Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
national

U.S. records confirm 12 U.S. soldiers died from Hiroshima A-bomb

45 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

There are always going to be friendly fire incidents like this. The important thing is that Japan is now free from what would have been a Russian occupation.

0 ( +17 / -17 )

"TaiwanIsNotChina:

There are always going to be friendly fire incidents like this. The important thing is that Japan is now free from what would have been a Russian occupation."

Yes, the truth should come out sooner than later: A bombs which killed tens of thousands of Japanese civilians was used as a show of international politics, or a show of power in the face of Communism in a more worldly term.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

OnlookerToday  07:27 pm JST

Yes, the truth should come out sooner than later: A bombs which killed tens of thousands of Japanese civilians was used as a show of international politics, or a show of power in the face of Communism in a more worldly term.

Show of force or not, their use prevented the Soviets/Russians from taking Hokkaido if not half of Japan. Take a look at the Korean Penninsula to see how well that works out.

11 ( +18 / -7 )

I see quite a lot of "Stockholm Syndrome" in the comments so far.

It'll be interesting to see if that survives long as the dominance of the world by the US fades

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Japan should make reparations to the families of these American heroes.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

I read a story a number of years ago about a British POW who were being held in a ship's hold with other POW's, in Hiroshima when the A-bomb exploded. He describes how the metal sides of the ship became very hot, and the ship swayed violently for a while. The next day when the hatches were open, another POW shouted down to him (them) "Don't stand under the open hatch. The rain is black and it burns". They survived due to being held in the ship's hold. Ironic really.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

From the header you might think they were passing through town on R&R.

Try this one:

”U.S. records confirm 12 U.S. POWs died from Hiroshima A-bomb”

8 ( +11 / -3 )

The important thing is that Japan is now free from what would have been a Russian occupation.

And free of the militarist rulers.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

What nationality and were these 12 Americans ? How many Canadians, Mexican and Unite States Americans ? It does not say. It only states Americans.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

A bombs...was used as a show of international politics.. 

Yes, but mostly it was mainly to hasten the end of the war, which was still killing thousands of people a week in the summer of 1945. It worked on both accounts.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Would Truman have known that he would have signed the death sentence of 12 Americans when he signed the death sentence of over a hundred thousand Japanese citizens plus hundreds of thousands of nuclear illness more in the years following Hiroshima? What is Twelve American Peanuts?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

This is what is called the one million person myth.

In reality, such materials did not exist during the war, and they will probably never be discovered.

It is clear that the US has used weapons of mass destruction twice, even though it signed the Geneva Convention, and created this myth as an excuse to the world.

June 18, 1945: Field Marshal George Marshall said at the White House, ''Loss in the first 30 days of the Kyushu landings exceeded those of the Luzon invasion (31,000 U.S. casualties).'' I don't think that will happen.''

After the atomic bomb was dropped, there was also criticism that the atomic bomb was not necessary in the United States. Meanwhile, the U.S. government's Strategic Bombing Investigation Team issued a report stating that ''Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bomb had not been dropped.''

That conclusion alarmed U.S. government officials, who asked former Secretary of War Henry Stimson, then known to Americans as "the conscience of America," to write a paper. Despite his reluctance, he wrote in a magazine, ''I had been informed that if we carried out a landing operation in Japan, the U.S. military alone would suffer more than a million casualties.'' That was the beginning of the ''1 million person myth.''

@OssanAmerica

The fact that Hokkaido was not occupied was not at all due to the atomic bomb.

Stalin dared to attack the Japanese army, which was proceeding with disarmament, but due to resistance from Commander Higuchi, they suffered heavy losses and were unable to occupy Hokkaido by the end of the war.

In the end, the Japanese military agreed to disarm through an armistice agreement. All Japanese soldiers who surrendered were interned in Siberia, and many lost their lives. Higuchi expressed his regret, saying, ''It's such a shame that the winners were disarmed by the losers.''

