Evidence and Source Questions on Atomic raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945
Robert Flack History Coursework 2002
0072
Evidence and Source Questions on Atomic raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945
Question One
Source A is a propaganda leaflet. Therefore, it is of little value as evidence about America's use of the atomic bomb in August 1945."
Do you agree or disagree?
I feel that this leaflet is very useful to historians, although it is admittedly very biased towards America and written from a desperate American perspective, we can look at this source and gather essential information about their aims behind this leaflet, the overall perception of America as a leading force and the mentality of the Japanese. The leaflet was dropped the day after the raid on Hiroshima.
The main and clear purpose of the leaflet was to scare the Japanese people, it needed to hit them hard and make clear that the aftermath of flotsam that lay in Hiroshima was likely to be repeated should the Japanese not surrender unconditionally.
America knew the mentality of the Japanese and the calibre of civilians they were dealing with. Their loyalties to the country were epitomised at Iwo Jima and Okinawa where thousands of Japan's troops lost their lives while only a minority surrendered. America knew that this mentality was a hard one to combat, they feared that invading the country conventionally would mean great loss of American life, and, for that matter Japanese life. Before the bomb had been dropped both US and Japanese forces were preparing for a conventional onslaught of troops, the Japanese even going to the extent of using 'Sherman Carpets' (children strapped with dynamite who threw themselves under tanks). Such horrendous events were probably against the US principles. It is clear to see that the primary purpose of this leaflet, therefore was to intimidate the Japanese and overpower their great sense of pride without having to drop the second bomb.
I understand that America only had only 1 bomb left after having constructed 3 bombs and actually detonating 2 of them. This highlights the false impression the leaflet tends to give when it states that America will drop bombs like they did on Hiroshima 'Again and Again', when in fact they wouldn't have the ammunition.
The leaflet also states that it equals the power carried by 2000 of their super fortresses and claims that it is the most destructive weapon ever designed by man. Although this would have been key in scaring the Japanese the Americans would have been so emotive for another reason, re-enforcing their military might to other world powers, namely Russia, who were one of their main threats.
The leaflet, however, is very one sided and one must remember this when analysing it. It fails to mention some key aspects of the situation. For example, it fails to explain the other options America had before dropping the second bomb, such as a penetration of the country with troops, or even conventional bombing which had been effective in Tokyo.
Ultimately the leaflet is very useful to an extent, one can gather the intentions of the United States. It is quite apparent that America do not wish to drop the second atomic bomb unless completely necessary, but some may argue that they still wanted to prove its might. Additionally, historians have revealed that the Americans may have wanted to test the last bomb as it was a plutonium bomb and an unknown entity, while the previous two bombs had been uranium and they knew what to expect. W
We are in possession of the most destructive weapon ever designed by man. A single one of our atomic bombs equals the explosive power carried by 2000 of our Super Fortresses.....
Before using this bomb again and again to destroy every resource which your military leaders have...we ask you to petition your emperor now to end the war
Question Two
In source C Truman says that the atomic bomb would be used against military objective and not against women and children.
Source B shows the destruction of a whole city.
Does this mean that Source C is unreliable as evidence?
Explain your answer using Sources B and C and your own knowledge.
I feel Source C is quite unreliable, Source B depicts the complete destruction of a city, even on the horizon there are few signs of survival. This photograph was taken on the day of detonation, giving us a good idea of its true effects. Such a violent and comprehensive destruction could only have meant women and children too suffered in the dropping of the bomb.
One major indication that the source is unreliable is the fact that it has been written for a diary. Some may argue that this suggests truthfulness but I believe otherwise. President Truman would have know the likeliness of his diary being published was high. His diary entries would have been manipulated due to this fact and while they will have bared some truth, one could argue that they are very much geared to exonerating himself from blame.
"I have told the Secretary of war to use it..." shows clear a strategy from Truman to pass the responsibility on to one of his colleagues (in this case Stimson) of the dropping of the bomb and who they targeted. Truman knew that unpopular outcomes of US actions would therefore, not all be blamed on him.
