His stated purpose in this is the goal of causing audiences to react based on emotion. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think. If I respond to you quietly, the viewer at home is going to have a different reaction than if I respond to you with emotion and with passion and I wave my arms around. Somebody like this is an intellectual; somebody like this is a freak.
I was traveling during Mandatory memo essay of this period. I have waited until now for an opportunity to join the discussion in part for this reason, but mainly for another: In my judgment some of the most important issues concerning the Hiroshima decision cannot be properly addressed without confronting the complexity of the evidence problems involved--and, too, the porous nature of the available record.
I had been informed that detailed discussions of certain aspects of these issues were about to be posted and could thus be referred to in my response. Too often electronic debate becomes bogged down in quotation slinging or-- as some participants in the recent debate openly acknowledge-- moral crusading.
This includes far more detail on certain points than is possible in this response. In addition, the memorandum takes up gross misrepresentations which some participants seem bent on repeating even after their attention has been called to errors Mandatory memo essay fact.
The memorandum is also available at the above-cited Home Page and e-mail address. The overall goal is to attempt to move beyond increasingly sterile and time-consuming aspects of the current discussion--and to provide sufficient information to researchers, history teachers, and graduate students and undergraduates so that they can make informed judgments on the evidentiary questions for themselves.
Our hope is that the materials will be of particular use to those teaching undergraduate and graduate courses which deal with the issue. Given the amount of space devoted to postings by various critics, and the amount of material which must be dealt with, the following response has been organized into sections which will appear during a four-day period beginning today.
Part IV takes up certain additional issues involved in the debate. The central issues raised in several postings during last fall's debate--and, indeed, in connection with the Hiroshima bombing in general--are: The tone and argument of some of last fall's postings seemed to indicate that those writing believed it outrageous to suggest the bombings were unnecessary.
Some went so far as to impugn motives and professional integrity, and a level of anger and venom quite unusual in serious scholarly discussion appeared regularly in the postings of one or two participants.
Some postings also betrayed a lack of information on the general state of the professional debate. This was not true of all of the contributions, of course. Indeed, many raised important and insightful points.
To put the central issues in perspective at the outset, however, let me simply note the following: A One of the earliest and most respected students of the issue was Herbert Feis. Not only was Feis an important scholar, but as a former Special Assistant to Secretary of War Stimson and other Cabinet members as wellhe had privileged access to inside information and opinions.
There can hardly be a well-grounded dissent from the conclusion reached by the members of the U. Instead of asking whether the bomb was essential to compel "surrender on our terms within a few months," he now clarified that he meant "before [Japan] was invaded.
However, Feis's judgment on the central issue has for decades helped serious scholars establish some of the lines of legitimate debate and, implicitly, of informed and uninformed criticism as well. Here is its conclusion: Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan.
Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time.
Samuel Walker, Chief Historian of the U. Again, one may challenge Walker's reading of the literature as of that date, but the notion that to argue the bomb was not needed and that this was understood at the time is somehow outrageous--as some of the postings angrily suggest--is simply not in keeping with the conclusions of many, many studies.
C Related to the problem of tone is the fact that historically this issue was not always so polarized, nor was it always seen as a liberal-versus-conservative matter--and in my view it should not be seen as such now.
Again, simply to put the matter in perspective at the outset, we may note President Herbert Hoover's comment on hearing news of the bombings: Military necessity will be our constant cry in answer to criticism, but it will never erase from our minds the simple truth that we, of all civilized nations, though hesitating to use poison gas, did not hesitate to employ the most destructive weapon of all times indiscriminately against men, women and children.
Might a mere demonstration of the bomb, followed by an ultimatum, have turned the trick? Centrally related to all of this is information we now have concerning the views of top World War II American military leaders.
In this connection it is also important to note at the outset that the recent debate, like much traditional literature, has been characterized by a continued unwillingness to confront some of the most significant modern evidence. The issue of what U.
A fundamental claim of those who reject views like those cited above is that the use of the atomic bomb was a matter of military necessity.Note: You might want to start at the Obama Index Page, especially if you arrived here by using a search engine. The United States already has a multi-billion-dollar system of socialized medicine, called Medicare and Medicaid.
Federal, state and local governments spent . Writing is an art form created by past experiences, future hopes, fantasies, and limitless imagination. It brings feelings, knowledge, adventure, mystery, and foreign times and places to life. This Memorandum aims to provide brief information on (i) provisions and restrictions imposed by the Law on Mandatory Use of Turkish Language by Economic Enterprises numbered and dated 10 April (the “Law No.
”) on Turkish and foreign enterprises; (ii) consequences of non-compliance with the Law No. ; and (iii) . Note: Discussion this past fall of my book THE DECISION TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB, and of a review by John Bonnett, generated extended and often emotional comment.
Mandatory Memo Essay To: Alexis Fairchild From: Marshall Peterson Date: February 8, Subject: Mandatory Mediation Mrs. Fairchild, I am writing you this memo in compliance with the mandatory mediation requirements issued by the court.
The thunder-and-lightning example seems like a bad comparison for this kind of situation, in that the false claim is (1) easily observable to be untrue, and (2) utterly useless to the society that propagates it.