Rhetorical Analysis Of Hiroshima Bombing

On August 6th and 9th the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Days later when Japan surrendered, WWII ended as well. This bombing sparked many debates over whether America’s actions were right or not. The fewer amount of casualties and the brutal harshness of the Japanese to others justifies the US's strategy. The atomic bombs changed the way we fight wars and was a key milestone to where we are now. The decision to unleash them to the Japanese was not a light choice but it was necessary to preserve democracy and the American people.

On the tragic day of August 6, 1945, US Air Force deployed the first atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. A few days later, the second atomic bomb devastated the city of Nagasaki. These bombs were thought to end the war between Japan and America before other countries could get involved. To this day, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still a source of pain and shame for those afflicted and for those who survived. In the poem, “Hiroshima Exit” by Canadian Writer Joy Kogawa presents a flash back of these events that occurred during World War II.

The bombing of Hiroshima was the right thing to do due to the military lives that were going to be lost if the bomb did not get dropped, America also wanted to impress Russia or intimidate them by dropping it and the president saw this opportunity to make japan surrender as well. This all supports the main point on why it was the right thing to do but many to all Japanese say otherwise

The Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation by Franklin Delano Roosevelt was delivered on December 8, 1941 in Washington, D.C., a day after one of America’s largest tragedies. The bombing of Pearl Harbor is an event that is unforgettable and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s speech in response to this shocking attack is one of the most significant speeches of all time. The significance of the speech is the fact that America joined into the fighting of World War II, something the Americans didn’t want to do at first. This speech has a stark resemblance to the speech George W. Bush gave after the terrorist attacks of The Twin Towers in New York City, an equally shocking event. FDR’s use of ethos, logos, and pathos was extremely effective in spurring

In the twentieth century, the United States dropped two atomic bombs, which were the most powerful weapons at that time, on Japan. It happened on August 6 and August 9, 1945. The atomic bombs killed 226,000 Japanese and ended the war. However, America should not have dropped the atomic bombs for two reasons. First, it was not necessary to drop the bomb to win the war militarily or to get the Japanese to surrender. Second, America dropped the bomb not to win the war and save American lives, but to show its power to the Soviet Union.

The Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation and the Address to Congress on Women’s Suffrage are both great examples of ethos, pathos, and logos. They are both political messages created to not only rely on facts but to strike emotion in the hearts of the audience, whoever they may be. In the Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation speech given by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on December 8, 1941, in response to one of the most tragic days in U.S. history, to help rally the people of the United States of America to the realization of war between the Japanese and American forces. The Address to Congress on Women’s Suffrage was given by Carrie Chapman Catt to spark a revolt and spur up emotion of great pride in women of all nature to take a stand fight for what is right. Both these speeches use of rhetoric leave both as some of the best but the speech given by Franklin D. Roosevelt was by far more vivid.

After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in the Hawaiian Islands, President Truman dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Since then, there has been arguments whether the bombs should have been dropped or not. President Truman’s choice to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was really the only option he had back then. Today, the bombs that President Truman dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is thought as a horrible event, but Truman dropped the bombs to save American and Japanese lives, and in the end, shortened the war.

President Harry Truman gave an executive order in 1945 to drop to atomic bombs in popular downtown cities in Japan. With the guidance of many scientists and political leaders President Truman made the extremely tough decision to drop the bombs. After listening to arguments from both sides President Truman came to the conclusion that dropping bombs would be the best thing to do for this war. It would also show that the United States had an extreme military power. Many American politicians were for the idea of dropping the bomb, because they believed that it was the only way to end the war and get Japan to surrender. Giving them other options at this point seemed useless. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were killed when the bombs

December 7th, 1941 is a day changed the lives of all Americans. It is the day Japan deliberately attacked the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii killing many U.S. soldiers and destroying a lot of the U.S. naval fleet. This day which turned the tide of World War II, up until this point the U.S. had not chosen to intervene in the conflict overseas, but Japan’s attack had given the U.S. a reason to enter the fight. This speech given by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on December 8th, 1941 was his own passionate plea to the U.S. government and people to support the U.S. entering the war and fighting back against the tyranny occurring overseas. President Franklin D. Roosevelt effectively appeals to the emotions of the U.S. population by establishing trust with his audience through the use of emotional diction, and repetition which allow him to rally support for the war effort.

In an attempt to get Japan to surrender to the Allies, in August 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the nation. The first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and the second on Nagasaki. Although these bombs did contribute to Japan’s surrender and the end of the war, the use of this atomic weapon was an irrational and horrible decision. The United States should have abstained from using the two atomic bombs on Japan for the sake of civilian lives and possible alternatives to their decision. These bombs not only had detrimental effects on Japan, they also led to an arms race amongst several nations.

Different perspectives on the US decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II are how immoral it was to do. In Document 4 from 1945, it states, “This is a crime against God and humanity which strikes at the very basis of moral existence,” The author explains how heinous the idea of dropping the bomb was. Any one with morals would be against such thing because of the destruction one bomb can make and how it can annihilate anything in its path. It was pure cruelty to drop a bomb that powerful on any one, it wasn’t war or murder it would be consider nihilism because of destruction that occurred. Another perspective was of a GI soldier, in Document 5 and how the bomb was a relief to soldiers and their family. A

Sicko is a documental film made by Michael Moore in 2007. The director is the main speaker in the movie. Moore is a famous American documentary maker who was awarded for several of his works. There was not any special occasion for creation of this film; it looked like the director collected enough facts from different time periods and social groups and decided to reflect the situation in his new project. Moore mentioned some horrible, contradictory cases, they all had similar level of “severity”; there was not any specific event that could be treated as the trigger for the documentary’s creation. All Americans below the upper class be treated as the potential auditory for the Sicko. Moore involved people from different cities and social groups, but all of them were united by the same problem. The topic affects everyone who contact with health insurance

The residents of Hiroshima, Japan began their day routinely on August 6, 1945. Some commuted to work or school, some sat down to read a newspaper, and some tended to the needs of their children. At exactly fifteen minutes past eight in the morning, all aspects of life as known to the city’s population of two hundred and forty five thousand people were decimated within an instant; it was an instant in which the first atomic bomb was dropped from an American plane, killing nearly one hundred thousand people and injuring another one hundred thousand more. In its original edition, John Hersey’s Hiroshima traces the lives of six survivors, beginning a few minutes prior to the bombing and covering the period directly thereafter.

Could you ever image seeing a flash of light and having an entire building crash right on top of you? That was the reality of the people in Hiroshima when they were hit with a nuclear bomb in World War II. A nuclear bomb is an explosive device that blows up due to nuclear reactions. Hiroshima- a city in Japan had an explosion from the first ever nuclear bomb to be used in war causing lots of damage to the city and people. Before the nuclear bomb Hiroshima was a beautiful little city in Japan where people went to visit, shop, and live. People rode their bikes, pushed wagons, walked and rode their boats down the river. They all had an idea something was going to happen from hearing about it on the radio and all the talk around town. Not knowing the exact time something was going to happen was horrifying for the people all over. The nuclear bomb that hit Hiroshima not only destroyed the environment but also destroyed the lives of both the people killed and the survivors that lost so much that day.

Documentaries inform viewers about significant events and often have a strong point to make about social, environmental and economic issues. In this case “Fahrenheit 9/11” directed and written by Michael Moore, focuses largely on the social aspect. The U.S. Political commentator and actor heavily addresses his biased ideas in the 2004 documentary, by using several film techniques, film styles, historical relevance, and with the help of montages and sarcasm to deliver his message about Bush’s awful and manipulating ways as being a ‘President’. Moore’s documentary is worthwhile to study and watch due to the blatant accusations he makes towards Bush, opening up ideas for the intended audience watching.