Eric

= Beare US History Research Wiki Journal Prompts = = =


 * Journal Entry 1:** Topic and ideas -- What are you investigating? What are the questions that are guiding your investigation.

After changing my topic of interest a couple of times, I have decided to investigate on the development and use of atomic bombs during World War II. Two atomic bombs were dropped by the United States on Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to essentially bring about a conclusion to World War II. However, the discussion over whether or not to use the atomic bombs was very heated during the war, and the debate is one that is still heated today. By choosing to destroy most of Japan and its people, United States carries on a huge moral burden of guilt up to this day. The major question that I intend to answer is __whether the use of atomic bombs in World War 2 was necessary at all, for whatever reasons (post-war diplomacy, quick conclusion to war, etc.).__ One of the books that I’ve been reading recently, //The Bomb: A New History// by Stephen Younger, some compelling arguments (and alternatives) against the use of bombs at the time have been mentioned, including a “demonstration explosion on a remote island or at sea, an event that would be announced in advance to the Japanese government.” (Younger, 16). Surely, a simple demonstration of the destructiveness of a single bomb unprecedented at the time could have been sufficient to get Japan to surrender. The same book states that those in favor of no-demonstration-but-immediate-use-on-Japan claimed, “a demonstration might waste one of them to no effect.” But then again, I must ask, was there truly technical inefficiency or dearth of nuclear resources that a third bomb could not be produced? Or were those in favor of direct use of atomic bombs on Japan just looking for a lame excuse? How much resource was required to build atomic bombs at the time? Another book that I’ve been looking at raises the question, “Did the special properties of fission weapons, most notably radioactivity, raise ethical concerns that complicated their potential use?” (Malloy, 7) Surely, even if we take the physical practicality of the atomic bombs out of the question, there is still the issue over the ethicality of atomic bomb use, especially since the bombs devastated not only military personnel but also civilians. In order to answer my big question stated above, I also plan to investigate (actually started already, at least in part) the situations of the warring countries of the Allies and the Axis, particularly Japan and the United States. Was Japan really //that// strong during World War 2 that the US had no choice but to use atomic bombs? What, from the United States’ perspective, was the justification for using atomic bombs? Were there any alternate plans/strategies that could have ended the war without destroying everything with atomic bombs? How did atomic bomb use influence US diplomacy after the war? Although I have only contacted a few resources thus far, I am starting to get the impression that the use of Atomic Bombs wasn’t something that was //absolutely// necessary; there seem to have been better alternatives. However, I must hold myself back from jumping to any definitive conclusions at this stage, for only after I’ve sufficiently researched will I be able to make any well-supported claim.

Malloy, Sean. //Atomic Tragedy: Henry L. Stimson and The Decision to Use the Bomb// //Against Japan.// New York: Cornell University Press, 2008.
 * __Bibliography (Thus far)__**

Younger, Stephen. //The Bomb: A New History.// New York: HarperCollins, 2009.


 * Journal Entry 2:** A comment on your process to date, a brief discussion of your sources, and a listing of sources you are currently working with (correct Turabian format). This should be a significant step forward from your initial bibliography.

