e 1.2
Scott Z
Mr. O Connell
English 101 - 3226
Mar 5, 2010
Essay e1.2
On August 5th 2005, 60 years after the bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, the Wall Street Journal did an article on the occasion. They
aimed to defend President Harry S. Truman’s decision of dropping the
atomic bombs and the hundreds of thousands of deaths that resulted
from the explosion itself and the resultant fallout over the next two
months. Daniel Johan Goldhagen, in his book Worse Than War (2009)
aims to put President Truman’s decision in its proper context, which
is one of genocide. Once all the factors are analyzed, one can see how
there was no moral or militaristic reason to drop two atomic bombs and
annihilate the citizens of two cities. While the atomic bomb may have
been needed to some extent, the fact that it was used to the extent
that it was demonstrates something far beyond a necessary military
step.
In the Wall Street Journal they stated what they believed the atomic
bomb represented in the context of World War 2, “ 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 bombs represented was salvation… salvation
for the tens of thousands of Allied POWs the Japanese intended to
execute in the event of an invasion… salvation for millions of Asians
enslaved by the Japanese.” While this may be the case - the war with
the Japanese did end a week after the first bomb was dropped - the
atomic bomb could have been used in different ways. The fact that the
bomb was dropped a second time, on Nagasaki, is entirely beyond
explanation. President Truman did not offer surrender to the Japanese
after the first bomb was dropped, proven by the amount of time that
intervened between bombings, 3 days. The fact that the deaths of
60,000 to 80,000 deaths of Japanese civilians could have been
prevented and the war still ended was ignored. What was needed was
shock value, to shock the Japanese into surrender. This could have
been accomplished without killing any Japanese civilians. President
Truman could have had the bomb dropped in an area much less populated
than Hiroshima, one that was more militaristic in function. This could
have been followed by a warning that more bombs would have been
dropped in more populated areas unless the Japanese surrendered. The
Wall Street Journal further states, “ Looking back after 60 years, who
cannot be grateful that it was Truman who had the bomb, and not Hitler
or Tojo or Stalin? That is the enduring lesson of Hiroshima, and it is
one that we ignore at our own peril.” The fact that they seek to
justify the deaths due to the outcome, and not analyze it in terms of
deaths that could have been prevented and ways it could have been
accomplished differently is narrow minded to say the least. This
mentality of “any means necessary” and “at any cost” has moved further
into other wars and served to justify unnecessary deaths as well.
Goldhagen puts the bombings in their proper context and assigns the
blame as it is due, “The willful slaughter of more than a quarter
million people, in full view of the world, should be recognized for
what it was, causing the label ‘mass murderer’ to be affixed to
Truman’s name. “ Truman cannot be considered to be less than this
because of the extent he took the attack, and the fact that it was
unwarranted. Also when it is considered that these two Japanese cites
were not militaristic in any capacity it is seen that this did not
serve a strictly militaristic purpose itself but went further.
Goldhagen develops the point, “ That Truman’s nuclear incineration
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not invariably and prominently listed
among our time’s mass murders points us to one of the acute problems -
aside from truthfulness – confounding our understanding: the problem
of definition. How should we define mass murder so that we do not
misconstrue it?” Defining what constitutes mass murder is necessary
for it to be prevented. And defining Truman’s decision to drop the
atomic bombs as mass murder is necessary to help prevent any
justification of future mass murders. When a military action aims to
kill civilians, especially a great number, we must define it as
murder.