In the aftermath of the Second World War, the United States focused on re-establishing peace and rejuvenating its economic growth. Primarily, the leading superpowers, including the United States, knew a need to invest in a tactical approach to re-settle the population, having fought for a long duration. As such, the only way they would achieve their objective in post-World War II would be to ensure Japan surrendered by destroying military power in Hiroshima. The move may have been a strictly military approach to some, while others consider the act barbaric diplomatic measures. In my view, the decisive nature of the events in the bomb on Hiroshima was a diplomatic calculation geared towards intimidating the Soviet Union to abolish their war with Japan.
Truman’s realization of the success of the Manhattan project raised the need to end the war with Japan, that only included unleashing an unmatched weapon- the atomic bomb. As a tactical approach, the US government used the atomic bomb at Hiroshima to scare the Japanese government, knowing their soldiers were worn out. Concurrently, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had the longest-lasting effect on demeaning the hopes of the Japanese government in their quest for Manchuria. With more than 30,000 people killed, the Japanese Emperor Hirohito had to give up.1. Indeed, in August, he announced unconditional surrender to allow peace negotiations in the interest of the United States. Although some may intrigue ethical issues around the decisions by Truman, there is clear evidence that the decisions aimed at long-term benefits that shaped the operation in the United States.
As a top government secret, the approach remains unclear on whether it was a political or military operation because there was no federal consensus or meeting to inform the decisions. However, the atomic bomb was a direct communication and threat to the Soviet Union, bringing attention to the country’s need to eliminate civil unrest or wars. In essence, the approach was tactful, envisioning unconditional surrender for Japan’s leadership.
At the same time, it could be arguable that the American diplomats had some concealed motives in the bombing. One of the main reasons could be the dire need to scare the Soviet Union against a war they had entered with Japan. Truman’s decisiveness was only showcased when he used federal powers to tactfully stop the Soviet Union from unnecessary war during post-World War II. With the great destruction witnessed and the deaths recorded, the military operation would prove a successful measure calculated to intimidate the Soviet Union. Such events formulated the basis upon which economic growth and development became relevant in the aftermath of the bombing experience in Japan and the United States.
The US diplomatic intelligence had estimated the strength of the Japanese army at approximately 5,000,000 men, implying that they had a strong force to counter any regional wars.2. On the contrary, the US army had prior engaged in massive wars, making Truman perceive the purely military approach as futile in the long run. As a result, the need to make this decision was indeed a calculated diplomatic move to scare any nation or organization who still had thoughts of triggering wars that their moves would be countered with a lethal response from the US. In the same breath, it was never definite that using a purely military approach would be successful. As such, this decisive approach proved more beneficial in the long run, implying the nation had the decisive tactical force to propel its quest for peace.
Based on Soviet Union’s intentions to conquer Japan, planning a purely military response would include giving them sufficient time to counter the moves. Therefore, it is arguable that the president’s technique was decisively tactical and involved an informed desire to end the Japanese war. Although there were signs that the Japanese embodiment would collapse, the US needed instantaneous tact to respond to the demand for peace. Moreover, the absence of a formal negotiation between the states might have intrinsically triggered the desire to find an alternative to prompt decision-making as executed by Truman. His reign was marred with contradictory decisions.
Ideally, the discussion about whether the decision was calculated intimidation or purely military action is far-fetched with multifaceted. However, the accomplishment of the US stopping more with Japan signifies the value of this decision as an approach to scare the Soviet Union from any warfare. At the same time, all the plans excluded formal military engagement, indicating that there was a scheme to stop a war from occurring.
To conclude, although there are no clear indications as to whether the bombing was a diplomatic or pure military approach, Truman’s decisiveness in dealing with Soviet Union territories indicates that there was a desire to stop the war-associated risk. The diplomatic context of the decisions indicates that Truman concealed information about the strength of both militaries. At the same time, the bombing of various cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would create far-fetched implications such as fear and abolition to ensure critical economic transitions in post-World War II.
Bibliography
Author’s name. The Dropping of the Atomic Bomb: A Military Measure? PDF file. 2022.
Footnotes
- 1-The Dropping of the Atomic Bomb: A Military Measure?
- 2-The Dropping of the Atomic Bomb: A Military Measure?