Free Essays on Objectivity Vs Relativity

Objectivity versus Relativity An Analysis of Natalie Davis’s The Return of Martin Guerre In his book, That Noble Dream, Peter Novick discusses the argument, in the historical profession over the noble dream of historical objectivity. The historical profession was founded in the late 19th century and it was founded on the ideal of firm historical objectivity. Between the two World Wars, this ideal of historical objectivity came into question as some historians began to support â€Å"historical relativism.† This counter to historical objectivity challenged the long supported notion that true history consists of facts alone. While this relativist view initially only served to put the hallowed notion of objectivity on the defensive, it did cause a significant disturbance in the historical profession as more and more young historians flocked to the relativist banner (Novick 16). In Natalie Zemon Davis’s book, The Return of Martin Guerre, about the famous case of a French peasant’s identity theft, she employs both objectivist and relativist views. Da vis begins her writing on Martin Guerre by expressing an objectivist purpose, but her writing does not uphold this purpose, as Davis’s arguments slip into the realm of relativity. The idea of historical objectivity has always been a central ideal for the historical profession. In basic, the elements of objectivity can be summed up as committing to the reality of the past and to the truth that goes along with that reality and a very harsh separation between the raw principle facts and any values that one might wish to attach to those facts (Novick 1). An objectivist must use only the facts, making sure to take them out of context with anything in the historian’s own time. The objective historian must look at all of the facts possible and analyze them with a clinical detachment, almost as, â€Å"an entomologist studying a quivering specimen impaled with a pin.† (Novick 14) Wh... Free Essays on Objectivity Vs Relativity Free Essays on Objectivity Vs Relativity Objectivity versus Relativity An Analysis of Natalie Davis’s The Return of Martin Guerre In his book, That Noble Dream, Peter Novick discusses the argument, in the historical profession over the noble dream of historical objectivity. The historical profession was founded in the late 19th century and it was founded on the ideal of firm historical objectivity. Between the two World Wars, this ideal of historical objectivity came into question as some historians began to support â€Å"historical relativism.† This counter to historical objectivity challenged the long supported notion that true history consists of facts alone. While this relativist view initially only served to put the hallowed notion of objectivity on the defensive, it did cause a significant disturbance in the historical profession as more and more young historians flocked to the relativist banner (Novick 16). In Natalie Zemon Davis’s book, The Return of Martin Guerre, about the famous case of a French peasant’s identity theft, she employs both objectivist and relativist views. Da vis begins her writing on Martin Guerre by expressing an objectivist purpose, but her writing does not uphold this purpose, as Davis’s arguments slip into the realm of relativity. The idea of historical objectivity has always been a central ideal for the historical profession. In basic, the elements of objectivity can be summed up as committing to the reality of the past and to the truth that goes along with that reality and a very harsh separation between the raw principle facts and any values that one might wish to attach to those facts (Novick 1). An objectivist must use only the facts, making sure to take them out of context with anything in the historian’s own time. The objective historian must look at all of the facts possible and analyze them with a clinical detachment, almost as, â€Å"an entomologist studying a quivering specimen impaled with a pin.† (Novick 14) Wh...

Analyse the portrayal of the character of Mercutio as the vehicle of Shakespeare's tragic outcome in the play 'Romeo and Juliet'

Analyse the portrayal of the character of Mercutio as the vehicle of Shakespeares tragic outcome in the play Romeo and Juliet Essay Of all of Shakespeares tragedies Romeo and Juliet is perhaps the best known one, Shakespeare based much of his play on the reality of his time by managing to encompass much of his context in the play. This was the Elizabethan era, In the Elizabethan era it was very different in the way we live our lives today. In how there were different class structures and people were treated differently and judged differently depending on which class they fell in. There was religious and politic conflict. The religious conflict was where the hate between Christians, there were two main factions of the Christian, Protestants and The Catholics, Queen Elizabeth the 1st was the head of the Church of England (which the protestants followed) and anyone found out to be a Catholic or practising the Catholic faith would have to change to The Church of England. Mercutio is Romeos best friend. Mercutio is first introduced to us in Act 1, Scene 4. It is the scene preceding the ball. At this point, the audience are aware of Romeos feelings for Rosaline, there Mercutios point view is easy to understand. In speaking to his friend, Mercutio reveals a wit and a strong sense of confidence in himself. He acts the part of Romeos advisor, implying that Mercutio is somewhat older; more level headed than Romeo and has superior intelligence. He also prompts Romeo to stop being a wimp as such and to be more confident and pro-active rather than passive and to wallow in himself and his adolescent thoughts and fantasies. By telling Romeo that, you are a lover, borrow Cupids wings and soar with them above a common bound. (Act 1, scene 4, line 15.) Mercutio encourages, but not enforcing his opinion on Romeo, just to teach him to be the master of his own destiny and not let fate decide a path for you and to do nothing about it. Mercutio wishes for Romeo to take control and aspire something more special than a common relationship. The theme of fate and destiny can be linked to Romeo and Juliets love for one another because they believe fate brought them together and it was their destiny to be together, but because of their families differences their fate was chosen for them before they even met. The whole aura circulating the Queen Mab is a warning to Romeo. When Romeo says I dreamt a dream tonight and Mercutio replying with And so did I Romeo asks Well what was yours? and Mercutio finishes Romeos question by saying that dreamers often lie. (Act 1, Scene 4). Mercutio is warning Romeo that dreams are of nothing and should be thought of as nothing. This theme of dreams runs/flows throughout the whole play. Mercutio is implicit and bluntly a fundamentalist which goes back to the Puritans of the time. In