Episode 8 – The Debate Over Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Eighty years ago this week, two American bombers lifted off from an airfield on Tinian Island in the Western Pacific and flew into history. Each plane carried a single bomb—one codenamed “Little Boy” and the other codenamed “Fat Man.” These two separate attacks would mark the first and only time nuclear weapons have ever been used in war. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. Names that now evoke memories unspeakable destruction. But those names are also surrounded by questions, many of them still unanswered.

Today, the debate over the use of the atomic bomb is far from settled. What was once a largely accepted account—that the bombs were dropped to end the war swiftly and save lives—has been increasingly challenged by historians, ethicists, and international legal scholars. Critics argue that Japan was already seeking surrender, that the bombings were motivated by diplomatic posturing toward the Soviet Union, or that they constituted a war crime against civilians.

Others counter that revisionist arguments ignore the brutal context of the Pacific War and downplay the enormous human cost of a conventional invasion. In this episode, we’ll look at both sides of the debate and trace the evolution of thought—from the confident justifications of 1945 to the more complex, divided assessments of today in a world where nuclear weapons not only exist, but are much more powerful than the two dropped on Japan.

Music by: Andrii Poradovskyi (lNPLUSMUSIC – Pixabay)

This week the sources will be listed as an annotated bibliography, broken down by the past and current sources and the sides of the debate they sit on.

SOURCES:

Pro-Bombing Arguments – 1945 Sources

Stimson, Henry L.
“The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” Harper’s Magazine, February 1947. Former Secretary of War Stimson defends the bombings as necessary to avoid a costly invasion. A key primary source reflecting elite-level reasoning behind the decision.
Truman, Harry S.
Memoirs: Year of Decisions. Vol. 1. Garden City: Doubleday, 1955. Truman’s own justification for the bombings, emphasizing the imperative to save American lives and end the war swiftly.
Bundy, McGeorge.
Danger and Survival: Choices About the Bomb in the First Fifty Years. New York: Random House, 1988. Offers insight into strategic thinking during WWII and views aligned with military necessity.
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.
Summary Report (Pacific War). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1946. Suggests Japan was on the brink of surrender but also frames atomic bombings as hastening the end of the war.
Groves, Leslie R.
Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962. The military head of the Manhattan Project defends the use of the bomb, seeing it as a triumph of science and necessity.

Anti-Bombing Arguments – 1945 Sources

Ellsberg, Daniel.
The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner. New York: Bloomsbury, 2017. Reflects on early military planning and voices retrospective criticism of the logic that led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Szilard, Leo.
Petition to the President of the United States. July 17, 1945. Signed by 70 Manhattan Project scientists urging Truman to avoid using the bomb without warning Japan.
Franck, James.
The Franck Report. June 11, 1945. A scientific advisory panel warning against the use of the bomb without first offering Japan a chance to surrender.
Eisenhower, Dwight D.
Mandate for Change: 1953–1956. Garden City: Doubleday, 1963. Eisenhower recalls opposing the bombings, saying Japan was ready to surrender and the bomb was unnecessary.
Leahy, William D.
I Was There. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950. Admiral Leahy condemned the bombings as barbaric and not necessary for victory.

Modern Pro-Bombing Sources

Giangreco, D. M.
Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945–1947. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2009. Argues that a conventional invasion would have led to massive casualties and that the bomb was the least-bad option.
Miscamble, Wilson D.
The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs, and the Defeat of Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Offers a strong defense of Truman’s decision in the face of postwar revisionism.
Maddox, Robert James.
Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1995. Refutes revisionist critiques, arguing the bombings were both militarily and morally justifiable.
Newman, Robert P.
Truman and the Hiroshima Cult. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1995. A detailed criticism of revisionist historians, defending Truman’s motives and decision-making.
Walker, J. Samuel.
Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. Balanced but ultimately concludes that Truman acted reasonably under wartime pressures.

Modern Anti-Bombing Sources

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi.
Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. Argues Japan’s surrender was more due to Soviet entry into the war than the atomic bombs.
Alperovitz, Gar.
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth. New York: Knopf, 1995. Groundbreaking revisionist work suggesting the bomb was dropped to intimidate the Soviet Union.
Takaki, Ronald.
Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. Boston: Little, Brown, 1995. Challenges official justifications, emphasizing racial prejudice and diplomatic strategy.
Lifton, Robert Jay, and Greg Mitchell.
Hiroshima in America: A Half Century of Denial. New York: Harper Perennial, 1996. Analyzes postwar cultural denial and repression around the moral implications of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Selden, Mark, and Kyoko Selden, eds.
The Atomic Bomb: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1989. Brings Japanese survivor testimonies into the historical discussion, shifting focus to the human cost.

Finally, nationalist feelings of pride some Americans feel about the victory in WW2 is natural. However, the apparent glee that many people express about the deaths of Japanese civilians is something I will never understand. Even if you believe the bombings were completely justified, if you have any shred of humanity, you can also express sympathy for the victims of the attacks and the horrific deaths and injuries they suffered from the result of a nuclear strike

The greatest way we move forward is to ensure that the use of such weapons will never again be considered an option..