Truman, the bomb and the alternatives

Here are another couple of articles in the San Fracisco Chronicle's recent collection on Hiroshima:

HIROSHIMA: The birth of nuclear warfare / An ugly end, with or without the atom bomb / History without Hiroshima -- 10 millio... by Richard Frank San Francisco Chronicle 07/31/05.  Frank examines the following counter-factual historical alternatives to using the bomb in August 1945:

Americans typically believe that an invasion of Japan would have been the consequence, but four other possibilities have been raised: a diplomatic settlement; Soviet intervention in the Pacific theater; continuing war with dire effects on millions of Asians trapped in Japan's empire; and a new strategic bombing directive.

Contrary to wishful theories, no realistic prospect existed for a diplomatic settlement. The American aim of unconditional surrender was not just a slogan. It constituted the keystone to the enduring peace that followed. It provided the legal authority for the occupation of Japan and the ensuing fundamental renovation of Japanese society.

He concludes that none of those options was a likely possibility of bringing the war to an end in a more desirable fashion.

HIROSHIMA: The birth of nuclear warfare / An ugly end, with or without the atom bomb / Compromise unacceptable for Truman by Ronald Takaki San Francisco Chronicle 07/31/05.  Takaki also looks at President Truman's decision-making process:

Like many Americans, the president was swept into a rage for revenge for the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. This rage had been racialized. Truman repeatedly blasted the enemy as the "Japs." This racist term identified the enemy as the Japanese people, a contrast to the term "Nazis," which refers only to the followers of Hitler. Truman also dehumanized the enemy in the Pacific war. Disturbed by Pearl Harbor and the Bataan death march, Truman argued: "When you have to deal with a beast, you have to treat him as a beast."

These dynamics drove Truman to rigidly insist on unconditional surrender, a demand he had inherited from Roosevelt. But for Roosevelt, it had been only a slogan to help rally the war effort.

And he has this to say about the view of the bombings in the following months:

The atomic bombings were not widely accepted in the United States. A poll conducted by Fortune magazine in December 1945 found that only 54 percent of the respondents approved of the atomic bombings. The major news media also voiced apprehension and disquietude. Time magazine wrote that "the demonstration of power against living creatures instead of dead matter created a bottomless wound in the living conscience." The New York Times issued a sobering message: "We have been the first to introduce a new weapon of unknowable effects which may bring us victory quickly but which will sow the seeds of hate more widely than ever. We may yet reap the whirlwind."

The day after the devastation of Nagasaki, Truman privately told a Cabinet member that "the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," and that he did not like "the idea of killing all those kids." His anguish revealed a conflicted self. The Japanese were not simply an enemy race, they were human beings. Beneath Truman's toughness was also a thoughtful and sensitive individual who saw the world hurtling toward an uncertain and fearful future.