Discussion on notes-on-preparing-e1-2
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark M
Sep 22, 2010, 1:31:42 AM9/22/10
to English 101, online section #3226
To Consider: Goldhagen’s family background:
• Father is a holocaust survivor
• Has a personal interest
All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki:
a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
War, Goldhagen, 2009
b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128 military
deaths from 1937–1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Japan
c. China government claims over 20 million men, women, and children
alone, lost their lives in the Sino-Japanese War from 1939-1945. With
nearly 4 million deaths due to Japanese war crimes. (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)
d. New Zealand: 12,000
e. Australia: 39,000
f. United States: 100,000
Goldhagen purposely fails to include the millions killed by the
Japanese during WW II. Failing to recognize that President Truman’s
utilization of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a
legitimate course of action to end the brutal and ruthless killing by
the Japanese, not just against American service members, but against
Allied Forces as-well, is irresponsible as a scholar and “professional
intellectual.”
The fact that China lost between 10 and 20 million of her citizens and
Japan lost approximately 2.5 million of her citizens seems to be lost
on the author and many other critics. I also find myself wondering
what specifically those that are or were opposed to the dropping of
the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are actually opposed to.
Eisenhower was opposed to the timing of the dropping of the bomb,
however, not the use of the atomic bomb as a weapon. The same could
be said for former Secretary of War Stimson; in the New York Times
article dated August 6, 1995 and titled “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later,”
the author claims Stimson viewed the atomic bomb as a legitimate
weapon in the post-World War II-U.S. v. USSR saga. Goldhagen quotes
Truman’s Chief of Staff-Admiral Leahy, “My own feeling was that in
being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common
to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in
that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and
children.” I find it ironic that a Navy admiral, whose career is
based on the employment of the type of weapons that are almost as
indiscriminate in the havoc they wreak as the atomic bomb, would state
that wars could not be won by destroying women and children. Does
Admiral Leahy think a 2000 lb. shell is exacting in whom it kills?
Comment Against: On page two of the Asahi Shimbun article, “65 years
after Hiroshima,” Takahashi states that he wants Obama to visit
Hiroshima to see the effects of the devastation that a nuclear bomb
can cause and that such a gesture would be a step forward toward non-
proliferation. The author of the article states the feeling must be
shared by the 220,000 hibakusha (survivors) across Japan whose average
age is 76. The author, like Goldhagen, fail to mention the number of
lives taken by the Japanese. What would the survivors of Pearl
Harbor, military or civilian, say of what the Japanese did by
attacking the U.S.? And what of the 10-20 million Chinese killed by
the Japanese during World War II. Losers like to portray themselves
as victims in an effort to gain sympathy and ease the agony of
defeat. I can understand where a Japanese survivor would feel like
the victim, but I cannot understand why Goldhagen would portray Japan
as the hapless victim.
II. Psychological Argument: REQUIRES FURTHER ELABORATION
• Freud’s theory that people are inherently bad: Author asks questions
of how one person in a given situation can commit various atrocities
while another person in a similar situation does not; an argument can
be made that people are inherently bad and as they grow and mature
they channel the negative energies or thoughts into a constructive
nature. This theory is essentially what Freud was talking about with
the ‘Id’. An example would be an adolescent child has subconscious
desires of wanting to be around and touch children in a manner that
society deems inappropriate. As he or she grows and matures those
subconscious thoughts are channeled in a constructive way that the
child grows up and becomes a doctor-specifically a pediatrician. The
Id is balanced by the Ego. Another example more in-line with the
author’s theme of killing; a child’s subconscious craves violence. As
he matures, the subconscious knows that killing for killings sake is
illegal and the feelings are repressed in the subconscious. However
as he comes of age he enters the military as an infantryman. The
sole job of the infantry is to seek out and kill the “enemy.” The
subconscious, guided by the Ego, is seeking satisfaction in a way
deemed appropriate, even honorable, in society. However, what if the
Id, in combination with external influences dominates the psyche of
the person from childhood to adulthood? If a child grows up with
little or no guidance, no sense of right or wrong (which could be
argued is subjective), and in an environment of kill or be killed,
survival of the fittest, and they’re the enemy?
• The author asks a good question towards the end of chapter one,
“What makes people commit these atrocities?” Psychologists the world
over have developed theories of human nature. Renowned psychologist
and scholar, Alfred Adler, best known for his theory on the
‘superiority/ inferiority complexes,’ wrote a book titled, “
Understanding Human Nature.” FURTHER ELABORATION REQUIRED
• These theories do not lend justification as to why people commit
mass murder, genocide, or manslaughter on a grand scale, but they
cannot be discarded or discounted either.
III. Opinion
• Establishment of a new international body? Dissolve the UN and
replace one entity with another:
• Change the name, but the players are the same. What change can be
expected when the various nations have a competing interest?
• Specifically, what nations would comprise this body? In China,
Amnesty International reports, “500,000 people are currently enduring
punitive detention without charge or trial.” Would the Chinese be
extended a membership invite and would they be subject to, or held to
the binding resolutions declared by this international body/ committee
and/ or allow for international military intervention?
• Iran’s opinion that Israel should be, “wiped off the map,” or “ the
regime in Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time.” Should
this be considered a threat where immediate military intervention,
sanctions, or binding resolutions are required?
• Hindsight 20/20/ Monday Morning Quarterback Truman’s decision
• TO BE CONTINUED
• Father is a holocaust survivor
• Has a personal interest
All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki:
a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
War, Goldhagen, 2009
b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128 military
deaths from 1937–1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Japan
c. China government claims over 20 million men, women, and children
alone, lost their lives in the Sino-Japanese War from 1939-1945. With
nearly 4 million deaths due to Japanese war crimes. (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)
d. New Zealand: 12,000
e. Australia: 39,000
f. United States: 100,000
Goldhagen purposely fails to include the millions killed by the
Japanese during WW II. Failing to recognize that President Truman’s
utilization of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a
legitimate course of action to end the brutal and ruthless killing by
the Japanese, not just against American service members, but against
Allied Forces as-well, is irresponsible as a scholar and “professional
intellectual.”
The fact that China lost between 10 and 20 million of her citizens and
Japan lost approximately 2.5 million of her citizens seems to be lost
on the author and many other critics. I also find myself wondering
what specifically those that are or were opposed to the dropping of
the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are actually opposed to.
Eisenhower was opposed to the timing of the dropping of the bomb,
however, not the use of the atomic bomb as a weapon. The same could
be said for former Secretary of War Stimson; in the New York Times
article dated August 6, 1995 and titled “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later,”
the author claims Stimson viewed the atomic bomb as a legitimate
weapon in the post-World War II-U.S. v. USSR saga. Goldhagen quotes
Truman’s Chief of Staff-Admiral Leahy, “My own feeling was that in
being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common
to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in
that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and
children.” I find it ironic that a Navy admiral, whose career is
based on the employment of the type of weapons that are almost as
indiscriminate in the havoc they wreak as the atomic bomb, would state
that wars could not be won by destroying women and children. Does
Admiral Leahy think a 2000 lb. shell is exacting in whom it kills?
Comment Against: On page two of the Asahi Shimbun article, “65 years
after Hiroshima,” Takahashi states that he wants Obama to visit
Hiroshima to see the effects of the devastation that a nuclear bomb
can cause and that such a gesture would be a step forward toward non-
proliferation. The author of the article states the feeling must be
shared by the 220,000 hibakusha (survivors) across Japan whose average
age is 76. The author, like Goldhagen, fail to mention the number of
lives taken by the Japanese. What would the survivors of Pearl
Harbor, military or civilian, say of what the Japanese did by
attacking the U.S.? And what of the 10-20 million Chinese killed by
the Japanese during World War II. Losers like to portray themselves
as victims in an effort to gain sympathy and ease the agony of
defeat. I can understand where a Japanese survivor would feel like
the victim, but I cannot understand why Goldhagen would portray Japan
as the hapless victim.
II. Psychological Argument: REQUIRES FURTHER ELABORATION
• Freud’s theory that people are inherently bad: Author asks questions
of how one person in a given situation can commit various atrocities
while another person in a similar situation does not; an argument can
be made that people are inherently bad and as they grow and mature
they channel the negative energies or thoughts into a constructive
nature. This theory is essentially what Freud was talking about with
the ‘Id’. An example would be an adolescent child has subconscious
desires of wanting to be around and touch children in a manner that
society deems inappropriate. As he or she grows and matures those
subconscious thoughts are channeled in a constructive way that the
child grows up and becomes a doctor-specifically a pediatrician. The
Id is balanced by the Ego. Another example more in-line with the
author’s theme of killing; a child’s subconscious craves violence. As
he matures, the subconscious knows that killing for killings sake is
illegal and the feelings are repressed in the subconscious. However
as he comes of age he enters the military as an infantryman. The
sole job of the infantry is to seek out and kill the “enemy.” The
subconscious, guided by the Ego, is seeking satisfaction in a way
deemed appropriate, even honorable, in society. However, what if the
Id, in combination with external influences dominates the psyche of
the person from childhood to adulthood? If a child grows up with
little or no guidance, no sense of right or wrong (which could be
argued is subjective), and in an environment of kill or be killed,
survival of the fittest, and they’re the enemy?
