This point is a useful point and is not very biased as it was thought by someone who did want to eliminate the Japanese and thought that the military really would benefit if they used normal bombing instead of this new force.
This point also gives us an insight into the numbers of dead and the power of bombs.
This point justifies the bombings emphasising that it really wouldn’t work and that it was pretty rubbish, so therefore not that bad to use.
Another point that backs up A is point C:
“Field Marshall Terauchi would have fought on and hundreds of thousands of prisoners (in P.O camps) would have been killed” “deliberately massacred” Laurens van der post, a prisoner of war in Japan in 1945.The Japanese were particularly nasty and cruel in all means of their methods, they would torture prisoners until their bodies broke and their souls shattered and the Japanese thought nothing about killing thousands endlessly .The other main worry was that the Japanese would never surrender or never back down from defeat! Mainly America believed this and also that thousands of troops would be killed on both sides in the allies attempt to take or over run Japan. The nuclear bomb was quick, fast and easy and therefore would save many young men’s lives and release a grip on the prisoners of war.
Source B is especially useful as is gives us a deep look into how powerful the bombs really were. The only problem is that they were tested in a dessert without proper conditions and therefore an improper test, this made the nuclear bomb seem less powerful and therefore ineffective. This also relates to Harry.S. Truman.
Statistical evidence of the consequences of American bombing raids on Japanese mainland in 1945.
The opposite is of course that of Source D
Comment made by Admiral William D.Leahy, Chief staff to the president, 1945:
Now this comment is a huge blunder in the argument for Hiroshima as the president’s right hand man was very powerful and important, like a shadow president, and he believes that the bombs should not of been used, now anyone else saying this and we would think much but a man close to the big cheese then it must be something good to note down and also this man should share the same ideas and thoughts that the main man has and should be with him every step of the way, but a man who in that position that does not think the allies needed the “Barbaric weapon” makes everyone stop and think.
He believed that Japan was already defeated and that the bomb was in no way any help or any use. He thought that many unwanted deaths would happen from it.
A further source, this time in a graphic approach is source E
A British cartoon from 1945:
It depicts 2 children one maybe an older brother the other a younger sister and they are standing in front of a background, the background looks dark and chaotic and like something has completely blown everything to pieces.
The writing says “Japan was seeking peace already before the bomb was dropped”
This tells us that Britain was against the dropping and did not want it.
The Conclusion
After piecing all the evidence together I am willing to believe that Japan was ready to surrender as P.Os were not always kept in touch with what was happening and therefore did not know the whole truth or at least all the options and also that the comment made by the Admiral is too good to miss and means so very much plus I bet many countries also thought that the bomb was not worth it. But I suppose we will never really understand.
I think I have a clear thought in my head, but what about you? With all the evidence for and against what path will you take? – Justified or not?