3 ( +6 / -3 )

USA is a bully, Japan/Nippon should not support them.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

One American KIA is too many Americans for me.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Stephen ChinJan. 15 10:30 pm JST

Would Truman have known that he would have signed the death sentence of 12 Americans when he signed the death sentence of over a hundred thousand Japanese citizens plus hundreds of thousands of nuclear illness more in the years following Hiroshima? What is Twelve American Peanuts?

While there is some claim of higher instances of cancer, the very fact that there is no hotspot of radiation in these cities today tells you it was not radiation that was the main killer.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Agent_NeoJan. 15 10:30 pm JST

@OssanAmerica

The fact that Hokkaido was not occupied was not at all due to the atomic bomb.

Stalin dared to attack the Japanese army, which was proceeding with disarmament, but due to resistance from Commander Higuchi, they suffered heavy losses and were unable to occupy Hokkaido by the end of the war.

And what makes you think Stalin wouldn't have brought in more of his disposable troops by the end of a certainly very costly invasion by the US?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Yes, the truth should come out sooner than later: A bombs which killed tens of thousands of Japanese civilians was used as a show of international politics, or a show of power in the face of Communism in a more worldly term.

If you care so much about Japanese civilians you should be happy about the use of the bombs as both U.S. and Japanese officials estimate more Japanese civilians would have died in the event of an invasion.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What nationality and were these 12 Americans ? How many Canadians, Mexican

Canadians and Mexicans aren’t Americans. Americans are American

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Jbone. According to your reasoning a German, French or Spanish are classed European. Or Ukrainian is Russian. Mate your wrong.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

According to your reasoning a German, French or Spanish are classed European.

They are because Europe is a continent and those countries are in the continent of Europe.

Or Ukrainian is Russian

Ukraine and Russia are both countries so you wouldn’t call Ukrainians Russian, because they aren’t Russian.

Can you please point to the continent of ‘America’?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

This is what is called the one million person myth.

In reality, such materials did not exist during the war, and they will probably never be discovered.

There were multiple intelligence estimates of Japanese strength in Kyushu throughout the summer of 1945 and if anything they all underestimated Japanese manpower and airpower strength. Even underestimating Japan's ability to resist a ground invasion the expected losses among the units conducting the beach landing to exceed 50% of the force either killed or wounded.

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

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@TaiwanIsNotChina & OssanAmerica

Japan is now free from what would have been a Russian occupation.

> their use prevented the Soviets/Russians from taking Hokkaido if not half of Japan. 

I find your opinions unconvincing.

The Japanese would have unconditionally surrendered immediately to the US without the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the Soviet Union entered the war.

Early in the war, the Soviets negotiated a peace treaty with Japan so they would not have to fight a war on two fronts. But, after the German surrender, the Soviets broke the treaty, declared war, and invaded Manchuria (including two small islands), crushing an elite Japanese army stationed there and seizing vast, logistically very-difficult territory at breakneck speed. The Soviets were now poised to attack Japan from the west, a trivial distance away across the Sea of Japan. And it was very obvious that they would very quickly do it, using no international forces other than their own.

Now, Japan realized that it was finally doomed. They had no mainland forces left to counter the Soviet juggernaut, and no way to defend against the coming invasion. Now, they had to either surrender to the Allies, or to risk having to surrender entirely to the Soviets.

When dozens of Japanese cities were now being bombed into oblivion every single night, the fact that two of them were destroyed in one blast was only slightly interesting. In fact, The Japanese war councils did not meet to discuss it – but they did immediately convene to discuss the new Soviet-driven reality.

Specifically, Emperor Hitohito's imperial rescript surrender speech to the Japanese troops made no acknowledgement of the bombs:

https://apjjf.org/-tsuyoshi-hasegawa/2501/article.html

In his speech to the soldiers and sailors, especially die-hard officers who might still wish to continue fighting, the emperor did not mention the atomic bomb. Rather, it was Soviet participation in the war that provided a more powerful justification to persuade the troops to lay down their arms.

The emperor did refer to bombs in his rescript to the general Japanese population. However, he also laughably claimed the same speech:

"We declared war....out of Our sincere desire to secure....stabilization of East Asia, it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement."

In reality, what motivated Hirohito to surrender to the U.S. was neither a pious wish to bring peace to humanity nor a sincere desire to save the people and the nation from destruction, as his speech to civilians stated and as the myth of the emperor’s “sacred decision” would have Americans eager to justify nuking civilians believe. More than anything else, it was a sense of personal survival and deep responsibility to maintain the imperial house (which Russian occupation would most certainly have dismantled), which had lasted in unbroken lineage since the Jinmu emperor.

Here are some starting points for your research:

https://rethinkingschools.org/2013/08/09/army-teaches-wrong-lesson-in-nations-high-schools/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The emperor did refer to bombs in his rescript to the general Japanese population. 

On August 15, 1945, Japanese Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender of Japan to his peoplein the “Jewel Voice Broadcast,” or “Gyokuon-hoso.” in this broadcast he stated:

“Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.”

0 ( +1 / -1 )

asdfgtrToday 10:01 am JST

Sounds like a stretch. If they were willing to fight the Americans to the last Okinawan, they probably would have fought similarly against the USSR, which needed US boats to get there, btw.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@TaiwanIsNotChina

Rather than your opinion on this matter, I place much more value on the words of Brigadier General Carter Clarke and the WWII officers at the time:

“We brought them [the Japanese] down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.”

In fact, six out of seven five-star WWII officers — condemned the use of the atomic bomb:

For example, Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Moreover, Leahy continued, "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The Japanese would have unconditionally surrendered immediately to the US without the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the Soviet Union entered the war

No, they wouldn’t have because they didn’t. After the Soviet Union declared war and destroyed the Japanese army in Manchuria the big 6 (the governing body of Japan) was still split on a surrender, with 3 civilian ministers voting to surrender and 3 military ministers demanding unreasonable conditions to any possible surrender. It wasn’t until the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki did Hirohito directly intervene and offer and unconditional surrender

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@JBoneInTheZone

On August 15, 1945, Japanese Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender of Japan to his peoplein the “Jewel Voice Broadcast,” or “Gyokuon-hoso.” in this broadcast he stated:

“Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.”

In his speech to the soldiers and sailors, especially die-hard officers who might still wish to continue fighting, the emperor DID NOT mention the atomic bomb. Rather, it was Soviet participation in the war that provided a more powerful justification to persuade the troops to lay down their arms.

Yes, afterward, the emperor did refer to bombs in his rescript to the general Japanese population. However, he also laughably claimed the same speech:

"We declared war....out of Our sincere desire to secure....stabilization of East Asia, it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement."

Do you believe this too?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In his speech to the soldiers and sailors, especially die-hard officers who might still wish to continue fighting, the emperor DID NOT mention the atomic bomb. Rather, it was Soviet participation in the war that provided a more powerful justification to persuade the troops to lay down their arms.

I don’t understand your logic. So his speech to his troops is the truth but his surrender address stating the bombs are a major factor is a lie? Obviously both the Soviet invasion and the bombs played major factors, but there’s no historical evidence to support the argument that the bombs played no part at all.

Why would Hirohito directly intervene after Nagasaki and not beforehand if the threat of Soviet invasion was the major factor in Japans surrender and the bombs were irrelevant?

Do you believe this too?

How does this prove he doesn’t believe the bombs to be a major factor in his surrender when he clearly said so?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@JBoneInTheZone

It wasn’t until the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki did Hirohito directly intervene and offer and unconditional surrender

Your timeline is incorrect.

"Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day. Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3. For the first time in a generation, the emperor (right) stepped forward from his normally ceremonial-only role and personally broke the tie, ordering Japan to surrender. On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state."

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/surrender.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria

The situation changed on 9 August 1945, but not because Nagasaki was bombed. On that day, the Soviets declared war on Japan. It wasn't until Stalin announced the new war that Hirohito directly intervened and offered unconditional surrender.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@JBoneInTheZone,

How does this prove he doesn’t believe the bombs to be a major factor in his surrender when he clearly said so?

When dozens of Japanese cities were now being bombed into oblivion every single night, the fact that two of them were destroyed in one blast was only slightly interesting. In fact, The Japanese war councils did not meet to discuss it – but they did immediately convene to discuss the new Soviet-driven reality.

Specifically, Emperor Hitohito's imperial rescript surrender speech to the Japanese troops made no acknowledgement of the bombs:

https://apjjf.org/-tsuyoshi-hasegawa/2501/article.html

In his speech to the soldiers and sailors, especially die-hard officers who might still wish to continue fighting, the emperor did not mention the atomic bomb. Rather, it was Soviet participation in the war that provided a more powerful justification to persuade the troops to lay down their arms.

The emperor did refer to bombs in his rescript to the general Japanese population. However, he also laughably claimed the same speech:

"We declared war....out of Our sincere desire to secure....stabilization of East Asia, it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement."

In reality, what motivated Hirohito to surrender to the U.S. was neither a pious wish to bring peace to humanity nor a sincere desire to save the people and the nation from destruction, as his speech to civilians stated and as the myth of the emperor’s “sacred decision” would have Americans eager to justify nuking civilians believe. More than anything else, it was a sense of personal survival and deep responsibility to maintain the imperial house (which Russian occupation would most certainly have dismantled), which had lasted in unbroken lineage since the Jinmu emperor.

Here are some starting points for your research:

https://rethinkingschools.org/2013/08/09/army-teaches-wrong-lesson-in-nations-high-schools/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The situation changed on 9 August 1945, but not because Nagasaki was bombed.

In direct contradiction to Hirohito’s own words, right?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

asdfgtrToday 11:12 am JST

Yes, we know that US military officers did not like the bomb because they considered it dishonorable. History quite clearly shows us that dithering would have had catastrophic consequences, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@JBoneInTheZone,

In direct contradiction to Hirohito’s own words, right?

Hirohito also laughably claimed the very same speech:

"We declared war....out of Our sincere desire to secure....stabilization of East Asia, it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement."

I suppose you believe this too?

In reality, what motivated Hirohito to surrender to the U.S. was neither a pious wish to bring peace to humanity nor a sincere desire to save the people and the nation from destruction, as his speech to civilians stated and as the myth of the emperor’s “sacred decision” would have Americans eager to justify nuking civilians believe. More than anything else, it was a sense of personal survival and deep responsibility to maintain the imperial house (which Russian occupation would most certainly have dismantled), which had lasted in unbroken lineage since the Jinmu emperor.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The situation changed on 9 August 1945, but not because Nagasaki was bombed.

Yeah, it took them a day or so to confirm entire cities dropping out of communication. Doesn't make it a glorious Soviet victory for you.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@TaiwanIsNotChina,

Yeah, it took them a day or so to confirm entire cities dropping out of communication. Doesn't make it a glorious Soviet victory for you.

Meaningless ad hominem.

History quite clearly shows us that dithering would have had catastrophic consequences, though.

Incorrect. That is just your opinion. I place greater emphasis on the findings of historians:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

0 ( +1 / -1 )

When dozens of Japanese cities were now being bombed into oblivion every single night, the fact that two of them were destroyed in one blast was only slightly interesting.

In direct contradiction to Hirohito’s own words, right?

When dozens of Japanese cities were now being bombed into oblivion every single night, the fact that two of them were destroyed in one blast was only slightly interesting.

Not true. Japan had its own nuclear program and knew how Herculean of a task building one was, so they were under the assumption after Hiroshima there couldn’t be more than one. Even upon hearing the news that the Soviet Union had declared war, Japanese army chief of staff Yoshijiro Umezu stated it doesn’t change their plan to enact Ketsugo and defend the home island. You’re also conveniently leaving out that Hirohito’s surrender address to the Japanese people leaves out the invasion of Manchuria and solely mentions the bombs

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I suppose you believe this too?

How does this contradict or invalidate Hirohito saying the bombs had an effect on surrender?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@JBoneInTheZone

How does this contradict or invalidate Hirohito saying the bombs had an effect on surrender?

It shows that Hirohito was willing to lie in the speech you rely on.

Japanese army chief of staff Yoshijiro Umezu stated it doesn’t change their plan to enact Ketsugo 

Irrelevant. He didn't have the power to unilaterally declare unconditional surrender.

You’re also conveniently leaving out that Hirohito’s surrender address to the Japanese people leaves out the invasion of Manchuria and solely mentions the bombs

Incorrect. This was explicitly addressed in my earlier posts.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It wasn’t the nukes or the threat of the Russians that ended the war. It was the assurance that the Imperial House would be preserved. The US made this declaration two days after the 2nd bomb.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

In his speech to the soldiers and sailors, especially die-hard officers who might still wish to continue fighting, the emperor DID NOT mention the atomic bomb. Rather, it was Soviet participation in the war that provided a justification to persuade the troops to lay down their arms.

Afterward, the emperor did refer to both the bombs and the Soviet Union in his rescript to the general Japanese population. However, he also laughably claimed the same speech:

"We declared war....out of Our sincere desire to secure....stabilization of East Asia, it being far from Our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement."

This clearly shows Hirohito's willingness to lie to the Japanese people.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This clearly shows Hirohito's willingness to lie to the Japanese people.

In today's lexicon we would say he tailored his presentation to his audience /:

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Do Americans think Japan surrendered because of the atomic bomb? At least, people who study history in Japan don't think so.

The situation surrounding the earthquake that occurred in Japan's Hokuriku region this New Year's Day has recently become clear, but let's compare it to what happened at the end of the war in 1945.

At that time, most of the infrastructure had already been destroyed by the US military, and even when atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people in Tokyo only understood that ''a large bomb had been dropped.'' It was not until long after the end of the war that the damage caused by the atomic bomb became clear.

In an era without the Internet or television, no one would imagine that they could grasp the extent of the damage in just a few days. It is said that the US military waited several days for Japan to surrender, but even they could not have imagined that they would be able to grasp the extent of the damage in just a few days.

Even General MacArthur, the commander-in-chief, said that one shot would be enough, but Truman dropped the second one without delay. A demonstration to the Soviet Union? Is it just a human experiment?

The more America insisted on the legitimacy of dropping the atomic bomb, the more it became clear that it felt guilty.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Agent_NeoJan. 16 09:15 pm JST

Do Americans think Japan surrendered because of the atomic bomb? At least, people who study history in Japan don't think so.

They didn't surrender just because of the Soviets, that is for sure.

The situation surrounding the earthquake that occurred in Japan's Hokuriku region this New Year's Day has recently become clear, but let's compare it to what happened at the end of the war in 1945.

At that time, most of the infrastructure had already been destroyed by the US military, and even when atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people in Tokyo only understood that ''a large bomb had been dropped.'' It was not until long after the end of the war that the damage caused by the atomic bomb became clear.

Yeah, because communication was completely wiped out.

In an era without the Internet or television, no one would imagine that they could grasp the extent of the damage in just a few days. It is said that the US military waited several days for Japan to surrender, but even they could not have imagined that they would be able to grasp the extent of the damage in just a few days.

Even General MacArthur, the commander-in-chief, said that one shot would be enough, but Truman dropped the second one without delay. A demonstration to the Soviet Union? Is it just a human experiment?

Well, the demonstration was an important aspect of keeping Japan free today, wasn't it?

The more America insisted on the legitimacy of dropping the atomic bomb, the more it became clear that it felt guilty.

55% approve of and think was justified the use of the atomic bomb: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/08/04/70-years-after-hiroshima-opinions-have-shifted-on-use-of-atomic-bomb/ . This number was 85% among Americans that actually lived through WW2. Don't know what people would feel guilty over. I prefer that Japan not be under Russian occupation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are always going to be friendly fire incidents like this. The important thing is that Japan is now free from what would have been a Russian occupation.

They simply killed thousands of Japanese, then gave money to restore the country on the condition that Japan submit to American power. Just a classic deception.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

nikToday 11:10 am JST

Says the guy that would have loved a Russian occupation. Land for peace, amirite?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites