Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Thursday, June 10, 2010
The Descision to Use Atomic Weapons
The Descision to Use Atomic Weapons
from
A People's War?
Howard Zinn
Still, the vast bulk of the American population was mobilized, in the army, and in civilian life, to fight the war, and the atmosphere of war enveloped more and more Americans. Public opinion polls show large majorities of soldiers favoring the draft for the postwar period. Hatred against the enemy, against the Japanese particularly, became widespread. Racism was clearly at work. Time magazine, reporting the battle of Iwo Jima, said: "The ordinary unreasoning Jap is ignorant. Perhaps he is human. Nothing .. . indicates it." ....
The bombing of Japanese cities continued the strategy of saturation bombing to destroy civilian morale; one nighttime fire-bombing of Tokyo took 80,000 lives. And then, on August 6, 1945, came the lone American plane in the sky over Hiroshima, dropping the first atomic bomb, leaving perhaps 100,000 Japanese dead, and tens of thousands more slowly dying from radiation poisoning. Twelve U.S. navy fliers in the Hiroshima city jail were killed in the bombing, a fact that the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged, according to historian Martin Sherwin (A World Destroyed). Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, with perhaps 50,000 killed.
The justification for these atrocities was that this would end the war quickly, making unnecessary an invasion of Japan. Such an invasion would cost a huge number of lives, the government said-a million, according to Secretary of State Byrnes; half a million, Truman claimed was the figure given him by General George Marshall. (When the papers of the Manhattan Project-the project to build the atom bomb- were released years later, they showed that Marshall urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be removed and only military targets hit.) These estimates of invasion losses were not realistic, and seem to have been pulled out of the air to justify bombings which, as their effects became known, horrified more and more people. Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender. New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, shortly after the war:
If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender- that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place-the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.
Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it? General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, described Truman as a man on a toboggan, the momentum too great to stop it. Or was it, as British scientist P. M. S. Blackett suggested (Fear, War, and the Bomb), that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan?This paragraph is more his opion than fact i would guess, because he asks them about it, and if you ask a question your not stating a fact -Cody White 3/3/10 12:22 PM
The Russians had secretly agreed (they were officially not at war with Japan) they would come into the war ninety days after the end of the European war. That turned out to be May 8, and so, on August 8, the Russians were due to declare war on Japan, But by then the big bomb had been dropped, and the next day a second one would be dropped on Nagasaki; the Japanese would surrender to the United States, not the Russians, and the United States would be the occupier of postwar Japan. In other words, Blackett says, the dropping of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.. .." Blackett is supported by American historian Gar Alperovitz (Atomic Diplomacy), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in."
Truman had said, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."
The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki seems to have been scheduled in advance, and no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped. Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb? Were the dead and irradiated of Nagasaki victims of a scientific experiment?this sounds like his opion because hes asking the audience a question and not stating a fact -Cody White 3/3/10 12:49 PM Martin Shenvin says that among the Nagasaki dead were probably American prisoners of war. He notes a message of July 31 from Headquarters, U.S. Army Strategic Air Forces, Guam, to the War Department:
True, the war then ended quickly. Italy had been defeated a year earlier. Germany had recently surrendered, crushed primarily by the armies of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, aided by the Allied armies on the West. Now Japan surrendered.
from
A People's War?
Howard Zinn
Still, the vast bulk of the American population was mobilized, in the army, and in civilian life, to fight the war, and the atmosphere of war enveloped more and more Americans. Public opinion polls show large majorities of soldiers favoring the draft for the postwar period. Hatred against the enemy, against the Japanese particularly, became widespread. Racism was clearly at work. Time magazine, reporting the battle of Iwo Jima, said: "The ordinary unreasoning Jap is ignorant. Perhaps he is human. Nothing .. . indicates it." ....
The bombing of Japanese cities continued the strategy of saturation bombing to destroy civilian morale; one nighttime fire-bombing of Tokyo took 80,000 lives. And then, on August 6, 1945, came the lone American plane in the sky over Hiroshima, dropping the first atomic bomb, leaving perhaps 100,000 Japanese dead, and tens of thousands more slowly dying from radiation poisoning. Twelve U.S. navy fliers in the Hiroshima city jail were killed in the bombing, a fact that the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged, according to historian Martin Sherwin (A World Destroyed). Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, with perhaps 50,000 killed.
The justification for these atrocities was that this would end the war quickly, making unnecessary an invasion of Japan. Such an invasion would cost a huge number of lives, the government said-a million, according to Secretary of State Byrnes; half a million, Truman claimed was the figure given him by General George Marshall. (When the papers of the Manhattan Project-the project to build the atom bomb- were released years later, they showed that Marshall urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be removed and only military targets hit.) These estimates of invasion losses were not realistic, and seem to have been pulled out of the air to justify bombings which, as their effects became known, horrified more and more people. Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender. New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote, shortly after the war:
The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26.The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:
Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Need we have done it? No one can, of course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative.I think hes saying his opion here or trying to persuade -Cody White 3/3/10 12:13 PM
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.But could American leaders have known this in August 1945? The answer is, clearly, yes. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted. It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered. On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace.. .." Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: "Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to-and did-relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to a conclusion."
If only the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender- that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place-the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.
Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it? General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, described Truman as a man on a toboggan, the momentum too great to stop it. Or was it, as British scientist P. M. S. Blackett suggested (Fear, War, and the Bomb), that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan?This paragraph is more his opion than fact i would guess, because he asks them about it, and if you ask a question your not stating a fact -Cody White 3/3/10 12:22 PM
The Russians had secretly agreed (they were officially not at war with Japan) they would come into the war ninety days after the end of the European war. That turned out to be May 8, and so, on August 8, the Russians were due to declare war on Japan, But by then the big bomb had been dropped, and the next day a second one would be dropped on Nagasaki; the Japanese would surrender to the United States, not the Russians, and the United States would be the occupier of postwar Japan. In other words, Blackett says, the dropping of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia.. .." Blackett is supported by American historian Gar Alperovitz (Atomic Diplomacy), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as "most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in."
Truman had said, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."
The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki seems to have been scheduled in advance, and no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped. Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb? Were the dead and irradiated of Nagasaki victims of a scientific experiment?this sounds like his opion because hes asking the audience a question and not stating a fact -Cody White 3/3/10 12:49 PM Martin Shenvin says that among the Nagasaki dead were probably American prisoners of war. He notes a message of July 31 from Headquarters, U.S. Army Strategic Air Forces, Guam, to the War Department:
Reports prisoner of war sources, not verified by photos, give location of Allied prisoner of war camp one mile north of center of city of Nagasaki. Does this influence the choice of this target for initial Centerboard operation? Request immediate reply.The reply: "Targets previously assigned for Centerboard remain unchanged."
True, the war then ended quickly. Italy had been defeated a year earlier. Germany had recently surrendered, crushed primarily by the armies of the Soviet Union on the Eastern Front, aided by the Allied armies on the West. Now Japan surrendered.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Native Americans
1. Use evidence to describe the economic impact of casino ownership and gambling on Native American tribes.
There was really wasn't an economic impact on the Native American tribes. About 48 Indian tribes that own casinos make about 10 million a year. But some casino don't make as much some only make up to 1 million a year.
2. What is the most significant problem of trying to understand the condition of the modern Native American population?
The most significant problem is that most of the Native American population in the U.S. is poor. Contrary to popular belief not all Native American don't own casinos
3. In what ways are Native Americans a unique minority group in the United States? Do these reasons seem justified today, or should Native Americans be considered as a "regular" minority group (like African Americans, Asian Americans, women, etc.)?
Because, this is their native land and we took them over forced them off their land and forced them into reservations and stuff like that. I think they should be classified as a regular minority group because they are just a minority group nothing different from the other ones.
4. Please find 4 specific examples of the sorts of events generalized in this paragraph. For each specific example, include a hyperlink to a website explaining the specific event, and a summary of that event.
5. What is meant by the phrase 'diseases of the poor'? What is the relationship between economics and health implied by that phrase?
Things that usually happin with the poor, such as actual diseases, turning to alcohol and eventually alcoholism, the things that are similar with the economics and health implied is that bad health is usualy connected with the poor.
6. Is John McCain correct in his assessment of the treatment of Native Americans? Why?
Yes i kinda think he is right, maybe instead of putting them into reservations all the time actually let them do what they want.
7. Please define each of the following terms in the context of Native American policy:
All of these terms pretty much boil down to that we have treated them badly, sent them to places without there permission. Just other ways to get rid of them so there no longer a problem.
* removal
* allotment
* termination
* relocation
* assimilation
* self determination
8. Finally, give a paragraph summary on what self determination means, and why it either is, or is not, the appropriate policy for Native American people with respect to the Federal government.
Self determination is pretty much the will to keep on going even when things look grim. This is an appropriate mood for the Native American because if they didn't have it, they would have probably be a lot worse than they are now. If they didn't have it they would probably have given up by now, they probably wouldn't have casinos.
There was really wasn't an economic impact on the Native American tribes. About 48 Indian tribes that own casinos make about 10 million a year. But some casino don't make as much some only make up to 1 million a year.
2. What is the most significant problem of trying to understand the condition of the modern Native American population?
The most significant problem is that most of the Native American population in the U.S. is poor. Contrary to popular belief not all Native American don't own casinos
3. In what ways are Native Americans a unique minority group in the United States? Do these reasons seem justified today, or should Native Americans be considered as a "regular" minority group (like African Americans, Asian Americans, women, etc.)?
Because, this is their native land and we took them over forced them off their land and forced them into reservations and stuff like that. I think they should be classified as a regular minority group because they are just a minority group nothing different from the other ones.
4. Please find 4 specific examples of the sorts of events generalized in this paragraph. For each specific example, include a hyperlink to a website explaining the specific event, and a summary of that event.
5. What is meant by the phrase 'diseases of the poor'? What is the relationship between economics and health implied by that phrase?
Things that usually happin with the poor, such as actual diseases, turning to alcohol and eventually alcoholism, the things that are similar with the economics and health implied is that bad health is usualy connected with the poor.
6. Is John McCain correct in his assessment of the treatment of Native Americans? Why?
Yes i kinda think he is right, maybe instead of putting them into reservations all the time actually let them do what they want.
7. Please define each of the following terms in the context of Native American policy:
All of these terms pretty much boil down to that we have treated them badly, sent them to places without there permission. Just other ways to get rid of them so there no longer a problem.
* removal
* allotment
* termination
* relocation
* assimilation
* self determination
8. Finally, give a paragraph summary on what self determination means, and why it either is, or is not, the appropriate policy for Native American people with respect to the Federal government.
Self determination is pretty much the will to keep on going even when things look grim. This is an appropriate mood for the Native American because if they didn't have it, they would have probably be a lot worse than they are now. If they didn't have it they would probably have given up by now, they probably wouldn't have casinos.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Civil war questions
1) Yes they did,
2) Yes They where more likely, because they where more wealthy than other people so they have more slaves.
3) The more wealthy you are the more slaves, and the higher you are the more slaves you own.
4) Depending on when they seceded depended on the proportion of the two.
5) Yes there is a relationship, the more slaves you have the more quickly you where to secede.
6) We had more people, and resources, generally more stuff to use
7) The north had more resources, and transportation to send those resources.
8) INSUFFICIENT DATA!!!!!!!!!!
9) Yes, we out numbered them by the thousands.
10) At that time it was more expensive than say the Spanish-American war, and the Mexican war. The deaths are the most we have had the only one that comes close is WWII.
11) Because of the way they fought and the technology that was involved.
12) That they would be divided into military districts, and made subjects to the U.S. Military
13) To basically have one officer rule over a bunch of people like a monarchy
14) Because he literally hated all democrats, and didn't want any plan that was made from them.
15) Because they thought it would only be beneficial to the Government and now one else.
16) The blacks now had land and education, and they where given a mule and land when they where free.
2) Yes They where more likely, because they where more wealthy than other people so they have more slaves.
3) The more wealthy you are the more slaves, and the higher you are the more slaves you own.
4) Depending on when they seceded depended on the proportion of the two.
5) Yes there is a relationship, the more slaves you have the more quickly you where to secede.
6) We had more people, and resources, generally more stuff to use
7) The north had more resources, and transportation to send those resources.
8) INSUFFICIENT DATA!!!!!!!!!!
9) Yes, we out numbered them by the thousands.
10) At that time it was more expensive than say the Spanish-American war, and the Mexican war. The deaths are the most we have had the only one that comes close is WWII.
11) Because of the way they fought and the technology that was involved.
12) That they would be divided into military districts, and made subjects to the U.S. Military
13) To basically have one officer rule over a bunch of people like a monarchy
14) Because he literally hated all democrats, and didn't want any plan that was made from them.
15) Because they thought it would only be beneficial to the Government and now one else.
16) The blacks now had land and education, and they where given a mule and land when they where free.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Humanitarism
In the years that America has been around, it has helped millions of people all over the world in numerous countries. America has help Europe in WWII when it needed help when the Nazi's expanded their empire. America has helped the South Vietnamese when they where trying to fight off communism, the U.S. help liberate Kuwait when it was being occupied. So America has a lot of Humanitarist views over the years that it has been around, and has not changed once since it was founded.
American Humanitarianism sympathized with the Cubans because the nation felt bad for them. There was another reason U.S. Citizens sympathized with the Cubans. The Spanish general named Weyler (or called the Butcher) killed, and mistreated the Cuban people. He treated the Cubans with unusual cruelty and hatred, so the U.S. went in to save Cuba from such a horrible person. America couldn't leave them on their own, to fight for themselves. The American people would have pressured the U.S. government to go save them, that it would be the right thing to do. The government would have to save them if they didn't want the people of America get angry at them.
Another reason that we are Humanitarianism is that we said we would help liberate Cuba but leave in 5 years once we liberate it. What empire over time and history has occupied a country but promised to leave in 5 years. You don't say that if you are preparing to take over the country that your going to leave. If we are Imperialist then we would have just marched in and have kept it for our self's. You can see now that we do not own Cuba in anyway.
If the nation didn't care about them then America wouldn't have sent a courtesy call to see if they where ok. McKinley said that he would not let them fend for themselves, and have Spain take back Cuba. America didn't stop the Spanish because we wanted Cuba for ourselves, America did it because the U.S. citizens wanted to do the right thing and help them. When the nation did stop Spain America didn't take advantage of the Cubans and took their land for ourselves.
So America is more Humanitarianism than Imperialism. Because the U.S. has helped the Cubans not take them over, and America has sympathized with Cuba. Our nation Liberated them from a General named Weyler or also called the butcher. America saved the Cubans from Spain's occupation and take over of Cuba. America has had the best intrest in the countrys we have helped over the years, America has never invaded another country to take it over in the history of the U.S. If America was Imperialist then the U.S. wouldn't care in the least in any of thoughs other country's we helped.
American Humanitarianism sympathized with the Cubans because the nation felt bad for them. There was another reason U.S. Citizens sympathized with the Cubans. The Spanish general named Weyler (or called the Butcher) killed, and mistreated the Cuban people. He treated the Cubans with unusual cruelty and hatred, so the U.S. went in to save Cuba from such a horrible person. America couldn't leave them on their own, to fight for themselves. The American people would have pressured the U.S. government to go save them, that it would be the right thing to do. The government would have to save them if they didn't want the people of America get angry at them.
Another reason that we are Humanitarianism is that we said we would help liberate Cuba but leave in 5 years once we liberate it. What empire over time and history has occupied a country but promised to leave in 5 years. You don't say that if you are preparing to take over the country that your going to leave. If we are Imperialist then we would have just marched in and have kept it for our self's. You can see now that we do not own Cuba in anyway.
If the nation didn't care about them then America wouldn't have sent a courtesy call to see if they where ok. McKinley said that he would not let them fend for themselves, and have Spain take back Cuba. America didn't stop the Spanish because we wanted Cuba for ourselves, America did it because the U.S. citizens wanted to do the right thing and help them. When the nation did stop Spain America didn't take advantage of the Cubans and took their land for ourselves.
So America is more Humanitarianism than Imperialism. Because the U.S. has helped the Cubans not take them over, and America has sympathized with Cuba. Our nation Liberated them from a General named Weyler or also called the butcher. America saved the Cubans from Spain's occupation and take over of Cuba. America has had the best intrest in the countrys we have helped over the years, America has never invaded another country to take it over in the history of the U.S. If America was Imperialist then the U.S. wouldn't care in the least in any of thoughs other country's we helped.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Cold War
People had a lot to worry about. The U.S. and the Soviets where neck and neck with advancements in technology, and they obviously didn't like us. With them putting nuclear weapons in Cuba just made it worse. Because they could easily attack the U.S., so people had a good reason to be scared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)