History 4000

History 4000 Papers

Earlier 4000 Papers

2285 Attendance

History 2285

Justin Semones

History 4000

Dr. Morrill

June 2, 2008

First Book Review

            In Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb Ronald Takaki provides fresh insights into the motivations behind America’s bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in hopes of stimulating further discussion and consideration of these dramatic and horrific events at the close of World War Two.  use of the atomic bomb during World War II in hopes .  In this work of historical Non-fiction, Takaki questions some of the long-standing beliefs of the atomic bomb’s military necessity.  The three main points Takaki considers are Russian Intimidation, American Racism and a Truman inferiority complex. He suggests that these factors played a large role in the development and implementation of the bomb.  Takaki forges his argument by extensively quoting many important players in the decision to use the new weapon to its greatest military effectiveness.  It is also important to consider the writers position as a professor of ethnic studies and how this circumstance might have affected his stance on the bombs use.

            Takaki’s argument is well researched and his prose flows quite smoothly.  His arguments are made quite tactfully but some of them fell short of convincing this reader.  For example, Takaki seems to suggest that the use of the atomic bomb to intimidate the Russians did not quite work out for Americans.  While this opinion is a difficult one to advance it is impossible to deny that the bomb gave the American negotiators at Potsdam a strong bargaining chip; even Takaki intimates that Molotov, the soviet foreign minister, was frightened by the jocular suggestion of the bombs use against Russia.

            In his introduction Takaki says that one of his goals in writing Hiroshima was to “allow the actors, such as President Truman and Secretary of State Byrnes, to give their versions of what happened.”  In this endeavor Takaki extensively quotes the former president and his policy makers—indeed he bolsters this dramatic theme by prefacing several of his chapters with Shakespearian quotations.  But does he over quote?  The use of quotations in historical analysis is of great importance, but it is equally important to make an effective use of the given quotation.  There are several instances in Hiroshima where the author uses three or more quotes in a single paragraph.  This bevy of quotation seems to detract from Takaki’s historical analysis.  It is also important to consider the limitations of a quote; the importance of context is paramount.  Some of the quotations implemented by Takaki are so terse that it is hard to believe that the speakers are not being, at least slightly, misinterpreted.

            Takaki’s position as a professor of ethnic studies should also be considered when evaluating and conceptualizing his work.  One of the main points the writer considers in his reassessment of America’s decision to drop the atomic bomb is American racism and prejudice against Asian people and the Japanese in particular.  Takaki seems to suggest that these feelings of racism, established in the nineteenth century, played a role in Truman’s decision to drop the bomb.  He strenuously proves Truman’s negative racial attitude towards African Americans, and intimates the strong racial tension that grew in the hearts of many American soldiers fighting in the Pacific.  But he does not bring this argument home.  Primarily, Takaki fails to prove Truman’s disdain for the Japanese.  This section of Hiroshima could have been shorter and should have focused more on American public opinion contemporary to the use of the bomb.

            Hiroshima was ultimately an effective book.  While it felt a bit biased, its main purpose was to inspire debate and raise new ideas concerning the use of atomic weaponry.  In this goal it was successful.  It is important in a scholarly setting to raise such difficult questions, and make new suggestions.  If history goes unchallenged it becomes stagnant and regurgitated.  Only with such debate can we truly build a stronger idea of the realities of a given historical event.