Orthodox Vs Orthodox Analysis

They think that the Japanese were going to surrender, that Truman’s advisers didn’t all agree that the bomb was necessary, and that there was a better way to get Japan to surrender. But, it turns out that this was not the case. Japan was an honor-based country. Surrendering was not honorable to them. They were taught that suicide was an honorable death. “A prominent local Navy man, a former employee, had committed suicide the day before by throwing himself under a train- a death considered honorable enough to warrant a memorial service.”. (Hersey, 16). If it was honorable enough for a normal man to commit suicide, then people wouldn’t hesitate to die for their country. Japan would be wiped out because they wouldn’t know when to give up. In an interview with a high ranked Japanese officer on v-j day, Karl T. Compton asked him what he thought would happen if we hadn’t dropped the bomb, and invaded instead. He said, “We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated.”. By this he means that they would have kept fighting until they were dead, and even though they would lose, it wouldn’t be losing if they died honorably, fighting for their country. Another reason why people did not think that he atomic bomb was not necessary was because people think that Truman’s advisors were not in favor of the bomb, therefore making the decision to drop the bomb only up to Truman,

In addition to the desire to end the war and thus the casualties to the American troops, Truman had other reasons for considering the approval of the atomic attacks. Truman was enlightened by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson in a meeting on April 25, 1945 on the capability of the bomb, and the enormous expense incurred in developing it. This was one reason that Truman’s conclusion was to use the bomb against Japan, as there had to be a justifiable explanation for the expense incurred. Also, if he had not employed the use of the atomic bomb, he would not be able to justify to the American people why he had chosen not to do so, as there were so many American lives lost. It was alleged after the

One of the most controversial and heavily scrutinized issue of the twentieth century was President Harry S. Truman’s decision to unleash atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The motives behind Truman’s actions are shrouded in controversy as top military officials publicly denounced the use of such a disastrous weapon. There is overwhelming evidence supporting both sides of the decision, as historians are split in opinion. The United States had been using conventional bombing to try to push Japan over the edge to surrender, but with countless Japanese civilians loyal to their country, invading Japan proved to be more problematic than first thought. Harry S. Truman made the ultimate decision of dropping the atomic bomb in hopes that it would end the war, but the amount of casualties caused by it has historians questioning if it was morally right, “The bomb was unfortunate, but it was the only means to bring Japan to a surrender,” historian Sadao Asada states (Bomb 9). Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justifiable because they would ultimately lead to the end of the war and would demonstrate U.S. supremacy.

1. Long after World War II and the use of the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a great debate remains. It seems that there are two main potential arguments as to why the bombs were detonated and whether or not they were even necessary to begin with. The first theory surrounds the notion of the national security interests of the United States. In this theory essentially, Truman’s actions had been defended and justified as necessary in order to quickly end the war with U.S. causalities kept to a minimum.

Was it necessary for Truman to drop the Atomic Bombs on Japan in World War II? On August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped by a US aircraft on Hiroshima. This atomic bomb was dropped to force Japan into surrender, this bomb alone destroyed Hiroshima and over 90,000 people were instantly killed in the explosion and an additional 100,000 people perished from burns and radiation sickness. On August 9, 1945 only three days later, the second atomic bomb was dropped over Nagasaki resulting in an additional 80,000 casualties of the Japanese population. The people of Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945 soon after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many people opposed to the use of the atomic bombs because people argued that Truman 's decision to use atomic bombs was a barbaric act of cruelty. People also argued that the US government had other ulterior motives to drop the atomic bomb that were necessary for America 's ideals. Necessary motives like presenting The Soviet Union a strong message for the Soviets to watch their step around America. A conventional way of warfare for Japan 's surrender would have costed many more American lives. Truman and others believed that the atomic bomb was necessary to save American lives but also Japanese lives. These actions from President Truman marked the end of the most destructive war in history. The two sources that will used and evaluated in this paper are is The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb by Dennis D. Wainstock (1996)

The necessity of the atomic bombs have long been debated in America. Although they did contribute to stopping the war, Americans still wonder if murdering Japanese civilians was a necessary means to an end, or if it could have been avoided. Some people believe that the war would have ended without using the bombs. Others believe they were the sole purpose that the war finally ended. Many people were involved with bringing the bombs to fruition, such as the scientists, the government and military leaders, and the very teams that flew them to their targets. Then the President addressed the situation and American citizens spoke their minds. All of these people had their own thoughts on whether the bombs were needed. In this essay, the opinions on the atomic bomb’s necessity will be reviewed by presenting both the pros and cons from a variety of sources.

