Nagasaki's educators changing perspective on A-bomb teachings

this all after the fact morality is just a smokescreen, you can bet your arse that the Japanese and the Germans would have used nukes if they had them

The bomb should have been dropped on an unpopulated area first, to display its destructive power.

Then the Japanese should have attacked an empty harbour, on an uninhabited island in the Pacific on 7th Dec 1941.

Dropping the bomb first on a populated city was cruel and immoral. It should have been dropped in the remote mountains.

You forget they didn't live in todays world of instant information.

If it had been dropped in an uninhabited area, who would've been there to witness it? Do you think a few scared sheep herders would have convinced the Japanese government to surrender unconditionally because they claimed to have witnessed a big explosion in the middle of nowhere?

This is a great first step in shaking off self-created victimhood. The students must have full information on what precipitated the bombings in order to fully understand them.

Melody: There is only one truth in this bombing: The Americans committed the most disgusting sin and genocide against civilians in modern history.

Wow! More disgusting than the Nanking Massacre, the Holocaust, the Russian Gulags, Cambodian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the Armenian Genocide, and many other "sin and genocide (that were conducted) against civilians in modern history?"

I attended a "peace education" seminar once and it was a maudlin orgy of Japanese victimhood. I was ready to walk out after 10 minutes, except my job required that I stay. To represent "the other side," an invited speaker was a Japanese-American internment camp occupant. LOL.

I suspect this effort, while welcomed, has come after the organizers started to realize that their efforts are turning off, if not offending, the non-Japanese participants.

From the discussion so far here, I doubt anyone has actually visited, in my case, the Peace Museum in Heiwa Koen, Hiroshima-shi.

You would be very wrong.

If dropping A-bomb could save so many lives on both, how come that wasn't done at Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War in the 1st place?

How come there hasn't been Total All-Out World Wars between the U.S., Soviet Union/Russia, and China? These nations, possessing nuclear weapons, are capable of waging total war with each other, has refrained from doing so.

It is ironic that nuclear weapons, under the threat of mutual assured destruction, has actually encouraged dialog among nations capable of waging such total wars and in doing so, promoted a quasi-World Peace.

It is often overlooked that prior to 1945, the world was nuclear-free. But there was no world peace and throughout the preceding decades and centuries the world was filled with numerous all-out wars.

I visited the Nagasaki peace memorial back in the early 1980s, together with my high school class of mostly non-Japanese. There were nearly 30 of us and all of us spoke Japanese fluently.

I should say that, before we had visited, we had spent nearly 3 months discussing WW2 as part of our history / social sciences studes.

Anyway, as you can imagine, a group of young non-Japanese in Nagasaki at that time was not a normal occurrance.

We had just finished touring the memorial and museum and came out, stopping to get some soft cream from one of the obasans there selling it from their cards.

While we were waiting to regroup and get on our bus, a small group of Japanese young people came up to us and very hesitantly asked us, in English, if we would sign something that said that what happened in Nagasaki was a terrible thing and should never have happened.

We, of course, replied in Japanese that we could all speak Japanese and so were happy to talk to them in Japanese. They were so relieved and were genuinely happy that we could communicate.

I turned to the young person, maybe my age or a little older and said to her, something to this effect:

"War is a horrible thing. Lots of innocent people get killed. And that includes here at Nagasaki. None of us should want war. But a few questions. What do you know about the Japanese actions in China? What do you know about Bataan? What do you know about Pearl Harbor?"

The response was an absolute blank face. And she said, "I don't know what you are talking about."

And I said, "Please do some studying."

And then we ended up talking, our group with their group, about life in Japan, why we were there and all of that.

There is nothing wrong with people coming to different conclusions about the use of the atomic bombs and their necessity. However, this must be informed by having looked at all of the information available, not just a biased view.

@bjornson

It is obvious by your comments here and elsewhere that you are of the mindset that America is evil. That every military action ever taken by America was based on lies. You want me not to believe everything I’ve been told, but you want me to believe everything you tell me. I won’t do that because you refuse to see any side but your own.

Yes, I am a veteran, But that has nothing to do with what I believe was right or wrong about the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan.

@showchinmono Different situations. In the case of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bombings, we were up against a fanatical mis-leadership that hadn't surrendered even 4 months after having their capital city and other cities destroyed in firebombings that killed more than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

@showchinmono

"If dropping A-bomb could save so many lives on both, how come that wasn't done at Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War in the 1st place?"

Those were limited wars. WW2 was a total war.

