I think that the definition of war has changed a bit due to WWII because of the new technology. Over time we have developed from swords to guns and now we have bombs and other machinery that allows us to fight from a far and are even more deadly. WWII was the beginning of the first nuclear weapon and firebombing these weapons are deadly methods of destruction. This was a lot to lay on the USA, it gave them a lot of power over what they could do. They decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing many civilians. I think that after looking at the effects the bombing caused and the harm it changed what people thought of war. The idea of bombing harmless civilians seemed immoral and not beneficial all it brought was anger and fear from the enemy. Before this war there weren't that many rules because there was not much one could do in war that caused this much damage or gave one of the sides this much power. With the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an imaginary line was drawn in what was good and bad in other words this caused a strong emphasizes in what was war crimes. In my opinion, war is fighting with in certain boundaries. Even though the civilians of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and countless others were affected and in a way became part of the war, I don't believe it was a total war. This is because, not everyone in Japan didn't all help. I don't mean it literally when I say everyone but instead that all men, women, children, and elders could help. Unlike in Italy where they are fascists and they say a women can help by working in the factories and build weapons, or a farmer can produce food for the troops or look at the sky for any signs of invasions, the Japanese didn't place emphasizes on everyone as a whole helping in the war. WWII changed war then what it used to be.
Citations:
Notes from class
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As our nation became more and more older, the war technology also developed. In WWI our main ways of attacking were through tanks and foot soldiers. Our main defenses were trenches and barbed wire. In WWII the bomb made both of those defenses useless. The bomb also was put on as a substitute for tanks and foot soldiers, because of its power to wipe out multiple enemies.
ReplyDeleteI understand your argument Karla, on the idea that there is a fine line between good and bad when bombing citizens, but can we really impose a law on war that says no one can attack the civilians in a country? Because in actuality, most armies are sent into cities to invade and take over, and the deaths of civilians is the most common side effect of this. I would be surprised to see instances where the citizens gave up without a fight. There are actually instances in our world where war is one-sided. The idea that you can drive tanks into a country and impose war on a country without an army sounds ridiculous, but it's really not that farfetched when you see the other atrocities humans have committed while claiming they are doing the work of their country.
ReplyDeleteYou do have a point, my ideas of war are bit more on the impossible. Personally if I could I would have wars that do not harm people but then that wouldn't really be a war. My ideas are not reality, and like you said civilians are attacked when the other side sees it necessary or just because. Also can you clarify what you mean when you say "without an army"? How is it possible to attack without an army?
ReplyDelete