In 1945, just two weeks after taking office, President Harry Truman ordered the devastating atomic bomb to be detonated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. (Tsuyoshi 25). Since then, there have been numerous discussions surrounding the bombing, with various studies offering various perspectives on the circumstances leading up to the heinous assault. As a result, a ton of writing on the subject has been produced, albeit with mistakes and distortions. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan are presently used as examples of the atomic bombs' incredible power as a military weapon. Following the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the use of atomic bombs in direct military combats have been highly supervised and regulated to avoid the mass destructions associated with their use. This paper provides a historiographical analysis of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US in 1945. Specifically, the study delves on unveiling the facts which led to the bombing and the significant effects associated with the bombings.
There are several versions that have been issued to explain the events which led to the decision of the US to drop the bombs of the two Japanese cities. Many analyses have attributed these decisions to the US international politics and clamour to affirm its power and authority as the global superpower. Various studies have attributed the bombings to these facts.
Alperovitz for instance, in his book, 'Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam' shifted the previous debates about the matter by prompting the elite society to view the bombing in a completely different perspective. In the book Alperovitz (33) directs an assault on the US government for her decision to use the atomic bomb in Japan. He insisted that contrary to the popular opinion at the time, the move by the US to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was more of diplomatic as opposed to military-driven. In addition, Alperovitz (34) insisted that the bombing did not target the Japanese although the attack happened in Japan. Instead, the US's main target in the attack was the Soviet Union which was presumably the US ally at her wars during this time. As Alperovitz (23) has argued, the US diplomatic positions were driven by its rising capitalistic nature of the economy. As a result, all the demands the US made during the war and the post-war period were geared to benefiting only the US and the American people while the rest of the world was forced to comply with these positions.
Bernstein analysis also describes the historical events which ensued before the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ultimately supports Alperovitz diplomatic theory proposed earlier. As Bernstein (137) points, in the summer of 1945, the Japanese government was prepared to end the wars by surrendering their allegiance should the US have granted her the opportunity to keep her emperor. Despite sending appeals to the White House seeking to pronounce her position regarding the wars, Truman's administration chose to ignore these proposals and demanded unconditional surrender. Consequently, Bernstein (142) points out two overriding factors which stimulated the US decisions to attack Japan. The first reason was to try and keep the Soviet Union away from the wars which were going on in the Far East and in which the Soviet Union had a deep involvement. The main intent behind this consideration was to limit the Soviet Union's post-war gains in the Far Eastern regions. Secondly, Bernstein (143) observes that the bombing was intended to pressure Moscow to revise its post-war demands in the Eastern Europe and instead accommodate the US demands for the same region.
Maddox (27) on the other hand, referring to Alperovitz's 'atomic diplomacy' of the US government which resulted in the bombing of Japan dismisses the diplomatic row between Moscow and Washington as the main cause of the bombings. Instead, Maddox (36) chooses to admit the diplomatic role that the bombings played in helping to champion the American international diplomatic course but directs these to Japan rather than Moscow. In this latest analysis, Maddox (36) observes that the use of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was meant to coerce the Japanese to end the war. Also, by bombing Japan at this time, the US stood a better chance to dictate terms for the Japanese at the end of the wars, a fact which is in agreement with the atomic diplomacy theory.
Like any other war, there is often a misunderstanding or even intentional biases concerning the effects of an aftermath of a confrontation. However, many agree that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is, so far, the worst case of military combat in the world. The available literature provides conflicting information regarding the exact number of casualties caused during this time. In fact, Tsuyoshi (25) points out that the exact number will never be known. To justify this assertion, Tsuyoshi (25) maintains that some people were burnt beyond recognition in the buildings I which they were trapped. Also, several others just went missing and could not be found to date. These events have immensely contributed to the information about the exact number of casualties being hazy and widely varying within the literature.
There is no study that was consulted in this study quoted with confidence the exact number of casualties. Instead, most studies based their numbers on an approximation of facts, living a large room for guesswork. However, there is a noted agreement that the numbers ranged from about 100,000 and 180,000 as the total number of deaths and missing persons and a similar range of the injuries incurred during the attacks (707). The major causes of deaths and injuries were the flush burns radiated as the impact, the falling debris of the buildings which buried others alive and another hit beyond recognition and radiation disease.
To conclude, the US bombing of the two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is rated as one of the deadliest attacks ever witnessed in the history of military combats. A lot of studies have investigated different aspects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings with different perspectives being accorded to the causes. The majority of the studies agree that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were carried out mainly to fulfill the US diplomatic missions abroad as opposed to mere military operations. This is albeit different perspectives regarding the real issues behind the bombings. The number of casualties has been estimated at 100,000 and 180,000 deaths and mission persons.
Works Cited
Alperovitz, Gar. The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth. New York: Knopf, 1995
Bernstein, Barton J. "The atomic bombings reconsidered." Foreign Affairs (1995): 135-152.
Land, Charles E., et al. "Incidence of female breast cancer among atomic bomb survivors, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1950-1990." Radiation Research 160.6 (2003): 707-717.
Maddox, Robert J. Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism. Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 2007.
Tsuyoshi, Hasegawa. The End of the Pacific War: Reappraisals. Stanford: Stanford University Press, (2007)
Notes
1The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima occurred during the Second World War and was a remarkable step to bringing the wars to an end with the US being declared the global superpower. See Bernstein, Barton J. "The atomic bombings reconsidered." Foreign Affairs (1995): 135-152 for more details
2The US ascension to the super power position ended the USSR's communist authority and entrenched capitalism. Evidently, much of the US demands made in the aftermath of the Second World War set the stage for the emergence and proliferation of the capitalist ideologies and the death of communism.
3Other than the immediate casualties recorded after the explosions, other long-term effects were also witnessed. The major long-term side effect was the radiation disease which was caused by the gamma rays produced as a result of fission processes in the decomposing elements.
4The radiation effects have been scientifically proven to have existed in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
5Scientific investigations published on this matter, however, have not reported any instance of induced radioactivity in both regions other than fission products.
6Besides, it has been established that the radiation emissions were too little to result in any casualty. See Tsuyoshi, Hasegawa. The End of the Pacific War: Reappraisals. Stanford: Stanford University Press, (2007): 25
7The amount of property loss during this time cannot be accounted for as well. There are no statistical estimates available to give any plausible account of the property other than the estimates on human casualties.