He also states that they are issuing a 'warning statement' to the Japanese people, perhaps another example of making the bomb seem an unavoidable and inevitable resort. I don't believe this is an objective source at all, it fails to discuss that the Japanese had already shown some mercy, and I quote "...to surrender and save lives. I am sure that they will not do that" is fairly harsh.
Truman at this time looked to the clauses of the Potsdam conference and an unconditional surrender from Japan, and in Source C it is clear that this is his sole intention. He does not describe how the Japanese had offered conditional surrender before this time. While it could been seen as fair to want to completely strip the Japanese of power and their hero-like emperor in order for a lasting end to the war, the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor after the two bombs had been dropped despite Truman's apparent determination to rid the country of ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Truman at this time looked to the clauses of the Potsdam conference and an unconditional surrender from Japan, and in Source C it is clear that this is his sole intention. He does not describe how the Japanese had offered conditional surrender before this time. While it could been seen as fair to want to completely strip the Japanese of power and their hero-like emperor in order for a lasting end to the war, the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor after the two bombs had been dropped despite Truman's apparent determination to rid the country of him. This points to suggest that source C is inaccurate in different ways and that Truman in fact was not so intent on Japanese surrender but combating diplomatic concerns with Russia and other global powers. Furthermore domestic pressures of the American people who were wholly disgruntled by the loss of American life and the US involvement as a whole would have weighed heavily on Truman's mind when writing a text such as this which was likely to be published and show to the peoples of America after his death. Truman states harsh implications within this source, and I feel, that patriotism has played its part and, in truth, is not as strong minded as the source suggests due to his post August 1945 leniency.
I believe Source C could even be seen as Truman propaganda and shouldn't be trusted. The photograph, Source B clearly disproves his claim that only soldiers, sailors and military assets would be targeted.
Question Three
Source D was written by a historian
Source E is the work of a cartoonist
Which of these two sources is more useful for a study of the atomic raid on Hiroshima?
Explain your answer using Sources D and E and your own knowledge.
Source D is more useful for a study of the atomic raid on Hiroshima. It seems to be more objective in its approach and its author has more cause to be objective while the artist of Source E is likely to reflecting social cross-sections and over dramatising.
Source D states that it was written for a text book for use in British schools. The author of this book presumably was writing from an unbiased, impartial perspective and taking several views into account. A text book used in British schools, where there is little or no government censorship should be considered as reliable.
Whereas Source E was produced in 1960, a time when secrets had just been leaked to the US press and worldwide emotion and sympathy would have been with the Japanese people. For this reason I don't believe Source E is very useful. A newspaper, it is important to remember, will reflect the views of the people, society and world feeling, they tend to play on people's emotions. While the scenario depicted in Source E may have occurred and agrees with Culpin's statement "the bomb was dropped because its development had cost a great deal of money and this had to be justified" it doesn't consider other arguments, like Japanese resilience, the situation in Eastern Europe or domestic and diplomatic pressures.
Having said this Source D can also be criticized at times for its lack of detail. It doesn't discuss how the bomb possibly would have saved lives from both sides, given information about the loss of Japanese life in previous conventional onslaughts. I get the impression that Source D is slightly anti the decision to drop the bomb while not fully exploring other aspects of the dropping.
Source D is substantially more useful that Source E. In the opening of Source D however, Culpin states that 70,000 Japanese died with hundreds more dying from radiation sickness. I know the actual death toll to be 140,000, and cannot quite understand the vast difference between the two figures. That perhaps points to the inaccuracy of Source D.
Background research reveals that Vicky, the artist of Source E was in fact a "Victor Weisz" born in Berlin, Germany in 1913, his life began with his cartoons being published in German newspapers. However, he was Jewish and the rise of Nazi anti-Semitism forced him to leave the country after Hitler gained power.
While this is slightly irrelevant as the cartoon would have been drawn to reflect British public opinion at the time, Vicky's background and understanding of the extent of suffering incurred by Jewish children in Germany could have influenced the power of Source E. Source E is quite emotive in appearance and shows two innocent children, torn apart by the hands of war and super powers of the world. The artist could have possibly related to these characters, their predicament and their suffering, dramatizing the scene somewhat and therefore making the Source less useful and more fictitious.