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.

On May 1945, a long-awaited V-E Day finally came and brought an end to the war in Europe. But, the war in the Pacific was still continuing against Japan since they are being reluctant to surrender despite the continuous indiscriminate bombardments The United States began to consider about using the atomic bombs as the only way to end the war immediately. On the other hand, many argued that Japan’s staggering losses were enough to force Japan’s surrender. In the end, President Harry S. Truman didn’t hesitate to use this nuclear weapon and bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with only three days interval between the two bombing. As a result, Japan has surrendered, but if I were to make a decision, I haven’t used atomic bombs because it was unnecessary since Japan has virtually lost already.

The dropping of the atomic bombs was so devastating because no one saw it coming. Although, the bombs shortened the war the lives of thousands were taken including men, women, and innocent children. The United States did send the Japanese a warning stating what they were going to do, but the citizens refused to pay attention to the warnings.When the bombings took place there were a lot of different arguments that will be discussed in this paper. These events took place on August 6, 1945, and August 9, 1945, and about 225,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many individuals have shared their opinions stating why they are for or against the bomb.

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa battles Maddox by arguing all the “what if” scenarios that could have possibly been better alternatives to using the atomic bomb. He questions why Truman didn’t accept a provision in the Potsdam ultimatum that would allow the Japanese to retain a constitutional monarchy. If Truman were to permit that provision it would have cut off Japan’s reliance on Moscow’s mediation and instigate Japan’s surrender months sooner (Hasegawa p. 245). Hasegawa proposes that Truman had an undisclosed reason for not accepting the provision. He knew that Japan would refuse his terms and wanted the rejection to justify the use of the atomic bomb (Hasegawa p. 246).

While Truman himself stated in an August 1945 radio address and further emphasized in his 1955 memoirs that the atomic bombs were dropped in order to “shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans” (Doc H), historians and government officials are split on the issue of the true motivations behind dropping the a-bombs. However, given his sour relationship with Stalin, it is clear that Truman intended the bomb to be used more than merely as an atomic weapon. When the Truman Administration made the decision to drop the atomic bombs, it was neither completely military or diplomatic. The decision was militaristic in that it tried to end the war with Japan in the most efficient manner possible, and was diplomatic in that it tried to prevent the Soviets from gaining too much

Henry L. Stimson was a secretary of war under both Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. He believed that as long as the Japanese government refused to surrender then the U.S. should be obligated to use whatever means necessary to win the war (“The Atomic Bomb,” 52). The atomic bomb allowed the U.S. to put an end to a never-ending war with fewer casualties than if the war went to a ground fight. War is brutal. It is destructive and unforgiving no matter what the means, killing lives is killing lives. Using the atomic bomb, the United States was able to end the war quickly and with minimal lost American lives.

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

When President Harry S. Truman ordered the nuclear attack on Hiroshima on the 6th of August, 1945, most people were supportive of it because it ended the war before an invasion became necessary. Seventy two years since the first and last nuclear attacks, many 'traditionalist' historians still believe that Truman made the best possible decision in the given circumstances. However, in the 1960's, Truman's critics, who reinterpreted history began to believe that the bomb played no significant role in ending the war and was thus unnecessarily used. These revisionist historians have gone so far as to characterize the use of nuclear weapons as “the single greatest acts of terrorism in human history” (Awan, 16). On the other hand, traditionalists argue that the bomb was an important

World War II end it, while the Cold War just started. As an old realist like Niccolò Machiavelli would say “the end justifies the means.” The thinker would had agree with President’s Truman decision if only Japan would had been stronger and ready to keep on fighting and a an outcome of understanding would had come out. The poor excused, if payed attention, if Japan does not provide absolute surrender, although its people have sworn loyalty to the Emperor at that time, they would be attack. United States officials Byrnes and Baruh influenced Truman in using Japan, although he denies it, as an experiment arena for the atomic bombs. David McCullough wrote a biography of Truman and he mention how the Secretary of State, Stettinius was truly not an expert of foreign policy and did not know what he was doing.