Atomic Bomb Socratic Seminar - Weebly



Japan, Imperialism, and the Atomic Bomb Socratic Seminar 2018

During our unit on Japan, we have been analyzing and discussing Japan’s transition from isolation to imperial power and how this ultimately led to its role in WWII in conjunction with the United States. The final activity to this portion of our unit will involve you analyzing the following essential questions: “Can the United States, Millard Fillmore, and Matthew Perry be blamed for Japan’s imperial ambitions” and “Was the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan justified?”

In order to answer these questions, you will need to develop an argument based upon factual evidence from articles, video clips, and book selections. During the seminar, you will be evaluated on not only the number of comments you make but their quality as well. Your comments need to show a high degree of thought and you will be required to refer back to a text at least once.

We will be using selections from the following texts for research and information:

• Japan Meets the West

• Commodore Perry in Japan

• “Flyboys” & “Flags of our Fathers” by James Bradley

• “The Century” by Peter Jennings

• “The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima” from The Manhattan Project- An Interactive History

• Primary sources from the Harry S. Truman Library

• Additionally, you are welcome to find additional resources on your own.

• Fortune Magazine Article Selection

Ultimately, your seminar grade will be made of the following components:

• Did you participate a minimum of 3 times

• Did your comments demonstrate research and high-level thinking

• Did you refer back to the text at least once

• Did you complete your questions and graphic organizers

During the seminar, we will be discussing the following analysis questions. Answer 4 of these questions in a short paragraph using your best writing skills (3-6 sentences) and be prepared to discuss the others:

1. What lessons about imperialism might Japan have learned from Perry and the West and did this lead to WWII?

2. What factors led to the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan?

3. Due to the atrocities committed by the Japanese, such as Nanking, did they “deserve it”?

4. Was ethnocentrism/racism a factor in the dropping of the bomb?

5. “If Pearl Harbor makes the Japanese subhuman, what does Hiroshima make us?”- Steven Lane Do you agree with this quote. Explain who or why not.

6. If you were Harry Truman, what decision would you have made and would you have done anything differently? Were there other options?

7. Under what circumstances can the use of Atomic Weapons be justified? Should they be used on a group like ISIS?

8. Should Truman, Tibbits, and the creators of the Atomic Bomb have been put on trial for crimes against humanity due to the cruel and destructive nature of the Atomic Bomb or are their actions justified?

9. Are there any circumstances where high civilian casualties are acceptable in order to defeat an enemy?

10. What constitutes an act of terrorism?

11. Should the United States have the right to tell other countries, such as Iran, whether they have the right to possess Atomic Weapons when the United States is the only country to and used them on another nation?

12. What does this event say about the future of humanity?

Be prepared to discuss these questions with the class during the seminar.

Good luck and I look forward to hearing your thoughts and observations!

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Graphic Organizer for “Hiroshima: A Powerful Flash” from The Century

• Who are the three survivors? For each account, give three key details or items of about their experience:

______________________________________________

1.

2.

3.

______________________________________________

1.

2.

3.

______________________________________________

1.

2.

3.

• What insight did you gain from this article

Graphic Organizer for “The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima”

|SUPPORT |NEUTRAL/FACTUAL |OPPOSE |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

• IN WHAT WAYS DOES THE INFORMATION FROM THIS ARTICLE LEAD YOU TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE USE OF THE ATOMIC BOMB ON JAPAN?

[pic]

Graphic Organizer for “Flags of Our Fathers”

|SUPPORT |NEUTRAL/FACTUAL |OPPOSE |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

1. ACCORDING TO THIS SOURCE, WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE COST OF AN INVASION OF JAPAN?

2. WHAT DID WORLD LEADERS SUCH AS CHURCHILL FEEL ABOUT USING THE ATOMIC BOMB OF JAPAN?

3. IN WHAT WAYS DOES THE INFORMATION FROM THIS ARTICLE LEAD YOU TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE USE OF THE ATOMIC BOMB ON JAPAN?

