national

Hiroshima marks 73rd anniversary of U.S. atomic bombing

107 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

107 Comments
Login to comment

@Bill Murphy

As I wrote earlier, no one knows why he chucked BEFORE the filming. Please don’t pretend again that you know.

No one is pretending to know what exactly set him off. However, giggling on camera before announcing a mass slaughter with nuclear weapons is indicative of his mentality. Harry S Truman's feeble-minded racist statements and religious delusions quoted in my previous post reinforce these conclusions.

Best, as you might have it or biggest as I take it.

Truman was not one to mince words. It is likely he said "greatest" because he meant it. If he had "biggest" in mind he would have said it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Utorsa:

Giggling on camera before announcing the mass murder of civilians with a nuclear weapon is a clear indicator of his mental state. 

...and...

Truman's own words reveal his psychology. Upon learning the news of the destruction of Hiroshima, Truman remarked, "This is the greatest thing in history."

As I wrote earlier, no one knows why he chucked BEFORE the filming. Please don’t pretend again that you know.

”Greatest”?

Best, as you might have it or biggest as I take it.

I quote myself and add a correction:

But, for someone to think with so little evidence that anyone (even Truman) would find the death of so many people assuming is... Well, it’s hard to describe that psychology. 

Not “assuming”, but “amusing” (auto spell was on).

By “someone” I meant you and by “that psychology” I meant yours.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Bill Murphy

However, Truman did this BEFORE his speech. I think it’s safe to assume that something was said to him shortly before the speech that made him laugh. 

Giggling on camera before announcing the mass murder of civilians with a nuclear weapon is a clear indicator of his mental state.

But, for someone to think with so little evidence that anyone (even Truman) would find the death of so many people assuming is ... Well, it’s hard to describe that psychology. Maybe you would like to explain it. 

Truman's own words reveal his psychology. Upon learning the news of the destruction of Hiroshima, Truman remarked, "This is the greatest thing in history."

Truman was also a racist prone to religious delusion:

“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a NI&&ER or a Chinaman... THE LORD made a white man from dust, a NI&&ER from mud, and then threw what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I....We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction PROPHESIED in the Euphrates Valley Era, after NOAH and his FABULOUS Ark....This weapon is to be used against Japan....

@FritzX

your claim is completely groundless.

Truman's own words and actions prove otherwise.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Bill Murphy,

I completely agree.

@utorsa,

your claim is completely groundless.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ike-in-Tokyo (?):

I watched the clip. Truman was chuckling. Why? Utorsa, you don’t know why. No context is provided. You just tried to fit it into your narrative. It’s an editing technique propagandists use.

utorsa:

Truman giggled prior to announcing the mass murders at Hiroshima. Context is provided. You just tried to avoid it. It's a technique propagandists use.

I’d like to weigh in. I looked at the film clip too. Truman “chuckled” or “giggled”. Whatever.

If Truman had done so AFTER his speech I would unreservedly support Utorsa’s claim.

However, Truman did this BEFORE his speech. I think it’s safe to assume that something was said to him shortly before the speech that made him laugh. I have no idea what that might have been.

But, for someone to think with so little evidence that anyone (even Truman) would find the death of so many people assuming is ... Well, it’s hard to describe that psychology. Maybe you would like to explain it. I’m drawing a blank.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I watched the clip. Truman was chuckling. Why? Utorsa, you don’t know why. No context is provided. You just tried to fit it into your narrative. It’s an editing technique propagandists use.

Truman giggled prior to announcing the mass murders at Hiroshima. Context is provided. You just tried to avoid it. It's a technique propagandists use.

No proof at all, conclusive or otherwise.

You're entitled to your opinion. I place greater importance on the conclusions of Brig. Gen. Carter Clarke:

"......we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

A Canadian victim of Hiroshima recounts his exploitation as an experimental subject of Truman's Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission:

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/a-canadian-in-hiroshima

Truman's ABCC organization studied Hiroshima victims without providing ANY treatment or substantive medical care. Japanese were treated like lab rats by the American government. As the ABCC wikipedia page states:

"The ABCC did not actually treat the survivors they studied, they just studied them over periods of time."

We also know Truman lied when he stated:

*“The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians***.**.”

In fact, the primary targets at Hiroshima were residential in nature with the overwhelming majority of casualties being civilian. In fact, Honkawa Elementary school was mere meters from the epicenter of the Hiroshima nuke strike. The fire-bombings and nuclear attacks on Japan were war crimes on par with the holocaust suffered by the Jews.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This conclusively proves that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little value other than as an opportunity for the US military to conduct nuke testing on human subjects.

No proof at all, conclusive or otherwise.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The depravity and racism of the US government and military is apparent from Harry Truman's demented giggling prior to his announcement of the mass murders at Hiroshima:

I watched the clip. Truman was chuckling. Why? Utorsa, you don’t know why. No context is provided. You just tried to fit it into your narrative. It’s an editing technique propagandists use.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The nuking of H&N was the most disgusting and cowardly war crime ever committed. It was little more than a brutal and cynical live human experiment on women and children. The depravity and racism of the US government and military is apparent from Harry Truman's demented giggling prior to his announcement of the mass murders at Hiroshima:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d42dMSAltnQ

See Kermit Beahan gloat as he claims responsibility for nuking the women and children of Nagasaki:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdJyOBriLTI&t=39s

As Brig. Gen. Carter W. Clarke, the officer in charge of preparing MAGIC intercepted cable summaries in 1945, stated:

"….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."

As the historical record shows, six of the seven US WWII five star officers concluded that the nuking of hundreds of thousands of civilians was unnecessary. In fact, the nuking was one of the most brutal and cynical atrocities ever committed.

As Admiral Chester W. Nimitz stated:

"The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war…."

Truman's own diaries show that he prolonged hostilities until the nukes were ready. We also know that he lied to the US public when he stated that Hiroshima was a "military target".

Prior to nuking Hiroshima, the U.S. military had already obliterated over 60 Japanese cities with napalm and white phosphorous. This conclusively proves that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had little value other than as an opportunity for the US military to conduct nuke testing on human subjects.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Actually, not entirely true. They planned to bomb Osaka first but it was clouded so they moved to Hiroshima.