If dropping A-bomb could save so many lives on both, how come that wasn't done at Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War in the 1st place?

One big difference was that no other country had such weapons at the end of the Pacific War. There could be no reprisals. Things changed soon after and the threat of mutually assured destructed became very real.

Nagasaki's educators changing perspective on A-bomb teachings

As long as the Japanese educators are changing the perspective on the atomic bomb, are they also educating students that Japan was also trying to develop the atomic bomb program during World War II? Are the students educated about Japan's "Ni-Go Project" and "F-Go Project"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program#Ni-Go_Project

https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-bomb-20150805-story.html

I remember attending a Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bomb exhibit in the U.S. I asked the Japanese presenter (through an interpreter) whether he knew Japan was also trying to develop the atomic bomb during the war. You should have seen the shocked look of disbelief of everybody. "Impossible!", he said. "Japan is a peaceful country and would never develop weapons of mass destruction!" I told him to look up Japan's atomic bomb program. Also look up the name "Yoshio Nishina", "Ni-Go Project" and "F-Go Project".   

Evidently the history of Japan's atomic bomb program is absent from textbooks, museum and other historical sources and the evidence hidden in order to maintain the narrative of their victimhood.

There is only one truth in this bombing: The Americans committed the most disgusting sin and genocide against civilians in modern history.

Let's not forget that Imperial Japan is no stranger to bombing civilian targets. Japan also showed willingness to attack civilians, such as atrocities committed against civilians during their conquest of China. Japan even caused civilian fatalities in the US, albeit on a much smaller scale, during the attacks on Pearl Harbor and via explosives sent by balloon to the West Coast. Had Japan developed the atomic bomb and had the means to deliver it, they would have surely used it against U.S.

Then there is Japan's infamous Unit 731 and the biological and chemical warfare used on Chinese civilians, which one can argue is one of the most immoral acts committed against humanity.  

It totally depends upon just how far back they go to research the rationale behind the development and use of the weapons, and the rush by Nazi's to do the same.

Very true. It is often forgotten and overlooked that Dr. Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Roosevelt warning that Nazi Germany was involved in nuclear research that could lead to the development of a very powerful bomb capable of destroying a city. That letter prompted President Roosevelt to authorize the Manhattan Project to develop an atomic bomb to be used against the Nazis.  But Germany surrendered on 8 May 1945 before the atomic bomb was successfully tested on 16 July 1945. The war in the Pacific was still raging on.

The bombs prevented the need to invade Japan which would have resulted in millions of dead Japanese and thousands of dead Americans. Just look at the carnage that was seen on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. An invasion would have been a blood bath. The bombs saved millions of Japanese lives as terrible as they were.

In 1959, Mitsuo Fuchida, the Imperial Japanese Navy commander who led the first wave in the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, met with General Paul Tibbets, who piloted the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and told him that:

"You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor ... Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary ... Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible."

(Clear Conscience: The Atom Bomb Vs. the Super Holocaust, p. 87, Raymond Davis)

Had the atomic bomb not used, the conventional means of an invasion of mainland Japan would have been necessary to end the war:  Soviet Union invading Japan from the north in August 1945 and the U.S. from the south in November 1945 and April 1946. 

There were still four million military reserves in Japan and 10,000 special attack planes preparing for the invasion.  The Japanese homeland defense plan is detailed in Operation Ketsu-Go.

https://fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm

https://fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap5.htm

Had the two atomic bombs not been used, Japan would have been completely destroyed like Okinawa with millions of military and civilian casualties and postwar Japan a divided Japan with North Japan under Soviet occupation with a DPRK-like regime and a democrat South Japan, very much like today's divided Korea.

Although many argue that the use of the atomic bomb was immoral, would forgoing using a new tactical weapon that held the promise of ending the war quickly with less casualties, instead opting for a conventional invasion knowing that such an invasion would prolong the war another year with millions more casualties and a divided postwar Japan be any less immoral?  

If the Japanese educators new thinking in helping students questioning and debating everything that culminated in the nuclear attacks near the end of World War II is earnest, then the entire picture.......Japan's military expansionism through Asia during the 1930s and early 1940s, Japan's atomic bomb program, the planned allied invasion (that never happened), Japan's Operation Ketsu-Go homeland defense plan, and the probable postwar divided Japan should be presented.

Sensei: Too right.

The best thing they can teach is that all wars are based on lies.

And it seems, from the above comments, that the victors never seem to confront their own lies...

What kind of a cowardly military intentionally directs its weapons at women and children.

The Japanese Imperial Army before and during WW2.

There is only one truth in this bombing: The Americans committed the most disgusting sin and genocide against civilians in modern history.

There is only one truth in this bombing. The Americans ended the most disgusting sin and genocide against civilians in modern history.

Nope, they wanted human guinea pigs.

As did unit 731.

The fire-bombing of Japanese cities actually killed more people than the A-bombs

Still didn't make Japan surrender though

Japan was a very stubborn opponent

There is only one truth in this bombing. The Americans ended the most disgusting sin and genocide against civilians in modern history.

The Nazis and Soviet gulags killed more civilians than the Japanese, though it still won't be something they would be proud of

Wow! More disgusting than the Nanking Massacre, the Holocaust, the Russian Gulags, Cambodian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide, the Armenian Genocide, and many other "sin and genocide (that were conducted) against civilians in modern history?"

SSSSHHHHH we dont want to upset the staus quo that Japan were the main victims of WW2 and in all modern history. feeling victimised helps was away the guilt of massive genocide by your ansestors.

Over 10miilion Chinese and asians died under the IJA occupation, which actually started 10yrs before pearl harbour.

Sensei258,

Your comment is on the mark.The truest words I have heard in a long time.I absolutely agree with you.

@William Bjornson

From the discussion so far here, I doubt anyone has actually visited, in my case, the Peace Museum in Heiwa Koen, Hiroshima-shi.

You would be very wrong.

In fact I visited the Atomic Dome and the peace museum with a Japanese friend who also had never been. I actually got pretty emotional but he turned to me and said 'It's ok, it had to be done.' It kinda put things in perspective.

@extanker

But it didn't have to be done. And the term Wasureinai! is very much a part of the Remembrance. What makes it even more pathological is the fraud of the 'surprise attack'. In June of 1941, Roosevelt arbitrarily embargoed all oil imports to Japan and ordered general harassment of Japanese shipping and investments. This was an act of war by any standard. And Roosevelt promised more. If you're exmilitary, extanker, please ask yourself how the USS Ward, patrolling the harbor mouth, at 0530 on 07Dec1941 fired upon and sunk a miniature Japanese submarine known to have a maximum range of about 200 miles, and, after the action, absolutely no warning was given to a base supposedly on 'high alert' for just such an attack. Please explain in 10,000 words or less who REALLY started the Taiheyosenso. Gordon W. Prange does a great job in his historical study "At Dawn We Slept" explaining the two sides. The attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of desperation. And the Japanese ambassador came to the White House at 0900 (Hawaii: 0400), 07Dec1941, to present the war declaration. Roosevelt knew why he was there and kept him waiting all day until well after the attack had occurred and then claimed "treachery!". But it was HIS treachery. Push the little guy until he has to defend himself and then murder him. Sounds like us, doesn't it? There is so much more if you care to study.

Either A-Bombs were totally unnecessary to end the war and were meant to test on humans & keep USSR at bay, or A-bombs were totally necessary to make Japan surrender, I think noone will get to know the "real truth" : it's still a debate between "official truth" and "revisionists's versions".

to give students an understanding of the A-bomb strikes in the wider context of the war

If educators want to achieve this, then it's not "peace education" they need to teach, it's rather politics, geopolitics, they need to dig into archives and declassified documents, to compare points of view of either Japan, USA and USSR at the time.

There is no place for "dialogue", never mind emotion-based dialogue between ignorant folks.

Before encouraging studying the subject from a broad perspective, teach children the facts, the 5 Ws, or at least the first 4 Ws : Who was involved ? What happened ? Where did it take place ? When did it take place ? (Why did that happen ? is where the real study begins, through archives & declassified documents).

If they really want to

to give students an understanding of the A-bomb strikes in the wider context of the war

then it's definitely academic work, not something meant for elementary children.

From my understanding, not teaching the basic facts "because it's too brutal" (yeah, the picture isn't quite rosy), and instead digressing into emotion-based dialogue is maybe what is done in grief counselling to overcome a trauma. But as for teaching the country History, it's what I would call propaganda aimed to brainwash the new generations (that's why they begin this in elementary schools) to divert them from simple, brutal, yet basic facts of war.

And by the way, the example of

 the moral implications of being a brilliant scientist during wartime

is typically what is irrevelant, because they have no decisional-authority on what they may invent and create.

They surely don't want to question those who have the desional-authority, because they will see that things are not just black or white, but rather are shades of grey, and conspiracies are all over the place (yeah, conspiracies in real life do exist, they are not meant to be exclusive of the James Bond movies' universe).

