Kelly Shaver AMH 2030 Week 7 Individual Work What factors likely motivated President Truman to authorize the use of atomic bombs against Japan in August 1945? President Truman did not trust the Soviets. The Potsdam Declaration – July 26 listed U.S. policy also giving Japan a chance to surrender without guaranteeing that Emperor Hirohito would not be tried for war crimes committed by Japan. Japan was so cautious about their response that is was seen as a refusal on their part. The Japanese were seen as bloodthirsty savages willing to die rather than give up.
A. Plan of Investigation Question: “The atomic bombs were necessary to end the Second World War.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?” Thesis: To a very small degree I do believe that the Atomic bomb did help put an end to WWII but to an even greater extent I do believe that the Atomic bomb was not necessary to end of the WWII. Arguments: Japanese Culture American Government Decision Making About Dropping the Atomic Bomb American and Russian Government Battle Japanese Impact of the Atomic Bomb B. Summary of Evidence 1. Japanese Culture • The Japanese people were also developing their own atomic bomb during the time of the United States and Russia.
He also said that it will be impossible to persuade Russia to remove her troops from Poland and China and the island of Sakhalin unless they are shocked and impressed by American military strength. So in short words, James Byrnes believes that dropping the atomic bombs might make Russia more manageable and force Japan to surrender. If the USA did drop the bombs on japan, it will stop the USSR from advancing too far, plus halted the war quickly so that Stalin’s Soviet Russia did not demand joint occupation of
Japan had made clear overtures to peace, but cultural differences made this nearly impossible (the shame of unconditional surrender goes against their code of honour). The determination to use an expensive bomb instead of letting it rust away; the desire to find out how devastating it was and the opportunity to use the bomb as a strong showcase of US supremacy, made Japan the ideal target. Obviously, the USSR would eventually succeed in creating the a-bomb. Therefore, making Hiroshima & Nagasaki the example of the tremendous power of the bombs would make it clear to the USSR that they too needed such weapons to defend themselves. Moreover, other countries claimed the right of nuclear weapons to defend their citizens.
I do agree of dropping the bomb because it did save a lot of lives. Franklin Roosevelt was trying to find a way to end the war very fast. Then Truman had to end Roosevelt’s idea of winning the war fast. Truman wasn’t looking for a way to not use the atomic bomb. The United States wanted to end the war fast because we wanted the lowest amount of casualties.
The calculation was terrorist. The indiscriminancy was terrorist." This argument supports his larger purpose by indicating the action was calculated and planned such as a terrorist attack in order to get the Japanese government to surrender and abide to U.S demands. 3) What does Berger mean by the term expediency? Berger uses the term expediency to mean a political advantage that was taken because "the concept of evil has been abandoned" which in other wards means the notion of doing wrong was no longer a concern allowing for the bombing on Hiroshima to occur so that the U.S. can obtain the upper
Fussel versus Walzer I believe that dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was inhumane and that the happenings of that war could have been solved in a different manner. Before reading both Fussel and Walzer’s opposing opinions on the droppings of the atomic bombs on Japan, I can confidently say that I agreed with Fussel to a certain extent. Many people’s gut reaction to something as huge as this would be “Better him/her than me”. What was so wrong with killing 100,000 to potentially save hundreds of thousands of American lives? That is what a lot of people asked themselves and still ask themselves until this day.
Note: (Dalton I only did controversy between japan and America) Richard chear Controversy of ww2 The Pearl Harbor wasn’t supported by Japan officials No. The higher Navy officials in Japan were against it. The Fleet commander, Yamamoto, threatened to resign unless given permission to launch that strike, and the Navy staff reluctantly permitted it. Yamamoto thought it would cost Japan some carriers, and further must have known that it would be sheer luck to catch American carriers, since these were seldom in port for long. There was no reason to believe that a war would open with such a strike.
After Roosevelt died Truman became the American president. One of the reasons is the dropping of the atomic bomb. During the Potsdam Conference Truman attempted to show he’s authority to other countries by dropping a bomb in Japan. Truman believed that America was one of the most powerful countries in the world and wanted to prove it. Another reason to why America is to blame is after the success of the atomic bomb the members of the Grand Alliance began to see changes in Truman’s behaviour as he started to control the meetings they had and Stalin refused to be bossed around so arguments between Stalin and Truman started, they started.
The Big Bang During the course of the war in Japan, we, the Americans, had a very important decision to make. One of the options was to drop a newly tested bomb on the Japanese hoping to get them to finally surrender. The other option was to have a mass land invasion on Japan and hope to overthrow with sheer force. We knew that no matter which option we took, there would be a significant amount of casualties. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks near the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the executive order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945; these attacks prevented the death of many Japanese and American lives, while preventing the destruction