Hiroshima was a necessary decision to end world war ii

Truman on August 6 and 9, After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6,followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.

Hiroshima was a necessary decision to end world war ii

Hiroshima was a necessary decision to end world war ii

This article can be Listened on Sermon Audio here. This year,will mark the 73th anniversary of the dropping of the Atom bomb on Hiroshima, 6 August and Nagasaki, 9 August I was taught that the U.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of that concluded: I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act, I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already d efeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.

The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude.

Related People

The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

He saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it.

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - HISTORY

Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. We missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs.

And that suggestion of giving a warning of the atomic bomb was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted. In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb.

The Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker.

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

They were surrounded by the Navy. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favour it was quite logical to hope and expect 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 and bring Russia in.

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U. Washington decided it was time to use the A-bomb.

I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds. Many other high-level military officers concurred.The debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki concerns the ethical, legal, and military controversies surrounding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August and 9 August at the close of World War II (–45).

Essay Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the direct cause for the end of World War II in the Pacific. The United States felt it was necessary to drop the atomic bombs on these two cities or it would suffer more casualties.

The debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki concerns the ethical, legal, and military controversies surrounding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 August and 9 August at the close of World War II (–45).

Nov 18,  · Watch video · Did you know? After World War II, most of Hiroshima would be rebuilt, though one destroyed section was set aside as a reminder of the effects of the atomic bomb. Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War, or to Save Lives.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, said: "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike).

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, and another in Nagasaki on 9 August,

Was the Atomic Bombing of Japan Necessary?