The first reason that needs to be considered is that contrary to the popular belief of most Americans after World War II, there is significant evidence to show that there were many other factors in Japan’s surrender, and the impact of the atomic bombs may not have been one of them. A key piece of evidence lies in the number of casualties the bombings created and how it resonated with Japanese officials outside of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In most interpretations found in American education, the bombings are shown as an all-encompassing blow that single-handedly shattered Japan’s will to remain in the war. At face value, this viewpoint wouldn’t be hard to believe, considering that roughly 200,000 people were killed at the two Hiroshima and Nagasaki …show more content…
Hasegawa states that due to the lack of information on the atomic bombings that was given to the Japanese government, “The day after the first bomb was dropped, neither the cabinet nor any member of the peace party believed that any change of policy was needed.” If the Japanese had little knowledge of the bombs’ destruction at the time and therefore chose not to surrender because of it, there had to have been another major development in the war that would have finally led to Japan raising its white flag of surrender. This question is answered by the scholar and professor Gregg Herken in the article "Five Myths about the Atomic Bomb," who states that the reason the Japanese surrendered was the Soviet entrance into the war in the Pacific, not the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki like many in the U.S. have been taught. Before August 8, 1945, the Soviets were a part of the Allied forces, but in the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact promised not to directly attack Japan and its territories. On August 8, however, the pact was broken and the Soviets invaded the Japanese puppet state of Manchuria, now in northern …show more content…
8 was probably an even greater shock to Tokyo than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima two days earlier. Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.” This quote gives the impression that the Soviet Union’s cooperation was most likely a last hope for the Japanese, considering that up until that point the Soviets had sworn neutrality. After the Soviets entered the war, however, the Japanese could see that their goals of holding off the allies or even conditional surrender were no longer possible, and consented to unconditional surrender Allied forces
In discussion of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one controversial issue has the dropping of the atomic bombs being justified. On the other hand others believe that there were other ways of getting Japan to surrender and it was not justified, the only way we could get Japan to surrender was to invade them. Our strategy was to island hop until we got to Japan. Many more lives were at steak when doing that. Not only would just Americans would die, but a lot of the Japanese would have died as well, and the death toll would have much greater. 199,000 deaths came after the dropping of the atomic bombs. However, many American lives were saved, what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor, and the treatment of our American soldiers while
The United States was justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki for many reasons. First of all, just to start out, the bombings had nothing to do with Japan, it was about the Cold War and the real reason America used these weapons was to show Russia that the US possessed them. Second, the war in the Pacific had been raging for almost four years. The two battles immediately preceding the bomb decision were Iwo Jima and Okinawa, two battles where the Japanese fought to the death and the cost in American casualties was horrific. It was predicted that the invasion of the Japanese mainland at the Island of Kyushu -- scheduled for November of 1945 -- would be even worse. The entire Japanese military and civilian population would fight to the death. American casualties -- just for that initial invasion to get a foothold on the island of Japan would have taken up to an estimated two months and would have resulted in up to 75,000 to 100,000 casualties. And that was just the beginning. Once the island of Kyushu was captured by U.S. troops, the remainder of Japan would follow. You can just imagine the cost in injuries and lives this would take. Also It is not beyond the possibility that a million or more Americans could have been killed had we landed. The Japanese had correctly guessed where we intended to land, and were ready and waiting for us. The casualties would have been high. Another reason the atomic bomb was justified is the bomb was dropped with a desire to save lives. It is a matter of math. How many Americans lost their lives fighting how many Japanese at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa. The mathematical formula showed the closer we got to Japan the more we lost.
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
Japan was depleted of resources by the time the atomic bombs struck(Tucker 2). If the war continued, Japan would completely run out of supplies leaving citizens to starve, and killing more innocents the longer the war continued. The first stage of the war in Japan would have lasted over a year(Walker 2), which could have caused hundreds of death in just the first stage of fighting. Japan’s citizens “were also being prepared to fight to the death”(Tucker 1) before the war ended. Therefore confirming the fact that the atomic bomb saved the Japanese from going through a long struggle of starvation and
There was a debate on the use of atomic bombs or waiting for the Soviets to step in the Pacific. Thus the Allied finally commanded the “unconditional surrender” to the leadership in Japan, which turned out to be what the Allied expected. The Japanese emperor rejected the request, but there was a point where the Japanese could conditional surrender as possible.
The gravity of the atomic bombings was not taken lightly by the nations surrounding Japan, but the United States refused to lose any more men in a long-winded assault; the enemy 's resolve was unmatched by American standards. Majerus states, "This firm resolution of the Imperial Army to fight out an all-or-nothing battle until virtually the very last man ultimately did not go unnoticed by US government officials." (5). Further proofs of these arguments were demonstrated by the Japanese when they deployed the kamikaze (suicide pilots) to Pearl Harbor. The raising question is, however, did decisional certainty regard any ulterior motive at the time considered to prevent the death of American troops, or had there been any considered possibilities within a peaceful resolution? This has sparked another theory among the nation 's scholars. Did the U.S. drop the bombs to save American lives, or to intimidate their rivaling ally, the Soviet Union? It was later revealed that the USSR was willing to help the United States in the assault of Japan. History teacher Brent Dyck states, "At the Potsdam Conference held in July 1945, Stalin told Truman that the Soviet Union was ready to help the United States and invade Japan on August 15."
In contrast, Maier and Selden’s thesis claims the act of dropping the atomic bomb was completely justifiable and not a war crime is the counter argument. Since, both authors address the fact that the world was at war and that aerial bombing was not something new, however, the technology advances were. In addition, their logic is reasonable because at the time of World War II almost everyone was using strategic and tactical aerial bombing, not to mention the Allies wanted to end the war as soon as possible. Thus, the atomic bomb was justifiable, however, it was a war crime. The objective of the tactical bombing was to aim at military targets it achieves its objective, however, killing thousands of lives in the process. The statement by Maier
On August 6th, 1945, the United States of America dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima in Japan. Two days later, a second bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. These two bombs were the most devastating weapons ever seen, and their effects on human beings and property were plainly horrifying. Approximately 110,000 people were killed; most of them were innocent civilians who just happened to have lived in the wrong place at the wrong time. Although using this weapon was an atrocity to both the Japanese, and humanity in general, the world was at war. No matter what ulterior motives may have existed, the fact remains that the bomb was a justifiably necessary measure to bring an early end to aggressive war that was instigated by Japan. Japan would never have surrendered unconditionally, as decreed in the Potsdam Ultimatum. Invasion of the Japanese home islands were out of the question because of the ferocious defense that would have been staged, and the huge number of casualties that it would entail. The bomb shocked the Japanese militarists into surrender and gave the “peace-party” the added credibility they required to bring about a quick end to the war. The use of the bomb also kept Russia out of the war, preventing problems that had occurred in post-war Germany, and later on in Korea. When all factors are taken into consideration, the use of the atomic bomb actually saved more lives, both Japanese and American than it took.
“The atomic bomb certainly is the most powerful of all weapons, but it is conclusively powerful and effective only in the hands of the nation which controls the sky” (Johnson 1). Throughout World War II, the war was in pieces. The Germans were almost at world domination along with their allies, the Italians and Japanese. The Japanese and United states had remained at combat with each other since the bombarding of the Pearl Harbor ("U.S. Drops Atomic Bomb on Japan "1). There was abundant controversy as to whether the United States should have used the atomic bombs or not. There were many factors as to the argument relating to the atomic bombs leading to the United States final decision. Many people had arguments for the bombing and others had arguments against the bombings but it is still not determined if the United States made the right decision.
These reasons have a plethora of evidence supporting them, as well as evidence disproving the opposing side. The atomic bomb’s impact on the ethics surrounding war and humanity left a significant mark which is still seen today. There was no real reason to have dropped that weapon, and the fact that the United States did is disgraceful to humanity. U.S. General and later President Dwight D. Eisenhower said it best when he stated, “Japan was at that very moment seeking some ways to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’... it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing” (Alperovitz, 1990, p.
...d to continue fighting. The surrender includes an agreement of the Potsdam Declaration in which the U.S. can have complete political control over Japan; except, the only difference is Hirohito will remain in control as head of state. On August 14th conventional bombing ceases on Japan and the following day Hirohito announces Japan’s unconditional surrender.
Adrian Shocks Mrs. Daniels English 3B 1/23/14. Why Was the Bomb Dropped The United States dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was a decision with immense thought behind it. To this day, there are arguments that support both sides of the decision. In the end, dropping the bomb was the best option for the United States. Unfortunately, there wasn’t an abundance of options and dropping the bomb was the most appealing in all aspects.
President Truman first warned Japan that if they didn't surrender they would bomb them. August 6, 1945, the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Bomb was called "Little Boy". Explosion was equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT. Bomb killed about 80,000 people instantly. After next five years killed 70,000 more people from radiation. Three days later, United States dropped another atomic bomb. This one was on Nagasaki. This bomb was called "Fat Man". Killed 40,000 people instantly. The Nagasaki terrain though reduced the damage of the bomb. At end of year, 30,000 more people died from radiation. After, Emperor Hirohito of Japan announced the unconditional surrender. Was a major part to the Allies defeating the Axis
Admittedly, dropping the atomic bomb was a major factor in Japan's decision to accept the terms laid out at the Potsdam agreement otherwise known as unconditional surrender. The fact must be pointed out, however, that Japan had already been virtually defeated. (McInnis, 1945) Though the public did not know this, the allies, in fact, did. Through spies, they had learned that both Japan's foreign minister, Shigenori Togo and Emperor Hirohito both supported an end to the war (Grant, 1998). Even if they believed such reports to be false or inaccurate, the leaders of the United States also knew Japan's situation to be hopeless. Their casualties in defending the doomed island of Okinawa were a staggering 110,000 and the naval blockade which the allies had enforced whittled trade down to almost nothing. Japan was quickly on the path to destruction. (Grant, 1998). Of course, the Allies ignored this for the reason that dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would intimidate Russia. Had they truly been considering saving more lives and bringing a quick end to the war in Japan, they would have simply waited them out without the major loss of life seen at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The first reason why the US’s choice of using Atomic Bombs was justified is that it saved many soldiers’ life. If the war had continued, many more lives on both the United States and Japan’s side would have been lost. If the United States had invaded Japanese land, the number of casualties would soar. Also, the Japanese said that they would fight to their death in this war, also making the United States more nervous. The Japanese thought that suicide