The United States decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 is undoubtedly one of the main factors in ending the Second World War. Whether or not this operation was simply to end World War II or to start the Cold War with the Soviet Union is a controversy that is still being argued today. Historian Gar Alperovitz, the author of The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth, is more supportive of the fact that the United States ulterior motive for dropping the bomb was to provoke the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Robert James Maddox, author of Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later, dismisses the Cold War theory as nothing but a myth, and believes that the atomic bombs were utilized to accomplish Allied war goals and attain their policy of unconditional surrender from Japan. By analyzing Alperovitz and Maddox’s works, the idea that the atomic bombs were solely used to end World War II is more plausible than the Cold War theory. A point often overlooked is that aside from other factors, the United States chose to drop the atomic bomb because of clear indication that Japanese military …show more content…
Alperovitz believes that Truman was influenced by his foreign policy advisor James F. Byrnes to do so (389). However, Maddox asserts that Truman wanted to keep Soviet-American relations peaceful and inadvertently omitted the nature of such a weapon at the Potsdam Conference. Maddox easily demonstrates the constant uncertainty Byrnes had leading up to the bombing in regards to the Soviet Union (159). He was either arguing for omission of the decision from the nation or arguing for it’s disclosure. Despite Byrnes’ advice, it is known that Truman, although somewhat uncertain at the beginning of his term, was more supportive of the current alliance with
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...
To fully examine the factors that led to the United States to drop 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.
To what extent was Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
Upon reading “Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan” by J. Samuel Walker, a reader will have a clear understanding of both sides of the controversy surrounding Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. The controversy remains of whether or not atomic bombs should have been used during the war. After studying this text, it is clear that the first atomic bomb, which was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, was a necessary military tactic on ending the war. The second bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki, however, was an unnecessary measure in ensuring a surrender from the Japanese, and was only used to seek revenge.
Although WW II ended over 50 years ago there is still much discussion as to the events which ended the War in the Pacific. The primary event which historians attribute to this end are the use of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although the bombing of these cities did force the Japanese to surrender, many people today ask “Was the use of the atomic bomb necessary to end the war?” and more importantly “Why was the decision to use the bomb made?” Ronald Takaki examines these questions in his book Hiroshima.
Decisions are the hardest thing to do, especially considering how Harry Truman decided to drop the US Atomic bombs onto Okinawa and Iwo Jima. The role to end the war with Japan was in his hands, but it would require releasing the most horrendous weapon ever known. Although, there was some controversy over Truman’s decision. Some people say that it was unnecessary to use the Atomic bombs, such as the Federal Council of Churches and the Christian Faith. They stated that: “As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one’s judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible. ("8 Primary Pros and Cons of Dropping the Atomic Bomb")” People also
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 to two major Japanese cities, but its use also minimized the Japanese will to continue fighting. These two factors along with the Japanese neglect of the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria, proved that the Allied use of the atomic bomb was the definitive factor in the Japanese decision to surrender.
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?
Sherwin, M. (1973). The atomic bomb and the origins of the cold war. American Historical Review, 78: 1-7.
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 ...
The dropping of the atomic bomb was a major turning point in United Sates history and WW2 specifically, it caused the surrender of Japan and ultimately ended the war which had been going on since 1939 two years prior to U.S. involvement. The dropping of the atomic bomb not only ended the war but lead to a fight over which nation had the most atomic weapons, a terrifying power play between countries. Through the years leading up to the dropping of the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the United States struggles with preventing the speed of communism and intimidating the Soviet Union. Through WW2 American casualties were also adding up fast. The use of the atomic bombs was a shock strategy the government saw as the most successful was to
The Atomic Age represents the most epic era and composed of diverse controversial issues in the human history. In the late 1945, President Harry Truman informed to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These two bombs quickly yielded the surrender of Japan and the end the World War 2. However, the impact of it led us to debate whether this decision was actually right or so. First off, it would be hard to imagine how Japan would have been surrendered without the atomic bomb. Therefore to save many American lives, President Truman believed that it was his duty to end the war as soon as possible. But the bombs took away innocent lives and killed civilians indiscriminately. “Atomic Age America” written by Martin
The atomic bomb is the subject of much controversy. Since its first detonation in 1945, the entire world has heard the aftershocks of that blast. Issues concerning Nuclear Weapons sparked the Cold War. We also have the atomic bomb to thank for our relative peace in this time due to the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The effects of the atomic bomb might not have been the exact effects that the United States was looking for when they dropped Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively (Grant, 1998). The original desire of the United States government when they dropped Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not, in fact, the one more commonly known: that the two nuclear devices dropped upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki were detonated with the intention of bringing an end to the war with Japan, but instead to intimidate the Soviet Union. The fact of Japan's imminent defeat, the undeniable truth that relations with Russia were deteriorating, and competition for the division of Europe prove this without question.
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.
In 1945, Germany had surrendered, but the war in the Pacific raged on. The allies were becoming desperate to end the war before it was necessary to carry out a full scale invasion. New developments in science had made it possible for the United States to weaponize the atom, and the consequent bomb created was dropped on Hiroshima and later Nagasaki at the approval of President Harry S. Truman and his advisors. In years to come, Truman would have to face questions over the merit of his actions. Although some may believe the atomic bomb was needed because it ended WWII, it was unnecessary to drop the nuclear bomb because of the alternatives that existed, the effect it had on the Japanese people, and because of the unethical reasons for dropping it.