for courseworkhero.co.uk

 In a short (5-6 page, double-spaced) essay, analyze the attached essay by Barton Bernstein on the atomic bombings. Bernstein provides five or six theories of how the Japanese could have been brought to surrender prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs. Assess the merits of each of these based on the information provided and any outside research you care to conduct. Analyze the strength of his argument and the evidence he provides to determine what course of action Truman should have taken. In other words, are “revisionists” correct in their assessment that the atomic bombings were not done for military purposes? Is Bernstein correct that Nagasaki was unnecessary?

 

Note: Using outside sources is not necessary or even recommended to supplement Bernstein’s piece. Some folks still want to do it, and that’s fine—within limits. When using outside sources, be certain to cite them in footnotes. Also, be warned that there is a lot of “junk” out there masquerading as research. This subject, like any controversial one, brings out the wing-nuts, conspiracy junkies, and the amateur hour, ax-to-grind folks. Some of it is pretty tough to spot. If you have questions about a site, please see me or email me a link and I’ll give you a reasonably informed assessment of it.

Note #2: When discussing each theory/alternative, make sure you thoroughly and accurately assess the arguments for and against it. 

  

Extra info :

Start with a thesis; don’t get fancy be direct (like don’t mention death tolls ect .. ) .. ignore the three schools in the first paragraph because it has nothing to do with the thesis.

 

Sum the 6-5 alternatives as dense as you can, like one paragraph each. And say you support it or not each

 

DISCUSS NAGASAKI, [ people sometimes forget to mention Nagasaki ) pick one of these

-both is necessary ( NAGASAKI and HORISHIMA )

-both are not

 

-one is good and one is bad ( Nagasaki is not necessary )

           

============ REVISION============

 

ok there is a couple of big comments from the professor. I’ve uploaded the images of the paper so you can see the professor’s comments and things need to be changed. 

 

He said there is no Thesis, or needed a better one. like a clear thesis of what the paper is going to be on

 

he said that I wrote too much on unnecessary things, he just need us to talk about the 5 ALTERNATIVES ! not the whole of the introduction and schools of ideas ect … so many paraghprahes needs to be deleted and the alternatives needs to be talked about more.

 

you will see a couple of “unneccssary” on the image 

 

there is a “Go to the alternative” on the top of pages 3 as you see

 

and there is “why not? what were US fear? ” .. “develope” … 

 

there is more but I could not read his hand writing maybe you can kim. 

also the two II (slashes) sometimes you will see them on the left side of the paper means Good points. professor liked it. 

  

finally which is a big thing. he said why did not you talk about Nagasaki ? was the bombing of Nagasaki necessary? or just Horshima ? or both were needed? or both were wrong ?