spite of this, Romeo continues to ponder, question and dabble in love, lust and fickle fantasies. Mercutio has a large impact on the people around him, for example Romeo, Benvolio, etc. He is a leader and wins his way over by being a joker and gets his point across by jokes, Romeo and Benvolios ways of showing that they agree is through their response, usually in laughter. Mercutio has to use Jokes because that is the only way his friends will understand, Mercutio is far too int elligent and most of the time the likes of Romeo and Benvolio do not understand what he is trying to illustrate. READ: The relationship between Juliet and the nurse is a better example of the mother-daughter relationship than that of Juliet and Lady Capulet EssayIn the Queen Mab speech (Act 1, scene 4) Mercutio leads into warning Romeo that Dreams are fantasies which are neither realistic nor real. Queen Mab is the Celtic Queen of Dreams, Mercutio describes who she is and what she is about, the way he does this is how unrealistic she is when he says such things like her chariot it an empty hazel-nut. Mercutio then goes on trying to show Romeo what Queen Mab and dreams can bring about, which are unlikely dreams in unrealistic, impossible situations. Mercutio sarcastically mocks Romeos dreams because he sees Romeo as immature and wants Romeo to learn from Mercutios experiences and mistakes. By Romeo saying thou talkst of nothing Shakespeare reveals Romeos lack of understanding and immaturity, and when replying to Romeo True, I talk of dreams, again Mercutio will not let it go that he knows what is true here that Romeos dreams are of nothingness. Mercutio is upset that Romeo has not listened to a word that he said to him, Mercutio originally thinks that he must have gone home, listened to him a gotten over his infatuation, not only would this satisfy Mercutios ego as the dominant male of the group, but it would have helped his best friend. Mercutio asks Benvolio what has Romeo drifted to, Benvolio tells Mercutio that he climbed over the Capulet wall. Mercutio is disappointed with him disappearing. Mercutio is elder, more experienced and is a brother figure, so he is disappointed with Romeo still keeping secrets, hiding and that he still has not got over his childish dreams and blind fantasies, but here is a use of a dramatic device where the audience know something that a character does not, this adds a hint of excitement and for the more intelligent ones of the audience a perspective or a look in at something bad that may happen. In the fight scene (Act 3, Scene 4) Benvolios statement I pray thee, good Mercutio, lets retire. The day is hot, the Capels are abroad and if we meet, we shall not scape a brawl, for now these hot days, is the mad blood stirring. (Act 3, Scene 1, Line 2-5) this Implies whenever the Capulets and the Montagues meet they cannot escape a fight and how Benvoilo (the peace keeper) is begging Mercutio and desperate not to fight he is tired of the on going feud, we can empathise with him because what he asks of Mercutio is ignored with a sarcastic comment, once again the Montagues and Mercutios are slaves to war. This is the final time we see Mercutio. Mercutio was aware that Tybalt was ready for a fight this did not bother Mercutio in the slightest. Tybalt wants to fight with Romeo, but Mercutio is willing to replace him and risk his own life for Romeo because without a doubt Mercutio believes Romeo shall lose. Mercutio is confident and ready so he fights. Tybalt does not know (like everyone else) the reason Romeo will not fight is because he sees Tybalt as a family member now, I think this is an example of collapsed stereotype because they hated each other (Tybalt and Romeo) and now Romeo refuses to fight Tybalt because he sees him as not an enemy anymore. In the fight Mercutio is injured by Tybalt and claims it to be just a scratch as usual Mercutio plays the jester character and lives up to protecting his friends, because they neither see nor feel Mercutios pain so Mercutio thinks what they dont know cannot hurt them. Mercutio implies he will be dead the next day in his line look for me tomorrow and you shall find me a grave man (Act 3, Scene 1, line 99). With Mercutios dying breath he calls a plague on both you houses he does this three times, in the Elizabethan Era a word spoken on a mans dying breath was to become true, (like fate/destiny) he says this three times another superstition in those times. He wanted the feud to end but he had to die in the middle of it even though he was not a member to either houses. Romeo felt guilty and responsible in a way for Mercutios death for not fighting Tybalt and feels he must avenge his friend if he wants to be worthy as a man, to himself and not a coward as we have seen before. It is extrem ely ironic that The Prince a relative of Mercutio warned them of might happen and that Mercutio had to die to make it clear to them. READ: Thesis Statement For Romeo And Juliet EssayIn Conclusion to the question Analyse the portrayal of the character of Mercutio as the vehicle of Shakespeares tragic outcome in the play Romeo and Juliet . The audience always sees Mercutio at key scenes in the play, like an implication that he fuels the key scenes and sets them off. We see him at the ball when Romeo forgets about Rosaline and finds Juliet. He arrives just before the nurse arranges the marriage like he was there to show that the wedding should not happen like a fairy god-mother to Romeo to help him out in his situations of need and to give Romeo the hints which are like subliminal signs hidden throughout the play. The final time he is seen is at the fight scene where he is killed and calls the curse which creeps through the play right to the end where both Romeo and Juliet Commit suicide. The foolishness, pure stupidity and simple ignorance of the two houses leads to the death of a person who was neutral to the feud , did not agree with it and got caught up in the middle of it. The Prince banished Romeo which was a more like a punishment for Mercutios death rather than Tybalts which put more guilt on Romeo and because Romeo and Juliet were apart they needed to create a plan, the plan failed which lead to both their deaths. Mercutio was the vehicle for the tragic outcome of the play. He influenced and impacted on key events by ironically appearing before key moments. He contributed to helping the play move by enforcing and encouraging Romeo to go to the ball where he inevitably met Juliet. If Mercutio was not in the play there would be no story because he drove the play to where it needed to be and where it went, ended up, but when he had gone this lead to Romeo and Juliets deaths. Mercutio was one of the Main Characters if not Romeo and Juliet. He entertained the audience with his intelligent wit and sarcastic humour, Shakespeare uses him as the vehicle to show how someone innocent can die over a petty and meaningless feud.

