John Hersey's Primary Analysis: Hiroshima

967 Words2 Pages

Josue Sanchez
10/27/15
Hiroshima Primary Analysis II War. A topic seemed as only a means to an end. When most people think of war, they see death as an inevitability, where soldiers lay down their lives for their countries, their beliefs. Some can see the effects it has on their nation, but no one has experienced this destruction as first handedly as the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. John Hersey’ 1946 work, Hiroshima, drew on the accounts of survivors of the atomic bomb. The term ‘hibakusha’ refers to those left alive after the atomic bomb was dropped, who faced discrimination because of its effects. So the people of Hiroshima had varying feelings towards the bomb, from blatant disregard, to accusations towards the U.S. and local government. John Hersey included survivors’ accounts, repetitiveness of destruction through statistics, and detailed descriptions of injuries and death, to direct feelings of loss, sadness, and anger towards the reader. Life, no matter how long, is frail and can be changed in an instant. This was made apparent to the people of Hiroshima on August 6, …show more content…

Some of the people saw the bombs’ effects as a good thing for the Japanese people. They saw Japanese come together, and because of it, felt an “elated community spirit” (87). Others saw the atomic bomb as akin to a natural disaster, like a flood or a typhoon. It was something incomprehensible, and so they pushed it out of their mind. One phrase they used to summarize their opinion over the bomb was “shikata ga nai” (89). For them it meant there was nothing they could have done to stop it, so they shouldn’t worry about it. The most negative of the groups felt that the blame fell upon the U.S. for using the bomb. Dr. Sasaki, one of the survivors Hersey wrote about, stated, “Those who chose to use the bomb should all be hung”

More about John Hersey's Primary Analysis: Hiroshima

Open Document