Hiroshima; Right or Wrong?
1) Describe the main arguments, reasons, and evidence that support the perspective of Historian A.
-Historian A had a lot of reasonable and strong perspectives on the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. She views the United States was not justified in dropping the bomb. A huge argument begins with the U.S. knowing that Japan was trying to surrender. This is a great example of unnecessarily kicking someone when they are already down. The Japanese wanted peace and tried to surrender, the only condition was that they could keep their emperor. The U.S. declined and said they had to have an “unconditional surrender.” After the bombing, the U.S. let Japan keep their emperor anyway. The U.S. could have saved so many lives if they had just let the Japanese surrender earlier, considering they gave them their one condition they requested. It seems cruel and impractical of the U.S, because the damage we created was so drastic and clearly unnecessary. Another argument arises when it comes to the true reason why the bomb was dropped. Since Japan was already surrendering, why even drop the atomic bomb? We had won. Historian A claims that the bombing was used as a scare tactic for Russia, showing them what the U.S. could really do in battle. The Japanese were basically a guinea pig and a test, which is completely inhumane. Scientists who worked on the bomb insisted it not be used on people and rather on empty land which would still make a huge statement. The U.S. rejected this idea and bombed the city anyway, causing mass destruction. This was a monstrous and malicious move, killing over 100,000 people who had tried to surrender and just to scare another country. None of this was right on behalf of the United States.
2) Describe the main arguments, reasons, and evidence that supports the perspective of Historian B.
-Historian B also has a very powerful point. He claims that the United States was justified in dropping the bomb. Dropping the bomb saved lives in
-Historian A had a lot of reasonable and strong perspectives on the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. She views the United States was not justified in dropping the bomb. A huge argument begins with the U.S. knowing that Japan was trying to surrender. This is a great example of unnecessarily kicking someone when they are already down. The Japanese wanted peace and tried to surrender, the only condition was that they could keep their emperor. The U.S. declined and said they had to have an “unconditional surrender.” After the bombing, the U.S. let Japan keep their emperor anyway. The U.S. could have saved so many lives if they had just let the Japanese surrender earlier, considering they gave them their one condition they requested. It seems cruel and impractical of the U.S, because the damage we created was so drastic and clearly unnecessary. Another argument arises when it comes to the true reason why the bomb was dropped. Since Japan was already surrendering, why even drop the atomic bomb? We had won. Historian A claims that the bombing was used as a scare tactic for Russia, showing them what the U.S. could really do in battle. The Japanese were basically a guinea pig and a test, which is completely inhumane. Scientists who worked on the bomb insisted it not be used on people and rather on empty land which would still make a huge statement. The U.S. rejected this idea and bombed the city anyway, causing mass destruction. This was a monstrous and malicious move, killing over 100,000 people who had tried to surrender and just to scare another country. None of this was right on behalf of the United States.
2) Describe the main arguments, reasons, and evidence that supports the perspective of Historian B.
-Historian B also has a very powerful point. He claims that the United States was justified in dropping the bomb. Dropping the bomb saved lives in