."
I think the central idea for this text is that the Americans shouldn't have dropped the atomic bomb because the experience of the survivors were really bad and it also started a world with nuclear weapons.
."
I think the central idea for this text is that the Americans shouldn't have dropped the atomic bomb because the experience of the survivors were really bad and it also started a world with nuclear weapons.
"There were the shadowy forms of people, some of whom looked like walking ghosts. Others moved as though in pain, like scarecrows, their arms held out from their bodies with forearms and hands dangling," Hachiya wrote. "These people puzzled me until I suddenly realized that they had been burned and were holding their arms out to prevent the painful friction of raw surfaces rubbing together."
America knew that the bomb was powerful but did they know that the bomb had this kind of horrific potential? If they did, I think they are cruel but they probably didn't because I learned that they were surprised by the potential of the first Hiroshima bomb.
"I felt the city of Hiroshima had disappeared all of a sudden," said Akihiro Takahashi, a 14-year-old at the time in line for school, whose testimony was recorded by researchers in the late 1980s. "Then I looked at myself and found my clothes had turned into rags due to the heat. I was probably burned at the back of the head, on my back, on both arms and both legs. My skin was peeling and hanging like this."
Why did America do this to all these people? This is hurts a lot and the people suffered a lot so I think America shouldn't have done what it did.
But what of the victims? Swaths of Hiroshima disappeared in a blistering flash, yet there were survivors. Here are some of the eyewitness testimonies of what took place on that terrible day in August 1945. (They have been gleaned from a number of oral history projects, all of which are easily accessible online.)
I am surprised that there a victims because the bomb was so powerful that it literally destroyed everything in the two cities that were bombed.
The justification for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings remains the source of perennial historical study and debate
Why would you even try to justify this, I think the United States know that that was a wrong but effective decision because the bombs were very harsh, causing people to lose their lives, homes, and families. I think that this should not be justified because it is wrong.
It's seared into the collective global memory -- no other time in history has a nuclear weapon been used in war. The simple fact of the atomic bomb's awesome power went on to shape a half-century of Cold War geopolitics.
This is a seared collective global memory and people mostly all know about it but, we usually don't think about the decision to bring nuclear weapons to the world because as said, this is the cause of the Cold War. I think the introduction of nuclear weapons were not a good idea because nuclear weapons cause a lot of havoc and if the countries of this planet were to start a nuclear war, this planet would be laid to waste as a result.
It almost instantly leveled most of the city and killed as many as 140,000 people. Three days later, on Aug. 9, another American bomber dropped a nuclear device on the city of Nagasaki, killing 40,000 to 80,000 people.
These are bombs that destroyed entire cities and killed millions of people, however, this article is about the survival of the bombing, I wonder how this is possible.
I.
I think the central idea of this text is that many wrongs have been committed against the Japanese Americans after the attack of Pearl Harbor and while America can seem really good and always the hero, once you learn more about them, they did a lot of bad things.
Those who answered “yes” were considered “loyal” and became eligible for indefinite leave outside the West Coast military areas. Those who answered “no” were sent to a segregation center at Tule Lake, Calif.
I think this is not fair because the government should figure out the reason some of them said no. Also, this is similar to the Germans, however less extreme. Germans killed anyone that got in there way and now, the Americans are just deporting and moving anyone that doesn't agree with them.
At Manzanar two people were killed and 10 were wounded by military police during the “Manzanar Riot” in December 1942.
I think we should rethink that was it a riot, or just a protest because this might be an example of siding with the Americans.
Professionals were paid $19 per month, skilled workers received $16, and nonskilled workers got $12.
This meant that they received good pay for what they did. They also received enough to make a living.
Most internees worked in the camp. They dug irrigation canals and ditches, tended acres of fruits and vegetables, and raised chickens, hogs, and cattle. They made clothes and furniture for themselves and camouflage netting and experimental rubber for the military. They served as mess hall workers, doctors, nurses, police officers, firefighters, and teachers.
This means that the Japanese did receive better treatment than the Jews in the concentration camps.
There was little or no privacy in the barracks—and not much outside. The 200 to 400 people living in each block, consisting of 14 barracks each divided into four rooms, shared men’s and women’s toilets and showers, a laundry room, and a mess hall. Any combination of eight individuals was allotted a 20-by-25-foot room. An oil stove, a single hanging light bulb, cots, blankets, and mattresses filled with straw were the only furnishings provided.
Based on what I have read now, I think that the treatment of Japanese during the war was almost the same as the treatment of Jews during the war.
The 500-acre housing section was surrounded by barbed wire and eight guard towers with searchlights and patrolled by military police. Outside the fence, military police housing, a reservoir, a sewage treatment plant, and agricultural fields occupied the remaining 5,500 acres. By September 1942 more than 10,000 Japanese Americans were crowded into 504 barracks organized into 36 blocks.
How is this different from concentration camps that the Jews were put in?
About two-thirds of all Japanese Americans interned at Manzanar were American citizens by birth.
Why were these camps made? The government is imprisoning its own citizens.
Ten war relocation centers were built in remote deserts, plains, and swamps of seven states
This tells us that the government is putting the Japanese in bad environments but by doing this, they are putting their own citizens in bad environments that could be hazardous.
They did not know where they were going or for how long. Each family was assigned an identification number and loaded into cars, buses, trucks, and trains, taking only what they could carry. Japanese Americans were transported under military guard to 17 temporary assembly centers located at racetracks, fairgrounds, and similar facilities in Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona. Then they were moved to one of 10 hastily built relocation centers. By November, 1942, the relocation was complete.
By now, I think the Americans are overreacting to this situation and not being just because they are putting them and not caring for them like humans anymore.
Without due process, the government gave everyone of Japanese ancestry living on the West Coast only days to decide what to do with their houses, farms, businesses, and other possessions. Most families sold their belongings at a significant loss. Some rented their properties to neighbors. Others left possessions with friends or religious groups. Some abandoned their property.
Why is the government doing this, most of the citizens that are Japanese are fighting in the war. Also, just because they are citizens that share ancestry of Japan, they have to be relocated? This is not cool.
The attack intensified racial prejudices and led to fear of potential sabotage and espionage by Japanese Americans among some in the government, military, news media, and public.
If they are citizens, why are is the government scared of the Japanese Americans? Are most of the citizens more or less loyal since they had to say the pledge of allegiance?
Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941, led the United States into World War II and radically changed the lives of 120,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry living in the United States.
What is the fact that Japan's attack affected Japanese Americans? Is it something to do with trust and the government being afraid that the Japanese Americans will be spies for the Japanese?
.
I think the central idea for this text is that many injustices were done to Jews and other group by the Nazis, and we should do anything at all costs to prevent this from happening again.
The marches continued until May 7, 1945, the day the German armed forces surrendered unconditionally to the Allies.
Why are they doing these marches? If the Nazi propaganda is to wipe out all of the Jews, why not just kill them. This makes me think that the Nazis just want to torture people, not kill Jews.
Some able-bodied Jewish deportees were temporarily spared to perform forced labor in ghettos, forced labor camps for Jews, or concentration camps in Nazi-occupied Poland and the Soviet Union. Most of these workers died from starvation and disease or were killed when they became too weak to work.
The Jews are so malnourished that they can't even do any work? If they like killing so much, why not just skip it and gas them straight away? Is it because they like to watch them suffer?
Mass shootings of Jews in eastern Europe continued throughout the war. Of the approximately 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, at least 1.5 million and possibly more than 2 million died in mass shootings or gas vans in Soviet territory.
This shows me that the Nazis are merciless and will kill anyone in their way. However, my question is, why do they like to gass people, perhaps they enjoy the thrill of watching people die?
German authorities persecuted homosexuals and other Germans whose behavior did not conform to prescribed social norms (such as beggars, alcoholics, and prostitutes), incarcerating tens of thousands of them in prisons and concentration camps. German police officials similarly persecuted tens of thousands of Germans viewed as political opponents (including Communists, Socialists, Freemasons, and trade unionists) and religious dissidents (such as Jehovah's Witnesses). Many of these individuals died as a result of maltreatment and murder.
Why are they killing those that don't share the same way of life? I think they are just trying to get rid of everyone that does not agree with them and will kill the ones that don't share beliefs.
By the end of the war, the Germans and their Axis partners murdered between 250,000 and 500,000 Roma. View This Term in the Glossary And between 1939 and 1945, they murdered at least 250,000 mentally or physically disabled patients, mainly German and living in institutions, in the so-called Euthanasia Program.
I think the Nazis are just getting id of those that are weak and don't have as much power. It is like they are bullying the lower class or the people who have lower power in society. *
The Germans shot tens of thousands of non-Jewish members of the Polish intelligentsia, murdered the inhabitants of hundreds of villages in “pacification” raids in Poland and the Soviet Union, and deported millions of Polish and Soviet civilians to perform forced labor under conditions that caused many to die.
They are now just trying to exterminate any race or group that is different from them. The Jews have also helped in previous wars. Maybe the reason that they are killing Jews is because they believed that they lost WWI because of the Jews.
the Germans and their allies and collaborators killed nearly two out of every three European Jews as part of the "Final Solution."
Why are they doing this? There must be reason behind all of this.
