United States Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson considered sharing the atomic bomb; in his plan to President Harry Truman. Secretary Stimson expressed a prophetic understanding of the global dynamics of what would soon become an international arms race for dominance of atomic and nuclear armament: The Cold War. Secretary Stimson’s plan addressed the fundamental facts of human nature through politics and policy, and how Russia and the world reacted.
Secretary Stimson reached further and correctly with a disregard of the political paranoia of the day and suggested sharing for balance with France, China, and the United Nations. Secretary Stimson was able to disregard the heavy rhetoric used to described our World War Two allies and partners and look past the post-war bickering and into the balance of arms for international peace and stability. In his perspective, a mindful and straightforward approach of carrot over stick was required to maintain peace.
Secretary Stimson forged his proposal under utmost secrecy and in an uncomfortable environment. With the recent death of then President Roosevelt, and the rise of Vice President to President Truman following the death of Roosevelt. Truman took the reins to discover that many secrets that were hidden from him, among them The Manhattan Project.
President Truman was not the idea man of the hour, and he did not have a comprehensive partnership with President Roosevelt; he was a political attachment and was never thought to be in any danger of becoming President. While President Roosevelt was a strong, respected leader, with international clout and earned unwavering rapport for America amongst her allies. Being as this was, President Truman was kept in the dark, and most of his matters were political and domestic in nature.
After the sudden death of President Roosevelt, President Truman was strapped onto a rocket that was programmed in one direction and the instructions were not in any language that he understood. To obtain orbit and manage his new position, and in particular the Manhattan Project, President Truman began by demanding that his staff brief him accordingly, and in full on the issues at hand and plans in motion.
The largest and most comprehensive plan of the day was the Manhattan Project, which was a project that could win the war, and completely rearrange the balance of power across the global, and into American hands. A power that would come with many stipulations. President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill had already made the decision to exclude Russia from the Manhattan Project. A decision that was destined to fragment the Big Three Allies, an already delicate Anglo-Saxon and Soviet alliance of convenience.
The divide was clearly present, but this action was set to push Russia into a more aggressive stance and cement the foundation of the Anglo-Saxon Divide. The next question is, who else would become a foe, an ally or assist in upcoming struggle to maintain the balance of global power and stability needed for peace to prevail in the Nuclear Age. This new weapon, “The Bomb” was the game-changing device that completely upset conventional warfare, incited paranoia amongst those not in command of its power, and sent shockwaves of awe across the globe.
President Truman did not need to technically understand the employment and capabilities of the Bomb; this was for the generals. What President Truman and every other leader in the world needed to know was how to deploy this weapon system diplomatically and who is responsible enough to own it. The ownership of such a device is sufficient to incite war from other nations out of their fear of self-preservation.
In this landscape, Secretary Stimson developed his plan, which was primarily focused on the already failing relations with Russia and the implications that the Atomic Bomb would have on this relationship. Part of the plan called for a diplomacy - approach Russia as opposed to merger negotiations with the Bomb on our hip.
Secretary Simson insinuated that this action was not an appropriate diplomatic approach, but that Russia would develop atomic weapon capabilities on their own. He believed that it would have been wiser to be their partner, rather than their competitor. To him, the Bomb was in-line with the previous military gas use agreements, which were miserable failures but the standard diplomatic policy that led to massive casualties throughout World War One.
The highlight of Secretary Simson’s plan in light of bringing about better relations with the Russia and to turn down the post-World War Two hostilities, in his own words:
Since the crux of the problem is Russia, any contemplated action leading to the control of this weapon should be primarily directed to Russia.
This sentence in a well-written warning that underlines his plan as a whole and is a concise understanding of world affairs. Going to Russia with the bomb, even over the international community would have been the most peace supporting course of action at that time. The problem with that plan is that it went against nearly everything the post-war drummers in the march for American nationalism and isolationism were against.
Secretary Stimson’s Pax Americana plan would have been seen as weak, and as a de facto President; President Truman would have been committing political suicide for the greater good of possible world peace. It would have been a shamble at the time, and only for historians to decide later, yet it was a course of action that was not taken.
We study this history now and are fortunate to not have lived through such a global war that had seen our nation brutally entangled across the globe. In retrospect and out of the context of the post-war rhetoric and politics that then flooded the streets, as Secretary Stimson proposed his plan, a new and default, President took power with a career and reputation on the line. When the powerful force of the Atomic Bomb was born to end World War Two but was still nowhere near the devastating and heavily produced weapon system that it became.
What did follow were treaties, proliferation, and enough international cooperation to prevent global thermonuclear war. Such diplomatic and political measures which were just as trying in their time. Even though only a few of our current systems existed or functioned and the international dialogue was shattered by the war along with historical grudges.
To retrospectively look from the inside of the United States at that time, which stumbled to its feet from the Great Depression, directly into a global war, and in a fear of returning to the pre-war economic state. The Atomic Bomb was our ace in the hole and a segue into dominance for implementing international policies to reestablish the United States economic strength globally, along with our partner the United Kingdom. We didn’t need the Russians or the United Nations on our level of tactical employment. We needed might to ensure our growth and assure our new partners in NATO. The Russians and the international Communists were to be contained in the third-world as we led the free world economically and bided for power and resources in the second and third-world.
Secretary Stimson’s plan is not how history played out, but for the decision makers at the time, it was what they believed best for whom they felt represented. The decision not to share information with Russia lead to the hyper-ignition of the Cold War and the military standoff between NATO and the Warsaw Pact that lasted until Premier Gorbachev ceded Communism to the people of Russia. The foresight of Secretary Stimson is stunning and accurate, but it was ignored. It is optimistic to consider the alternate course of history had we maintained a working relationship with Russia, and possibly a more advanced and unified global community. Yet we did not, and we have an enemy that is seemingly destined to maintain its role as our chief enemy.
Featured Image - Atomic cloud over Nagasaki, Hiromichi Matsuda - Public Domain.
Join our community. To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.
Whoa...I have never considered the role of our nuclear power in our post-WWII economic recovery and international economic relations. That was like a light bulb just flicked on. I'm gonna have to think about this one some more. Monday morning quarterbacking as a child who grew up at the tail end of the Cold War, the thought of following Stimson's idea seems blasphemous (i.e., in retrospect, how could they possibly be trusted??) But your point is a good one. At the time, they weren't the enemy then that they later became. Forks in the road stuff. Good article!
I agree with your statement in all but that the Soviets were in no condition to continue after Berlin. On the contrary, their war production was in full swing and their numbers were staggering. They outnumbered us in Europe by 20:1.
If we decided to enlarge the war with China, better to bribe Chiang to say and do nothing than to let him anywhere near it. The majority of the Chinese people were delighted to be rid of him and his cronies. (Not enough time had passed for them to realize just how bad Mao was going to turn out to be...) We couldn't just "arrange an accident" for him since his cronies just as bad. He had troops that crossed the border into Burma and Thailand in 1949. They staged some raids into China that mostly robbed and killed villagers... but soon their leaders set themselves up as drug lords. In later years I met some fine officers from Taiwan. They too were delighted when Chiang died and the worst of the corruption dissipated. "Unleash Chiang Kai Shek" wasn't just silly, it was silliness on stilts. If we ever decided to "Muck about in Manchuria..." no matter what happened, the results would have been better without him than with him. . http://bookish.asia/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/barbarian-at-the-gate-201603.jpg . -Yankee Papa-
I couldn't agree more with you and Buck RE: the obstacles to taking the war to Russia. Difficult to make a case to the public when politicians spent the last few years praising the "ally" on the eastern front. One more thing to thank Roosevelt for.. (on a side note, I think a widespread reevaluation of Roosevelt's Presidency is long overdue: many economists have now discredited the view that the New Deal helped end the depression and believe that it, in fact, extended it for a decade. For example, see interesting ebook below) https://www.amazon.com/Great-Myths-Depression-Lawrence-Reed-ebook/dp/B014I4WEA2?ie=UTF8&keywords=great%20myths%20of%20the%20great%20depression&qid=1464099354&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1 As for China, was there something that could have been done short of full-scale invasion? I think we first missed an opportunity by not supporting Chiang on the basis advanced by MacArthur - he's a "devil" that's one step up from the communists. Perhaps - as Buck suggests - an OSS action in conjunction with other Nationalist leaders could have replaced Chiang as the head of the anti-communists? One interesting "what-if" thread is: would we have been engaged in Korea if not for Yalta? We basically invited the Soviets to join us in the Pacific and they ended up occupying Northern Korea, which led to the 38th parallel... If not for Soviet intervention/occupation, would Korea still be able/allowed to support the Chinese communists in their civil war? Thanks for sharing the story about your father - I'm glad to hear that someone had his back and prevented a political hatchet job. At least we know journalists haven't changed - I'm reminded of McChrystal... My grandfather (WWII vet) STILL speaks about Patton and MacArthur in almost reverent tones. There hasn't been a news broadcast about Iraq/Afghanistan in the past 15 years where I haven't heard him say something along the lines of: "Things would be different if Patton were around...he'd say to hell with all these crooks (politicians) and he'd go out and win the war." At 92 years old, I'm pretty sure he'd pick up a rifle today and follow Patton. On a personal note, I've been reading SOFREP for a few years but haven't commented much before. I have noticed that your comments are consistently constructive and highly informative (first time I've ever typed that on the internet!); I've picked up more than a few books based on your recommendations. I always look forward to reading your insights on any given topic. Thank you!
First, I failed to credit and thank you for writing an interesting, thought-provoking article. I think historical topics (especially with "what-if" scenarios) are not only fascinating but help inform our thinking on current events. Also, I understand that you are playing out Stimson's perspective for the sake of the article and not necessarily agreeing with his position per se - if I come across as "passionate" about this topic it's not directed at you, it's a reaction to not only how events ended up playing out but also to the recent navel-gazing and second-guessing brought to light by POTUS visiting Hiroshima. My problem with Iran getting a nuke is twofold: (1) although I agree with your MAD scenario - it does still presume rational actors. I don't trust that rational actors will always be in control of countries like Iran. (2) It severely limits future options for dealing with Iran (in almost any capacity, not just invasion). Try to slap sanctions on them - threat of a nuke. Clamp down on Hezbollah - threat of a nuke. Will they actually follow through? Probably not - but it becomes a complicating factor in every equation going forward. It also forces us to get in bed with the devil (at least more than we already do!), so to speak...see Pakistan. That being said, I'm certainly not advocating invading Iran. I honestly don't have a silver bullet in mind. I think things like STUXNET and assassinating the scientists were a great start, and I presume between Israel and ourselves we still have sticks like that in the fire.