Discussion on e1-2-post-here-by-3-5
patrick d
Es1.2
#3226
The commemoration of Hiroshima’s bombing in 1945, make us
think if former president, Harry Truman’s decision to bomb Japan, was
an excusable act. Goldhagen believes otherwise. He feels that what he
did was an act of eliminationism. He believes that every person has
the privilege to act on his own freewill, regarding of external
factors that predetermines man’s decision to mass murder. I believe
that man, has the potential to be influenced with his decisions in
difficult circumstances, review his choices, whether good or bad, and
may consume to violent acts for the benefit of the majority, as Truman
did.
Goldhagen claims that “ Truman’s annihilation of the people of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki mass murder, puts him into the same broad
categories of Hitler and the Holocaust, Stalin and the gulag, Pot Pot,
Saddam Hussein, and Slodoban Milosevic and their
victims.” ( Goldhagen, p8 ) That is wrong, because Truman’s nuclear
bombing of the Japanese saved a lot of people, which includes the
“GIs; salvation for the tens of thousands of Allied POWs the Japanese
intended to execute in the event of an invasion; salvation for the
grotesquely used Korean "comfort women"; salvation for millions of
Asians enslaved by the Japanese. ( Wall Street Journal ) Goldhagen
compared Truman to leaders, who did crimes of murder for political
power, stature, and continuous governance of their territories. Truman
chose to drop the bomb to alleviate the people persecuted by Japan ,
to prevent the Soviets for another attack, thus saving a hundred more
lives to be perished in case another war started. I see Truman’s good
intentions, in such a way that human disease is prevented by the
vaccination of the particular virus, affecting the human body, that
would save more lives in the future. The amputation of a leg is
inevitable in case bacteria spreads to save a life. Review Journal’s
editorial, “ Truman made a tough call- but the right one”, is
justified.
Goldhagen claims that “ during mass murder, the murderers themselves,
their supporters, and those who wish to stand idly by practice
linguistic camouflage”, but that is wrong because Truman’s decision is
not supported by all Americans, per se. It was a personal decision
based on circumstances that he thought was appropriate at the time. As
I said, choices are reviewed for the majority.
An alternative option may have been done though, such as a truce or
a warning sign, to have spared Japanese lives. My lineage of Japanese
decency, empathizes with those who died, but in worst case scenarios,
men chooses what’s best for the society as a whole. Would you hold on
to your house, or foreclose it when you cannot pay? Euthanasia is
wrong, so they say, but would you want to see your love one suffer day
by day? It is not a question of morality, good or bad, in these
circumstances. At the end of the day, a plug is pulled, a decision is
made.
Truman did, what he believed was right.
Rosemarie J.
E1.2
Rosemarie Johnson
Professor E. O’Connell / English 101, Class #3226
March 5, 2010
While the editorials pass no value judgment on Truman’s actions in
authorizing the use of nuclear warfare against the Japanese, Goldhagen
labels Truman a mass murderer, and although he might have been treated
differently, deserved to be in the same dock as Hitler, Stalin, Pol
Pot and Mao. Truman was a conventional man who committed a monstrous
act under the rationale that it was a military operation. Even the
best face does not change what Truman did: Truman killed in a very
specific setting, in the context of the most brutal war in history
that Japan launched against the United States, and if we evaluate
Truman morally, it makes him no less a mass-murderer. Goldhagen
alleges, among other things, that Truman acted against the advice of
both Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy, and that Japan was already defeated
and just needed a small face-saving concession to surrender. Truman
has been accused of racism, based on remarks made by Roosevelt’s son,
Eliot in response to Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, Goldhagen attributes
Truman’s motive to retribution for the treacherous attack on the
Pacific Fleet. Goldhagen asks if Truman’s actions were necessary to
enter the war sooner or to demonstrate America’s power to Stalin. All
these rhetorical questions and allegations are meant to induce a self-
analysis of mass-murder, and to examine the national “conscience” in
the light of political cover-ups and obfuscations by those who have a
vested interest in preserving the “national” interests. To
Goldhagen’s questions, what if Hitler or Japan had the atomic bomb in
1944; both Germany and Japan were close to perfecting the bomb, it was
just a matter of time. Had Hitler been first to possess nuclear
power, it would have been the end of Western civilization. Given
Japan’s belief that like Germany, it was a master-race, and its
imperialistic eliminationism throughout Asia, Japan would not have
stopped at nuclear attacks on two cities.
