The historians who support Truman, sometimes called the traditionalists, agree that Japan had been defeated but argue that Japan was not ready to surrender and was, in fact, preparing for one last great battle that would have cost millions of lives. Popular opinion tends to side with the revisionists, but I will argue that Truman made the right decision, not only for the United States but also for Japan; in fact, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved Japan. Revisionists argue that the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima after Japan’s armed forces and over sixty of its major cities had been already been destroyed. Moreover, historians such as Howard Zinn argue that Truman knew that the Japanese were trying to surrender but that he ignored them because he wanted to use the Bomb (23). Gar Alperovitz, another revisionist, says that Truman’s main purpose in dropping the bombs was to demonstrate its power in order to intimidate the Russians (127).
The Ethical Merits of Truman’s Japanese Atomic Bombing Decision: Was it Justified? Name: Institutional Affiliation: Abstract Over the years since the end of World War II, there have been raging debates about the United States’ controversial decision to unleash nuclear atomic bombs on Japan. The decision that has sparked worldwide discourse among historians and scientists alike was made by the then US president, Harry S. Truman. One bomb hit Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 while a second bomb was dropped in the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. The aftermath of the two bombings was catastrophic, with hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians buried and killed by the bomb debris.
In fact, the debates behind using the atomic bombs against Japan began even before the decision was made. Many of the scientists such as Leo Szilard and Dr. James Franck, who made great contributions towards the creation of the bomb, campaigned against its use. President Truman said “We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Amercicans”. It is completely understandable that President Truman’s aim was always to save the lives as many American people, but was it necessary to do it by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan? And was the reason behind the decision to drop the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki purely to ‘save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans’?
I disagree that the Japanese in WW2 were defeated more because of their weakness rather than the strength of the Allied forces. The Japanese weaknesses included their incapability in managing the empire they took on. The strengths of the allied powers included their intelligent military strategies, an example was the "Island Hopping Strategy of Attack" used by America. Also, the dropping of two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had an impact on Japan which caused them to surrender. The term "defeated more" refers to the factor which had the greatest impact on Japan, causing them to be drove to a state of devastation and have no other way than surrender unconditionally.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed millions of people, left families with nothing, and leveled cities. The war would have gone on for a couple more years if we had not dropped the bombs and sent troops to Japan instead. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. This is one of the pros for the atomic bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of the pros for dropping the atom bombs is that the Japanese would have not surrendered.
Necessity of the bomb lies with the amount of people that would have been killed in a land invasion, although it was vastly exaggerated. If next generation were raised on the path the Japanese were taking, they would grow up to become monsters. it saved many American Soldiers lives by stopping a land invasion of Japan and prisoners of war were being abused. But the Atomic bomb used against Japan was not necessary to end the war considering the numbers of American lives saved was vastly exaggerated, They were sending their battleships and pilots out on suicide missions as they were desperate, there was a vengeance for pearl harbour and racism towards the Japanese people, many victims of the bomb were civilians that had nothing to do with the war, the only reason Japanese weren’t surrendering is because they didn’t want to give up there emperor to the “unconditional surrender” and to demonstrate their power over the world. The bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to end the war as it would save many lives as suggests in source A “should adopt a position that rather than throw to this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British live”.
The decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had many influential factors effecting the decision. There certainly was the possibility of success for an invasion, but the decision not to invade far outweighed the decision to invade. Conventional bombing and Blockade were considered in the effort to force Japan into surrender. But, the fact that the Japanese military were controlling the Government and were in a state of mind of absolute refusal to surrender, meant that this was not a reasonable option. Political factors were greatly influential of Truman’s final decision to drop the bomb and the threat of Russian military who were soon to advance in the region had its impact.
Many Americans believe that the Japanese deserved to be bombed based on how they had previously treated the United States, which is another reason why it might have been justified. It was also a way for the United States to show the power and knowledge it possessed to the rest of the world. Devastating things came to be because of this monumental moment in history, but the debate is whether or not these horrible things were justified. It’s a matter of Machiavelli’s famous saying; does the end justify the means? For starters, fewer American soldiers and Japanese civilians died.
They stated that the United States only used the atomic bomb to show its power to the USSR. It was not a question of saving lives; it was about showing our power to the world. The affirmative side also argued that although the Japanese population was extremely loyal to their emperor and would have sacrificed themselves to protect him, the United States could have used a conditional surrender by allowing them to keep their emperor as a symbolic leader. The Japanese population would have been satisfied because they would get to keep their emperor, and the war would have ended without any lives being lost. However, if violence was absolutely necessary, the United States should have continued bombing Japan with conventional bombs and proceeded to invade Japan.
Even after the surrender of Nazi Germany on May 8th, the war against Japan continued. The United States threatened to destroy Japan in the Potsdam declaration, but this threat was ignored by the Japanese. This prompted the use of the atom bomb. The first atom bomb was dropped on Heroshima on August 6. Three days later, another atom bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.