Should Truman Have Bombed Japan at the End of WW2

World War II
The atomic weapons used in WWII could be viewed as a setback for democracy, especially as Truman made the decision to bomb Japan even though Japan was ready to surrender. It was more about Truman sending a message to the Soviet Union and letting the world know what capabilities America now had (Stone & Kuznick, 2012). A truly democratic approach would have been for Truman to hold a plebiscite on the matter, the way Hitler did in 1933 when he asked the Germans whether they supported his idea to leave the League of Nations (Degrelle, 2012). Truman acted on his own and showed that America’s leaders could operate like tyrants.
US foreign policy during the 1930s somewhat helped to promote WWII, but the actions of England, France and the Soviet Union were more to blame (Degrelle, 2012). The US under Hoover actually tried to come to a ready solution to solve the problem of disarmament that had arisen as a result of the faulty Versailles Treaty at the end of WWI (Degrelle, 2012). It was France and England, primarily, that refused to consent to the Hoover plan for disarmament. That is what prompted Hitler to quit the League of Nations and assure the world that Germany would arm itself to the same extent that every other nation was armed (Degrelle, 2012).
The US might have prevented the outbreak of WWII with respect to things in Asia had it not been so hard on Japan. The blockade on Japan basically prompted the state to take aggressive and desperate action, which resulted in the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was Japan issuing its own statement of war against the US. Had the US acted with more diplomacy in the East, it might have avoided a war outbreak there, and the European affair might have been settled peacefully between the main belligerents themselves.
References
Degrelle, L. (2012). Hitler Democrat. DC: Barnes Review.
Stone, O. & Kuznick, P. (2012). The Untold History of the United States. NY: Gallery Books.