught me to question everything I read and did....If you are slanting what you are teaching to your children, you are no better or worse than our public schools.

Now I really feel sorry for you. The Jesuits. Now there's a open-mided bunch. They are one of history's most strident and dangerous idealogues. No slant to their version of history. NOT! Yeah, I know their spin had no effect on your worldview whatsoever.

But just to keep this on subject...I wasn't born yesterday. My father fought in Europe. My closest uncle was a POW in Germany, as was my best friend's father. My family and relations all suffered the same hardships as yours. It still doesn't excuse the failures of that generation. Were my parents good parents. Yes. Were they perfect. No. Neither is our government. It made mistakes back then, it's making mistakes today.

I say "most of the war" because in 1944 the Army accepted him. The military was THAT desperate. They accepted a one-eyed man to go into combat against Japan. Just think about that.

They probably figured that for the first wave of landings, one eye would be all a soldier would need for the few seconds he was alive on the beach.

Sorry, but that is probably a realistic assessment.

The carpet bombing of Dresden and the deployment of the atomic bombs will forever be two of the blackest days in American history.

Yeah, the civilian bombing of London, the wholesale slaughter of six million Jews, the Kamakaze pilots that sunk U.S. ships and killed hundreds of U.S. service men and the torture of U.S. prisoners of war by the Japanese be damned. How could we sink so low? (sarcasm off)

Oh really? What "cowards" were hiding behind the babies killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? These were *not* chosen as military targets or unavoidable collateral damage. This was intentional killing of civilians to "make a point" otherwise known as mass murder. Before you call me a peacenik, please note that I fully support the current U.S. attacks in Afghanistan. I support them in great part because they are targeted at soldiers not babies.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.