Both articles concern the highly contentious subject of the British strategic bombing campaign in Germany during the Second World War. This subject focuses around the historical debate that the British government knowingly targeted civilian cities in Germany, killing hundreds of thousands of non combatants while also gravely misinforming the British public as to the purpose and results of their strategic bombing campaigns. In the years after the war the debate had come to light due to the renewed interest in the strategic bombing campaign. The articles by Mark Connelly and Alex Bellamy are products of this renewed interest. This essay seeks to compare and contrast the articles on three grounds: the different methods hat each historian uses …show more content…
to strengthen their argument, the different opinions each historian has on the public's attitude towards strategic bombing and non-combatant immunity (the killing of civilians) and the similarities in their opinions that the government and the press played a vital part in misinforming the general public about the inaccuracy of the area bombing campaign. Certainly the most convincing article of the two is Connelly's, arguing strongly that while the public were misinformed, they had a good enough idea to support the destruction of civilian towns and cities, whereas Bellamy points out that the public were ignorant towards the bombing campaign and would not have supported the killing of non-combatants (even in supreme emergency). Whereas Connelly brings forward the most convincing argument, it is Bellamy's article which garnered the most responses from contemporary historians, however, these responses were mostly negative due to the inaccuracy of his arguments, leading to the conclusion that the most reliable, useful and convincing argument is that of Connelly's. It is essential to analyse the methodology of both Connelly and Bellamy's research in order to reach a conclusion as to the strength of the evidence they are providing for their argument. In this sense, Connelly prevails. Both articles take extreme care and thoroughness in their methods of gaining information. However, while they are both accurately researched and referenced, with sufficient acknowledgement to both primary and secondary sources, they use different sources of information and seek to evident different conclusions. Connelly skilfully identity's the different attitudes of newspapers circulating in World War 2 ( i.e. Daily Mirror, Telegraph, Mail, Times, etc.) in order to document the level of misinformation presented to public regarding bomber command's area bombing. Bellamy on the other hand pays more attention to the theoretical argument's of historians, philosophers and early 20th century politicians in order to satisfy his more ethically focused argument. However, Bellamy, Like Connelly, does acknowledge the position of the papers in advocating reprisals against Germany. Furthermore, while both carefully evoke the use of accurate facts and figures to substantiate their claims, it is Connelly who uses surveys in order to document public opinion, while paying attention to the ambiguous nature of surveys during the war.
This substantiates his claims more than Bellamy as one of Bellamy's primary arguments is that the public in a liberal society would be against the use of “terror bombing”. However, as Connelly elaborates more on the use of surveys to highlight public opinion,it is clear that the British public were in favour of “revenge bombing” against Germany. This certainly highlights the discrepancy between the two articles, because while Bellamy references Connelly's (accentuating Connelly's reliability as a contemporary historian) research into public opinion on area bombing, he leaves out vital information in the survey such as the location of those being bombed, which played an extremely important part in public attitudes to retaliation against Germany. This is something Bellamy fails to point and and therefore this damages the integrity of his argument and allows us to come to the conclusion that for the most part of his argument, Connelly is the most …show more content…
convincing. However, that is not to see that Connelly's methods are not without their flaws. Historically, newspapers generally tend to shift in favour of home support in war time and differ greatly in content and in attitude compared to peacetime, so while Connelly does acknowledge the fact that newspapers differed slightly in the information presented to the public, he fails to sufficiently provide details of the shift between content in peace time newspapers and war time newspapers, something which could have been particularity useful in his article as it concerns the nature of the presentation of the war to the public. Perhaps Connelly's strongest argument is that while the public were fed a manipulated version of the truth about the British strategic bombing campaign, they still had some idea about the true nature of events (collateral killing of civilians) and still supported it due to the feeling of jingoism after the blitz.
Bellamy argues differently, and less convincingly than Connelly, that the government assumed the public would not support the strategic bombing campaign of Germany if they knew of the aim of “undermining of the moral of the German people”. Therefore claiming that in liberal societies such as Britain, the population generally do not support the killing of non-combatants in war time. These different views stem from the use of the New Statesmen's mass observation survey in 1944 which found that people wanted the bombing of Germany to continue, however both historians interpret it
differently. While Connelly and Bellamy may both have different conclusions as to the view of the British public on the idea of non-combatant immunity during war time, they both agree that the ministries the public relied on for information were extremely selective in their presentations and ultimately misinformed the general public as to the true nature of the bombing campaign in Germany. Connelly and Bellamy both argue that the public were being “fed a manipulated version of the truth” and point towards the Air Ministry and the Ministry of information as responsible for the inaccuracy of British bombing raids. Both ministries, according to Connelly, relayed inaccurate information because “administratively, it proved a nightmare” and the information being fed to the press was highly disorganised and at times; even downright lies. Connelly points to the positive portrayal of several disastrous strategic bombing campaigns during the early 1940's as evidence for the misportrayal of events and argues that the allegiances of the war time news papers to the Bomber Command were such that even when presented with the truth they chose to mislead the public into believing that the campaign was greatly effective and the industrial capacity of Germany to wage war was being eroded. Bellamy argues similarly that there was a great discrepancy between what was actually happening in the bombing campaign and what the public were being presented with. However, whereas Connelly focuses upon misleading of the effectiveness of the bombing campaign, Bellamy instead focusses on the fact that the government “dissembled” in order to mislead the public that industrial centres were being attacked and not civilian populations. Therefore while both agree that the government and the press mislead the British public, they lend different focus to the
Christopher McCandless and Adam Shepard both did some similar targets in their lives, at the end it lead them to unexpected situations. Christopher McCandless was a young man who didn't believe in society and he chose to get away from that and left everything he had, including his family. He developed important relationships with key people that helped him on his journey into the wild. Similarly Adam Shepard was a young man who left with only $25 and a sleeping bag to go prove his point that the american dream does exist and to see if he can achieve it in a couple of months. Overall comparing McCandless and Shepard, Christopher McCandless had a greater impact in people, motivated many, and was selfish in plenty of good ways.
Miles, Rufus E. Jr. “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved.” International Security (1985): 121-140.
Two people could be living two very different lifestyles, yet they could be very similar in the way they act and react in the same situation. Charlotte from “The Metaphor” by Budge Wilson and the Mother character from “Borders” by Thomas King live very different lives but the way they deal with the problems they are faced with is very similar. Both protagonists have to deal with trying to be forced to be something they are not by society and their families, but Charlotte from “The Metaphor” has been challenged by her strenuous home, she must face her organized mother and orderly home; the Mother from “Borders” must stand up for what she believes in and fight for what she wants.
This investigation assesses President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It will determine whether or not his decision was justified. This investigation will scrutinize the reasons that made Harry Truman feel inclined to drop atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Preventing further casualties along with the desire to end the war are two argumentative points that will be analyzed to determine if they were strong enough to justify the dropping of the atomic bombs. Excerpts from Truman’s memoirs and a variety of different titles were consulted in order to undertake this investigation. Section C will evaluate two sources for their origins purposes values and limitations. The first is a book titled The Invasion of Japan written by John Stakes in 1955. And the second is a book titled Prompt & Utter Destruction written by J. Samuel Walker.
The benefits that the bomb had on our society have been invaluable. Permitting the use of the atomic bomb was an atrocious mistake.In John Hersey's book, Hiroshima, he interviews a German priest serving in Japan. This priest, Father Kleinsorge, provides a first hand account of the immorality, justification, and consequences thereof; “The crux of the matter is whether total war in its present form is justifiable even when it s...
One of the most argued topics today, the end of World War II and the dropping of the atomic bombs still rings in the American ear. Recent studies by historians have argued that point that the United States really did not make the right choice when they chose to drop the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Also with the release of once classified documents, we can see that the United States ...
