Barrett and Dowling - PINK by Stephanie Leister

andrew nguyen - barrett

2024-10-07 14:09:43 UTC

I strongly agree with Barrett because, in general, Truman was not a very peace-seeking person in general. It does not convince me that he wanted to end the war mainly. He also decided after the war to have a dumb nuclear feud with the soviets which further reinforces that he was just trying to stick it to Stalin.

Dowling-Cais

2024-10-07 14:09:59 UTC

Even though the Japanese surrendered because of the bombs, there were still 5 million Japanese troops that would still not be defeated

Invasion on Japan would have caused more casualties.

Quinn - Dowling's Viewpoint

2024-10-07 14:10:38 UTC

I agree with Dowling's viewpoint slightly more than Barrett's because Dowling believes that the atomic bombs ended the conflict against Japan / ended WW2 overall and the timing was perfect. Dowling also states that an invasion on Japan would've ended with more causalities and the U.S. could've lost.

Sylvie - Dowling

2024-10-07 14:11:07 UTC

I agree with Dowling more mostly because I just disagree with Barrett. Things that sway me towards Dowling include the fact that it effectively accomplished the America's goal, and that Truman was taking action from a firsthand understanding of the terrors of war-that he was knowledgeable on the subject. Additionally, Japan was going to continue to threaten American troops and lives from both sides of the war, there is no real predicting how much destruction would've occurred.

Hailee- Barrett

2024-10-07 14:11:18 UTC

I agree more with Barrett rather than Dowling. The atomic Bomb was not necessary to drop on Japan. They were already weak and falling apart before the US finally finished there power off. Barrett explains how Japan would have surrendered even if the bomb wasn't dropped. By dropping the bomb, it only showed how much power the US had in technology.

Keath-Dowling

2024-10-07 14:12:09 UTC

I resonate more with the points that Dowling made in her article for the motives behind Truman deciding to drop two atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima because the Japanese were warned, the president was under immense pressure from his own people and the world because it is his job to win the war as quickly and with as few casualties as possible. Additionally, Japan was not projected to surrender relatively soon, so the atomic bomb dropping overall likely saved thousands of lives on both sides of the war in the Pacific.

Reed- Dowling

2024-10-07 14:12:10 UTC

As a leader during a war, one will do anything in one's power to end the war as soon as possible and the use of the bombs was a calculation by Truman to end the war and unnecessary loss of lives of US military personnel. Additionally, it was unlikely that the Japanese would surrender as they practiced Bushido, and surrendering was shameful, thus the use of the bombs was the only thing that would make them surrender and save the lives of US military personnel.

Gracie - Dowling

2024-10-07 14:12:18 UTC

I agree with Dowling because she states that WWII had already consumed America for more than 3 years and Japan would not surrender. Furthermore, she also believes that an invasion on Japan would have caused more casualties than dropping the bomb.

Dowling - Nina

2024-10-07 14:12:24 UTC

I agree with Dowling more because i understand Truman's POV and the reason that he did what he did. Wanting to end a war is a better excuse for dropping bombs on the Japanese than wanting to display power to the Soviets.

Margo Dowling's Viewpoint - Noah Yun

2024-10-07 14:12:47 UTC

I strongly agree with Dowling's viewpoint that the purpose of the atomic bomb was necessary in order to put an end to the war given the circumstances that President Truman had to deal with. The idea that sways me towards Dowling's viewpoint is the fact that Truman originally planned on an invasion on Japan's mainland; however, the estimated casualties was around 1 million Americans and 500,000 British. Truman wasn't willing to sacrifice so many more lives.

dowling- Alli B

2024-10-07 14:12:49 UTC

I agree with Dowling more over Barrett. I feel as though the bomb was not in order to show off and it was fully needed to take down Japan. They are taught to have strong mindsets and were refusing to surrender, although it had been over three years. Also, an invasion of Japan may not have been as beneficial and it could have caused more casualties

Ella K- Barret

2024-10-07 14:13:01 UTC

I agree with Barrett's idea that the bomb was just a show of power. Truman didn't want Stalin to get any credit for helping win the war so they couldn't get postwar concessions. Truman was impatient and liked the bombs because they were more efficient and showed that the US was powerful.

Charlie Fortescue - Margo Dowling

2024-10-07 14:13:31 UTC

I agree with Dowling because Truman was a US soldier before he became president. He believed that the bomb could save more lives than kill due to the invasion of Japan's mainland had an estimation of killing 1 million Americans. Dowling also believes that the bombs were the reason for surrendering.

henry- barret

2024-10-07 14:13:42 UTC

I agree with Barret due to the fact that Truman did not just want to end the war, but to show countries, especially the Soviets, That the US was stronger and more advanced. Japan was weak before the bomb was dropped and it did not seem necessary.

Adriana Crawford

2024-10-07 14:13:43 UTC

I agree with Dowling more because it did end WWII. It ended the conflict with Japan. The Japanese were warned so the innocent were not hurt. There is no proof that Japan would've surrendered if we hadn't dropped the atomic bomb. The timing was perfect and planned well.

Steve - Dowling

2024-10-07 14:14:00 UTC

I agree with Dowling's ideas because of Japans very evident refusal to surrender. This is not only evident due to Japan's defeated state before the bombs were even in consideration, but also because they still did not surrender after the first bombing in Hiroshima. These factors display how Japan could not have been talked into surrender and needed something much more harsh to convince them into surrendering.

Dowling - Dalton Samuel

2024-10-07 14:14:09 UTC

I side with Dowling because he explained how neither America nor Japan were planning on giving up before the bomb was launched. America also gave Japan the Potsdam Declaration, which gave Japan a last warning to surrender before the bomb was launched. But by Japan not taking the declaration, the bomb had limited the amount of causalities than if they didn't use the bomb.

Hana Oh - Dowling

2024-10-07 14:14:26 UTC

I agree with Dowling's viewpoint because the atomic bomb allowed for Japan to have one last chance to surrender, which is what they chose to ignore. Although there may have been another way, I feel as though the threat to use the atomic bomb was more effective because it matched up with Japan's culture. More specifically, Japan believed in dying before surrendering, which the atomic bomb effectively influenced, making Japan surrender.

Joseph - Dowling

2024-10-07 14:14:39 UTC

I agree with Dowling's viewpoint even though I agree with Barrett because dropping an atomic bomb ended the WWII and even though Japan surrendered, there were still lot of troops those were not been defeated.

Darryn - Dowling

2024-10-07 14:15:24 UTC

I agree with Dowling based on the idea of Japanese culture and their willingness to die that she mentioned. The fact that the government was distributing a handbook of resistance combat, which included things like how to make a Molotov cocktail and how to correctly impale someone, makes it clear that the Japanese were not planning on surrendering but they were preparing to continue to fight.

Andrii, Neither but more with Dowling

2024-10-07 14:15:35 UTC

Both are wrong; bombing was cruel act by US especially when Japan would surrender and I agree that US wanted to show technological advantage, but important to understand bombing in historical context. From point of view of Truman it's most important task to save lives of Americans even in cost of other people.

Max - Agree with Dowling

2024-10-07 14:16:19 UTC

I agree with Dowling as I believe the war would have been far more costly in deaths and resources had Japan not surrendered. The dropping of the atomic bomb twice on Japan was costly to Japan's infrastructure and lives; however, it was not under the impression to attract attention from the Soviets or gain an advantage in peace negotiations, rather it was a desperate attempt from the US to save lives of both sides.

Anna- Barrett

2024-10-07 14:17:36 UTC

I agree more with Barrett because I believe the dropping of the atomic bombs was not necessary to end the war because Japan was already very weak. Though it was a good way of proving the US's military strength, it was too drastic of a move in my opinion.