Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Miriam Mogilevsky
Mr. Ahrns
AP US History
21 December 2007
Pure Nihilism
“Pearl Harbor has now been partially avenged,” said Admiral Chester
Nimitz after the Battle of Midway, in which the Unites States inflicted a
crushing defeat on Japanese forces. For the U.S., World War II started and
ended with two terrifying attacks – the first being Pearl Harbor; the second,
the atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
To some Americans, and much of the American government at the time, the
first attack was unprovoked and monstrous, while the second was reasonable
laypeople have all challenged the Unites States’ actions against Hiroshima
and Nagasaki. They assert that the atomic bomb attack should not have
been carried out for moral issues, that Japan was about to surrender anyway,
and that the second bomb should not have been dropped.
innocent civilians are difficult and complex. Over 180,000 people died from
both atomic bomb attacks. Many were women, children, and the elderly – as
well as men who had never personally taken any action against the United
States. The Japanese citizens had no warning, and no real way to avoid the
attack. Furthermore, even if they survived the explosion, many died years
Mogilevsky 2
later from radioactive fallout. The Japanese considered this an attack not
only on their nation and people, but on God and humanity itself. As a
Japanese newspaper put it, “This is not war; this is not even murder; this is
pure nihilism.” They also felt that the Americans were being hypocritical
because they had opposed Japan’s military actions against China, even
though they certainly had not involved the instant annihilation of hundreds of
“the use made of the atomic bomb has placed [the United States] in an
demonstrating to Japan the power of the United States was really necessary,
they could have simply dropped the bombs in Japan’s countryside, where few
people would die, but the terrifying effects of the weapon could be witnessed
nonetheless. Indeed, even simply explaining the bomb to the Japanese may
have sufficed; after all, despite America’s warning that the Japanese faced
“complete devastation” if they did not surrender, they did not know that the
United States had nuclear weapons. In addition, historians have added more
moral implications for the bombings by suggesting that Truman carried them
out in order to coerce Stalin of the Soviet Union to cooperate with him.
Truman may have decided to drop the nuclear bombs because he wanted to
Mogilevsky 3
prevent the Soviet Union from truly entering the war in the Pacific, because
the entrance of the Soviets would also enable communism to gain a foothold
in East Asia – an occurrence that Truman feared greatly due to his mistrust of
communism. For these reasons, from a moral standpoint, the United States
Aside from issues o f ethics and humanity, critics have also pinpointed
why the bombings were logistically unnecessary and excessive. After all, the
battles of Leyte Gulf and Okinawa had left the Japanese military forces
Clearly, Japan could not inflict serious damage to the U.S. military, so a
the time, factions within the Japanese government were struggling for
control. Moderate leaders demanded peace at almost any cost (the one
stipulation being that the emperor must remain in place). However, Japan’s
military leaders refused to give up the fight. Furthermore, the United States
refused to allow the emperor to remain (even though this decision was later
reversed and the emperor remained on the throne), and many Japanese
course of action for the United States would have been to wait for the
The United States, too, had suffered from wartime disagreements between
factions and parties before (such as the notable debates over neutrality
preceding both world wars), and therefore must have recognized the
situation for what it was. The possibility of attack was clearly not a factor –
the United States had just decimated the Japanese military. Continuing the
“war” for a few more weeks surely would not have cost a large amount of
should not have been carried out because they were unnecessary.
should have dropped one bomb, not two. After all, if the purpose of the
surrender, would just one bomb not showcase the superior military
achievements of the U.S. just the same? Furthermore, after the dropping of
the first bomb, the people of Japan were stunned, just like Americans were
after Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had not anticipated this attack and had
never dealt with such a disaster before. However, just a few days later, the
Soviet Union declared war on them, given them a second front to consider.
Japan was still trying to come to a final decision. However, the United States
gave them almost no time at all – only three days – and dropped a second
would not have surrendered before the attacks, it would certainly have
capitulated after the first one. Therefore, dropping just one atomic bomb
Mogilevsky 5
would have achieved the same results but saved the lives of 80,000
Japanese citizens.
to bomb Japan with nuclear weapons, the prominent ones question the
morality, necessity, and extent of the attack. Americans and Japanese alike
and cities. Historians have questioned the decision on a tactical basis, due to
surrender, and did not have the military strength to cause any true damage
to U.S. forces. Even many of those who supported attacking Japan with
nuclear weapons criticized the decision to drop a second bomb. In all, this
controversial decision by the United States ended World War II, altered the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only two nuclear attacks in history – and for
good reason. To guard the people of the world against the dangers of
nuclear attacks on Japan were so immoral and terrifying – and why they must
never be repeated.
Mogilevsky 6
Works Cited
David, Kennedy M., and Thomas A. Bailey. The American Spirit: Since 1865.