The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Abhorrent but Necessary
On August 6, 1945, the city of Hiroshima, Japan went up in smoke when “Little Boy,” an atomic bomb developed in the secretive Manhattan Project, was dropped. Three days later, the atomic bomb dubbed “Fat Man” obliterated another Japanese city, Nagasaki. The bombing itself and its effect on survivors’ health was devastating, and President Truman’s decision to drop the bombs remains highly controversial 71 years later. In fact, Naji Dahi, Ph.D., insists that the bombings were unnecessary, unjustified, and ineffective. However, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided a quick and decisive end to World War II, encouraged an unconditional Japanese surrender, and saved millions …show more content…
However, this argument, though a popular one among critics of the bombings, is fictitious. According to Thomas Flagel, author of The History Buff’s Guide to World War II, “the cabinet of Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro agreed to a cease-fire but not capitulation” (284). In other words, Japan would peacefully demilitarize, but would do so on its own terms. The Japanese generals and politicians who refused unconditional surrender would only settle for “‘honorable’” terms, like withholding parts of the Japanese empire that the Allies wanted (Hastings, Inferno 627). Furthermore, on July 26, 1945, several days before the bombing of Hiroshima, the western Allies forewarned the Japanese that, if they refused surrender, their country would be met with “‘prompt and utter destruction;’” however, the Japanese practically disregarded this declaration, thinking that the Allies were threatening more of the usual “firebombing and eventual invasion” (Hastings, Inferno 626-627). Likewise, even after the bombing of Hiroshima, Prime Minister Kantaro would not accept defeat. Emperor Hirohito relayed a message to him …show more content…
Dahi makes is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not save half a million American lives as former president Harry Truman claimed. While it is true that the bombings had devastating effects both initially and thereafter, the U.S. would have surely invaded the Japanese islands later in 1945-1946 (Stimson 385). Considering famous battles like those at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it is easy to guess that the same death and destruction for US and Japanese soldiers would occur for several months, or even years; in fact, it was projected that major fighting would not cease until late in 1946 (Stimson 385). The looming warfare could have resulted in over one million casualties of just American troops (Stimson, 385). These projected numbers were, and still are, alarming to imagine. Millions of lives were at stake across the world, prompting President Truman to make a difficult decision: devastate two cities and kill thousands of innocent people, or risk watching millions more die in horrific
On August 6, 1945, the city of Hiroshima, Japan went up in smoke when “Little Boy,” an atomic bomb developed in the secretive Manhattan Project, was dropped. Three days later, the atomic bomb dubbed “Fat Man” obliterated another Japanese city, Nagasaki. The bombing itself and its effect on survivors’ health was devastating, and President Truman’s decision to drop the bombs remains highly controversial 71 years later. In fact, Naji Dahi, Ph.D., insists that the bombings were unnecessary, unjustified, and ineffective. However, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided a quick and decisive end to World War II, encouraged an unconditional Japanese surrender, and saved millions …show more content…
However, this argument, though a popular one among critics of the bombings, is fictitious. According to Thomas Flagel, author of The History Buff’s Guide to World War II, “the cabinet of Prime Minister Suzuki Kantaro agreed to a cease-fire but not capitulation” (284). In other words, Japan would peacefully demilitarize, but would do so on its own terms. The Japanese generals and politicians who refused unconditional surrender would only settle for “‘honorable’” terms, like withholding parts of the Japanese empire that the Allies wanted (Hastings, Inferno 627). Furthermore, on July 26, 1945, several days before the bombing of Hiroshima, the western Allies forewarned the Japanese that, if they refused surrender, their country would be met with “‘prompt and utter destruction;’” however, the Japanese practically disregarded this declaration, thinking that the Allies were threatening more of the usual “firebombing and eventual invasion” (Hastings, Inferno 626-627). Likewise, even after the bombing of Hiroshima, Prime Minister Kantaro would not accept defeat. Emperor Hirohito relayed a message to him …show more content…
Dahi makes is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not save half a million American lives as former president Harry Truman claimed. While it is true that the bombings had devastating effects both initially and thereafter, the U.S. would have surely invaded the Japanese islands later in 1945-1946 (Stimson 385). Considering famous battles like those at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, it is easy to guess that the same death and destruction for US and Japanese soldiers would occur for several months, or even years; in fact, it was projected that major fighting would not cease until late in 1946 (Stimson 385). The looming warfare could have resulted in over one million casualties of just American troops (Stimson, 385). These projected numbers were, and still are, alarming to imagine. Millions of lives were at stake across the world, prompting President Truman to make a difficult decision: devastate two cities and kill thousands of innocent people, or risk watching millions more die in horrific