In 1945, Harry S. Truman had a big decision to make. Do I risk the lives of tens of thousands maybe even hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese soldiers in the island jumping campaign? Or, do I destroy the lives of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians? So, no matter what there is going to be significant loss of life. The worst part, Truman will be ordering the end of lives no matter what, and the war has already been raging for years now. One can only imagine what must have gone through the president's head during the summer of 1945.
But, getting to the point, Truman's hands are dirty. He initiated the death of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. But, the counter-argument states that the war was over nine days after the first bombing. Do the ends justify the means? Whether they do or not, August 6th, 1945, was a day that shook the world.
In the end, the question of whether these ends are justified is still up to debate. As a class, (Polisci 101), we read an article by Michael Walzer. In that article he explains to the best of his ability the "Dirty Hands Problem." He explains that a politician must make decisions that may be viewed as immoral. But these decisions are made because nobody else can or wants to make them. And furthermore, they are made for us, the people. So, in a sense, we all have dirty hands. Do we not elect our officials? Do we not put them into office because we trust them to make a hard decision regardless of the consequences? Politicians have dirty hands so we, the public, do not have to bear the brunt of them. Harry Truman knew what the bombs were capable of, just look back to Bikini Atoll. If the bombs had the power to move that much ocean, and toss aside the biggest and best warships of the time, surely they had the power to level a city.
With this knowledge, Harry Truman plunged his hands into the muck. He took all of the blood, the death, and the blame, and put on his hands. These are things that can never be washed away. But in the end, the decision was made with the United States in mind. While the decision resulted in much death, it was arguably the fastest way to end the war with as few U.S. casualties as possible. So next time you criticize the decisions of your political leaders, remember whose hands are getting dirty, and in turn your hands that aren't.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post! I think you did a great job with your connection of "Dirty Hands" by Walzer to Truman's decision. Truman had two choices to choose between. The first was to use the bomb and end the war quickly, while killing tens of thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands of people. The second is to continue in a more traditional war that was lasting for so long already and would ultimately increase more deaths for Americans and maybe even allow another attack on the US.
In the end, Truman decided to use the bomb, making his hands "dirty" in a sense. But, we have to look at the fact that the war was over just 9 days after the first bombing. Walzer explains that a politician must make decisions that may be viewed as immoral. But these decisions are made because nobody else can or wants to make them. We elect our officials to make these decisions, and this is what Truman did.
Truman put all the blame on himself because he made the decision, but this is his job. The decision was made with the benefit of the United States in mind, so his hands were dirty, not the peoples.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a very insightful blog post that really drew parallels between Walzer's "The Problem with Dirty Hands" to the actions of President Harry Truman. I understand that Truman had two options in regards to the atomic bomb and he chose to go with the one that ultimately led to arguably more bloodshed on his hands. Truman truly does become a Machiavellian ruler in regards to the belief that the ending of the war justifies the manner in which it was brought about.
In book titled, "Conscience and Power: An Examination of Dirty Hands and Political Leadership" by Stephen Garrett, the author discusses in the preface this exact same situation. He talks about Robert Oppenheimer, the scientist behind the Manhattan Project and thus the creation of the atomic bomb. After the war was over, there was discussion among politicians over whether to develop the H-bomb or not, and Oppenheimer felt the blood on his hands despite the fact that decision to use the bomb did not even lie solely in his hands. In response to Oppenheimer’s concerns, Truman is believed to have said that Oppenheimer “turned into a crybaby. I don’t want anything to do with people like that.” This seemingly heartless response reaffirms the idea that the need of dirty hands pertains solely to politics.
So, while I do agree that politics does follow dirty hands, I personally do not believe that this occurrence of the decision to drop the atomic bomb was justified. Another aspect of your well-formulated argument that I do not wholly agree with is the analogy that as politicians get their hands dirty, we as citizens do as well. Despite the fact that we do elect politicians to government, citizens themselves do not vote on each individual plan of action that the nation proceeds to take. Thus it may be a stretch to say that citizens themselves dirty their hands because they elect the leaders who do.
Overall however, this was a very engaging blog post!
Malini
Very interesting post!
ReplyDeleteI, too, am fascinated by President Truman and his decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, I am still unsure if his decision was the best possible. My main reason for being inconclusive is that his decision spared the continuation of war and how ever many lives that would have taken, but his decision took a hundred thousand lives, some of which were INNOCENT. I almost feel that it would have been better for him to let war ride out and allow those ready to die for their nation, the soldiers, to fight and die, rather than unsuspecting civilians.
Nevertheless, somebody had to make a decision and Truman understood the task placed in front of him. Using his judgment and likely the advising of several high ranking officials, he decided that dropping the bombs were the best idea, for that reason and my undeniable patriotism, I believe the dropping of the bombs was the best course our country could have taken for the sake of our well-being. However, who knows if it supports the betterment of global society? If anyone has further input regarding this, please comment!
Ben