The Controversial Decision: Part III

The Controversial Decision: Part III

Truman's Cabinet

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, (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, (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, (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

I Blame My Dad For My High Expectations

Dad, it's all your fault.

I always tell my dad that no matter who I date, he's always my number one guy. Sometimes I say it as more of a routine thing. However, the meaning behind it is all too real. For as long as I can remember my dad has been my one true love, and it's going to be hard to find someone who can top him.

My dad loves me when I am difficult. He knows how to keep the perfect distance on the days when I'm in a mood, how to hold me on the days that are tough, and how to stand by me on the days that are good.

He listens to me rant for hours over people, my days at school, or the episode of 'Grey's Anatomy' I watched that night and never once loses interest.

He picks on me about my hair, outfit, shoes, and everything else after spending hours to get ready only to end by telling me, “You look good." And I know he means it.

He holds the door for me, carries my bags for me, and always buys my food. He goes out of his way to make me smile when he sees that I'm upset. He calls me randomly during the day to see how I'm doing and how my day is going and drops everything to answer the phone when I call.

When it comes to other people, my dad has a heart of gold. He will do anything for anyone, even his worst enemy. He will smile at strangers and compliment people he barely knows. He will strike up a conversation with anyone, even if it means going way out of his way, and he will always put himself last.

My dad also knows when to give tough love. He knows how to make me respect him without having to ask for it or enforce it. He knows how to make me want to be a better person just to make him proud. He has molded me into who I am today without ever pushing me too hard. He knew the exact times I needed to be reminded who I was.

Dad, you have my respect, trust, but most of all my heart. You have impacted my life most of all, and for that, I can never repay you. Without you, I wouldn't know what I to look for when I finally begin to search for who I want to spend the rest of my life with, but it might take some time to find someone who measures up to you.

To my future husband, I'm sorry. You have some huge shoes to fill, and most of all, I hope you can cook.

Cover Image Credit: Logan Photography

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

Irish-American History Is Just As Important As Any Other Culture, You Can't Prove Me Wrong

I cherish being Irish and I will not let anyone let me feel bad for that.


Depending on when you're reading this, Saint Patrick's day has either just passed or is around the corner. For me, Saint Patrick's day is tomorrow. I've been debating this article for some time now because I didn't know how it would be perceived. At this point, though, I feel it's important for me to get out. No, Irish people were never kept as slaves in America, and I will never be one to try and say they were. However, Irish people were treated tremendously awful in America. A lot of people tend to forget, or just try to erase entirely, the history of the Irish in America. So much so that I felt shameful for wanting to celebrate my heritage. Therefore, I want to bring to light the history that everyone brushes under the rug.

In 1845, a potato famine broke out across Ireland. This was a big deal because the Irish lived off, mainly, potatoes. They were cheap, easy to grow, and had tons of nutrients. So when the famine struck, many people either died of starvation or fled to America in seek of refuge. When the Irish arrived in America they were seen as a threat to the decency of America. People viewed them as drunk beasts, sinful savages, barbaric, violent, belligerent, stupid, and white apes. When the Irish would go to look for jobs, many times they found signs that read "Irish Need Not Apply," even when the job was hiring. Therefore, the Irish did the jobs no one wanted, and even jobs African slaves wouldn't do. The biggest example of this is when Irishmen built canals and drained swamps. They were sent to do these things because of the enormous amount of mosquitoes; in the swamp, they would get bit and ultimately die of malaria.

Also, during this time, Irish people were poor and therefore lived in the same neighborhoods as the free African Americans. A lot of the Irish people were friendly with their neighbors of color and even got into interracial relationships. Because the Irish lived in these neighborhoods they were seen as dirty and even a lot of people at this time put African Americans higher on the totem pole than Irish. One person during the time even said, "At least the black families keep their homes clean."

The main reason American's outlook on Irish people changed was that most Irishmen took up fighting for the Union in the Civil War. I make this argument, not because I think the Irish suffered more than African slaves. I don't say this in means of trying to erase the struggles of the African slaves. I do not think that any of our ancestors should have been treated the way they were. I mean to say that the Irish did in fact suffer. Irish people were treated wrongly on the basis of...nothing. Simply because my ancestors hailed from the shores of Eire, they were treated with malice. And I write this simply because I want people to remember. I want people to understand what happened.

On Saint Patrick's Day this year, next year, and for the many years to come, I want people to embrace the Irish culture. I want the folks of Irish heritage to not be ashamed of where they come from; to not be ashamed to share their culture the way I have for many years. I want everyone to have a beer, wear some green, eat a potato or two, and dance the Irish step; to celebrate the history of Irish people with a bit more understanding than before.

Related Content

Facebook Comments