There were many reasons how the Nazi Soviet Pact played a greater part in causing war in 1939 than the policy of appeasement such as an important factor, which let Hitler invade Poland without having to fight a war on two fronts. Also, after the failure of appeasement, the British had guaranteed polish security. Once Germany invaded, the British would be forced to declare war. The Nazi Soviet Pact can be considered major causes of World War Two, however the policy of appeasement was the most important reason for the war. The Nazi-Soviet pact was responsible for the outbreak of war because France and Britain had decided to finally intervene.
What in your opinion was the short term significance of the use of atomic weapons in 1945? (25) It would be simplistic to argue that the end of the war in the Pacific was the most important short term significance of the use of atomic bombs in 1945 against Japan. While the use of Little Boy prompted the Japanese Emperor’s ‘ordered surrender’ , and claimed the lives of thousands of Japanese civilians, it is my opinion that the bomb sparked the onset of the Cold War. As Eisenhower said ‘Before the atom bomb was used, I would have said, yes, I was sure we could keep the peace with Russia’. , highlighting that he believed without the use of atomic weapons, the Cold War was not an inevitability.
The atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945, brought World War II to a close. However, it is debated as to whether or not these bombings were absolutely necessary in order to force Japan into surrender. Japan experienced many victories after the bombing of Pearl Harbour in 1941, yet it was both the American desire to avenge Pearl Harbour; the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, Japanese unwillingness to accept unconditional surrender – and Allied refusal to discuss alternative surrender terms; and the desire to end the war whilst also saving numerous American lives, that ultimately led to the use of atomic weaponry. Several alternative methods had been considered by the Allies, and these methods have been discussed by historians in regards to their possible effectiveness at concluding the war, and as such whether the use of atomic bombs was inevitable. Rather than employing the atomic bombs, the Allies could have continued with incendiary bombings, planned an invasion of the home islands, and employed the strength of the USSR in order to force Japan into surrender.
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.
earA Rhetorical look at Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation Given by Franklin Delano Roosevelt David Thayer English 112 This speech was in relations to the horrible and reprehensive attack on Midway. It was the start of the Unites States in World War II (WWII). The influence this speech had on the American people was of great importance to the acceptance of our entrance to the war. It showed that by allowing the people to know the gravity of this incident it would get their approval. President Roosevelt used Pathos and Logos to attract the nation to the idea that if we did not act swiftly with force we would get attacked again and many more innocent lives would be taken.
Despite this, the Marshall Aid was a success and it bolstered the armies of Europe significantly, which put Stalin in a more vulnerable position. The Truman Doctrine was the American policy in 1947 of providing economic and military aid to European Countries, primarily Greece and Turkey, because they were threatened by communism. It was the start of the containment policy to stop Soviet expansion; it was a major step in beginning the Cold War. The policy stated that countries would have a choice between Communism and Democracy. The USA sent troops and funds to countries who were accepting on the doctrine and also those who were threatened by communism.
The main reason I think the negative side won the debate is because the atomic bombs saved lives through preventing the invasion and conventional bombing of Japan. Also, by not allowing a conditional surrender, the United States helped Japan keep a stable society with their emperor without ruining national identity. An additional bonus to the success of the bombs was that the atomic bombs also asserted the United States as the dominant hegemonic power in the world. During the debate, the affirmative side argued that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary to end the war because the United States used the bombs only to assert its global hegemonic dominance, and there were alternative options to ending the war such as negotiating with Japan to establish a conditional surrender, which Japan wanted, and using conventional bombs to invade Japan if the surrender failed. They stated that the United States only used the atomic bomb to show its power to the USSR.
While Japan wanted to expand in Asia-Pacific and build an Empire. America tried to get Japan out of China to maintain the balance of power. As WWII continued, Japan needed resources like oil, which the US imposed economic sanctions on to halt Japan. This meant Japan felt a war with America was inevitable if they were to achieve their goals in the Pacific. These factors led the Japanese to launch an attack on an American shore in the Pacific, Pearl Harbour.
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’?
Although he did approve of the bomb, Roosevelt was unconcerned about actually dropping the bomb on Japan. Instead he supported the idea that since Germany was possibly looking into the same type of destructive weapon, the U.S. needed to advance in the field in order to prevent detrimental attacks against them. He had the Great Depression on his hands as well and was less motivated during his time to destroy Japan to end the war more efficiently. On the other hand, Truman saw his opportunity of bringing the United States to the end of the war in a quick manner by releasing the bombs since Japan had no intentions of taking an easy surrender. To prevent going through an invasion, Truman made a hasty decision to drop the bombs.