World War II: Bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki: Was Truman justified in ordering the dropping of the atomic bomb to end the war

This article discusses the decision made by President Truman to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. It explores the ethical implications and justifications behind the decision, including the casualties, the impact on the world politics, and the after-effects of the bombing. The article also discusses the criticism and support for Truman's decision and the different perspectives on the bombing.

AMERICAN HISTORY

1
World War II: Bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki: Was Truman justified in ordering the
dropping of the atomic bomb to end the war
World War II was understood to be one of the biggest wars and witnessed casualties at the
mass level. It was a time where new powers tried to make their influence on the world
politics. It was a period of development of heavy automated weapons. Both Japan and United
States was an emerging nation who did not played major role in the World War I. Dropping
of Atom bomb was not expected by any of the nation. This decision taken by United States
was considered to be one of the most in human decisions of all time (Walker, 2016). It was
considered to be an answer to the Japan on their bombing of pearl harbour. But, certainly
both cannot be compared as the numbers of casualties in the pearl harbour was just in
hundreds while the casualties in both the cities of Japan i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in
millions. This pacific war ended when Japan surrendered before America after dropping of
Atom bomb.
The decision of dropping the bomb by President Truman was highly criticised at various
platforms. He did it after taking the consent of the United Kingdom. Orders for dropping the
bomb on the four cities were issued on July 25. The bomb was dropped on 6th August and 9th
August 1945. Apart from the millions of death on the same day, there were deaths which
caused due to radiations sickness, burns and other injuries (Laurence, 2017). The after effect
of bombing remained for decades and the generations after that.
Such incidents cannot be justified in any case and its ethical implications are still debated.
The major reason for criticism was the fact that when the war was already at the end, there
was no need of doing such a heavy casualties. Japan’s naval force was already destroyed and
Japan was left with no proper allies. Apart from this most of its cities were already destroyed
by the continuous bombing of US over the months. Already Soviet Union was threatening
Japan to enter into the pacific war hence it would have been enough (Feis, 2015). Bombing
done at the end of the war was just to show the world that there is emergence of another
bigger power as US. Since very little was known about the radiation and its impact on the
humans hence even the medical sciences was not able to tackle the issues faced by the people
after bombing. America justified the attack by stating the fact that it helped them to end the
war without further increasing the financial issues. But this justification was challenged with
the fact that if this was the reason for bombing they would have done it earlier. America

2
further justified the attack by saying that it was an attack that taught many other nations to
not use this devastating weapon for their military operations (Lackey, 2017, pp. 137-156).
But the critics said that an act of killing millions cannot be used as an example.
People of US supported the government as they were already in fury against the Japan
because of the attack on the pearl harbour. They said that it was a payback time for Japan
(Selden and Selden, 2015). On the other hand government at that time justified the attack by
stating that it officially helped the world to come at peace and hash tagging was used in the
form of statement that it ended war as the Japan surrendered. Truman lost his family in the
war and others were too in the battlefield hence he wanted to protect them by ending the war.
He was just carrying on the legacy of Roosevelt who believed in nation’s objective to make
enemies surrender at any cost. Truman wanted victory as soon as possible and he knew that
other countries did not have such powers to retaliate them (Dower, 2015). His eagerness to
end the war can be seen by the fact that the committee which was set up to see the war
conditions with Japan recommended him that he should first give a warning to Japan but he
rejected that suggestion. Truman himself said that Japanese did unprovoked attack on pearl
harbour and murdered American Prisoners and hence they must be given an answer to what
they did.
Another perspective about the bombing is that this attack was also done by US to increase its
influence on Russia as they had meeting with them just a few days after the attack took place.
Russia already had control over major parts of the Europe and hence America also wanted to
show its strength. They wanted to use Atomic monopoly for their diplomatic advantage. It
was also to threaten other super powers so as to put their plans into action (Hirano, 2013, pp.
115-131).
On the point of view of people in other parts of the world, this attack was considered to be
one of the cruellest attempts by the leaders to establish their countries names in the list of
super powers. Truman knew that most of the powers of the world especially the once that
were in Europe become weak both financially and in terms of military power. Passing such
orders that too at the end of war was just to show the world that after the end of War, who is
going to run the world politics (Miscamble, 2011). It was an attempt to become a global
leader by showing the atomic power. The questions over the intention of the Truman become
bigger since it was almost the end of the war and the bombing just done to create a political
statement. Japan was just used as a testing ground.

3
Conventional war was proving to be one of the saddest memories of United States as they
were facing huge amount of casualties in the war. The war of Okinawa Island was a night
mare for both the sides. America’s intention was to reduce the casualties that might have
happened due to continuous battles on different fronts. At the same time they also wanted
imperial Japan to surrender but Japan was not ready for it. Even Japan was trying to have
talks with Soviet Russia which could have been a danger for US in the pacific region. Japan
had trained their forces to fight till the death hence they were not ready to leave their strategic
position in the Pacific region. The government was not ready to surrender even they knew the
fact that it is not possible for Japan to win the war.
Truman justified his act by saying that the conventional bombing had already killed more
than 3,50,000 people of which alone 100,000 were killed in Operation Meetinghouse raid on
Tokyo (Craig, 2015). It was much larger numbers than the people that were killed on the
single night of the bombing. This was the explanation that was given at the starting phase
after the bombing but the casualties that these two cities faced years after the bombing
suggested that it was not a proper justification to ending war. Even the emperor of Japan did
not reacted in an appropriate manner as in his first press conference he said that it was an
unavoidable circumstances where it happened. Even the chief cabinet secretary of Japan
stated that it was a golden opportunity given by the heaven to end the war.
On the greater note taking use of the atom bomb cannot be justified as it did not killed people
rather it resulted in the extinction of the human civilisation. In the political decisions it was
the people who suffered. Atom bomb ruined the lives of many people in both the cities as it
created epidemic and demolished their lives as their property, occupation everything got lost.
It contaminated water resources and hence created scarcity of basic amenities. The criticism
can be attributed by the fact that the babies that were born after many years of the attack still
faced deformities (Gordin, 2015). The land become infertile which created a situation where
people had to leave the city. Truman’s decision might be good for short period of time but on
the longer time duration, it was a decision that tried to wipe out the human civilisation. Even
till today the traces of the radiation and the impact that bomb had on the lives of the people
can be seen. Truman should have listened to his council’s advice to threaten Japan first before
actually bombing the cities. At the end of the war even bombing one city could have given
the strong message at the international community. There was no need to drop another atom
bomb on another city. It was not a necessary step or neither was a step that was forced. It was
just a decision taken for creating a situation where enemy can surrender and they could

4
possibly create a universal statement (Malloy, 2012, pp. 515-545). Japan did not have many
resources left to fight hence other forms of military strategies like starvation could have done
the same impact. Truman’s sentiments could be questioned and it will still remain a topic of
debate with lots of ifs and buts.

5
REFERENCES
Craig, William. 2015. The Fall of Japan: The Final Weeks of World War II in the Pacific.
Open Road Media.
Dower, John W. 2015. "Hiroshimas and Nagasakis in Japanese Memory." United States and
Asia at War: A Cultural Approach: A Cultural Approach: 27.
Feis, Herbert. 2015. The atomic bomb and the end of World War II. Princeton University
Press.
Gordin, Michael D. 2015. Five days in August: how World War II became a nuclear war.
Princeton University Press.
Hirano, Kyoko. 2013. "Depiction of the atomic bombings in Japanese cinema during the US
occupation period." In Hibakusha Cinema, pp. 115-131. Routledge.
Lackey, Douglas P. 2017. "Four Types of Mass Murderer: Stalin, Hitler, Churchill, Truman."
In Moral Philosophy and the Holocaust, pp. 137-156. Routledge.
Laurence, William L. 2017. Dawn over zero: The story of the atomic bomb. Pickle Partners
Publishing,
Malloy, Sean L. 2012. "“A Very Pleasant Way to Die”: Radiation Effects and the Decision
to Use the Atomic Bomb against Japan." Diplomatic History 36, no. 3: 515-545.
Miscamble, Wilson D. 2011. The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs,
and the Defeat of Japan. Cambridge University Press.
Selden, Kyoko Iriye, and Mark Selden. 2015. The Atomic Bomb: Voices from Hiroshima and
Nagasaki: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Routledge.
Walker, J. Samuel. 2016. Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of atomic bombs
against Japan. UNC Press Books,

6