Hasegawa's argument aligns with Alperovitz's as well. He maintains that a "race" began at Potsdam between the United States and the Soviet Union when the Soviets set August 15 as their projected state of entry into the war. The Truman administration desired to end the war via the atomic bombs in order to avoid Soviet entry and maintain hegemony in the Pacific in the post-war world. Therefore, the Truman-Byrnes commitment to unconditional surrender and the Potsdam declaration was simply a prelude to the use of the atomic bombs. Byrnes position was essentially: "if we insisted on unconditional surrender, we could justify dropping of the atomic bomb."[17] Concerned about the post-war political consequences of Soviet participation in the war, U.S.
Shlomo Yitzchaki is one of the most influential rabbis in Jewish history. Born in Troyes, France in 1040, Shlomo Yitzchaki grew up Jewish and learned from his father. When his father died in 1046, Shlomo Yitzchaki lived with his mother until 1057 when he married his wife and joined the Yeshiva of Yaakov Ben-Yakar. Since then he has become a staple in Jewish learning and Jewish history. Today we know him as Rashi. Rashi was and is very influential to Jewish scholars because of the way his commentary spread, the simplicity and variation of his commentary, and the controversy of his method that is still discussed in modern times.
The Potsdam Conference occurred from July 17th to August 2nd, 1945. The conference took place between US president Harry Truman, Soviet’s Joseph Stain, and England’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The major goal of the Potsdam meeting was what would happen with Germany postwar. They wanted to be able to ensure the “eventual reconstruction of Germany’s democracy and peace.” At that time, the Soviet Union occupied a lot of the Eastern part of Germany and wanted a “unified, but unarmed Germany.” However, President Truman did not trust Stalin’s motives. In addition, Truman had found out that they had tested their atomic bomb and it was ready to be used in battle. Truman seeing the immense advantage the US had from a military standpoint knew he had leverage.
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
One of the most argued topics today, the end of World War II and the dropping of the atomic bombs still rings in the American ear. Recent studies by historians have argued that point that the United States really did not make the right choice when they chose to drop the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Also with the release of once classified documents, we can see that the United States ...
President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the direct cause for the end of World War II in the Pacific. The United States felt it was necessary to drop the atomic bombs on these two cities or it would suffer more casualties. Not only could the lives of many soldiers have been taken, but possibly the lives of many innocent Americans. The United States will always try to avoid the loss of American civilians at all costs, even if that means taking lives of another countries innocent civilians.
Continuing on, the bombing of Japan was also unnecessary due to the unacceptable terms of the Potsdam Declaration. After Germany’s surrender on May 7, 1945, the U.S. created a treaty, called the Potsdam Declaration, with terms of surrender for Japan (Lawton). Among those terms was one which stated, “We call upon the government of Japan to ...
In early August 1945 atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs quickly yielded the surrender of Japan and the end of American involvement in World War II. By 1946 the two bombs caused the death of perhaps as many as 240,000 Japanese citizens1. The popular, or traditional, view that dominated the 1950s and 60s – put forth by President Harry Truman and Secretary of War Henry Stimson – was that the dropping of the bomb was a diplomatic maneuver aimed at intimating and gaining the upper hand in relations with Russia. Today, fifty-four years after the two bombings, with the advantage of historical hindsight and the advantage of new evidence, a third view, free of obscuring bias and passion, can be presented. First, the dropping of the bomb was born out of complex infinite military, domestic and diplomatic pressures and concerns. Second, many potentially viable alternatives to dropping the bombs were not explored by Truman and other men in power, as they probably should have been. Lastly, because these alternatives were never explored, we can only conjecture over whether or not Truman’s decision was a morally just one, and if indeed it was necessary to use atomic energy to win the war.
Bellah’s argument’s basis is in his definition of America’s civil religion. He makes sure to make to known that he is not accusing Americans of worshiping our country. Instead, he says most Americans believe in “a set of beliefs, symbols, and rituals that I am calling American civil religion.” He also makes the argument that the civil religion actually came from the ideas of the Founding Fathers. They did not usually say anything about Jesus Christ, nor Christianity. At this time pretty much every single American was Christian. They still talked about God though. They did not talk about a certain part of God, rather, just about the idea that there was a God and he controlled the universe and also that he has some sort of set of goals that
Despite finding Harley’s article easier to absorb, I will be providing insight and knowledge of Scannell’s article “Dailiness” as I drew interest into his concepts and ideas behind the notion of temporality of everyday life. After Scannell’s reading, I could see myself reflecting different notions of time and ‘media time’, through his concepts of routinisation and the ‘care structures’ of dailiness I became exposed to the recurring cycle we live in.
If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.” (Truman).The justification of the bombs was the fact that the bomb was only in retaliation to a hostile nation and there refusal to cooperate with the American government. Japan was attacking with no fear they were unwavering because there military mind set was to never surrender because it was a sign of weakness it was against their nature. And so was the United States we were not going to give up though we were not gaining anything from this war only loosing we had the same sort of national mindset that we could to surrender for the fear of being preserved as week. So with the rejection of surrender the United States dropped the bomb in order to stop a more brutal war and to protect the United States from having to drop out of the
What came first the chicken or the egg? This age old question has been argued over by many people. In the same way the question of what comes first between Regeneration and Faith has also been argued by many biblical scholars throughout the year. When you look at the evidence in the Bible, and use logic, it is clear that Regeneration precedes Faith.
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...
The United States entered WW II immediately following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The U.S. entry was a major turning point in the war because it brought the strongest industrial strength to the Allied side. The Americans helped the Allies to win the war in Europe with the surrender of Germany on May 7, 1945. However, the war in the Pacific continued. The war with Japan at this point consisted primarily of strategic bombings. America had recently completed an atomic bomb and was considering using this weapon of mass destruction for the first time. The goal was to force the “unconditional surrender” of the Japanese. Roosevelt had used the term “unconditional surrender” in a press conference in 1943 and it had since become a central war aim. Truman and his staff (still feeling bound by FDR’s words) demanded unconditional surrender from the Japanese. Consequently on July 26, 1945 Truman issued an ultimatum to Japan. This ultimatum stated that Japan must accept “unconditional surrender” or suffer “utter devastation of the Japanese Homeland”. This surrender included abdication of the throne by their emperor. Japan was not willing to surrender their dynasty and ignored the ultimatum. On August 6th and August 9th, atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively.
The dropping of the atomic bomb may be one of the most controversial topics in American history. Could there have been another way to end the war without obliterating two Japanese cities? Several historians have taken a side and stated their interpretation of the situation. There are numerous factors that can sway the argument either way depending upon how influential you determine those factors to be. Some main historians that debated this topic are Robert Maddox, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, and Gar Alperovitz. Each of these historians provides us with different insight, and a different answer to the question, was it necessary to drop the atomic bomb to end World War II?
...ed the us to send out the Potsdam Declaration promising “swift and utter destruction” if the war continues. After there was no response made the Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb on the primary target, Hiroshima. There was still no surrender and three days later the Bockscar dropped another atomic bomb on the secondary target, Nagasaki. On August 14 1945, Japan surrendered to the United States Bringing the end of WWII.