Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why was the Atlantic Charter important
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Atlantic Charter and the Percentages Agreement were both major document between members of the “Big Three” that would affect many countries without the input of any other countries. The Atlantic Charter was agreed on in August of 1941 during a highly secretive meeting between Great Britain, Winston Churchill, and the United States, Franklin Roosevelt about post-war objectives. They outline eight key points to ensure, in their eyes, that the world would be at peace and that countries could profit. This Charter was similar to the Percentage Agreement between the USSR leader Stalin, and Great Britain’s Prime minister Churchill in agreement to divide the amount or percentage of influence in the Balkan region. Once again there was no representation …show more content…
The idea of bombing with the quick “one-two” punch strategy for the maximum shock value to demoralize the Japanese struggle and end the war with less loss of US lives. The question remains that was the bombings were needed with Japan’s ability to fight on dwindling. The US Interim Committee debated that the bombs were the only option left to end the fighting spirit of the Japanese, but Japan was in communications with Soviet Union in hopes of possible negotiation’s or mediations to help end the war. The Committee dismiss the communications as a ploy or false information and continue on with plans to bomb after Japan’s rejection for unconditional surrender and US control within Japan. Logically, the bombing can be seen as war crimes because of the sheer numbers of death and destruction caused by the bombs when Japan was seeking clarification on the status of keeping their Emperor after surrendering and the communications with Soviet Union. The US could have seen the communications with the Soviet Union as Stalin gaining more power than the US as the country that would help end the war. And that the US want to demonstrate their weapon as a determinate to the Soviet Union, but this power of the A-bomb increased the US’s ability to be flexible in negotiations and being less willing to compromise causing increased tension during the Cold War. The …show more content…
Stalin had a viciously suspicious man who coined the concept of “enemy of the people.” (Khrushchev’s Secret speech, cold war documents, 87) Khrushchev in his speech bring up the effects of Stalin’s personality had on the progression of the Soviet Union like the falsification of cases in the provinces of innocent Communists, the empty information of spies everywhere, and to the doctor-plotters that Stalin has tortured confessions out of eminent Soviet Medical practitioners. (Khrushchev’s Secret speech, cold war documents, 87-89) Khrushchev’s secret speech for the 20th Party Congress did not stay secret for long, manuscripts were sent out to communist countries and even found its way into America. This speech was the fuel for anti-Soviet uprisings and resentment which led to the uprising in Poland and in Hungary in 1956. In order to lead the Soviet Union on a peaceful path that coexisted with the western world the image of Stalin needed to be squished to allow diplomatic relations with countries that were alike and not alike in the
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.
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 official reason given for dropping the bomb was to bring a quick end to tht war and save American lives. However, Takaki presents many different explanations as to why the decision to use the bomb was made. He disagrees with the popular belief that the decision to use the bomb was made solely to quickly end the war in the Pacific and to save American lives. Takaki presents theories such as international concerns, American sentiment, and racism in an attempt to more fully explain why this decision was made.
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
In conclusion, many soviets citizens appeared to believe that Stalin’s positive contributions to the U.S.S.R. far outweigh his monstrous acts. These crimes have been down played by many of Stalin’s successors as they stress his achievements as collectivizer, industrializer, and war leader. Among those citizens who harbor feelings of nostalgia, Stalin’s strength, authority , and achievement contrast sharply with the pain and suffering of post-revolutionary Russia.
Stalin’s hunger for power and paranoia impacted the Soviet society severely, having devastating effects on the Communist Party, leaving it weak and shattering the framework of the party, the people of Russia, by stunting the growth of technology and progress through the purges of many educated civilians, as well as affecting The Red Army, a powerful military depleted of it’s force. The impact of the purges, ‘show trials’ and the Terror on Soviet society were rigorously negative. By purging all his challengers and opponents, Stalin created a blanket of fear over the whole society, and therefore, was able to stay in power, creating an empire that he could find more dependable.
He asks for its themes of “anti-American tones and dissertation of destruction,” to be considered after the guilt of dropping the bombs are faced (612). He assumes that America views the bombings as necessary to the ending of the war, where the bombings are nothing but the start of problems in Japan. Charles Landesman of Baruch College in New York, states that the bombs were dropped primarily “to end the war and save lives” (22). With this the war did end and American lives were spared, but destruction was still caused. Landesman further elaborates that the bombings were unethical due to the speculation that atomic weapons were preferred by “Truman and his advisors to impress the Soviet Union and make Stalin more agreeable to the interests of the Allies” (24). This alone supports the claims that Brothers explains Honda makes about the dangers of nuclear warfare and its effects on the party dropping the bomb resulting in a loss of morality, and the party being affected living in fear and unrest. Whatever the case may be, it is still evident that the nuclear bombs caused turmoil in Japan with an effect that will stay with them
But the Japanese military was cruel and had a mindset almost suicidal and the only viable way to win the war and prevent the least amount of American lives lost was to speed up the process with the use of atomic weaponry. Dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not an easy decision by the U.S. military and government and as the president stated it was not something that was taken lightly or was likely to be used again unless necessary. The Atomic bomb had quite an impact on American military strategy and it is important with the amount of impact two bombs can have on not only the United States but the world that we understand the reasons this kind of weaponry is used in the first place as a well calculated last
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 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.
“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.
Son of a poverty-stricken shoemaker, raised in a backward province, Joseph Stalin had only a minimum of education. However, he had a burning faith in the destiny of social revolution and an iron determination to play a prominent role in it. His rise to power was bloody and bold, yet under his leadership, in an unexplainable twenty-nine years, Russia because a highly industrialized nation. Stalin was a despotic ruler who more than any other individual molded the features that characterized the Soviet regime and shaped the direction of Europe after World War II ended in 1945. From a young revolutionist to an absolute master of Soviet Russia, Joseph Stalin cast his shadow over the entire globe through his provocative affair in Domestic and Foreign policy.
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 ...
This agreement also extends to countries with similar plans and views. The first two articles of the pact were that each country recognized the other leaders and supported the changes that the others were making. The third article binds the three powers politically, economically, and their military forces. It also has an agreement of protection between them if a country not currently involved joins in the war. The Fourth article of the pact creates a joint commission between the three governments with member appointed by each of the three. There is also an agreement that the pact wont effect anything currently between the three countries and the Soviet Union in article five. The last article ensures that the pact goes into effect directly after signature and then last ten years. After the ten years are over a renewal of the pact can then be negotiated with only one of the powers needing to make the request. The pact is made to strengthen the odds of the Axis powers victory and to create a challenge the U.S by making it impossible for them to only fight against only one of the three
Politics has always been about image. A good image leads to power, it's that simple. Sometimes it is hard to draw the line between a leader who is genuinely interested in improving the lives of his people and one that is interested in filling a few more pages of the already crowded History book. A good example of this is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in its transition time between 1953 and 1964. The tyrannical rule of Joseph Stalin in the USSR was finally over, and the nation sought a new leader; after nearly a decade, one man, Nikita Khrushchev, rose up from the ranks with new ideas for the nation, and an extreme anti-Stalin campaign. But was he truly enraged at the way Stalin ruled or was he using this image in an attempt to capture the same power as his predecessor? The link between the two leaders goes back many years, to nearly the beginning of the communist annexation of Russia. Even today, we find ourselves asking if the politicians we vote for say they will make a reform to actually help the people, or if they say it as an empty promise in a ploy to get elected or to gain power. Was Nikita Khrushchev a man for the people, or was he simply a puppet with motives unseen to the people that pulled his strings?