The atomic policy against Japan was closely related to the fear of Soviet expansion in Asia. U.S. leaders were strongly conscious of Russia’s agreement at Yalta to join the war against Japan three months past Germany’s surrender on May 7, 1945 (Fogelman, 124). Among the U.S. invasion of Japan planned for November 1, 1945, U.S. officials were doubtful about the cooperative mission with Russia in which Russia would have power at the peace table. However, the successful detonation at Alamogordo had transformed everything. The bomb guaranteed that the U.S. no longer required Russian aid to win in the Pacific (Wainstock, 132). In reality, Russian involvement would now only threaten American postwar interests. If successful, the atomic bomb had clear long-term political and diplomatic repercussions. Nearly all of the president’s primary consultants on were in agreement regarding the issue (Robert Jay Lifton, 216). The overall agreement was that the bomb would be a radical new force in influencing American policy and assist in dealing with numerous problems of the postwar world. Anti-Asian bigotries, with their origins in the 19th century, added to the way Americans rapidly radicalized World War II within Asia. Racist beliefs concerning the Japanese reached its highest in the aftershock of the destructive surprise attack at Pearl Harbor (Maddox, 138). Americans started to classify World War II as two very different wars, the Pacific war and the European war. In Europe, Hitler and the Nazis were identified as enemies and were distinguished from the German people as a whole. On the other hand, in the Pacific, American antagonism was usually targeted the entire Japanese race or the “Japs” as they were called. Throughout the war, the Ja... ... middle of paper ... ...ure negotiations with the Soviets, the bomb had the opposite result. Instantly after Hiroshima, Stalin commanded Soviet nuclear scientists to catch up with the technology obtained by their rival, establishing the race for world dominance (Alperovitz, 416). The Soviets successfully tested its first atomic bomb on September 23, 1949; and the changeover to the atomic age had been established (Alperovitz, 419). One thing is clear; the atomic bomb was not necessary in winning the Pacific war. Nevertheless, the dominant statement in both the Roosevelt and Truman administration was that the bomb would be utilized against the enemy. The bomb functioned with a double role in quickly ending the war and instituting U.S. hegemony worldwide. However, the severe repercussions of the bomb’s utilization are far greater than the weapon’s accomplishment of concluding World War II.
It was no secret that when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, countless Americans were frightened on what will happen next. The attack transpiring during WW2 only added to the hysteria of American citizens. According to the article “Betrayed by America” it expressed,”After the bombing many members of the public and media began calling for anyone of Japanese ancestry။citizens or not။to be removed from the West Coast.”(7) The corroboration supports the reason why America interned Japanese-Americans because it talks about Americans wanting to remove Japanese-Americans from the West Coast due to Japan bombing America. Japan bombing America led to Americans grow fear and hysteria. Fear due to the recent attack caused internment because Americans were afraid of what people with Japanese ancestry could do. In order to cease the hysteria, America turned to internment. American logic tells us that by getting the Japanese-Americans interned, many
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...
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.
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 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.
Maddox, Robert. “The Biggest Decision: Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb.” Taking Sides: Clashing View in United States History. Ed. Larry Madaras & James SoRelle. 15th ed. New York, NY. 2012. 280-288.
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 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.
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.
using the bombs during WWII not only to defeat the Japanese, but also to intimidate the Soviet Union and prove their power to the world. The U.S. knew Japan would surrender soon without the use of a destructive weapon. The Soviet Union definitely had some influence on the military decision made by the American government. As Professor Stoff mentioned in one of his lectures, Churchill believed Stalin was more dangerous than Hitler. Although the Soviet Union was an “ally” to America, they never really had an actual relationship. It was more of an alliance of convenience. The U.S. has always wanted to prove itself to be the best. Being the first country to have and use a nuclear weapon was a huge deal. As a result, President Truman told Stalin that we had a weapon and Stalin told us to use it. The U.S. also announced to Japan that we would use a weapon that would cause massive destruction and the majority of citizens ignored it. At the time, there was a threat that Russia would become a problem after the war. The U.S. dropped the bombs in Japan to end the war as quickly as possible to prevent Russia from gaining land in Asia. Therefore, the use of the bombs was not purely to defeat the
The attack at Pearl Harbor was the event that caused the U.S. to decide to be involved in the war. After this incident, the U.S. was trying to find a way to retaliate and counterattack against Japan. Some thought that the only way to do so was by using atomic bombs. People like, General Dwight Eisenhower, Harry S Truman, and a group of scientists believed that the use of the bomb would do good, and finally end everything. Eisenhower believed that because the use of the atomic bomb was successful in New Mexico, it would also be successful in Japan as well. Harry S Truman thought that even the atomic bomb was the most destructive weapon in the history of the world, it could be made the most useful. He stated that, “it was ...
When President Truman authorized the use of two nuclear weapons in 1945 against the Japanese in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II, the nature of international security was changed irreversibly. At that time, the United States had what was said to have a monopoly of atomic bombs. Soon thereafter, the Soviet Union began working on atomic weaponry. In 1949, it had already detonated it first atomic bomb and tensions began to heat up between the two countries. With the information that the Soviets had tested their first bomb, the United States began work on more powerful weapons1, and a fight for nuclear superiority had begun.
"Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Justifiable?" The Pacific War 1941-43. Web. 10 June 2010.