Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

Topic 4Hiroshima

Introduction

In this reading, there are two perspectives about whether or not the Hiroshima bombing on August 6, 1945 was necessary. Both authors use informative and historical examples to justify their respective arguments and satisfy the points they are trying to convey in the two extracts in the reading.

The Arguments and Justifications

In the first half of the reading, John Connor presents an argument on why the Hiroshima bombing was necessary. There is the belief that it was essential in ending the war, saving the lives of millions and preventing the imminent invasion of the US by the Japanese. In his reasoning, Connor lists many examples in which both Japanese and American lives were devastatingly lost as a result of the Japanese resistance to a peaceful surrender. His justifications also include the mentioning of civilian lives, including the infants and children who died during the Japanese invasions. The use of these examples enables Connor to highlight the true horror of the war and why he believes the bombing was needed to stop the never-ending loss of lives. The way in which Connor sets out his arguments in the reading is effective in conveying his perspective. His extract begins with a simple reason for his belief in the debate about the bombing, and continues into a section with strong examples that are used to convey his message. Connors main argument is the impact the bombing had on saving millions of people, and ending the war. However, there is no counter-argument that

mentions the negative consequences of the bombing which caused devastation and complete chaos in Japan. Aside from this, the structure of Connors extract solidifies his perspective in a simple and straightforward way.

The second extract discusses the opposing view of the first; that the bombing was unnecessary and the U.S. was wrong to use it. Gar Alperovitzs main argument consists of discussing the existing historical evidence about President Harry S. Truman knowing that WWII would end with certainty without the use of the atomic bomb. In contrast to Connors argument, Alperovitz uses arguments that Japan was seeking peace, was willing to surrender and that the American side had plenty of time to consider the ending of the war. Alperovitzs main strategy in justifying his arguments mainly derives from statements archived in official records. The structure in which he sets out his argument is not as effective as Connors extract. A reason for this is due to the frequent use of quotations and a smaller amount of examples. As a result, the argument seems to simply list his perspective without strongly justifying why. However, within this extract, Alperovitz does discuss both sides of the argument; while Truman had many reasons not to drop the bomb, the use of atomic weaponry would be beneficial for long-term diplomatic purposes, especially in dealing with Russia. The use of counter-argument is thoughtful, although it does hinder Alperovitz ability to express his argument strongly, in comparison to Connor. However, this is not to say that Alperovitz does not present or support his argument well, only that the structure is not as effective as Connors.

Conclusion

Within this reading, both authors have effectively expressed their views on the debate on whether or not the Hiroshima bombing was necessary. Connor and Alperovitz both used strong historical evidence while Connors structure of his argument was considered more effective. Nevertheless, both authors adequately satisfied the conclusion of their arguments.

Potrebbero piacerti anche