No, the US wasn’t justified. Even secretary of war Henry Lewis Stimson was not sure the bombs were needed to reduce the need of an invasion: “Japan had no allies; its navy was almost destroyed; its islands were under a naval blockade; and its cities were undergoing concentrated air attacks.” The United States still had many industrial resources to use against Japan, and thus it was essentially defeated. Rear Admiral Tocshitane Takata concurred that B-29s “were the greatest single factor in forcing Japan's surrender”, while Prince Konoye already thought Japan was defeated on 14 February 1945 when he met emperor Hirohito. A combination of thoroughly bombing blockading cities that were economically dependent on foreign sources for food and raw
This is because all wars are won on politics, if the government have the support of the people; the likelihood is that their war effort will be successful. It also highlights the key man that turned the screw of public opinion, Walter Cronkite. As seen in C, Cronkite exclaimed to the whole country “What the hell is going on? I thought we were winning this war.” This obviously had a massive affect on opinion, and polls show a drop around the time of this exclamation. This was as Hall rightly says in C, a “Rude awakening to the realities of the war that prompted a re-evaluation of the nation’s commitment.” This is similar to Source A in the way that it refuses to focus on the statistics of the offensive, but look at the consequences of the assault, with the privilege of hindsight.
1-) According to the textbook, “dysfunctional conflict is a confrontation or interaction between groups that harms the organization or hinders the achievement of organizational goals” (p.305). Based in this definition, I describe the conflict between Michael Eisner and Weinstein brothers, and Steve Jobs as a dysfunctional conflict, because it was negative for Disney and it caused harm for the relationship with their key partners. It is clear to see that a negative personal comment made by Eisner about Apple Computers caused Disney to ruin their partnership with Pixar. This a great example of a relationship conflict, which is generated based on interpersonal relationships. 2-) I think the conflict between Eisner and Jobs is best described as it is in the manifest stage.
Finally, the largest controversy surrounded his public outcries to invade Japan against the orders of President Truman. Many believe that this would enter the Soviet Union into the war and would instigate a nuclear war. However, others think that the Soviets were not yet done perfecting a nuclear bomb and by hitting them hard early as well as China, that the Cold War as well as communism could have both been diminished. Regardless, it is hard to play Monday-morning quarterback and place yourself in MacArthur’s position on the battlefield. He had a completely different perspective than those officials sitting atop Capitol Hill will watchful eyes on all global situations.
American citizens pressured the government to regulate cooperations and trade in order to stop them from creating pools, make use of rebates, the monopolization of trade, and take advantage of the consumers which violated lassie faire ideas to a slight degree. Even though the regulations were small and did little to solve the problems presented by the people, it set the precedent for larger and stricter regulations to come into play in the future generations. American citizens also pressured the government to help preserve healthy competition in the business world but only to a minor degree. All of these actions changed the standards of what the government can do in the world of economics forever. Railroad expansion was relatively new during the gilded age.
The attack didn’t make sense to Americans because they knew that Japan believed that the U.S. was stronger, but to the Japanese, Adkison 5 the Pearl Harbor attack probably seemed like their best option at the time. Not only would the attack diminish the American defenses on the West Coast, but it would force the U.S. into a twofront war, one in the Pacific and the other in Europe. Logically, a nation whose military is split between two fronts would be weaker than if its military only needed to worry about fighting on one front. Maybe Japan thought that between its alliance within the Axis powers and the U.S. fighting on two fronts, there was a distinct chance at victory and moving up in the world as a powerful nation. A surprise attack on the fleet could weaken Americans and give the Japanese the power that they craved.
Jurassic Park views technological improvement as potentially dangerous, while The Killer Angels portrays that technological advances can help a great deal. Although the technology in both novels are different, both advance in their own ways. The advance of warfare technology in The Killer Angels helps the Union Army defeat the Confederate Army, a good thing for them. On the other hand, the advance of scientific technology in Jurassic Park ultimately fails and brings doom to everyone in the park. These conflicting views on technological advances in these novels can be related to the modern age that we live in today.
Everyone had to get on with their everyday life, so there was no point in worrying about it. * People said that they would just have to accept the fact that thousands will die, but even more will be saved. Therefore there is no point in panicking. * There have been many different accounts written in people’s diaries saying that they did get together and that the blitz did help people. * You can’t compare the Dorchester with other people’s homes as it is strong purely because that was the way it was built in the first place.
First, President Roosevelt was pushing the United States hard into a war with Germany. Roosevelt and Marshall were uneasy about the Pacific, partly since they feared that the United States might be drawn into a war with Japan and kept farther away from war with Germany. Churchill did write in his diary that he was happy that Japan attacked the U.S., since it would bring the U.S. into the war. Churchill was a great Prime Minister for his leadership, his grand vision, his oratory, and his determination. He frequently did not have a firm grasp on how things would turn out.
The translator is not identified. Dear Dr. Husák, In our offices and factories work goes on, discipline prevails. The efforts of our citizens are yielding visible results in a slowly rising standard of living: people build houses, buy cars, have children, amuse themselves, live their lives. All this, of course, amounts to very little as a criterion for the success or failure of your policies. After every social upheaval, people invariably come back in the end to their daily labors, for the simple reason that they want to stay alive; they do so for their own sake, after all, not for the sake of this or that team of political leaders.