Restoration of Nagasaki's famous A-bomb statue begins

.......................................jolly good.

I don't understand what statue they are talking about. Why do they have to paint it if it is made of bronze?

In Japan, there many peace museums and parks for the WWII such as the one in Nagasaki, but all of them just emphasize the tragedy and damage of Japanese civilians by the Atomic bombs, never explaining the causes of it, never mentioning the victims from other countries including Korea. This attitude has caused a lot of discrepancies with respect to the cognition of the WWII between Japaneses and the people of their neighboring countries. The difference is as much contrasting as black and white.

I have often wondered why the statue's head is out of proportion with the rest of the body.

Actually, I think Nagasaki commemorates the occasion better than Hiroshima. A simple statue and a small museum, and annual remembrance.

I think that Hiroshima has just become an annual circus, or a tourist attract attraction for a lot of naïve foriegners.

The first nuclear test, "Trinity" was the first time humanity unleashed a weapon as powerful as the sun...(okay, technically not, the first hydrogen bombs of the '50s mirror the Sun's process (thermonuclear fusion) more accurately, but you get the drift...) Robert Oppenheimer, lead scientist on the project was awed by its power....."I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"....he quoted from the Hindu Bagevad Gita. Then Truman dropped it on Hiroshima. So if Hiroshima has become a "tourist attraction" that draws attention to this, then all power to tourism!

In Japan, there many peace museums and parks for the WWII such as the one in Nagasaki, but all of them just emphasize the tragedy and damage of Japanese civilians by the Atomic bombs, never explaining the causes of it, never mentioning the victims from other countries including Korea.

Yes, Korea and Korean people endured the military occupation of Imperial Japan. But now South Korea today is a thriving nation economically, rivaling Japan and may even supercede Japan someday when unified.

But what about Okinawa and Okinawan victims? The tragedy of the Okinawans is never really discussed or documented in detail in Japanese and American history books. The Battle of Okinawa is mentions at best only as a paragraph or footnote. 

For 67 years, Okinawa endured the brutality and suppression of Imperial Japanese military occupation until 1945. During the 82-day long Battle of Okinawa, Okinawans were caught between the Japanese and American military forces. That Battle is often overlooked, forgotten and overshadowed by Hiroshima/Nagasaki.  Many forget It was the largest land-sea-air engagement in the Pacific War (far larger and more devastating than Iwo Jima). Most of the island was destroyed and one third of the civilian population. The original Shuri Castle and other important Okinawan cultural artifacts destroyed.

In the book "Tenozan: The Battle of Okinawa and the Atomic Bomb", author George Feifer describes the Battle in detail and estimated that the destruction Okinawa endured was "equivalent to the destructive power of 150 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs."

Okinawa and Okinawan people were ultimately sacrificed by Imperial Japan to buy time for preparation of the American and Soviet invasion of mainland Japan that was surely to follow.

Let's not forget the tragedy of Okinawa and Okinawan people preceding and during the Pacific War.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki today are thriving cities, but Okinawa still bears the scars and stigma of Japanese occupation and wartime experiences.

When you visit Okinawa, be sure to visit the Peace Memorial Museum and Park, Himeyuri Museum and Monument and the Former Navy Underground Headquarter and Peace Prayer Park (aka"Suicide Cliff").

As for the lack of explanations for the creation and the ultimate decision to use the atomic bomb, people seem to overlook the fact there was a WAR GOING ON AT THE TIME. 

(By the way, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Roosevelt in 1939 warning Nazi Germany was making great strides in nuclear research that could lead to the development of a very powerful bomb that could destroy an entire city. That prompted the establishment of the "Manhattan Project".....to develop an atomic bomb to be used against Germany. But Germany surrendered BEFORE the bomb was ready for testing. So the bomb use was refocused to be used against Japan, who were still fighting.)

The Pacific War had gone on too long with too many casualties. The U.S. had just fought the Battle of Okinawa....the biggest battle in the Pacific War. Yet Imperial Japan still refused to surrender.  Yes, Japan was beaten, but they would never surrender. They were pulling back to reinforce reserves in anticipation to invasion. There was still some four million homeland defense forces in place on mainland Japan with the mentality "The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly." (from a Japanese wartime slogan)

Operation Ketsu-Go documents the details of Japan's defense plans:

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

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

In wars, there are always research for new and more powerful weapons. At that time, the Americans viewed the atomic bomb as a new tactical weapons to be used against the enemy. The atomic bomb was viewed as the superweapon intended to convince the enemy of the futility of continuing the war and force a surrender and ending the war. It was an alternative solution to invasion of mainland Japan.

It also was intended to force Japan to surrender before the Soviet Union could invade and occupy the northern part of Japan and divide the country as postwar Germany was divided. The U.S. didn't want a repeat of the problems the Soviets were causing in Germany. 

Had the atomic bomb been not used, think about the invasion of Japan and its aftermath: War dragging into 1946, Japanese homeland military defense and civilians fighting U.S. forces in the south and Soviet forces in the north until the very end, resulting in millions of casualties and country totally destroyed. Postwar Japan...whatever is left...would have been a very, very different Japan and divided like postwar Korea. North Japan would have been occupied by Soviet Union with a DPRK-like regime while South Japan would have been a democratic country. 

Is this a better aftermath than what actually happened? 

The bomb did as intended and served its purpose. IT forced Japan to surrender and ended the war and avoided the invasion and postwar divided Japan.

By the way, people also forget that prior to 1945, the world was nuclear-free, but hardly peaceful. Subsequent to 1945, all wars and conflicts has been and continues to be fought with conventional weapons, not nuclear weapons. Abolishing nuclear weapons will make TOTAL War thinkable once again as it was prior to 1945.

Ironically, the use of the atomic bomb encouraged postwar Japan to become the conscientious reminder and promoter of world peace......a very different Japan compared to the militarist expansionist Japan during the 1930s and 1940s. Nuclear weapons also forced superpower nations like the U.S., Soviet Union, China, nations capable of waging total wars and mutual assured destruction, to regard such wars as "unthinkable."  In this way, nuclear weapons actually encouraged and promoted world peace.

But what about Okinawa and Okinawan victims? The tragedy of the Okinawans is never really discussed or documented in detail in Japanese and American history books. The Battle of Okinawa is mentions at best only as a paragraph or footnote. 

Japan is 100% responsible for the suffering of the Okinawans. The Japanese Army indoctrinated them and fought foolishly over a battles they could not possibly win. What did they expect the Americans to do? Say this is too difficult, I am going home?

The Japanese Army indoctrinated them and fought foolishly over a battles they could not possibly win. What did they expect the Americans to do? Say this is too difficult, I am going home?

By that same logic, what did the US expect the Japanese to do in the defense of their homeland? Would not the US—or the population of any nation—have fought against an invading force with equal tenacity, even if the odds were against them?