How Did Truman End Ww2

Words: 421
Pages: 2

Was dropping atomic bombs during WW2 a display of power or a merciful compromise? President Truman decided to use his most powerful weapons in densely populated cities in Japan, killing mostly civilians. This ultimately caused Japan to surrender only 15 days later in a very hard-fought war on both sides. But is this necessary? Why did the war resort to the massacre of civilians? This essay delves into conflicted ideals, the price of war, ethical implications, and the value of human life.

Truman's resolution was the catalyst humanity needed since it was the deciding factor in ending the war and the non-stop bloodshed between the Axis and Allied powers. If the war had dragged on, it's very likely more people would have been affected than the bombings before an agreement was made. The war claimed an estimated 75 million lives, with a large portion being civilians. Truman's internal conflicts
…show more content…
This, however, also comes with its complications, such as potentially leading to more destruction and more casualties. In addition, the psychological damage on both sides becomes worse and worse as the longevity of the war increases substantially. In the long run, Truman's resolve was reasonable and most likely resulted in less suffering as opposed to dragging out the war.

Oftentimes, people tend to dote on the idea that there were other ways to make Japan surrender. I find only one instance where it's plausible, and that's if Truman dropped the bombs on lesser-populated cities or uninhabited parts of Japan. This would be a demonstration of power rather than a massacre, qualifying America as unstoppable. A downside would be, however, if the bombs didn't work, morale would be decimated, and America would be laughed at by Japan. If there was a guarantee that the bombs worked, then I would support the