I need help with an assignment a.s.a.p., please.

SUPERIOR-PAPERS.COM essay writing company is the ideal place for homework help. If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. Click the button below to place your order.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

When responding to your peers, choose (2) peers who selected the same topic as you by looking at the title of the discussion posts. In one paragraph, compare and contrast the source you described in your initial post with the one described by your peer. Are the two sources’ theses or arguments compatible? Do they use the same or different primary sources? Is one source more reliable, in your estimation, than the other? How do these two sources, combined, add to what you know about the research topic?

My initial post:

Hiroshima: The strange myth of half a million American lives saved, is a secondary source I chose for my topic. I think this article is using social and political lenses to uncover the myth about how the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had helped save millions of lives. Some the article focuses on how the American people disprove and approved the action. “A Fortune magazine poll taken two months after Japan’s capitulation showed that less than 5% of Americans disapproved of the military use of a bomb. Some 22%, still seething over the infamous “sneak” attack on Pearl Harbor, wished that more such bombs had been quickly dropped before the Japanese had a chance to surrender” (Miles, 1985). It appears the Americans had given more credit to the launching of nuclear weapons. Lastly, the author used a political lens because he examines the relationship between those in power, in this case, the U.S. and Japan. The author also examines the agreement between the U.S. and Japan, which led to the end of their conflict. “The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers” (Miles, 1985). Again, the author examines how Americans respond to the influence of laws and regulation. This is demonstrated by the way the government officials tried to describe the necessity of the actions taken to bomb the Japan cities. The author writes, “Stimson’s estimate of the consequences of what he implied was the only effective alternative to the use of the bomb thus became the main reference point for the rest of the 1940s and, as a result, has been influential ever since” (Miles, 1985).

1st. peer:

For my discussion post, I am referencing from a secondary source.


By. Robert A. Pape

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

There are a few points made in the writing that it was Social Lens here they are:

The key question is: why did Japan capitulate before invasion and decisive defeat of her home army? Debate has raged for decades over this question. This prolific literature offers three principal explanations, all of which assume that civilian vulnerability was the key to coercion. The first argues that the decisive factor was fear of future punishment from atomic bombing: ”It was not one atomic bomb, or two, which brought surrender. It was the experience of what an atomic bomb will actually do to a community, plus the dread of many more.

Japan surrendered to avoid the risk of having its population centers annihilated on the effects of conventional strategic bombing on Japan’s population.

When I read that, I knew it had a Social Lens feel to it.

“It was not necessary for us to burn every city, to destroy every factory, to shoot down every airplane or sink every ship, and starve the people. It was enough to demonstrate that we were capable of doing all this.” The decline in morale had a profound effect on Japan’s political leadership. At the time surrender was announced, [low morale] was rapidly becoming of greater importance as a pressure on the political and military decisions of the rulers of the country. Japan was willing to give in rather than face the continued suffering of its society.

When I saw, “Starve the people”, I believed this was a Social Lens also.

When reading this, I had to put myself into being a person living through this in Japan and thought about other people going through the same thing and how it effected many things on a wide scale.

The economy was effected along with farming/commerce and others.

2nd peer:

I believe the article Marshall, Truman, and the decision to drop the Bomb uses a political lens. The title of the article immediately put me in the mind state that it uses the political lens as it includes the last names of two political figures, President Truman and Army Chief of staff General George C. Marshall. “…It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisors knew it” (Alperovitz,Messer, & Bernstein, 1991). The previous quote from the article confirmed my initial thought that the article used a political lens because it refers to Truman and his advisors and the fact that they still chose to use the bomb even though there were possible alternatives, making the decision to drop the bomb a political decision. “Prior to Hiroshima and Soviet entry, the emperor had never firmly committed himself to plead with the cabinet for such an offer. The A-bomb played a dominant role in this decision.” Alperovitz,Messer, & Bernstein, 1991). This quote from the article refers to Japans conditional surrender offer. The quote confirms the dropping of the bomb was political because the Japanese surrender was forced, as Emperor Hirohito never presented this peaceful offer, and a surrender and end to the war is what President Truman wanted.


Got stuck with a writing task? We can help! Use our paper writing service to score better grades and meet your deadlines.

Get 15% discount for your first order

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper