urgent IA help!

[australiANgel]

hey everyone,
please help! i had finished all of my IA apart from Part D, the analysis secton. my question is.. "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with nuclear weapons in 1945. To what extent was the bombing of Hiroshima more influential to Japan’s decision to surrender from WWII than the bombing of Nagasaki?" and then i started to read up all about it.. and well.. there isnt many conflicting ideas about it. like.. pretty much none! its seems to suggest that they were both of equal importance. so... do i keep going with it.. becuase i have pretty much written everything on it.. or do i start all over agian?
thank you everyone!.. p.s draft is due in about 2 days.

[Scade]

First of all, you shouldn't have the "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with nuclear weapons in 1945." part in your research question. If there aren't many differences you should concentrate more on the part of analyzing your evidence and considering the historical importance of your investigation. However, if you have in mind something that would allow for various interpretations you might want to change it.

[CodeRed15]

Analysis is one of the most important parts of your IA. I don't think you should start all over again. Instead I think you should come up with an idea that you can use your current research to prove. Something related to Hiroshima and Nagasaki of course but focusing on a different aspect of the bombings instead of looking at their affects on Japan's decision.

[Capa]

Hmm, this sound like a difficult situation. I don't think it was a good idea to at all start writing about it because you did not have much evidence. Your supervisor/teacher should probabaly also have said something about this. I am unsure, but I think that if it is possible for you and you have something else that you could write about, and maybe include bits of what you have already done, then try to change your research question a bit, since only the draft is supposed to be in in two days...

I have read something about this topic myself, and I would believe they are always linked. 100 000 died iin Hiroshima and 60 000 in Nagasaki. Wouldn't one bomb, no matter how many thousand die, be enough for Japan pulling out? And were they not pretty lost in WWII even before the bombs?

Good Luck

My final version is in today btw

Capa...!

[moneyfaery]

[quote name='Capa' post='37073' date='Feb 16 2009, 11:03 AM']Wouldn't one bomb, no matter how many thousand die, be enough for Japan pulling out?[/quote]
I forget where I read/heard this, but it was to prove the superiority of the US or something. The second bomb was to show (the Russians???) that the US could bomb, devastate, and do it again.

[Capa]

You are right Irene, but I don't think Japan was less devastated because of that ; )

Our teacher almost began to cry when she told us about it.. (it was actually a good way to not forget what we were learning)

Edited February 17, 2009 by Capa

[faerie]

There's always something to say about the fact that Japan didn't surrender until AFTER the second bomb was dropped. They might have kept fighting until the bitter end unless the US showed that they had another one of those crazy atomic bombs. Plus, Japan was really big on fighting to the death (crazy kamikaze pilots, anyone?), and if the US had invaded by land, who knows how many soldiers would have died? And you're right, there is something about the US dropping the bomb to show the Russians that they were superior... or else to end the war before the USSR joined it so the US was the only one working on the peace negotiations (my opinion), although that didn't work, quite (I think Russia declared war on Japan RIGHT AFTER the first bomb was dropped, before Japan surrendered).