Narration Paper Prompt Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Narration Paper Prompt - Essay Example Being a student I steadily realized that the society itself differentiate between male and female. I am a female and soon I got friends with both males and females in my class. Two boys and one girl of them became my best friends. We used to do each and everything together, play games, lunch parties, every single thing which calls for some get to gather fun. My class occupied a male class teacher, who used to be responsible for our every act in school, outside the class boundaries. His name was James Scott, and we used to call him Professor James. Professor James was a teacher of Math in school. Outside he was a very friendly and generous teacher, but inside opposite to what he seemed. I never jumped into the diplomatic face of his, until an incident happened which showed Professor James hidden face. As you all know the students do some silly things also at their school times, especially along with support of boys. One day the two male best friends of mine, Nick & Harry brought some alcohol and weed to the school and planned to try them along with me and Tina for the first time. Everybody knows that smoking and alcohol is banned for us until we turn out to be 21. Likewise every school abides by this rule strictly, for their students. When Nick told me about this plan, I refused in the first place. But then Harry and Tina forced me that its nothing more than just fun, and trying just for once won’t kill me or them either. The plan was to try weed and alcohol after the Math class, in math class room, because no other classes were used to be conducted in that room for next two hours. The math class was the last class in the ground floor at the corner. Eventually, I agreed with my friends to go for this illegal act in the school itself. According to the plan we waited for the class to get empty after the math’s lecture. As soon as the

The History of Slavery in Virginia Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The History of Slavery in Virginia - Essay Example During the initial days, the black people were treated as slaves. They performed their duties just as normal citizens. Others even had properties to their names. A good number of them resided on plantations. It is during the 1660’s after the laws regarding slavery for the blacks were enacted that the situation for the blacks in Virginia turned to a new phases (Journal of the House of Delegates 15). Slave trade in Virginia went on for about 200 years, until around 1808 where the activity faced a ban in accordance to the constitution of the US in Article I, Section 9. Although the issue of slavery was put to an end according to the court’s decision, the government was in support of slavery (Journal of the House of Delegates 27). Tobacco was Virginia’s chief agricultural product, and it was a success for the state. Virginia saw the ban of slaves as an opportunity for the state since they had slaves in excess because of their fast rate of reproduction. They knew they could make money out of the ban. This is so because the shortage in supply would result to an increase in demand for the slaves, and so Virginia would sell them to the southern states at an increased price. However, there were several attempts by the slaves to rebel against their masters. In each attempt of rebellion made by the slaves, the government would immediately enforce the laws to become more severe as a way of punishing them and preventing them from assembling. It was through that activity that the government of Virginia would ensure to reduce the threat of having the slaves rebelling against them (Morgan 35). It was during 1831 that Nat Turner facilitated a successful slave rebellion. This was by far the biggest rebellion ever experienced in the history of United States. The rebellion was motivated by the success of the revolution that was experienced in Haiti in 1790 that saw the French Rule being overthrown. Turner was inspired by the Haitian achievement and

A Look from “Dreams from my Father” by Barack Obama Essay Example for Free

A Look from â€Å"Dreams from my Father† by Barack Obama Essay Barack Obama’s narration of mostly his father’s life story transcends many debatable topics such as racism and socioeconomic classifications. Topics such as those brought out literally as needed in his accurate and factual description of their lives but not to create any arguable pointers of discussions. Two scenes in the book that shaped this memoir as a whole and could be enough to make a thorough study on how Barack Obama Jr. seek his sense of belongingness and his finding a way to form an ambition being a public servant were: first, how his black father Barack Hussein Obama Sr. of Kenya and his white-coloured mother Ann Dunham of Kansas, USA met, fell in love, got married and divorced; and second, his absentee father’s thoughts and activities as told by his mother and grandparents. Having been recalling his parents blossoming relationship could manifest a picture of success as he recounted episodes where his father’s intellectual charisma and ambitious thoughts won his grandparents heart irregardless of colour and racial differences after opposing Barack Sr. and Ann’s love story. He pointed out that the only reason of his parent’s broke up was the lacking of money in which during that time, Barack Sr. couldn’t afford to take his wife and son back to Kenya. Thus, he went home alone to his motherland along with his ambition to complete a promise to serve Kenya and the continent of Africa, as it is the reason of his methodical studies in US, specifically in Harvard University. It was merely a patriotic deed and nationalism of Barack Sr. as he absolutely believed that Africa and Kenya need him and his service. It is also noted that Zeituni, Barack Sr. ’s sister, mentioned that his brother really has a heart that was too big. As for the comparison of these two episodes of Barack Obama Jr. ’s account, it suggests love and charity accomplished in two dissimilar forms. Barack Sr. ’s love with his wife Ann and their son broke the difficulty of racial discrimination in which Barack Jr. brought out in the world and raised freely despite of living in the land of white men. It is the same as what Barack Sr. s decision to leave his family in US. Barack Jr. made a justification out of his parent’s decision to be separated with each other that it was due only because of his father’s charitable instinct to serve and help Kenya because it is where his whole ancestors belong. Hence, who could say that neither of the two kinds of love is wrong? Colour difference has never been a problem on Barack Jr. ’s parents, and it is totally contradictory to the completion of the second story where the Kenyan roots of Barack Jr. ’s father has been an issue. Everyone could agree that loving both the nation and one’s own family at the same time doesn’t mean sacrificing one for the sake of the other. As an effect of demonstrating these two kinds of love, Barack Jr. ’s journey to look beyond his roots and himself being a black man in the land of the white race created a similar motive with his father’s to serve his own country, though on his end it is America, whether in sociocivic works or in a political slot. R E F E R E N C E Obama, Barack Jr. Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1995.

Diabetes Mellitus :: essays research papers

DIABETES MELLITUS In the United States, about 16 million people suffer from diabetes mellitus, although only half of these individuals are diagnosed. Every year, about 650,000 people learn they have the disease. Diabetes mellitus is the seventh leading cause of all deaths and the sixth leading cause of all deaths caused by disease.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Diabetes is the most common in adults over 45 years of age; in people who are overweight or physically inactive; in individuals who have an immediate family member with diabetes; and in minority populations including African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. The highest rate of diabetes in the world occurs in Native Americans. More women than men have been diagnosed with the disease.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Diabetes can develop gradually, often without symptoms, over many years. It may reve al itself too late to prevent damage. In fact, you may first learn you have diabetes when you develop one of its common complications – cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, or vision problems.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Diabetes is a condition that occurs because of a lack of insulin or because of the presence of factors opposing the actions of insulin. The result of insufficient action of insulin is an increase in blood glucose concentration (hyperglycemia). Hyperglycemia is the unused glucose that builds up in your blood. Many other metabolic abnormalities occur, notably an increase in ketone bodies in the blood when there is a severe lack of insulin.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The condition may also develop if muscle and fat cells responds poorly to insulin. In people with diabetes, glucose levels build up in the blood and urine, causing excessive urination, thirst, hunger, and problems with fat and protein metabolism. Diabetes mellitus differs from the less common diabetes insipidus, which is cause by the lack of the hormone vasopressin that controls the amount of urine secreted.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The earliest known record of diabetes on third dynasty Egyptian papyrus by physician Hesy-ra; mentions polyuria (frequent urination) as a symptom in 1552 B.C. In the 16th century, Paracelsus identifies diabetes as a serious general disorder. In the Early 19th century, the first chemical tests developed to indicate and measure the presence of sugar in the urine. In 1919-20, Allen establishes the first treatment clinic in the USA, the Physiatric Institute in New Jersey, to treat patients with diabetes, high blood pressure, and Bright’s disease; wealthy and desperate patients flock to it. On January 23,1922, one of Dr. Collip’s insulin extracts are first tested on a human being, a 14-year-old boy named Leonard Thompson, in Toronto; the treatment was considered a success by the end of the following February.