• The author asks a good question towards the end of chapter one,
“What makes people commit these atrocities?” Psychologists the world
over have developed theories of human nature. Renowned psychologist
and scholar, Alfred Adler, best known for his theory on the
‘superiority/ inferiority complexes,’ wrote a book titled, “
Understanding Human Nature.” FURTHER ELABORATION REQUIRED
• These theories do not lend justification as to why people commit
mass murder, genocide, or manslaughter on a grand scale, but they
cannot be discarded or discounted either.
III. Opinion
• Establishment of a new international body? Dissolve the UN and
replace one entity with another:
• Change the name, but the players are the same. What change can be
expected when the various nations have a competing interest?
• Specifically, what nations would comprise this body? In China,
Amnesty International reports, “500,000 people are currently enduring
punitive detention without charge or trial.” Would the Chinese be
extended a membership invite and would they be subject to, or held to
the binding resolutions declared by this international body/ committee
and/ or allow for international military intervention?
• Iran’s opinion that Israel should be, “wiped off the map,” or “ the
regime in Jerusalem should vanish from the pages of time.” Should
this be considered a threat where immediate military intervention,
sanctions, or binding resolutions are required?
• Hindsight 20/20/ Monday Morning Quarterback Truman’s decision
• TO BE CONTINUED
Antonio S
Sep 25, 2010, 2:21:10 AM9/25/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Antonio Sanchez
English 101
e.1.2
In the novel, “Worse than War” by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, the debate
of whether the U.S thirty-third president, Harry S. Truman, was right
in bombing two of Japan’s cities in order to end World War II, arises.
In the novel, Goldhagen disagrees with Truman’s choice to bomb the
cities and kill thousands of people, calling it mass murder. Many
readers disagreed with Goldhagen and decided to write about it. In the
Las Vegas Review-Journal, an editorial was published in 2005 called
“Editorial: Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary: Truman Made a Tough Call
but the Right One.” In this novel, the reader rightly defends Truman’s
actions and their reasons by stating that though the bombing was
necessary, it was the best thing to do to save lines in the long run.
Although Truman’s order to bomb both cities was not necessary, there
could have been other things done in order to prevent public scrutiny
for using an excessive amount of lethal power to make Japan surrender.
Goldhagen states in his novel that “Truman knew that each would kill
tens of thousands of Japanese civilians who had no direct bearing on
any military operation” and proceeded to bomb the cities anyway.
Goldhagen is wrong because the bombing was necessary in order to stop
the war since the Japanese were given many ultimatums to surrender and
did not. Goldhagen also believes that “perhaps his [Truman’s] belief
that if [the bombing] was just a way to hasten the wars end.”
Goldhagen is also wrong because although Truman did bomb the Japanese
to end the war as soon as possible, it was not a quick solution to
make excuses to kill thousands of Japanese. It was the only way to
potentially save lives in the long run. It made the Japanese
surrender, therefore ending the war, and thus preventing other lives
being lost. In his novel, Goldhagen then goes on to ask readers “What
if the Japanese had not surrendered a few days after Nagasaki’s
bombing, and Truman had proceeded to annihilate another Japanese
city?” In order for the war to stop, Truman knew that an atomic bomb
had to be dropped on Japanese cities. The editorial rightly states
that Truman could have chosen to instead continue “the ongoing
firebombs of Japanese cities with B-29’s …[and] millions more Japanese
would have died,” but he instead chose not to kill millions of lives
and bomb two cities to make Japanese leaders surrender.
As the editorial states, Truman could have decided to not bomb Japan,
but it would have resulted in a ongoing war. Bombing Japan seemed the
most reasonable thing to do. Maybe an alternate action should have
been done by Truman in order to stop and prevent public scrutiny of
bombing two Japanese cities and turning it into “mass murders” Truman
could have possibly bombed only one city and waited for a longer
period of time to give Japanese leaders a chance to surrender after
the first bombing. If they would have surrendered, the second bombing
would have not been necessary.
Works Cited
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009
Hiroshima bombing anniversary: Truman made a tough call—but the right
one [editorial]. 2005, August, 6. Las Vegas Review Journal.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/2794069.html
On Sep 21, 10:31 pm, Mark M <magan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To Consider: Goldhagen’s family background:
> • Father is a holocaust survivor
> • Has a personal interest
>
> All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
> Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
>
> I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
> Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki:
> a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
> women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
> War, Goldhagen, 2009
>
> b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128 military
> deaths from 1937–1945.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Japan
English 101
e.1.2
In the novel, “Worse than War” by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, the debate
of whether the U.S thirty-third president, Harry S. Truman, was right
in bombing two of Japan’s cities in order to end World War II, arises.
In the novel, Goldhagen disagrees with Truman’s choice to bomb the
cities and kill thousands of people, calling it mass murder. Many
readers disagreed with Goldhagen and decided to write about it. In the
Las Vegas Review-Journal, an editorial was published in 2005 called
“Editorial: Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary: Truman Made a Tough Call
but the Right One.” In this novel, the reader rightly defends Truman’s
actions and their reasons by stating that though the bombing was
necessary, it was the best thing to do to save lines in the long run.
Although Truman’s order to bomb both cities was not necessary, there
could have been other things done in order to prevent public scrutiny
for using an excessive amount of lethal power to make Japan surrender.
Goldhagen states in his novel that “Truman knew that each would kill
tens of thousands of Japanese civilians who had no direct bearing on
any military operation” and proceeded to bomb the cities anyway.
Goldhagen is wrong because the bombing was necessary in order to stop
the war since the Japanese were given many ultimatums to surrender and
did not. Goldhagen also believes that “perhaps his [Truman’s] belief
that if [the bombing] was just a way to hasten the wars end.”
Goldhagen is also wrong because although Truman did bomb the Japanese
to end the war as soon as possible, it was not a quick solution to
make excuses to kill thousands of Japanese. It was the only way to
potentially save lives in the long run. It made the Japanese
surrender, therefore ending the war, and thus preventing other lives
being lost. In his novel, Goldhagen then goes on to ask readers “What
if the Japanese had not surrendered a few days after Nagasaki’s
bombing, and Truman had proceeded to annihilate another Japanese
city?” In order for the war to stop, Truman knew that an atomic bomb
had to be dropped on Japanese cities. The editorial rightly states
that Truman could have chosen to instead continue “the ongoing
firebombs of Japanese cities with B-29’s …[and] millions more Japanese
would have died,” but he instead chose not to kill millions of lives
and bomb two cities to make Japanese leaders surrender.
As the editorial states, Truman could have decided to not bomb Japan,
but it would have resulted in a ongoing war. Bombing Japan seemed the
most reasonable thing to do. Maybe an alternate action should have
been done by Truman in order to stop and prevent public scrutiny of
bombing two Japanese cities and turning it into “mass murders” Truman
could have possibly bombed only one city and waited for a longer
period of time to give Japanese leaders a chance to surrender after
the first bombing. If they would have surrendered, the second bombing
would have not been necessary.
Works Cited
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009
Hiroshima bombing anniversary: Truman made a tough call—but the right
one [editorial]. 2005, August, 6. Las Vegas Review Journal.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/2794069.html
On Sep 21, 10:31 pm, Mark M <magan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To Consider: Goldhagen’s family background:
> • Father is a holocaust survivor
> • Has a personal interest
>
> All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
> Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
>
> I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
> Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki:
> a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
> women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
> War, Goldhagen, 2009
>
> b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128 military
oc
Sep 25, 2010, 9:28:03 AM9/25/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Narine Akopyan
Sep 24, 11:18 pm
I didn't find enouth specific ideas which I disagree in Goldhagen's
book and
in given articles and decided to use compositions of philosophers.
Akopyan Narine
English 101
Instructor: O'Connell
essay 1.2
The question "is human genial or evil from nature?" set many good
minds
to thinking. Goldhagen is not the only one, not the first person who
wished to find causes of murders and to enter inside brain to find out
what happens in human mind and heart. Their opinion sometimes were
absolutely opposite. Mencius considered that human is genial and
initially possesses virtues but if he refuses to maintain and develop
his qualities he loses bis nature, René Descartes thought that human
is genial but lack of goods spoils him, Jean-Jacques Rousseau agrees
with him, human is genial but community makes him bad. Some of
philosophers had another opinion. Chinese philosopher Suncius
considered that human nature is dark, David Hume, Baruch Spinoza and
Sigmund Freud hold that human is just a slave of his passions which
are generally destructive, Friderich Nietxsche thought that human is
just
evil animal. Immanuel Kant thinks that human is ambivalent, he is evil
but he also have disposition to do good. I also heard interesting
opinion than normal human is genial, evil
human is pathology.
Goldhagen itself state that people always make a choice based on
"their understanding of social world and their views of what is right
and wrong, good and evil". I, as usual,
think that the truth is in the middle and I cannot fully agree with
even one of them, and I am going to explain my opinion later.
