• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13

How useful is source B as evidence to the historian writing about the atomic bomb?

Extracts from this document...


How useful is source B as evidence to the historian writing about the atomic bomb? (EVALUATION, ANALYSIS, UTILITY, RELIABILITY) Source B was written by an American soldier who helped drop the first atomic bomb, "Little Boy" on the Japanese town of Hiroshima, and is a primary source. It is a letter to the airman's son and is contained in a secondary source, a book called "No High Ground", by F. Knebel and C.W. Bailing, published in 1960. The fact that the book was written by an American, who was involved in the dropping of the first atomic bomb, makes this a valuable source. As the letter is a private communication, the airman is likely not to have embellished it with falsified information, or glorification of his own acts. The letter was not meant for publication. The first sentence of the letter is factual, and the events of the day are still fresh in the airman's mind, "... Today the lead plane of our little formation dropped a single bomb". The airman tells of the devastating power of the bomb, and the damage it has no doubt done to the Japanese city, "a single bomb which probably exploded with the force of 15,000 tons of high explosive." He goes into further detail about the bomb, all the time being very informative about its destructive clout, telling us he has probably aiding in killing thousands of Japanese. He does try to justify the bomb. He sees the bomb as a way to stop the threat of future war in the world, "This terrible weapon ... may bring the countries of the world together and prevent further wars". The airman clearly feels guilty about taking part in the dropping of the bomb. However, it could be said that the source may not be reliable. The airman may be embroidering the truth in order that his son will see his father in a good light. ...read more.


This source tells us "There were the shadowy forms of people, some of whom looked like walking ghosts." Again this source is very graphic. Source I was written by Stanley Lawrence, a prisoner of war in Nagasaki. This source is striking in its depiction of the dropping of the bomb. It tells us of the horrible state of the people affected by the bomb, "It was ... horrible to see the torn limbs and flesh hanging on so many of the Japanese". This image is also supported by Source J (mentioned earlier). The stark realism in these sources does, to some extent, back up their authority. The authors are unlikely to make up such graphic and disturbing images. Source G was written by an unnamed Allied POW in Japan. It was published in Fletcher-Cooke's "The Emperor's Guest", published in 1971. It is an Allied justification of the dropping of the atomic bomb. It tells us what the dropping of the bomb meant to Prisoners Of War at the time. It tells us that although the bomb killed thousands of Japanese it saved the lives of "tens of thousands of prisoners of war, of hundreds of thousands of Allied service men and almost certainty of millions of Japanese". The source is supported by Sources B, C, D, E and the video source K, which all tell us of the lives saved by the bomb. All these sources are justifications of the allied atomic bombing. These give a lot of support for Source G. Having said all of this, there are weaknesses to each source, particularly the two eyewitness accounts of the bombing (Source H and Source I). Neither of these sources conveys the bitterness you would expect from Allied POWs during the war, in fact they show sympathy towards their Japanese captors. The POWs had every reason to be enraged at the Japanese and to be happy to see them in so much pain. ...read more.


This article was probably not published in 1945 as it is seen as defamatory to the American and British government's image. Attitudes towards nuclear weapons also changed after time. People began to see the weapons as potential Armageddon instruments. The shocking after-effects were now known about. The arms race between the USA and Russia was beginning to worry people by the mid 60's and anti-nuclear groups sprung up, and gathered support. This changing viewpoint may have 'clouded' the memories related in Sources H and I. These sources were written many years after the attacks. The POW's both tell us of the enormous sense of guilt they felt at the time of the dropping of the atomic bomb. This, however seems unlikely, as these men were most probably being tortured by their Japanese captors. They may have embellished the truth with bits of fiction, to make them selves appear in a better light. In this question I fell I have looked at a variety of Sources with negative and positive views. I have noticed a pattern in the sources. I found that the stance of the source is determined by two factors: nationality and the date the source was written. Generally, the sources that come from a British and American angle, in the early years after the war, are in agreement with the dropping of the atomic bomb. Any other source is generally completely opposed to the dropping of the bomb. This is because the authors are more aware of the effects the bomb had, and since the war years, America and Japan have become big trading partners, with the emergence of Japan as an economic superpower. It would not be good for the Americans to risk damaging this relationship, by publishing anti-Japanese sources. The world today is also more aware of the effects of nuclear weapons due to the American/Soviet Union arms race during the Cold War, and incidents such as Chernobyl, where the effects of the reactor leakage are still being felt nearly 20 years after it first leaked. Paul Gormley 12B Atomic Bomb History Coursework Page 1 of 13 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    Italy and France." The struggle was ultimate, Acheson concluded. "Not since Rome and Carthage has there been such a polarization of power on this earth. . . . We and we alone are in a position to break up" the Soviet quest for world domination. Suddenly, the Congressmen sat up and took notice.

  2. Truman had several reasons for dropping the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    In defence they held their ground with furious determination. They had to be killed company by company, squad by squad, man by man to the last." Kamikaze planes were another method in which the Japanese showed their honour and bravery. The planes would be packed with explosives and the pilots faced almost certain death as they dived into Allied warships.

  1. Why did America drop the atomic bomb on Japan

    85% of Americans though it was a good idea to be violent and attack Japan. This may have spurred him on to attack Japan with the backing of American citizens or in an act of revenge for Japan attacking Pearl Harbour, in a shock attack.

  2. Was The Dropping Of The Atomic Bombs On Hiroshima And Nagasaki Justified?

    This source was not written by a Japanese citizen nor an American it was written by a British person. This tells us that it cannot be bias, as the person is from neither of the two fighting countries. The Americans had properly not thought of the after effect the bomb would have.

  1. WWII Atomic Weapons Were Justified

    The soldiers' usual practice, officially condoned by high-ranking officials so as to "avoid difficulties," was to murder the women when they were finished with them. This was most often done by cutting off their breasts and/or disemboweling them with a bayonet to the abdomen.

  2. "The Use of the Atomic Bomb Played An Important Role in Ending the War"

    Such demonstrations would have saved the lives of thousands. Killing needlessly was a concern for some American officials. Herbert Hoover wrote to army and navy journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." A second alternative was to modify the U.S.

  1. An evaluation of the United States decision to use atomic bombs against Hiroshima and ...

    Historian Walter S. Schoenberger agrees with this conclusion as he has stated that, "...the evidence that exists indicates that, had the unconditional surrender formula been modified significantly, it is very likely that Japan would have surrendered, perhaps before the atomic weapons were used," (305).

  2. The Prelude to the 1975 War and the Cairo Agreement.

    The IDF was to advance no farther than forty kilometers, the operation was to last only twenty-four hours, Syrian forces were not to be attacked, and Beirut was not to be approached. The 1982 Israeli Invasion (Operation Peace for Galilee)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work