World War Two was brought to an abrupt end with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was the first use of atomic weaponry and effectively ended the war. Without a soldiers experience, it is hard to understand why the bombing helped trigger peace. It is easy to make judgements from an outsider's perspective and condemn such actions. But what other solutions were available?
             Paul Fussell writes about the Hiroshima bombing as being the only way to end the war and that due to his experience in the war he is able to see this. The Japanese military were in no way considering surrender as they prepared for a defence and the civilians ignored the warnings to evacuate. The bomb was not designed nor dropped to punish the people of Japan but merely end the fighting, (pp 380). Fussell goes on the write that those who have forgotten the reality of what happened during the war or simply missed out on the experience do not have a valid or concise opinion, (pp 378).
             "Understanding the past means feeling its pressure on your pulses...", (Fussell: 377)
             Therefore, writers such as Javorsky do not understand why the bomb was necessary to end the war. Also, J. Glenn Gray is criticised for implying that American soldiers were ashamed when Hiroshima was hit. When more accurately, they were excited and happy as this had meant the end of the war, (pp 379).
             I agree with Fussell's account and argument, as I don't see how else the war could have ended. The Japanese military was trained to fight to the death and to victory. This is apparent with the display of thousands of kamikaze pilots ending their life in order to kill many of the enemies. This sort of dedication was only broken with the use of atomic weapons and resulted in peace.
             Soldiers who fought in the war and had had a first hand experience, know what the fighting was like. It is hard to imagine what soldiers went
             ...