I actually don't like any extreme opinion, world is diversified
and categorical judgments cannot explain it. If we start to observe
many cases of human evil we will find that there
are many reasons of such human behavior and they don't always connect
with good or bad nature of humankind. We also cannot find two similar
people. And finally sometimes it is not clear that to consider as a
good and what to consider as evil. Usually thinking about evil people
mean destructive behavior which spoils quality of life of any group of
people, and vice versa, the good is something that make life better
one way or another. And I am going to take up good and evil from this
position. I don't believe that human destructive from nature and only
education makes him follow the rules that are not dangerous for
society. In this case any single child wishes consciously to destroy
everything he or she see, and only teachers and parents could break of
these bad habits. But we all know that most children like to be nice
to please whom they trust. Good nature of people is also impossible.
Newborn child is clean. But it doesn't mean that child is genial Child
doesn't have a notion that type of behavior is good and
what type of behavior is bad, child is free from this. Adult human
behaves adequately and his
behavior depends on his inherited qualities and his reaction on
environment. Why I cannot agree with Goldhagen than he says that
"people make choices about how to act", because people don't always
make a choice, sometimes they just drives by emotions and instincts or
follow crowd.
My subjective opinion that people are not good or bad, they simply
adjust their ideas, striving,
instincts to the life and other people estimate their behavior calling
it as good or evil. As Harry
Truman who just make decision and a stroke of policy dropping two
bombs on Japanese Cities. It was a big cruelty but different people
have different opinion about it. Many of them said that it was
necessary, somebody thinks that they just make excuses. It seems to me
that for Goldhagen any aggressive behavior focused on damnification on
other people is a display of
evil. Actually in the context of nature aggressive behavior is normal
and useful. "In most
species, individuals occasionally come into conflict over access to
resources important for their
survival and reproduction." (Watson and Decarvalho). It is nor
surprise that humans
(like their ancestors - primates) as a species are aggressive and even
more aggressive and cunning than other animals.
Maybe this fact is one of many reasons of our success in this
inhospitable world. More stronger
people (men and women) pushed out weaker people (and wild animals)
from wished territory, had more power, got more food and more secure
conditions for offspring and so on. And now humankind must change
behavior half-way in very short time. Habits that were good several
hundreds years ago now are beyond the low! How extraordinary
qualities human have to have
to overcome his nature, his instincts and stay genial and keep his
dignity in any
circumstances? People call them saints.
-Daniel Jonah Goldhagen "Worse than war. Genocide, eliminationism. and
the
ongoing assault on humanity (chapter 1)
- Hiroshima bombing anniversary
Truman made a tough call -- but the right one
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06Sat-2005/opinion/27...
-Sigmund Freud "The Ego and the Id"
-Alyn R. Brereton "Aggresive behavior. Maninances Famale chunk or male
hired
guns"
-Paul Watson and Tagile Decavvalho "Aggressive behavior. Ritualized
fighting"
-Mengzi (chinese philosophy)
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau "Discassions about Inequality"
-C. W. CHAN "Good and Evil in Chinese Philosophy"
http://www.thephilosopher.co.uk/good&evil.htm
-David Hume "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"
-Henry "Alphern, An Outline History of Philosophy" Benedict de Spinoza
and
"Pantheistic Monism."
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Spinoza.htm
-Richard Hooker "Nietzsche: Genealogy of Morals"
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MODERN/GENEAL.HTM
-"Kant s Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory
of
Ethics"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil
PS. Please. If it is possible I would like full estimation of my both
essays, because I need feedback to adjust my next works. Thank you!
Narine Akopyan english 101 section #3226 (0n-line class)
Sep 24, 11:18 pm
I didn't find enouth specific ideas which I disagree in Goldhagen's
book and
in given articles and decided to use compositions of philosophers.
Akopyan Narine
English 101
Instructor: O'Connell
essay 1.2
The question "is human genial or evil from nature?" set many good
minds
to thinking. Goldhagen is not the only one, not the first person who
wished to find causes of murders and to enter inside brain to find out
what happens in human mind and heart. Their opinion sometimes were
absolutely opposite. Mencius considered that human is genial and
initially possesses virtues but if he refuses to maintain and develop
his qualities he loses bis nature, René Descartes thought that human
is genial but lack of goods spoils him, Jean-Jacques Rousseau agrees
with him, human is genial but community makes him bad. Some of
philosophers had another opinion. Chinese philosopher Suncius
considered that human nature is dark, David Hume, Baruch Spinoza and
Sigmund Freud hold that human is just a slave of his passions which
are generally destructive, Friderich Nietxsche thought that human is
just
evil animal. Immanuel Kant thinks that human is ambivalent, he is evil
but he also have disposition to do good. I also heard interesting
opinion than normal human is genial, evil
human is pathology.
Goldhagen itself state that people always make a choice based on
"their understanding of social world and their views of what is right
and wrong, good and evil". I, as usual,
think that the truth is in the middle and I cannot fully agree with
even one of them, and I am going to explain my opinion later.
I actually don't like any extreme opinion, world is diversified
and categorical judgments cannot explain it. If we start to observe
many cases of human evil we will find that there
are many reasons of such human behavior and they don't always connect
with good or bad nature of humankind. We also cannot find two similar
people. And finally sometimes it is not clear that to consider as a
good and what to consider as evil. Usually thinking about evil people
mean destructive behavior which spoils quality of life of any group of
people, and vice versa, the good is something that make life better
one way or another. And I am going to take up good and evil from this
position. I don't believe that human destructive from nature and only
education makes him follow the rules that are not dangerous for
society. In this case any single child wishes consciously to destroy
everything he or she see, and only teachers and parents could break of
these bad habits. But we all know that most children like to be nice
to please whom they trust. Good nature of people is also impossible.
Newborn child is clean. But it doesn't mean that child is genial Child
doesn't have a notion that type of behavior is good and
what type of behavior is bad, child is free from this. Adult human
behaves adequately and his
behavior depends on his inherited qualities and his reaction on
environment. Why I cannot agree with Goldhagen than he says that
"people make choices about how to act", because people don't always
make a choice, sometimes they just drives by emotions and instincts or
follow crowd.
My subjective opinion that people are not good or bad, they simply
adjust their ideas, striving,
instincts to the life and other people estimate their behavior calling
it as good or evil. As Harry
Truman who just make decision and a stroke of policy dropping two
bombs on Japanese Cities. It was a big cruelty but different people
have different opinion about it. Many of them said that it was
necessary, somebody thinks that they just make excuses. It seems to me
that for Goldhagen any aggressive behavior focused on damnification on
other people is a display of
evil. Actually in the context of nature aggressive behavior is normal
and useful. "In most
species, individuals occasionally come into conflict over access to
resources important for their
survival and reproduction." (Watson and Decarvalho). It is nor
surprise that humans
(like their ancestors - primates) as a species are aggressive and even
more aggressive and cunning than other animals.
Maybe this fact is one of many reasons of our success in this
inhospitable world. More stronger
people (men and women) pushed out weaker people (and wild animals)
from wished territory, had more power, got more food and more secure
conditions for offspring and so on. And now humankind must change
behavior half-way in very short time. Habits that were good several
hundreds years ago now are beyond the low! How extraordinary
qualities human have to have
to overcome his nature, his instincts and stay genial and keep his
dignity in any
circumstances? People call them saints.
-Daniel Jonah Goldhagen "Worse than war. Genocide, eliminationism. and
the
ongoing assault on humanity (chapter 1)
- Hiroshima bombing anniversary
Truman made a tough call -- but the right one
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06Sat-2005/opinion/27...
-Sigmund Freud "The Ego and the Id"
-Alyn R. Brereton "Aggresive behavior. Maninances Famale chunk or male
hired
guns"
-Paul Watson and Tagile Decavvalho "Aggressive behavior. Ritualized
fighting"
-Mengzi (chinese philosophy)
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau "Discassions about Inequality"
-C. W. CHAN "Good and Evil in Chinese Philosophy"
http://www.thephilosopher.co.uk/good&evil.htm
-David Hume "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"
-Henry "Alphern, An Outline History of Philosophy" Benedict de Spinoza
and
"Pantheistic Monism."
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Spinoza.htm
-Richard Hooker "Nietzsche: Genealogy of Morals"
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MODERN/GENEAL.HTM
-"Kant s Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory
of
Ethics"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil
PS. Please. If it is possible I would like full estimation of my both
essays, because I need feedback to adjust my next works. Thank you!
Narine Akopyan english 101 section #3226 (0n-line class)
Linda H
Sep 25, 2010, 7:10:13 PM9/25/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Justifying History Doesn’t Make It Right: A Refutation of “Truman Made
a Tough Call”
“Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary: Truman made a tough call—but the
right one,” editorial from the Las Vegas Review Journal is justifying
atomic warfare. Its anonymity could be a patriot, now-civilian
expressing allegiance about the tragic historical circumstance. The
rationale that the atomic bombs saved lives cannot be known and
remains conjecture. By stating that the Japanese had not surrendered
legitimizes the escalation from firebombing to atomic weapons. Cost-
benefit analysis of human life accepts minimal collateral damage. But
a higher casualty estimate can consider jerrybuilt or expensive
proposals. In the process it has advanced the technology of warfare,
making defense an industry for investment and slaughter. Goldhagen’s
five principles of eliminationism do not indict Truman guilty.
Imperialism, the plague-like colonizer is what needs to be eliminated.
Goldhagen and the survivors of the Holocaust and atomic warfare are
reminders that wrong choices have occurred and conflict resolution was
under utilized. By acting out of fear, the full capabilities of human
intellect and will are decommissioned by clumsy primal reactions.
Humans have the capacity of conflict resolution by shifting from
defensive postures and leaving cynicism behind.
“Millions more Japanese would have died,” “deaths of hundreds of
thousands more,” “Our casualties would have been higher,” “despite
losing many more lives” and “millions more Americans and Japanese”
focuses on body count alone as the main reason for the world’s first
deployment of atomic weapons. The repetition of one justification is
insistent and almost obliterates further inquiry. The firebombing of
67 Japanese cities over three years produced an estimated 500,000
deaths, with 240,000 additional deaths after both atomics had dropped.
2,700,000 Japanese and 418,500 American deaths totaled when it was
over. The proposed Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu
originally had casualty projections from General MacArthur of 13,742
American deaths was never relayed to his Commander-in-chief by Henry
Stimson, Secretary of War. At Truman’s request, former President
Hoover provided a memo circulated by Stimson, stating that the
invasion of Japan would cost 500,000 to one million American lives.
The estimates based on unofficial and dubious intelligence briefings
between Hoover and Pentagon officers under Major General Clayton
Bissell. In April 1945, Allen Dulles and the Office of Strategic
Services were in Switzerland with Japanese military officials using
secret channels to secure peace for Japan. The Under Secretary of the
Navy, Ralph Bard believed, “That the Japanese were ready for peace. In
my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the
atom bomb.” General Douglas MacArthur was aware that, “The war might
have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it later
did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”
Truman’s opposition to advice from Eisenhower, Einstein, Leahy and
others, indicates something other than “the way to end the war”
justification. Stimson is regarded as the prime influence upon
Truman’s “tough call” as a display of power to Stalin and other
nations. Inflating the casualty projections would justify the $2
million cost of the Manhattan Project. Little Boy and Fat Man begat
nuclear proliferation as others soon after secured their own
superpower status weapon. This may serve as an example of the threat
behaviors of learned aggression and mimicry. “Eliminationism is
initiated by one political leader or a small group of leaders,” from
Goldhagen’s Ending Our Age of Suffering is applicable as an example of
the enormous power of influence of a dogmatic few over civilization.
Human evolution is not over. The ancient battle cry that proclaims
killing in the name of god and country is vestigial tribalism. Harvard
biologist Edward O. Wilson believes that a step toward ending war is
to reject fatalism, in ourselves and in our political leaders and that
group aggression can be altered and even disappear. Primates observed
by Stanford neuroendocrinologist Robert Sapolsky, to study stress also
clarified the mechanisms of aggression. After an anomalous
tuberculosis event killed off aggro male members of a Kenyan baboon
troop, aggression and conflict ceased, allowing a more harmonious
legacy. Fight or flight threat assessments are instant choices of the
ancient limbic system of the brain. Self-preservation is primary.
Empathy and judgment involve secondary complex cortical activity. Fear
and stress induced defensiveness need to diminish their dominance over
the social constructs of nation/states. World wars offer a poor
history of conflict resolution. Solution without slaughter can become
a primary objective. “65 Years after Hiroshima,” the editorial from
the Asahi Shimbun suggests progress, idealism and patient optimism
towards a world without nuclear weapons. As much history should not be
repeated, any steps to reduce eliminationism offer humans a worthy
evolutionary goal. In 1954, Einstein told Linus Pauling, “I made one
great mistake in my life when I signed the letter to President
Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made.” Even Robert McNamara,
former Secretary of Defense for President Kennedy and Johnson in the
documentary, The Fog of War said, “Belief and seeing, they’re both
often wrong.” Imperialist exploitation has been the modus operandi.
Behavior modification occurs by replacing repetitive noxious habits
with preferred action. The human brain holds an enormous capacity for
memory and learns from mistakes is analogous to “those that don’t know
their history are doomed to repeat their past.”
References
Blight, James G. and Lang, Janet M. (2005). The Fog of War: Lessons
from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. (p. 87). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Clark, Ronald W. (1971). Einstein: The Life and Times. (p. 752). New
York, NY: Avon Books.
Cousins, Norman. (1987). The Pathology of Power. (p. 44). New York,
NY: W.W. Norton.
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. (2009). Ending Our Age of Suffering. The New
Republic. October 10. Retrieved from: http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. (2009). Worse than War: Eliminationism, and
the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. (pp. 3–8, 14). New York, NY:
PublicAffairs.
Giovannitti, Len and Freed, Fred. (1965). The Decision to Drop the
Bomb. (pp. 144). London, UK: Methuen.
Horgan, John. (2008). Has Science Found a Way to End All Wars?
Discover Magazine. April. Retrieved from:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/13-science-says-war-is-over-now
Sapolsky, Robert M. Forward. (2007). Beyond War: The Human Potential
for Peace. By Douglas P. Fry. (pp. x–xii). New York, NY; Oxford
University Press.
Sapolsky, Robert M. (1997). The Trouble with Testosterone: and
OtherEessays on the Biology of the Human Predicament. (pp. 27–28). New
York, NY: Touchstone.
Skates, John Ray. (1994). The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the
Bomb. (p. 77). Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina
Press.
Stimson, Henry L. (1947). On Active Services in Peace and War. (p.
672). New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
a Tough Call”
“Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary: Truman made a tough call—but the
right one,” editorial from the Las Vegas Review Journal is justifying
atomic warfare. Its anonymity could be a patriot, now-civilian
expressing allegiance about the tragic historical circumstance. The
rationale that the atomic bombs saved lives cannot be known and
remains conjecture. By stating that the Japanese had not surrendered
legitimizes the escalation from firebombing to atomic weapons. Cost-
benefit analysis of human life accepts minimal collateral damage. But
a higher casualty estimate can consider jerrybuilt or expensive
proposals. In the process it has advanced the technology of warfare,
making defense an industry for investment and slaughter. Goldhagen’s
five principles of eliminationism do not indict Truman guilty.
Imperialism, the plague-like colonizer is what needs to be eliminated.
Goldhagen and the survivors of the Holocaust and atomic warfare are
reminders that wrong choices have occurred and conflict resolution was
under utilized. By acting out of fear, the full capabilities of human
intellect and will are decommissioned by clumsy primal reactions.
Humans have the capacity of conflict resolution by shifting from
defensive postures and leaving cynicism behind.
“Millions more Japanese would have died,” “deaths of hundreds of
thousands more,” “Our casualties would have been higher,” “despite
losing many more lives” and “millions more Americans and Japanese”
focuses on body count alone as the main reason for the world’s first
deployment of atomic weapons. The repetition of one justification is
insistent and almost obliterates further inquiry. The firebombing of
67 Japanese cities over three years produced an estimated 500,000
deaths, with 240,000 additional deaths after both atomics had dropped.
2,700,000 Japanese and 418,500 American deaths totaled when it was
over. The proposed Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu
originally had casualty projections from General MacArthur of 13,742
American deaths was never relayed to his Commander-in-chief by Henry
Stimson, Secretary of War. At Truman’s request, former President
Hoover provided a memo circulated by Stimson, stating that the
invasion of Japan would cost 500,000 to one million American lives.
The estimates based on unofficial and dubious intelligence briefings
between Hoover and Pentagon officers under Major General Clayton
Bissell. In April 1945, Allen Dulles and the Office of Strategic
Services were in Switzerland with Japanese military officials using
secret channels to secure peace for Japan. The Under Secretary of the
Navy, Ralph Bard believed, “That the Japanese were ready for peace. In
my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the
atom bomb.” General Douglas MacArthur was aware that, “The war might
have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it later
did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”
Truman’s opposition to advice from Eisenhower, Einstein, Leahy and
others, indicates something other than “the way to end the war”
justification. Stimson is regarded as the prime influence upon
Truman’s “tough call” as a display of power to Stalin and other
nations. Inflating the casualty projections would justify the $2
million cost of the Manhattan Project. Little Boy and Fat Man begat
nuclear proliferation as others soon after secured their own
superpower status weapon. This may serve as an example of the threat
behaviors of learned aggression and mimicry. “Eliminationism is
initiated by one political leader or a small group of leaders,” from
Goldhagen’s Ending Our Age of Suffering is applicable as an example of
the enormous power of influence of a dogmatic few over civilization.
