Were Atomic Bombs Necessary to End the World War II?

The New Invention to End the War
Were the atomic bombs necessary to end the World War II?

Hiroshima is one of the most well known Japanese cities in the world as it is one of only two cities experienced atomic bomb dropping. I went to Hiroshima a couple years ago and visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. There were many photos of victims of atomic bomb in Hiroshima which I could not even keep my eyes on for seconds as they were really awfully injured. “The hell on earth” is the only way I can describe Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped. In today’s world, there are many countries owns nuclear weapons but I do not think they are necessary. Even to end the World War II, I doubt that atomic bombing was necessary. I am interested in understanding more about why the atomic bombs were dropped and what the atomic bombs were used for.
World War II for Japan ended with two atomic bombings in Japan, one in Hiroshima on 6 August, 1945 and another in Nagasaki on 9 August, 1945. There have been discussions whether or not the atomic bombs were necessary to end the war and what made Harry S. Truman, the President of the United States of America, to make the final decision to drop not only one but two atomic bombs in Japan, the nation which was completely defeated by then. The Japan’s military situation was described as “hopeless” by the U.S. and British Chief of Staffs at Potsdam in July, 1945.1 So, were the atomic bombs really needed to lead Japan to surrender? Was Japan not willing to conclude the war before the atomic bombs were dropped? During this period, the United States was concerning about the rising power of the Soviet Union. The USSR was to about joining the Pacific war as it was agreed at Yalta meeting but that is not what United States wanted. The United States wanted keep the USSR out of the war against Japan and occupation of Japan.2 Does this circumstance knit to the answer to a question, whether or not if the atomic bombs were used only to end the World War II?
World War II begun with Japan’s invasion to Manchuria, China in 1931, which ended “post-Great War peace… Between 1931 and 1945 the conflicts expanded well beyond East Asia. By 1941 World War II was truly global war Hostilities spread from east Asian and the Pacific to Europe, north Africa, and the Atlantic…”3
World War II begun in Japan and it also ended in Japan. Truman, the President of the United States, ordered to drop an atomic bomb to end the war as soon as possible to save millions of lives. To Truman, lives of Japanese were out of concern in terms of “saving lives.” When Samuel McCrea Cavert, the general secretary of the federal Council of Churches of Christ in America wrote to Truman to express his objection toward atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman wrote in his reply:
No body is more disturbed over use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true.4
Because Japanese were beasts to Truman, Truman had no intention to save Japanese lives by ending the war. His concern was only for American soldiers in terms of ending the war. Although, Truman also declared that “the world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”5 This Truman’s justification for his decision on atomic bombings is contradictory.
In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.”
If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base. It was not necessary to destroy a large city. And whatever the justification for the Hiroshima blast, it is much more difficult to defend the second bombing of Nagasaki.6
Atomic bombs were not used to end World War II to save “lives,” at least not Japanese beasts. Didn’t Japan surrender if the atomic bombs were not dropped? The answer I think is, yes, Japan would surrender without atomic bombs. Japan knew that they wouldn’t be able to win the war. As early as in January 1945, before the Yalta meeting was held, high-level Japanese officials submitted surrender overtures to General Douglas MacArther and MacArther outlined it and submitted the memo to Franklin Roosevelt, the President of the United States before Truman, who died on 12 April, 1945. In this memo, which authenticity is proved by General MacArther, it was stated that:
The Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 – that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor.7
As the nation with imperialism, Japan called itself “the Empire of Japan” before until 1947, keeping the emperor safe was very important and was the only condition Japan had for the surrender. This is because of that Emperor Hirohito was regarded as a living-god and Japanese could not resist that losing the integrity of the Emperor, god, and its royal family. However, for the Emperor, nothing was important than the lives of his people. He instructed Fumimaro Konoye, a former prime minister of Japan, “to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity” on 12 July. It was obvious for anyone that Japan was ready to surrender and was seeking a peace before the Potsdam meeting. The high-level officials of US, such as Navy Secretary James Forrestal acknowledged Japanese desire to end the war from intercepted messages.8 So, Japan was not willing to continue fighting the war even before the atomic bombing test was completed. There is no evidence to support the idea that Japan would not surrender without atomic bombs. Even high-level American officials understood that Japan was ready to surrender, why Truman still decided to drop the atomic bombs? There is a study saying that atomic bombing was used as “a diplomatic weapon with the Russians as well. Some historians, in fact, view the use of the bomb not only as the “last shots” of World War II but also as the opening salvos of the arms race and the Cold War fired from our side.”9 Truman did postpone the Potsdam meeting a couple of weeks to wait for to see the result of the Trinity test, the first atomic bomb test in New Mexico because he wanted to have the new weapon as their weapon to deal with Britain and the Soviet Union.10 Truman “also wanted to preclude a Soviet invasion of Manchuria and a joint Soviet occupation of Japan, something that was likely as long as Japan held out, and a possibility that became far more tangible when the USSR declared war on August 8.”11 The United States wanted to gain an advantage over USSR. To do so, the atomic bombs were used. This explains why the United States dropped the second atomic bomb only after 72 hours from the first one. If the atomic bomb was used for Japanese surrender, there should have been more time between the first and second atomic bomb droppings as 72 hours is insufficient for Japanese “imperial government to organize and deliver surrender terms to the United States.”12The United States wanted to get “a quick Japanese surrender, before the Soviet Union cold commence its participation in the war.”13 The second bombing in Nagasaki was used for this purpose and it was the “first strike in the Cold War.”14
In conclusion, atomic bombs were not used for Japanese surrender to save millions of lives. Japan was already defeated and ready to surrender months before the atomic bomb was dropped first in Hiroshima on 6 August, 1945 and second in Nagasaki on 9 August, 1945. Truman ”hoped that bomb could be used to secure concessions from the Soviet Union over its occupation of Eastern Europe”15 and thought it will allow to prevent Russian involvement in the occupation of Japan after the war ends. The decision on the atomic bombs dropping was influenced by the United State’s maneuver especially for the USSR. I have learned a lot of new things from this research. I thought Japan did not want to surrender until the atomic bombs were dropped. I know there are high-level Japanese officials with unhealthy nationalism who wanted to keep fighting the war and surrender was unbearable abasement for them. But there also were people who tried to end the war as soon as possible. I personally think the atomic bomb was not necessary to end the war but not avoidable as the world was entering the real globalization era and the United States needed to show their power to other nations to get advantages for the future. For that purpose, I cannot imagine Truman not to “experiment” the new massive weapon he’s got in Japan, the place he can find excuse to try the new gadget. The amount of nuclear weapons we have on our earth today can destroy our world more than once. I wonder if we will give up on them someday. I hope the day will come but cannot picture the world without it yet. Notes
1. Wolk, “Arnold races the clock: the battle of Japan,” 42
2. Craig and Radchenko, Atomic Bomb and the Origins of Cold War, 97
3. Bentley and Ziegler, Traditions & Encounters, 836
4. Rotter, Hiroshima, 128
5. Weber, Was Hiroshima Necessary?
6. Ibid
7. Ibid
8. Ibid
9. Hart, Hiroshima and the King of Tyre, 474
10. Craig and Radchenko, Atomic Bomb and the Origins of Cold War, 75
11. Ibid, 116
12. Ibid, 115
13. Ibid, 117
14. Ibid, 118
15. Ibid. 108

