Thursday, April 30, 2009
Hiroshima- FC
The bombing of Hiroshima in Japan was a devastating attack that claimed many Japanese lives. The atom bomb was a new technology developed by the Americans that decided to use it to quickly end WWII against Japan. After the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dropped, it was less than a week later that Japan dropped out of the race. The Japanese people had no idea what kind of weapon we had unleashed upon them. Many were savagely hurt by houses falling on top of them, and none were prepared. The attack on Japan was in retaliation to their attack on Pearl Harbor, but our attack was much more savage and brutal because it was not just on their military personnel, but on their citizens. Citizens were not involved in the war, and were innocent. Many died from the initial blasts, and the fires initiated from them. And still many more who had survived the attack were taken by the atomic gasses released that lingered and destroyed those areas for years. The community of Hiroshima banned together to save its people, but many were lost under wreckage with broken limbs. Children who didn't know any better were left without parents and guardians. The alert had been sounded that said everything was okay, when really it wasn't. Maybe this was a ploy to lure the Japanese people into thinking things were okay when really, things were about to be the worst for the Japanese people. The bombing of Hiroshima decimated its population and vegetation. The actual bomb only used roughly 10% of its total power, but just that little percent devastated an entire region. It must have been a hard decision to drop the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but it saved many American lives in the process of murdering countless Japanese.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Despite the devastating damage of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, it was a necessary move by President Truman. The article shows clearly the outcome of the bomb and it is sad but in times of war there are no civilians. It is only a recent development that there is a difference between civilians and soldiers. When we read about Genghis Khan, he let the first cities nobles survive. They later turned against him. When I went to Iraq you would see this countless times. If you let a potential threat go, it would be only a little while before they would be back again attacking you. I agree with above post that the atomic bomb saved countless US lives. It also brought an end to the war in the Pacific. Even though it wasn't as brutal as Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor was an un-solicited attack against a sovereign country that had not entered the war at all. This is the equivalent of a 9/11 attack. Japan at the time of the atomic bomb was in a war with no end game. The Japanese would of possibly waited until the Americans landed on the island of Japan and wiped out their entire country. The Atomic bomb created an end game.
ReplyDeleteyeah but what we read in VI lennin showed us that the US was pushing at Japan from way back (that was like 1917) and that if the japanese attacked it was after long time of US pushing at them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way to look at this simply. To do that would be ignorant.
ReplyDeleteAs Mr. Good said, in war their are no civilians and as cruel as it sounds, it is more effective in war to kill civilians than soldiers. It hits people harder physically and psychologically. It is simply easier to to eliminate them compared to soldiers, they are untrained and unarmed (and could be future threats as soldiers). I also find it funny that people seem to be much more effected by civilian casualties than soldiers. Are soldiers less human? Do they not have friends and family of their own?
Also Japan is far from innocent in this outcome. Just look at what they did to china early in the war. Those acts are very similar to how europeans treated slaves at St. Domingo (or just about any other area). In fact I could argue that it was far worse than St. Domingo. I simply cannot give an ounce of compassion towards Japan for that reason.
Finally, ironically the Atom Bomb actually saved more lives than it took. Because it hit civilians, because they were unarmed and because women and children died, Japan surrendered. Or would someone prefer a traditional invasion at the cost of millions (and lets not kid ourselves, civilians would still have died in the invasion too, only on a much more massive scale).
David Northup FC
A good back and forth. A note to Anonymous...
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point - claim your ideas next time, please.
Recent archival research by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (Racing the Enemy), a US
scholar that did research in archives in Japan, Russia, and the US
creates a far more nuanced view than the one Aaron and David have,
most likely, heard since junior high. That old triumphalist point of
view, based on very little documentary evidence credits the United
States with saving "millions" of lives for dropping the bomb and
ending the war. The Japanese in this version are monolithic and
without any desire to negotiate or surrender in the absence of nukes.
Hasegawa's point of view points out that while Truman's intention was
to end the war early, the Japanese surrender was also a product of
division within Japan as well as pressure applied by the Soviet Union.
Civilian casualties alone were not enough to force a Japanese
surrender, as the March firebombing of Tokyo killed 100,000 people -
more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined (by August 15).
For the purposes of this class, we are less interested in US
intentions or Japanese motivations and more in what was let loose at that moment. Is the atomic bomb a continuity of the violence that you see with the Assyrians or, as Aaron points out, at moments with the Mongols? Is it a change, as the scientific and technological nature of the violence then changes the reception of the violence in the population as there exists no way to resist and because it can attack generations of people, not just those on whom the initial bomb falls? Is the Mutually Assured Destruction of the weapon enough to cause peace (as with the Mongols) or is the 20th Century a testament that nuclear weapons brought peace only to the nations that had them and violence to the proxy nations through which the colonizers fought?
Some good points...make connections with them.
Prof. D
The dropping of the bombs in Japan did cause a lot of destruction. Some good did come of this destruction. Japan was able to rebuild the out-dated factories with new technology. After a few decades these new factories made Japan more productive and allowed them to become one of the major players in the trade world.
ReplyDeleteWould you say that America was barbaric for dropping the bomb on Japan? If so read the The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang, it may be a little bias for China but has similar points to Hiroshima. Who's to say that John Hersey was a little bias for Japan.
Derrick-FC
I found your post interesting and in many ways quite true. The U.S. bombing killed countless innocent citizens, but there was much more to it than that (as you sort of throw in at the end). Truman believed that this was a way to save lives, and by his journal and speeches it seems like he believed that Hiroshima was a military base (or it could have been a cover).
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. also stated that it would use such power if Japan refused to surrender. Japan refused and the U.S. went on with its threat. Japan still didn't surrender so Nagasaki was bombed as well.
It is a great tragedy that so many people were killed, no matter what the circumstances or their affiliation. (I also found David's comment "Are soldiers less human?" interesting) Human life is precious, but it was seen at the time as the most, pardon the harshness, efficient way to go. Less time, less money to support a army, less American losses and who knows, maybe in the end fewer Japanese losses. It also sent out a message that we were not to be messed with.
Spence Gaskin ~FC