The Controversial Decision: Part III

The Controversial Decision: Part III

Truman's Cabinet
12
views

III. Truman’s Cabinet

The final question, would the loss of life during the invasion be as devastating as it is told so often today? In Henry Stimson’s famous article “The Decision to use the atomic bomb” Secretary Stimson outlines Japan’s forces: 2,000,000 in the home island, 2,000,000 in China, Korea, and 700,000 elsewhere nearby. [Henry L. Stimson, “The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb,” Harper’s Magazine Vol. 194. No. 1161 (1947): pg. 101, http://inf2149decisionmaking.wikispaces.com/file/v... (assessed November 5, 2015).] With an Army of about 5,000,000 men left in strength and weakened Air Force and Navy, Stimson states that the United States was preparing for an assault without the use of the atomic bomb. [Ibid., 102]

With this in mind coupled with the fanaticism of the Japanese people, [Henry L. Stimson, “The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb,” Harper’s Magazine Vol. 194. No. 1161 (1947): pg. 104, http://inf2149decisionmaking.wikispaces.com/file/v... (assessed November 5, 2015).] the Japanese military had inflicted 300,000 causalities in the out perimeter and had the strength (according to Stimson) to inflict over a million more. [Ibid., 106] Along with these numbers Stimson proposes several other factions about Japan’s state: The landing would be a long and arduous campaign, but recognizes the fact that the Japanese Navy had been defeated and that Japan had a lack of raw materials to use for warfare. Ibid., 103]

In his conclusion Stimson uses the causality count on the side of the allied invasion as well as the reassertion that the Japanese people would fight to the end.[Henry L. Stimson, “The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb,” Harper’s Magazine Vol. 194. No. 1161 (1947): pg. 105, http://inf2149decisionmaking.wikispaces.com/file/v... (assessed November 5, 2015) Stimson claims that for this purpose the atomic bomb was a favorable weapon to use against the Japanese in order to spare, “‘…the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and…utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.’” [Ibid.]

However, was Stimson the only advisor to think that? And was there another analysis of the Japanese military capabilities? In his article, D.M. Giangreco discusses that due to a misunderstanding with how Army Chief Staff George Marshall organized his data, the huge causality numbers could have been a result of a misunderstanding between him and President Truman that Marshall believed the causalities would be half a million. [D.M. Giangreco. “A Score of Bloody Okinawas and Iwo Jimas: President Truman and Casualty Estimates for the Invasion of Japan,” University of California Press Vol. 72, No. 1 (2003): pg. 95.]

The number that Giangreco puts out is half of what Stimson claimed, this poses the question, how did Truman’s military advisors gather their data, where did the information come from, and what was factoring into their analytically conclusion? According to Giangreco JCS’s Joint Planning Staff in the Pentagon begin outlining the plans for Operation Olympus, the invasion of mainland Japan prior to the battle of Saipan in 1944.[D.M. Giangreco. “A Score of Bloody Okinawas and Iwo Jimas: President Truman and Casualty Estimates for the Invasion of Japan,” University of California Press Vol. 72, No. 1 (2003): pg. 99].

Giangreco’s sources do seem to back up Stimson’s estimates of the Japanese troop strength concluded that the Japanese had 3.5 million soldiers. [D.M. Giangreco. “A Score of Bloody Okinawas and Iwo Jimas: President Truman and Casualty Estimates for the Invasion of Japan,” University of California Press Vol. 72, No. 1 (2003): pg. 100.] A quote from the article however counters Stimson’s analysis backing the supposed claim by Marshall that the American’s would lose half of million lives. [Ibid.]

Another topic not widely discussed is the U.S. manpower needed to take the Japanese mainland. Various letters to Roosevelt and Marshall suggested that the Army needed to fill six hundred thousand men and nine hundred thousand for the Navy. [D.M. Giangreco. “A Score of Bloody Okinawas and Iwo Jimas: President Truman and Casualty Estimates for the Invasion of Japan,” University of California Press Vol. 72, No. 1 (2003): pg. 102.] If these numbers are correct, it does show the reason why Stimson and Truman were so concerned with these causality estimates.

With Alperovitz’s claim poses the obvious question, “Then why?” It however seems upon analysis of Giangreco’s book that the Cabinet and advisors of Truman (including himself) did in fact believe the causalities in taking the island would be high. However, it is impossible to know whether all his advisors thought the same number, but they all seemed to agree upon the notion that the Empire of Japan would fight to the end. This does counter the atomic diplomacy theory that arose out of the use of the bomb, but as stated before this could’ve been another ‘benefit’ of the use of the bomb that Truman wasn’t factored in (although all of this is purely speculation).

It seems evident (although unclear) as to whether the United States used the atomic bomb and an atomic partnership to be used in atomic diplomacy. It is noticeably unclear what Truman’s true intentions were with using the atomic bomb in accordance with Japan and the state of their country. Finally Stimson, possibly for political purposes asserts that the bomb was used for Japan’s benefit and to save over a million allied lives.

Cover Image Credit: WikiMedia

Popular Right Now

Reasons Why Having Gay Or Lesbian Parents is Weird

Every single reason, listed for your convenience.

822
views

There aren't any reasons why having gay or lesbian parents is weird.

We need to stop treating it as though there are.

The End.

Cover Image Credit: CFCA

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

8 Types Of People Fetuses Grow Into That 'Pro-Lifers' Don't Give 2.5 Shits About

It is easy to fight for the life of someone who isn't born, and then forget that you wanted them to be alive when you decide to hate their existence.

1288
views

For those in support of the #AbortionBans happening all over the United States, please remember that the unborn will not always be a fetus — he or she may grow up to be just another person whose existence you don't support.

The fetus may grow up to be transgender — they may wear clothes you deem "not for them" and identify in a way you don't agree with, and their life will mean nothing to you when you call them a mentally unstable perv for trying to use the bathroom.

The fetus may grow up to be gay — they may find happiness and love in the arms of someone of the same gender, and their life will mean nothing to you when you call them "vile" and shield your children's eyes when they kiss their partner.

The fetus may grow up and go to school — to get shot by someone carrying a gun they should have never been able to acquire, and their life will mean nothing to you when your right to bear arms is on the line.

The fetus may be black — they may wear baggy pants and "look like a thug", and their life will mean nothing to you when you defend the police officer who had no reason to shoot.

The fetus may grow up to be a criminal — he might live on death row for a heinous crime, and his life will mean nothing to you when you fight for the use of lethal injection to end it.

The fetus may end up poor — living off of a minimum wage job and food stamps to survive, and their life will mean nothing to you when they ask for assistance and you call them a "freeloader" and refuse.

The fetus may end up addicted to drugs — an experimentation gone wrong that has led to a lifetime of getting high and their life will mean nothing to you when you see a report that they OD'd and you make a fuss about the availability of Narcan.

The fetus may one day need an abortion — from trauma or simply not being ready, and her life will mean nothing to you as you wave "murderer" and "God hates you" signs as she walks into the office for the procedure.

* * *

Do not tell me that you are pro-life when all of the above people could lose their lives in any way OUTSIDE of abortion and you wouldn't give 2.5 shits.

You fight for the baby to be born, but if he or she is gay or trans, you will berate them for who they are or not support them for who they love.

You fight for the baby to be born, but if he or she is poor or addicted, you will refuse the help they desperately need or consider their death a betterment of society.

You fight for the baby to be born, but when the used-to-be-classroom-of-fetuses is shot, you care more about your access to firearms than their lives.

It is easy to pretend you care about someone before they are even born, and easy to forget their birth was something you fought for when they are anything other than what you consider an ideal person.

Related Content

Facebook Comments