Source:
In Class/Ms. Xia
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
World War II's change on the definition of war
World War II introduced a new way of fighting and new weapons. The nuclear bomb was introduced and used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Firebombing also occurred. Both of these methods were very effective in the fact that they killed large amounts of people without much of a risk in doing it for the soldiers because most were done by air. This was very sad because many of the killings were used to demonstrate their power and how much destruction they could do so easily. Some who saw these killings that was thought of them as unnecessary considering how much damage was caused. Others saw it as necessary because they thought that they needed to make a statement and assure themselves that the place they bombed or burned would no longer be a threat. World War II had many killings but in large numbers rather than wars of attrition with killings but one by one being shot or killed in the trenches like in WWI. WWII was very traumatizing because having so many people who aren't necessarily directly connected to the war and were innocent civilians were killed. Whole cities were taken out and very few survived. The ones who did survive were traumatized for life because they saw their families and friends and just about everyone around them killed either by the bombs or burned to death. Trauma was a common result from war because it resulted a lot and was more commonly called shell shock in World War I.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What are your personal views about firebombing and dropping the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki?
ReplyDeleteYou make a really good point about how people who were not necessarily involved in the fighting were much bigger targets in WWII than WWI. Part of this (i also mention this in my comment on carson's blog) is due to the fact that with the technology in WWII, it was much easier to attack people through methods such as flying over cities and bombing them. During WWI, soldiers wouldn't very often go out of their way to destroy cities because both sides of the fight brought armies to certain battlefields, dug trenches and fought to the death. WWI Battles could last weeks, sometimes months, while WWI "battles" were often quick surprise attacks, such as the firebombing and atomic bombs.
I think that considering the damage they caused they were not necessary because they caused so many deaths of innocent people that weren't very threatening. Dead or alive they wouldn't have caused much trouble so they might as well be alive because it is cruel to take away a life that doesn't harm or effect you in any way. I think that it worked in scaring them away but I think that the people still suffer there from radiation and other remains from the bombs. I think that there should have been another way to end the war in a less destructive manner. It is hard to say though because if it took the bombs and all the deaths they caused to get them to surrender then maybe there wasn't a strong enough way. It is hard to know because we don't know how bad it was and how hard it would have been to use a different way. I think in a sense the bombs were just an easy way out because they were easy to drop and they killed a lot of people so it was an easy and quick way to send out a message.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about the bombings being an unnecessary part of the war. They caused many deaths of civilians, as well as cities being destroyed and cultures and economies being demolished. However, I was wondering if you agreed with the concept of total war as in that everyone was involved, so everyone was a valid target? I was also curious as to if you had thought of something that could possibly be an alternative to the bombings, even if you agreed that they did fulfill a certain purpose of scaring the enemy?
ReplyDeleteI feel that this is a strong example of "Bombing for Peace". The idea that you can wipe out the civilians of one side in order to stop them from fighting. But if you really look at it, the ends do not justify the means in this instance. People can argue that dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was a act of nationalism, but in actuality we committed a war crime by killing those not connected to the war. I would be able to make more sense out of it if the war was on Russia, because not only do they proclaim Total War, but it is known that every citizen is fighting their country's opposition. But in this clear cut example, we see the killing of innocents in a war that was almost won. So can we say that the killings were out of spite? Or merely a way for the US to tell the world that we will not be messed with?
ReplyDelete