Source D is clearly a more useful, reliable and informative source while it perhaps isn't as comprehensive as some historians would prefer. Source E concurs with popular opinion at the time and sympathy. It has also to be considered that the pieces' respective creators have vastly different objectives in mind. Perhaps, also, the background of the artist of Source E could have effected its contents. By the time of 1984 (the year when Source D was written) more information would have been revealed about the attacks and a more useful source could be written.
Study Sources F and G.
V. Nekrasov and James Byrnes give different interpretations of why the Americans used the atomic bomb in August 1945.
Why do you think their interpretations are so different.
Explain your answer using Sources F and G and your own knowledge.
There are many reasons for the extreme difference between the two pieces, they are two texts from completely different ends of the worldwide spectrum.
The first text, Source F written by V.Nekrasov, a Russian historian writing from a soviet perspective appears distinctly limited in his views, giving a very poor account of America's actions and that they were thoroughly brutal in their approach, dismissing the argument that America wanted to avoid 'unnecessary bloodshed and casualties' and categorically stating that Truman had other objectives in mind. Nekrasov goes on to describe how the purpose of dropping of the bombs was solely to scare other world powers, 'above all the soviet union'. These factors show that this argument is very one sided and doesn't develop America's case. Furthermore, this source is very one sided for the obvious reason of censorship, at the time, a Russian historian would be prevented from giving a impartial relay of events. Censorship was king in Russia and the time, the culmination of the Cold War in 1984 would have meant presenting a hatred of America to the peoples of Russia was of utmost importance.
Public impression of Russia had to be good, their government clearly didn't want divisions occurring within the people with so much to attend to with the cold war. This text, Source F can be considered to be strong soviet propaganda (most pieces written at the time would have strived to achieve this).
Nekrasov blames the American decision to use atomic power in this way for the 'nuclear arms race' which was likely to occur, failing to state how the soviets or Nazis would have used this asset should it have fallen into their hands. Nuclear warfare loomed large at this time and international fear of the plutonium and uranium bombs which had been dropped in Japan were escalated, this historians' clear aim here was to give the impression that America was instigating this sort of warfare and as such is clearly writing to turn popular opinion and weaken American support worldwide.
In understandable contrast James Byrnes shares a completely different view. He demonstrates condolence towards the usage of the bomb.
We first have to establish who relayed this source, the then, US Secretary of State, Byrnes. He would have wanted his beliefs at the time of the droppings to appear in a positive light and be seen as fairly thought out strategic move. Patriotism will have played a part in this, Byrnes re-enforces Truman's final word to go ahead with the raids.
In a similar fashion to Nekrasov, Byrnes attempts to provoke dislike for the opposition by stating 'And we are talking about people who hadn't hesitated at Pearl Harbor to make a sneak attack'. Comments such as this almost morally justify the actions of America in the minds of its citizens who had lost loved ones in the Pearl Harbor attack but, frankly the 2,403 military people's lives sacrificed at pearl harbor doesn't compare with the hundreds of thousands lost in Japan due to the bombs. Byrnes' comparison is hyperbolic and his obvious reckoning is that Japan deserved the attack and got what was coming to them.
His exaggeration is heightened when he refers to the soldiers as 'boys' who would be losing their lives, where in actual fact they were mentally formidable, highly skilled and trained killing machines, just as desperate for their lives as the Japanese were for their.
Byrnes would have had to have upheld this point of view and couldn't possibly condemn these attacks as he had played a major part in them and the Japanese sacrifices were so hard to comprehend he had to maintain the attacks were full justified. I believe this memoir is very much designed to affirm this in public minds. 'I believed the atomic bomb would be successful and would force the Japanese to surrender on our terms' furthers this point.
The views of Nekrasov and Byrnes are almost incomparable due to the circumstances they were written/relayed. I would argue that they are both written mainly for the respective authors' countries to induce sympathy in the minds of their readers for their cause. Censorship will have played a large part in the writing of Source F while Source G would have needed to justify the bombings.
Question Five
What are the Strengths and weaknesses of Source H as an interpretation on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Source H is a video episode produced by the BBC for the World at War Series, produced in 1973 it is somewhat outdated for modern reference but offers a fantastic insight into the period and how the bomb affected some of those involved.
