Eagle Against The Sun Summary

Introduction. I chose this battle because I had been hearing about the attack on Pearl Harbor, but I did not know much about it. This paper talks about the countries that fought in this battle, where the battle was fought, what the geography was like during the battle, what the weather was like, what happened during this battle, how many casualties occurred, other things I learned about the battle, who won the battle, and how the battle was important to WWII.

Killing the Rising Sun by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard is a descriptive, well written book wrapping up the end of World War II. Reading this book makes you feel like you are living in the midst of the vividly depictive and picturesque scenes that O’Reilly and Dugard bring the reader back to imagine in this book. I really enjoyed this book and I think it really helped me to capture what happened during World War II and the hardships and trials that the United States went through to defeat Japan in one of the most decisive naval battles of World War II. I hope that in this essay I can achieve half of what the authors achieved in writing this book.

Although WW II ended over 50 years ago there is still much discussion as to the events which ended the War in the Pacific. The primary event which historians attribute to this end are the use of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although the bombing of these cities did force the Japanese to surrender, many people today ask "Was the use of the atomic bomb necessary to end the war?" and more importantly "Why was the decision to use the bomb made?" Ronald Takaki examines these questions in his book Hiroshima.

In Pearl Harbor and the Coming of the Pacific War by Akira Iriye, the author explores the events and circumstances that ended in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, an American naval base. Iriye assembles a myriad of primary documents, such as proposals and imperial conferences, as well as essays that offer different perspectives of the Pacific War. Not only is the material in Pearl Harbor and the Coming of the Pacific War informative of the situation between Japan and the United States, but it also provides a global context that allows for the readers to interpret Pearl Harbor and the events leading up to it how they may. Ultimately, both Pearl Harbor and the subsequent Pacific War between

Jones, Sam J. "Japan, China, the United States and the Road to Pearl Harbor, 1937–41 -

America’s use of the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities also opened the door to other countries challenging them through their own use of nuclear bombs. Many have criticized that the atomic bomb was an act of “muscle flexing” due to the sheer power and destruction caused by the decision to drop the two bombs. (Nicholls, 67). Not only were these bombs a demonstration of the power that these nuclear weapons had, but they were a testament of power that the United States now held. Never before had a country surrendered in war without first being invaded, so the decision to drop the bomb and Japan's subsequent surrender were extremely significant (Baldwin, 39). These bombings didn’t just impact the Japanese, but the whole world and gave way to

Perhaps the most controversial and heavily scrutinized issue of the twentieth century was President Harry Truman’s decision to unleash atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the summer of 1945. While the sequence of events preceding that fateful summer morning of August 6,1945 are fully understood, the motives behind Truman’s actions are shrouded in controversy. Top military officials publicly denounced the use of such a horrendous weapon, while the obvious advantages to the bomb, traditionalists argue, was a shortened Pacific War. Parallactic views between traditional beliefs and revisionist theories suggest that the issue is still very much unresolved. Why is the issue so hotly debated? Partially because of the overwhelming

In conclusion, the Japanese are a resilient and honor bond people who know when they are beaten. This along with all the other statements mentioned in this paper goes to show that Japan would have surrendered if the bombs were not dropped. Although funding the War would have been much harder to do. Many more Americans and Japanese soldiers would have died as well. But, in the end the bombs didn’t need to be

The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945 was a definite turning point in the Pacific War of World War II. Earlier that year, Germany had been defeated and the world then turned its attention to the Pacific war. Most history books state the argument that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was necessary to stop the war in order to save thousands of lives of American troops that were planning to invade Japan. "Had the bombs not been employed (so the "wisdom" goes), an enormous number of American troops would have perished in an inevitable amphibious operation against the Japanese mainland."(McManus 1) This paper will demonstrate that Japan was willing to

On December 7, 1941 the infamous bombing of Pearl Harbour by the Japanese took place, but who was really responsible? Many historians lay the blame with President Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR), citing his approach to the war as antagonistic and inciting a Japanese attack. This report however will highlight that the Japanese were the real antagonises, deliberately and purposely attacking the United States (US), United Kingdom and Holland, and Pearl Harbour was but a pawn in their war plan, thus alleviating FDR of the historical responsibility bequeathed to him over the last 70 years. The key elements within this review focus on Japan's Pacific War plans, FDR's

"an enthralling, gripping account of bloody battles, huge decisions, and historic personalities that culminated in decision to drop the atomic bomb and brought the war in the pacific to its climactic end. A masterful, meticulously researched work that captures the barbarity of the war waged by those who swore allegiance to the japanese emperor-and by those who crushed the military might of the rising sun."

In his work “Right to Kill, Right to Make Live” Takashi Fujitani compares and contrasts the Japanese treatment of colonialized Koreans leading up to World War II with the American treatment of the Japanese residents following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This work highlights how both the Japanese and the Americans treated the Koreans and Japanese Americans, respectively, and offers several different viewpoints. Thus, this work is exceptionally important and provides incredible insight into both cultures and the harsh reality of wartime. Additionally, Fujitani also explains how the Korean and Japanese populations are still influenced today.

World War II is considered by many to be the single most significant event of the 20’th century. The outcome of that war defines the modern world. World War II led to the tragic death of a huge population of people across the globe. What led to the loss of so many lives? What led the nations of the world to tread down the path of war? This analysis tries to answer those questions in terms of autonomy and responsibility, and focuses on Japan. Japan was a major player in the war. As an aggressor of the war Japan had entered into military action before the European war had started and was not defeated by the Allied powers until VE Day. Several factors came together to Create war

Concurrent with the Manhattan project, both Japan and America were making preparations for a final all-encompassing conflict, which both sides expected would involve an American invasion of mainland Japan. The Americans expanded conventional bombing and tightened their increasingly successful naval blockade5. The Japanese began and stockpiling of aircraft, amassed a giant conscripted military force, and commenced the creation of a civilian army—who swore total allegiance to the emperor. This awe-inspiring army included “so-called ‘Sherman Carpets,’ children with dynamite strapped to their bodies and trained to throw themselves under American tanks.” 6

Space Battleship Yamato (1977) and The Silent Services (1988-1996) are both films that ‘rehabilitate’ Japan’s experience of World War II as they re-tell or imagine alternative histories or fictional stories that rehabilitate past trauma (namely their humiliating defeat of WWII and a sense of loss of masculinity to the U.S.-Japan alliance and what came corollary with it). Such narratives can be interpreted as expressing what contemporary Japan desires. The narrative of each film is reflected by the context of the time of its production (cold-war vs. post-cold war) and whilst the narratives of SBY and SS share similarities they differ in their depth of political discussions, conveyed messages and explicitness due to the constraints of post-war democracy, pacifism and U.S. relation. Relevant concepts are militarism, nationalism, anti-war messages, anti-US messages, pacifism, masculinity and patriotism and many of these co-exist in each respective film – the films try to reconcile them by ending with a lasting impression that justifies the aggression for the sake of world peace.