Human evolution is not over. The ancient battle cry that proclaims
killing in the name of god and country is vestigial tribalism. Harvard
biologist Edward O. Wilson believes that a step toward ending war is
to reject fatalism, in ourselves and in our political leaders and that
group aggression can be altered and even disappear. Primates observed
by Stanford neuroendocrinologist Robert Sapolsky, to study stress also
clarified the mechanisms of aggression. After an anomalous
tuberculosis event killed off aggro male members of a Kenyan baboon
troop, aggression and conflict ceased, allowing a more harmonious
legacy. Fight or flight threat assessments are instant choices of the
ancient limbic system of the brain. Self-preservation is primary.
Empathy and judgment involve secondary complex cortical activity. Fear
and stress induced defensiveness need to diminish their dominance over
the social constructs of nation/states. World wars offer a poor
history of conflict resolution. Solution without slaughter can become
a primary objective. “65 Years after Hiroshima,” the editorial from
the Asahi Shimbun suggests progress, idealism and patient optimism
towards a world without nuclear weapons. As much history should not be
repeated, any steps to reduce eliminationism offer humans a worthy
evolutionary goal. In 1954, Einstein told Linus Pauling, “I made one
great mistake in my life when I signed the letter to President
Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made.” Even Robert McNamara,
former Secretary of Defense for President Kennedy and Johnson in the
documentary, The Fog of War said, “Belief and seeing, they’re both
often wrong.” Imperialist exploitation has been the modus operandi.
Behavior modification occurs by replacing repetitive noxious habits
with preferred action. The human brain holds an enormous capacity for
memory and learns from mistakes is analogous to “those that don’t know
their history are doomed to repeat their past.”
References
Blight, James G. and Lang, Janet M. (2005). The Fog of War: Lessons
from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. (p. 87). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Clark, Ronald W. (1971). Einstein: The Life and Times. (p. 752). New
York, NY: Avon Books.
Cousins, Norman. (1987). The Pathology of Power. (p. 44). New York,
NY: W.W. Norton.
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. (2009). Ending Our Age of Suffering. The New
Republic. October 10. Retrieved from: http://www.tnr.com/print/article/world/ending-our-age-suffering
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. (2009). Worse than War: Eliminationism, and
the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. (pp. 3–8, 14). New York, NY:
PublicAffairs.
Giovannitti, Len and Freed, Fred. (1965). The Decision to Drop the
Bomb. (pp. 144). London, UK: Methuen.
Horgan, John. (2008). Has Science Found a Way to End All Wars?
Discover Magazine. April. Retrieved from:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/13-science-says-war-is-over-now
Sapolsky, Robert M. Forward. (2007). Beyond War: The Human Potential
for Peace. By Douglas P. Fry. (pp. x–xii). New York, NY; Oxford
University Press.
Sapolsky, Robert M. (1997). The Trouble with Testosterone: and
OtherEessays on the Biology of the Human Predicament. (pp. 27–28). New
York, NY: Touchstone.
Skates, John Ray. (1994). The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the
Bomb. (p. 77). Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina
Press.
Stimson, Henry L. (1947). On Active Services in Peace and War. (p.
672). New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
Sylvia C
Sep 25, 2010, 8:23:00 PM9/25/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Sylvia Carvajal
English 101
Section #3226
9-25-10
Essay 1.2
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s, “Worse than War,” labels our President Harry
Truman as a mass murderer. Truman was the man responsible for the
atomic and nuclear bombs dropped in Japan. Many Americans justified
Truman’s actions, while his own followers were objective to the use of
such harsh mass slaughter. The pressure of retaliation was heavy on
the shoulder of an American President. Many innocent Japanese lost
their lives even though they were on the border of surrender, mass
slaughter was the intention and the target was Japan. Truman’s choice
in bombing Hiroshima has been a battling controversy till this day.
Various opinions are taken into consideration.
In the editorial: Hiroshima, 50 years later ; it states “ One can
imagine the clamor for his political skin if tens of thousands of
allied soldiers had died in battle or in Japanese camps, because the
bomb was never used or used too late.” This is wrong because Truman
was advised by his military and navy admiral that the Japanese were
defeated and ready to surrender. Why use the bombs at this point? In
the same editorial, it is claiming that “Veteran groups strive to
sensor an exhibit about Hiroshima. Their intolerant zeal finds its
match at the opposite political pole. It turns history upside down to
imply that Hiroshima is America’s Auschwitz, that Harry Truman was
somehow a war criminal.” This statement is wrong because the
editorial tries to make the veterans look bad. Hiroshima is similar
to the death camp Auschwitz and Truman is a war criminal. Most
Americans would not look at it like that. “Most Americans rejoiced on
learning that a miraculous weapon had been used against a fierce and
fanatic enemy, it meant a swifter victory and the likely scrapping of
a planned invasion of Japan with its incalculable loss of lives.”
This is wrong because the nation does not understand the risk that we
are put under to other countries and what kind of a leader would put
his fellow Americans under these circumstances. We recognize this as
a victory, but in actuality it is a mass slaughter to mankind. The
United States denies or ignores the fact that we dropped radiation to
innocent women and children. William Leahy put it plain and simple,
taught to make wars in that fashion and wars cannot be won by
destroying women and children”—because that is not war, but mass
murder.” (pg. 6)
Regardless of winning the war, Truman is still the mass murderer. His
first reaction was to kill instead of give time for Japan to
surrender. We must keep in mind that the first bomb was dropped on
the 6th and the second on the 9th. Japan was on the verge of
surrender. The dog eat dog was portrayed well by Truman and should be
earned the label of a mass murderer. Although we are grateful for our
freedom, there could’ve been other alternatives instead of bombing and
killing so many innocent lives. Bombing was not the right choice.
Works cited:
August 6, 1995, The New York Times, Retrieved
fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.html?pagewanted=1
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Ongoing Assault Genocide,
Eliminationism, and the
English 101
Section #3226
9-25-10
Essay 1.2
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s, “Worse than War,” labels our President Harry
Truman as a mass murderer. Truman was the man responsible for the
atomic and nuclear bombs dropped in Japan. Many Americans justified
Truman’s actions, while his own followers were objective to the use of
such harsh mass slaughter. The pressure of retaliation was heavy on
the shoulder of an American President. Many innocent Japanese lost
their lives even though they were on the border of surrender, mass
slaughter was the intention and the target was Japan. Truman’s choice
in bombing Hiroshima has been a battling controversy till this day.
Various opinions are taken into consideration.
In the editorial: Hiroshima, 50 years later ; it states “ One can
imagine the clamor for his political skin if tens of thousands of
allied soldiers had died in battle or in Japanese camps, because the
bomb was never used or used too late.” This is wrong because Truman
was advised by his military and navy admiral that the Japanese were
defeated and ready to surrender. Why use the bombs at this point? In
the same editorial, it is claiming that “Veteran groups strive to
sensor an exhibit about Hiroshima. Their intolerant zeal finds its
match at the opposite political pole. It turns history upside down to
imply that Hiroshima is America’s Auschwitz, that Harry Truman was
somehow a war criminal.” This statement is wrong because the
editorial tries to make the veterans look bad. Hiroshima is similar
to the death camp Auschwitz and Truman is a war criminal. Most
Americans would not look at it like that. “Most Americans rejoiced on
learning that a miraculous weapon had been used against a fierce and
fanatic enemy, it meant a swifter victory and the likely scrapping of
a planned invasion of Japan with its incalculable loss of lives.”
This is wrong because the nation does not understand the risk that we
are put under to other countries and what kind of a leader would put
his fellow Americans under these circumstances. We recognize this as
a victory, but in actuality it is a mass slaughter to mankind. The
United States denies or ignores the fact that we dropped radiation to
innocent women and children. William Leahy put it plain and simple,
“My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted
an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not
taught to make wars in that fashion and wars cannot be won by
destroying women and children”—because that is not war, but mass
murder.” (pg. 6)
Regardless of winning the war, Truman is still the mass murderer. His
first reaction was to kill instead of give time for Japan to
surrender. We must keep in mind that the first bomb was dropped on
the 6th and the second on the 9th. Japan was on the verge of
surrender. The dog eat dog was portrayed well by Truman and should be
earned the label of a mass murderer. Although we are grateful for our
freedom, there could’ve been other alternatives instead of bombing and
killing so many innocent lives. Bombing was not the right choice.
Works cited:
August 6, 1995, The New York Times, Retrieved
fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/06/opinion/hiroshima-50-years-later.html?pagewanted=1
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Ongoing Assault Genocide,
Eliminationism, and the
marie d
Sep 25, 2010, 9:13:27 PM9/25/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Essay 1.2
English 101
Section 3226
Marie Djeni
September, 25 2010
The atomic bomb was first and only used by the
Americans with President Truman during the final stage of World War II
over the two cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when Japan wouldn’t
want to abdicate. Most of the dead were civilians, causing more than
200.000 deaths and related diseases like tumor and cancer. Goldhagen
in his book “WORSE THAN WAR” argues how unnecessary it was, and how
Japan already loose and wanted to end the war without humiliation, and
even called President Truman a mass murderer since he is the one who
gave the order of the bombing that took away thousands of innocent
lives who had nothing to do with the war. Honestly, was the bombing
necessary? Most Americans respond negatively, but at the same time
they try to justified it. Like in this editorial to the anniversary of
the Hiroshima bombing where the writer respond quick and brief “no”
but go head saying that “President Harry Truman could have continued
the de facto submarine blockade of food …and the ongoing firebombing
of Japanese cities with B-29s, for months or years. Millions more
Japanese would have died” in simple it is trying to say that, the best
move to do was the bombing. If the president had used others measures
or ideas, there would have been many more deaths, and if he had not
chose the option, would this war ever come to an end?