During the Nazi era, German authorities also targeted other groups because of their perceived racial and biological inferiority: Roma (Gypsies), people with disabilities, some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others), Soviet prisoners of war, and Black people. Other groups were persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioral grounds, among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals.
Why did they hate so many groups of people? I did not know that they tried to kill these other groups.
the Germans and their allies and collaborators killed nearly two out of every three European Jews as part of the "Final Solution."
What was the reason that the Nazis wanted to murder the Jews? Is it because they had to have someone to blame for the lost of WWI?
The Holocaust was the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its allies and collaborators
Just because the Jews practiced a different religion meant that they had to be murdered?
The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community
Why did people believe that Jews are an alien race that are bad and should be exterminated?
I think the central idea for this text is that lethal drones should be banned because of their lethalness.
A key part of ending drone warfare is addressing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), the post-9/11 congressional act that has been used to justify drone strikes.
What has the 9/11 attacks have anything to do with drones? Have drones been used for violent ways after 9/11?
the use of deadly violence outside of declared war. Congress should also move to repeal the AUMF in its entirety, as it has undermined international human rights laws and pushed the U.S. farther down the path to endless war.
America has always been a fair continent as in world issues, why are they now hurting innocent people and not doing anything about it?
Despite its incalculable costs, there is no independent oversight or accountability for drone warfare. President Trump – and the two previous administrations – have claimed executive power to order drone killings without providing explanation to the public, courts, and even most members of Congress. This includes killings of U.S. citizens, such as Kamal Darwish, Abdulrahman Awlaki, and Jude Kennan Mohammed.
Why do the drones kill civilians? Are they targeted, or are the drones having a bad aim.
But the government’s secrecy around its use of lethal drones has concealed the real human toll of these attacks. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen have killed between 8,500 and 12,000 people, including as many as 1,700 civilians – 400 of whom were children.
How has these drones killed people? Have they accidently malfunctioned ending in a disaster, or were they controlled and told to destroy.
Since the start of the U.S. “war on terror” in 2001, drone warfare has grown as U.S. military operations have expanded beyond Afghanistan and Iraq. A significant portion of U.S. military actions outside of Afghanistan and Iraq – including Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya – are carried out with drones.
Why does America need to use drones. Are those places too dangerous?
The United States’ use of lethal drones has killed thousands of people – including hundreds of children – and displaced countless others.
What are lethal drones? Why have they killed hundreds of children and displaced countless others?
.
I think the central idea for this text is that people can be drastic and evil, but by noticing all the angles, justice always prevails .
.
I think the central idea for this text is that no matter how long a crime or event has took place, people will still chase up and get you for it no matter what.
“You can’t act today as if the defendant was a fully grown man back then who knew just what he was doing
Like I said before, he was just doing his job and trying not to die, because the Nazis have a reputation of getting rid of anyone they don't like.
. He went on to express his regret at belonging to an organization that caused the death of vast numbers of people, as well as causing pain for the victims and their relatives. "I am ashamed to have stood by and watched those injustices happen and to have done nothing to prevent them,
Maybe the fact he doesn't have the power to prevent them or might die trying must be brought into consideration.
“You know what happened to all the people. You enabled their murder. Tell us! Tell us!” Orosz went on to say that she wants Hanning to tell the court what happened at Aushcwitz so that there could be no doubt about what occurred
This is a bit sad because we all know enough about the injustices done to Jews during WWII, but I think this has gone too far, just because this man is a GUARD, he has to be sent to jail for doing his job. He might not even be part of the gassings.
Until 2011, prosecutions for involvement in the Holocaust only happened if there was evidence that the individual was directly responsible for murder or torture. The Hanning case is different. It has concentrated on the Hungary Operation, when 425,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz in Nazi-occupied Poland in the spring of 1944. Roughly 300,000 of them were gassed to death immediately on arrival.
This doesn't mean that the man was part of the gassings, and said previously, he was a junior squadron leader, so he couldn't do anything to help. And if he spoke to help the Jews, he probably would have been shot on the spot or gassed to death.
Many Holocaust survivors and historians traveled long distances to give testimony to the court, while Hanning avoided their gaze. Hanning joined the SS when he was 18 and became a junior squadron leader. The prosecution argued that Hanning’s presence at Auschwitz made him part of the Nazi death machine
That is not true and I disagree because just because he was there at the time of the gassing doesn't mean that he had something to do with the killings.
One survivor, Leon Schwarzbaum from Berlin, said he would have liked Hanning to use the trial as an opportunity to speak more about what happened at the camp. He told Hanning directly to speak out before he died.“Mr. Hanning, we are virtually the same age and soon we will face our final judge. I would like to ask you to tell the historical truth here, just as I am,” he said.
I think this is so because the survivor wants the people there to know the real horrors and injustices that took place in the Auschwitz death camp.
“It is not true that you had no choice; you could have asked to be transferred to the war front,” she told him.
I think this is a really bad argument because maybe Hanning was scared of dying at the war front so decided to stay at the concentration camps.
“You were in Auschwitz for 2 1/2 years, performed an important function,” said the judge, Anke Grudda. “You were part of a criminal organization and took part in criminal activity in Auschwitz.” Grudda said Hanning could have chosen a different path
The thing is, the judge doesn't look in the perspective that Hanning might have been young and foolish. He might have looked in a patriotic way, not the way that was the best for him.
After a four-month trial, a former Auschwitz death camp guard has been convicted of aiding in the murder of 170,000 people. The former guard is now 94 years old and the trial is likely the last of its kind.
Why are the crimes being committed so long ago still being judged today? I know that this is a really big issue but this shows me that people can really stubborn in forgiving the Nazis.
His lawyer had said he should be acquitted because there was “no proof” he was involved in any killings or torture and he had not worked in Birkenau, the part of the camp where the gassings were done.
If he hadn't done the gassings, he should be spared because he couldn't control what was being done.
You can’t act today as if the defendant was a fully grown man back then who knew just what he was doing
This supports what I have been saying. He was young not smart and wise.
He went on to express his regret at belonging to an organization that caused the death of vast numbers of people, as well as causing pain for the victims and their relatives. "I am ashamed to have stood by and watched those injustices happen and to have done nothing to prevent them," he said.
Maybe he was young and patriotic and was didn't take time to notice what was happening before him.
One survivor, Leon Schwarzbaum from Berlin, said he would have liked Hanning to use the trial as an opportunity to speak more about what happened at the camp.
Why does the survivor to speak out. Don't people already know enough about the injustices done to the Jews during the second world war?
“It is not true that you had no choice; you could have asked to be transferred to the war front,” she told him.
I think this is wrong because maybe the man is scared of dying at the war front. So he didn't really have a choice.
You know what happened to all the people. You enabled their murder. Tell us! Tell us
How does she know? Did she meet this person during the war before? I want to learn more about her.
Until 2011, prosecutions for involvement in the Holocaust only happened if there was evidence that the individual was directly responsible for murder or torture. The Hanning case is different. It has concentrated on the Hungary Operation, when 425,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz in Nazi-occupied Poland in the spring of 1944. Roughly 300,000 of them were gassed to death immediately on arrival.
If they were gassed, what if the man wasn't part of it.
“You were in Auschwitz for 2 1/2 years, performed an important function,” said the judge, Anke Grudda. “You were part of a criminal organization and took part in criminal activity in Auschwitz.” Grudda said Hanning could have chosen a different path
Maybe the man did not have a choice to be a guard at Auschwitz.
After a four-month trial, a former Auschwitz death camp guard has been convicted of aiding in the murder of 170,000 people. The former guard is now 94 years old and the trial is likely the last of its kind
Why are crimes that have been committed back then still being judged, maybe it isn't the guard's fault that he had to aid killing those people.
As Iraq retreated, they detonated explosives at many of Kuwait's oil wells. The disaster to the environment grew as Iraq dumped oil into the Persian Gulf. The costs were enormous, and many were killed or injured. Although estimates range in the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, only 148 Americans were killed in the battle. This was primarily because of the technological advances of the United States.
What were examples of the technological advantages? Why would the Iraq army blow up the oil wells? Is it to do damage to America?
Overall, Operation Desert Storm, the largest American military operation since Vietnam, was completed with smashing success. Most Americans felt confident in their military and technological edge once more. President Bush promptly declared that the "new world order had begun."
This is true because America is now a world power.
The stealth fighter, designed to avoid radar detection was put into use for the first time.
The stealth fighter jet is a example of technology that is ahead.
The next night Desert Shield became Desert Storm. The U.S. bombed Iraq's military targets for the next several weeks.
Why are they bombing Iraq's targets not Iraq's bases?
Kuwait, meanwhile, was a major supplier of oil to the United States.
This might be the reason that United States would be in crisis, because they would have a lot less oil.
The first major foreign crisis for the United States after the end of the Cold War happened in August 1990. Saddam Hussein, the ruler of Iraq, ordered his army across the border into tiny Kuwait.
If this crisis is based in Kuwait? Why is it a crisis for the United States?
The first major foreign crisis for the United States after the end of the Cold War happened in August 1990. Saddam Hussein, the ruler of Iraq, ordered his army across the border into tiny Kuwait.
If this crisis occurred in Kuwait, why is this a crisis for the United States? What is Saddam Hussein going to do.