Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Hiroshima Bombing: A Tragedy That Could Have Been Averted?

Powerful Essays
2280 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Hiroshima Bombing: A Tragedy That Could Have Been Averted?
The nuclear bombings of Japan are a very controversial topic, and is highly discussed and researched by scholars and the general public. The nuclear bombings are not just a small part in military history, but a lesson in reality and the destruction possible of man to achieve their goals; these bombings have raised a whole host of ethical issues and concerns, which must be taken into consideration. There are many reasons why the actions taken by the United States and specifically President Truman to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima were absolutely unnecessary. On the other hand there is an abundant amount of weak justification as to why it was so imperative for the U.S. to distinguish the lives of sixty-six thousand civilians in the blink of an eye, and cause catastrophic destruction and disparity that would have a lasting effect for decades to come. The atomic bomb should have never been dropped on Japan because the atomic bomb is not a strategic weapon. It could be compared to Pheasant hunting using a Sherman Tank. According to writer Mary Bellis, “the bomb was dropped from the Enola Gay. It missed by only 800 feet. At 0816 hours, in an instant, 66,000 people were killed and 69,000 injured by a 10-kiloton atomic explosion” (Bellis). We can begin by looking at the reasons that ultimately led to the decision to bomb Hiroshima, and the heart of it, with President Truman. On Dec 7, 1941 the Japanese conducted an unprovoked air assault on the U.S. naval base in Pearl Harbor; by doing this the Japanese caused the U.S. to be brought into WWI. Bill Gordon, in his Essay reminds us that, as a result, for four long years, severe loathing of the Japanese people grew immensely in the U.S., and many U.S citizens and members of the government viewed the Japanese as a very barbaric race of people, which gave the impression that the bombing would be justified. (Gordon). The fear of them in the U.S. was so present that they were rounded up and confined in containment camps including naturalized Japanese Americans. To add to their unpopularity was their mistreatment of U.S. prisoners of war which to say the least was horrifying, and their attempts to cover them up were proof that they knew they were committing war crimes. But ask yourself, does this justify killing civilians? Although these acts by the Japanese are extremely savage; they were committed on military personnel in the context of war, not on unsuspecting civilians in the course of their everyday activities. Truman’s reason for the bombing was that he believed that the alternative to this was to wage war on the Japanese mainland, but this would mean the death of many U.S. troops and could end in failure. He claimed this was his way to end the war and spare the loss of U.S. military personnel. In doing so, he did achieve just that, but is this not the classic example of a Pyrrhic victory? Doug Longs article states how there were concrete proof that Japan was ready to surrender and Truman had knowledge of this, weeks before his decision. It was understood by both, the Allies and Japan, that surrender was the only way out for the Japanese. Japan was ready to surrender by mid July 1945, and had sought diplomatic help through the still-neutral Russians. In July1945, the U.S. had intercepted and successfully decoded messages sent between Foreign Minister Togo and Japan’s Ambassador to Moscow, Sato. These messages clearly stated Japans, and specifically the Emperors great desire to end the war. As I stated earlier Truman was well aware of these transmissions, but insisted the bomb was necessary to terminate the war and save the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers (Long). When in theory it was not. The US government refused to state in the Potsdam Declaration that upon the surrender of Japan the position of the emperor in Japan would remain. This statement along with the Soviet declaration of war on Japan should bring one to believe that this would have been enough to convince Japan to surrender. It is very conceivable that the US Government didn’t include the statement that the position of the emperor of Japan would be allowed to remain if Japan surrendered because the US government didn’t want to appear soft on Japan. If this was all that was needed, would it not have been worth exploring? Again, mass murder to save face in the eyes of the enemy is not a justifiable argument. Long states in his paper “Hiroshima - Was it Necessary?” President Truman had advisors who influenced him to remove the statement against the advice of other advisors who had more knowledge of Japan and their culture, which held a great love and loyalty for their Emperor Hirohito. Was it the ignorance of certain U.S. officials about Japanese culture that led to this invaluable detail being left out of the Declaration?, or was it omitted purposely?, knowing the outcome, thereby creating an excuse to bomb them., Drobny in his article quotes Herbert Hoover as stating to Truman, "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you 'll get a peace in Japan - you 'll have both wars over" (Drobny). This was a full two months before the bomb was dropped, plenty of time to make a simple Broadcast, yet it was ignored.

. The U.S. decision to drop leaflets from planes in the days before the attack warning the people of their impending doom is also very suspect. Why if the intended bombing of a heavily populated civilian area was planned why would anyone give such a warning? If the intentions were not to kill civilians, then was it even necessary to target these areas? Would detonation of the bomb on an unpopulated Island or at sea off the coast of Japan been enough to show the immense destructive power and in essence have the same effect without all the death? This creates speculation that the bomb was used to impress upon the USSR the capabilities of the U.S. military, this again could have been achieved at a different site without death involved. Another was Hiroshima and Nagasaki being 2 cities that were surprisingly not affected by the war as far as destruction would be a great place to study the effects of the bomb, if any of these were the underlying effects of the decision, there is no concrete proof, but it is quite proven that these were two effects that did take place intentional or not. The thought of using the deaths of civilians, to prove a point to the USSR or to Experiment on civilians is appalling. Jeff Kingston, A history teacher at Temple University in Japan, confirms that During the Yalta conference Stalin had promised the U.S. to invade Japan “three months” after the defeat of Germany, and the agreement between the U.S. and the USSR was signed to that effect (Kingston). The Red Army declared the war against Japan exactly three months later; it entered Manchuria on August 8. The same day the Red Army invaded Korea from the north, while the US troops were invading it from the south. The USSR Red Army captured the entire Kwantung Army of the Japanese and began preparing itself for the amphibious landing to the islands of Japan. Indeed, Stalin was fulfilling his obligations to their U.S. ally. Long explains how Truman did not want the Red Army to land on the islands of Japan, even though this move could have saved many lives of the American soldiers ( long). Truman could not afford the thought of victorious Stalin exporting socialism to their Pacific neighbor. That fear probably was one of many motives behind the Truman’s decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. Should he not have considered this before making a deal with Stalin? Had he just ignored the fact that this would leave Japan vulnerable for the USSR to occupy? If so, those were not the acts of a responsible leader. An argument could be made that Stalin was hoping to advance the causes of socialism into Asia but there is no proof, only assumptions, now, and then, that he considered the territorial occupation of Asia to achieve that goal. In making Stalin an ally, Truman created a situation that he would not be able to control without the show of massive military force, essentially making the use of the bomb quite probable. There is undeniable proof that Japan wanted to give up, as President Truman had in his possession, and he should have explored every option to negotiate with Japan to surrender, and did not. In my opinion, the United States took a few steps back on the evolution ladder when they decided to kill innocent people. It is widely known the US State Department and President Truman wanted payback for the astonishing attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, but lowering the U.S. to their level was not the answer. While the Japanese may have been seeking peace deals through the USSR diplomats, it was ultimately pointless. The sheer size, scope and savagery of World War II seemed to leave only room for total victory. It is doubtful the Russians would have accepted a peace treaty instead of surrender regarding Germany any more than the United States would have accepted peace instead of surrender after Pearl Harbor and years of bitter fighting. World War II was in all aspects, a war aimed at nothing less than total victory. This country was not built on the concept of an eye for an eye so this is a weak argument not to accept or at least explore every option to achieve the most humane end to the war. It is widely believed in the U.S. that these decisions were decided to seize the opportunity of any chance at a quick victory. The population was tired of war, huge sacrifices were born by the allies, and a hope to defeat Japan without direct military invasion was believed to be a huge gamble. The main justification for using the Atomic bomb however it worked was that Japan surrendered. While the end did not justify the means, the goal was reached. In the months preceding the bombing, the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy; many areas were destroyed by air raids, and they couldn 't receive any imports and also could not export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor and it was quite logical to that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb, or to have had to bring Russia in to the war. Many it seemed wanted to issue a warning for various reasons moral and tactical. The tactical argument was the Allied Forces had already won, the Japanese would have surrendered, and the US would not have exposed its nuclear capabilities to the Soviets thus delaying the arms race. Many military minds were convinced the Japanese were already blockaded and knew they were dependent on the rail transportation and inter coastal shipping. Conventional bombing, submarines and mines would have eliminated any movement of supplies throughout the country. Even with these strangle holds in place, it is still very conceivable that Japan would still not have surrendered if it meant losing their Emperor, but we will never have the answer to this question, because it was not allowed to play out to see the outcome. As with any decisions made in the past, hindsight is 20/20, but these were very different times, and the threat of Communism was so great, even a U.S. president would make a decision this reckless to stop it from spreading. We will never know the outcomes of the many alternatives that were proposed after the fact, but we do know there were alternatives that could have been perused before these cities and their inhabitants were bombed. One would like to believe that it was not all in vain, and the world learned a valuable lesson from this destruction, as we have not had an event like this in the world since. This is only a summary of the events that took place, in an attempt at trying to understand why Truman did what he did, and if it was necessary. You will have to come to your own decision on the moral and ethical issues involved, but hopefully this sheds some light on the subject so your decision can be made in an informed manner.

