Was Truman's Decision Justified Analysis
Was Truman’s Decision Justified?
Would you rather fix a problem with something that would cause minimal damage or fix it with something that causes mass destruction? This question didn’t seem to come to thought when Truman was deciding between invading Japan, or bombing it using the atomic bomb. Truman’s decision to bomb Japan was not justified because he killed a bunch of innocent people, he destroyed major cities instead of only his main targets, and in the end, Europe was still left divided.
After FDR died, Truman became president and learned of the “A-bomb” or atomic bomb. He was given the choice of whether they invade Japan, or bomb it. According to Walter Lefeber’s Interview Transcripts: “The Bomb,” Truman saw the bomb as something they didn’t have in terms of leverage against the Soviet Union. He of course chose the bomb and later bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima, Iwojima, Okinawa, and Nagasaki. They didn’t even know if the bomb would work until they …show more content…
The first reason being that while he may have gotten rid of his main targets, he also killed a bunch of innocent people. If he had chosen to invade rather than bomb, there would have been a huge decrease in the amount of deaths. Another reason he wasn’t justified is the fact that entire cities were brought down when it really wasn’t necessary. The reason for thinking this is unnecessary is very close to the last reason - there was more damage than there needed to be. One bomb destroyed about 16 square miles of land in Tokyo. Land that most likely had homes and businesses run by innocent people. The last reason on why this decision was not justified is because after all of this fighting, Europe was still left divided. The war was settled by giving the U.S., France, and Britain, western Germany while the Soviet Union got eastern Germany. This wasn’t that good of a solution because everybody was still separated instead of actually working as a
Would you rather fix a problem with something that would cause minimal damage or fix it with something that causes mass destruction? This question didn’t seem to come to thought when Truman was deciding between invading Japan, or bombing it using the atomic bomb. Truman’s decision to bomb Japan was not justified because he killed a bunch of innocent people, he destroyed major cities instead of only his main targets, and in the end, Europe was still left divided.
After FDR died, Truman became president and learned of the “A-bomb” or atomic bomb. He was given the choice of whether they invade Japan, or bomb it. According to Walter Lefeber’s Interview Transcripts: “The Bomb,” Truman saw the bomb as something they didn’t have in terms of leverage against the Soviet Union. He of course chose the bomb and later bombed Tokyo, Hiroshima, Iwojima, Okinawa, and Nagasaki. They didn’t even know if the bomb would work until they …show more content…
The first reason being that while he may have gotten rid of his main targets, he also killed a bunch of innocent people. If he had chosen to invade rather than bomb, there would have been a huge decrease in the amount of deaths. Another reason he wasn’t justified is the fact that entire cities were brought down when it really wasn’t necessary. The reason for thinking this is unnecessary is very close to the last reason - there was more damage than there needed to be. One bomb destroyed about 16 square miles of land in Tokyo. Land that most likely had homes and businesses run by innocent people. The last reason on why this decision was not justified is because after all of this fighting, Europe was still left divided. The war was settled by giving the U.S., France, and Britain, western Germany while the Soviet Union got eastern Germany. This wasn’t that good of a solution because everybody was still separated instead of actually working as a