In answer to Goldhagen’s assertion that Eisenhower advised Truman
that the Japanese were defeated and close to surrender, Eisenhower
knew that Germany was defeated in 1944 but did not surrender until
1945. Eisenhower was a General in the European arena. If the opinion
had come from General McArthur it would have carried more weight.
Eisenhower, on the other hand, had no reservations about sending
soldiers who had survived the beaches of Normandy, to fight in the
Pacific. The Editorial staff, Las Vegas Review Journal (2005, August
6), Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary states: “The Japanese had not
surrendered despite losing many more lives through ‘conventional’
warfare than were lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” The Japanese
continued to fight for five days following the Nagasaki bombing;
therefore it seems implausible that the feudal militaristic elite,
sanctioned by the Emperor Hirohito, would have surrendered without a
nuclear attack. The Japanese of Imperial Japan who ordered 100,000
Okinawa’s to commit suicide, would not have been influenced by a small-
facing concession to admit defeat.
There is considerable debate as to whether it was necessary to drop
the largest bomb ever used in warfare. The Editorial staff, New York
Times (1995, August 5), Hiroshima 50 Years Later, opines that Truman’s
approval of these two bombings was to be the most disputed military
decision by any Allied leader in the long war against Germany and
Japan. Only after Franklin Roosevelt’s death in April 1945 did the
untested President even learn of the super-secret “Manhattan
Project”. If Truman didn’t know, Eisenhower most certainly did.
Eisenhower advised Truman that “...the bomb was no longer “mandatory”
or “necessary”; it shifts some of the focus from Truman to Roosevelt,
and begs the question whether or not Eisenhower and Roosevelt
contemplated using the bomb against Germany. If so, we should also
indict Roosevelt, Eisenhower, the scientists who perfected the bomb,
and Colonel Tibbets who dropped it. The editorials deny that Truman
acted out of racism or over-zealous patriotism, nor did Truman act out
of some primordial hatred or “evil” intent. Goldhagen is of the
opinion that Political leaders initiate mass-murders to achieve
political ends. Truman had a political agenda but he did not set out
to commit an “evil” act. On the charge of “retribution,” Goldhagen
has a stronger case. Truman remarked, “the Japanese began the war
from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold.”
However, Roosevelt, who considered the Japanese a greater threat than
Hitler, put it slightly more diplomatically, “It is not who fired the
first shot, it is who fired the last one.”
Goldhagen and the editorials are in agreement on the need for
reflection on the events of sixty-five years ago. However, the
editorials are likely to produce a more moderate analysis on how the
World War II generations and the present generation can reach a
consensus that the unleashing of a disproportionately disastrous bomb
by any international power was a shameful and somber act. There is no
middle ground between Goldhagen’s charge, “the Japanese like the
Germans in Eastern Europe, were wanton, murderous conquerors, doing
anything to subjugate people they deemed racially inferior. Japanese
racism, paralleling the Germans’ produced similar, vast imperialist
aspirations and eliminationist practices,” and the “new” Japan which
was the only nation to contribute $24 million to bring the Khmer Rouge
to justice. Nuclear weapons are such a part of the fabric of modern
life that we forget that they could have fallen into Stalin’s hands
instead of Truman’s. In 1962, had President Kennedy not called
Premier Khrushchev’s bluff over the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United
States might have suffered an annihilationistic nuclear attack. Today
nuclear weapons and their possible use by Iran are the underlying
reasons for Goldhagen’s provocative argument; any other charges are
mere distractions. If an analysis of Truman’s legacy means anything,
it is an opportunity for the world to re-examine why the “national”
interest was set on such a destructive course, not by Truman, but by
the astute and pragmatic politics of President Roosevelt.
