As World War II came to a close in 1945, the Allies were searching for a swift way to bring about its definitive end. Harry Truman decided that the prime way to accomplish this was to drop atomic bombs on two cities of Japan, hoping for a quick surrender. Harry Truman’s actions in order to obtain unconditional surrender from Japan cannot be justified, due to the ethics of the situation. The Allies had decided to accept only “unconditional surrender”, or surrender with no compromises, from the Axis powers in 1943. By May of 1945, Italy and Germany had unconditionally surrendered, but Japan was still fighting the war. At the Potsdam conference from July 17 to August 2, 1945, the Allies gave an ultimatum to Japan, saying to “surrender or be destroyed” (Kennedy, 599). Japan refused to unconditionally surrender, but indicated that they may have been willing to seek conditional surrender. …show more content…
However, unconditional surrender was never made, even after the bombs had been dropped. This is because the Allies accepted Japanese surrender with the condition that “Hirohito...remain on his ancestral throne as nominal emperor” (Kennedy, 599), making the demands for unconditional surrender pointless. The Allies could easily have compromised on the demands before the bombs were dropped, allowing countless lives to be spared. There is also controversy that the dropping of the bombs was not just to end the war. It is argued that some of the motivation for America to drop the bomb on Japan was to intimidate the Soviet Union; that “the atomic bomb could be read as a strong message for the Soviets to tread lightly” and that these bombings “may have been the first shots of the Cold War” (ushistory.org). This being the case would make the bombings worse, as taking the lives of so many harmless individuals should not have occurred just to make a