To what extent were the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary to end World War II? Includes Bibliography and Footnotes (if you care to message me for them)

To what extent were the bombs strike downped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary to oddment World contend II?

In the analysis on the decision to drop the Bomb on japan at the end of World War II, historians willing usually either tend to one of two schools of thought. The Orthodox school stress that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to end the warfare. The revisionist school argues that the atomic bomb was quite redundant. To what extent were the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary to end WWII?

The orthodox theory relies heavily on the argument that Japan had no intention to surrender, and that the Nipponese giving medication by silently ignoring the Potsdam declaration expressed a choke refusal of the Allied terms1. The only other options open to Truman were a blockade or invasion. The bomb was conveniently promoted as a licit weapon of war and should be using upd to bring the Japanese to an quick and unconditional surrender2.The revisionist relies on the theory that Japan was a lot defeated, and tends towards accusing the US of having bureaucratic motives behind drop the bomb, that is to say to deter Russia from entering the war3. Though rather then apply either school of thought in looking at the tenablenesss behind why the bombs were finally dropped it is important to examine the terra firma that Japan was in leading up to the dropping of the bomb. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary to end the war, Japan had been actively looking for a vogue to end the war and while there was some factioning with in the powers, there are suggestions that Japan had already offered a surrender to the allies. That the Ameri mints would except goose egg less then Unconditional Surrender is the reasons...

Very well done. I agree with you that it was unnecessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war. Moreover, thousands of people died for nothing.

I even conceive that it was done good to show to Soviet Union that the US have atomic bomb, the most powerful weapon of those times.

large work and very well written

keep that way ;]

though i have not truly decided on the subject, various pieces of evidence point to the fact that the U.S. did indeed need to drop the bomb under uncertainty of Japanese surrender. Japan seek to conduct peace negotiations through the soviets, but the Soviets did not tattle to the US or Britain. Also, Truman was losing men and morale through this war even though he was winning, the people had had enough. The bomb was an comfy way to end the war without any US casualties and promoted the US as the greatest world power. Politics are cruel

Great look into and information, but the bomb really did need to be dropped. the consignment or desire for winning or death in the japanese can be seen in the kamikaze attacks.

Unfortunately I no longer have the footnotes on my computer, please consult the bibliography.

every one considering the Americans to be justified should read this ...

Weber, M. Why the Atomic Bombings Could restrain Been Avoided: Was Hiroshima Necessary? Institute for Historical Review <http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html > [27 April 2003]

I just want to state again that the Japanese were looking for a way to end the war ... they were actively seeking a way to extradite themselves by seeking a conditional surrender. The condition placed on the surrender was that the Emperor was not to be tried as a war criminal. The reason America refused a conditional surrender is bound to the war politics of WWI and the need to find a scapegoat ... the detriment of both Mussolini &amp; Hitler influenced this, &amp; it can be seen in the way that Tojo was held as a horn in for the American SCAMP team! Ironically enough, the Emperor was not tried as a war criminal. Thus the use of the Bomb is all the more appalling.

In the end its a often of a muchness, I could have equally argued either way on the subject but I found an hold that really helped my argument if I went this way. If I had the time I could probably write an equally argumentative essay against.


then politics are cruel ...


Check out this reversionary journal.

Http://www.ihr.org/


Thanks for the comments.

If you want to get a sufficient essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper