“To save half a million American lives” – To what extent was this the main

reason for the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

On August 6th, 1945, in Hiroshima, a city relatively unscathed by World War 2,

70,000 people were annihilated within 1 minute. As Radio Tokyo stated:

“practically all living things-human and animal-were literally seared to death”.

This was caused by the first atomic bomb dropped on a civilian population, a

particularly vicious bomb which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of

civilians. Even today people are suffering from the effects of the atomic bomb,

making the reason for why America dropped the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima

and Nagasaki a contentious, emotive and especially relevant issue which sparks

debate even now; not only did these two bombs kills hundreds of thousands of

people but their effect on the World can be felt even today. This essay will be

looking at why the atomic bombs were dropped: was it to save ‘500,000

American lives’, to stop the spread of Communism in Asia, so the cost of the

Manhattan project could be justified, due to racism and revenge for Pearl

Harbour or so Truman could assert his masculinity?

The main historical approach is that the bomb was dropped to

save, as Truman put it, “half a million American lives” 1. Although US Historian

Walker clearly agrees with this, he disagrees with the figures “There was no

evidence that he received information...an invasion...would cost...500,000”2.

However, he does concede the bomb was used primarily to save lives “Primary 1 Truman, Harry, 1955, 1945 My year of decisions: Memoirs by Harry S. Truman, Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company pp. 4172 Walker, J. Samuel, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of the bombs against Japan, pp.39

1 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

objective...always been to win the war…at the lowest cost in American lives3 ”.

This is in direct contrast to another historian, Takaki, who clearly believes that

although the bomb was used to save lives it was by no way the most influential

reason “the United States didn’t use the atomic bomb simply to end the war and

thereby save American lives4”.

Walker argues that the sinking of the USS Indianapolis in July 1945,

killing 880 young Americans5 clearly would have prayed on Truman’s mind

considerably. Truman had been in the Missouri National Service through World

War 1, and so he would have also felt fraternally towards Americans in the war

and although the “hundreds of thousands” was a fabrication, as agreed by Takaki

and Walker, the US had still lost many thousands in the war hitherto.

As well as this, according to Alonzo Hamby, the US was confused about

Japan’s willingness to surrender. Though they received news of “The Emperor’s

telegram” drafted by the Japanese Foreign Office, asking Stalin to receive Prince

Konoye on a mission regarding termination of the war (indicating they were ready

to surrender), they were also intercepting telegrams from between Japanese

Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo and Ambassador Naotake Sato in Moscow,

which led them to believe the opposite was true.6

Also, Truman in his memoirs wrote “It was their (the committee)

recommendation that the bomb be used against the enemy…It was their

3 Walker, J. Samuel, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of the bombs against Japan, pp.924 Takaki, Ronald, 1995, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, USA: Little, Brown and Company, pp.525 Walker, J. Samuel, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of the bombs against Japan, pp.746 http://www.historytoday.com/MainArticle.aspx?m=10040&amid=10040

2 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

conclusion that no technical demonstration…would be likely to bring the war to

an end’”7. This outlines how Truman wanted to drop the bomb as the quickest

way to end the war, which would have of course saved American lives.

However, this argument is certainly flawed. Walker argues that Truman

had been affected by the sinking of the USS Indianapolis, however Truman

mentioned it no where in his memoirs or diary, indicating it didn’t play a large

factor in Truman’s decision making.

Furthermore, Truman’s memoirs are unlikely to be objective because they

were written by Truman himself, and he had to make it appear as though he had

done the right thing. His memoirs were first published in 1955, when the atomic

bomb was still fresh in many people’s minds, and most people were still active

and alive who had been involved in the Manhattan Project.

Finally, at a meeting held at the White House on Monday,

18 June 1945, Truman received specific information that casualties “should not

exceed Luzon”, which was sited as “31,000”8. This certainly undermines

Truman’s claim he wanted to save “500,000”, and makes it hard to trust anything

written in Truman’s memoirs. It was also generally accepted that an invasion of

the Home island, starting at Kyushu9, was extremely unlikely10 (the US

government knew that the Japanese most probably would not last until

November 1).

