The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a great tragedy. Countless books and essays have been written, since the bombs dropped in 1945, arguing if they were warranted. Was it a terrorist act, or simply the means to a justified end? Did the actions really cost less lives than an invasion of the mainland? Scholars of world history constantly argue back and forth, but no clear answer has emerged. This essay will compare and contrast Philip Levine's A Photo Essay on the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Hiroshima by John Berger using structure, diction, and their message to analyze the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The main difference between the two works is their structure. A Photo Essay on the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki uses mostly pictures to display its message, with very few words. On the other hand, Hiroshima is a more traditional essay and uses only words to display its message. However, both use real life events and people to create a stronger message. Throughout Hiroshima Berger includes stories of survivors of the bombings. For example, one survivor wrote 

"I was walking along the Hihiyama bridge about 3 pm on the 7th of August. A woman, who looked to be an expectant mother, was dead. At her side , a girl of about three years of age brought some water in an empty can she had found. She was trying to let her mother drink from it."

Levine instead uses pictures to depict the events, such as the eleventh picture in the photo essay that shows a family sitting besides their dead family members. Another difference between the two works is the presence of statistics about the bombing. Philip Levine includes a paragraph long summary of each bombing, whereas Berger purposefully leaves the statistics out of the book in order to avoid distracting the reader from his message. A  major similarity in structure between the two works is the use of pictures. A Photo Essay on the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki obviously uses real photographs of the destruction. Hiroshima incorporates pictures drawn by survivors of the bombings through their descriptions given by the artists. For example, Levine uses a picture of a bridge in his photo essay, but Berger describes a survivor's picture of people running over the Yokogawa bridge when the bombs dropped. Another difference in the structure of the two works is the cities they focus on. Levine includes photos and descriptions of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whereas Berger focuses purely on Hiroshima. This is evident by the titles of the two essays.

Another literary device used by both Levine and Berger is diction. Although both essays have the same goal, they approach it in two different ways. In A Photo Essay on the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Levine uses very informative and detached diction. This is evident when Levine describes the statistics about the bomb. He uses an excessive amount of statistics about the bomb,such as its weight, amount of explosives, length, etc. Levine's writing is void of all emotion. In addition, the captions under the images are short and to the point, the caption for the fourth image is simply "melted sake bottles", some images do not have a caption. On the other hand, in Hiroshima Berger uses emotion diction. The best example of this occurs on page 130 of the Carolina Reader when he writes "One does not musically analyze screams. But after repeatedly looking at them, what began as an impression became a certainty. These were images of hell."Through words like "screams" and "hell", Berger demonstrates the emotion in his essay. He does this to mirror the emotion felt by the survivors on the days and months following the bombings. In addition, Berger also uses disgusted diction when referring to the United States response to their actions. For example, on page 132 of the Carolina Reader he states:

"Is it conceivable that the BBC would show these pictures on Channel One at a peak hour? Without any reference to 'political' and 'military' realities, under the straight title, This Is How It Was, 6th August 1945? I challenge them to do so."

By challenging America to do this Berger demonstrates how America tries to forget that they were the ones who pulled the trigger; that they try to justify the bombings with political and military reasons, rather than accepting that this was an act of terrorism. 

The final aspect to compare and contrast  A Photo Essay on the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Hiroshima is their message. Although at a first glance the two works might seem to have a near identical purpose, it is not true. Levine's purpose was to show the destruction caused by the two bombs, whereas Berger wanted to so the emotion. An example of this is when exactly the two authors focus on. Levine's photo essay was about the aftermath; only three out of the thirteen pictures showed people, the rest focused on the destruction. Most of the photos were of buildings reduced to a pile of rubble, or of the damage done to personal belongings. Even the photos whose focus were on people they were of the damage done to them, such as the picture of survivors whose skin was burnt black by the heat wave. In addition it included the statistics of the bomb listing how powerful they were and how much of the city they left decimated. On the other hand, Berger believes that including information about the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would weaken the purpose of his essay, which is to show the emotion of the day the bombs dropped. Hiroshima is filled with emotional descriptions of the chaos of the bombing. They cover a broad spectrum of events from people running from the blast to a survivor not recognizing his own neighbor due to his burned skin to descriptions of the dead that littered the city. However, none of these descriptions mention ruined building or bridges, unlike Levine's photo essay. Although, these descriptions are not the only purpose of Berger's essay, he also wants to demonstrate how this event is forgotten to the politicians who are making the same mistakes today. This is evident when Berger writes sentences like "and declares: this should never happen again (here). For some the here is in brackets and for others it is not." This quote demonstrates how around the world many countries would use nuclear weapons in war, despite what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite everyone worldwide agreeing that dropping the bombs was a terrible act, many politicians would choose to launch another exponentially, more powerful nuclear bomb if war were to break out. 

In summary, A Photo Essay on the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Philip Levine and Hiroshima by John Berger have many similarities and differences through structure, diction, and purpose in analyzing the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two works are vastly different in the way they were written, Levine choose to create a photo essay, whereas Berger wrote a traditional essay. The main similarity between the two works is the use of photos. Although Levine uses direct photographs, and Berger uses descriptions of drawings done by survivors. A major difference between both works is the use of statistics about the bombs. Levine includes at least a paragraph on each bombing before the essay, whereas Berger purposefully leaves the statistics out of his essay. Another major difference between the two works is the diction used. Levine uses informative and detached diction, Berger on the other hand uses emotional diction. The final difference between the two works is the purpose of the essays. Philip Levine's photo essay focuses more on the destruction of the cities, and Berger's essay focuses on the emotion and people as the bombs were dropped and the days following the blast. 

