Hiroshima : Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb

Rating:
Summary: Neither interesting nor boring.
Review: Author's account of events surrounding the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki does not do justice this book.Neither erudite nor analytical the book mostly reads like a Truman apologia.Book does not contain any fresh insights and is just a rehash of what has written earlier by other historians.

Whatever arguments Truman and his team have resorted to justify nuclear bombing does not carry weight upon a closer analysis.There was no need for Americans to invade Japanese mainland.Japan was pulverized from the air by American bombers and US Navy subs had imposed a virtual maritime blockade so much so that ordinary Japanese had started feeling the pinch.If Americans had kept up this devastating attacks for a few more months ,Japan would have collapsed.This has also been the opinion of America's leading soldiers.However President and his men had no patience for this form of warfare.
If the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan was prompted by a desire to intimidate Soviet Union ,as author has endeavoured to show ,then one must admit that incident backfired.Stalin saw to it Soviet Union was not subjected to a American nuclear blackmail by quickly developing a nuclear deterrent.Japan was willing to surrender despite opposition of die-hard militarists. But only obstacle was they sought clarification about Emperor's status;never wanted emperorship abolished.President thanks to media propaganda had a warped view about Japanese;considered them scounderels for launching a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor thus deserving terrible punishment.If Truman had endorsed this Japanese demand which he later accepted the horrible human tragedy could have been averted.Conditional ultimatum while issuing Potsdam declaration would have ensured Japan's surrender.

Rating:
Summary: A real eye-opener
Review: Like many people, I managed to exist my formal schooling knowing very little about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In preparation for an extended trip to Japan, I wanted to learn a little more about this important event.

Ronald Takaki does an excellent job encapsulating the political climate in the U.S., Japan and Russia of 1945. The death of Roosevelt and the elevation of Truman to the presidency had a profound impact on world events. These presidents had different philosophies concerning the use of atomic weapons, and the world might be a very different place had Roosevelt lived to see the end of the war. Truman and Stalin provided a smooth transition from World War II to the beginnings of the Cold War.

Ultimately, I left "Hiroshima : Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb" with a better understanding and appreciation of why America decided to use atomic weapons against Japan. Takaki provides motivations for most of the key players, along with supporting evidence. The book is extremely readable, and was as captivating as any novel.

Whether or not dropping the bomb was "good" or "bad" is left up to the reader. Honestly, I have yet to decide.

Rating:
Summary: A real eye-opener
Review: Like many people, I managed to exist my formal schooling knowing very little about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In preparation for an extended trip to Japan, I wanted to learn a little more about this important event.

Ronald Takaki does an excellent job encapsulating the political climate in the U.S., Japan and Russia of 1945. The death of Roosevelt and the elevation of Truman to the presidency had a profound impact on world events. These presidents had different philosophies concerning the use of atomic weapons, and the world might be a very different place had Roosevelt lived to see the end of the war. Truman and Stalin provided a smooth transition from World War II to the beginnings of the Cold War.

Ultimately, I left "Hiroshima : Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb" with a better understanding and appreciation of why America decided to use atomic weapons against Japan. Takaki provides motivations for most of the key players, along with supporting evidence. The book is extremely readable, and was as captivating as any novel.

Whether or not dropping the bomb was "good" or "bad" is left up to the reader. Honestly, I have yet to decide.

Rating:
Summary: The War Could Have Ended Sooner
Review: Like other GIs I was delighted when I heard the news of the atomic bombing of Japan. Within a year or so several articles appeared that described the deaths and sufferings of the innocent Japanese civilians in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These articles caused many people to have second thoughts as to the wisdom of the decision. In the 70s I read Gar Alperovitz's book, "Atomic Diplomacy", and was convinced the bombing was a mistake. I was shocked by the Smithsonian controversy--an honest portrayal of both sides of the subject could not be shown. During the periods mentioned I was exposed to writers who discussed various aspects, pro and con, of the bombings.

Although I had previously read quite a bit on the subject, I decided to read "Hiroshima" because I wanted to refresh my knowledge of the bombing, I had read a most favorable review of the author, and the book was small--I could read it in a short time.

It was a good decision. The book packs a tremendous amount of pertinent information within its short length. Besides the decision itself it explores factors that might have influenced that decision. These would include: the desire for revenge of Pearl Harbor; to impress Russia and make her more manageable; the racism that existed in Truman and America and was exacerbated by the war; the masculinity factor of a new president who wished to show he was no wimp.

One gets to see that there was considerable disagreement before and after the bombing as to the wisdom of the decision. The dissenters were not a bunch of revisionist historians but many prominent Americans in the military, government, science and the media. The names include Generals Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas McArthur and Admiral William Leahy-many who would be considered conservatives if they were alive today. We can not return to the past to alter that decision, We can only speculate as to what might have occurred. There is evidence that had the Japanese been offered the peace terms that were eventually given them-maintaining the emperor instead of unconditional surrender-THE WAR COULD HAVE ENDED SOONER THAN IT DID. It was unconscionable not to have at least given the Japanese the option to accept an offer of peace--on the terms we subsequently accepted--before considering using the bomb.

If your knowledge of this historic event is limited and you desire to get an overall view of this tragedy read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Good starting ground
Review: Takaki's book gives a good introductory account of the actions which led to America's use of atomic warfare. For someone looking for a quick overview of the American rationale for destroying two cities, it's a good read. However, it will ignite further interest as there is much more to be said and read on the subject. This is good, it is a subject more Americans need to learn about.

Rating:
Summary: How to kill thousands of innocent people
Review: The famous excuse to drop the atomic bomb was ti "end the war sooner and, by doing so, to spare thousands of lives". Há! One of the greatest lies of history.

Japan was already defeated. All they wanted was to keep their Emperor (and, even after the bombs, they managed to obtain that!!). Hiroshima and Nagazaki launched the world into the atomic phase. After all, how could should the Russians react to a government capable of comitting such evil and merciless deed?!

The bombs were dropped just to:

1) Give a "message" to the Russians;
2) Justify millions of dollars spent in the Manhattan Project.

THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO DROP THEM. It's the plain truth. It was evil manifesting itself in its worst form.

Rating:
Summary: First Class Psychobabble
Review: This book is one of a seemingly endless series of drivel that attempt to discredit the decision to use the atomic bomb on Japan. By claiming there was no military necessity to use the bomb, these books invariably offer any number of conspiratorial theories to explain the decision. Ronald Takaki takes the anti-bomb genre to new lows of ridiculousness by arguing that the real reason Hiroshima was destroyed can be found inside Harry Truman's pants.

Like a TV sitcom, this book follows the standard formula for its' genre: To wit, claiming that there was no military necessity for using the bomb by selectively quoting various authorities who state that the U.S. could have been victorious without it...emphasizing Japanese attempts to negotiate a peace by using the Soviet Union as an intermediary, distorting their intentions and elevating their seriousness to a much higher level than was ever the case...giving no real explanation of why these peace initiatives failed to end the war, other than blaming our policy of unconditional surrender and hinting that Truman didn't want the war to end until he had a chance to use the bomb...relying on speculation about what might have taken place and presenting it as fact...and above all, never laying any of the blame on the Japanese. After it appears as if all common sense explanations for the use of the bomb have been eliminated, the author can insert his own pet theory.

Admiral Leahy's opinions are enlisted to inform us that a naval blockade by his forces could have ended the war. There is no discussion of how long this operation might have taken to have the effect intended or of the massive starvation and death it certainly would have caused. Leahy's belief that the bomb would never work and his desire to use a third one on Tokyo (shared by Carl Spaatz) after he was proven wrong are also never mentioned. Eisenhower is said to have attended the Potsdam conference and asked that the bomb not be used. In reality he never attended the conference, and his after the fact recollections of speaking out against the bomb at this time are unconfirmed and contradicted by other sources. Finally, General Macarthur, who later wanted to nuke the Chinese when they interfered with his plans in Korea, is portrayed as some sort of peacenik.

Certainly it was clear to Allied leaders that Japan had lost the war. However the Japanese leadership was highly reluctant to accept this reality and surrender on our terms. The Japanese insisted on preserving their emperor not as a figurehead but as the actual ruler of Japan, thereby avoiding any admission of defeat. This is a pivotal fact the book ignores entirely.

Like the book as a whole, Takaki's treatment of the Allied policy of unconditional surrender reveals a deep lack of understanding of the subject and a highly selective use of information in order to support a predetermined conclusion. The policy is falsely said to have been nothing more substantial than a campaign slogan, and almost all of its' main purposes are simply not mentioned.

Roosevelt and many others drew lessons from the history of World War I, when a negotiated peace gave rise to the belief in Germany that the war was lost as a result of political backstabbing, not military defeat. The Nazi's exploited this belief to the fullest during their rise to power. More than anything else, the Allied policy of unconditional surrender was meant to prevent a third world war by demonstrating beyond any doubt to the people of the Axis countries that militarism leads to total disaster. The peaceful nature of Germany and Japan since 1945 has proven the wisdom of this policy. Roosevelt also wanted to avoid the event of one country in the Allied camp coming to terms with the enemy on their own and then dropping out of the war.

None of these basic facts are ever touched upon by Takaki, who prefers to spend the majority of the book reviewing America's treatment of Indians, slaves and Japanese immigrants - and then linking these events to Truman's childhood insecurities and use of racial epithets in private conversation. It is suggested that the most important factor in Truman's decision making is that he didn't want to be a sissy. The desire to intimidate the Soviet Union and the tremendous cost of making the bomb, among other things, are given lip service as additional factors in the bomb's use, presumably to give the book a veneer of balance.

There is little doubt that hatred towards the Japanese was widespread in America during World War II. However it was far from the decisive factor in our conduct of the war, much less the decision to use the atomic bomb. And Takaki is wrong again when he claims that the practice of collecting the ears of dead Japanese soldiers would never have been repeated in Europe where our opponent was white. In fact this practice did occur there as well.

The use of the term "racist" has great cache these days, and pseudo-psychological analysis can be amusing, but neither of these things can redeem this book. It's best quality is it's mercifully short length - you'll only have to waste about an hour of your life reading this one. A better idea would be to read the even shorter article by Robert Maddox on the subject in the May/June 1995 issue of American Heritage magazine. Here is a publication known for its' objectivity and high standards - qualities that are glaringly absent from this deceptive little book.

Rating:
Summary: Helpful to write my history paper
Review: This book really helped me write my history paper. I was assigned to write an argumental paper about anything. I thought of writing about the atomic bomb, and I found this book.
The information on the book was what I exactly wanted to know to write my paper. I argued that atomic bomb was militarily unnecessarily to end the war against Japan, but U.S. used it for other reasons, such as to threat the Soviet Union, racism toward Japanese, and personality of Truman.
My term paper went successfully. Even if you are not writing a history paper, you should read it anyways becasue it really helps you learn about the decision under atomic bomb. It really worth reading and is trully interesting

Rating:
Summary: No need for A-bomb?
Review: This is a typical revisionist account attempting to prove that Dropping the A-bomb was not militarily necessary. I had to read this book for my WW2 class, with no counter-argument offered by my professor. This book will have you believe that US only dropped the A-bomb to stop the Russians from spreading to Asia, as indicative by Truman's hate of communism. The author gives a little bio of Truman to further his point. He asserts that the estimates of probable US dead in a mainland storming was execrated. This book is in essay form, putting out this type of argument. I think anyone who has any background in the Pacific campaign would not buy Takaki's argument. If one looks at the number of Japans dead at Okinawa and those dying in US fire bombings, the numbers killed by A-bombs don't seem as staggering.

Rating:
Summary: Don't waste your money
Review: This is yet another example of an author attempting to deflect blame from his mother country for her countless atrocities during World War II. Takaki is nothing more than an apologist.

I for one am glad that both FDR and Truman had the guts to develop and use the bomb (and I am a Republican, btw). My only regret is that we did not have ten of them to use on Japan.

As to Takaki's rather childish claim that racism was involved in the decision to use the bomb against Japan, he is obviously quite ignorant of the history of the bomb and the decision-making process. Germany, as with Japan, was fire-bombed without mercy. What the Hiroshima-handwringers manage to ignore is that fire-bombing killed many more Japanese (and Germans) than did the bombs. Had Germany still been fighting in August 1945 there is no doubt that we would have used the bomb on them as well.

Takaki is also apparently ignorant of the blatant racism of Japan throughout the war.

The only decision I would have made different from Truman is that I would have detonated either Fat Man or Little Boy directly above the emperor.