The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb Good and Bad One of the major questions regarding the study of World War II is whether or not the United States was justified in dropping the Atomic Bomb on Imperial Japan at the end of the War. Crimes against humanity, as never witnessed before, and hopefully to never be seen again, occurred during the course of World War II. The security of our nation and of other Allied nations was severely threatened, not only by the Germans, but also by the Japanese. The Japanese were a strong people willing to fight until it was no longer possible. It may even be said that they were suicidal, with their kamikaze pilots and no real hope of defeating the Allied nations.
The United State’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, on August 6 and August 9, 1945, has been constantly debated. Some say it was necessary to end the war. President Harry S. Truman argued that the bomb was completely necessary to end the war. It was a speedy end to the war and it saved lives. It was argued that to wait for the Japanese to surrender would have cost many lives.
The bombing of Hiroshima, and later, Nagasaki were not justifiable military acts but war crimes. One of the major arguments about the bombing of Hiroshima had been whether the Japanese would have surrendered without the atomic bomb or not. President Truman said the atomic bomb was necessary to make Japan surrender quickly and prevent both more American and Japanese casualties. Others believed that there was no need for the use of the atomic bomb. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey issued in July 1946 declared “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior
In World War two there were many battles fought. One of the most controversial issues for the United States was not even a battle though. It was the use of the atomic bomb on two Japanese cities. I believe that the US was right in using the atomic bombs on Japan. The Japanese planned a secret attack on the United States.
The United States actions are seen by many as inhumane and hypocritical. As a nation we strive to “keep the peace” among other countries, yet we targeted a city full of innocence. Some historians believe that the U.S. wanted to prove its superiority to other countries involved in the war. Supporters of the bombing argue in a “future tense”, stating that the use of the bomb was justified in order to save millions of lives from a planned invasion on Japan. Those who oppose the bombing, including many U.S military leaders and former president Herbert Hoover, agree that it was simply a terrorist act against
First and foremost, there was the controversy surrounding his invasion of the Philippines. Many officials believed that such efforts were useless and led to unnecessary bloodshed. However, on the other hand, some believed that this battle helped to end World War II. Next was the controversy surrounding his exoneration of Japanese hierarchies such as Emperor Hirohito from being punished for the attack on Pearl Harbor and, instead, placing the blame on Hideki Tojo. Finally, the largest controversy surrounded his public outcries to invade Japan against the orders of President Truman.
This immeasurable release of energy would be the cause of the destruction of two Japanese cities, and perhaps America’s worst offensive move in the history of war. The building of the Atomic Bomb was a highly kept government secret. Many of the workers who took part in the manufacturing of parts and assembling of the final project were oblivious to the type of power that the bomb contained. Only the handful of scientists- led by Oppenheimer- and the President himself were totally aware of what was going on. Not even
Abstract The research question of this investigation is whether or not the Allies should have bombed Auschwitz concentration camp. Britain and the United States boasted two of the strongest air forces in the world during the Second World War, yet such an operation never came to fruition. The bombing operation would have targeted the camp itself and the railway tracks leading towards its perilous gates. In order to assess this research question numerous secondary and primary sources were utilized from scholarly articles, journal articles, newspaper articles, and first person accounts. This examination of sources helped bring forth strong arguments for both bombing opponents and proponents.
John Hersey’s article ‘Hiroshima’, first published in the New Yorker on the 31st of August 1946, was influential in shaping both American and Global sentiment in regards to the deployment of nuclear weapons , startling a previously apathetic populace into confronting the horrors encountered by individuals in Hiroshima. Hersey bases his article around the experiences of six individuals present during the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, instead of recounting in totality the effects of the bomb, the focalisation on the individuals gives a distinctly human feel to the composition, a significant factor when referring to how the text directed sentiments, since the American population In particular only had limited exposure to the implications that the dropping of the bomb had, due to stringent censorship on Hiroshima related material and the exposure they did have, for example pictures taken of nuclear weapon testing on the bikini atoll failed to encapsulates the ‘human’ effect of the bomb. This victim’s point of
Such an immense catastrophe should never be repeated: a highly destructive massacre is not justifiable by any means. Despite the fact that cities were completely ruined, the atomic bomb – along with the concentration camps, bloody stalemates, and the war in general, – left a remorseful feeling that led humanity to reflect upon its own value. Similarly, nationalism decreased and people are now more concerned about humanity as a unique and unified race, rather than several different races fighting for power. Nevertheless, even when nations now collaborate with one another during times of struggle and a nuclear attack has not taken place again, worldwide peace still fails to exist. As long as humanity inhabits this planet, disputes will remain; so the challenge then is to learn how to manage these problems while saving the human race.