What was the goal of the new yorker editors who decided to publish john hersey's eyewitness account of the bombing of hiroshima?
to question whether using atomic bombs had been necessary to end the war
to shame americans for their support of the bombing of japan
to get americans to see the japanese as people just like themselves
to alert americans to the dangers that atomic weapons posed to the world

A but keep C in mind.

Explanation:

It was a shocking human interest story. It was news written by someone who had seen it.

Imagine waking up one morning and discovering that Washington City or Baltimore or even New York had been taken out with just 1 weapon. People were horrified enough with 911 never mind what I've described. That's what Hiroshima was like.

I'd like to think that B was true, but there are two things wrong with it.

Many Americans and many politicians agreed that there was no other choice. Read about Okinawa.

Many when they found out were not shamed at all. They agreed with it.

I'd also like to think that C was true, and I think this could be an answer depending on your grade level. But I don't think it is the answer.

D came much later.

My own personal feeling is A. But keep C in mind.

answer by yourhope:

the speaker of which statement would be best served by joining an interest group?

i want politicians to make more of an effort for lgbt rights!

: )

in 1859, brown and 21 of his followers attacked and occupied the federal arsenal in harper's ferry. their goal was to capture supplies and use them to arm a slave rebellion. brown was captured during the raid and later hanged, but not before becoming an anti-slavery icon. abolitionist and insurrectionist

explanation: