Harry Truman Atomic Bomb Justified Analysis

In august of 1945, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a questionable decision by Harry Truman, the president of The United States of America. Throughout the years, it has been a heated debate in terms of whether the decision was morally correct and justified. Historians have analyzed and presented many arguments. In this short essay, I will attempt to expand on how historians feel about the decision by Truman to use atomic bombs. The revisionists bring into perspective and question the motivations of Harry Truman claiming he had more on his agenda than just the war. In my opinion, the decision to use atomic bombs was somewhat justified because if looked at statistically, the death toll with an invasion would have been higher and Truman
It seems that according to revisionists, Harry Truman had other alternatives to reach his goals. The atomic bombs were not the only means towards the surrendering of Japan. He had the option of going ahead with a conventional bombing or strategic bombing which would have a significant impact: if not more, a little less than the atomic bomb. The argument is that if he had decided to use conventional bombing or strategic bombing, Japan would not have had to go through dangerous amounts of radiation levels which are still producing abnormalities in birth to this day. Also, revisionists claim that Truman’s decision was motivated by USSR. Historians have argued the claim that Truman had an interest in impressing Stalin, since USSR was about to invade Japan. Japan had already been defeated and its military and air force was exhausted. Another reason for Truman to launch the atomic bombs was to cover for the Manhattan Project. The project was created to build atomic bombs and consumed billions of US dollars. To show, or rather create a façade of the progress, the atomic bombs had to be displayed so the Americans would feel that the money was put to good