Fuller, J.F.C. "Propaganda and War. The New Technique of Mendacity as a Psychological Weapon." Ordnance, Dec
Some people think that if they could only change one aspect of their lives, it would be perfect. They do not realize that anything that is changed could come with unintended consequences. “The Monkey’s Paw” by W.W. Jacobs and “The Third Wish” by Joan Aiken both illustrate this theme. They demonstrate this by granting the main character three wishes, but with each wish that is granted, brings undesirable consequences. The main idea of this essay is to compare and contrast “The Monkey’s Paw” and “The Third Wish.” Although the “The Monkey’s Paw” and “The Third Wish” are both fantasies and have similar themes, they have different main characters, wishes, and resolutions.
In contrast, Maier and Selden’s thesis claims the act of dropping the atomic bomb was completely justifiable and not a war crime is the counter argument. Since, both authors address the fact that the world was at war and that aerial bombing was not something new, however, the technology advances were. In addition, their logic is reasonable because at the time of World War II almost everyone was using strategic and tactical aerial bombing, not to mention the Allies wanted to end the war as soon as possible. Thus, the atomic bomb was justifiable, however, it was a war crime. The objective of the tactical bombing was to aim at military targets it achieves its objective, however, killing thousands of lives in the process.
The Origins of the Second World War, by A.J.P. Taylor, proposes and investigates unconventional and widely unaccepted theories as to the underlying causes of World War Two. Taylor is a British historian who specialized in 20th century diplomacy, and in his book claims that as a historian his job is to “state the truth” (pg. xi) as he sees it, even if it means disagreeing with existing prejudices. The book was published in 1961, a relatively short time after the war, and as a result of his extreme unbias the work became subject to controversy for many years. Studying history through his lens of objectivism, Taylor’s theory is that Hitler’s design wasn’t one of world dominance; rather his methods, especially his foreign policies, didn’t differ from his predecessors.
The nation held its breath, as citizens of every city kept their ears alarmed for the drone of a German bomber, to rain bombs on Britain’s urban areas. Shelters were dug, buildings were made light-proof and millions awaited the first air raid. The wait lasted longer than anyone expected. Britain’s towns and cities remained untouched by German bombs for months. In fact, during this first stage of the war, the period which came to be known as the Phoney War - not very much happened at all. Fighting was very limited and bombing absent, leading many of the parents of children to go against the advice of the government and bring them
The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima which triggered incredible human suffering and brought about insightful allegations of the entire human race embodies one of the crucial events of the twentieth century. By scrutinizing the historical background and the incentives of the past leaders at the time, various individuals have established different viewpoints to evaluate whether the circumstances justified the decision to drop the atomic bomb. In this paper, I shall compare General Paul Tibbett's and Yoshikawa's Kawamoto's perspectives and how they differ from each other.
To this day, the strategic bombings within the context of World War II are polarizing contested events, with historians arguing for and against the morality and the effectiveness of the campaign. From the time of the publication of the theory of strategic bombing to the present, no wider consensus has been reached around the moral or strategic legitimacy and viability of the tactic - historians, politicians, and strategists remain in disagreement. There are many different perspectives on the various strategic bombings in World War II, with some historians arguing that strategic bombing is morally indefensible and militarily ineffective, some arguing that strategic bombing is morally indefensible yet militarily effective, some
Have you ever read a novel then watched the film version and were disappointed that they left something out of the film? This is common when they make films from novels; a case of this is the novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee. The classic 1930s American novel is mainly about a six-year-old girl, Jean Louise Finch also known as Scout and her life growing in the small town of Maycomb Alabama. At this time in Maycomb, racism is common. So when scouts father Atticus is chosen to defend an African American named Tom Robinson it stirs up some tension in town. Analyzing the characters and moods of the sections in the novel and film, they were slightly different from the film has since it has less dialogue
Fogleman, Edwin. Hiroshima; The Decision to Use The A-Bomb. Ed. Martin Steinmann,Jr. New York: Scribner Research Anthologies. 1964. Pg.1-75.