Argumentative Essay: Truman's Atomic Bombing
Hiroshima’s atomic bombing
Educating ourselves on events in world history may not prevent the present and future leaders from making the same mistakes, and neither will it accomplish utter tranquility and peace among all countries. It is however an important tool for us individuals to understand the results of each event, and how they came to shape the structures of nations and their relationships with each other today. The bombing of Hiroshima is an event that has impacted the United States and the world to this day. And thus it is important to understand the different standpoints of why Truman orders the release of the atomic bomb. It is also important to consider the result of the bombing for Japan, the United States and the rest of the …show more content…
world.
The United States wished to end World War II after four years, and so they were successful in ending war in Europe. The war officially ended when Germany signed the instrument of surrender while the Pacific war continued. (Foner, 858). It is imperative to understand the events that took place right before the release of atomic bomb. The United States had made effort to look away from the options of releasing the atomic bombing, and were requested Japan to comply to “unconditional surrender” in order to end the war. This request was created in Potsdam conference in 1945 where Winton Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Harry Truman discussed a post-war order. (Bix, 202)
Japan declined the request and refused to surrender although it was for their best interest to accept the offer. The situation in Japan was described as “hopeless” as most cities were completely destroyed. Japan conveyed that they will keep fighting as they perceived surrendering dishonorable. (Fogelman, 92)
Truman had hoped Japan would accept the request of unconditional demand. He then immediately ordered the release of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. This was seen as one of the toughest decisions made in history. He believed it was the only solution left to end war world II after Japan refused to accept the request of unconditional surrender. He also believed this will put a stop to the loss of many soldiers, and decrease destructions after experiencing over 3,500 Kamikaze raids. He also believed that it was the right decision because other alternatives such as a full invasion will cost the united states more money, time and souls. One of the other reasons Truman order the release of the atomic bomb is to establish dominance over the communist Russia. Manhattan’s project scientist Leo Szilard said that the benefit was to “make Russia more manageable in Europe”. (Foner 903, 886-887; Fogelman, 32)
However, those reasons were slammed by critiques who viewed the efforts of the peace treaty was not enough and even minimal.
Stimson, the secretary of War during the 1965 later agreed with this statement as he wrote in his memoirs “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. Furthermore, Chief of staff of President Harry Truman William Healy saw this decisions as a political and not military. The United Nations was questioned, as many perceived it a propaganda act to scare Russia. Many questioned the ethicality of the United States for sacrificing the lives in to only execute their personal agenda against Russia. (Stimson, …show more content…
web)
Results in the United States still arguebly have an impact until our present day. One of the evident results was the immediate end of war.
The defenders of the US action believe that this bomb did not only save American lives but Japanese lives on the long term as it ended the war sooner and avoided the land invasion that may have caused greater damages for both sides. It is suggested that 20,000 to 1.2 million lives were hypothetically saved (Bix, 214)
Another result of the atomic bomb release is start of the Cold war between Russia and the United States that led the world to enter a new era of the Nuclear Bomb. Both countries had possession of nuclear bombs after the bombing in 1945, and they were both aware of its ability to annihilate the entire human race. They both used this power of possession to instill fear and achieve their own conflicting Agendas. Russia was trying to expand communism apposing the capitalistic culture in the united states, while the united states were trying to expand industrialization with trade opposing communism and limiting its expansion. The cold war turned into an era as it lasted to 1891, and it led to many cold war events such as Berlin blockade and Korean War. (Foner, 896-903)
The bombing not only cost the many lives of soldiers and families in Hiroshima, but it also resulted in crippling physical and mental effects on the those who surviving the bomb. According to the Unesco forty-five percent of 280,000 of the survivors are victims of traditional poisoning. Radiations put them in higher risks of cancer such as Leukemia. The study also found babies born from pregnant survivors had congenial malformation as a result of exposure to radiation. (Unesco, Web)
In conclusion, the Bombing may have resulted in a speedy end World War II. It is also evident that it led to a prolonged period of a crippled definition of freedom in a fear of nuclear bombing during the cold war. However, the significance of this event is larger than War World II and the cold war. This event gave birth power of the ability of mass Destruction. However, it has been as a political weapon than a military weapon until now.