And if children begin to question official truths, revisionist truths, then it leaves the door open to question everything else.

Developing a critical mind is generally a good thing, but definitely a very bad thing when approaching certain subjects, every government knows it very well.

Simple fact which many people tend to forget.

Japan did not start the colonization process, they came late to the table after the 3/4 of whole world belong to western countries.

For a small part of its history Japan did what Western countries have done for hundreds of years, being aggressive, colonization and starting wars far from their shores.

For a small part of its history Japan did what Western countries have done for hundreds of years, being aggressive

within 15yrs from 1929 invasion of China till end of WW2 the IJA slaughtered over 12 million people majority of them civilians & Japanese were slaughtering themselves under the command of shogun long before westerns even set foot in Japan. Japan throughtout its history is just as guilty of barbaric slaughter than any other country

that the victors never seem to confront their own lies...

same can be said for the defeated, clearly shown when they dont teach the whole story of WW2 , especially when the pacific war started, No it wasn't pearl harbour , it was the 1929 invasion of China. More asians had been slaughtered in the 10yrs prior to Pearl Harbour than all the Japanese/American losses for the whole 5yr period after Pearl Harbour.

It totally depends upon just how far back they go to research the rationale behind the development and use of the weapons, and the rush by Nazi's to do the same. It's not just about the folks who invented them.

The bomb should have been dropped on an unpopulated area first, to display its destructive power.

How many bombs were available at the time? How many did it require to force the surrender?

If you're carrying a concealed handgun and some guy tries to rob you, the right thing to do is to brandish the gun first to show him you have the capability to kill him so he gives up, you don't just shoot him right then and there.

This is utterly incorrect, as anyone with any firearms trading knows. When you draw your weapon, you use it to stop the threat. Once the weapon has been exposed, it escalates the situation. If you lose control, you're in a world of hurt.

No moral in war, best is not to start it, because the cost to end it multiplies by the day. The Japanese military government was really bad at accounting and statistics, just like today, false reporting everywhere. If they were honest to themselves, they wouldn't start a war with a giant like the USA.

Dropping the bomb first on a populated city was cruel and immoral. It should have been dropped in the remote mountains.

US intentionally left out air-raiding Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see the effect of two nuclear bombs, uranium and plutonium, on human beings.

US air-raided other major cities all over Japan that killed more citizen than the two nukes did.

It's good that they are discussing this kind of thing more than just reading the "Peace Texts" and other Ministry of Truth propaganda, but I doubt very much questions like, "Do you think Japan could have done more to avoid the bombing?" or "Do you Believe America was right to do it, or that Japan reaped what it sowed?" (and I Don't Believe that, I am just saying it is somethign that is debated). It'll be moral questions, but only in terms of Japan still being victim.

"If the government demanded that you work on the development of a weapon of mass destruction, would you accept the task?" they are asked to consider.

the correct question should be "If the government demanded that you work on the development of a weapon of mass destruction, while 100,000s of your countrymen are being slaughtered by the enemy, would you accept the task?" if your going to ask the question you have to put the students in a similar mentaility of the generation that fought the war. Another question should be "if Japan had developed a nuke and the AMericans were just about to start their final invasion of the mainland would Japan used it or held off knowing that it would most likely resulted in defeat" There are very few morals in war.

There is only one truth in this bombing: The Americans committed the most disgusting sin and genocide against civilians in modern history.

so 6 million jewish civilians slaughtered by the Nazis, or over 10million asians slaughtered by the IJA.

In context WW2 killed over 60million people 2/3 of them civilans and about 20million of them Soviets. Japan lost about 3 million in total. but I suppose these real statistics dont count when your only taught about the Pacific side of WW2 leaving out the IJA asian invasion, or the Eurpean side of WW2 which was far more brutal and bloody.

"Students are asked to consider, for example, the moral implications of being a brilliant scientist during wartime? 'If the government demanded that you work on the development of a weapon of mass destruction, would you accept the task?' they are asked to consider." It is easy to say no in peace but not so in war.

The reality is that best and the brightest minds on all sides devoted themselves to making more efficient mass murdering weapons. Not only the U.S. but also Japan and Germany were developing the atom bomb. Albert Einstein was emphatic in telling FDR to develop the atom bomb before the Germans and the Japanese.

Future space rocket designer and space scientist folk hero Werner von Braun designed the V-1 and V-2 rockets that devastated London. Unit 731, that conducted hideous human experiments, was headed by the brilliant Shiro Ishii. So brilliant was his disgusting work that the U.S. hired him and his gang instead of hanging them for crimes against humanity.

