Due to the devastation between 1941 and 1945, approximately half a million American lives were consumed in response to defend the United States. In contrary to the declination of intensity of World War II in the European hemisphere, Japan does not gestures any signs of retreat on the Pacific in the spring of 1945. Japanese confrontation, Iwo Jima and Okinawa alone, accounts for more than 18,000 American deaths and 36,000 wounded. Pressure weighed heavy as President Harry Truman entered office. The rise of information reached Truman on the Manhattan Project in which research was invested in the upcoming manufacturing of the World`s first atomic bomb. The use of nuclear warfare remains questionable. Americans confounded by the bombing of Hiroshima …show more content…
Stimson, Secretary of War in 1947, stated: “The principle political, social, and military objective of the United States in the summer of 1945 was the prompt and complete surrender of Japan” (Document A). However, the length of the war became extensive. The war was consuming an excessive amount of time and resources. The most concerning resource was the abundant amount of lives perishing within the war. Majority of spectators viewed the booming as an immediate opportunity to relieve the amount of lives being taken (Document G). Moreover, Truman’s response to the use of the atomic bomb was that “we have used it in order to shorten the agony of war in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans” (Document H). Without the devastating event of the atomic bomb causing the Japanese surrender, the mortality would escalate. However, augmented suspicions toward United States strategists formulated an alternate outcome arose. “It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse,” (Document B). There were speculations about the adjacent time Japan surrendered before the dropping of the bomb. Consequently, an issue was imposed due to the public announcement justifying the use of the atomic bomb in defense, especially “at that time…Japan was essentially defeated,” (Document F). The world did not embrace the vindication for the catastrophe the United States
In Prompt and Utter Destruction, J. Samuel Walker provides the reader with an elaborate analysis of President Truman’s decision behind using the atomic bomb in Japan. He provokes the reader to answer the question for himself about whether the use of the bomb was necessary to end the war quickly and without the loss of many American lives. Walker offers historical and political evidence for and against the use of the weapon, making the reader think critically about the issue. He puts the average American into the shoes of the Commander and Chief of the United States of America and forces us to think about the difficulty of Truman’s decision.
The United States of America’s use of the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has spurred much debate concerning the necessity, effectiveness, and morality of the decision since August 1945. After assessing a range of arguments about the importance of the atomic bomb in the termination of the Second World War, it can be concluded that the use of the atomic bomb served as the predominant factor in the end of the Second World War, as its use lowered the morale, industrial resources, and military strength of Japan. The Allied decision to use the atomic bomb not only caused irreparable physical damage on two major Japanese cities, but its use also minimized the Japanese will to continue fighting. These two factors along
President Harry Truman’s use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan during the Second World War is the most controversial decision in history. While it was an undoubtedly difficult decision, it was indeed necessary in order to end this six-year war that had ravaged the world. While many critics argue that the bomb was used primarily as an act of vengeance toward Japan, simplifying such a crucial moment in human history downplays the very real risk invading Japan posed to the United States. While avoiding strained relations with the other Allied countries, Truman had to assess the possible danger of the Soviet Union in a post-war world. Furthermore, the possibility of an arms race, the moral implications of using this weapon, and the number of American lives that would possibly be lost invading Japan were among the numerous pros and cons Truman had to consider when contemplating the use of this powerful weapon never before unleashed on humanity.
The bombings of 1945 by the United States of America on Japan were very controversial events. Many historians believe these acts were aggressive and unnecessary. In addition, analysts argue that the U.S. should have used alternative methods instead of the bomb, but most do not realize the repercussions of these different tactics. On the contrary, the bomb was needed to ease tension quickly and effectively. Ultimately, the bomb proved more effective than any other method, and also proved to be a technique that is sufficient for America’s needs. The effort made by the U.S. to bomb Japan after their disapproval of the Potsdam Declaration was needed to end conflicts in the Pacific because of Japanese resistance, to save American lives, and to portray the U.S. as a nation of power and dominance.
Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration the atomic bomb was being developed. After Roosevelt died, his vice president Harry Truman was appointed President of the United States. Truman was never informed about the bombs development until an emergency cabinet meeting (Kuznick 9). Truman had to make the fatal decision on whether the bomb was to be dropped on Japan. With the idea of going to war, Truman had to think about the lives of the thousand American soldiers. The American soldiers had begun using the method of island hopping, because the bomb was not available. The idea of dropping a bomb was that the war itself could possibly end in its earliest points. The dropping of the atomic bomb could also justify the money spent on the Manhattan Project (Donohue 1). With a quote by Franklin D. Roosevelt “This will be a day that will live in infamy”, Pearl Harbor was a tragic day for Americans. The United States had lost many soldiers, which they had claimed that they will eventually get revenge. The alternates of dropping the bomb was also discussed at the Interim Committee. The American government was trying to get an invitation response from the Japanese government. If the United States did not drop the bomb and ‘Operation Downfall’ ha...
The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan were ethical decisions made by President Harry Truman and the United States government. By the time of the atom bomb was ready, the U.S. had been engaged in military conflict for over four years and lost over 400,000 soldiers. Truman claimed, "We would have the opportunity to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved" (Winkler 18). The bomb was aimed at ending the war immediately and avoiding prolonged battle in the Pacific Theater and the inevitable invasion of Japan. President Truman hoped that by showing the Japanese the devastating weapon the U.S. possessed, that the war could be brought ...
“With this bomb we have now added a new and revolutionary increase in destruction to supplement the growing power of our armed forces”- President Truman. In the 1945, President Truman was faced with an atomic dilemma in the most destructive war that mankind has seen so far. His choices were to either bomb Japan or let more American soldiers die. He chose to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He chose the most likeable choice in America at the time. If I was able to tell President Truman one thing, it would be, drop the atomic bombs on Japan and end the four year war for America. Japan started the war on America with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, America repaid the debt back to Japan many fold(top secret).