Works Cited
Bentley, Jerry H. and Herbert F. Ziegler. Traditions & Encounters: A global perspective on the past. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011
Craig, Campbell and Sergey Radchenko. Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
Hart Curtis. “Hiroshima and the King of Tyre.” Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Winter, 2006): 471-176, JSTOR.
Rotter, Andrew J. Hiroshima : The World 's Bomb. Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK, 2008
Weber, Mark. “Was Hiroshima Necessary?: Why the Atomic Bombings Could Have Been Avoided.” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 16, No. 3 (May-June 1997): 4-11, Institute for Historical Review.
Wolk, Herman S. “Arnold races the clock: the battle of Japan.” Air Power History (Spring 2009): 34-45, Air Force Histor

Cited: Bentley, Jerry H. and Herbert F. Ziegler. Traditions & Encounters: A global perspective on the past. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011 Craig, Campbell and Sergey Radchenko. Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Hart Curtis. “Hiroshima and the King of Tyre.” Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Winter, 2006): 471-176, JSTOR. Rotter, Andrew J. Hiroshima : The World 's Bomb. Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK, 2008 Weber, Mark. “Was Hiroshima Necessary?: Why the Atomic Bombings Could Have Been Avoided.” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 16, No. 3 (May-June 1997): 4-11, Institute for Historical Review. Wolk, Herman S. “Arnold races the clock: the battle of Japan.” Air Power History (Spring 2009): 34-45, Air Force Histor