Alternate Opinion
Goldhagen is incorrect in saying that Truman failed to consider
another course of action against the Japanese. Kamm (2010) reported
that a document had recently been found in the Library of Congress
shows that in June 1945, Edward Bowles, Senior Aide to Henry Stimson,
Secretary of War under both the Roosevelt and Truman administrations,
commissioned an independent report from William B. Shockley, a future
Nobel Laureate in Physics Using classified Pentagon data and noting
that few Japanese had not surrendered in combat, Shockley concluded
that, “the Japanese dead and ineffectives at the time of defeat will
exceed the number of the Germans. In other words, we shall probably
have to kill at least 5 to 10 million Japanese. This might cost us
between 1.7 to 4 million casualties.” In the euphoric response of the
American people to the end of the war in Europe, Truman was pressured
to end the war in the Pacific. Japan had never been invaded, and not
even the carpet-bombing of Tokyo had reduced their stronghold on the
Pacific Islands. The Emperor, Hirohito urged on the military to
greater tenacity against the “evil of the West”. Why did Goldhagen
not reserve a place in the dock for Hirohito? Could it have been that
Hirohito made no formal decisions but abused his position as a “God”
in acquiescing to everything the Japanese did in his name. At least
Truman was honest enough to say “the buck stops here.”
References
Editorial Staff, Las Vegas Review Journal (2005, August 6). Editorial:
Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/2794069.html
Editorial Staff, New York Times (1995, August 5). Opinion:
Hiroshima, 50 Years Later.
Retrieved March 1, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.html?pagewanted=1
Kamm, O., Times Online (U.K.) (2010, January 18). Roundup: Talking
About History, Oliver Kamm: Truman Myths Again. Retrieved March 2,
2010 from http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/122416.html
Sandy B
Professor E. O’Connell
E1.2/Goldhagen versus Editorials
English 101, Class #3226
March 5, 2010
Misjudging Truman
On July 1945, US president Harry Truman gave orders to drop two
nuclear bombs on the largest cities in Japan Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The atomic bombs killed over 100,000 people in Hiroshima and more than
200,000 people in Nagasaki. By the end of the year, Japan surrendered
after they had lost thousands of its people. After 65 years, the
Americans and others around the world have considered Truman as a
hero. Goldhange does not approve that the ex-president Truman should
be recognized as a hero, more like a mass murderer. He destroyed the
lives of many Japanese in a cruel and unfair way. Goldhange discussed
in Worse Than War in the first chapter that there were many different
ways to defeated Japan in WWII, but in the way that Truman did he did
not have any remorse. Goldhange is not the only person who argues
about the decision that Truman made about the atomic bombs, also
editorial of the New York Times discusses the same argument but he
describe the positives and negatives sides of Truman decision.
Since in the beginning of chapter one Goldhange accuses President
Harry Truman of mass murder by giving the order of the atomic bombs,
but Goldhange seems not to understand that in 1945 the majorities of
the countries around the world were in fear to be invaded by Hitler
and Japan. Goldhange asked the readers a rhetorical question, “What if
Adolf Hitler had dropped a nuclear bomb on a British or American
city?” but he doesn’t claims his own question through the chapter one.
The editorial “Hiroshima, 50 years later” claims, “The U.S. made this
concession after Hiroshima, opening the way to peace,” but Truman was
trying to do the best to end the war with the atomic bombs and bring
peace to the world. The editorial “Hiroshima, 50 years later” claims,
“(the) Secretary of War Henry Stimson” gave the advice and pushed
Truman to make the decision to use the atomic bombs on Japan. Truman
couldn’t refuse to not use the atomic bombs because they plan to use
the atomic bombs on Germany or Japan it was already decided before
President Franklin Roosevelt died.
Truman didn’t have any choice but to let the atomic bombs get drop on
Japan because everybody were desperate to seek the peace. Japan could
have surrender before getting attacked by the atomic bombs, but their
bushido (the way of the samurai) didn’t let them surrender.
Personally, I admire the Japanese that they kept their Japanese code
with pride. Sadly, they were attacked brutally by the atomic bombs. In
other hand, I don’t accused Truman of a mass murder because he didn’t
have other option to bring to an end to the WWII. Plus he had pressure
from everyone around the world to end the war; everybody had hope in
him except the Germans Nazi and the Japanese. Goldhange misjudge
Truman as a mass murder, again Truman didn’t had another option the
atomic bombs were built before he became president. Either way, the
atomic bombs were going to be use if Truman wasn’t president and
Roosevelt hadn’t died.
References:
Editorial Staff, New York Times (1995, August 5). Opinion: Hiroshima,
50 Years
Later. Retrieved March 1, 2010 from
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.html?pagewanted=1.
Goldhagen, Daniel. (2009). Worse than war. NY: Public Affairs.
Keith P.
English 101
Essay 1.2
Instructor: O’ Connell
In the observations of what happened at the perilous end of World War
II, questions have arisen that could make the average living person
wonder whether or not it was okay to eliminate between 110,000 and
200,000 Japanese people. Did Harry S. Truman make the correct
decision in allowing the atomic bombs to be dropped without warning?
Did he really save the American people from any possible future
attacks from the Japanese people? Many editorials actually say yes,
including the Wall Street Journal and the Las Vegas Review Journal.
Both of these editorials claim that Truman was correct in his decision
to eliminate the existence of so many Japanese lives. This is wrong,
however, since violence only breeds more violence, and even the basic
of morals would state that killing anyone is an unforgivable crime.
We should all be striving to end wars, not just use a war in
justification of anyone.
The Las Vegas Journal states that “Truman used what he had, and today,
because of his decision, millions more Americans and Japanese --
including children and grandchildren of soldiers and civilians who
would have died in the autumn war of 1945 -- are alive, and free. It
was the right call.” This leads to the belief that it is okay, in
fact, to murder one race to save another. It is, however, unethical
and wrong to believe this. Goldhagen, in his book “Worse than War”,
basically asks if the human race is violent and if they have the
capacity to have willpower even in the extreme cases of violence. The
editorials should probably answer this question first before deciding
who is or isn’t right in this matter. Another quote from the Las
Vegas Journal states that “Once this nation had been dragged into
World War II, was it necessary to drop two atomic bombs on Japan --
the first of them 60 years ago, today -- to end that war? No, it was
not.” The author of this editorial has contrasted his own claim
aforementioned. Why would someone go through the trouble of saying
“no” when they really mean to say “yes”? It entirely questions the
credibility of the editorial, and misleads anyone reading it,
regardless of its length. The Wall Street Journal states that
“Nuclear weapons are often said to pose a unique threat to humanity,
and in the wrong hands they do. But when President Truman gave the go-
ahead to deploy Fat Man and Little Boy, what those big bombs chiefly
represented was salvation: salvation for young Lt. Fussell and all the
GIs; salvation for the tens of thousands of Allied POWs the Japanese
intended to execute in the event of an invasion; salvation for the
grotesquely used Korean "comfort women"; salvation for millions of
Asians enslaved by the Japanese.” Salvation-how is it represented by
killing one or many people? It is morally wrong to kill people, and
it chains itself to kill more and more. Truman would be no better
than Hitler or Stalin with the available weaponry, seeing as Hitler
would have claimed “salvation” for the Nazis and Germans, and Stalin
would have claimed the same for the Russians.
To continue the last statement mentioned, the definition of salvation
is “act of saving from harm” or “means of saving somebody or
something”. To say that what Truman did met either of these
definitions is to say that Hitler, Stalin, or any other person tagged
with “mass murder” did the same thing for the people they were trying
to protect. However, this is merely a bias dependent on where those
people lived (i.e. Germans for Hitler, Iraqi for Saddam Hussein,
etc.) We need to find a better means of solving problems, even if
they happen to becoming actively violent. One suggestion would be to
simple-STOP the wars. While this is easier said than done, let’s take
a look at a statement made by someone who actually witnessed World War
II: “I witnessed World War II and know what the word "war" means.Wars
kill a lot of people for nothing. It is a very high price. No one
country wins wars. Not in one country is life better after the war.
We can never return the killed children, elderly and soldiers.”
Granted, this was written in response to a controversial act of our
current president Barack Obama, but the meaning is unchanged for a
better way of solving arguments. In addition, we are more advanced
in every means possible than we were 200, no-even only 20 years ago.
No excuses should be present for the inability to provide a better
future for the generations to come.
Sandy B
eliz medrano
English 101 / #3226
March 5th, 2010
Essay # 2
Word Count: 984
Studying Eliminationism, Past and Present Thought
In his interview with Joanna Myers, Goldhagen seems not definite about
his response when questioned regarding whether the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki would fall under his category of eliminationism
and if his proposal, of offering bounties on the president for
allowing these droppings would apply for those acts. While he agrees,
“I think this is a form of eliminationism.” He does not clearly answer
the question, at least not as “fair” as he claims his style is.
Additionally, while one ca n agree that this was an eliminationist
tactic or policy to force Japan to surrender we can not overlook that
during the time of the war it was known that Japan was nearing that
stage. So, should the use of the atomic bombs have happened?
Further, no one, neither Goldhagen nor the editorials on the
anniversary of the droppings mention that aside from these
deployments, which resulted in thousands and thousands of deaths and
massive destruction of these cities, these also caused major lasting
and continuous damage to their respective inhabitants given the
radiation power of the bombs. One can then conclude, as in “Worse
than War,” that it was not only the act of using weapons of mass
destruction for killing, but that the impacts and subsequent
obliteration need to be discussed as part of a real and honest
analysis and lesson learning of history as well as for the development
of effective policies to eradicate eliminationist, as Goldhagen
suggests. And furthermore, while we can agree with the need of
specific and steps towards lessening the need to recur to
eliminationist attacks it is not a given that Goldhagen’s proposal for
systematic change can function radically if part of the proposal is a
call to kill the killers.
As described in the editorial pieces on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and
comparing it with Goldhagen’s field work experience with perpetrators
in Rwanda, and other places, in order to attack another person or
people there is a needed component of the dehumanization of the other
so that the attack can take place. This in short can be called
brainwashing and manipulation, which can manifest itself in the form
of racism or other forms of oppression— the prejudice against and
about others that fuels and facilitates executing the crime. For the
young soldiers participating in WWII the drive was the idea that the
Japanese were fighting to the last man, that they were killers and
that they used other people and countries as slaves. The idea of being
the saviors, the ones helping to end the war surely was in mind as
well. So, the good guys against evil even if it meant doing bad
things. Ideas or messages like these give way to thinking of having
the “right” to, in this case “… deploy Fat Man and Little Boy,…” [and
think that] “…what those bombs chiefly represented was salvation…”
And while lines need to be drawn, as Goldhagen suggests, to identify
when is enough, there is also the need to realize that if a country is
attacked most likely it will respond, should it count with
infrastructure, and that this can not be used or automatically the
basis to excuse to proceed with the killing.
Further, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki editorials and Goldhagen fail to
look at the bomb deployments as examples of the fervor driving not
only Truman, but the U.S. and its population, or that generation, to
carry on with that order were blinded by the actual horrors of war and
the continuous fighting people could not and can not think or reason
and where killing breeds killing, and where people are unable or do
not want to analyze if acts are appropriate or necessary. To this day,
sadly, similar thinking goes on everyday. Probably not as public or
extreme as urging to drop a bomb on a country, but certainly in the
form of feeling the righteousness of knowing who is to be punished,
how to be the first and most powerful, or who the enemies of this
country are or as the editorials point out, “We need bunker busters
because North Korea and Iran are using underground facilities to build
weapons that threaten us, and we must be able credibly to threaten in
return.”
In order to ever gain any support or interest toward changing the ways
of thinking that would allow for the eventual elimination of all forms
of eliminationism and result in saving lives, we must begin by not
only understanding the root causes, as Goldhagen suggests, but first
by committing to completely avoid the utilization of similar tactics
used by eliminationist. In other words, if there is a call to the
killing of the killers idea, then there is a perpetuation of the
same. Violence breeds violence and it would be as if there was no
record of historical learning process. Second, in order to suppress
the urges for eliminationist policies we need as a people, in the U.S.
and the world, and beginning here in this country, to make that a
priority by developing programs that are integrated to school
curriculum, eliminating violent games and machines that are marketed
to children, supporting parents to better support their children and
raise them in ways that prevent violence, etc. And most importantly
call ourselves out before anyone or other countries. There is much to
change here and to take on drastic change and culture change one needs
to begin at home. Home can be defined as the place we live in, an
apartment or house, it can be interpreted as the city, but most mainly
as the country where we live in sand begin by addressing issues here
prior to going out to study others and identify others’ recipes for
change. Change then, begins at home and leading by example speaks more
that a million words and more than a million policies.
Jiwon Nam
English 101 #3226
Prof. O Connell
E.1.2
3/5/2010
Goldhagen’s [Worse than War] starts its chapter by addressing Harry
Truman as a mass murderer. [Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary] and
[Hiroshima: Nuclear weapons, then and now] editorials justifies
Truman’s decision to authorize the atomic bomb attacks on Japan during
World War ll. Editorials are wrong because Harry Truman’s decision was
a self-centered choice that he made which was not right. Moreover,
detonating bombs to sputter 2 cities with thousands of people is not a
salvation act, and it is absurd to rationalize such behavior by
contrasting on whom has started the act of aggression. Japan would
have defeated even without the bomb being present which concludes that
detonating atomic bombs wasn’t necessary in the first place.
Editorial [Hiroshima bombing anniversary] claims that “Truman made a
tough call – but the right one.” Truman did made a choice but it was
neither tough nor right. It was selfish and fast way of concluding the
World War ll. He stood firm as a rock to win over Japan with the power
he had rather than persuading them or negotiating options. He made an
egoistic decision which was wrong that cost Japan lots of innocent
lives. Editorial [Hiroshima: Nuclear weapons, then and now.] claims
that “if we're going to reflect seriously about the bomb, we ought
first to think about it as they did.” Eye-for-an-eye conception laid
behind this belief is wrong because there is a difference between self-
defense and excessive self-defense. The act of bombing was a not act
of self-defense, but rather extreme measure of aggressive payback
which literally eliminated thousands of people. Therefore it can’t be
humanely justified by simply comparing acts of responsibility.
Editorial also expresses that “what those big bombs chiefly
represented was salvation,” but that’s wrong because how the act of
eliminating more than quarter of million people with dropping atomic
bombs could be called as a salvation act? Harry Truman was not Hitler,
but he was not acting in salvation either. No matter what reasons the
editorial praise his decision for, the act of detonating bombs
destroyed 2 cities with permanent nuclear damage and took away lives
of 300,000 people in total. Truman might be a savior for those
American soldiers who won the war exchange to the lives of men, women,
and children – civilians, but not for those who suffered and still
suffers from the bombing that happened 65 years ago.
Even regarding to the noble causes that led to Truman’s decision,
detonating bombs on people consist of civilians was unnecessary.
Moreover, one bomb is disincentive enough to have gotten Truman the
goal that he wanted to accomplish. Was it really necessary to
completely annihilate 2 cities? This alternative opinion is supported
by the suffering that numerous people including children went through
which some are still suffering from. It was disastrous to those that
died, but also fatal to those who have managed to survive the atomic
bomb. Additionally, even if the war had taken a while longer and more
people were hurt, Japan would have defeated with or without the bomb.
People might suffer from the extension of the war, but at least they
wouldn’t be inflicted by the irreversible assault on humanity which
consequences are worse than war. This opinion is supported by
Goldhagen at [Worse than War] when he mentions Dwight Eisenhower
saying “I voiced to him [Secretary of War Henry Stimson] my grave
misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already
defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.”
Therefore, atomic bombs were excessive step to take in the first
place.
Laura C.
Laura Cortes
English 101 Section 3226
Professor O’Connell
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is considered by many to be one
of the worst acts perpetrated by the United States. Somehow trying to
justify the use of weapons of mass destruction to stop a war can only
be considered utterly ridiculous. Many can argue that the Japanese had
it coming after what they did to us in Pearl Harbor and furthermore
they argue that if the bombings hadn’t occurred, far more people would
have died in the long run. But how can anyone truly justify murdering
so many innocent people to end a war? It is true that we cannot
compare President Truman to the likes of Hitler, or even consider
punishing him the way Hitler would have most likely been punished if
he hadn’t committed suicide. But the fact of the matter is, whether we
want to admit it or not, Truman was a mass murderer. He used
unnecessary measures to force Japan to surrender and just like in any
genocide or mass murder it was merely done in order to gain the upper
hand. In this day and age, young Americans born long after WWII
usually view the bombings as a horrifying means to an end and quite
simply wrong, but on the other side of the spectrum, older Americans
who lived and participated in the war itself feel grateful that
something was done in order for them to live. Regardless of either
view, murdering innocent people that have nothing to do with the war
besides being from the enemy country is still wrong, no matter how you
want to put it.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal agrees with Truman’s decision to use the
bombings as a way to end the war. Just like most articles that discuss
this particular topic, usually the same excuses are explained to make
the reader understand why it was that it came down to such a drastic
measure. An example of such an excuse would be, “President Harry
Truman could have continued the de facto submarine blockade of food
imports into the Japanese Islands, and the ongoing firebombing of
Japanese cities with B-29s, for months or years. Millions more
Japanese would have died.” The use of regular bombs and starvation to
win a war was a pretty cold tactic to us in order to gain control over
the enemy, but trying to make it seem as though it is somehow
drastically worse, than say, dropping 2 nuclear weapons on
unsuspecting innocent victims is quite frankly preposterous. In war it
must be difficult to determine which action will ultimately cost more
lives in the end. The problem here wasn’t the fact that this war
produced deaths, it was the fact that the people murdered weren’t
voluntary participants in the war, they were merely innocent
bystanders punished for their leaders not surrendering when they were
told to. Hundreds of thousands of lives were destroyed in order to
save millions. At that moment President Truman felt as though he had
the authority to literally murder thousands upon thousands of regular
civilians without ever fearing any sort of reprimand from the
international community. He got away “scott free”. Exchanging one form
of punishment for another was not a valid excuse to drop the bombs.
The justification for this particular act is always the same; Truman
did what he had to in order to save the most lives as possible. Of
course it is always clarified that it wasn’t just American lives that
were saved that day, it was also the lives of countless Japanese
people. It’s difficult to fathom he actually sat and considered the
lives of those on the other side when he did what he did. In this
particular article they make sure to note that the dropping of the
bombs was not an act of racism, “It was not used out of racism -- the
atomic bomb was originally developed for use against Germany.” Saying
such a thing still doesn’t clarify how dropping a nuclear bomb is
somehow okay in any situation. It isn’t comforting to know that if the
German’s didn’t get it someone else would. Who cares about it
potentially being viewed as a racist attack, it obviously wasn’t the
main issue that made and sadly still continues to make people angry
even to this day. Any person with common sense realizes that this
wasn’t a race attack, so including it in an article to make Truman’s
decision look like the correct one is simply mistaken.
With war it is never an easy task to immediately determine the
outcome. The fact of the matter is, the strategies used are many and
they are constantly changed during each new stage of the battle. As
much as one side tries to reason and justify what happened to the
people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it will always be a daunting task to
convince anyone that it was truly the only way to end the war quickly
and with a less amount of deaths possible. In this instance I can
agree with Goldhagen classifying this particular act as a form of
“eliminationism”. Truman was never seen as a monster and Americans
would never want to face the reality that he was in fact a mass
murderer, but he was. The first chapter of Worse than War starts off
by using the bombings as an example of genocide, even though it has
never been officially referred as such. Goldhagen states on the first
page of his book, “Upon learning of the first bomb’s annihilation of
Hiroshima, Truman was jubilant, announcing that “this is the greatest
thing in history.” He then followed up in Nagasaki with a second
“greatest thing.” It is hard to understand how any right-thinking
person could fail to call slaughtering Japanese mass murder.” How
could anyone ignore such a thing a statement? No truly sane person
could find the horrific death of thousands of people as a “great thing
in history.” This article is ignores such small details. The
explanations on how Truman made “the right call” are vague and
unconvincing. If they truly want to convince anyone that nuclear bombs
were the only last resort, they need to explain with greater detail
how it really led up to such a drastic and terrible decision.
Review-Journal, The Las Vegas. (2006). Editorial: Hiroshima Bombing
Anniversary. Truman made a tough call -- but the right one , Retrieved
from http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/2794069.html