Was it Necessary to Drop the Atomic Bomb to End WWII?
YES SSD- Maddox, Biggest Decision
NO SSD- Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy
YES- Professor of American history Robert James Maddox contends that the
atomic bomb became the catalyst that forced the hard-liners in the
Japanese army to accept the Emperor’s plea to surrender, thus avoiding a
costly, bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland.
NO- Professor of American history Tsuyoshi Hasegwa argues that the Soviet
entrance into the war played a greater role in causing Japan to surrender
than did the dropping of the atomic bombs.
HOMEWORK:
You will read one of the assigned articles, annotate (highlight and take
notes), and write 6 “levels of questioning” questions. In addition, look for
evidence and arguments that prove your author’s thesis. In a class debate,
you (and other students assigned to read the same article) will defend and
argue the side to which you are assigned. You may also use your textbook
or other materials to support your argument.
You will be graded on:
1) Taking a position (the one to which you have been assigned)
2) Making at least one relevant comment
3) Using evidence from the text to support your argument
4) Asking clarifying questions (presumably from the other side)
5) Drawing another person into the conversation
At the end of the debate we will vote on which side of the debate was the
most convincing.
Was it Necessary to Drop the Atomic Bomb to End WWII?
Debate Guiding Questions
1. Professor Maddox makes a strong case for the military reasons why
the atomic bomb was dropped.
a. What was his central argument?
b. How does he encounter revisionist arguments that there were
viable alternatives to dropping the bomb?
c. What do you think about his analysis of June 18, 1945 that the
invasion of Kyushu and Honshu would cost approximately 40,000
deaths and 193,000 casualties and not the 500,000 deaths
projected by President Truman in his Memoirs?
d. What do you think of Maddox’s analysis of the attempts by
Japan to negotiate the surrender via the Russians? How realistic
were the Japanese proposals?
2. Professor Hasegawa argues that dropping the atomic bombs was
unnecessary because the Russian declaration of war against the
Japanese was the primary reason that the Japanese surrendered.
How convincing do you find his evidence?
3. What do you think about the following counterfactual (what if)
propositions advanced by Professor Hasegawa:
a. What if Truman had accepted a provision in the Potsdam
ultimatum allowing the Japanese to retain a constitutional
monarchy?
b. What if Truman had asked Stalin to sign the Potsdam
proclamation without a promise of a constitutional monarchy?
c. What if the Japanese government had accepted the Potsdam
proclamation without trying to increase the Emperor’s power
under national law?
d. What if the Byrnes note had contained a clear indication that
the U.S. would allow the Japanese to retain a constitutional
monarchy with the current dynasty?
4. Professor Hasegawa attributes realistic assessments to the aims of
Truman, Stalin, and the Emperor. What were their goals for ending the
war? How do they differ from the legacies and patriotic memories of
the bomb as viewed by Americans, Russians, and the Japanese?
5. Compare and contrast and critically evaluate the arguments of
Professors Maddox and Hasegawa regarding the events ending WWII
in the Pacific.