So far into the research project, the research process has been going very well. I have looked at a couple of online sources and many books, and I am currently looking for a good video source to gain more insight. On the whole, I have found sources in print to be more helpful than those on the Internet. The materials online often appear to be distorted facts just floating around, but published works by scholars who have devoted time and effort have turned out to give very in-depth analyses of Atomic Bomb use during World War 2 on a variety of different contexts. Over the past week or so, I’ve discovered one very useful research “technique”. Once people find a book in the library that they’d been looking for, most people just pick out that book and leave. However, since most of the books in libraries are organized/categorized by topics, I have found it really helpful to look around the shelf in the general area where I found my book. Then, I would oftentimes come over books related to Atomic Bombs that seem particularly interesting, so I’d pick them out and read through them, and such books have turned out to be some of the most helpful sources. One such book was //Hiroshima: The World’s Bomb// by Andrew Rotter. One particular source of information that has intrigued me very much is Henry L. Stimson’s article “The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb” on Harper’s Magazine. It is a very long article, but is also very rich in its content. Because Stimson was one of the leading figures in the decision making process in dropping the Atomic Bomb, he includes many private, “insider’s” information that would be difficult to find elsewhere. In addition, most of the details of the Atomic Bomb process that are given by Stimson seem to be pretty reliable, as he witnessed everything and at this point I doubt he’d have distorted any information to favor his argument. However, his article does seem biased, as he sets off to justify and reason out the use of Atomic Bombs, but the fact that he is biased in fact helps me a lot because I now have a better understanding of what the advocates of the Atomic Bomb use believed in. Another source that I’ve found to be helpful is a webpage on the George Washington University website that lists a whole bunch (nearly a hundred) of primary source documents. The interesting thing is that most of these documents are ones that were top secret, classified material at the time (but obviously, they are now declassified). There are simply so many good ones that I cannot select one to talk about, but this list of primary sources provides me of a better understanding of what was going on “behind the scenes” during World War 2. (I have not listed this in the bibliography at this point, but I will later on, once I narrow down which ones I will use extensively) In addition to the two sources above, generally speaking, the qualities of all the books that I’ve been looking at have been very good. They offer a variety of different views on the topic of Atomic Bombs and their use. Although sometimes the books overlap multiple times on the same area of discussion, it is nevertheless worthwhile to get an idea of multiple perspectives.
 * __ The Process: __**
 * __ The Quality: __**


 * __Bibliography (In addition to the one on 1st Wiki Post)__**

Alperovitz, Gar. //The Decision To Use The Atomic Bomb: And The Architecture of an American Myth.// New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995. Reed, Thomas, and Danny Stillman. //The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and Its Proliferation.// Minneapolis: Zenith Press, 2009. Rotter, Andrew. //Hiroshima: The World’s Bomb.// New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Sherwin, Martin. //A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance.// New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975. Stimson, Henry L. “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” //Harper’s Magazine//, February 1947, 97-107.


 * Journal Entry 3:** What is your Thesis?

When I initially set out on this project, I was planning to address a variety of different possible reasons/justifications for the use of atomic bombs. However, as my research progressed, I began to figure out that it would virtually be impossible to talk about //all// the reasons and make my argument, so I decided to focus on strictly the military basis/rationale for using the atomic bombs on Japan. Sure, there were probably plenty other reasons, such as post war diplomatic reasons, but I figured that narrowing my argument down to answer whether the use of atomic bombs was necessary from a strictly military perspective would enable me to do a more in-depth analysis.

So, the thesis paragraph that I have formulated as of now is the following (I have already started writing out my paper, so this is simply copied and pasted from my essay thus far). This thesis may be liable to a few minor changes in wording, etc. but its content and central claim will remain the same.

Thesis:

Although it is very difficult to assess the rights and wrongs of past historic events from a modern perspective, the detonation of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” were unnecessary to achieve the outcome of bringing about the earliest possible end to World War II. Of course, there most likely would have been many other reasons to use the atomic bombs on Japan, such as issues over post-war diplomacy, but speaking strictly in terms of the military purposes, the use of the two atomic bombs was unnecessary in the war. Japan had already essentially lost the war before the detonation of the atomic bombs, and, contrary to what is widely known, the Japanese officials recognized the gravity of their situation and were willing to surrender (under terms only minutely different from that of the United States). In addition, there were plenty peaceful alternatives to bring about an end to the Pacific war, and had Britain and United States appropriately made use of such alternatives in their diplomacy with Japan, it would have been completely unnecessary to use atomic bombs and take on one of the biggest moral burdens in human history.

Some of my supporting arguments include (order to be determined):

I. Japan was already devastated before the detonation of the atomic bombs, so the Allies could’ve gained an easy victory anyway. II. The Japanese were willing to surrender, on terms only minutely different from the terms of the “Unconditional Surrender” insisted by the United States. III. Many effective alternatives, such as demonstrating the power of atomic bombs on an unoccupied island, existed. (I will observe the arguments of those who supported the use of atomic bombs and show how they are wrong)

Additional Bibliography: Hamby, Alonzo L. Review of //The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth,// by Gar Alperovitz. //Journal of American History// 84, no. 2 (1997). Weber, Mark. “Was Hiroshima Necessary?” //The Journal of Historical Review// 16, no. 3 (1997): 4-11. The History Place. “Timeline of Events 1941-1945.” The History Place. United States. Pacific War. Timeline. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/pacificwar/timeline.htm (accessed April 12, 2010).