Essay 1.2

[Kareem A]

Kareem Ali
English 101
Essay 1.2


In the editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal the author states
“President Harry Truman could have continued the de facto submarine
blockade of food imports into the Japanese Islands, and the ongoing
firebombing of Japanese cities with B-29s, for months or years.
Millions more Japanese would have died.” I believe this is wrong I
think that if Truman had continued using blockades and continued
firebombing that it would have led to less deaths. I don’t think the
bombing would have continued much further because Hitler was soon to
be found and the war soon to end. However by dropping nuclear bombs
Truman ensured not just the immediate deaths of millions of Japanese
but also the ongoing deaths and deformations caused by nuclear
fallout.
The same author also states “The Japanese had not surrendered despite
repeated ultimatums. They had not surrendered despite losing many more
lives through "conventional" bombing than were lost at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.” I don’t believe this is wrong so much as irrelevant. The
war was not dependent solely on the defeat of the Japanese army. It
was much more dependent on the defeat of the ideals of Hitler. Judging
by Hitler’s theory of supremacy through blood rights he would have
gladly put any non-Aryan through the same “cleansing” program he did
the Jews, so I think that sooner or later the very thin alliance that
the Axis powers held with Germany would have crumbled and Hitler would
have sought their destruction himself. I understand that the Japanese
were a credible threat but using nuclear weapons against them at the
time seems to me to be more an act of revenge than one of war.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal author also states “…today, because of
his decision, millions more Americans and Japanese -- including
children and grandchildren of soldiers and civilians who would have
died in the autumn war of 1945 -- are alive, and free.” This is
laughably illogical. If I understand this correct the author means to
say that because of a decision that killed millions of people, mostly
innocent and by causing a massive hysteria Truman saved lives? Not
only that but there’s also the issue that this was the only practical
use of nuclear energy at the time and I firmly believe that because of
Truman’s actions we have harmed our freedom by cutting out a very
useful and clean source of energy. I feel that the advancement of
nuclear energy has been slow and pathetic and thus it has not reach
the potential it would have if we had never used it as a destructive
force.

[Johanna M]

According to http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/02/genocide-goldhagen-mass
-

Genocide and other mass killings have many different reasons for
coming to fruition. There are many reasons why one can “justify”
genocide; it could be of religious obligation, leadership, location,
or nationalism, all are seen as controversial. Killing is killing, the
line between “good or bad” killing can easily be blurred by the
various reasons to why one or many would kill in the first place.
Author Daniel Goldhagen suggests that all mass murders are committed
because those whom commit the murder are simply evil. I disagree. I
believe that there are many more factors to why people would
“senselessly” kill so many individuals. In Goldhagens’ book, Worse
than War, he wonders how someone could so vehemently want to kill
another.


Goldhagen states, “ People make choices about how to act, even if
they do not choose the contexts in which they make them. People make
these choices according to their understanding of the social world and
their views of what is right and wrong”. People may possess the right
to make certain choices, but may deviate from what they truly believe
in order to perhaps save their own lives. Take for instance the mass
murders in Germany during Hitler’s rampage. There were individuals
that assisted or actually murder thousands of Jews out of pure
“hatred”. There were also individuals who might have committed the
same acts, but for different reasons; fear may have been one of them.
The fear that they might face the same fate had they not done what
they were told, no matter how wrong, cruel, or twisted it may have
been. When facing these odds, people resort to primal instincts, kill
or be killed. Saying that one is evil for committing these acts is
understandable, but attributing this kind of behavior toward all mass
killings is wrong. Leadership is another reason why one would do such
a thing. Strong nationalism or devotion toward a leader could drive
someone to become a puppet of sorts to carry out the wishes of their
commanding figure. President Truman may have been able to make the
Japanese surrender in another way. Who really knows what might have
happened if he hadn’t bombed Japan. The fact of the matter is, that
was what he felt would get the attention of the Japanese in order for
them to completely surrender.

Generalizing cases of genocide and other mass killings is not the
correct approach. Considering different possibilities as to why these
things happen would provide a broader scope as to why people do such
things. This understanding could help to remedy this so-called drive
to kill.

[Lucenda L]

Lucenda L.
1.2

I believe that all humans have the capacity to be violent.
However, it doesn’t mean
that all human beings will commit overt violent acts. It is wrong to
believe that human genetics, and that all of humans interactions and
life experiences will lead humans to violent conflict and render peace
as being impractical. In Worse Than War Goldhagen discusses a key
ingredient that brings about mistrust, hatred, fear, then violence,
and that is preaching hate. It is a very important part of
transformation and recruitment. The perpetrators always preach about
the “enemy”, and the preconceived threats the enemy symbolizes. If
anything misfortunate happens, that could just be circumstances, it is
a great opportunity to seize upon and inflame more distrust against
the “enemy”. The enemy could be real or contrived in order to build
the distrust and hysteria needed to inflame the masses. The
perpetrators prey on the young to transform into soldiers dying for
the glory of the cause, or even greater glory dying for Allah, which
Goldhagen gave as an example. There is also the never-ending threat
of being labeled as being the enemy as well to keep those in line who
may have different views. In “Has Science Found A Way To End All
Wars?” by John Hogan, Frans de Waal a primatologist rejects the idea
that war stems from, “some sort of blind aggressive drive”. De Waal
further stated that primates and humans are very similar and would
abandon aggressive strategies that no longer serve their interests.
Biologist Robert Sapolsky witnessed normally aggressive baboons
grooming each other and less aggressive after an epidemic of
Tuberculosis killed the majority off the male baboon population. He
reported that conflict was reduced and that the phenomenon continued
as male adolescents joined the troop and adapted to their mores.
Goldhagen talks about the new threat, which he considers is Political
Islam, not to be confused with Islam. Goldhagen gives specific
examples of how Political Islam’s Agenda fits into the category of
Eliminationism. Political Islam rejects all non-Muslims and ties in
the Quran with all of its actions. It is a real threat. Although
there is much infighting the goal is essentially take back land they
believe is theirs and kill all infidels, specifically the West. The
Political Islam followers believe dying is glorifying Allah.
Human beings most certainly retain free will and responsibility
for their actions. However, in the case of extreme conditions or
circumstances it would be based on how far the person became
involved. I believe that your own deep morality will at some point
prevent you from crossing your own belief system. The best example
would be the fallen jet on 9/11 that the passengers took back which
averted the jet hitting the capital or other would be target. The
passengers knew they would be killed and took back the plane anyway
forcing it down in the ocean. Their actions were based on deep
conviction and moral values. There are documented cases of Stockholm
syndrome that could be loosely considered in this realm. I can see a
population being transformed into believers after a few random acts of
what they would consider kindness, i.e. water, food, etc. I am torn
and actually believe that unless you have some sort of extreme
coercion present, then you must be held accountable for your actions.
Golhagen believed that people should be held accountable for their
heinous actions. “In Worse Than War”, Goldberg stated that he that in
most cases the killing would take place in remote places without the
leaders being present, so it was the decision of the individual to
kill men, women, and children. Goldhagen further stated that it would
take someone very calculating and cold to look into a child’s eyes and
kill them.
I agree with Goldhagen that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski
should be evaluated without the patriotism. It deserves the same
scrutiny that other genocides and eliminationism events have
undergone. It was morally wrong. Why travel thousands of miles to
target civilians? There were many deaths months after and
deformations to offspring because of the radiation fallout. This was
not a shining part of our history. Many Americans were appalled
however they turned a blind eye so as not to be considered
unpatriotic, or communist. The fact that we as a leading civilized
country would target innocent women and children thousands of miles
away from any fighting is as bad as the Nazi campaign against the
Jews. No other country has used Nuclear Weapons ever since. We as a
world power have gone to great lengths to keep other countries from
developing nuclear weapons. I understand the caution with Political
Islam, however, I believe all countries should make their own choice.
Everyone knows that if a country fires nuclear missiles it is the end
for all. Every country with the technology has automatic missiles
that would be fired in retaliation. It would really be the end of
civilization. I don’t believe any country wants that.

Works Cited:
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009
Goldhagen, D., Gergen, D. U.S News and World Report; Essays and
Dialogues
Hiroshima, 50 years later [editorial]. 1995, August 5. New York
Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.ht...