7 Truman, Harry, 1965, 1945 My year of decisions: Memoirs by Harry S. Truman, USA, Signet books; The New American Library of World Literature, pp.4628 http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/pre-cold-war/hiroshima-nagasaki/white-house-meeting-1_1945-06-18.htm9 Southern most point of mainland Japan10 Walker, J. Samuel, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of the bombs against Japan, pp.5

3 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

Many historians believe that the atomic bomb was used predominantly to

induce the end of the Pacific War before the USSR could become involved and

spread Communism throughout Asia. Professor Ronald Takaki clearly supports

this view, stating that the bomb was linked to Russian expansionism and that

because Russia had promised to join the war three months after May 7, and the

U.S invasion of Japan was scheduled for November 1, the US would have to end

the war before “Russia would have declared war against Japan and would have

leverage at the peace table. Everything depended on the atomic bomb test

scheduled for July 16”11. This clearly shows that Takaki felt an important reason

the bomb was used was to prevent Russian “leverage at the peace table” which

would have aided the spread of Communism in Asia. Takaki supports this,

quoting: “Russia was our enemy, and the project was conducted on that basis”12

and though he later places undue emphasis on racism as the major factor, his

statements about preventing Russian expansion is clearly valid.

However, J. Samuel Walker clearly disagrees, “As an added incentive,

using the bomb might provide diplomatic benefits”13. He downgrades the role of

the USSR as simply an additional, not particularly important “bonus”14; “Truman’s

11 Takaki, Ronald, 1995, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, USA: Little, Brown and Company, pp.6512 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.6513 Walker, J. Samuel, 1997, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of the bombs against Japan, USA: The University of North Carolina Press, pp.9414 Walker, J. Samuel, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of the bombs against Japan, pp.95

4 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

foremost consideration in using the bomb immediately was not used to frustrate

Soviet ambitions in Asia or to show off the bomb”.15

However, both these historians seem to ignore USSR-USA relations

before Potsdam, which had been contentious at best. Prior to Potsdam, Harry

Hopkins had been sent to Moscow from 26 May-6 June 1945, to discuss some of

the issues between the USSR and USA. Here it became evident of the rift

between the USA and USSR, which was clear evidence that there was little

chance of a post-war relationship between USA and USSR16 (contrary Walker’s

statement: “he [Truman] and Byrnes17 still hoped that they could get along with

Stalin in the post-war era”18). Their relationship during World War 2 (known as

‘the uneasy alliance’) was borne out of necessity to prevent Hitler.

Furthermore, neither Takaki nor Walker even mention the USA’s

involvement in the 1919-1921 Russian Civil war19; an attempt by the Americans

to usurp the Bolsheviks, which would have led to undeniable tension and lack of

cohesion between the two countries long before the outbreak of war.

Clearly, the decision to use the atomic bomb would have been massively

affected by the earlier tensions that the USSR and USA had had before the war.

One historian who favours the view that the atomic bombs were dropped

on Hiroshima to prevent Russian expansion is Gar Alperovitz, who argues that

the Americans dropped the bomb because they didn’t want to wait and find out if

15 Walker, J. Samuel, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of the bombs against Japan, pp.9516 US Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, The Conference of Berlin, I, reprinted in LaFeber [94], pp. 62-6417 US Secretary of State 1945-4718 Walker, J. Samuel, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of the bombs against Japan, pp.9519 Gaddis, John Lewis, The Cold War, London: the Penguin group, pp. 87

5 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

a Russian invasion would end the war as expected; they didn’t want Russian

involvement in Japan at all, thus dropping the bomb was not done to end the war

and save lives, but to try and make the Japanese surrender before the Russians

could join: “a Russian declaration of war seemed likely to precipitate surrender

without an invasion. Although the United States had desperately wanted

Russian participation in the war only a few weeks earlier, Japanese power had

so deteriorated that U.S decision makers actively sought ways to avoid or slow

down a Soviet declaration”.20

If the USA had wanted to simply end the war quickly and save lives, they

would have allowed Russia to remain in the Potsdam Proclamation21, cementing

their place in the war. However, they instead chose to cut the Russians out,

indicating strongly that the USA didn’t want them in the war. This view is further

supported by Alperovitz’s statement: “U.S officials had gotten so caught up in the

idea that once demonstrated the bomb would be important diplomacy toward

Russia that when evidence of Japanese willingness to surrender came in, they

could not or would not act upon it”22. Clearly the fact that the bomb could be

used in regards to Russia overrode all other issues; the Americans were

unwilling at this point to seek another way to end the war as they had to use the

bomb to end the war as quickly as possible and thus prevent the Russians

joining in.

