Research Notes: Citation & Evaluation of Source

Research topic:

Basic Source Information:  Book Source Author: Robert James Maddox  Web source Article Title: “The Biggest Decision: Author: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb” Title of Webpage: Book Title: Annual Editions: United Name of Site: States History, Volume 2—Through the Present Reconstruction Publisher or sponsor: Additional information (Editor, Edition): Date of resource creation/copyright Robert James Maddox, 20 date: City of Publication: New York Medium: Publisher: McGraw-Hill Date of access: Copyright date: 2009 Medium: Print Page numbers:117-121

MLA Citation of Source (you may need to add other details as necessary):

Is the source primary (close to the event, first person account) or is it secondary (removed from the event, written by a researcher/expert in the field)?

Secondary What is the purpose or reason why this article was written? How do you know?  Inform: Provides factual information surrounding the decision to drop the atomic bomb.  Entertain:  Persuade: Tries to convince the reader that Truman made the right/only decision.

Who is the intended audience of the article? How do you know?  General public: Any one could pick up and read this article.  Academia: It is a well researched article.  Specific individuals (please specify who):

Rate the quality of information 1 low 3 average 5 excellent  trustworthy source  well researched: Presumably, though no citations/footnotes are attached.

Rate the quantity of information 1 little useful info 3 some useful info 5 lots of info

Content Notes

When taking notes, be sure to indicate before each note whether it is a: Summary (SUM): a record of the general idea of large amounts of material Paraphrase (PPhrase): detailed notes on specific sentence put in YOUR OWN WORDS Direct Quotation (DQ): a specific passage in which the original wording might be an effective addition to your paper, and you therefore transcribe it word for word, comma for comma Personal Thoughts (ME): you indicate your reactions, questions, comments to the content of the article

What is the author’s thesis (central argument or point being made)? SUM: The author argues that the U.S. had to use the Atomic Bomb on Japan because an invasion would cost many more lives and peace talks with Japan were not working.

What are the supporting arguments for the thesis? (What evidence do they provide to prove their point?) DQ: Maddox sets up the initial situation of Japan in 1945, articulating that “Japan meant to fight the war to a finish” (117). ME: The Japanese did not believe in surrender. They would rather commit suicide than be captured by the enemy. SUM/PPhrase: Truman and his military chiefs of staff spent considerable time weighing the options of invasion, starting with the island of Kyushu before even considering the use of the bomb. They calculated that the number of casualties could have reached as high as 193,500 (119). SUM: Maddox argues that Japanese peace talks were not genuine (120). DQ: “Exchanges between Togo and Sato provides no evidence that retention of the emperor was the sole obstacle to peace. What they sho instead is that the Japanese Foreign Office was trying to cut a deal through the Soviet Union that would have permitted Japan to retain its political system and its prewar empire intact. Even the most lenient American official could not have countenanced such a settlement” (120). SUM: Ambassador Sato wants American help at the end of the war, but Japan ignores him. Japan instead continues to seek the U.S.S.R.s help. Japan’s inability to clearly communicate with the U.S. prevents the U.S. from believing Japan’s efforts. DQ: “When the Japanese rejected the [Potsdam] ultimatum rather than at last inquire whether they might retain the emperor, Truman permitted the plans for using he bombs to go forward” (121). Does the author address the opposing arguments? What are they? How do they refute them? DQ: “The notion that 193,500 anticipated casualties were too insignificant to have caused Truman to resort to atomic bombs might seem bizarre to anyone other than an academic [ . . .] [rebuttal] First, the report itself is studded with qualifications that casualties ‘are not subject to accurate estimate’ [ . . . ] second, the figures never were conveyed to Truman [ . . . ] estimates totally irrelevant by the time the first atomic bomb was dropped” (119). DQ: “Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman’s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. [rebuttal] None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim” (119). DQ: “Some historians have argued that while the first bomb might have been required to achieve Japanese surrender, dropping the second constituted a needless barbarism. [rebuttal] The record shows otherwise! American officials believed more than one bomb would be necessary because they assumed Japanese hard-liners would minimize the first explosion or attempt to explain it away as some sort of natural catastrophe, precisely what they did. The Japanese minister of war, for instance, at first refused even to admit that Hiroshima bomb was atomic. A few hours after Nagasaki he told the cabinet that ‘the Americans appeared to have one hundred atomic bombs . . . they could drop three per day. The next target might well be Tokyo’” (121). SUM: Even after the surrender, the Japanese want too much control. This further indicates their peace talks were insufficient before the dropping of the bomb. PPhrase: Some documents, such as the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (1946) indicate that there was absolutely no need to drop the bomb. [rebuttal] Scholarship indicates that this survey was not authentic. Regardless, even if hindsight is 20/20, the information is irrelevant because it’s not what Truman and advisors would have known at the time (121).

What conclusion or results are proposed within the source? DQ: “Available evidence points to the conclusion that he [Truman] acted for the reason he said he did: to end a bloody war that would have become far bloodier had invasion proved necessary” (121).

What information will be most important to your argument? (Please attach additional pages of notes if necessary.) ME: This article is clearly pro-bomb, indicating that it was necessary to drop it. It also provides ample information to refute much of the opposition’s claims.