Moreover, other countries claimed the right of nuclear weapons to defend their citizens. Consequently, the tragic bombings became the example of an arm’s race instead of peace. Furthermore, since Japan was already on the brink of collapse the bombing was unnecessary, and peace talks would have taken place within a decent time frame (even after the cancelled Hawaii summit). The millions of deaths calculated by Operation Downfall [the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of the Second World War, which was abandoned when Japan surrendered following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki] actually show that only desperation and honour stood between Japan and unconditional
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.
The ones who believe this, do not comprehend the many different factors in war and how the route that was chosen was best for both parties that were directly affiliated with the bombings. The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been fire bombed if the atomic bombs were not dropped, causing similar damage and death counts to the atomic bombs. According to Kyoko Iriye Selden, "The most influential text is Truman's 1955 Memoirs, which states that the atomic bomb probably saved half a million US lives— anticipated casualties in an Allied invasion of Japan planned for November. Stimson subsequently talked of saving one million US casualties, and Churchill of saving one million American and half that number of British lives"(1). With this amount of casualties projected, a land invasion would have trumped the death toll of D-Day.
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
The decision by the United States to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II remains one of the most controversial topics in Japanese history. Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II. There are pros and cons on the droppings
The United States' decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima was more of a diplomatic measure calculated to intimidate the Soviet Union in the post-Second-World-War era rather than a strictly military measure designed to force Japan's unconditional surrender. The United States Government's decision was influenced somewhat by popular sentiment of the war. Japan had an army of an estimated 5 million people. In his memoirs, Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson wrote: "I was informed that such operations might be expected to cost over a million casualties, to American forces alone." A strategy was already devised to defeat Japan "without reliance upon the atomic bomb, which had not yet been tested in New Mexico."
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 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japanese citizens in August, 1945, as a means to bring the long Pacific war to an end could be justified-militarily, politically and morally, by such points as follow suit (The National Security Archive). The goal of waging war is victory with minimum losses on one's own side and, if possible, on the enemy's side. No one disputes the fact that the Japanese military was prepared to fight to the last man to defend the home islands, and indeed had already demonstrated this determination in previous Pacific island campaigns (Sherrow 56). A weapon originally developed to contain a Nazi atomic project was available that would spare Americans hundreds of thousands of causalities in an invasion of Japan, and-not incidentally-save several times more than that among Japanese soldiers and civilians (World War 2 Database). The thousands who have died in the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far less than those who would have died in an allied invasion, and their sudden deaths convinced the Japanese military to surrender (The National Security
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.