President Truman, who as a senator from Missouri and as vice president under Roosevelt did not even know about the Manhattan Project (the project to build a nuclear atomic bomb), learned of the atomic bomb in a meeting with Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson on April 25, 1945, two weeks after President Roosevelt’s death. His first response was to appoint a small committee, known as the Interim Committee, to advise him on the use of atomic weapons in the war and the immediate postwar era. Its members included Stimson and seven others: George Harrison, an insurance executive who was a special assistant to Stimson; James Byrnes, a presidential advisor and soon secretary of state; Ralph Bard, undersecretary of the Navy; William Clayton, assistant secretary of state; Vannevar Bush, president of the Carnegie Institution in Washington; Karl Compton, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and James Conant, president of Harvard University. They were advised by a Scientific Panel, made up of four persons who had played leading roles in the Manhattan Project: Enrico Fermi of Columbia University; Arthur H. Compton of the University of Chicago; Ernest Lawrence of the University of California at Berkeley; and Robert Oppenheimer, director of the atomic energy research project at Los Alamos, New Mexico.The chair of the Interim Committee and the author of the document I would like you to read was Stimson. Born in 1867 in New York City and a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School, Stimson had a distinguished career as a lawyer and public servant. Having served as secretary of war under President Taft and secretary of state under President Hoover, he was named secretary of war by the Democratic president Roosevelt in 1940, despite being a Republican. In 1947, after his retirement form public service and less than three years before his death in 1950, he published the article “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb” in Harper’s Magazine. It focuses on the work of the Interim Committee and the reasons why Stimson advised President Truman to drop the bombs on Japan without warning. You can read excerpts from this article by clicking here.
After reading excerpts from the article, I would like you to think about and discuss the following: How did the background and specific purposes of the Manhattan Project affect decision making in 1945? For those who supported the immediate use of the bombs, what specific goals did they hope to achieve? How was the choice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as targets related to these goals? How seriously does it appear that views opposing the use of atomic weapons were considered by the Interim Committee and Stimson? Why did they ultimately reject such views? What were Stimson’s views of the nature of war? How did his views affect his decision to support the immediate use of the atomic bombs? Your thoughts…
15 comments:
Ha, I love how he says that he never heard anyone SAY that atomic bombs would not be used. Try actually bringing it up in a conversation once in a while! They were also afraid the Germans were ahead of them in the atomic bomb business. He also says that he spoke to Roosevelt before hand! Liar! Stimson makes it seem like they had a responsibility to drop the bomb! He even tries to say that only toal destruction of Japan can lead to peace! That the war would have continued if they hadn't! The targets were supposed to be military installations or war plants.
Were Hiroshima or Nagasaki either of those Mr. Prill?
Stimson sees war and death as the same thing, as if one cannot exist without the other. He aslo called it "The secind World War".
Is this when ppl starting calling this WW2 Mr Prill?
For a cold war reading I recommend WATCHMEN! There's an awesome essay Rorscach wrote when he was 13 years old saying that he was glad the bomb was dropped because more ppl would have died if it hadn't. It reminded me of this document.
It seems atomic weapons were initially developed because of interest and possibility, then when others, especially enemies, heard of this power, were AFRAID, and worked to create bigger, better, more powerful ones. This is just like the development of guns, u-boats, etc. In fear of the enemy we create more horrifying things to push us up...and it is just a cycle, back and forth, until we are friends, or one side is dead...or maybe better yet, both are.
They wanted to immediately bomb Japan, but what suprises me now is that they said, "It should be used on a dual target — that is,
a military installation or war plant surrounded
by or adjacent to houses and other
buildings most susceptible to damage..." If they wanted to bomb a military place, why did they bomb a town...? And around houses for damage? I don't understand their reasoning!? This seems like ultra-revenge to me. They thought a warning demonstration "impractical," with a short amount of bombs and difficulity. Did they know the true size and damage it would cause with just one test in the desert? How can dummy's be a substitue to test lives. How did they not think of emotions and the horrors they could cause to people? They must have. Yet, how could they still release the bomb. BOTH of them. They said it would end the war sooner. Don't we have documents saying they were already planning out the surrender? Alright, so they had at least planned it out so they were hitting very war-involved areas, which is better than simple culture and art-filled areas. At the end, he states over and over again that this ended the war. It had to happen to end the war.
...apparently it did not need to, if Japan was already planning to surrender. That may could have been altered... but I am left just confused and horrified.
the committee thought the warning of the bomb carefully, but they were rejected because that was not effective enough to make japan surrender. Stimson used to think war as something of a game before the dropping of a bomb, but i think he regrets it near the end of the document. He thought the bomb would shock japan and make it surrender quickly so less lives would be lost(thats just wrong here).
Mr Prill
Were Jews being taken to concentration camps ever taken through the streets of Germany for the public to see?
Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki major Japanese war areas or something?
Is this about the time ppl were begining to call this World War Two?
real quick answers to your questions... the germans really were intent on keeping the concentration camp system tight lipped, at least in terms of what was really happening there... most knew of them but considered them to be simple labor camps... i'd have to do some further research on being dragged through the streets...
hiroshima and nagasaki were most definitely not major war areas during the war, that's exactly why they were chosen in the end, so the damage of the a-bombs could be clearly seen...
people are calling this wwii throughout the war...
WHAT THE HECK!? THIS MAKES ME SAY NOT-SO-NICE THINGS ABOUT THE UNITED STATES.
THAT ->[(1) The bomb should be used against Japan as
soon as possible.
(2) It should be used on a dual target — that is,
a military installation or war plant surrounded
by or adjacent to houses and other
buildings most susceptible to damage, and
(3) It should be used without prior warning [of
the nature of the weapon].] IS ABSURD. AHH!
they were actually concern that it would not cause enough destruction and not be effective enough. that's probably why they planned two right? i don't get it. what happened to peaceful discussions and being rational?
i have no further comments. i am INFURIATED at the moment. that is all.
After reading the document, the first thing that stuck out to me was the fact that a bunch of scientists and scholars were making military tactic suggestions. That just made me think because none of these people had been to Japan or seen any Japanese civilians and probably had no idea what was actually going on overseas. I just think that the military generals and the president and possibly even congress should have had a part in this decision that way the American citizens could have had a say in the decision. Although I'm not really sure that would have made a difference.
Oh by the way I have a cool story about the atomic bomb that lets you know a little more about the level of secrecy. My great uncle was in the navy during WWII and he was on put in charge of guarding a large box on one of the air craft carriers. There were three men who had to sit on the box 24/7 so they could take turns sleeping. There was a yellow and a red line painted around the box. Their orders were to warn anyone who stepped inside the yellow line and to shoot anyone who stepped inside the red line. The box contained the first atomic bomb and they had no idea what was inside. This story makes me think that only a small percentage of the military new about the plan for the a-bomb. This was an order from the top and the vast majority of the American government and military probably had know idea what was going on.
GREAT story mr. nash... thanks for sharing
Nothing seems right in Season 5... Nothing is black and white.
It is clear that the use of the atomic bomb was unnecessary, in the U.S. Strategic boming Report. the original purpose of the bomb was to shorten the war, and according to the Strategic Report, the bombs shortened the war by only months... The U.S. wanted to develop an atomic bomb before the Germans. The destruction of these cities would cause "tremendous shock", and they believed the emperor would surrender. The opposition seems to have been largely ignored. The idea which a dud in showing the bomb to the Japanese would be "damaging" toward surrender, is flawed. Would the Japanese not be more mad if they were not warned and a dud landed on Hiroshima? Stimson said, "The face of war is the face of death." This document contradicts the U.S. Strategic Bombing Report in every sense. The truth is that the use of the bomb was unnecessary in winning the war. What is interesting is that the very men that made the atomic-bomb soon resented what they had done. Oppenheimer was one of the leading voices of dissent, as were other scientists. But who's going to listen to a bunch of scientists? Right? They were unorganized and failed to capture the nation's attention. "Who cares, the war is over!" was the attittude. Oppenheimer quoted the Bhagavad-Gita, "Now I am Death, destroyer of worlds," in response to the test in New Mexico. You can watch this statement here: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/Movie8.shtml
You can tell Oppenheimer is extremely disillusioned and guilty.
"The Decision to Use the Bomb" hides much information. The use of the bombs can not be excused.
The Strategic Bombing Report does not match up. It states that Hirohito was preparing for surrender at any cost, but this could not proceed due to the Potsdam Conference. In this doc, it states the Japanese refused to surrender when given the choice at the Potsdam Conference. Could you please shed some light on this?
yeah, at potsdam all that was really done regarding japan is that we laid out the terms of surrender and that it must be unconditional... it was actually at potsdam that truman had been notified that the bomb had been tested in the new mexico desert and that it worked... in reality, and i'm quoting from a notable source here, "truman knew of japanese efforts to end the war, but with the atomic bomb he could now end the conflict on his own terms and keep the soviet union out of post-war japan."
The document states that the motivation for creating the atomic bomb was not only to end the war, but also because they felt that the Germans were ahead of them because they were the first to achieve atomic fission.
What bothered me about this document was
(2) It should be used on a dual target — that is,
a military installation or war plant surrounded
by or adjacent to houses and other
buildings most susceptible to damage, and
(3) It should be used without prior warning [of
the nature of the weapon
For one thing, they dropped the bomb on a city. Not a military base. In fact, they dropped it on TWO cities. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed. Not once, but TWICE. And i dont get why they didnt warn the japanese. It would have been so much nicer to give a warning instead of surprising civilians by vaporizing the hell out of them.
Hm... i have got to say... Taking this class really changes my perspective of the world.
I wish the guy heard what he was saying. Yeah, he has the right to freedom of speech but... it's so annoying, it pisses me off. Yeah, we have the huge responsibility of an atomic bomb in our hands. Yeah, if didn't create it first, someone else would have but... U.S.? The land of the free and home of the brave? It lets me down hard, yes, we were at war, it must have been done. We never learn do we? Or when we do, we learn the bad things like "drugs" in life, and that's what America did. Right?
it seems like most of this information is lies, he makes it seems like Japan's military bases are a threat and to end make and make peace they must annilitate those areas. but this was not their intentions for the bomb, instead it was used on the inncent victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I am constantly reminded by the picture of the Japanese child crouching down after the bomob crying in the rubble.
And also, thanks for sharing your story Coty, that's very interesting
haha thats funny how he is denyin that he knew atomics would be used. and i love how he says that if u destroy all of japan then it will lead to peace? yeah cuz there was alot of peace going on after they only bombed two cities, so how could it make peace? exactly it wouldnt! Stimson says that war and death are the same thing and i actually see a little bit of reasoning in that cuz u lose ur whole life that u used to have before u went to war and nothin will ever be the same for u
Post a Comment