Works Cited

Bellis, Mary. "History of the Atomic Bomb & The Manhattan Project." About.com Inventors. The New York Times Company, 2011. Web. 5 Dec. 2011.
Drobny, Sheldon. "OpEdNews - Article: God Damn America 's Media: Rev. Wright 's Comment Hiroshima." Opednews.com Progressive, Liberal United States and International News, Opinion, Op-Eds and Politics. OpEdNews, 16 Mar. 2008. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.
Kingston, Jeff. "Soviet checkmate finished Japan | The Japan Times Online." The Japan Times Online: News on Japan, Business News, Opinion, Sports, Entertainment and More. The Japan Times, 28 Aug. 2005. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.
Long, Doug. "Hiroshima: the Article."Hiroshima: Was It Necessary? The Atomic Bombing of Japan. N.p., 2005. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.

Cited: Bellis, Mary. "History of the Atomic Bomb & The Manhattan Project."  About.com Inventors. The New York Times Company, 2011. Web. 5 Dec. 2011.  Drobny, Sheldon. "OpEdNews - Article: God Damn America 's Media: Rev. Wright 's Comment Hiroshima." Opednews.com Progressive, Liberal United States and International News, Opinion, Op-Eds and Politics. OpEdNews, 16 Mar. 2008. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. Kingston, Jeff. "Soviet checkmate finished Japan | The Japan Times Online." The Japan Times Online: News on Japan, Business News, Opinion, Sports, Entertainment and More. The Japan Times, 28 Aug. 2005. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. Long, Doug. "Hiroshima: the Article."Hiroshima: Was It Necessary? The Atomic Bombing of Japan. N.p., 2005. Web. 12 Dec. 2011.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hiroshima PROS and CONS

    • 278 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Although the use of the bomb killed many innocent civilians it also saved many lives because if the bomb had not dropped the war would have gone on with more air raids and more attacks on cities and many soldiers on both sides would have died. If the US had not dropped the atomic bomb the nuclear arms race would have would have went on and the standards would have been different and it may not have been just two cities but an entire country.…

    • 278 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    During wartime, horrible atrocities against all of humanity must be dealt with. Crimes against humanity, as never witnessed before, and hopefully to never be seen again, occurred during the course of World War II. The security of our nation and of other allied nations was severely threatened, not only by the Germans, but by the Japanese. The Japanese were a strong people willing to fight till it was no longer possible. It may even be said that they were suicidal, with their kamikaze pilots and no real hope of defeating the allied nations. America has always, and most likely will always place a high value on American lives. In order to protect these lives and to insure that the world is safe for democracy, American leaders had to make a very tough decision, whether or not to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. This act would essentially be trading Japanese lives for American lives. The Japanese, who were the aggressors, much like the Germans, were not sympathized with. They were responsible for hundreds of thousands of American casualties in the Pacific, including the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor. With Japanese forces showing no signs of surrender, American leaders made a decision. A decision that changed the history of warfare forever. On the week of August 6, 1945, the first and the last atomic bombs ever used during war were unleashed against Japan, vaporizing two of its largest cities.…

    • 944 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    First I will give the perspective of those who believe the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was indeed justified. Operation Downfall was the planned invasion of Japan but it would not be like any normal invasion. The American forces knew that they planned to confront provoked and zealous Japanese, which would cause skyrocketing casualties. The majority of the forces believed in a concept referred to as bushido, which demands bravery and extreme self-sacrifice. Honor comes from death and disgrace from surrender, so those who willingly gave their lives were esteemed and respected. This belief stems from feudal Japanese samurai warriors but is still widely accepted as a motive for war. During World War II, when the Japanese air fleet was outdated, they developed a defense of kamikaze pilots which were basically suicide bombers. This showed the United States that when backed into a corner the Japanese were going to fight back with everything they had. It was estimated that invading Japan with a normal attack would cost 1.2 million casualties (Source #2, see annotation). This was one of the most prevalent factors in President Truman’s decision to authorize the use of the atomic bomb. The other leading influence on the atomic bomb’s justification was the Japanese…

    • 295 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The decision that brought the prompt and utter destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki generates a lot of interest and controversy even today. Many people question Truman’s intentions in using the atomic bomb and its necessity to ending the war. In Prompt & Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bomb Against Japan, J. Samuel Walker provides an insight to the different choices Truman had to make and the factors that lead to Truman’s decision to use atomic bombs against Japan.…

    • 370 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    When talking about WW2 and Japan, something that comes to mind often is the atomic bomb. Some people say it was a good thing, as it ended one of the worst war in history. however, some say that it was wrong to drop a bomb of a country that was on the verge of surrender. Proof of this statement, this essay will tell you.…

    • 457 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The United States’ decision to bomb two cities of Japan, which we’re Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was not at all justified. Many people know that Japan deliberately attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, in order to strategically weaken the American Naval Base. However, the United States’ decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to push Japan to surrender the war . The bombing was unjustified because the U.S. military: targeted heavily populated civilian cities, deliberately planned their attack to kill, did not give Japan enough time to respond to the first bombing, (4) did not experience as many casualties than Japan.…

    • 1310 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The USA, led by president Harry S. Truman, with the Enola Gay, dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the 6ht and 9th of august 945. This was after the attack on pearl habour, December 7th 1941. Evidently, this has opened many debates arguing whether the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was justified.…

    • 294 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Was Hiroshima Wrong

    • 1053 Words
    • 5 Pages

    War is something that has affected everyone since civilization started. War is between two or more groups of people, their leader usually sending out an army of a sort to attack the opponent. Whether it be internationally known countries, or a child playing with their action figures, war is violent. It causes destruction, tragedy, and loss. Hiroshima was one of the most catastrophic events that took place in history. No one knew what was happening or what to do, since this was the first atom bomb ever dropped on a city. Some say that Hiroshima could have started the cold war. The ethics of war take their place here. People have asked about Hiroshima and the Just War Theory. They ask if Hiroshima was justified, or if it wasn’t and Americans…

    • 1053 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Based on the circumstances, the US was justified in military action against Japan, however; dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shouldn’t have happened. Thousands Civilians were killed over two cities of no real importance in gaining ground within the war. Of those included eleven US Navy pilots imprisoned in Hiroshima. Truman himself also stated to be "disturbed" by the use of the atomic bombs.…

    • 252 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Furthermore, the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima which was the location of a Japanese army base and was not specifically aimed to kill civilians as it was only meant as a warning. Although Hiroshima did kill approximately 66,000 people, as it was the first testing of an atomic bomb in history, the Americans did not understand the full impact that this bomb would have and did not expect it to harm as many civilians as it did. It can be argued that if America did not understand the implications that the bomb would have, they shouldn’t have dropped it. However, I believe that as Japan was not prepared to surrender and as the war was dragging on, the bomb on Hiroshima was the right course of action to undertake as ultimately it killed less people than it…

    • 1580 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    War in Necessary

    • 405 Words
    • 2 Pages

    A very (very) long time ago, Machiavelli asked us, "do the ends justify the means?" That statement (or question) can be used to assess nearly any action. So, was it morally valid for the United States to drop the atomic bombs on Japan in 1945? It was a quick way to end a war, and it saved the lives of soldiers on both sides. Also, it taught us to fear nuclear power, as the first thing it was used for was to destroy (obliterate) two cities, and to kill over 200,000 people. Next, it helped to spped up research on the topic of nuclear power and gave us nuclear power plants, along with thermonuclear power. Many of the children from the cities had been evacuated to the countryside. It gave us the opportunity to research the effects of atomic bombs on buildings and on people.…

    • 405 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    America suggests that using the atomic bomb was the best solution they had in order to prevent the death of more Japanese and American soldiers. They say that if they hadn’t used it then there would be a land invasion and a lot more people would die because Japanese soldiers are people who will do anything to win for the sake of their emperor and honor. However, if only their intention was really to decrease the number of the people who were going to be murdered, bring peace to the world and end the war than they wouldn’t drop the bomb on two big cities where a lot of people live. They would make a demonstration and drop it somewhere where there is not a sign of life. This way, the Japanese would be scared of another bomb and surrender and this kind of a massacre wouldn’t happen. Yet America knew that in case of a land invasion their chances of winning was not that high because of the dedication of the Japanese soldiers.…

    • 1027 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Best Essays

    Bombing of Hiroshima

    • 2092 Words
    • 9 Pages

    During World War II, the United States was working on the Manhattan Project – the development of the atomic bomb. The U.S. had several reasons to create and use this new weapon, including the obtaining of accurate effects, attempting to bring an end to the war with Japan more quickly, and to show America’s true power to the rest of the world in order to keep the Soviet Union from expanding its sphere of influence. After much consideration, the first atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Hiroshima early in the morning of August 6th, 1945. Although America’s decision did have its benefits, in light of its many other negative consequences, the decision to drop the bomb on that fateful day was not and cannot be justified.…

    • 2092 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Atomic Bomb

    • 1333 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The United States Decision to drop the Atomic bomb has been a controversial topic since the day the first bomb was dropped August 6, 1945. President Harry Truman made the ultimate decision to use the atomic bomb, to him it was a clear decision that this would end the war with America’s most hated enemy: Japan (Nathan, 2012). There had been thousandths of bloody deaths up to-this-point in the war, Japan was destroyed, they had just about nothing, their country was in starvation, the domestic infrastructure was ruined, both sides knew that America was going to win. The question was not if it was when? (Nathan, 2012) Truman’s decision in using the bomb was not taken lightly it came down to several factors but ultimately he wanted the war to end as soon as possible with the fewest U.S casualties (Maddox, 1995).…

    • 1333 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hiroshima Bombing

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Many historians have different opinions and views why the United States dropped the bomb. I agree with historians Alperovitz and Frank, unlike most they’re anti-atomic bomb on Japan. I’m against the use of atomic weapons altogether and especially in Truman’s situation the atomic bomb was a bad decision. The use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima was unjust and overkill. The bomb killed thousands of civilians in Hiroshima to compel the Japanese to surrender, but as historian Berstein stated “conventional bombings could have produced the same result by November 1st.” Berstein points out that the Japanese government was collapsing on itself and their transportation system throughout the country was very poor and couldn’t supply its people with food and resources so the United States could have waited the Japanese out. The use of the bomb could cause public backlash as well, rather than using the bomb the United States could have demonstrated the bomb before hand in which compelling the Japanese to surrender. The Truman administration had millions of other options rather than the atomic bomb or a direct invasion. The United States could have let the Soviet Union join and this would also pressure the Japanese to surrender,…

    • 782 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays