The use of the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II remains one of the most controversial decision in world history. The arguments for and against its use are a perfect introduction to debate for your history class, and examining both sides is also a great way for students to understand the views of the people during the mid to late 1940s.
For this activity, students will research both sides of the argument to and not to use the atomic bomb on Japan. Students should create a T-Chart that examines each argument and the points they make. For each argument, students should include the title of the argument, a visualization of the central aspect of the argument, and a written description that summarizes the focal point of the argument.
Extended Activity
Students will use their research from the initial activity to take part in a classroom debate about whether President Truman and the United States government were justified in the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. Teachers should either assign the “team” that the student will be on or let them decide for themselves. For students that argue that Truman should not have dropped the Atomic Bomb, have them decide what he should have done instead. Students should use their previously created storyboards to help the class understand while they present their arguments to the class. Depending on teacher’s decision, they may score the debate as it unfolds, have the students vote on which side won, or if another class is available, you can have the other class serve as the un-biased voters.
(These instructions are completely customizable. After clicking "Copy Activity", update the instructions on the Edit Tab of the assignment.)
Student Instructions
Create a storyboard outlining arguments for and against the use of the atomic bomb during World War II.
Encourage students to listen actively and respectfully to opposing viewpoints. Remind students that understanding different perspectives is key to learning. Model respectful language and set clear ground rules for discussion, such as no interruptions and focusing on ideas, not individuals.
Assign specific roles such as moderator, timekeeper, and debaters. Explain each role’s importance to ensure everyone is engaged and the debate stays organized. This helps students take ownership and keeps the debate running smoothly.
Show students how to support their points with facts, quotes, and reliable sources. Encourage them to reference primary sources or historical documents to strengthen their arguments and demonstrate critical thinking.
Set time limits for opening statements, rebuttals, and closing remarks. Teach students to take notes and prepare counterarguments. This structure ensures everyone has a voice and that the debate remains focused and equitable.
Lead a class discussion on what students learned and how their views may have changed. Encourage them to share what strategies worked well and how they can apply respectful debate skills in other subjects or real-life situations.
The main arguments for using the atomic bomb include ending the war quickly, saving lives by avoiding a land invasion, and demonstrating power to deter future conflicts. Arguments against focus on the massive civilian casualties, ethical concerns, and the belief that Japan was close to surrendering without its use.
Start by dividing students into teams representing both sides of the atomic bomb debate. Have them research arguments, create T-Charts, and prepare storyboards. Each team presents their case, followed by rebuttals. You can score the debate, have students vote, or involve another class as impartial judges.
A T-Chart is a graphic organizer with two columns, allowing students to list and compare arguments for and against a topic. In the atomic bomb debate, it helps students organize evidence and visualize the strengths and weaknesses of each side.
Encourage students to research historical sources from the 1940s, analyze primary documents, and create summaries of each viewpoint. Using storyboards and class debates helps them engage with and empathize with both perspectives.
Alternatives included continuing conventional warfare, enforcing a naval blockade, waiting for Soviet entry into the war, or negotiating conditional surrender terms. Each option had its own risks and potential consequences.