Respond to two students’ posts as well with posts that are a minimum of 100 words. Each students post
Your response to your peers should be at least 100 words and advance the historical dialogue at hand
Make Sure to Address Readings in Your Discussion Responses:
Response post essay 1
I think it is very important for historian and history classes to teach about the effect of Atomic bomb. Now we know the race for atomic bomb during the World War 2. The countries like Germany and USA both were racing for a weapon to decide the faith of World War 2. After months of testing in New Mexico Americans were able to build the first atomic bomb and deployed it to Asia. After the claps of German regime American had to finish the fight in Asia, due to high US Marin casualties in Japan, American decided to drop Atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I think Japan made a mistake joining Germans to attack USA. It is very unfortunate that the bomb was used in japan and hundred thousands of people instantly died and hundreds of thousand suffered from the effect of chemicals after. I think American had a chance to win the war without using the bomb demolishing a city full of innocent civilians in both cities, the reason I think that is, by the time American used the bomb, the War in Europe was over. What they could have done was to ask the allied countries to finish the war in Japan to prevent that mass distraction and taking civilian lives.
The nuclear capabilities are hundred thousand time higher in the world, if any incident occur the distraction would be unimaginably greater than we think.
Response post essay 2
Man, reading this while processing the week’s current events was a bad time, two thumbs down. I respect the necessity but I could understand if there were some that simply did not have the bandwidth.
After reading both Hersey and Stillmans works on the matter, I can’t help but think that I don’t have the license to speak about how it should be interpreted. As a white woman living in America that, knock on wood after the last few days, probably will not witness nuclear warfare, I can’t speak to the nature of the trauma these people endured. I read the retellings of that month and I try to quantify what the physical and emotional cost was but I cannot fully grasp the magnitude of it. All that I can do is to trust my own interpretation of it and hope that the circulation of Hersey’s work is widespread. As for how it should be taught, I think it’s paramount for these first-hand recollections of what happened to be the highlight. I believe that the politics and figures at the time were of significance but the most important thing is that these people’s truths and pain are not overshadowed by the decision-making process itself. We should read these people’s accounts of what the true outcome was and work backward from there, keeping them in the foreground. I think the evolution of warfare is paradoxical in that it’s simultaneously the most inhumane yet human thing about our species.
I have a feeling of “Shikata ga nai”, to quote Stillman when it comes to the question of what cities should have been hit. It was already done and speculation about the ethics of location doesn’t change what was done. I could hear the argument that it may be necessary for a conversation on ethics in general but I think it’s also flimsy in that the answer is obvious. I think more thought-provoking questions can be found in Stillman’s work where the generational trauma of war is examined.