Ernie Pyle’s columns and ‘’Hiroshima’’ both resonated with me because they discuss the aftermath of events within World War II. Both of these works were a reminder that war is an absolute tragedy where nobody wins. The amount of casualties that occur and land that becomes ruined during a war isn’t anything to be proud of. It’s never an event that people like to read about because of the destruction and death a country must face. However, that’s what I find to be incredibly intriguing about both of these works. They discuss the brutal aftermaths of war from different point of views and how it affects a nation. Both works are more alike than they may seem at first glance. Plye’s columns are reminiscent in all aspects of the war and what it
…show more content…
In that sense, the perspectives offered by both works are completely different. The five different point of views from the survivors of the atomic bomb, were all equally heartbreaking. The survivors didn’t experience a sense of awe the way Plye did, but an experience of grief and traumatization. Due to the atomic bombs, the Allies won World War II, however many innocent people faced the repercussions of a war they did not want to fight to begin. Within ‘’Hiroshima,’’Mrs. Nakamura experience deeply moved me because she was a mother whose first reaction was to run to her children and it the process, she couldn’t because she was buried by debris. Her experience elicits how war itself is a hopeless catastrophe for everyone involved. America may not have understood the severity of the atomic bomb, but it reminded me how senseless we become to death when war is ultimately a game of who can win. It’s interesting the way America weighs out the pro’s and con’s to justify our use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ultimately, I suppose it was worth it because The Allies won the war, but we won at a cost that was detrimental to innocent lives. It differs from Pyle’s columns because although he can recognize war is a disaster, he is able to accept it because Great Britain won the war. However, …show more content…
Ernie Plye’s columns and ‘’Hiroshima’’ share common ground within noticing that destruction is inevitable within war. Ernie Plye’s third column, touches upon the fact that war isn’t just about the amount of deaths or how death was caused, but how land itself is destroyed. In that sense, I agree with Plye because no one ever discusses how we destroy land in the process of destroying each other. Pyle is sure to be vivid while describing what he sees and he paints a picture in order for his readers to envision themselves as the common people of England. Although ‘’Hiroshima’’ switches narration, the intent is the same as Plye.‘’Hiroshima’’ doesn’t shy away from mentioning its explicit details either because they too want you to realize that although war may be a waste, they long lasting effects aren’t. At the time, for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, rebuilding a lifestyle that was once there wasn’t attainable nor realistic. I was able to sympathize with the survivors of ‘’Hiroshima’’ because I had never looked into what exactly they endured while trying to rebuild a life they had lost. I believe we are desensitized to these events when they don’t directly affect us personally. Therefore, taking an approach like ‘’Hiroshima’’ may help a nation understand the severity of has taken place, especially for
In that sense, the perspectives offered by both works are completely different. The five different point of views from the survivors of the atomic bomb, were all equally heartbreaking. The survivors didn’t experience a sense of awe the way Plye did, but an experience of grief and traumatization. Due to the atomic bombs, the Allies won World War II, however many innocent people faced the repercussions of a war they did not want to fight to begin. Within ‘’Hiroshima,’’Mrs. Nakamura experience deeply moved me because she was a mother whose first reaction was to run to her children and it the process, she couldn’t because she was buried by debris. Her experience elicits how war itself is a hopeless catastrophe for everyone involved. America may not have understood the severity of the atomic bomb, but it reminded me how senseless we become to death when war is ultimately a game of who can win. It’s interesting the way America weighs out the pro’s and con’s to justify our use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ultimately, I suppose it was worth it because The Allies won the war, but we won at a cost that was detrimental to innocent lives. It differs from Pyle’s columns because although he can recognize war is a disaster, he is able to accept it because Great Britain won the war. However, …show more content…
Ernie Plye’s columns and ‘’Hiroshima’’ share common ground within noticing that destruction is inevitable within war. Ernie Plye’s third column, touches upon the fact that war isn’t just about the amount of deaths or how death was caused, but how land itself is destroyed. In that sense, I agree with Plye because no one ever discusses how we destroy land in the process of destroying each other. Pyle is sure to be vivid while describing what he sees and he paints a picture in order for his readers to envision themselves as the common people of England. Although ‘’Hiroshima’’ switches narration, the intent is the same as Plye.‘’Hiroshima’’ doesn’t shy away from mentioning its explicit details either because they too want you to realize that although war may be a waste, they long lasting effects aren’t. At the time, for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, rebuilding a lifestyle that was once there wasn’t attainable nor realistic. I was able to sympathize with the survivors of ‘’Hiroshima’’ because I had never looked into what exactly they endured while trying to rebuild a life they had lost. I believe we are desensitized to these events when they don’t directly affect us personally. Therefore, taking an approach like ‘’Hiroshima’’ may help a nation understand the severity of has taken place, especially for