Dropping the atomic bomb was justified from an overall perspective, as the traumatic effects that would occur without the event of bombing would've arguably been much worse. Without the two bombings, the Japanese arguably would have persisted in the war even if it meant the enormous losses they would have to endure; seeing that Japan still refused to surrender after the first bombing, it is clear to see that their ambitions were very unyielding. Keeping in mind of the aftereffects of the war, this blog post will first talk about a summary of the effects of the two bombings, a summary of two opposing views regarding this EQ, and my response to this question.
After the two atomic bombings, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki endured heavy losses. Firstly, the infrastructure of both cities were almost completely annihilated, where buildings and landmarks were wiped out and all that remained of the two cities were rubble and debris. Even more horrifying were the effects they had on the victims; almost 105,000 people were killed in total, and many of them were burned to death by the incredible force of the bombs. Those who did survive either died later on from the lasting effects of the radiation and had many health problems, or they spent the rest of their lives living with the wounds and scars of these events. Even those who were not directly affected by the bombing possibly bore the loss of a relative or close friend. Psychological problems were also a big negative after these bombings; not only did most of the victims end up with major mental deteriorations, but many had to go through the trauma after the event and face humiliation from the people around them. With the establishment of the Weimar Republic, Germany had to carry the burden of the Treaty of Versailles and the harsh conditions set by it. Looking for a powerful leader to bring Germany back to glory, the German people entrusted in Hitler, who rose to power in 1933. One promise he made to the German people was to expand the nation and restore its glory, creating a Grossdeutshland as a result. This eventually led to events such as the annexation of Sudetenland, a region in Czechoslovakia where many German ethnics lived. However this was not extent to his ambitions and goals. In this blog post, the question as suggested in the title will be answered, with the help of explaining about Sudetenland's annexation and Britain's policy of appeasement, while also looking at the possibility of prevention of WWII.
WWII was not preventable through mere diplomacy—or any way at all—as Hitler was bound for warpath and Germany was ready for it. Hitler had prepared the German military in secret since his rise to power and violated the Treaty of Versailles. As his ambitions to expand the empire grew, there wasn’t much that could be done to stop him, as war was inevitable it was just a matter of when it would erupt. Diplomacy was far too mild a solution, and there just had to be war, therefore arguably, WWII was not preventable through diplomacy. To What Extent were Italian Fascism & German Nazism a Consequence of the Treaty of Versailles?4/11/2015
Please watch and give a thumbs up :D
Youtube VideoZaption Tour: http://bit.ly/1EQOQ87
Sorry about not embedding it, but Zaption's embedding really messes up my layout :3
|
Categories
All
HelloWell this is for my History Class. Archives
May 2015
Please give me an 'A+' |