Atomic Threat: New Weapon of the 1940s

What follows will be a brief summary and review of three books concerning the advent of the atomic bomb, its use on Japan, the politics and diplomacy involved   and the effects that Truman and his cabinet suspected that the bomb would have on future wars and future politics.   Three authors, Gar Alperoitz, Herbert Feis and J. Samuel Walker present similar information about the development and use of the atomic bomb and the concerns that those few politicians with intimate knowledge of the bomb suspected its existence would have on future global politics. The authors speak from different perspectives and yet at points provide strikingly similar details about the events surrounding the development of the bomb.   While all three authors focus on the development and use of the bomb, each approaches the subject from a slightly different perspective.   Alperovitz focuses on diplomacy with Stalin, Walker focuses on the situation in Japan and Feis pays more attention to those involved with the development of the bomb, both politicians and scientists.   We will begin our considerations of these different approaches with Alperovitz's focus on the effects the bomb had on diplomacy and move on from there. Alperovitz book consists of a long 60 page introduction, eight chapters and four appendices describing the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union prior to and after the advent of the bomb.   He begins with Truman's concerns about the Russians when he took over from FDR. As he prepared for his first meeting with a USSR representative Truman declared that â€Å"if the Russians did not care to cooperate, ‘they could go to hell.'† A few hours later, the President expressed the same view to Soviet Foreign Minister V. M. Molotov in rather undiplomatic terms. Truman desired to continue FDR's policy of cooperation with the Russians, but his attitude when he spoke the above words were not the result of a moment's flash of temper. Problems were developing over the USSR's dealings with Poland.   Alperovitz's primary argument that the bomb had a very significant influence on American views of diplomacy with the USSR long before the bomb. The bomb was inextricably bound with Truman's strategy at Potsdam in July 1945 and â€Å"was regarded as a ‘master card' of diplomacy.† (Alperovitz, p. 1)   Alperovitz states that â€Å"†¦a major reason the bomb was used was ‘to make Russia more manageable†¦.† (Alperovitz, p. 1).   Touched upon the impact of nuclear weapons on the beginning of the Cold War. â€Å"In August 1945, Eisenhower felt that ‘before the atom bomb was used, I would have said yes, I was sure we could keep peace with Russia. Now, I don't know†¦People are frightened and disturbed all over. Everyone feels insecure again.† (Alperovitz, p. 2)   Truman and some members of his cabinet believed that Russia was attempting to dominate Eastern Europe so concerns over Poland had been chosen as a symbolic issue to force a showdown with Stalin because of Truman's concern that Stalin was had plans for all of Eastern and Central Europe.   (Alperovitz, p. 70)  Ã‚   Secretary Forrestal stated, â€Å"This difficulty over Poland could not be treated as an isolated incident.† (Alperovitz, p. 70) â€Å"Forrestal argued: ‘We had better have a showdown with them now rather than later.'† (Alperovitz, p. 70) On the surface, this showdown strategy seemed to have been a complete reversal of FDR's policy only a few weeks earlier. There were three major obstacles to Truman's firm, showdown approach. First, FDR appeared to have had a strong belief that cooperation with Russia was possible. Second was the concern that American-Soviet cooperation might be destroyed and that a separate peace accord between Germany and the USSR might be signed, a concern that was eliminated when the German government collapsed. The third concern was that a showdown with Russia might result in the loss of Soviet help in the war against Japan. While Truman's approach was one of an immediate showdown with Stalin, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill took a different approach. â€Å"He believed it might be possible to obtain additional concessions from the Russians if he could maintain the extended troop positions†¦Ã¢â‚¬  rather than withdrawing Anglo-American troops as General Eisenhower had proposed. (Alperovitz, p. 90) Churchill was prepared to use any argument at his disposal to persuade Truman to his point. Churchill cabled Truman, â€Å"‘The Russian occupational zone has the smallest proportion of people and grows by far the largest proportion of food†¦Before we move from the tactical positions we have at present achieved,' the Russians should be forced to agree that ‘the feeding of the German population must be treated as a whole and that the available supplies must be divided pro rata between the occupational zones.'† (Alperovitz, p. 91) When Truman took up the issue with his Joint Chiefs of Staff for advice, they were unwilling to use troop positions for political purposes. Even though Truman recognized that the Russians were in a strong position, he followed the showdown on Poland with a firm approach to the problem of cooperation in Central Europe. (Alperovitz, p. 93) Truman's joint action with Churchill stressed his willingness to present a united Anglo-American stand against Russia. Like General Eisenhower, various military authorities believed that this approach to the troop issue would yield negative results. By mid-May 1945, Truman's plan for cooperative control of Central Europe was faced with a direct challenge. On April 24 1945, one day after President Truman had a showdown with Molotov, Secretary of War Stimson wrote President Truman stating, â€Å"(The atomic bomb) has such a bearing on our present foreign relations and such an important effect upon all my thinking in this field that I think you should know about it without further delay.† (Alperovitz, pp. 103-04) Up to this point, President was apparently unaware of the bomb. Stimson had casually mentioned to Truman about an â€Å"immense project†¦(that) was under way–a project looking to the development of a new explosive of almost unbelievable destructive power,† Stimson had felt no compelling reason or need to fully discuss the matter with President Truman up to that time until after the showdown with Molotov. (Alperovitz, p. 104) Secretary Stimson discussed the atomic bomb with the President for three quarters of an hour and it was â€Å"assumed–not decided–that the bomb would be used.† Truman was made aware that Japan had been the target of the weapon development program and that a special Air Force group was about to leave for its overseas base. Although Stimson expressed confidence that the bomb would shorten the war, the use of the bomb against Japan was not main subject of discussion. The diplomatic implications of the atomic bomb dominated private discussion between Stimson and Truman during the last week of April and the first week of May, 1945. President Truman eventually came to agree that the atomic bomb would have decisive implications for diplomacy with Russia. By shortly after April 25, 1945, British representatives knew that a committee would be set up â€Å"to consider the whole ranged of political issues which will arise in connection with the atomic bomb.† (Alperovitz, p. 110) News of the atomic bomb first came to the average American and to most senior government officials from the newspapers. The weapon's power was disclosed in a way that produced great emotion and optimism about its usefulness as an instrument of high policy. (Alperovitz, p. 237) On August 16, 1945, after the bomb was used and the war ended, Truman told the press, that â€Å"Japan would not be divided into occupation zones, and declared †¦that as far as Japan was concerned, ‘in the event of any difference of opinion (among the Allied powers) the policies of the United States will govern.† (Alperovitz, p. 240) The atomic bomb had strengthened the American hand in diplomacy. In the â€Å"whirlwind days† â€Å"immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American diplomacy changed†¦swiftly.† Secretary Byrnes underscored the breadth and scope of the departures from typical diplomacy by saying, â€Å"Those†¦days†¦were full of action.† The sheer volume of work caused the Secretary of State to ask that the London foreign ministers' meeting set for September 1 be postponed until September 10.† (Alperovitz, p. 243). Truman declared: â€Å"The atomic bomb is too dangerous to be loose in a lawless world†¦We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force†¦The best interests of the United States require the utmost cooperation by all concerned in keeping secret now and for all time in the future all scientific and technical information†¦.† (Alperovitz, p. 243) One week later, Truman directed that no information on the nuclear development project be released without the specific approval of the President. (Alperovitz, p. 243) Alperovitz clearly points out that the atomic bomb and the temporary American monopoly in possessing the bomb was viewed as a â€Å"great advantage to American diplomacy. In (Secretary Byrnes') view, the ‘primary task was to establish a â€Å"lasting structure of peace†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦A stable Europe, essential to world peace and American security alike, was the number-one goal. Byrnes believed that the nuclear monopoly could be maintained for at least seven years†¦within that period, with the support of the revolutionary weapon, his diplomacy could easily achieve its idealistic objectives. Thus, the weapon seemed a crucial factor in forcing agreement to an American plan for permanent peace–a plan which, ipso facto, would prevent another world war.† (Alperovitz, p. 245) Alperovitz goes on to add that Byrnes vision â€Å"obviated the danger of an arms race.† (Alperovitz, p. 245) History has shown that Byrnes was clearly wrong. Not only did the atomic bomb fail to eliminate the arms race, but it seems to have added to the race tremendously, but with all that was at stake, the bomb made going to war a much more risky proposition than it had been in the past. J. Samuel Walker's book â€Å"Prompt and Utter Destruction† focused on another aspect of the new weapon. Walker notes in his preface that, â€Å"The question of why President Truman used atomic bombs against Japan has intrigued me since I was an undergraduate history major. Indeed, it was the first issue in which the competing arguments of different scholars caught my interest†¦.† (Walker, p. ix) This statement in his preface sets up the direction for his book. Walker states, â€Å"In fact†¦Truman never faced a categorical choice between the bomb and an invasion that would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives†¦the prevailing perception (about the president's alternatives) vastly oversimplifies the situation in the summer of 1945†¦.† (Walker, p. 5) Walker points out 1) that there were other available options for a â€Å"reasonably short time† end to the war without resorting to the bomb, 2) Truman and his key advisers believed that Japan was so weak that the war could end even before an invasion began and 3) American military planners believed that even in a worst case scenario, American casualties would be far fewer than the hundreds of thousands Truman and his advisers claimed after the war. So, â€Å"Was the use of the bomb necessary at all† and if so, 2) â€Å"What exactly did it accomplish?† Walker begins by taking a look at the President. Truman won greater affection and esteem from the American people after his presidency and after he died than he had while president. He was honest, often indiscreet and blunt and needlessly offensive and â€Å"his decisiveness could lead to superficial or impulsive judgments.† (p. 7) The world was embroiled in a global war that made his arrival into the Oval Office a period of extraordinarily difficult problems and, even though he had been vice president, he came to the White House without adequate preparation. Indeed, he began his turn at the helm basically â€Å"in the dark about many of his predecessor's policies and commitments†¦.† (Walker, p. 9) The one fundamental military strategy from Roosevelt that seemed clear to Truman was his predecessor's desire â€Å"to achieve complete victory at the lowest cost in American lives.† (Walker, p. 9) After October 1941, President Roosevelt authorized a major effort to explore the feasibility of an atomic bomb. The Manhattan project began with the purpose of addressing the â€Å"bewildering variety† of scientific and engineering uncertainties connected with nuclear energy and the bomb. Once scientists had proven that a nuclear chain reaction was possible, the Manhattan Project focused on designing a bomb and producing the fuel to make it work. All of this was kept secret from Vice President Truman, so when he suddenly became President, he knew virtually nothing about the Manhattan Project or the bomb even though he had learned of â€Å"a massive and highly secret effort to build a new weapon† while he was chairman of the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program in the Senate. However, while serving as a senator he did not receive any details. Secretary Stimson confirmed and elaborated information about the bomb to the President in a meeting on April 25, 1945, but Secretary Stimson warned, â€Å"the existence of such a weapon would create profound problems because the United States would not be able to maintain a monopoly on the technology. Further, the issue of sharing information about the atomic bomb would become ‘a primary question of our foreign relations.† (Walker, p. 13) When Truman took office, he was outraged by the Soviet conduct in Poland, but he did not want to ruin the relatively good relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, less than a month after Truman became president, but the war in Japan raged on. Americans were still upset about the attack on Pearl Harbor and had also become outraged when the U.S. government learned about how the Japanese mistreated American prisoners and released that information to the public and the Japanese were equally as disdainful of Americans thanks to the â€Å"warped stereotypes† Japanese leaders painted of Americans during the war. So, the Americans fought a â€Å"war without mercy in Japan. (Walker, p. 23) Even though the Japanese people were losing confidence in their leaders and public morale was deteriorating, the fact that Japan was on the verge of defeat did not mean that the country was on the verge of surrender. By the end of June 1945, both American and Japanese leaders, including Japan's emperor, as well as the Japanese people realized that the war would end in Japan's defeat.   On June 17, 1945, President Truman wrote in his diary that deciding between invading Japan and relying solely on bombing and blockade to end the war was his â€Å"hardest decision to date.† ( Walker, p. 35) Advisers in the Truman administration realized that â€Å"‘there was a large submerged class in Japan' that did not favor the war but would ‘fight tenaciously' for their homeland.† In a meeting on June 18, 1945, Secretary Stimson hinted that he â€Å"thought the war might end by some other means, though at this time he did not specify what the alternatives were.† (Walker, p. 37) Meanwhile, although there were some proponents who were in favor of moderating the stance for Japan's unconditional surrender, the prevailing attitude in the United States as a whole was for the unconditional surrender of Japan. By July 13, 1945, it was clear that America's demand for an unconditional surrender was the main obstacle to a settlement. So, despite the mutual desires of the American people and the Japanese people for peace and the leaders of both countries faced the same obstacle–unconditional surrender. President Truman faced choices as to how to overcome this dilemma. There were three choices, including invasions with the potentially high costs. A fourth alternative also existed, the atomic bomb. Truman and his advisers proceeded with their planning as if the bomb didn't exist because the bomb had not been tested successfully, but those in the administration who knew about the bomb hoped that a successful test would lead to their goal of ending the war at a lower cost than the alternatives. Final preparations for the atomic test, named â€Å"Trinity† proceeded amid strain, excitement, uncertainty and ominous weather forecasts, but at 8:00 AM on July 16, 1945, Secretary Stimson receive news of the successful test of the bomb. President Truman was delighted when he heard the news. Secretary Byrnes was committed to the belief that the bomb would be an instrument to advance American diplomacy, particularly in light of growing differences with the Soviet Union. On the diplomatic front, Truman took his cue from Secretary Byrnes and agreed that the bomb would serve as a valuable tool for diplomacy. Ultimately, it appears that Truman used the bomb â€Å"because he had no compelling reason to avoid using it.† (Walker, p. 95) American leaders had assumed that the bomb would be used when available and there were no military, diplomatic, political, or moral considerations contrary to that assumption. Diplomatically, it placed America in a stronger position with the Soviets and it was politically popular as a means in ending the war quickly as opposed to the dire prospects of victory without the bomb. Herbert Feis opens his work by considering how the war could be ended. In May 1945 the war in Europe was over and Japan fought alone. Japanese life and production was being â€Å"smashed and burned†. The question was, â€Å"How could (the war) be ended surely and quickly?† (Feis, p. 3) â€Å"The obvious and perhaps most certain was was to beat down the Japanese until they could no longer fight on–by enlarging the assaults on Japan and Japanese armed forces wherever they could be reached†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Feis, p. 3) Another means was by inducement and a third, the most secret, was by shock. Each of these approaches could end the war or two or three of them could do so in combination. The end of the European war made American, British and Russian troops available for use in the Pacific. As for the war in the General Marshall felt â€Å"that the hope that air power alone would be able to drive Japan out of the war was unjustified; and that the task would be the more difficult there since the Japanese were scattered through mountainous country.† (Feis, p. 9) The U.S. had planned an invasion of Kyushu, but there were concerns that America could not go further and force its way upon Tokyo. (Feis, p. 11) The Joint Chiefs adopted strategic plans for the war in the Pacific on May 25, 1945. Those plans were approved by President Truman on June 18th, but those plans included the desire to have Russian forces enter the final assault with U.S. forces. General MacArthur emphatically stated to a visitor from the War Department that â€Å"no attempt ought to be made to invade Japan proper unless and until the Russian army had been previously committed to action in Manchuria; that he though this was essential, and should be brought about without†¦delay†¦.† President Truman's tone was stern. He felt that Japanese aggression against China, the Japanese assault upon America and the Japanese cruelties during the was warranted severity and he reaffirmed his intention to carry on the war â€Å"until the Japanese military and naval forces lay down their arms in unconditional surrender.