On August 6, 1945, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, however, three days later, August 9, another bomb released on Nagasaki. President Truman came down to a decision in bombing Japan in hope of swiftly ending the war, essentially saving numerous Americans and Japanese lives. But, because of Japan’s gruesome and barbaric actions in the past, the use of atomic bomb accounted justified. However, people have heavily criticized his decision as they have suggested other alternatives; such as implying Operation Downfall, another name for invading Japan would have been a better solution, given how defeated and incapable they were, compared to the United States. Other historians have challenged and argued these justifications by stating that Truman …show more content…
Take into consideration Japanese war crimes; such as the Rape of Nanking (Nanjing), during the year 1937. The Japanese invaded, raided, and “senselessly massacred over 350,000 Chinese civilians and soldiers”-- a bloodbath. In accordance with the book, Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust, the deaths “exceeded. . . the American raids on Tokyo (an estimated 80,000-120,000)” as well as the two atomic bombs combined which “estimated to 140,000-70,000” (Shen). Furthermore, Japanese soldiers took pleasure of Chinese women, which they mutilate and murder afterward. Hence, these barbarities exhibited by the Japanese soldiers bolstered the justification as to why release the atomic bomb on Japan …show more content…
On July 1945, there were messages gathered from Togo, Japan’s minister of Foreign Affairs, to Sato, Japan’s ambassador to Moscow, which displayed their desire in surrendering in the war. Theses messages included, “July 11 - ‘. . . we hope to terminate the war’ July 12 - ‘it is his [emperor Hirohito] majesty’s heart’s desire to see the swift termination of the war’” (Long). Truman, on the other hand, was well aware of these messages and did not feel the need to question the use of the atomic bomb, perhaps in retrospect, it all seemed fair. Although, there have been multiples debates whether Japan was going to maintain the same mindset, which is to surrender, without the use of the atomic bomb. When researching regarding the given topic, one would often find two sides of the argument, those who says, in this case: “The fact of the matter is that Japan was not preparing to surrender; it was preparing to fight to the death [emphasis added]. . .” (Nichols). Then, the other side which defends the Japanese. In which one would argue that “prior to the August bombings, most of [the] Japanese. . . had been wiped out by an extraordinary series of air attacks. . . millions were homeless. By July of 1945, both Japanese and American military knew the war was lost”7. Likewise, food also became a problem “most Japanese were subsisting on a sub-starvation diet” (Weber). They were physically incapable of
The first reason on why Truman made the right decision was because the atomic bomb ultimately helped to prevent the deaths of American troops. There would have been over 100,000 losses during the first stage of the attack against Japan, leading to over one million casualties of just Americans during the defeat of Japan(Tucker 1). Although there is no way to confirm the amount of predicted deaths, any amount of American deaths would have been avoided with the use of the atomic bomb. Comparing a million predicted deaths of Americans to the 140,000 (±10,000) that were actually killed in the Hiroshima bomb(Faragher 4), the decision implementing the bomb was executed in the correct way.
The primary goal of this extreme force was to bring a swift end to the war in the Pacific, (Walker) but a secondary goal was to display the military and technological might of the United States to allies and rivals around the world (Walker). The use of multiple nuclear weapons made it clear to Japan and the world that Truman's threat of “utter destruction” was intended to be carried out unless Japan delivered what the United States wantedunconditional surrender (Cite). The potential use of atomic weapons against the Japanese was appealing to the United States because it was seen as a dramatic and decisive way to end the war (Walker, ). Prior to the decision to use nuclear weapons, Japan and the United States were at odds over the terms by which the Japanese would surrender to the Americans, which did nothing but prolong the military conflict (Walker, ). Japanese leadership had expressed its desire to end the war to third parties, but could not come to an agreement over what terms would be acceptable for their surrender (Walker, 47)....
In Prompt and Utter Destruction, J. Samuel Walker provides the reader with an elaborate analysis of President Truman’s decision behind using the atomic bomb in Japan. He provokes the reader to answer the question for himself about whether the use of the bomb was necessary to end the war quickly and without the loss of many American lives. Walker offers historical and political evidence for and against the use of the weapon, making the reader think critically about the issue. He puts the average American into the shoes of the Commander and Chief of the United States of America and forces us to think about the difficulty of Truman’s decision.
This investigation assesses President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will determine whether or not his decision was justified. This investigation will scrutinize the reasons that made Harry Truman feel inclined to drop atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Preventing further casualties along with the desire to end the war are two argumentative points that will be analyzed to determine if they were strong enough to justify the dropping of the atomic bombs. Excerpts from Truman’s memoirs and a variety of different titles were consulted in order to undertake this investigation. Section C will evaluate two sources for their origins purposes values and limitations. The first is a book titled The Invasion of Japan written by John Stakes in 1955. And the second is a book titled Prompt & Utter Destruction written by J. Samuel Walker.
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.
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.
Historian Robert James Maddox starts the debate by siding with Truman and states that he made the right decision in dropping the bomb. Maddox uses several influential meetings, speculations and the presidents’ personal opinions on the situation to defend his statement. Some examples he uses include, Japanese military power and mentality, saving American lives, and unconditional surrender. In short, because the use of the atomic bomb occurred, the Japanese military lost their lust to fight to the end, countless lives were saved, and Japan surrendered. Therefore, although many Japanese lives were lost in the conflict the right decision was made by Harry Truman to authorize the usage of the bombs.
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. Admittedly, dropping the atomic bomb was a major factor in Japan's decision to accept the terms laid out in the Potsdam agreement, otherwise known as unconditional surrender. The fact must be pointed out, however, that Japan had already been virtually defeated.
A huge proponent to the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9 of 1945 was President Harry Truman. Although they value the ideas and contributions out in by the committee they choose, the president ultimately has the last say on war time decisions. It just so happens that President Truman wanted to drop the bomb. President Truman believed that Japan's leaders would not surrender to the terms outlined in Potsdam meeting. He saw it fit to drop the bombs and end all doubt.
There were many arguments and factors as to if Truman decided correctly and if the United States should have dropped the bombs. There were many disputes supporting the bombing. Some being the Japanese were warned early enough, it shortened the war, and it saved many Americans lives. There are also voluminous quarrels against the United States bombing the Japanese. Some of these are the bombing killed innocent Japanese civilians who did not deserve it, the Japanese was about to surrender before we bombed them, and the United States only blasted the Japanese because of racism toward them. Though there are many valid reasons for and against the bombing, there is still much controversy today whether president Truman made the right decision.
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 ...
There are many people who oppose the use of the atomic bombs; though there are some that believe it was a necessity in ending the war. President Truman realized the tragic significance of the atomic bomb and made his decision to use it to shorten the agony of young Americans (“Was the Atomic Bombing”). The president knew of the way the Japanese fought. They fought to the death and they were brutal to prisoners of war. They used woman and children as soldiers to surprise bomb the enemy. They made lethal weapons and were taught to sacr...
The Rape of Nanking, also known as the Nanking Massacre was a six week period when mass numbers of Chinese men and woman were killed by the Japanese. Embarrassed by the lack of effort in the war with China in Shanghai, the Japanese looked for revenge and finally were able to win the battle. The Japanese moved toward the city of Nanjing also known as Nanking and invaded it for approximately six months. Even though the people of Nanjing outnumbered the 50,000 Japanese, they were not as masterful in warfare as their opponents. Chinese soldiers were forced to surrender to the Japanese and the massacre began in which around 300,000 people died and 20,000 women were raped. The Japanese leaders had different methods of killing that were instructed to the soldiers. However, the prisoners of this “City of Blood” soon found their liberation and their justice was served.
Dropping the atomic bomb was a decision that no man would want to take on. Truman went with all the facts and his gut feeling. There was Great loss for Japan but even some of the Japanese soldiers were happy that the United States dropped the bomb. For it most likely saved their lives the emperor was willing to sacrifice everyone so he wouldn’t have to surrender. Whether you decide to agree with the bomb dropping or not it wasn’t about the bomb it was about ending the war. The atomic bomb is what ended the war quicker than any other options the United States had making it the best choice.