Professional Documents
Culture Documents
invasion of Japan was the only way the Japanese people would agree to an
unconditional surrender. Thus the atomic bomb saved American and Japanese lives
U.S. leadership and foreign policy experts believed if the Japanese Emperor
was guaranteed immunity from execution or war crimes the Japanese government
could have agreed to surrender [2]. The Emperor was more a ceremonial/religious
figure and it was the U.S.s correct understanding the Japanese government was
controlled by the Cabinet that was mostly controlled by the military. The United
States didnt intend to prosecute the Emperor because they felt that doing so would
make it impossible to govern Japan after the war (and when Japan did surrender,
the Emperor was not tried for war crimes). One reason the United States insisted on
unconditional surrender was to impose a new constitution and occupy Japan. These
two goals were very important for the demilitarization of Japan and its emergence
of democracy today. However the U.S. never attempted to negotiate a surrender that
included those terms but also guaranteed the safety of the Emperor. Language to
guarantee the safety of the Emperor was included original draft of the Postman
Declaration but Trumans advisor former U.S. Senator James Byrnes convinced
Truman to remove it. Senator Byrnes claimed guaranteeing the Emperors safety
would look weak to the American people. In the final draft the Postman Declaration
asked Japan for unconditional surrender. If the United States had included the
guarantee of the Emperors safety they may have achieved their end goals
While the U.S. Army under general McArthur favored a mainland invasion,
the U.S. Navy and Army air force favored a blockade (as the number of casualties
would be much lower [1]). Harry Truman favored the Armys plan since he believed
the American people would not be willing to support a war lasting a year longer
than the defeat of Germany. There are only two areas in Japan available for an
amphibious assault; the Tokyo plain (Kanto plain) and Kyushu (southwestern
island) and Japan was massing forces to defend those areas. However in June and
July 1945, new military intelligence showed there were more Japanese divisions in
Kyushu than originally expected and the mainland invasion plan was being
reconsidered [1]. Based on that new information it is highly possible U.S. plans
would have switched to a blockade strategy. Some U.S. policy makers at the time
worried Japan would hold out one or two years under a blockade strategy, however
the Army air force were sure they could bring Japan to defeat within months.
solely due to an air blockade and bombings [1]). U.S. leadership feared Americans
would grow tired of the war and give up. These fears are legitimate however I
believe a serious campaign to the American people would have convinced them
keep support for the war. The U.S. was winning and a winning war is generally
popular. I believe the U.S. too quickly considered using the most destructive weapon
Its important to note the United States launched the first atomic bomb
before the Russian invasion. At the time some of the U.S. leadership believed the
Russian invasion would have prompted Japan to surrender [1]. If the U.S. leadership
was truly using the atomic bomb as a last restore they could have waited until after
Other typical arguments are presented as: the firebombing was more
gruesome than the nuclear bombs. The damage done to the firebombed cities was
done over many weeks with hundreds of planes. The damage done to Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was done instantly and by one plane and a single bomb. The radiation
damage aftermath was not well known but all the other destructive power was
extremely well known by the military and the scientists [1]. This was clearly an
immoral weapon that should never been used. Using it on civilians or using it all sets
a bad precedence and weakness the moral high ground of the war. Its a disgrace
that the United States is the only such a country to such a weapon when they were
viable alternatives.
the United States made the decision to use the atomic bomb in April. Potential plans
were made to drop the bomb in Tokyo bay but U.S. leaders believe an empty threat
should not be made as it a sign of weakness. I believe a bomb dropped in the less
devastating area such as the Tokyo bay (one U.S. leadership idea) would have been
weakness was absurd in a situation where United States was in an upmost position
atomic bombs when it wasnt absolutely necessary. I believe the U.S. was attracted
to unleashing the power of this new weapon. In addition the U.S. considered too
greatly the American attitudes at home when the leadership decided a swift end to
the war was necessary. Waiting for the Russian invasion, using a blockade strategy
or negotiating guarantees for the Emperor could have served as viable solutions that
did not include the atomic bomb. As noted before posthumously we know an air
and sea blockade strategy would have likely resulted in Japan to surrendering by
November.
Sources:
1. http://www.historyonthenet.com/authentichistory/1939-1945/1-war/4-Pacific/4-
abombdecision/
2. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-
publications/books-and-monographs/the-final-months-of-the-war-with-japan-signals-
intelligence-u-s-invasion-planning-and-the-a-bomb-decision/csi9810001.html
3. Wikipedia articles
4. Stuff I remembered from college history classes and high school history classes
5. Memories of talking to my grandma who did research about this topic (but came to a
different conclusion)
6. Talking to my dad who read Wikipedia articles about this because we are bored in
Maine