Essay 1.2
eliz medrano
English 101 / #3226
March 5th, 2010
Essay # 2
Word Count: 984
Studying Eliminationism, Past and Present Thought
In his interview with Joanna Myers, Goldhagen seems not definite about
his response when questioned regarding whether the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki would fall under his category of eliminationism
and if his proposal, of offering bounties on the president for
allowing these droppings would apply for those acts. While he agrees,
“I think this is a form of eliminationism.” He does not clearly answer
the question, at least not as “fair” as he claims his style is.
Additionally, while one ca n agree that this was an eliminationist
tactic or policy to force Japan to surrender we can not overlook that
during the time of the war it was known that Japan was nearing that
stage. So, should the use of the atomic bombs have happened?
Further, no one, neither Goldhagen nor the editorials on the
anniversary of the droppings mention that aside from these
deployments, which resulted in thousands and thousands of deaths and
massive destruction of these cities, these also caused major lasting
and continuous damage to their respective inhabitants given the
radiation power of the bombs. One can then conclude, as in “Worse
than War,” that it was not only the act of using weapons of mass
destruction for killing, but that the impacts and subsequent
obliteration need to be discussed as part of a real and honest
analysis and lesson learning of history as well as for the development
of effective policies to eradicate eliminationist, as Goldhagen
suggests. And furthermore, while we can agree with the need of
specific and steps towards lessening the need to recur to
eliminationist attacks it is not a given that Goldhagen’s proposal for
systematic change can function radically if part of the proposal is a
call to kill the killers.
As described in the editorial pieces on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and
comparing it with Goldhagen’s field work experience with perpetrators
in Rwanda, and other places, in order to attack another person or
people there is a needed component of the dehumanization of the other
so that the attack can take place. This in short can be called
brainwashing and manipulation, which can manifest itself in the form
of racism or other forms of oppression— the prejudice against and
about others that fuels and facilitates executing the crime. For the
young soldiers participating in WWII the drive was the idea that the
Japanese were fighting to the last man, that they were killers and
that they used other people and countries as slaves. The idea of being
the saviors, the ones helping to end the war surely was in mind as
well. So, the good guys against evil even if it meant doing bad
things. Ideas or messages like these give way to thinking of having
the “right” to, in this case “… deploy Fat Man and Little Boy,…” [and
think that] “…what those bombs chiefly represented was salvation…”
And while lines need to be drawn, as Goldhagen suggests, to identify
when is enough, there is also the need to realize that if a country is
attacked most likely it will respond, should it count with
infrastructure, and that this can not be used or automatically the
basis to excuse to proceed with the killing.
Further, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki editorials and Goldhagen fail to
look at the bomb deployments as examples of the fervor driving not
only Truman, but the U.S. and its population, or that generation, to
carry on with that order were blinded by the actual horrors of war and
the continuous fighting people could not and can not think or reason
and where killing breeds killing, and where people are unable or do
not want to analyze if acts are appropriate or necessary. To this day,
sadly, similar thinking goes on everyday. Probably not as public or
extreme as urging to drop a bomb on a country, but certainly in the
form of feeling the righteousness of knowing who is to be punished,
how to be the first and most powerful, or who the enemies of this
country are or as the editorials point out, “We need bunker busters
because North Korea and Iran are using underground facilities to build
weapons that threaten us, and we must be able credibly to threaten in
return.”
In order to ever gain any support or interest toward changing the ways
of thinking that would allow for the eventual elimination of all forms
of eliminationism and result in saving lives, we must begin by not
only understanding the root causes, as Goldhagen suggests, but first
by committing to completely avoid the utilization of similar tactics
used by eliminationist. In other words, if there is a call to the
killing of the killers idea, then there is a perpetuation of the
same. Violence breeds violence and it would be as if there was no
record of historical learning process. Second, in order to suppress
the urges for eliminationist policies we need as a people, in the U.S.
and the world, and beginning here in this country, to make that a
priority by developing programs that are integrated to school
curriculum, eliminating violent games and machines that are marketed
to children, supporting parents to better support their children and
raise them in ways that prevent violence, etc. And most importantly
call ourselves out before anyone or other countries. There is much to
change here and to take on drastic change and culture change one needs
to begin at home. Home can be defined as the place we live in, an
apartment or house, it can be interpreted as the city, but most mainly
as the country where we live in sand begin by addressing issues here
prior to going out to study others and identify others’ recipes for
change. Change then, begins at home and leading by example speaks more
that a million words and more than a million policies.
George J
English 101
Professor Ed O’Connell
3/5/2010
Truman's Mistake?
President Harry Truman, the thirty-third president, dropped two
atomic bombs in Japan and killed thousands of civilians. Daniel
Goldhagen has written a book that calls Truman a mass murderer for his
actions. His crime, killing thousands of innocent Japanese to end a
war that did not need the use of a nuclear weapons. I believe that it
is wrong for anyone to die by the hands of another but in Truman's
case I believe he acted as a man trying to stop a war in a time were
new technology and the outcome of its use would effect world politics.
Truman was not a mass murderer in the eyes of his peers. Polls today
show proof that those who were alive during that time think that
Truman was not a war criminal. Lastly, Truman saved millions of lives
by dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Allied forces
were gearing up to invade Japan and estimated casualties were in the
millions and that was just Allied forces. Truman , by using nuclear
weapons, forced the Japanese to surrender and ended the war saving
millions of lives. I agree with an editorial I read in the Las Vegas
Review-Journal where the author wrote “ It was the right call.”
Truman made a decision that was clearly thought through and his
actions were all business not personal. He did kill many Japanese but
to call him a mass murderer and war criminal is just not right.
Truman's actions were his job and he was doing what he thought was
best for his country not only for the present but for the future as
well.
Goldhagen states, “The willful slaughter of more than a quarter
million people, in full view of the world, should be universally
recognized for what it was, causing the label “mass murderer” to be
affixed to Truman's name.”, but he is wrong because Truman was only
retaliating the Japanese who were the ones who started the war with
the United States. Truman used a newly developed weapon to end a war
that would have surely continued to kill more Japanese and Allies.
Truman decision was not a crowd pleaser but it was made during a time
of war, the ultimate mass murderer. Goldhagen believes in the literal
sense of mass murder of innocent people. From his book ,Worse Than
War, he states that polls taken in 1945 that 85 percent Americans
supported Truman's decision. Sure, the war was ended by the bombings
and emotion could have been behind the numbers to justify the hight
percentage of positive feedback on a mass murder, but fifty years
later a similar poll was taken by those who were alive during bombings
and the results were still in support of Truman's decision. Though
many Japanese died that day Truman saved more lives. The Allies were
getting ready to invade Japan and from earlier battles with the
Japanese they knew casualties would be high. The Japanese would not
surrender and fought until the last man had fallen. Truman used a
weapon that took out five hundred thousand Japanese but in the grand
scheme of things saved millions of Japanese lives as well as million s
of Allied forces. Coincidentally a horrible storm hit the locations of
where the allied forces were to land and attack the Japanese. These
storms would have made casualties even higher. Truman's hard decision
killed many but in the end saved more lives and ended a horrible war.
Truman was not a mass murderer but a president doing his job.
Goldhagen even agrees that unlike other mass murderers in history ,
“Truman's was accidental, owing to a confluence of circumstances that
he would have preferred never came about. “ Circumstances that not
only included the war but how we would hand the Soviet Union after the
war. Truman knew the war would be ending soon and postwar relations
with the Soviets would be a little different after they saw what the
United States was capable of. If anything Truman was wrong in using a
weapon as a political tool that started a cold war and has given other
countries a way of getting power by using nuclear weapons as a scare
tactic to get what they want. I don't believe Truman could have seen
any of those things happening given that his main focus was ending the
war. Which he did. If it wasn't Truman who was president during these
times I believe whoever was president would have made the same
decisions. Call it an occupational hazard.