† (Feis, p. 16) On the morning of May 28, 1945, President Truman was urged to try to induce the Japanese to surrender by dispelling the worst fears of the consequences. Secretary Stimson and General Marshall concluded that â€Å"the question of what to say to the Japanese and when to say it, should be governed by whether and when the United States had the atomic bomb.† (Feis, p. 19) Others in the cabinet did not believe that Japan would heed any warnings of surrender until the Japanese were more thoroughly beaten down. (Feis, p. 19) Although the prime incentive for making the bomb was the effort to defeat Germany (Feis, p. 28), the dimensions of creating the bomb became apparent and its creators were compelled to face the fact that the war against Germany might be over before the bomb was ready for use. The number of issues surrounding the creation of the bomb included what type of bomb to make. During the creation of the bomb, those in the Roosevelt administration who knew about it believed that knowledge needed to make the new weapon could be confined long enough as to allow the United States and Britain to secure an advantage that would keep the Soviet Union from being too pushy.   When Roosevelt died, Secretary Stimson lingered after the first Cabinet meeting to tell the new President briefly about the immense undertaking regarding the bomb of which the former vice president now president had no knowledge. As Truman learned more about the weapon with time, Truman began to recognize the enormous significance of the new weapon. The President accepted Secretary Stimson's belief that â€Å"†¦our leadership in the war and the development of this weapon has placed a certain moral responsibility upon us which we cannot shirk without very serious responsibility for any disaster to civilization which it would further.† (Feis, p. 38) When plans to use the bomb were considered, one consideration was to demonstrate the bomb's power before using it, but there were concerns against its use. The possibility that a country could assure its security by increasing its nuclear armaments (as was later the practice) was viewed to be invalid. It was felt that â€Å"the safety of all nations henceforth could be achieved only if they agreed to subject their activities in atomic energy to international control. However, the chance of bringing about such an agreement would be greatly lessened by the sudden and unannounced use of the weapon against Japan. Both the diplomatic and military value of the bomb spanned a wide range of concerns. Using the bomb against Japan faced a range of concerns as evidenced by the following statement: â€Å"†¦they range from the proposal of a purely technical demonstration to that of military application best designed to induce surrender. Those who advocate a purely technical demonstration of atomic weapons, and have feared that if they would wish to outlaw the use of atomic weapons, and have feared that if we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced. Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use†¦.† (Feis, p. 54) Before using the new weapon, Americans were determined to continue their assault on Japan and officials in Washington were striving to compose a statement which would tell the Japanese how we intended to treat them once they surrendered.(Feis, p. 63) Feis considers issues not discussed by the other authors. He wonders, â€Å"Whether, if the United States had pledged itself as soon as the war was over to destroy the other bombs it had and dismantle the factories in which they were made other countries would have been willing to join with it in a trustworthy system of control of atomic energy, must remain forever a provocation to the speculative historian.: (Feis, p. 190) I could be biased by this, but I certainly enjoyed each of these books, however I must admit to a great interest in many aspects of World War II, including matters surrounding the atomic bomb.   These books covered an aspect of the war that took concerns of future wars to a new and frightening level and often placed the reader right in the thick of issues and diplomacy connected with the atomic bomb and other issues of the war.   All three books discuss the global atmosphere at the time of a world in turmoil at the end of World War II and the bomb's contribution that bringing that turmoil to an end, but at the same time, each of the books focus on aspects of the politics surrounding the bomb. All reveal the mutual suspicion and mistrust between Russia and her two strongest allies in the War, the U.S. and Britain.   They reveal how this mistrust played a role in the development, use and politics surrounding the bomb.   Each book portrays different details surrounding the development and use of the bomb.   Although or perhaps despite their different perspectives, all three books are interesting and had some surprizingly similar aspects.   Each author tells his story from a different perspective, each author outlines some aspects of their story with common events and from common perspectives. Alperovitz seems to focus a lot on Truman's concern regarding Stalin's desires for Poland and other areas of Eastern Europe.   Walker focused a great deal on events in the Pacific and Feis tended to concentrate much more of his focus on the development of the bomb.   Combined, these three books present an interesting and a more comprehensive look at how the bomb developed, its initial influence on diplomacy and how politicians felt that the existence of the bomb would impact future events in Europe. Each author tells an interesting and provacotive story with behind the scenes details from a different perspective and each author lays out interesting and compelling facts surrounding the concerns, suspicions and global politics between Russia and ther wartime allies, the United States and Great Britain.   I found each of them to be interesting and compelling reading. References Alperoitz, Gar (1965).   Atomic diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam; the use of the atomic bomb and the American confrontation with Soviet power .   New York, NY:   Simon and Schuster. Feis, Herbert (1966).   The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II.   Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. Walker,   J. Samuel   (1997).   Prompt and utter destruction : Truman and the use of atomic bombs against Japan.   Chapel Hill, NC:   University of North Carolina Press.