20 Alperovitz, Gar, Atomic Diplomacy Hiroshima and Potsdam: The Use of the Atomic bomb and the Confrontation with Soviet Power, pp.2521 On the recommendation of Secretary of State Byrnes, Russia was excluded from the Potsdam declaration, as it would have indicated to the Japanese that any hopes of the USSR staying out of the war was an illusion.22 Alperovitz, Gar, Atomic Diplomacy Hiroshima and Potsdam: The Use of the Atomic bomb and the Confrontation with Soviet Power, pp.9

6 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

Concerns about the USSR must have played an integral role in the

decision to use the bomb; their opposing ideologies meant that neither could get

along long-term. Furthermore, Truman wrote in his diary “believe Japs will fold

up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over

their homeland”23, which indicates that at the very least Truman was presuming

the bomb would prevent Russian involvement. To prevent Russian expansion in

Asia clearly was the most significant reason why Truman dropped the atomic

bomb.

Revenge and racism against the Japanese is another factor considered

for why the bomb was dropped; it’s a factor considered by Walker and Takaki

considers it the main reason, though it was clearly not as important as containing

the USSR. In all likelihood, it would have played a relatively small part in why

Truman dropped the atomic bomb.

Walker agrees that there was mass racism in the USA against the

Japanese: “Americans felt an especially deep hatred of the Japanese for racial

reasons”24 although he overall comes to the conclusion “Truman didn’t authorize

solely or primarily for those (racist) reasons”25. Overall, Walker places little

overall on racism.

However, Takaki leans towards blaming Truman’s racism, although at

points he counters this and is inconsistent. He states that Truman was “swept

into the anti-Japanese maelstrom of race hate and revenge. He, too, was bitter

23http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/ferrell_book/ferrell_book_chap5.htm24 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, USA: pp.2125 Walker, J. Samuel, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of the bombs against Japan, pp.96

7 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

and angry”26. Takaki offers no evidence as to how racism was the motivating

factor, except that Truman was a racist; “Privately Mr. Truman always said

‘nigger’27, however then goes on to state that Truman was a “thoughtful and

sensitive man”28. Even more bizarrely, Takaki then goes on to explain how

America was built upon racism, how the Americans viewed Asian immigrants as

a “yellow peril”29 and describing Hiroshima as the “crucible of Race in American

history”30. Takaki describes the history of racism in America, proving his point

that racism was prevalent in the USA but not that that it was a reason why the

atomic bomb was dropped. He clearly seems to believe that by convincing the

reader that the USA was racist, he can prove that the bomb was in fact dropped

for revenge and racism, two facts which do not correlate.

It’s understandable however, why Takaki would ignore other evidence, as

he is a professor of ‘Ethnic Studies’ and seems determined to find racial reasons,

ignoring any other evidence (he typically writes race-orientated books such as

‘Race and culture in Nineteenth-Century America’ and ‘Perspectives on Race

and Ethnicity in America’).

Also, Truman himself stated (according to Walker) that the Japanese had

been “repaid many fold”31 for their attack on Pearl Harbour, which implies an

element of revenge, however, it’s still highly improbable that racial motives would

have been a major factor. This is because the Potsdam declaration, although it

26 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.9927 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.9728 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.15029 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.8030 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.6531 Walker, J. Samuel, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of the bombs against Japan, pp.79

8 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

didn’t tell the Japanese about the atomic bomb, did warn the Japanese to

surrender; if America just wanted revenge they would never have given the

Japanese a chance to surrender. The Potsdam declaration32 warned the

Japanese that they would face “prompt and utter destruction” if they didn’t

surrender.33 It also left an opening for the retention of the emperor which was in

direct contrast to the USA’s previous stance of unconditional surrender,

indicating that the USA was anxious to end the war as soon as possible, even if

this meant conceding to Japanese demands. Furthermore, if the Americans had

been motivated by racism they would not have stated in the Potsdam declaration

that Japan would not be “enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation”34. The

fact that the USA even warned Japan to surrender is evidence in itself that they

were not motivated by revenge; if they had been they would never have warned

them, as the Japanese hadn’t regarding Pearl Harbour.

Takaki places equal importance on the belief Truman dropped the bomb

to prove his masculinity. According to Takaki, Truman had an “inferiority

complex” 35 and as a child was regarded as “feminine”36. He then goes on to cite

how Truman had been bullied as a child; “The boys…called him ‘sissy’37” and

how Truman was pleased that Stalin was shorter then he38 as he wanted to show

his masculinity (hence the ‘pugilistic’39 terms used to describe the first atomic

32 Issued by the USA, China and Britain33 http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html34 http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html35 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.11036 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.11037 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.10938 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.11339 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.115

9 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

bomb) and not do the “sissy thing”40. Finally, “the atomic bomb symbolised

virility”41. This argument in unsubstantiated and not covered by either Walker or

Alperovitz, indicating that it’ isn’t widely corroborated, and that Takaki often

makes very tentative judgements.

A less compelling view is that the bomb was dropped so the US

government could justify the immense money they had spent on the Manhattan

Project. It had employed 130,000 people and cost almost $2 billion42 and is a

factor covered by both Takaki and Walker, albeit briefly.

Takaki states “If the project were dismantled…so much money had

already been committed…there would be “relentless investigation and criticism”.

43 This clearly shows that Takaki believed that the cost of the atomic bombs was

an element in the reason why the bomb was dropped, however, as he doesn’t

mention this again, and this a very small paragraph, Takaki clearly doesn’t

believe it was a particularly important factor. This is similar to Walker, who

agrees that the atomic bombs were not used justify the cost; “As a corollary…

Truman wanted to justify the expense and effort required to build the atomic

bombs”44.

America in 1945 had a strong economy which had thrived during the war;

though they had spent almost $2 billion, America could afford it. The amount of

money they spent in Europe post-1945, with Marshall Aid and the Truman

doctrine is evidence of America’s thriving economy; they were the richest country

40 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.11241 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.11542 http://www.americainwwii.com/stories/ynamregetsthebomb.html43 Takaki, Ronald, Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb, pp.3944 Walker, J. Samuel, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of the bombs against Japan, pp.94

10 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

in the World. Therefore, it’s likely that monetary issues wouldn’t have been too

significant a factor in the use of the atomic bomb.

However, this view is entirely opposed by the Campaign for Nuclear

Disarmament, who in 1985 produced a leaflet stating “General Groves…was

desperate to see the fruits of his labours before the end of the War. The bomb

had been developed at a cost of $2000 million. It would have been difficult to

justify not using it after such a vast financial investment. Two types of bomb had

been developed. Nagasaki was simply an experiment to try out the second

type”.45

These are just suppositions, facts are assumed and placed together in an

emotive fashion; although it’s true that the Manhattan project had been a “vast

financial investment”, there’s no proof that Groves was “desperate” and this

source overlooks any other possibility for why the bomb was dropped.

As a leaflet from the CND, it’s clear that it’s not from an objective source;

it’s biased against the use of the Atomic bomb, and as such isn’t accurate. The

CND is a very left wing organisation, and the leaflet was produced in 1985, a

time when Europe was very much anti America, anti Reagan and anti atomic

weapons. Therefore it’s unlikely for this to be very relevant at all, especially as

its role as a leaflet is to persuade rather then provide actual proof.

Admiral Leahy, however, in his memoirs also states “It was my reaction

that the scientists and others wanted to make this test because of the vast sums

of money that had been spent on the project. Truman knew that.”46 This

45 Text book?????46 Leahy, Fleet Admiral William D., 1950, I was there, London: Victor Gollancz LTD, pp. 514

11 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

appears to support the view the bomb was dropped to justify the cost of the

Manhattan project, though Leahy also states that “President Truman faced the

decision as to whether to use it. He didn’t like the idea, but was persuaded that it

would shorten the war against Japan and save American lives”47. Clearly Leahy

believes that Truman himself was motivated to save lives, although the scientists

from the Manhattan Project weren’t.

Leahy’s memoirs were written during the 1950s, when Truman was still

alive, and Leahy and Truman had been good friends throughout the war, so it’s

possible that Leahy wrote that Truman dropped the bombs to save lives to

appease Truman. Overall, Leahy’s memoirs are more then likely biased as

Leahy worked for the US government and was a personal friend of Truman, so

this source isn’t objective. On the whole, this is an unlikely factor because there

were far more important things for the US to worry about, such as the spread of

the USSR.

That the atomic bombs were dropped to save “half a million” American

lives is a myth, and though there’s no reason to speculate that Truman wouldn’t

have wanted to save American lives where possible it’s clear that this isn’t the

main reason the bomb was dropped. It was the need to prevent Russian

expansion that played the main role. The USA and Russia traditionally had a

poor relationship, with opposing ideologies and beliefs it’s understandable that

they feared one another and also understandable why the USA would have been

desperate to prevent Russian expansion in Asia; the USSR had already spread

47 Leahy, Fleet Admiral William D., 1950, I was there, pp. 513

12 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M

uncomfortably far throughout Europe at this point and the USA had to prevent the

‘the bear’ seizing anymore of the World. Other factors would have played a role

as well; Truman would have wanted to justify the cost of the bombs, and

probably would have harboured a racist attitude, however it’s clear these factors

are in no way as significant as the desire to prevent Russian expansionism.

13 Holly Maria B. Daher, 13M