Justifications, Rationalisations, Evasions: Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the American Conscience

Justifications, Rationalisations, Evasions: Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the American Conscience.

Paul Boyer's article Justifications, Rationalisations, Evasions: Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the American Conscience, is a detailed exploration on how Americans justified the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This discussion briefly examines how Americans dealt with the level of mass destruction that "wiped out two great cities in a few moments of time". Boyer's article also scrutinises public opinion on whether to approve or disapprove of the use of the atomic bomb and addresses how there were decreases in approval of the atomic bombs. "Justifications" depicts a formative point in American history, underlining how the official justification of dropping the atomic bombs shortened war and saved lives. However Boyer also focuses on how radiation was scarcely mentioned and the effects radiation had on the Japanese people.

Boyer's article is a historical representation of how people viewed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and what this meant for the future. Boyer's thesis argues that Americans retained respect in the decisions of their representatives to drop the two atomic bombs as according to Yavenditti he found that they showed "little public remorse" because Americans were provided with a lack of education about the effects of the bombings. Although America had given sufficient warning "That's ten days, pre warning than they gave us for Pearl Harbour" historians state this is speculative because lack of evidence suggests this is untrue. Thus, Boyer wanted to see whether there had been change in how Americans viewed the atomic bombs on Japan. Boyer reports, President Truman's view that the atomic bombs spared the lives of American boys and according to the secretary of state James Byrnes in an early post-Hiroshima statement that many Japanese lives were spared too. Therefore many insisted on the standard belief that the bombing of the two atomic bombs was a "positive good" mainly because they were taught to believe this. Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand in a formative point in ethical history where Boyer states the war is concluded as a "good war" which set in motion events of a "murky era" which historians are left to discuss.

Boyer's use of material to support this thesis is extensive. His narrative relies heavily on descriptions from Newspaper articles such as the Los Angeles Times, journals, newsletters, films and surveys such as the Gallup poll in late August 1945 which asked Americans to approve or disapprove of the use of the atomic bomb, "85% approved as well as 72% corresponding in Great Britain". However Boyer attempts to, make a balanced argument throughout his article focusing on the positive aspects of the atomic bomb as well as the effects of radiation therefore he sides with many historians.

Throughout the article Boyer commonly uses primary sources with some secondary however he does not rely on a single source, thus provides a well-supported argument on the effects of radiation. Radiation effects were scarcely filtered through to the American public; The New York Times stated that radiation effects were not a result of the atomic bombs and any other reports were known as