I feel the video was produced from an impartial standing, the BBC are renowned for making solid documentaries and historical references and presenting the argument as fairly as possible, using all the resources they have to their disposal.
I don't believe that we can rely on the reputation of the BBC completely. They perhaps would have produced the video with the intentions of being broad minded and covering every aspect but of course some factors prevented this from taking place. The video is, at times slightly biased towards the US and how they went about the events of 1945. A viewer sees a great deal of the American perspective while watching the video, some Japanese perspective and no Russian perspective. The lack of Russia's involvement in the making of the video is of course due to the cold war, such was the censorship in the country at the time. This is a major weakness in the video as a viewer would not be able to assimilate the controversy over the dropping of the bomb.
The American's interviewed on the video could be seen as quite arrogant, they seem to speak in statistics rather than about the inhumane events, mass loss of life and Japanese devastation. This in many ways is a strength of the video, it perhaps shows that the attitude of the Americans was still quite bitter and suggest they have few regrets about dropping the bomb.
I feel that the Japanese people interviewed were not as comprehensively portrayed as the Americans. The Americans, especially one of the pilots talking about the bombing, were very militant, seeming to forget about the repercussions of the dropping of the bomb affecting the Japanese. The pilot being interviewed was quite casual and came across as quite scientific.
The Japanese interviewed seemed to be surprisingly calm about the attack, they described this physical effects but perhaps didn't highlight the political issues from their point of view. This is a weakness of the video as it means again the viewers cannot get the full picture of the exact scenario.
The purpose of the video is to give a good account, this I believe it does. I feel at some points it focuses too much on the strengths of America. I suppose that it is, being a British video, going to compliment their ally and support them in order to project a positive view to the British public. This can be seen as a weakness but in some ways a strength revealing British perception of America, 1945 in general and the decision to drop the bomb.
The BBC can be criticized for being selective when relaying facts and figures, they make America look more powerful and portray them in a better light by giving detailed factual analysis while not exploring the true implications of the bombing.
The video, overall, is a strong source of study, it isn't overly biased but at times it lacks a rounded viewpoint. I feel that given the time it was produced the BBC couldn't have possibly make the video impartial as Russia were engaged in the Cold War. Being allies with America the BBC have hinted on the US being a very powerful nation and were in the right. Perhaps the biggest thing we can take from this video is the British opinion of the raids over anything else.
"Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end the war quickly"
Do Sources A to H prove that this interpretation is correct?
Explain your answer using all the sources and your own knowledge.
Yes the Sources A to H do support this statement. The sources tend to agree that the war would end after the dropping of the bombs, though some refer to conventional warfare and its ability to end the war just as quickly. Although some of the sources say that it wasn't necessary to drop the bombs to end the war. Of course the eventual outcome of the dropping of the bomb proved that it was in fact, a means to end the war immediately.
I have discussed the resilience of the Japanese people and Source A clearly gives the impression that the Americans felt that the Japanese could not be broken down without substantial loss of troops and in turn a lot of wasted time. It states that the atom bomb contains the equivalent power of 2000 of their super fortress bombs, a sizeable figure which reflects the power of this bomb compared to conventional warfare. By this account, the dropping of the bomb was time effective, and would end the war immediately. This leaflet, dropped after the first raid would have been alarming to the Japanese but even then they did not carry out the wishes of the leaflet and petition their emperor to a great enough extent. This re-enforces how morally determined the Japanese were collectively and the extent of conventional warfare that would have been needed to finally end the war and allow the US to turn their attentions back to the area of Europe and combating the Soviet Union.
There is little to take from Source B, apart from the fact that the dropping of the bomb was perhaps not as co-ordinated as it should have been. The dropping of the bomb should and could have been more focussed on military targets and it is clear to see that civilian establishments in this instance have suffered. This source therefore suggests to me that perhaps the use of the atomic bombs was not completely necessary as military targets could have been dealt with on a smaller scale. Source B definitively shows that the atomic bomb was a complete solution, furthermore it was one that encompassed the wiping out of the Japanese public around these areas and the loss of innocent lives. The results of the bomb depicted by Source B show that, inevitably, it would have ended the war, but counter arguments can be raised from this as to how crucial destruction on this scale was in ending the war.
