Hiroshima And Nagasaki Argumentative Essay

1608 Words4 Pages

Much debate and controversy has been stirred in regard to the ethics and efficacy of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As such, numerous figures have come in with their own perspectives on the matter. Yet through Japanese Emperor Hirohito’s surrender speech, former Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s article in Harper’s magazine, and American historian and WWII vet Paul Fussell’s essay shared a similarity of perspective on the necessity of the atomic bomb. All three individuals were unanimously in favor or at least were not critical of the use of the atomic bomb. Though, there are striking differences that fundamentally shape the individual narratives. For Hirohito and Stimson’s respective pieces, they share commonality in the fact that these are the words of political figures who utilized similar arguments over the atomic bomb being effective in preventing further bloodshed as means to an end and galvanized their respective nations on the …show more content…

He stated that “should [Japan] [continued] to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization” (Hirohito 2). In this instance, he puts the spotlight on Japan to recognize that the atomic bomb was necessary to prevent further bloodshed for Japan and its citizens. He impact this statement further through proclaiming by “[they] cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to [their] allied nations of East Asia, who have consistently cooperated with the Empire toward the emancipation of East Asia” (Hirohito 1). What it further establishes was that Japan committed great misdeeds in spite of many in Japan being for those actions and thus needed a moment to be “aware” of them. Therefore Hirohito in his mind would then steer his people and his country to a more favorable

Open Document