Why did World War II END the way it did - Research Paper Example

Why did World War II END the way it did? The Second World War is arguably one of the bloodiest events that have been witnessed in history. Taking a span of more than five years, the genesis of the war in 1939 was attributed to the Germans attack on Poland, which sparked war realignments that escalated the issues that marred the major world powers at the time. On this note, the war led to major economic and social effects in the whole world and its ending was a relief to many. However, a myriad of factors have over the years been pointed as the main ways through which the war ended. One notable cause of the world war ending the way it did was the atomic bomb attack on Japan, which ultimately defined the means that ended the war On August 6th, 1945, the world witnessed one of the rarest occasions in the history of warfare when the United States plunged an atomic bomb in the Japanese city of Hiroshima. With the number of casualties rising beyond 80,000, a second bomb was dropped on 9th the same month on the city of Nagasaki, claiming the deaths of more than 50,000 people (Feis 82). On the orders of the American president Harry Truman, the Japanese cities were destroyed by the only nuclear attack that has ever been recorded. The days following the attack witnessed massive deaths of nearly 100,000 people who were casualties of the bomb and it was clear that the poisoning had a horrendous effect on the country. Three years before the attack, the best scientists in the United States had embarked on building the bomb. Most of them derived from the Manhattan project, close to 100,000 scientists were involved in this development, making it the greatest scientific venture in history. It is plausible to note that the project involved more than 30 installations and the best university laboratories in the United States. Notable were the efforts of Nobel award winners like Harold Urey, who provided technical support and the whole project was overseen by the Army Chief engineer, Brigadier Groves. The initial stages of the projects were pursued in separate locations to maintain discretion of the whole project, and they were unaware of the magnitude of the undertaking they were part of. Later, the efforts were consolidated and centralized in New Mexico, in isolated laboratories, which made it the most secretive warfare project ever pursued in history. The bomb was later tested in the New Mexico desert in July 1945, and informed the president of this new development. Skeptics within the US military circles did not approve the use of the new weapon and asked for restraint and caution before its deployment. However, Truman was sure that it was the only way through which Japan could be subdued. Previous efforts had failed, including the attack on 35 cities in Japan within duration of five months with the Japanese regime failing to surrender. Japan was unwilling to consider the provisions of the agreement made in Potsdam, which called for ceasefire and an end to the war (Hillenbrand 121). Under these circumstances, therefore, it became evident that the use of stronger atomic means was the only route towards the forceful subdue of Japan. Although the move was widely criticized, it alternative of bombing all Japanese constituent islands could have destroyed the lives of many innocent civilians. The attack was horrendous as predicted and devastating. The Japanese were forced to surrender, approximately six days after the attack, an aspect that ended the Second World War. Although the events were instrumental in stopping the war, it is evident that human effects from the shocking scenario began to ask questions about the use of this weapon. The reports that were delivered by journalists and scientists who visited the site after the attack propagated these responses (Hillenbrand 124). They reported of a charred area, with thousands of bodies, which were seriously burnt beyond recognition. The survivors were left traumatized and with serious medical conditions waiting for their death. This made many people criticize the use of the weapons of mass destruction to stop the war. After the war, a number of researchers have sought to expose the reasons why the United States decided to use the atomic bombs in the war and end the war in a very bloody way. The most obvious reason was to put an end to the crisis and prevent the loss of lives of its citizens, who were in danger if the efforts of the Japanese regime were anything to go by. Further, the United States wanted to demonstrate its military prowess to the world and particularly to the Soviet Union. In this stage, it was apparent that the diplomatic relations between the two major powers were a seriously dangerous streak and the Potsdam conference could not be able to bring the two powers on the same platform. In this respect, the nuclear attack came only four days after the meeting. At the conference, there was utter suspicion between the two powers, which exposed the deteriorating relations (Feis 65). In this respect, the Soviet armies dominated most of the European countries and it was apparent that the United States could use its atomic weaponry to negotiate better deals with the Soviet Union. Although this plan was seemingly successful after the two atomic bombs were dropped, it was apparent that poor planning made it the first move in the trend towards the cold war. With the strong belief that atomic bombs could offer sufficient leverage in its diplomatic efforts, it was evident that the time was too limited to restructure the plan and test its ability. Four years later, the Soviet Union had already made their own nuclear weapons and this was the genesis of the rush for nuclear weapons. Although the two atomic bombs are arguably the driving forces behind the surrender of Japan and the subsequent end of the war, some historians, however argue that Japan was in the process of mediating better avenues of ending the war. They argue that the Japanese were more concerned about how to stop the war, and not just putting an end through means that would have worse future consequences. This was an attempt to convince the Soviet Union to consolidate its power with Japan, and form a stronger force that would be in a position to negotiate a better deal to end the war (Hillenbrand 134). They argue that the unprecedented attack by the Soviet Union on Japan destroyed the plan and made the country vulnerable to more attacks leading to its surrender. However, it would be plausible to note that the Soviet Union joined the war only when conventional fighting means proved unsuccessful in the war. It is therefore evident that the Japanese would not have surrendered or looked for better means to resolve the crisis, because even after the atomic bomb attack, they had reconsidered options of restructuring their strategies and going back to war. The aspect of moral considerations continues to divide historians on the aspect of the two bombings. Although most people agree that the bombs provided an easier way to end the war, others argue that there were better means to end the war. It later became apparent that the Truman administration was aware of attempts by Japan to end the war amicably but ignored the trend. It became apparent, therefore that the use of the weapons was in part to end the war and fulfill other selfish requirements by the United States. These arguments discredit any attempts to justify the use of the weapons and propose that the war would have ended differently. Form empirical evidence, it is clear that the attempts to end the war by using atomic bombs was the greatest reason why the world war ended the way it did. Although, the intent of the weaponry is greatly questioned, raising serious ethical considerations, it is apparent that the use of atomic bombs saved more lives and gave the world a new direction out of the crisis. History will always give credit to the makers of the weaponry that ended one of the greatest human conflicts ever witnessed. Works Cited Feis, H. The atomic bomb and the end of World War II. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2006. Print. Hillenbrand, L. Unbroken: A World War II story of survival, resilience, and redemption. New York: Random House, 2010. Print. Read More