Einstein's letter to Roosevelt and the historiographic debate over the Manhattan Project

Manhattan Project was one of the most documented events in American and World History. The discussion will provide an explanation of the Manhattan Project and how the project changed society forever. The purpose of this essay is to provide a historiographic discussion on the topic of the Manhattan project.

The Manhattan Project Summary

According to a book entitled The Manhattan Project and published by the Department of Energy, Albert Einstein was actually quite instrumental in the development of the Manhattan Project. According to the book Einstein wrote a now famous letter explaining to President Roosevelt advances in science related to chain reactions through the use of Uranium. Einstein asserted that this new scientific discovery could lead to the development of bombs that would be extremely powerful and destructive.

In the letter, Einstein also revealed to the president that Germany was already attempting to build bombs involving this new scientific discovery. Roosevelt was concerned and in 1939 he approved uranium research believing that America could not take the risk of permitting Hitler to develop such a weapon without America also attempting to develop such a weapon. Roosevelt's approval of uranium research marked the beginning of the Manhattan Project.

Basically the Manhattan project represented a concerted effort to research the use of Uranium. This research took place throughout the United States. The primary places at which research was conducted included Hanford, Washington (Engineer Works); Chicago Illinois (Met Lab); Oak Ridge, Tennessee (Clinton Engineer Works); Los Alamos, New Mexico (The Laboratory and The Town). There were also other locations utilized for the Manhattan project.

Ultimately it led to the development of the Atomic Bomb. The United States became the first and only country to drop an atomic bomb and this could not of occurred without the Manhattan Project.

Histographic View

There are many different schools of thought as it pertains to the Manhattan project and ultimately the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. This aspect of the discussion will focus on the various debates amongst historians as it pertains to the aforementioned issues. These historical debates will be discussed in Chronological order as it pertains to the dates they were published.

The 1980's

During the 1980's there were also historical perspectives of the Manhattan Project that were presented. For instance in 1986 Richard Rhodes wrote The Making of the Atomic Bomb a critically acclaimed work of nonfiction that won him the Pulitzer Prize. Although the book was written by an author who was not involved in the project, it received a great deal of praise from scientists and others who did participate in the project.

From a historical perspective this book was different because it was more removed from the actual event than books and articles written in the 1960's. This distance allowed Rhodes the benefit of exploring research that had been compiled during the 60's, 70's and 80's. It was from this perspective that he was able to develop a book that told the story of the building of the atomic bomb. Again the comments made by Groves comes to mind as it pertains to books written by people who were not actually part of the Manhattan project. However, it seems that Rhodes was able to overcome his lack of first hand experiences by incorporating perspectives of people who had participated in the project first hand. Through his research he was able to compile a historic perspective that has been called one of the most accurate historic depictions of what actually occurred during the building of the atomic bomb.

In addition to the book by Rhodes, A Review of Building the Bomb: The Army and the Manhattan Project was written in 1987. This article asserts that this particular book focuses wholly on the army's efforts during the building of the bomb. The author asserts that "strength. It provides the most fully documented account imaginable of everything the Army did, but sometimes fails to ask larger questions that might enhance our broader perspective of the process that created the bomb."

The 1990's

During the 1990's quite a few historians focused on the Manhattan Project and the development of the Atomic bomb. Such historians were Robert Serber and Richard Rhodes who wrote The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How to Build an Atomic Bomb. This particular book is a compilation of the actual lectures that were given to scientists during the process of building the atomic bomb. Again this provides a first hand account from the perspective of an author who was not actual part of the Manhattan project. The book is rather technical in its approach when compared to books such as. The historical perspective of this book is unique because it provides the actual documentation that was given to scientist. In this respect it is different from other historical perspectives that only provide first hand accounts. While these accounts are important to revealing historic facts they can also be biased. However, the concrete information provided in the form of lectures in The Los Alamos Primer provides an unbiased view of how scientists went about building the bomb. On the other hand, the author also interjects his ideas concerning the building of the atomic bomb. This is seen when the author explains that at the time that the bomb was built war was a constant though in peoples minds. He explains that from the point-of-view of the 20th century readers the book may seem morbid, but at the time the building of the bomb was seen as a necessary evil. According to the book the scientists involved in the development of the atomic bomb,

Signing on to invent and craft new weapons of unprecedented destructiveness may seem bloodthirsty from today's long perspective of limited war and nuclear truce. Those were different times...The death tolls had accumulated into the millions. There was reason to believe that the Germans might be at work on an atomic bomb, might even be ahead in the race, and the prospect of the Third Reich victorious with nuclear weapons chilled the soul. A new weapon in the American Arsenal so destructive that it might frighten the belligerents into surrender seemed to many, in Winston Churchill's post war phase "a miracle of deliverance."

Understanding this history hindsight, the assertions of Serber are actually similar to the assertions made by the New World and Now it Can be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project. It is even reflected in the famous written by Albert Einstein to President Roosevelt. This is the case even though these works were written much earlier.

In the 1990's historians also began to question the impact of nuclear weapons. This questioning can be seen in Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons. This book reviews the historic cost associated with the Manhattan project and the consequences of dropping atomic bombs on Japan. From a historic perspective the author asserts that the federal government made every effort to control the cost of the project as to not be a burden on tax payers. The book provides a great deal of detailed information concerning the cost associated with the development of the atomic bomb. In addition the author focuses on the consequences of building the bomb as it pertains to toxic waste and the environmental impact of the atomic weapon. The author explains that there are definite consequences associated with compensation for those injured or harmed during nuclear testing, and the lasting economic consequences of such a weapon.

While other historians also discussed the consequences of the atomic bomb, most did not tend to reflect on the negative consequences associated with the building and dissemination of atomic bombs. Most other historic text simply describe it as a necessary evil that could not be avoided. Discussion of such consequences most likely begin to develop more in the 1990's because of the growing awareness of the consequences of toxic waste as it pertains to the environment.

The 1990's also presented a review of Atomic Spaces: Living on the Manhattan Project by Peter Bacon Hales. The review is by Scott Kirsch. According to Kirsch Hales perspective is based almost entirely on archival research and explains the entire process of planning architecture and construction associated with the Manhattan project. This review asserts that Hale limit's the scope of the research as it pertains to the locations that he discusses because he only discusses Las Alamos, Hanford and Oakridge. Perhaps Hale felt that these sights were simply the most pertinent as it pertains to the research and development of the atomic bomb. In any case his historical perspective is viewed as informative but incomplete.

The 21st Century

By the 21st century historians were still questioning the Manhattan Project and providing their perspectives. According to The Manhattan Project: Big Science and the Atom Bomb the Manhattan Project forever changed science. As with other books that are far removed from the years the Manhattan Project was underway, the book provides insight into the historical impact of the project. According to the author the historical significance of the Manhattan Project can be seen in the manner in which it transformed science. The project was the first to involve a large group of scientist working from different locations and attempting to achieve the same goals.

The historical perspective presented in this book is similar to that of Groves as it pertains to the Manhattan Project and the manner in which it was a great scientific success.

Historians of the 21st century also called into question the motive of Leslie Groves. This questioning can be seen in the Journal article "Reconsidering the Atomic General: Leslie Groves" by Barton Bernstein. Much of this journal article actually refutes the historical accounts Groves as presented by historians including Robert Norris and Stanley Goldberg. The article simply reconsiders the notions presented by other historians. In this article Berstein asserts that As Norris and Goldberg both well understood and help explain, Groves's significant achievement was that he had the great talent...to bring together in World War II America's vast engineering and scientific capacity, the nation's unique industrial prowess, and the state's abundant financial resources to produce atomic weapons for use in war against a hated enemy. The "atomic general" made it possible for those above him in the hierarchy of government -- Truman, Stimson, and Secretary of State James Byrnes, as well as possibly General Marshall -- to choose what to do with those weapons. Groves himself well understood that the employment of the bombs was virtually inevitable, although in 1945 he had acted energetically to help assure their use on Japan."

Overall works written in the 21st century focus on how the Manhattan project ultimately effected American history. The writings emphasize the costs, consequences and overall impact of Groves efforts. The perspective of the 21st century historians is unique because these historians have the benefit of distance and hindsight. In other words more than other of any other time period they can truly evaluate the long-term impact of the Manhattan Project on America and the world.

Conclusion

The historiographic look at the Manhattan project reflects differences in tone related to the type of material that is presented and the time frame in which it was presented. The books and article written in the 1960;s seem to reflect the belief that the Manhattan project was a successful scientific endeavor and the building and ultimate dropping of the atomic bomb were necessary. During the 1980's it seems that more information concerning the Atomic bomb came to light and historians utilized this information to develop more informative perspective concerning the Manhattan Project. In the 1990's and the 21st century historians began to question and provide retrospection concerning the impact of the Manhattan project informed by new information related to the economic costs and environmental impact of the toxic waste. Overall the historical perspectives seemed to be related to the decades in which they were written and the information that the authors had available to them.