Face it, if the Japanese and the Germans had gotten atom bombs first they would have used them. The Germans would have likely obliterated London. Japan might possibly have used their atomic bomb during the Battle of Okinawa. We'll never know.

The A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hideous but not extraordinary, considering weapons development during World War II.

There were some regrets among the best and brightest scientists but I suspect few and far between.

Japan tried to take over the world.

Oh? The USA, UK and France had troops occupying Asian countries halfway around the world from them, and it was Japan who was trying to take over the world?

@ Burning Bush

Dropping the bombs on civilian targets was inhumane, immoral and cowardly.

For pure clinical psychopaths, those who do best in war, such words have no meaning. They are words used only by 'weak' people or political liars. We are 'weak' for considering such things important and, in that these very basic Human feelings prevent us from simply erasing the psychopaths among us, in a sense, we ARE weak. And the people who contain qualities like humaneness, morality, courage, are blind to the psychopaths who rule us and lie to us about everything. What to do?

Japan tried to take over the world. They attacked the USA and AUS and other allies first. They refused to surrendered at every single battle. They refused to surrendered the war when 100% beaten. They were going to put Japanese lives, such as injured, children, and the elderly, to defended the planned Kyushu invasion. After the USA reached out the emperor one last time and told him to please surrender, the emperor ignored the USA and the the next day the USA decided to drop two atomic bombs, killing around 200,000 Japanese. It is estimated that they saved around 1,000,000 Japanese lives and 500,000 allied lives by preventing a Kyushu invasion. The Tokyo fire bombing alone killed over 100,000 and over 1 million lost their homes.

This is what Japan teaches: the USA decided to drop two atomic bombs, killing around 200,000 Japanese.

There is no question a nuclear bomb is a horrible weapon and war only brings destruction, death, and sorrow. The bombs prevented the need to invade Japan which would have resulted in millions of dead Japanese and thousands of dead Americans. Just look at the carnage that was seen on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. An invasion would have been a blood bath. The bombs saved millions of Japanese lives as terrible as they were.

William BjornsonToday 08:18 am JST

From the discussion so far here, I doubt anyone has actually visited, in my case, the Peace Museum in Heiwa Koen, Hiroshima-shi.

You would be wrong

sensei258Today 07:05 am JST

this all after the fact morality is just a smokescreen, you can bet your arse that the Japanese and the Germans would have used nukes if they had them

This is spot on.

Anyone who gets a chance needs to visit Hiroshima. The museum and peace memorial there really humanizes the effects of that atrocious weapon, now hundreds of times more lethal. No one in their right mind would consider using or creating such a weapon ever again. And yet . . .

William BjornsonJan. 26  08:18 am JST

And here we reach an odd fact about Americans but probably true of most nationalisms. Many American people would insist, even vehemently, that they trust NOTHING their government tells them, BUT then go ahead and believe everything that their government tells them.

ALAS!!!!!!!

The Nazis and Soviet gulags killed more civilians than the Japanese, though it still won't be something they would be proud of

the Soviets lost over 20 million people during WW2, more than the total fatalities of Japan and the allies combined, yet Japan wonders why they are so stubborn when it come to territorial issues.

From the discussion so far here, I doubt anyone has actually visited, in my case, the Peace Museum in Heiwa Koen, Hiroshima-shi.

Extremely incorrect. Most of your post was incorrect.

If folks here can't come to a consensus just imagine how the teachers are going to feel trying to educate their students and lead discussion on the subject?

Japan's part in the war, leading up to the bombings must be included, but I bet you any money it won't be, as it takes away the victim card.

For a long time now, Atom Bomb education in Japan has just been reading from a script.

Some years ago I was sitting in the Peace Park in Hiroshima on a sunny morning reading a newspaper. A teacher with some schoolchildren approached me, and asked me my thoughts about the bombing.

I replied that I had no thoughts, as I was born after 1945 and was not around during the event.

They seemed perplexed, and again asked for my opinion. When I replied that I had no opinion, and repeated that I was not around in 1945 they seemed confused, and again asked the same question. Again, I said that I had no thoughts or opinions on this event. They walked away looking totally dumbfounded, the teacher was silient and looked for another person (non Japanese) to ask the same questions.

Obviously my response did not fit their rehearsed script.

Different situations. In the case of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bombings, we were up against a fanatical mis-leadership that hadn't surrendered even 4 months after having their capital city and other cities destroyed in firebombings that killed more than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fanatical or mis- is subjective judgement. It is even more so if you were there in those days.