The audience I am striving for are historians and students. I think this topic should be very important to them because maybe in the near future our government will have to make a similar decision and we should be educated about rights and also world power. Imagine if you were impacted by the Atomic bomb by America? You can’t, you'd be dead. Admiral William Leahy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed using the bomb because it killed civilians indiscriminately. He suggested economic blockade and conventional bombing would convince Japan to surrender (Document A). Secretary of War Stimson wanted to warn so they can surrender and keep the emperor. Technically, this whole issue with Japan and America could have been resolved if America waited a little longer for Japan to surrender.
“America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, imagination and unbeatable determination to do the job at hand.” Harry S. Truman. The United States in the event of war will not stand still and fight ineffectively while losing thousands of lives but rather build and find more effective solutions to winning the war at hand, either way it’s war. The United States most definitely should have dropped the atomic bomb in 1945 on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, the atomic bomb was the most efficient and effective solution to ending the war faster while saving the most lives, time, expenses and resources. Also let us not forget the Japanese were the first to bomb our home land with no sympathy. Ultimately, the atomic bomb was
The war was coming to a victorious conclusion for the Allies. Germany had fallen, and it was only a matter of time until Japan would fall as well. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson was at the forefront of the American war effort, and saw atomic weaponry as a way out of the most monumental war ever. As discussed in Cabell Phillips’ book, The Truman Presidency: The History of a Triumphant Succession, Stimson was once quoted as saying that the atomic bomb has “more effect on human affairs than the theory of Copernicus and the Law of Gravity” (55). Stimson, a defendant of dropping the bomb on Japan, felt that the world would never be the same. If the world would change after using atomic weapons, could it possibly have changed for the better? One would think not. However, that person might be weary of the biased opinion of White House personnel. He or she should care more for the in depth analytical studies done by experts who know best as to why America should or should not have dropped the atomic bomb. As more and more evidence has been presented to researchers, expert opinion on whether or not the United States should have dropped the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has also changed. More and more researchers seem to feel that the atomic bomb should never have been used (Alperovitz 16). Despite several officials’ claims to enormous death estimations, an invasion of Japan would have cost fewer total lives. In addition, post atomic bomb repercussions that occurred, such as the Arms Race, were far too great a price to pay for the two atomic drops. However, possibly the most compelling argument is that Japan would have surrendered with or without the United States using the atomic bomb. In defiance of top...
In 1945, the United States was facing severe causalities in the war in the Pacific. Over 12,000 soldiers had already lost their lives, including 7,000 Army and Marine soldiers and 5,000 sailors (32). The United States was eager to end the war against Japan, and to prevent more American causalities (92). An invasion of Japan could result in hundreds of thousands killed, wounded and missing soldiers, and there was still no clear path to an unconditional surrender. President Truman sought advice from his cabinet members over how to approach the war in the Pacific. Although there were alternatives to the use of atomic weapons, the evidence, or lack thereof, shows that the bombs were created for the purpose of use in the war against Japan. Both the political members, such as Henry L. Stimson and James F. Byrnes, and military advisors George C. Marshall and George F. Kennan showed little objection to completely wiping out these Japanese cities with atomic weapons (92-97). The alternatives to this tactic included invading Japanese c...
To fully examine the factors that led to the United States dropping an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, one can look at the event as a result of two major decisions. The first decision concerned the use of newly developed nuclear weapons in lieu of other military techniques to secure a timely Japanese surrender. The second decision was to use several of these weapons instead of only one. Although the Truman administration displayed little hesitation or ambivalence over the decision to use atomic weapons (Walker, 51), it is important to examine what factors contributed to these swift actions. It was believed that dropping an atomic bomb on Nagasaki would resolve a number of problems in a simpler fashion than prolonging the conventional warfare until Japan finally ceded defeat.
The moral and military necessity of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has been a subject of debate for almost half a century. Most revisionists emphasize the victimization of Japan during the attacks. They often forget the military realities and the historical context while judging whether it was necessary for America to use nuclear weapons against the two Japanese cities. It is important to note that Japan was the aggressor. Japan triggered the war that led to the bombing of its two cities with its sneak attack on America’s Pearl harbour in 1941. Subsequent systematic and flagrant violation of several international agreements and norms through employment of chemical and biological warfare and mistreatment of prisoners of war and civilians aggravated the situation[ Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth. (NY: Knopf, 1995), 89]. A response was needed to deal with increased aggression from Japan. Allied military planners had to choose between invading Japan and using the US atomic bombs in 1945[ Ronald Tabaki, Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. (Little, Brown, 1995), 101
Time was not a luxury the US government could afford as thousands of Allied Nations’ soldiers were dying every day while USA waited for Japan to surrender. Following is a statement made by Karl T Compton, a member of the Interim Committee who gave recommendations about the use of atomic bombs for military purposes. • From this background I believe, with complete conviction, that the use of the atomic bomb saved hundreds of thousands—perhaps several millions—of lives, both American and Japanese; that without its use the war would have continued for many months; that no one of good conscience knowing, as Secretary Stimson and the Chiefs of Staff did, what was probably ahead and what the atomic bomb might accomplish could have made any different decision- Karl T Compton. “If the Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used”. December 1946 issue.
In 1945, the war against Japan is in the stage of an end. The American army is still debating whether to use the atomic bomb to force Japanese Army to surrender. Taking into account the views of commanders and public opinion, I think it is necessary to use the atomic bomb to bring the war to an early end. Some people believe that atomic bombs should not be dropped.