I have previously mentioned how Source C contradicts Source B and that it has been written under the pretence of a diary which could lead to untruths. Source C gives us a good impression of how Truman wanted to be presented, and we can take from this that he wanted to make it absolutely clear that it was necessary to drop these powerful bombs over Japan. The source, a good representation of what Truman actually thought or not clearly takes the stance that America have persisted enough and that the Japanese were unlikely to surrender even after having received a warning. Truman makes out that America have been lenient in giving the Japanese a chance to surrender, showing some remorse. His sympathy demonstrated within this source at times points towards him believing that dropping the bomb is completely necessary under the circumstances and the sacrifices Japan would incur are inevitable but ultimately for the best. His closing statement is certainly very interesting as far as this question goes. Not only does it make him out to be an intelligent man but also suggests that he is using the bombs for entirely the right reasons and not the wrong reasons, 'It is certainly a good thing fro the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb'.
Source D, in contrast is evidently anti the dropping of the bomb and indicates that the dropping was perhaps not a necessary move to end the war immediately. The Source starts off by saying, 'In Hiroshima 70 000 Japanese died. Hundreds more died from radiation sickness in the years which followed' immediately condemning the raids and highlighting the devastation experienced by Japan. Source D is objective in saying that the immediacy of the end of the war was Truman's man reason for dropping the bomb, however. To counter this argument, Culpin has said that Truman was criticized because it was merely to test the bomb and justify its vast expense to the US economy. Although the impression Source D gives is objective I, on reading it got the feeling that Culpin felt the dropping of the bomb was unnecessary.
Source E is one of the strongest sources against the idea that the dropping of the bomb is necessary to end the war quickly. The bottom caption "Don't you see, they had to find out if it worked" overrules the reasoning Truman had for using the bomb and suggests that the raids were purely scientific and completely inhumane. The picture is a very strong image provoking controversy in the minds of the public but it has to be considered that this is specifically drawn for a newspaper and that the situation will have been over exaggerated. It was also produced at the time documents were leaked about the bombing and this would have meant that the picture was reflecting the feeling at that time and had a slightly limited and condensed view of the reasoning for dropping the bomb.
Taken at face value, Source F is the strongest source to disagree with the statement "Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end the war quickly". This is obviously because of the conditions under which it was written, a censored viewpoint, definitively against America and geared towards provoking dislike for the US nation as a whole. We cannot therefore take Source F seriously but it does have some elements of truth about it. Diplomatic issues, as stated have been explained by some of the other sources, "The purpose of the bombing was to frighten other countries, above all the Soviet Union". While this statement isn't entirely true its foundations point towards America having other intentions than wanting to end the war quickly.
Written from the opposite side of the fence is Byrnes contribution, memoirs which had been taken some years later. His words tend to agree with the necessity of the raids. Again, this is from a heavily biased perspective and cannot be trusted. This source neither proves or disproves to a historian if the bomb was required in this case. Subjective opinions are hard to use when questioning such issues. We can take something quite significant from this though and that is the fact that this was written by the Secretary of State at the time. He would have had the advantage of considerably more knowledge than the general public and perhaps his view that the raid was a necessity is completely justified. While the previous source was only written by a Russian historian with limited access to information, only relying on public resources. Therefore, I feel the benefit of the doubt should be given to Byrnes, and his account to be considered more reliable. In turn the dropping of the bomb was a necessity.
The 'World at War' video is probably the most objective source out of all of them, it is the only one which allows several people from different backgrounds to contribute to the source. I feel it demonstrates that the dropping of the bombs was a necessary action to end the war immediately, it depicts how harsh the fighting had been in other confrontation areas between US and Japan and the sheer determination shown by Japan. From this the video demonstrates the amount of time it would have taken to prepare and implement conventional invasion and traditional air raids. The interviews give detailed reasoning from both sides of the spectrum which point to the might and ferocity of the Japanese and the pressures being put on America. It can be argued that as Source H includes the views of many different people, combined with cinematic hard evidence to prove several points. My interpretation of the video is that it proves the atomic raids were necessary to end the war and should be trusted due to its reliable producers and broadness of views.
Each source has different factors to consider about whether it disproves or proves the statement "Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to end the war quickly" and these have to be taken in the context in which they were written.