We all know that the war was almost ending, Germany was losing in
Europe and Japan didn’t know how to abdicate. None of all those
tyrants and dictators killed circa 90.000 people in one day, not even
Hitler. So you kill innocent people to protect people lives? Really?
How is that works? Human being can be really goodhearted like mother
Teresa and can be the total opposite too. Being evil has nothing to do
with genetic; it is a learning process consciously or unconsciously
someone becomes bad. Since Hitler relatives are still alive and
Mussolini granddaughter too. Are they causing any killings? He goes
on, talking about the atomic bombing “It was not used out of
racism...” that’s another excuse that he is trying to figure out
himself because I don’t believe he knows what he is really saying.
This is about WORLD WAR II almost the entire world in war, divided
into 2 groups: the allies and the axis. The colonial countries fought
for their occupant. What does racism has to do with this? That was the
human race at war against him. Does this writer really know the
meaning of race? Does he know that human beings as a whole is one race
per se? Do we really have to justify everything? Even the things we
admit are mistakes? Why can’t we take responsibility and recognize our
wrong doing, in sight of trying to justify it or to defend ourselves,
in one of the worst killings ever happened in one day in human
history?
What differentiate us from animals are our
capabilities to think and analyze, yes our powerful brain. It
shouldn’t be an excuse if we make mistakes like this, in view of the
fact that we have the ability to think before we do anything under any
circumstances. Because of selfishness and power some people decide not
to apologize or recognize their mistake, like turkey which still
doesn’t want to recognize the Armenian genocide. The writer goes on
explaining about Truman: “because of his decision, millions more
Americans and Japanese -- including children and grandchildren of
soldier and civilians who would have died in the autumn war of 1945 --
are alive, and free.” Human beings will try by any mean even the
stupidest one to explain one of the biggest mistake ever happened. If
it was so right like he make it sound why atomic bombs are not used in
wars anymore? What about that? They would even be more people alive
if the war has not started. More Jewish would have definitely been
alive. I certainly agree with Goldhagen how wrong and evil was the
bombing and how Truman should be considering a monster like Hitler.
The use of atomic bomb over Nagasaki was a big mistake and we didn’t
really need it to win the war. Powerful leader always find an excuse
to their fault and sometimes don’t even get convicted. I believe
Truman would have save more lives if he didn’t bomb Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and undoubtedly saved himself less conscious guilt. We don’t
need fired armed and bombs, for murdering civilians, to make peace.
Work cited:
D. J. Goldhagen “WORSE THAN WAR”
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/2794069.html
English 101
Section 3226
Marie Djeni
September, 25 2010
The atomic bomb was first and only used by the
Americans with President Truman during the final stage of World War II
over the two cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when Japan wouldn’t
want to abdicate. Most of the dead were civilians, causing more than
200.000 deaths and related diseases like tumor and cancer. Goldhagen
in his book “WORSE THAN WAR” argues how unnecessary it was, and how
Japan already loose and wanted to end the war without humiliation, and
even called President Truman a mass murderer since he is the one who
gave the order of the bombing that took away thousands of innocent
lives who had nothing to do with the war. Honestly, was the bombing
necessary? Most Americans respond negatively, but at the same time
they try to justified it. Like in this editorial to the anniversary of
the Hiroshima bombing where the writer respond quick and brief “no”
but go head saying that “President Harry Truman could have continued
the de facto submarine blockade of food …and the ongoing firebombing
of Japanese cities with B-29s, for months or years. Millions more
Japanese would have died” in simple it is trying to say that, the best
move to do was the bombing. If the president had used others measures
or ideas, there would have been many more deaths, and if he had not
chose the option, would this war ever come to an end?
We all know that the war was almost ending, Germany was losing in
Europe and Japan didn’t know how to abdicate. None of all those
tyrants and dictators killed circa 90.000 people in one day, not even
Hitler. So you kill innocent people to protect people lives? Really?
How is that works? Human being can be really goodhearted like mother
Teresa and can be the total opposite too. Being evil has nothing to do
with genetic; it is a learning process consciously or unconsciously
someone becomes bad. Since Hitler relatives are still alive and
Mussolini granddaughter too. Are they causing any killings? He goes
on, talking about the atomic bombing “It was not used out of
racism...” that’s another excuse that he is trying to figure out
himself because I don’t believe he knows what he is really saying.
This is about WORLD WAR II almost the entire world in war, divided
into 2 groups: the allies and the axis. The colonial countries fought
for their occupant. What does racism has to do with this? That was the
human race at war against him. Does this writer really know the
meaning of race? Does he know that human beings as a whole is one race
per se? Do we really have to justify everything? Even the things we
admit are mistakes? Why can’t we take responsibility and recognize our
wrong doing, in sight of trying to justify it or to defend ourselves,
in one of the worst killings ever happened in one day in human
history?
What differentiate us from animals are our
capabilities to think and analyze, yes our powerful brain. It
shouldn’t be an excuse if we make mistakes like this, in view of the
fact that we have the ability to think before we do anything under any
circumstances. Because of selfishness and power some people decide not
to apologize or recognize their mistake, like turkey which still
doesn’t want to recognize the Armenian genocide. The writer goes on
explaining about Truman: “because of his decision, millions more
Americans and Japanese -- including children and grandchildren of
soldier and civilians who would have died in the autumn war of 1945 --
are alive, and free.” Human beings will try by any mean even the
stupidest one to explain one of the biggest mistake ever happened. If
it was so right like he make it sound why atomic bombs are not used in
wars anymore? What about that? They would even be more people alive
if the war has not started. More Jewish would have definitely been
alive. I certainly agree with Goldhagen how wrong and evil was the
bombing and how Truman should be considering a monster like Hitler.
The use of atomic bomb over Nagasaki was a big mistake and we didn’t
really need it to win the war. Powerful leader always find an excuse
to their fault and sometimes don’t even get convicted. I believe
Truman would have save more lives if he didn’t bomb Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and undoubtedly saved himself less conscious guilt. We don’t
need fired armed and bombs, for murdering civilians, to make peace.
Work cited:
D. J. Goldhagen “WORSE THAN WAR”
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/2794069.html
Dave B
Sep 25, 2010, 10:22:44 PM9/25/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Aaron David Bullock
English 101, Online Section #3226
Truman Was Wrong
Truman was wrong to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese. In doing
so he became a mass murderer. Despite arguments to the contrary
(“Hiroshima bombing anniversary,” 2005) Truman made a fallacious
decision when he chose to destroy not one, but two Japanese cities
with atomic weapons. He was wrong for several reasons: the Japanese
were on the verge of surrender; killing civilians, especially en
masse, is never right and a drawn out conflict is not comparable to
instantly killing the vast majority of two city’s inhabitants.
Instead of dropping A-bombs on civilian populated areas, Truman could
have detonated one over Tokyo’s harbor to demonstrate the power of the
device. Additionally, he could have accepted the Japanese surrender,
offered months before the bomb was dropped. Finally, he could have
avoided becoming a mass murderer, killing hundreds of thousands of
civilians in a flash of pure energy.
Stating that the Japanese had been given “repeated ultimatums,” yet
had failed to surrender ignores the historical fact that the Japanese
had been proposing peace for months. Truman dismissed these attempts,
instead desiring an unconditional surrender. Ironically, the accepted
terms of the surrender after the atomic bomb was dropped was nearly
identical to those offered by the Japanese in the first place. The
claim that continued conventional battle would have resulted in the
“deaths of hundreds of thousands more Americans and Allies, and
millions more Japanese” fails to take into account the Japanese losing
every major battle in the two years leading up to their eventual
surrender. They were clearly on their last legs and had little fight
left in them. The opinion that detonating two nuclear weapons and
killing hundreds of thousands “was the right call” is a perverse and
disgusting assessment of mass slaughter. How can slaughter be right?
How can killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children be
justified?
Truman could have easily taken the more noble path and accepted the
earlier terms of peace that the Japanese offered and MacArthur
presented two days before the Yalta Conference. These terms provided
for the surrender of Japan, but left Emperor Hirohito in power.
Truman wanted unconditional surrender and dismissed these offers
outright. Even after the bombing, the Japanese surrendered
unconditionally in name only, leaving the Emperor in power. Instead
of incinerating Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Truman needed only to wait a
few more months. His naval blockade was working and Japan’s surrender
was imminent. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians could have
been spared. Instead of detonating a bomb on a populated area, Truman
could have done so somewhere visible without damaging human life. He
simply could have ordered one of the nuclear weapons be detonated over
the Tokyo harbor. This would have been in plain view of hundreds of
thousands and clearly shown its awesome power. According to Goldhagen
(2009), dropping atomic weapons and “slaughtering unthreatening
Japanese [was] mass murder.” Mass murder, by definition, can not be
right. Truman was wrong to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese. In
doing so he became a mass murder...twice over.
References
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (2010). In Wikipedia.
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Dietrich, B. (1995). Pro and con on dropping the bomb. Seattle Times.
Retrieved from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supplement/procon.html
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. (2009). Worse than war: genocide,
eliminationism, and the ongoing assault on humanity. (p. 12). New
York, NY: PublicAffairs.
Hiroshima bombing anniversary [Editorial]. (2005, August 6). Las
Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved from:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/2794069.html
Surrender of Japan. (2010). In Wikipedia. Retrieved September 25,
2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
English 101, Online Section #3226
Truman Was Wrong
Truman was wrong to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese. In doing
so he became a mass murderer. Despite arguments to the contrary
(“Hiroshima bombing anniversary,” 2005) Truman made a fallacious
decision when he chose to destroy not one, but two Japanese cities
with atomic weapons. He was wrong for several reasons: the Japanese
were on the verge of surrender; killing civilians, especially en
masse, is never right and a drawn out conflict is not comparable to
instantly killing the vast majority of two city’s inhabitants.
Instead of dropping A-bombs on civilian populated areas, Truman could
have detonated one over Tokyo’s harbor to demonstrate the power of the
device. Additionally, he could have accepted the Japanese surrender,
offered months before the bomb was dropped. Finally, he could have
avoided becoming a mass murderer, killing hundreds of thousands of
civilians in a flash of pure energy.
Stating that the Japanese had been given “repeated ultimatums,” yet
had failed to surrender ignores the historical fact that the Japanese
had been proposing peace for months. Truman dismissed these attempts,
instead desiring an unconditional surrender. Ironically, the accepted
terms of the surrender after the atomic bomb was dropped was nearly
identical to those offered by the Japanese in the first place. The
claim that continued conventional battle would have resulted in the
“deaths of hundreds of thousands more Americans and Allies, and
millions more Japanese” fails to take into account the Japanese losing
every major battle in the two years leading up to their eventual
surrender. They were clearly on their last legs and had little fight
left in them. The opinion that detonating two nuclear weapons and
killing hundreds of thousands “was the right call” is a perverse and
disgusting assessment of mass slaughter. How can slaughter be right?
How can killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children be
justified?
Truman could have easily taken the more noble path and accepted the
earlier terms of peace that the Japanese offered and MacArthur
presented two days before the Yalta Conference. These terms provided
for the surrender of Japan, but left Emperor Hirohito in power.
Truman wanted unconditional surrender and dismissed these offers
outright. Even after the bombing, the Japanese surrendered
unconditionally in name only, leaving the Emperor in power. Instead
of incinerating Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Truman needed only to wait a
few more months. His naval blockade was working and Japan’s surrender
was imminent. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians could have
been spared. Instead of detonating a bomb on a populated area, Truman
could have done so somewhere visible without damaging human life. He
simply could have ordered one of the nuclear weapons be detonated over
the Tokyo harbor. This would have been in plain view of hundreds of
thousands and clearly shown its awesome power. According to Goldhagen
(2009), dropping atomic weapons and “slaughtering unthreatening
Japanese [was] mass murder.” Mass murder, by definition, can not be
right. Truman was wrong to drop two atomic bombs on the Japanese. In
doing so he became a mass murder...twice over.
References
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (2010). In Wikipedia.
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Dietrich, B. (1995). Pro and con on dropping the bomb. Seattle Times.
Retrieved from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supplement/procon.html
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. (2009). Worse than war: genocide,
eliminationism, and the ongoing assault on humanity. (p. 12). New
York, NY: PublicAffairs.
Hiroshima bombing anniversary [Editorial]. (2005, August 6). Las
Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved from:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/2794069.html
Surrender of Japan. (2010). In Wikipedia. Retrieved September 25,
2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
Sandra O
Sep 26, 2010, 5:14:10 AM9/26/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Sandra Ortega
English 101 (Section #3226)
E1.2
To this day, President Truman’s decision to bomb Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, two Japanese cities, during the World War II, is still
controversial. Author, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen uses this topic as his
prime example of mass murders of innocent civilians in his 2009 novel,
Worse than War.” In his novel, Goldhagen compares Truman’s actions
with Hitler’s and rightly calls both of them “mass murderers.”
Although it did not refute Goldhagen and his opinions, an editorial
was published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal in 2005, called
“Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary: Truman Made a Tough Call-But the Right
One”, agreeing with Truman’s actions to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
The editorial states that Truman was right in bombing two Japanese
cities, and if it had not been because of the bombing, many more lives
would have been lost. As a reader, it is hard to understand what could
have been worse than killing innocent civilians, including women and
children. There could have been other nonviolent solutions that could
have had the same result if not a better one.
The editorial states that the Japanese had not “surrendered despite
losing many more lives through ’conventional’ bombing than were lost
at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” The editorial is trying to make Truman
seem not as evil for bombing two Japanese cities and killing thousands
of people. The editorial is wrong because the thousands of people did
not need to die. The editorial admits to the bombing on Japan to have
been unnecessary, but goes on to say that “Truman could have continued
the…firebombing of Japanese cities with B-29’s for months or years.
Millions more Japanese would have died.” The editorial is completely
wrong in saying that Truman could have chosen to kill millions more by
not bombing the cities, but since he did, he actually saved lives.
Both of these actions could have been completely avoided by having
Truman think of other nonviolent actions to stop the war. The
editorial continues to say that, “ today, because of his decision,
millions more Americans and Japanese…are alive today.” The editorial
is wrong because it makes it seem people are supposed to be grateful
to Truman for killing thousands of innocent civilians and thus saving
thousands more when the bombing could have been prevented initially.
Goldhagen advises that before acting upon anything, one must be able
to define the act, explain it, and morally judge it. By doing this,
Goldhagen believes that better and nonviolent actions could have been
taken to the thousands of lives killed in the bombing. The U.S. could
have given the Japanese leaders other nonviolent ultimatums to stop
the war. If the Japanese were ready to surrender during the war like
Goldhagen states, Truman should have given more time to declare their
surrendering in the war instead of bombing them to end the war.
Works Cited
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009
Hiroshima bombing anniversary: Truman made a tough call—but the right
one [editorial]. 2005, August, 6. Las Vegas Review Journal.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/2...
> Retrieved September 25, 2010, fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
English 101 (Section #3226)
E1.2
To this day, President Truman’s decision to bomb Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, two Japanese cities, during the World War II, is still
controversial. Author, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen uses this topic as his
prime example of mass murders of innocent civilians in his 2009 novel,
Worse than War.” In his novel, Goldhagen compares Truman’s actions
with Hitler’s and rightly calls both of them “mass murderers.”
Although it did not refute Goldhagen and his opinions, an editorial
was published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal in 2005, called
“Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary: Truman Made a Tough Call-But the Right
One”, agreeing with Truman’s actions to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
The editorial states that Truman was right in bombing two Japanese
cities, and if it had not been because of the bombing, many more lives
would have been lost. As a reader, it is hard to understand what could
have been worse than killing innocent civilians, including women and
children. There could have been other nonviolent solutions that could
have had the same result if not a better one.
The editorial states that the Japanese had not “surrendered despite
losing many more lives through ’conventional’ bombing than were lost
at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” The editorial is trying to make Truman
seem not as evil for bombing two Japanese cities and killing thousands
of people. The editorial is wrong because the thousands of people did
not need to die. The editorial admits to the bombing on Japan to have
been unnecessary, but goes on to say that “Truman could have continued
the…firebombing of Japanese cities with B-29’s for months or years.
Millions more Japanese would have died.” The editorial is completely
wrong in saying that Truman could have chosen to kill millions more by
not bombing the cities, but since he did, he actually saved lives.
Both of these actions could have been completely avoided by having
Truman think of other nonviolent actions to stop the war. The
editorial continues to say that, “ today, because of his decision,
millions more Americans and Japanese…are alive today.” The editorial
is wrong because it makes it seem people are supposed to be grateful
to Truman for killing thousands of innocent civilians and thus saving
thousands more when the bombing could have been prevented initially.
Goldhagen advises that before acting upon anything, one must be able
to define the act, explain it, and morally judge it. By doing this,
Goldhagen believes that better and nonviolent actions could have been
taken to the thousands of lives killed in the bombing. The U.S. could
have given the Japanese leaders other nonviolent ultimatums to stop
the war. If the Japanese were ready to surrender during the war like
Goldhagen states, Truman should have given more time to declare their
surrendering in the war instead of bombing them to end the war.
Works Cited
Goldhagen, Daniel. Worse than War; Genocide, Eliminationism, and the
Ongoing Assault on Humanity. New York: Public Affairs 2009
Hiroshima bombing anniversary: Truman made a tough call—but the right
one [editorial]. 2005, August, 6. Las Vegas Review Journal.
>
> Dietrich, B. (1995). Pro and con on dropping the bomb. Seattle Times.
