The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one of the most controversial events in modern history. Commentators discussed whether bombs mattered, what the end result of the Pacific War would be, and other options for America.
These same questions were discussed at a time when American leaders were choosing how to use powerful new technologies and what the long-term impact of atomic weapons on the Japanese was (Hasegawa 96). This essay is an argument as to why the US was justified in using the atomic bomb against Japan.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Most of the commentators who participated in the debate over the end of World War II focused on why the US decided to drop the atomic bomb. Although much attention was paid to this event, little attention was paid to what the Japanese did to end the war.
Even less information is available about Soviet decision making and their participation in the war against Japan. One of the main problems that has recently been overcome is the lack of a historian who is fluent in English, Japanese and Russian so that he can investigate important cases, including government information, military, education and news in general. three languages. This explains why most of the available literature on the subject is on the American side of history.
One of the reasons why it was not necessary to bomb Japan was because the US had other options, they were able to force Japan to surrender. In his landmark 2005 study, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa examines the relationship of the three wars between America, Japan, and the Soviet Union.
What emerges from this careful study is the fact that the Americas had other options they could use with the bombs, but they chose to ignore them. According to Hasegawa (100), Soviet leader Joseph Stalin warned America that he would attack Japan on August 15, 1945.
This meant that the US had until August 15 to force Japan to surrender to prevent the Soviet Union from entering the war, which would weaken Truman and his government. Contrary to the claim that the Americans used the bomb as a last resort, Hasegawa disagreed and said that the first day of August was chosen to prevent the Soviets from entering the war.
In fact, Hasegawa's careful research disproves the idea that the bombings weakened Japan's position when they were carried out.
According to the historian, the myth that the bombs weakened Japan's will to fight and rescue Japanese and American soldiers was necessary to pass Truman's decision and help ease the conscience of the American people. According to Hasegawa, this story has no historical support because there was enough evidence to show that there was an alternative to using bombs, but Truman and his administration chose to ignore it.
Historians say that Truman's main concern was that allowing Stalin to enter the war would be a great strategic advantage for him, and it would be a serious threat to American interests in the region. With the deadline to strike expired, the only option left to Truman and his administration was to use the atomic bomb (Hasegawa 101).
Although Japan has not yet publicly announced its intention to surrender, those inside understand that the country cannot continue the fight and surrender is inevitable.
This admission is contained in intelligence reports that show that Truman was aware of the news that Japan had abandoned its goal of victory and was considering how to reconcile its national pride with defeat in the war. Based on these types of information, it is clear that there was no reason for the Americans to use the bombs, since it was only a matter of time before the Japanese admitted defeat.
The second reason why the US bomb is not justified is because of the completely false claims. Be that as it may, the actual number of American and Japanese lives that may have been lost during the invasion is said to be unknown. However, those who supported the bombing appear to have increased their estimate of possible casualties from the previous estimate of 45,000 given by the US War Department.
In a 1991 address to congress, George Bush claimed that Truman's decision to drop the bomb 'spared' millions of American lives. Four years after the claims by Bush, a crewmember of Bock’s car, the plane that dropped one of the bombs stated that the bombing preserved the lives of over six million people.
Over the years, historians have provided evidence to show that the casualty figures offered by Truman and his bombing supporters were seriously flawed. One historian claimed that the people who supported the high casualty claims relied upon strained readings and omitted crucial material, which in effect limited their research and cast a shadow of doubt on their findings.
Hasegawa and other anti-bombing historians did not refute the claim that Truman was concerned at the possibility of America losing many lives during the invasion, but the projected numbers were way below the exaggerated figures provided after the war to rationalize the bombings.
Such inflated figures, along with Japan’s presumed rejection of surrendering is usually a part of the debate on why the atomic bombs were necessary but from the proffered evidence, these claims are highly questionable.
Another reason to prove that the bombing was not justified is derived from looking at the real reasons why Japan surrendered. According to political analysts, postwar interviews with numerous Japanese military and civilian leaders showed that Japan could have given in before November 1, which is the date that the U.S. had planned to invade the country.
This was not because Japan was afraid of atomic bombs or the impeding Soviet entry but because they had no reason to continue fighting in a war, which they were certain to lose. This conclusion definitely supports the view that the bombings were not in any way necessary to end the war and their use was therefore unjustified.
Historians project that given the huge impact that the Soviet entry into the war and the air-naval blockade imposed by the Allied forces, there is a high possibility that Japan would have surrendered before any invasion since its resources to support the war had dwindled. Historians question why Truman was not willing to avoid the costly invasion of Japan by allowing the Soviet entry instead of dropping the bombs.
The question of Truman and his administration not knowing about Japan’s intention to surrender does not arise since historians have discovered records showing that Truman was in possession of intercepted and decoded Japanese intelligence communication, which showed their willingness to surrender.
As Hasegawa (110) rightly put it, if Truman and his ilk really wanted to desist from using the atomic bomb as it was claimed after the war, then why was the intelligence reports in the intercepted cables ignored? According to the historian, stressing the decisive role of the atomic bombs in ending the war was meant to weaken the importance of soviet entry into the war thus making inconsequential the Soviet role in ending the war. This was meant to display the super weapon that was only possessed by the United States.
Conclusion
The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9, 1945) is still one of the most debated topics in modern history. According to most historians, the bombings were unjustified because there were other available options to end the war but they were ignored.
Contrary to the claim that Americans used the bomb as a last resort, most historians disagree and claim that the early August date was chosen to counter the Soviets’ impeding attack on August 15, 1945. This ensured that America got the credit for ending the war.
Stuck on your essay?