[pic]

Graphic Organizer for “Flyboys”

|SUPPORT |NEUTRAL/FACTUAL |OPPOSE |

| | | |

| | | |

1. ACCORDING TO THIS SOURCE, WHY MIGHT HIROSHIMA HAVE BEEN A TARGET AND DOES THIS INFORMATION JUSTIFY USE OF THE BOMB?

2. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE OPINIONS OF WILLIAM MANCHESTER AND MITSU FUCHIDA? WHY OR WHY NOT?

3. DOES THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE MAKE THE BOMB SOUND UNNECESSARILY DESTRUCTIVE OR A NECESSARY WEAPON USED TO DEFEAT JAPAN? WHY DO YOU FEEL THIS WAY?

TRUMAN & CALVERT LETTERS

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Graphic Organizer for “Correspondence between Harry Truman and Samuel Cavert

1. WHAT TYPES OF SOURCES ARE THESE?

2. HOW DO TRUMAN’S AND CAVERT’S VIEWS ON USE OF THE ATOMIC BOMB DIFFER?

3. IS YOUR OPINION CLOSER TO TRUMAN’S OR CAVERT’S AND WHY?

HARRY TRUMAN TO RICHARD RUSSELL

[pic]

Harry Truman to Richard Russell

1. HOW DOES TRUMAN’S TONE IN THIS LETTER DIFFER FROM THE PREVIOUS ONE?

2. IF TRUMAN FELT THAT JAPAN WAS “GOING TO VERY SHORTLY FOLD AFTER THE RUSSIAN’S ENTER THE WAR”, WAS IT STILL NECESSARY THAT HE AUTHORIZE USE OF THE ATOMIC BOMB?

Leaflet Dropped Over Japan (1945)

Annotation

Hours after the Hiroshima bombing, American bombers again took to the skies over Japan. This time their payloads contained not bombs but leaflets: printed warnings in Japanese cautioning those on the ground of the fearful new weapon the U.S. had deployed. Addressed to “The People of Japan,” it notified them that the United States possessed “the most destructive explosive ever devised by man,” a single one of which carried the equivalent of 2,000 bomb loads of explosive power. That “awful fact,” the leaflet read, “is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.” The leaflet also indicated that the weapon had already been used once in Japan: “If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.” It closed by urging readers to demand a quick and peaceful end to hostilities lest the U.S. employ “this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.”

Such warnings to civilian populations were not unusual during the World War II. Besides offering some moral cover to the attackers, warning leaflets had other, more practical value. They sowed fear and mistrust for the government on the ground, which was often seen as unable to provide basic air defense; and by encouraging citizens to flee the cities (the leaflet dropped on Japanese civilians after Hiroshima listed not just Nagasaki but a half-dozen other potential targets) they created enormous logistical and production challenges for the target nation: civilians fleeing urban areas clogged roads and were, by definition, not working in war industries.

TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:

America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2,000 of our giant B-29's can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our President has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender: We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.

You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES!

1. DOES THIS LEAFLET MAKE IT MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE FOR THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE DROPPED THE ATOMIC BOMB ON JAPAN?

Leo Szilard's Petition to the President (1945)

Annotation

Leo Szilard was one of the first physicists to identify the military application of atomic power. In fact, Szilard wrote most of the famous 1939 letter from Albert Einstein to then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt outlining the potential of such a bomb and the fears that Hitler’s Germany was currently working to develop one that helped set the American Manhattan Project in motion. As the atomic tests reached their successful conclusion, however, Szilard raised serious concerns about the practical use of such weapons against civilian targets.

A Petition to the President of the United States

Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future. The liberation of atomic power which has been achieved places atomic bombs in the hands of the Army. It places in your hands, as Commander-in-Chief, the fateful decision whether or not to sanction the use of such bombs in the present phase of the war against Japan.

We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power. Until recently, we have had to fear that the United States might be attacked by atomic bombs during this war and that her only defense might lie in a counterattack by the same means. Today, with the defeat of Germany, this danger is averted and we feel impelled to say what follows:

The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender.

If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender our nation might then, in certain circumstances, find itself forced to resort to the use of atomic bombs. Such a step, however, ought not to be made at any time without seriously considering the moral responsibilities which are involved.

The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.

If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States—singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.

The added material strength which this lead gives to the United States brings with it the obligation of restraint and if we were to violate this obligation our moral position would be weakened in the eyes of the world and in our own eyes. It would then be more difficult for us to live up to our responsibility of bringing the unloosened forces of destruction under control. In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition: first, that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved

Leo Szilard's Petition to the President (1945)

1. WHAT IS SZILARD’S OPINION OF USING THE ATOMIC BOMB ON CIVILIAN TARGETS?

2. DO YOU SUPPORT SZILARD’S OPIONS CONCERNING USE OF THE ATOMIC BOMB?

US STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY (1946)

[pic]

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (1946)

1. WHAT WAS THE CONCLUSION OF THE STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY?

2. BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, DO YOU FEEL USE OF THE ATOMIC BOMB WAS STILL NECESSARY?

Korean Summit: Denuclearization 2018 - Nyshka Chandran, CNBC Asia-Pacific

Friday's landmark summit between the heads of the two Koreas was widely seen as a positive step in the quest to achieve a nuclear-free North Korea, but it failed to provide concrete details on how to achieve that goal. Those tough particulars are likely being saved for the upcoming meeting between President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un.

The third inter-Korean summit concluded with Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-In signing a joint declaration agreeing to work for the "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." But no specifics were provided as to how or when.

The meeting was a diplomatic win, but it "was never going to go into details on decnulearization, which is what everybody wants," said Andrew Gilholm, principal and director of the analysis practice for greater China and North Asia at Control Risks.

Information on whether Pyongyang will unconditionally relinquish nuclear weapons and how that process can be verified may only be revealed at the Trump-Kim meeting, he continued: "The real negotiations were never going to be last Friday, it's going to be between the U.S. and North Korea."

Despite Kim's promises, "prospects for the North Korean leader giving up his nuclear weapons remain poor," analysts at consultancy Eurasia Group warned in a note over the weekend. "Grand statements in support of full denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula have been made before," they added, referring to the first two inter-Korean summits in 2000 and 2007.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sign documents at the truce village of Panmunjom inside the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, South Korea, April 27, 2018.

"The joint declaration is simply a signed statement between two leaders and is not legally binding," they continued, adding that "there are no details on how North Korea would make progress to denuclearize, or over what time frame."

Kim, on Friday, also told Moon he will be inviting international experts to ensure transparency in his promise to close a nuclear test site. But the dictator's words must be taken with a pinch of salt, strategists have long warned.

For instance, Kim on Friday said he felt "embarrassed" about his country's poor transit infrastructure, which many interpreted as a potential indicator of joint development projects between the two Koreas.

However, "Kim Jong Il, during previous summits in 2000 and 2007, also made the same kind of self-effacing comments about North Korea's circumstances," said Christopher Green, a senior advisor at the International Crisis Group.

All eyes on Trump-Kim meeting

The historic face-to-face encounter, set to be the first between sitting U.S. and North Korean leaders, could occur over the next three to four weeks, Trump said. But discussions could be complicated by the fact that both parties hold varying interpretations of the concept of denuclearization.

South Korean and American officials must "discard this very ambiguous and obscure term of denuclearization," recommended Cheon Seong-Whun, visiting research fellow at The Asan Institute for Policy Studies, a Seoul-based think tank.

Instead, "they have to use, from now on, nuclear dismantlement for this upcoming summit," he added.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Kim's wife Ri Sol Ju and Moon's wife Kim Jung-sook attend a farewell ceremony at the truce village of Panmunjom inside the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, South Korea, April 27, 2018.

The stakes are high if talks don't specify how Pyongyang will limit its nuclear capabilities, with several experts warning that a failed summit could increase the risk of armed conflict.

If the Trump-Kim meeting does go ahead, "that means they basically have some kind of agreement in place" regardless of how vague such a deal may be, Gilholm told CNBC's Chery Kang. "Even for it to take place, I think there has to be some kind of positive outcome that is going to start the [denuclearization] process."

For now, a big question is what concessions Washington will make to address North Korea's security concerns, which include the American military presence in South Korea.

The other question is what North Korea will do with all its missiles, nuclear warheads and related materials, said Bong Young-Shik, research fellow at the Yonsei University Institute for North Korean Studies.

KOREAN SUMMIT- DENUCLEARIZATION

1. What should the United States response be if North Korea refuses to give up its nuclear weapons?

ANALYSIS QUESTIONS:

1. (5 points) _______________________________________________________________________________

2. (5 points) _______________________________________________________________________________

3. (5 points) _______________________________________________________________________________

4. (5 points) _______________________________________________________________________________

ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS (ANSWER BOTH)

1. Can the United States, Millard Fillmore, and Matthew Perry be blamed for Japan’s imperial ambitions? Be sure to use text support.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

|EXCELLENT |VERY GOOD |GOOD |FAIR |BELOW AVE. |POOR |

|(A+) |(A) |(B) |(C) |(D) |(F) |

|STUDENT GIVES A |STUDENT RESPONSE IS |STUDENT RESPONSE IS |STUDENT RESPONSE IS |STUDENT RESPONSE IS |STUDENT RESPONSE LACKS |

|DETAILED, ORGANIZED |CLEARLY WRITTEN. |CLEARLY WRITTEN. |SOMEWHAT UNCLEAR. |LACKING PROPER STRUCTURE|STRUCTURE AND IS |

|RESPONSE. WRITING IS |RESPONSE IS VERY GOOD |RESPONSE ANSWERS THE |DETAIL IS LACKING IN |AND/OR RESPONSE IS SHORT|DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND. |

|EXTREMELY CLEAR AND |& HAS TEXT SUPPORT BUT|QUESTION BUT LACKS |MULTIPLE AREAS. TEXT |AND HAS LITTLE DETAIL TO|DETAIL IS SEVERELY |

|DETAIL IS EXCELLENT & |SLIGHTLY LACKING |DETAIL, SUPPORT, OR |SUPPORT IS LIMITED. |PROPERLY ANSWER THE |LACKING AND/OR |

|TEXT SUPPORT IS USED |DETAIL OR STRUCTURE. |STRUCTURE IN CERTAIN | |QUESTION. PART OF THE |INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.|

|20 |19-18 |AREAS. |15-14 |RESPONSE MAY BE |11 & Below |

| | | | |INCORRECT. | |

| | |17-16 | |13-12 | |

2. Was the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan justified? Be sure to use text support.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

|EXCELLENT |VERY GOOD |GOOD |FAIR |BELOW AVE. |POOR |

|(A+) |(A) |(B) |(C) |(D) |(F) |

|STUDENT GIVES A |STUDENT RESPONSE IS |STUDENT RESPONSE IS |STUDENT RESPONSE IS |STUDENT RESPONSE IS |STUDENT RESPONSE LACKS |

|DETAILED, ORGANIZED |CLEARLY WRITTEN. |CLEARLY WRITTEN. |SOMEWHAT UNCLEAR. |LACKING PROPER STRUCTURE|STRUCTURE AND IS |

|RESPONSE. WRITING IS |RESPONSE IS VERY GOOD |RESPONSE ANSWERS THE |DETAIL IS LACKING IN |AND/OR RESPONSE IS SHORT|DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND. |

|EXTREMELY CLEAR AND |& HAS TEXT SUPPORT BUT|QUESTION BUT LACKS |MULTIPLE AREAS. TEXT |AND HAS LITTLE DETAIL TO|DETAIL IS SEVERELY |

|DETAIL IS EXCELLENT & |SLIGHTLY LACKING |DETAIL, SUPPORT, OR |SUPPORT IS LIMITED. |PROPERLY ANSWER THE |LACKING AND/OR |

|TEXT SUPPORT IS USED |DETAIL OR STRUCTURE. |STRUCTURE IN CERTAIN | |QUESTION. PART OF THE |INFORMATION IS INCORRECT.|

|20 |19-18 |AREAS. |15-14 |RESPONSE MAY BE |11 & Below |

| | | | |INCORRECT. | |

| | |17-16 | |13-12 | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download