North Korea(+ Chinese) and North Vietnam never surrendered after all.

Those were limited wars. WW2 was a total war.

Harf-dead person surrounded by the allied was a total war?

War is inhumane. No need to gross over this fact. I am just against hypocritical narrative.

Burning Bush

On this one I have to totally agree with you.

within 15yrs from 1929 invasion of China till end of WW2 the IJA slaughtered over 12 million people majority of them civilians

This is, quite honestly, a gross exaggeration. If they were slaughtering civilians with the impunity you claim, then why did the Empire of Japan, at least initially, enjoy the support and cooperation of the peoples in their occupied territories? The main reason these populations turned on Japan had less to do with mass murder and more with the fact that it was quickly becoming apparent that they had bet on a losing horse, as it were.

On top of that, the “fog of war”, entrenched mutual racism, and bitter national rivalries all conspired to draw out a singularly violent war. The Kuomintang and CCP were notorious for meting out brutal punishment to entire villages of their own ethnic kin for the sake of perceived strategic advantage, or simply as a result of the internecine warfare between both factions which ran concurrently with the first half of the Japan-China War.

Japanese were slaughtering themselves under the command of shogun long before westerns even set foot in Japan. Japan throughtout its history is just as guilty of barbaric slaughter than any other country

I think what the other commentator was referring to was Japan’s history from the Meiji through the early Shōwa eras. In which case it was a case of colonize or be colonized. It was a brutal game of statesmanship and statecraft that Japan played well and which mirrored in many key aspects the rise of the US. However, it arrived too late on the scene, contended with ugly racism directed against it, and was scuttled by international rivals which successfully drained it of manpower, treasure, and resources in proxy wars, then finally baited it into a war.

There is only one truth in this bombing: The Americans committed the most disgusting sin and genocide against civilians in modern history.

From the discussion so far here, I doubt anyone has actually visited, in my case, the Peace Museum in Heiwa Koen, Hiroshima-shi. Nor have they bothered to investigate the time surrounding the bombings nor know that Nihon had been trying to start surrender negotiations for months but the U.S. ignored them because they had a new toy which they both wanted to test and to reveal to the world in the most dramatic way so that everyone would understand who was now BOSS.

As you pass through the Museum, you will see original copies of U.S. documents whose content clearly shows that that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were TESTS, Human trials as it were. At the time, the U.S. was also conducting Human trials in Mississippi withholding available syphilis treatment to Black people to study the lifetime effects, and also injected diseases into healthy Central American people under the cover of immunizations to study the diseases in 'worthless' people. Just describing the American mindset of the time. If you're White, ANYTHING is okay.

There were two bombs but two very different bombs (genbaku). The Hiroshima bomb (~15 kiloton) was Uranium and the Nagasaki bomb (~20 kiloton) was Plutonium. The two cities, among others, were selected and preserved from other bombing because they had favorable geographical features (surrounding mountains) which would contain and concentrate and make easier to measure the blast effects. That both cities were composed at that time of women, children, and the elderly did not even raise an eyebrow in the military (mostly) or the scientists (some, Teller being an obvious psychopath). Their 'good weather' doomed them.

And here we reach an odd fact about Americans but probably true of most nationalisms. Many American people would insist, even vehemently, that they trust NOTHING their government tells them, BUT then go ahead and believe everything that their government tells them. And this is exactly true of the fable that these bombings were NECESSARY. They were NOT necessary to end the war. America lied. And in conformance with American policy since our Revolution, has not stopped lying since that time. The 'official' story is a fraud.

have failed to give students an understanding of the A-bomb strikes in the wider context of the war.

This may seem like a step in the right direction. However, the contact in which the above statement will be conveyed into learning concerns me.

Different situations. In the case of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bombings, we were up against a fanatical mis-leadership that hadn't surrendered even 4 months after having their capital city and other cities destroyed in firebombings that killed more than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fanatical or mis- is subjective judgement.

OK, let's say we were up against a regime that hadn't surrendered even 4 months after having their capital city and other cities destroyed in firebombings that killed more than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If dropping A-bomb could save so many lives on both, how come that wasn't done at Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War in the 1st place?

The atrocities of the A-bombs are a crime against humanity,but after saying that there are reasons and background for such action,I am myself no fan of alAmericans as most Europeans,but we also have to admit that they didn’t drop these bombs magically.

It's not just about the folks who invented them.

Nor does the article state it is.