> Retrieved fromhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/trinity/supplement/procon.html
> Dietrich, B. (1995). Pro and con on dropping the bomb. Seattle Times.
>
> Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. (2009). Worse than war: genocide,
> eliminationism, and the ongoing assault on humanity. (p. 12). New
> York, NY: PublicAffairs.
>
> Hiroshima bombing anniversary [Editorial]. (2005, August 6). Las
> Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved from:http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Aug-06-Sat-2005/opinion/2...
> Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. (2009). Worse than war: genocide,
> eliminationism, and the ongoing assault on humanity. (p. 12). New
> York, NY: PublicAffairs.
>
> Hiroshima bombing anniversary [Editorial]. (2005, August 6). Las
Lucenda L
Sep 26, 2010, 7:30:14 PM9/26/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Lucenda L Discussion on 3-4 Journal and Research
Brinkbaumer, K. & Doerry, M. (2009 October 9) “Mass slaughter is a
systemic problem of the modern world” Spiegel Online International
Retrieved September 26, 2010 from http://www/spiegal.de /international/
germany/
A) Spiegel Online International is a daily online news source
originating out of Germany. I chose to review this site because I
wanted to see if they would slant the interview or if they would
attack Goldhagen for his views. One point that I liked about the
Spiegel website is that it is a legitimate Online Daily International
News source.
I liked the fact that it was an extensive interview that was
completed in 4 parts. The journalists that interviewed Goldhagen were
objective and asked legitimate questions. They even questioned
Goldhagen on what they thought was a contradiction. In one of his
earlier works Goldhagen referred to the Holocaust as the worst case of
genocide but in Worse Than War he sites Eliminationism as the worse
case of mass slaughtering. Goldhagen explains that Eliminationism is
a broader scale of genocide with five specific categories, which are
repression, expulsion, forced transformation, prevention of
reproduction, and in its extreme form exterminations. Goldhagen goes
on to explain that taking all forms of Eliminationism and all the
atrocities of the 21st century would qualify eliminationism as the
most horrific. I liked that Goldhagen continued to give rational
objective answers to all questions and agreed when he thought the
interviewers comments and viewpoints were relevant.
B) The only thing I didn’t like about the site was that it was a lot
of reading. Each part of the four parts had four pages, which I
believe was a bit much for a news article or review. I also didn’t
like that although the Interviewers were for the most part objective
they seem to take offense to Goldhagen’s use of the phrase “the
Germans” instead of saying for example “the German perpetrators”. The
journalists felt that it gave the impression of including all German
as perpetrators. Goldhagen explained that he used the same phrasing
towards the Americans in Viet Nam, which the journalists were quick to
point out the difference being that in Viet Nam it was mainly American
Soldier’s there to fight, not people in general. Golhagen points out
that people generalize all the time, which, I thought was a weak
justification for Goldhagen. I believe his use of the German’s may
have been personalizing the whole experience for him being Jewish or
relating through his father’s experience as a Holocaust survivor.
C) Goldhagen’s Worse Than War and the site Spiegel Online speaks
about the U.N. and the International community having specific
guidelines in classifying an atrocity as being Genocide and if the
groups actions didn’t fit the criteria they would overlook the
atrocity. I will research this information to find out what the
guidelines are and if in fact, they would continue to turn a blind
eye. Also I would like to know how many times this happened and what
the general consensus was of the International Community.
On Sep 21, 10:31 pm, Mark M <magan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To Consider: Goldhagen’s family background:
> • Father is a holocaust survivor
> • Has a personal interest
>
> All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
> Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
>
> I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
> Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki:
> a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
> women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
> War, Goldhagen, 2009
>
> b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128 military
> deaths from 1937–1945.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#endnote_Japan
> • Father is a holocaust survivor
> • Has a personal interest
>
> All numbers are approximate and taken from various on-line sites:
> Wikipedia, navy.history.mil
>
> I. To Refute/ Comment Against: Goldhagens claim of the number of
> Japanese lives lost in Japan due to the bombings of Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki:
> a. Goldhagen claims that between 210,000 – 300,000 Japanese men,
> women, and children were killed. Chapter 1, pgs. 3 & 5, Worse Than
> War, Goldhagen, 2009
>
> b. The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128 military
Brooke Griffin
Oct 9, 2010, 3:55:36 AM10/9/10
to English 101, online section #3226
Brooke Griffin
English 101
E1.2
To say that all human beings possess an innate need or
desire even, to kill whenever given the opportunity, is, in my
opinion, far too broad, and disproportionate; on the other hand, if
one claimed that humans have no instinct to kill and therefore the few
that do, are monsters, is also a bit too un-researched for my taste.
Goldenhagen seems to strongly believe the latter or at least leans
toward that view. I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I have never really been an extremist. I take most things in
moderation and try to look at things individually. Needless to say, I
am sure that I will always find something to disagree with Goldenhagen
on, in regards to his extreme, black and white opinions. Goldenhagen
passionately expresses his feelings toward Truman, bluntly calling him
a mass murderer and placing him in the same category as Hitler. I
understand what he means and I don’t completely disagree with this,
however, I don’t feel that humans are completely void of a natural
instinct to kill and therefore those that are capable of the act in
certain circumstances are monsters; rather, I feel it is just the
opposite- that most humans still possess an animal instinct to kill
when necessary, and the few that refrain, are more evolved. I have
seen teenagers fighting, (seemingly to the death) because of an animal
instinct to defend themselves when challenged. I have known of people
who have the capacity to “murder” an attacker to save their life or
the life of a loved one. And though I am close to siding with
Goldenhagen on the issue of President Truman, I cannot fully put him
in the same category as Hitler because I don’t believe he would have
wished those circumstances on himself, but did what he thought he
needed to do in order to protect his country.
Goldenhagen claims that people are all in complete control of how
they act in certain situations and every action is based on their
views of what’s right or wrong. He says, “People make these choices
according to their understanding of the social world and their views
of what is right and wrong, good and evil…” Now I don’t know about
every idiot on the street, but I have known some men, who when
provoked, will snap and fight another man, purely out of a primal,
animal instinct. These men certainly do not, in their collected and
rational mind, think that it’s okay to punch another human in the face
if they make them angry, but we are still animals and it is still in
many of our natures to fight. I would in no way regard a man caught up
in the heat of a fight a “monster.” I would call him human.
Goldenhagen actually starts his book with the sentence, “Harry Truman,
the thirty-third president of the United States, was a mass murderer.”
Now if that’s not an attention grabber, then I don’t know what is!
However I think this is a little bit extreme and a quite emotional way
to start a book. The fact that Truman most likely didn’t hope for this
outcome is considered but I think that nonetheless, comparing him to
Hitler is irrational. The bombings may not have been the best choice,
and after the first bomb, a second seemed to be the result of a power
trip; however, I still would categorize this as a war tragedy, not
genocide. Truman wasn’t trying to eliminate an entire race, or bomb a
country out of pure hate, but rather, it was a vulgar warning not to
trifle with the U.S. And it is many people’s opinion that it did in
fact end the war…I am not in the position to completely disagree…The
author of the New York Times article, Hiroshima, 50 Years Later,
published in 1995, stands at the opposite end of Goldenhagen’s debate,
concluding his article with, “One can imagine the clamor for his
political skin if tens of thousands of Allied soldiers had died, in
battle or in Japanese camps, because the bomb was never used, or used
too late.” If the bomb wasn’t used, there would likely be little
knowledge of it, or it’s great power. However, I cannot completely
disregard this comment, as it is perhaps one of the biggest cases
against Goldenhagen’s views. We really do need to ask ourselves how
much worse of we would be as a country if Truman had refrained from
using the bomb. We may very well be in the same war decades later. We
may have lost more humans worldwide through the years that the battle
may have carried on rather than the unfortunate hundreds of thousands
that died in Hiroshima. Goldenhagen’s book is called Worse than War,
so I really don’t understand why he starts off his novel with a war
incident and calls it Genocide. You can’t have your cake and eat it
too.
If we could just accept that all humans are born with an animal
instinct to fight and conquer, and from there, addressed the issue
accordingly, I think we may get closer to a solution than we will by
simply pointing fingers at the “bad guys”. Goldenhagen actually seems
to agree somewhat with this theory proposing that in order to stop
mass murders, we must make it unappealing to the leaders. I would take
it one step further and make it a priority to start teaching children
when they are young. We must learn to accept and embrace what we are,
flaws included, and deal with our faults accordingly. Further, calling
Truman a mass murderer is only serving the purpose of shock value.
Goldenhagen even states himself in Worse than War, that of course they
are different situations. If he wants to write a book about bad
decisions people make, that’s another story. But with Worse than War,
he has set out to prove that genocide is worse than war…I don’t see
what the point of mixing the two up serves. And lastly, we must not
always take the extreme opinions but rather, take into account both
sides of a war and learn to understand each. The bombing of Hiroshima
remains one of the most tragic disasters in history. At the same time,
so does Pearl Harbor. And so would a second attack on America. But
again, these are issues of war, and for some reason, Goldenhagen feels
the need to separate war from genocide and choose which is worse.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages