At this time 50 years ago a dire situation was addressed and a difficult decision was made. The result of that decision launched one bomber crew on a mission that took their specially modified B-29 Flying Fortress straight into the heart of Japan where the an intensive scientific experiment reached a climax. And when that uranium bomb, christened Little Boy, decimated the city of Hiroshima, the world entered a new level of destructive capability.
The leaders who made that decision had been preparing for almost five years. A scientific war machine consisting of perhaps the greatest collection of minds in history was formed. As this massive project moved towards success, the moral and political ramifications of the project were assessed. In those private rooms of the White House an official position on the project was created. The full reasons and considerations for deciding to drop the atomic bomb on Japan was never explained to the public.
But now I sit here this morning, 50 years later, listening to Norman Schwarzkoff insist that it is unfair for us to look back at that decision and criticize it in hind sight. I face a July 29 New York Times article by Russell Baker insisting that criticisms of the accepted history of the Manhattan Project are merely examples of revisionist history. Baker considers this "revision" of history to be a "campaign to make every American over age 68 feel guilty about the atomic bombings of Japan."
Or perhaps these new conclusions reflect the words of the men who made the decision. We now have the opportunity to read the diaries of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson. We now can read all of the memos between all of the majors players.
Mr. Baker, have you taken the time to read this information and make an intelligent and informed assessment of what happened? Or is this your instinctive emotional response to any questioning of the accepted history?
For example, perhaps you have never read General MacArthur's memo to General Marshall in which MacArthur addresses the often quoted casualty figures that are used to defend the dropping of the bomb. Quoted in Martin Sherwin's book "A World Destroyed," MacArthur makes the interesting comment that "the estimate is purely academic ... I do not anticipate such a high rate loss."
Of course you could accuse me of taking the quote out of context. Fine, do so. But in order to do so you need to read the documents yourself. You need to analyze the primary sources and make an educated decision. Merely standing on an old, worn soapbox is not sufficient to condemn me as a revisionist.
The debate over the Manhattan Project reflects a larger problem within our society: we do not question the accuracy of the talking-heads who make claims through mass media, nor do we find the evidence and make our own conclusions.
This is a dangerous situation, for it is important to know how decisions are reached by our leaders in order to be aware of the possible decisions that will be made concerning our present problems. The assessment of the problems should not be limited to merely the ethical components but also the long term affects of the decision.
So why do we assume that the decision to drop the atomic bomb, which radically changed the political world, only considered the present situation, namely an invasion of Japan?
When Little boy was dropped, more was at stake than the end of the Pacific War. Already an Interim Committee existed to address future problems of arms control and technology containment of the Atomic program. The June 11, 1945 Franck Report addressed the political implications of atomic weapons. This is not a revisionist claim; the report exists and its analysis of future political effects is a fact of history. The scientists made their own assessment of the political ramifications and submitted these opinions through Vannevar Bush and James Conant, advisors to Roosevelt. The National Archives have the memorandum Bush and Conant sent to the Secretary of War outlining the scientists' position.
These are basic facts. Go find copies of the documents in our libraries and read these sources yourself. Analyze the evidence and come to your own conclusion, which may be the same as before, but at least it will be based on an educated assessment and not on the current zeitgeist that makes the public feel comfortable about their history.