The significance of this event may have larger impacts than the War II and cold war. It has proven that use nuclear bombing will bring more harm than good hence there has not been a nuclear bomb since Hiroshima. This may be attributed its detrimental consequences still seen in Japan until now that made, however the bombing in Hiroshima gave power to the nuclear bombs themselves. The possession of such bombs has been as a tactic prevail dominance or serve justice brining back the same fear ideologies during the cold war. A current example is Iran’s President Ahmadinejad statement for the need to have nuclear bombs to “put Israel it place” . Also, The possession and development of nuclear bombs, or even the perception of it has arguably been used as a facade to gain control of other governments. An example of an event in History that I was personally effected by is Iraq Invasion and the question of why the United States invaded Iraq even without the jurisdiction of the united nation (Vorbeck 102)
Coming from a neighboring country of limited resources to Iraq, the invasion has increased poverty and decreased job opportunities as a result of waves of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis seeking refuge. Also, Jordan’s economy worsened, and prices were inflated due the loss of cheap source of oil that Iraq did not have control over.Whether it was solely for the illegal nuclear weapon development, or for oil is still a debatable dilemma for me. However, this event made me realize that more needs to be done regarding nuclear weapons. The United Nations must take stronger measures to regulate and monitor the nuclear development in countries instead of making some countries’ responsibility to do so for the rest of the world. I also firmly believe that the United Nations must take action against those countries The united nations must take strong measures to regulate the nuclear research. And if so, they must create an action plan for execution that is both practical and transparent. (Foner, 1111)
Sources Cited
Bix, Herbert P.
1995. Hiroshima in History and Memory: A symposium, Japan’s Delayed Surrender: A reinterpretation. Diplomatic History 19(2)-197-225
Foner, Eric. Give me liberty!. 2013. Seagull 4th ed. New York: W.W Norton & Co. Print. War in pacific 858
Fogelman, Edwin. 1964. Hiroshima: the decision to use the A-bomb. New York Charles Scribner Print.
Leo Szilar, Interview: President Truman Did not Understand. n.d. Web.
Lettow, Paul Vorbeck. 2010 Strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime. New York Council on forgein Relations. Print
Stimson, Henry Lewis. The decision to use the atomic bomb. 1974. Harper’s magazine. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/eacp/japanworks/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf. Web.
A good, thoughtful essay. You don’t really address the question however. I asked you to explain the nature of historical inquiry, not its purpose. How does what you have here, on Truman’s use of the atomic bomb, explain the nature of historical inquiry? The question asks you to focus on the need for multiple perspectives. You do do that in this essay, but again, not directly in addressing the question at hand.
Grade 85
Midterm Grade:
95+85=180
90/100
Educating ourselves on events in world history may not prevent the present and future leaders from making the same mistakes, and neither will it accomplish utter tranquility and peace among all countries. It is however an important tool for us individuals to understand the results of each event, and how they came to shape the structures of nations and their relationships with each other today. The bombing of Hiroshima is an event that has impacted the United States and the world to this day. And thus it is important to understand the different standpoints of why Truman orders the release of the atomic bomb. It is also important to consider the result of the bombing for Japan, the United States and the rest of the …show more content…
world.
The United States wished to end World War II after four years, and so they were successful in ending war in Europe. The war officially ended when Germany signed the instrument of surrender while the Pacific war continued. (Foner, 858). It is imperative to understand the events that took place right before the release of atomic bomb. The United States had made effort to look away from the options of releasing the atomic bombing, and were requested Japan to comply to “unconditional surrender” in order to end the war. This request was created in Potsdam conference in 1945 where Winton Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Harry Truman discussed a post-war order. (Bix, 202)
Japan declined the request and refused to surrender although it was for their best interest to accept the offer. The situation in Japan was described as “hopeless” as most cities were completely destroyed. Japan conveyed that they will keep fighting as they perceived surrendering dishonorable. (Fogelman, 92)
Truman had hoped Japan would accept the request of unconditional demand. He then immediately ordered the release of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. This was seen as one of the toughest decisions made in history. He believed it was the only solution left to end war world II after Japan refused to accept the request of unconditional surrender. He also believed this will put a stop to the loss of many soldiers, and decrease destructions after experiencing over 3,500 Kamikaze raids. He also believed that it was the right decision because other alternatives such as a full invasion will cost the united states more money, time and souls. One of the other reasons Truman order the release of the atomic bomb is to establish dominance over the communist Russia. Manhattan’s project scientist Leo Szilard said that the benefit was to “make Russia more manageable in Europe”. (Foner 903, 886-887; Fogelman, 32)
However, those reasons were slammed by critiques who viewed the efforts of the peace treaty was not enough and even minimal.
Stimson, the secretary of War during the 1965 later agreed with this statement as he wrote in his memoirs “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb”. Furthermore, Chief of staff of President Harry Truman William Healy saw this decisions as a political and not military. The United Nations was questioned, as many perceived it a propaganda act to scare Russia. Many questioned the ethicality of the United States for sacrificing the lives in to only execute their personal agenda against Russia. (Stimson, …show more content…
web)
Results in the United States still arguebly have an impact until our present day. One of the evident results was the immediate end of war.
The defenders of the US action believe that this bomb did not only save American lives but Japanese lives on the long term as it ended the war sooner and avoided the land invasion that may have caused greater damages for both sides. It is suggested that 20,000 to 1.2 million lives were hypothetically saved (Bix, 214)
Another result of the atomic bomb release is start of the Cold war between Russia and the United States that led the world to enter a new era of the Nuclear Bomb. Both countries had possession of nuclear bombs after the bombing in 1945, and they were both aware of its ability to annihilate the entire human race. They both used this power of possession to instill fear and achieve their own conflicting Agendas. Russia was trying to expand communism apposing the capitalistic culture in the united states, while the united states were trying to expand industrialization with trade opposing communism and limiting its expansion. The cold war turned into an era as it lasted to 1891, and it led to many cold war events such as Berlin blockade and Korean War. (Foner, 896-903)
The bombing not only cost the many lives of soldiers and families in Hiroshima, but it also resulted in crippling physical and mental effects on the those who surviving the bomb. According to the Unesco forty-five percent of 280,000 of the survivors are victims of traditional poisoning. Radiations put them in higher risks of cancer such as Leukemia. The study also found babies born from pregnant survivors had congenial malformation as a result of exposure to radiation. (Unesco, Web)
In conclusion, the Bombing may have resulted in a speedy end World War II. It is also evident that it led to a prolonged period of a crippled definition of freedom in a fear of nuclear bombing during the cold war. However, the significance of this event is larger than War World II and the cold war. This event gave birth power of the ability of mass Destruction. However, it has been as a political weapon than a military weapon until now.
The significance of this event may have larger impacts than the War II and cold war. It has proven that use nuclear bombing will bring more harm than good hence there has not been a nuclear bomb since Hiroshima. This may be attributed its detrimental consequences still seen in Japan until now that made, however the bombing in Hiroshima gave power to the nuclear bombs themselves. The possession of such bombs has been as a tactic prevail dominance or serve justice brining back the same fear ideologies during the cold war. A current example is Iran’s President Ahmadinejad statement for the need to have nuclear bombs to “put Israel it place” . Also, The possession and development of nuclear bombs, or even the perception of it has arguably been used as a facade to gain control of other governments. An example of an event in History that I was personally effected by is Iraq Invasion and the question of why the United States invaded Iraq even without the jurisdiction of the united nation (Vorbeck 102)
Coming from a neighboring country of limited resources to Iraq, the invasion has increased poverty and decreased job opportunities as a result of waves of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis seeking refuge. Also, Jordan’s economy worsened, and prices were inflated due the loss of cheap source of oil that Iraq did not have control over.Whether it was solely for the illegal nuclear weapon development, or for oil is still a debatable dilemma for me. However, this event made me realize that more needs to be done regarding nuclear weapons. The United Nations must take stronger measures to regulate and monitor the nuclear development in countries instead of making some countries’ responsibility to do so for the rest of the world. I also firmly believe that the United Nations must take action against those countries The united nations must take strong measures to regulate the nuclear research. And if so, they must create an action plan for execution that is both practical and transparent. (Foner, 1111)
Sources Cited
Bix, Herbert P.
1995. Hiroshima in History and Memory: A symposium, Japan’s Delayed Surrender: A reinterpretation. Diplomatic History 19(2)-197-225
Foner, Eric. Give me liberty!. 2013. Seagull 4th ed. New York: W.W Norton & Co. Print. War in pacific 858
Fogelman, Edwin. 1964. Hiroshima: the decision to use the A-bomb. New York Charles Scribner Print.
Leo Szilar, Interview: President Truman Did not Understand. n.d. Web.
Lettow, Paul Vorbeck. 2010 Strengthening the nuclear nonproliferation regime. New York Council on forgein Relations. Print
Stimson, Henry Lewis. The decision to use the atomic bomb. 1974. Harper’s magazine. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/eacp/japanworks/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf. Web.
A good, thoughtful essay. You don’t really address the question however. I asked you to explain the nature of historical inquiry, not its purpose. How does what you have here, on Truman’s use of the atomic bomb, explain the nature of historical inquiry? The question asks you to focus on the need for multiple perspectives. You do do that in this essay, but again, not directly in addressing the question at hand.
Grade 85
Midterm Grade:
95+85=180
90/100