PPG, I am disappoint.
I don't often talk --or think, really-- much about politics. I know my aloofness isn't the best thing for me, especially in today's world, but nothing really gets me worked up. Except gay rights and predjudice.
Predjudice.
It's no surprise then that I raised an eyebrow when I read the subtitle of Paul Kengor's article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette yesterday: "Truman's decision to drop the A-bomb saved millions -- Americans and Japanese".
Wow, that's very... one-sided, I thought.
The rest of his article, found here. It reads like war propaganda circa 1944.
Shocking, considering the author is a professor for political science. I really had a problem with the way he constantly described the entire Japanese population as "barbarous", unaffected by human casualties, and even the women and children as ready and willing to kill Americans. This sort of language hasn't been appropriate since, well, as long as I can remember. And I'm certain that if someone described Iraqi or Pakistani people this way, the PPG wouldn't print it. Do people think that just because WWII was sixty-five years ago, it's okay to insult the "enemy" (who is now one of our closest allies) like that?
Another problem I had with this article was its one-sidedness. Now, I don't have my essay I wrote for a lit class about the A-bomb and Hiroshima on my laptop here, but I clearly remember a few important facts that Kengor left out. 1.) By the time the A-bomb was dropped, Japan was, in fact, very close to surrendering. 2.) Yes, about 200,000 people were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but (excuse the FMA reference) that wasn't exactly equal exchange considering that America lost less than 80,000 soldiers total in the war in the Pacific. Also, Japanese people continued to die long after the bombs were dropped due to the radioactivity. 3.) Saving American lives? Er, not exactly. When the scientists/government decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, they also decided to kill the 11 American POWs and American priest that lived there as well. 4.) As for having no other option, they did. In fact, Kyoto was first considered as a target. Kyoto actually had military barracks (unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and they thought the point would be crystal clear to the many educated people that lived and worked there. The main reason this option was passed over was because they thought more of a psychological impact could be made by unexpectedly killing innocent people in a little port town like Hiroshima.
Paul Kengor will be receiving a copy of my essay, and the PPG will be getting a letter from me as well, asking them what the hell they were thinking printing something like this.
Predjudice.
It's no surprise then that I raised an eyebrow when I read the subtitle of Paul Kengor's article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette yesterday: "Truman's decision to drop the A-bomb saved millions -- Americans and Japanese".
Wow, that's very... one-sided, I thought.
The rest of his article, found here. It reads like war propaganda circa 1944.
Shocking, considering the author is a professor for political science. I really had a problem with the way he constantly described the entire Japanese population as "barbarous", unaffected by human casualties, and even the women and children as ready and willing to kill Americans. This sort of language hasn't been appropriate since, well, as long as I can remember. And I'm certain that if someone described Iraqi or Pakistani people this way, the PPG wouldn't print it. Do people think that just because WWII was sixty-five years ago, it's okay to insult the "enemy" (who is now one of our closest allies) like that?
Another problem I had with this article was its one-sidedness. Now, I don't have my essay I wrote for a lit class about the A-bomb and Hiroshima on my laptop here, but I clearly remember a few important facts that Kengor left out. 1.) By the time the A-bomb was dropped, Japan was, in fact, very close to surrendering. 2.) Yes, about 200,000 people were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but (excuse the FMA reference) that wasn't exactly equal exchange considering that America lost less than 80,000 soldiers total in the war in the Pacific. Also, Japanese people continued to die long after the bombs were dropped due to the radioactivity. 3.) Saving American lives? Er, not exactly. When the scientists/government decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima, they also decided to kill the 11 American POWs and American priest that lived there as well. 4.) As for having no other option, they did. In fact, Kyoto was first considered as a target. Kyoto actually had military barracks (unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and they thought the point would be crystal clear to the many educated people that lived and worked there. The main reason this option was passed over was because they thought more of a psychological impact could be made by unexpectedly killing innocent people in a little port town like Hiroshima.
Paul Kengor will be receiving a copy of my essay, and the PPG will be getting a letter from me as well, asking them what the hell they were thinking printing something like this.