Actually, not entirely true. The primary targets were Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki. The target after the Hiroshima attack was to be Kokura, but cloud cover there sent the bomber to Nagasaki.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

A significant number of non-Japanese died in the A-bombing of Hiroshima. The largest number were Korea slave laborers. For many years the survivors were denied the benefits that Japanese survivors received. From Wikipedia:

During the war, Japan brought many Korean conscripts to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to work as slaves. According to recent estimates, about 20,000 Koreans were killed in Hiroshima and about 2,000 died in Nagasaki. It is estimated that one in seven of the Hiroshima victims was of Korean ancestry.[9] For many years, Koreans had a difficult time fighting for recognition as atomic bomb victims and were denied health benefits. However, most issues have been addressed in recent years through lawsuits.[10]

There is likely more to this largely untold tragedy.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The American a-bomb committee wanted to observe the impact of a live test and chose Hiroshima for its favourable geography for a post-observation.

Actually, not entirely true. They planned to bomb Osaka first but it was clouded so they moved to Hiroshima.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Once the US had the A-bomb there was the terrible pressure to use it. Germany and Japan would have had the same pressure to use the A-bomb if they had it.

It is self evident Germany would have used it if they had it. No doubt about it, absolutely none.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

https://www.ranker.com/list/japanese-wwii-war-crimes/mel-judson

When one reads a list of atrocities committed by Imperial Japanese Army and Navy forces, it is easier to understand why the allies considered bombing of Japanese civilians as justified.

I do not remember the source, but I have read that the number of Chinese killed as a result of Japanese aerial bombing exceeds the number of Japanese killed as a result of mostly American bombing in Japan.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Had Hiroshima been bombed by conventional bombs its misery would’ve been forgotten.

Not very many people remember the 9-10 March 1945 fire bombing of Tokyo in which more than 100,000 people were killed, millions left homeless. The number of people killed and area destroyed was the largest of any single air raid of World War II, including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

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

It's a shame there is no Memorial erected to commemorate this bombing to illustrate the horrors of conventional firebombing.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly-wwii-u-s-firebombing-raids-on-japanese-cities-largely-ignored/#.W2n7BlVKiM8

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The atomic bomb dropped on the civilian population of Hiroshima was a carpet bomb. Its purpose was to bring death and misery to thousands of people. Before squadrons of bombers carpet bombed Japanese cities, while sparing the Imperial Palace in Tokyo. These brought death and misery to thousands of people. Had Hiroshima been bombed by conventional bombs its misery would’ve been forgotten.

Why did the U.S. decide to use the A-bomb on Hiroshima? I believe it was because the US had it. The US could have conventional bombs. But then some of the bomb crews might have died. And there would have been an outcry: Why didn’t you use the A-Bomb? If the US. had not used the A-bomb, every American military death after it was invented would have been blamed on Truman.

Once the US had the A-bomb there was the terrible pressure to use it. Germany and Japan would have had the same pressure to use the A-bomb if they had it.

Bombing of civilian targets became the new normal in World War II and it has continued to this day. Weep for Hiroshima. But spare a tear for civilian populations being bombed now.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I have heard many of the arguments for why using the Atomic bombs was the right thing to do, and I find the arguments compelling. Still, the horror of the weapons is impossible to get out of my mind. I agree with the comment that the reason we have had no more world wars since WW II is because of the threat of nuclear weapons. Also, during the period after WW II when the USA was the only country with a nuclear force, the USA was not interested in global conquest. Thank goodness Dick Cheney wasn't around in those days.

We have relatives who were in the relocation camps here in The States. While the relocation camps were a horrible mistake, they were nothing like the concentration camps used by the Germans and Japanese. We also have a relative who fought in the famous 442nd regiment, the nisei regiment that was the only unit of its size that never had a soldier go awol (except from the hospital, to go back to combat), and which unit had more medals for bravery in combat than any other regiment in US history. And, we have relatives who asked to be repatriated back to Japan during the war. Dad had an expression that he used a lot: truth is stranger than fiction.

In another war-related story, there was an employee at one place where I worked who had been a kamikaze pilot. He made the decision to land his plane, rather than crash it, and then got out and surrendered. IMO, he did the right thing. He couldn't go back to Japan after the war, or he would have been killed by right-wing fanatics, so he stayed in the US. I guess there was a reason why suicide pilots had their canopies welded shut near the end of the war - too many of them were changing their minds.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

My personal belief is that Japan was not offered a conditional surrender with the Emperor protected because someone, possibly just Truman, wanted to test/demonstrate the bomb.

Your opinion has been expressed elsewhere, but do you have anything specific which shaped and supports it?

The following from Prof. William Johnston of Wesleyan University:

“The historian's job is to explain the past using the most complete evidence available. That evidence shows both that Truman's most substantial atomic decision was to demand his express authority for future bombings [i.e. after the Nagasaki attack] and that the bombings' role in ending the war was ambiguous.”

”Ambiguous”. Not very satisfying, is it?

The Potsdam Declaration terms called for the elimination "for all time of the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest".

Emperor Showa was not specifically mentioned though if proven to have “deceived and misled” he could have been “eliminated”. Some have suggested that this ambiguity was equivalent to a wink which, if grasped by the Japanese negotiators, would have made acceptance of unconditional surrender possible at an earlier date. This same ambiguity was to allow General MacArthur to create the narrative of the simple marine biologist manipulated by the military high command.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If there is any way out it is by studying the wars of the past and the reasons for them and by getting a better understanding of human psychology.

For as long as humans existed, wars have existed. Wars have been studied and root causes examined. After each devastating war, nations pledged "No More War!" Pacts and international agreements throughout the centuries have been signed to outlaw wars and renounce the use of war to settle disputes. But wars, like history, keeps repeating themselves and these international agreements have done little to prevent future wars.

The seeds of war are everywhere, the conflicts of interests real and deep and will never be abolished by pious platitudes or wishful thinking.

Then perhaps a strategy to control those impulses to make war - I doubt they can be eliminated (if total elimination itself is desirable) - may be developed.

The only effective instrument that has prevented the Superpowers like the U.S., Soviet Union and China, from waging an All-Out Total World War has been nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons and the strategy of "Mutual Assured Destruction" has essentially made Total War unthinkable and unwinnable. Nuclear weapons have kept wars from escalating to Total War level.

The abolishment of nuclear weapons would only serve to resort to CONVENTIONAL weapons and would actually make waging wars of the magnitude of World War I and II thinkable once again. Is this what we really want?

We forget that prior to 1945 the world was a *nuclear-free world**, yet was filled with major wars throughout the centuries. All Wars after 1945 were fought with conventional* weapons. But these wars were limited wars, limited only because of the reluctance to use of nuclear weapons. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Memorials serves as a reminder of the consequence of using nuclear weapons.

It would interesting to see what would happen if ALL nations possesses nuclear weapons and understands the consequences of using of nuclear weapons. Perhaps there should be an international pact between nations possessing nuclear weapons whereby ANY nation that dares to use war as a means to settle disputes or use nuclear weapons would be instantly targeted by all nations and threatened with overwhelming mass destruction. I'm pretty sure the instigator would quickly back down. Witness North Korea backing down after Trump threatened with overwhelming destruction. Then North Korea backed down and agreed to talk denuclearization and peace.

This threat of total, overwhelming mass destruction by nuclear weapons has for the past 70 years been an effective deterrent and prevented the U.S., China and Russia from declaring war on each other and waging another major World War.

In a unintended twist of fate, nuclear weapons have actually promoted "World Peace" by forcing the nations capable of waging total war to settle their disputes through dialog and negotiations.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If you look at history, most wars were started up because of greed, hatred, intolerance, ego, fanaticism (not always religious either), jingoism, lies, misinformation and such.

As I said. War has always been with us. It is what humans do.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ike-in-Tokyo-from-89Today 12:06 am JSTThis anniversary we need to reflect on the insanity of war,

I agree with much of what you say, but I disagree on your use of “insanity” to describe war.

It has always been with us. It is what humans do. There are reasons for that that cannot be easily grasped.

If there is any way out it is by studying the wars of the past and the reasons for them and by getting a better understanding of human psychology. Then perhaps a strategy to control those impulses to make war - I doubt they can be eliminated (if total elimination itself is desirable) - may be developed.

If you look at history, most wars were started up because of greed, hatred, intolerance, ego, fanaticism (not always religious either), jingoism, lies, misinformation and such. Wars affect people who want nothing to do with it. Innocent people get abused, injured, killed. Troops themselves get abused, injured, killed or crippled for life and they may get psychological trauma that never goes away.

The 1991 Gulf War was a reality TV show for Americans. Sure the Iraqis were forced out of Kuwait but the chicken Kuwaiti government implemented a White Terror on its people, Gulf War vets got exposed to the oil wells gushing petroleum in the sky and the ground and the waters. They came home with many illnesses - PTSD, painful burning sex resulting in children born with no arms, and other problems. So who really won?

Many wars can be avoided by diplomatic means (it takes 2 - like Reagan and Gorbachev) and by the use of sanctions. That has worked on occasions and effected change. Since 1945 mankind has had the capability to commit atomic suicide. The Cold War ended peacefully and planet Earth won. We don't have to destroy the world. War is insane, it's obscene. There are better ways to resolve differences. That's been shown numerous times in history as well. After all, Gandhi spearheaded the liberation of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh - over one billion people, without war.

'War! Huh! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again!'. And when I last saw Bruce Springsteen live in concert in 2016 he did this song. It always gets my spine tingling! What a thrill.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

But will never forget.

nobody should forget the day that happens is the day that history will repeat itself.

Being the winner of a war can be a sweet thing but as times change perceptions change,

thats just it the today's perception cant be applied to the perceptions of WW2 and vise versa. Majority of people alive today have never experienced war and the death destruction it causes.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

wtfjapanAug. 6 01:55 pm JSTYes, of course - all victims should be remembered but each country can do it's own mourning as well, surely? absolutely, but let do it without pointing the finger at others for your suffering,

Yet, it is not exactly finger-pointing. It is rather a reaction to all the posts of previous years saying how Japan deserved it (yet, they never acknowledged that the bombs killed  hundreds of thousands of civilians  - mostly women, children and old men who never fought or killed anybody) and perpetuated the hypothesis that the bombs saved millions of American lives; that, despite the fact that Japan was on its knees, starved of food, munitions and young men, if it  had not been for the bombs,  the Japanese would have continued to fight for years, etc. etc. 

Being the winner of a war can be a sweet thing but as times change perceptions change, too, and eventually the winners have to face the truth as well.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The annual remembrance of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki never fails to produce justifications for the atrocity that are regurgitated ad nauseam. The MAGA mindset appears to be giving renewed impetus to the spurious claims on this thread that Truman's decision to use nuclear weapons was either NOT a war crime, or if so, was the only way to avoid huge numbers of further casualties. The bombings had fatal consequences for people other than the Japanese: the incorrigible moral pygmies running the American military got a get-out-of-jail pass that only emboldened them to offer TWO atomic bombs to the French government facing defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese fighting to drive out their French overlords. The French, in their wisdom, declined the heinous offer. The impunity protecting American officials responsible for the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons led directly to the unprecedented carnage in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam caused by carpet bombing from B-52s. As the peace anthem goes, "When will they ever learn...?"

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Everyone - Chinese, Koreans, Americans, Indonesian tribesmen -- who fought against the Japanese recalls a distinct and shocking streak of sadism among the common ranks of its military and even civil service.

Add 20th century racialist propaganda to centuries of abuse of the lower class and to brutal military training and the result will be some individuals who seek revenge for the wrongs, real and imagined, done to them.

Some Japanese clung to their humanity during the long East Asian and Pacific wars and resisted the military dictatorship. My neighbor’s younger brother, a Christian, killed himself rather than be inducted into the army. He saw no other way out.

True stories such as his must be heard by every new generation.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Japanese public were not aware of their government's abuses or war crimes because they were fed propaganda, 

Japan had a conscript military at the time, ie it was drawn from the ranks of the population. farmers, factory workers, shopkeepers, etc. Civilians in uniforms. The most chilling atrocities often involved the "class-B war criminals," accused of actually carrying out conventional crimes, like the torture of defenseless prisoners and civilians, crimes that were consistent and widespread during Japan's adventure in Asia.

So often the perpetrators were just regular working-class, middle-class Japanese folks, before and after the war.

Everyone - Chinese, Koreans, Americans, Indonesian tribesmen -- who fought against the Japanese recalls a distinct and shocking streak of sadism among the common ranks of its military and even civil service.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

On a personal note, the thought that my best friend would not exist because his father would have wound up killed himself in a kamikaze attack is frightening. I know that imagining just one life being traded for thousands doesn't seem rational, but trading them for the lives of those that would have died in the fighting, kamikaze attacks and ritual suicides that would have resulted from the invasion (and don't kid yourselves, it would have happened), as terrible as it sounds, was the right thing to do.

Fully agree.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Not every country has participated in genocide. Nor practiced imperialism, invasions or colonialism upon others, though.

True but 'victim' countries deliver always collaborators, volunteers, expertise etc. It's often no so black & white.

It's difficult to forgive such acts, true but that can be done. Some people just aren't ready for that.

It is, but possible.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The Japanese public were not aware of their government's abuses or war crimes because they were fed propaganda, lies and BS. Anybody who questioned or didn't 'play along' suddenly just 'disappeared'.  The totalitarian regime of Japan was a bunch of war criminals and scumbags - and they were punished. 

That can be said of the German population too and you're right that the leaders of the regime were 'war criminals and scumbags' but criminal acts were also executed by the lower and lowest ranks. To bring up 'we didn't know' as an excuse is too simple. Many have never been brought to justice.

*Many Allied troops suffered from the A-bomb as well, the aftereffects do not discriminate. We must never let things come to making this mistake again. As for the way the Cold War was settled in a peaceful manner courtesy of Reagan and Gorbachev, we did it once and we can do it again. *NO MORE NUCLEAR WARS! EVER!

Agree but technically there was never a nuclear war as it was a one sided action.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I visited the dome for the first time during my last visit to Japan in November 2016 with my best friend from Kobe. I believed, and I still do, that it was the right thing to do considering all the options.

But standing at this location, right below where the bomb actually dropped, was overwhelming. I admit I was barely able to hold back tears. I could only think, how could we have done this to a country that I love so much, where the best friends I have ever had live with their families? I told my friend it was time to go. He obviously noticed my emotions and only said 'It's ok. It had to happen.' before we were silent again.

Now a little about my friend. He's 50 and a JGSDF veteran. His father was a teenager during WWII and was training to be a kaiten pilot. That's a kamikaze submarine for those who don't know. He would have uselessly thrown his life away essentially trying to drive a torpedo.

On a personal note, the thought that my best friend would not exist because his father would have wound up killed himself in a kamikaze attack is frightening. I know that imagining just one life being traded for thousands doesn't seem rational, but trading them for the lives of those that would have died in the fighting, kamikaze attacks and ritual suicides that would have resulted from the invasion (and don't kid yourselves, it would have happened), as terrible as it sounds, was the right thing to do.

So yeah. It's terrible that it happened. But hindsight is 20/20.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

This anniversary we need to reflect on the insanity of war,

I agree with much of what you say, but I disagree on your use of “insanity” to describe war.

It has always been with us. It is what humans do. There are reasons for that that cannot be easily grasped.

If there is any way out it is by studying the wars of the past and the reasons for them and by getting a better understanding of human psychology. Then perhaps a strategy to control those impulses to make war - I doubt they can be eliminated (if total elimination itself is desirable) - may be developed.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Meanwhile neanderthal Trump is making as many new nuclear weapons as he can -- setting the world back seven decades. So incredibly FOOLISH.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

A Japanese slogan in the summer of 1945 was: "The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly."

This doesn't sound like a country ready to capitulate, does it?

What people forget is that Japan had a totalitarian government. That means that the fascist regime controlled all the media and communications - radio, newspapers, books, mags, education, what little TV there was at the time, EVERYTHING. In college we read this book by a Japanese author who lived during this period and he described how after the fascist regime it was revealed to the Japanese public that they were LIED to by Hideiki Tojo and his cabinet along with the zaibatsu that ran the war machine economy. It is their government that caused all the problems. The Japanese public were not aware of their government's abuses or war crimes because they were fed propaganda, lies and BS. Anybody who questioned or didn't 'play along' suddenly just 'disappeared'.  The totalitarian regime of Japan was a bunch of war criminals and scumbags - and they were punished

My German teacher in HS was a little girl in Nazi Germany and she told us similar stories about how Hitler lied to the German people. He kept telling the public all this nationalistic crap until the radio stations in her home city were shut down when the Allies came in. 

When I was in college it was the same old game for Serbia/Montenegro. Yugoslavia self-destructed mostly because of the hate and lies spewed by Slobodan Milosevic. After his regime took a major beating in the 1999 Kosovo war (his media apparatus was trashed by NATO bombings) his lies and the war crimes were exposed to the Serbs and Montenegrins for the first time. The veil had been lifted. Serbs rose up the next year and overthrew Slobo.

What it all boils down to is that Japan's regime, like that of other above mentioned nations committed gross war crimes and genocide. You hate the governments but not the people themselves. This anniversary we need to reflect on the insanity of war, how it begins, what leads to it and how we must make sure that something this ugly that affects millions of lives must never be repeated again. Many Allied troops suffered from the A-bomb as well, the aftereffects do not discriminate. We must never let things come to making this mistake again. As for the way the Cold War was settled in a peaceful manner courtesy of Reagan and Gorbachev, we did it once and we can do it again. NO MORE NUCLEAR WARS! EVER!

6 ( +7 / -1 )

to all those that think the Abombs were not justified, need to go and watch this unbiased documentary by NHK on the battle of Okinawa, show to what lengths the IJA went to to protect their own lives over the civilians. when youve watched the whole documentary then ask yourself if an invasion of the mainland where the population was in the millions would have been a massacre or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWP_qhFnXoc&t=1501s

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Recce flight or not, no country likes the idea of another country's military planes over its airspace, peacetime or wartime. They might be saving up for "real bomber attacks", but the fact they are not putting anything up is a strong sign of lack of capability.

It’s not about “liking” reccon flights or not. It’s about husbanding resources. Why bother to oppose what appeared to be a harmless overflight? As I mentioned, there were substantial Imperial forces waiting for an invasion of Kyushu. That was a demonstration of capability.

at that moment, Americans to Japanese are a bunch of monsters that are perfectly happy to kill by the thousand,

Yes. Japanese war time propaganda (“100 million die together”, etc.) was thought to be quite effective by those who designed it. What common people truly thought of it would have been difficult to assess given the vigilance of the Kempeitai.

Smithinjapan, which is it - the japanese were going to commit mass suicide (your version) or mobilize the nation to repel the invasion? Either way it would have been a bloodbath on an unprecedented scale.

Bloodbath? According to historian Gerhard Weinberg “the Japanese anticipated that there would be 20 million Japanese casualties, a figure Tokyo deemed acceptable until the second atomic bomb”. [emphasis mine] (from panel discussion “World War II Myths, Misconceptions and Surprises”, G. C. Marshall Foundation). Accept Prof. Weinberg’s statement as you like.

For anyone questioning the fact that the japanese were on the ropes and these weapons of mass destruction were only used to scare the bejesus out of the Soviets. A massive fail in hindsight.

Historians are obliged to question whatever is presented as fact. “On the ropes” is not on the mat hearing - if conscious - the count. Yes. Some have speculated that the atomic attacks were designed to intimidate the Soviets. However, Stalin already knew about the bomb. The Soviets were following its “secret” development. In fact, the Soviets were doing exactly what they had promised the western allies after the defeat of Germany: anull their non-aggression pact with Japan and commence hostilities 90 days later - and that they did on August 9 which coincided with the attack on Nagasaki. In my personal opinion it was the Soviet “betrayal” that ended the war - they were known regicides - and not the atomic bomb.

All this said, the atomic bombings were horrific and, if I may say, like all here, I would rather they hadn’t occurred. The entire war for that matter.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Marks the end of Japanese rape all, steal all, burn all, kill all. RIP.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

There is a man of his governing administration strongly saying denuclearization to North Korea and against world denuclearization pact in UN, just to know it is Japan govt. and his name is Abe. What the hell brain does he have? I feel nausea that dude will never know what was that horrendous A-bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm just ashamed to have a leader like him. And want to increase military budged year by year? Who really support him must walk together to that infernal world.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"One day you will get your wish and the US will not have anymore nuclear weapons."

What about Russia, China, England, France, India, Pakistan and North Korea? Well, North Korea's not going to have theirs for more than a few more years at the most and Iran is never getting theirs.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Japanese forgive America for what happened in the War. But will never forget. Japan and USA are now “number one allies” in the World, there are no two closer nations. Trump and PM Abe shoulder to shoulder and stare down all the troubles in this region.

We have moved on, Japan has been a Peace-Loving nation for 73 years.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Perhaps, if it had been deliberately detonated over water in Tokyo Bay, or on top of Mt Fuji, it would have had closed the war as quickly but without such tragic loss of life.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Toasted Heretic, perhaps you should look up 'genocide' in the dictionary before using it again. As they said in that movie, "are you sure you know what this word means? Because I don't think it means what you think it means."

But, seriously, you are correct in saying it was a war crime. Such a massive attack targeted deliberately at civilians can not be said to fall within the Geneva Convention.

But the point is that it was likely the least destructive option available. You would have preferred an invasion? Which, though not a war crime, would have killed millions.

Any talk of Japan surrendering is inadmissable.  Therefore, given that it averted the need for the invasion, the atomic bombings were, essentially, war crimes that saved millions of lives.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

One day you will get your wish and the US will not have anymore nuclear weapons. That day will also mark the day we have something far worse than an obsolete nuke that we can use on our enemies. :) cheers

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"....the bombs being dropped were easily war crimes..."  

No they weren't. They were part of a successful strategy to put a quick end to a war so that many, many more innocent people of many nationalities wouldn't continue getting killed violently, (for the sake of Japan's imperial ambitions).

"These are among the biggest war crimes in human history, "

"Biggest"? By what standard? Not deaths. Japanese invasion of China -- 10 million killed. Holocaust - at least 6 million. And Hiroshima? - 150,000, a tiny fraction.

By cruelty? Nope. Getting bayoneted or shot in the stomach and left to bleed to death slowly is a whole lot more tortuous and traumatic that being instantly vaporized in an aerial bombing. Conventional weapons do a horrendously messy job of destroying human bodies.

-5 ( +10 / -15 )

Indeed.

Nobody is defending Imperial Japan's role in the conflict but with that in mind, nobody should be defending the use of nuclear weapons on this country, either.

It was a genocidal war crime - a grizzly experiment and a flexing of military might by another imperialist power.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

JeffLee: "And you cannot prove that a single life wasn't saved. What's your point?"

Easy, that your lame excuse never actually excuses the fact that the bombs being dropped were easily war crimes, and the Americans murderers for doing it. It's not me claiming lives were saved, but me pointing out hundreds of thousands of lives were lost -- something you guys try desperately to deflect, and when you do, you're just as guilty. It's not up to me to prove YOUR point. You must be a Trumper. And actually, I CAN prove not a single life wasn't saved because it never happened. Sorry, bud, but not a single life wasn't lost by an assault that never happened. You can't argue like that any more than saying we should find WMDs that don't exist to prove they don't. Again, though, you CAN prove that Americans, simply to showcase the price tag of the Manhattan project to anger investors, murdered hundreds of thousands.

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

Of course, when Polly Toynbee visited the memorial to all the Koreans who died at Hiroshima was outside the peace park - it wasn't until a few years later that protests led to it being moved inside. Even in death they were discriminated against.

Curious the state of mind that rushes to xenophobia and racism even in a time of devastation. Pretty telling.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Let us pray that nuclear weapons are never used again.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Japanese Prime Minister Abe still escapes from Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty.

"Memory of The War" and "lesson from The war" are about to be forgotten,

on the other hand,Nationalistic self-praise is rampant in Japanese Society.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

These are among the biggest war crimes in human history, and the US is guilty.

Very much so.

And they got away with it, too.

Occupied Japan, still occupy Okinawa and a few remants of that mindset still think they own this place, or should have a say in its future.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

@ Shikisai

My point is that the few people who wanted to negotiate we're NOT Japan's leaders.

They had no authority to speak for Japan.

And besides, even if they had, they were not willing to surrender unconditionally, so it would have gone nowhere.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

It was an act of compassion for the US to decide to drop the bombs. After many failed attempts of convincing the imperial army to surrender, they still wouldn't listen. How many more lives of their own people would the imperials have taken if not for the atomic bombings? They would have murdered more of their own people otherwise.

This was, and will always be, a right and just act.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Of course, when Polly Toynbee visited the memorial to all the Koreans who died at Hiroshima was outside the peace park - it wasn't until a few years later that protests led to it being moved inside. Even in death they were discriminated against.

20.000 Koreans among the 90- 120.000 deaths at the end of 1945.

It's good that they moved the memorial back into the park.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@smithinjapan, Read up on "Operation Ketso-Go" and you'll see what Japan was far from surrendering.

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

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

https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/japanese-mass-suicides

Japan still had a formidable reserve army and naval and air forces ready to be used as Kamikaze against the American forces. It would have been a very, very costly invasion for both sides and the war would have dragged on beyond 1945, possibly into 1946.

A Japanese slogan in the summer of 1945 was: "The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly."

This doesn't sound like a country ready to capitulate, does it?

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Hawick, you cannot prove that a SINGLE life was saved from the bombings

And you cannot prove that a single life wasn't saved. What's your point?

It wasn't my point, but the point I get from it is that either claim is useless, as neither can be proven, and therefore both are irrelevant to any argument.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Capt USA

I think you contradict yourself here:

And those Japanese officials who had the idea of approaching Stalin to ask if he would set up a negotiation were not the people who controlled Japan,

and then:

It is completely baseless to say Japan intended to surrender.

Doesn't look so baseless, does it?

I think from the Japanese point of view, it made more sense to strike peace with the Soviets, just because they didn't have a direct fight on each other's territory as opposed to someone they directly attacked in Pearl Harbour?

Let's wait for 30 more years to know, they might declassify these documents one day..

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

@Shikisai

Oliver Stone is a joke.

And those Japanese officials who had the idea of approaching Stalin to ask if he would set up a negotiation were not the people who controlled Japan, and were moving in secret for fear of being discovered by those in power.

It is completely baseless to say Japan intended to surrender.

If they had, they needed only pick up the phone and do so.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

In 1984 the British journalist Polly Toynbee, granddaughter of renowned historian Arnold Toynbee, was invited to Japan by Daisuke Ikeda of Soka Gakkai. Part of the tour included a trip to Hiroshima. She wrote:

" We departed for a brief trip to Kyoto and Hiroshima, only to be greeted again by more bouquets, banquets, black limousines and local Soka Gakkai groups. Hiroshima is an uncomfortable place - the shrine of Japan's post-war peace mission. "What do you think of Hiroshima? Have you a few words to say about Hiroshima?" we were asked continually. The exhibits shock and stun, but words fail. After the first blast of horror, something else creeps in. Here is a national shrine to Peace and Never Again, telling the story of the sunny day the bomb dropped out of a blue sky, telling the story of what the world did to Japan. But there is not a word, not a thought, not a hint of anything Japan might have done. Hiroshima was one of the main millitary bases from which went out the marauding forces to Burma, Singapore, China, Korea - countries who still find it hard to link Japan and peace in the same breath. But Hiroshima is the shrine of Japan's innocence."

Of course, when Polly Toynbee visited the memorial to all the Koreans who died at Hiroshima was outside the peace park - it wasn't until a few years later that protests led to it being moved inside. Even in death they were discriminated against.

A victim posture by the Japanese is out of place when most are ignorant or in denial about their past during WW 2. A visit to the Yushukan next to the Yasukuni Jinga speaks for itself.

Hiroshima is the shrine of Japan's innocence. Indeed.

http://www.toride.org/edata/toynbee.html

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Shikisai, when I want a history lesson from the likes of Oliver Stone I'll let you know.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

@SmithinJapan

Hawick, you cannot prove that a SINGLE life was saved from the bombings

And you cannot prove that a single life wasn't saved. What's your point?

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Disillusioned

At the time of the bombings there were over 1 million Russian troops lined up on the eastern shores with orders to invade Japan and kill everybody and everything. In a cruel and twisted way, the US actually did Japan a favor by forcing their surrender.

Well,one day Japan might return that favor-in a cruel and twisted way-who knows.

I'm quite sure the Russians would not have been so flexible and generous in their treaty negotiations.

It was the Soviet troops. Check the difference.

If you watch 'The untold history of the United states' by Oliver Stone, you'll find out that the US command decided to bomb Japan to get the peace treaty on their conditions-because Japan reached out to the Soviets for the peace treaty first. The US displayed the best of the flexibility bombing the country and getting what they wanted.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

@Ike-in-Tokyo-from-89Today 04:48 pm JST

To Japanese air defenses the three plane formation appeared to be yet another reconnaissance flight, hence no attempt to intercept. Not an indication of inability.

Recce flight or not, no country likes the idea of another country's military planes over its airspace, peacetime or wartime. They might be saving up for "real bomber attacks", but the fact they are not putting anything up is a strong sign of lack of capability.

The verge of capitulation? A significant portion of the high command wanted to continue the war even knowing the nature of the Hiroshima bomb before Nagasaki. Why do you think the peace faction had to hide Emperor Showa’s recording?

Quite frankly, I can hardly blame them. While its fashionable for Americans to think "Surrendering to us isn't so bad", at that moment, Americans to Japanese are a bunch of monsters that are perfectly happy to kill by the thousand, as long as it is with bombs (for some reason, they make a wierd distinction between using knives and bombs).

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

and not forgetting, the US experience of the absolutely fanatical defenses of the pacific islands that the japanese put up as the fighting neared the mainland - not to mention the okinawa experience and the seeming insanity of the kamikazes in conjunction with the reports of japan readying every able bodied man, woman and child to defend the mainland, certainly influenced (correctly) the US decision to cut the war short as soon as possible.

Smithinjapan, which is it - the japanese were going to commit mass suicide (your version) or mobilize the nation to repel the invasion? Either way it would have been a bloodbath on an unprecedented scale.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

For anyone questioning the fact that the japanese were on the ropes and these weapons of mass destruction were only used to scare the bejesus out of the Soviets. A massive fail in hindsight.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-wasnt-necessary-to-hit-them-with-that-awful-thing-why-dropping-the-a-bombs-was-wrong?_amp=true

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@ike-in-tokyo,

exactly right, on all points.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

How I hate this August 6 ritual.

Even Enola Gay bomber flew in without any obstacles or encountering any IJA fighter planes.

To Japanese air defenses the three plane formation appeared to be yet another reconnaissance flight, hence no attempt to intercept. Not an indication of inability.

At this late stage of the war, conventional bombs would have taken out your military bases and factories.

Most factories had already been taken out. A proposed alternative bombing campaign would have targeted 7-8 key bridges which would have cut the movement of supplies and food between various regions of Japan resulting in (more) massive food shortages and death through starvation and associated diseases even after a surrender. But, ...

To paraphrase another poster, it’s possible that not a single person would have starved had this strategy been followed. We don’t know because it didn’t happen.

you can also prove that Japan was on the verge of capitulating and the war ending. So much so that the Japanese soldiers were being forced to kill themselves and innocents in caves because they were going to give up and the war of attrition wasn't working.

The verge of capitulation? A significant portion of the high command wanted to continue the war even knowing the nature of the Hiroshima bomb before Nagasaki. Why do you think the peace faction had to hide Emperor Showa’s recording?

Kyushu alone had 400,000 troops and something like 400 special attack planes held in readiness for the invasion of that island which the Allies planned for October.

Surrender was not an official option for Japanese troops. The war of attrition might have worked had the fighting come to Kyushu. Americans were starting to question the value of a prolonged war and the troops in Europe freed from fighting the Nazis were not enthusiastic about escaping death there just to die on a Japanese beach.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Really, really feeble, Smithinjapan.

Would be interested to see your proof that Japan was on the verge of surrender.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

In comparison with the lofty speech given by Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's speech sounded to me very perfunctory.

Abe said "our country is determined to make strenuous efforts to serve as a bridge" between nuclear and non-nuclear countries and realize the world without nuclear weapons. A very sublime national goal, indeed. But how would he integrate this lofty policy of his government's with the U.S. nuclear umbrella the succeeding LDP governments have sought for decades?

Doesn't he see any contradiction here?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hawick: "".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. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know."

The usual BS statements from people who KNOW they are guilty of war crimes. Hawick, you cannot prove that a SINGLE life was saved from the bombings, but you CAN prove that hundreds of thousands of innocents were murdered, and you can also prove that Japan was on the verge of capitulating and the war ending. So much so that the Japanese soldiers were being forced to kill themselves and innocents in caves because they were going to give up and the war of attrition wasn't working. You don't force people to kill themselves if they are "willing to die for the Emperor", friend. These are among the biggest war crimes in human history, and the US is guilty.

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

"...conventional bombs would have taken out your military bases and factories. There was no need for nuclear murder.

Truman at one point favored hitting a big factory with workers' housing but was told by history intelligence that wasn't possible due to the nature of Japan's land-use zoning, or lack thereof -- its strategic facilities were dispersed throughout dense residential districts.

"but I cannot even accept any excuse for using the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki."

To show that the Hiroshima bomb was not a one-off.

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

My conscience is clean, ta.

I wasnt referring to you personally I was referring to anybody who blames America of genocide for Japans suffering, If Japan committed genocide itself then it cant point fingers unless its guilt free. Making yourself a victim doesn't wash away the genocidal war crimes you committed. And that goes for America also. Best is just to remember & forgive

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Yes, of course - all victims should be remembered but each country can do it's own mourning as well, surely? absolutely, but let do it without pointing the finger at others for your suffering, unless your free of guilt yourself.

My conscience is clean, ta.

I'm not going to blame the victims of the A bombs anytime, soon.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

They were very different times and the 'world' was at war. However, the fact is, if those bombs had not been dropped, which resulted in Japan's surrender, Japan and the world would be a very different place today. At the time of the bombings there were over 1 million Russian troops lined up on the eastern shores with orders to invade Japan and kill everybody and everything. In a cruel and twisted way, the US actually did Japan a favor by forcing their surrender. I'm quite sure the Russians would not have been so flexible and generous in their treaty negotiations.

@Disillusioned, one of the few times I agree with you. The Russians have never forgotten their humiliating defeat by Japan at Port Arthur in 1905 and would have been brutal occupiers of "North Japan."

People forget that had the atomic bombs not been used and invasion proceeded as planned, it would have resulted in a divided postwar Japan with North Japan under a "DPRK-like" regime. You are quite right, the U.S. actually did Japan a favor by preventing this outcome from happening.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

I wonder if Japan will ask Trump to come to the Hiroshima Anniversary or maybe his reply might be more insulting than its worth.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Hiroshima marked the 73rd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing on Monday, with its mayor making a fresh call for a world without nuclear weapons

People nowadays naively believe that a world without nuclear weapons will lead to world peace. But they forget there was a time when nuclear weapons did not exist and those times were far being a peaceful world.

But in the post 1945 era, the much anticipated all-out conflict, i.e., World War III between Soviet Union and China and U.S. never occured. Why? All three countries possesses nuclear weapons that made such Total War unthinkable and unwageable. Nuclear weapons, instead, forced nations capable of waging total war to settle their conflicts through dialogue and negotiations. The alternative would be total destruction. Nuclear weapons have actually contributed to "World Peace" these past 73 years.

The abolition of nuclear weapons would take the world back to a time when Total War can considered "thinkable" and fought again with improved conventional weapons, not to mention biological and chemical weapons.

Let's not kid ourselves. The seeds of war are everywhere; the conflicts of interests are real and deep and will never be abolished by pious platitudes.

The weapons of war can be eliminated, but so long as conflicts of interests manifested in ideological differences, i.e, politics, philosophy, religious, racial, economics, sovereignty, etc., remains in forefront of the minds of people, there will never be "World Peace".

Of course it is unrealistic and impossible to eliminate all conflicts of interests. The best that can be attained is a precarious balance of power among nations capable of waging total war with conscience knowledge of the alternative consequences. Nuclear weapons will ensure that these conflicts will never escalate to the levels of Total War.

In this way, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki memorials reminds us of the consequence and thus serves its purpose.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Yes, of course - all victims should be remembered but each country can do it's own mourning as well, surely? absolutely, but let do it without pointing the finger at others for your suffering, unless your free of guilt yourself.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Oh, and let's be clear here: Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were "civilian targets". Both contained substantial military bases, and substantial industrial factories supporting the war effort of Japan. There's no practical difference between those bombings and that of any other strategic bombing in WW2, other than the number of bombers required to cause the amount of damage done

@Crazyjoe, and yet ground zero (ie the impact point of the bombs) WASN'T the military bases but heavily populated civilian areas.

And in any case, at that late stage of the war, many of Japan's defences were already out of action. Even Enola Gay bomber flew in without any obstacles or encountering any IJA fighter planes. That is, they didn't even have the honor of fighting their way in to drop the bomb.

At this late stage of the war, conventional bombs would have taken out your military bases and factories. There was no need for nuclear murder.

3 ( +15 / -12 )

RIP to the Japanese victims of the Abombing , the firebombings of Tokyo , the Chinese Koreans/Asian/Americans and the allies killed basically all the dead of the Pacific war, This must never be allowed happen again.......... there thats a far better eulogy that recognizes all those that where killed not just one country.

Yes, of course - all victims should be remembered but each country can do it's own mourning as well, surely?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

RIP to the victims. This must never be allowed happen again.

RIP to the Japanese victims of the Abombing , the firebombings of Tokyo , the Chinese Koreans/Asian/Americans and the allies killed basically all the dead of the Pacific war, This must never be allowed happen again.......... there thats a far better eulogy that recognizes all those that where killed not just one country.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

I pray for the day when every country that mourns its war dead take a good long hard look at themselves in the mirror before point the finger at others for their suffering.

Not every country has participated in genocide. Nor practiced imperialism, invasions or colonialism upon others, though.

It's difficult to forgive such acts, true but that can be done. Some people just aren't ready for that.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

But what a drastic, genocidal way to do so.

WW2 was one big genocide, of the est 60 million deaths about 40 million of those were civilians

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Japan is in a unique position to lead the world in peace with the horrible experiences of the atomic bombings, but they are not

It's a nice dream/fantasy, but that's all it is. In order for a realistic movement of the whole world to want peace, it would need to come after a world war or maybe global hyperinflation. And we're talking governments wanting peace, not your average Oliver fish-n-chips or Joe 6 pack.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Hiroshima marked the 73rd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing on Monday, with its mayor making a fresh call for a world without nuclear weapons through dialogue but stopping short of explicitly urging Japan to join a global nuclear weapons ban treaty.

Any sincerity in this article was lost in the very first paragraph.

People should not be debating if the bombings were necessary or not. It's over 70 years ago. They were very different times and the 'world' was at war. However, the fact is, if those bombs had not been dropped, which resulted in Japan's surrender, Japan and the world would be a very different place today. At the time of the bombings there were over 1 million Russian troops lined up on the eastern shores with orders to invade Japan and kill everybody and everything. In a cruel and twisted way, the US actually did Japan a favor by forcing their surrender. I'm quite sure the Russians would not have been so flexible and generous in their treaty negotiations.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

 His views of this tragedy differ from mine - but then, generations differ, and there exists no "correct view." This event is not cause for argument. It is a time for reflection.

exactly my point, ever-time the Abombing anniversary comes around instead of just mourning and remembrance there are always some that what to point the finger at others outside Japan, truth of the matter is whatever suffering was inflicted on Japan they committed on a larger scale from the 1931 invasion of China/Asia to the conclusion of the Pacific war in 1945. So lets just mourn remember and forgive.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

@Halwick

”radiation-effected genes”

Here’s one for you: ‘spellingchallenged.com’

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

 I sometimes wonder how the reaction would be, had the same unspeakable act of genocide happened to the US?

I sometimes wonder how the reaction would be , had the same unspeakable act of genocide happened to China , Korea, most of Asia. I sometimes wonder how the reaction would be ......oh hold on there was and the deaths related to that genocide far exceeded those of the A bombings, the reaction, well we still see that today with the anger shown by those countries to those who committed that genocide. I pray for the day when every country that mourns its war dead take a good long hard look at themselves in the mirror before point the finger at others for their suffering.

2 ( +14 / -12 )

As the original survivors die off, there always seems to be a new crop of "survivors", claiming as decendents carrying the radiation-effected genes and therefore should be entitled to these special allowances and medical benefits and sympathy as "victims".

I think that's fair enough.

A war crime doomed not just one generation but several. Of course they should be allowed compensations.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Nobody with a pulse, heart (and imagination) can stand under the point in Hiroshima where the bomb was detonated and NOT feel and understand that a heinous war crime was committed. Logic then dictates that ALL aerial bombardments of civilian populations is EQUALLY criminal. My generation killed and was killed in Vietnam in the American war of aggression against a nation of peasants who together with the people of Cambodia and Laos were subjected to a rain of terror from the sky when the leaders of the USA ordered aerial bombardments unprecedented in history, dropping three times the amount of bombs that fell on Nazi Germany and fascist Japan combined. Perhaps it is easier for people of my generation with the experience of the American War in Indo-China to identify "crimes against humanity" to which category of atrocities Hiroshima and Nagasaki belong

1 ( +11 / -10 )

Terrible time in history.

Yes, terrible time in history, but you have to remember at the time it was WAR. Terrible things happen in WAR; that's the reality. Both sides commits terrible atrocities in WAR. During WAR, all conventional moralities are disregarded. Had Germany and Japan had the atomic bomb at the time, they would not hesitate to use them.....use whatever weapons available to destroy and defeat the enemy.

 Nobody can ever give me a straight answer about what are the requirements ( to qualify as a "hibakusha"?).

@ Michael, Here's the requirements: being within a few kilometers of the hypocenters of the bombs; within 2 km of the hypocenters within two weeks of the bombings; exposed to radiation from fallout; or not yet born but carried by pregnant women in any of these categories.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibakusha]

The survivors gets special allowance per month and special medical allowance, so long as they meet the requirements.

As the original survivors die off, there always seems to be a new crop of "survivors", claiming as decendents carrying the radiation-effected genes and therefore should be entitled to these special allowances and medical benefits and sympathy as "victims".

use of the a-bombs was necessary.

Interestingly enough, that was what Mitsuo Fuchida, the Japanese pilot who led the Pearl Harbor attack, said to Paul Tibbits, who pilot of the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Fuchida said,

".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. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know."

[source: "Clear Conscience: The Atom Bomb Vs. the Super Holocaust", p. 87, Raymond Davis}

3 ( +14 / -11 )

One of the most unfortunate realities of the bombings is that Japan is headed back down the road that brought them about. Abe is actually USING the bombings to try and further his agenda of rearming Japan, saying, "As the only nation to have suffered atomic bombings..." and then finishing the sentence with "we need to change the Constitution and arm ourselves", or by saying that they shouldn't join the nuclear weapons ban, etc.

Japan is in a unique position to lead the world in peace with the horrible experiences of the atomic bombings, but they are not. Not even close. The people in Japan that WANT to ban such weapons have been silenced by the ruling party, which wants to see a return to the "beautiful Japan" many of their relatives were executed for at the war's end.

-8 ( +9 / -17 )

Reap what you sow.

-2 ( +13 / -15 )

Oh, and let's be clear here: Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were "civilian targets". Both contained substantial military bases, and substantial industrial factories supporting the war effort of Japan. There's no practical difference between those bombings and that of any other strategic bombing in WW2, other than the number of bombers required to cause the amount of damage done.

Let's be clear about your statement and how it doesn't make sense.

You would not waste the immense cost of a rare atomic bomb by seeking to destroy factories. You could do that at much less cost with readily available standard munitions. No, it is a psychological weapon and radiation is used to destroy human beings after the bomb has dropped, not factories.

Don't believe the post-bomb PR exercise about fewer civilians and factories. The American a-bomb committee wanted to observe the impact of a live test and chose Hiroshima for its favourable geography for a post-observation.

11 ( +21 / -10 )

@scho. Urainian munitions have killed thousands of kids in Iraq.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Sorry, forgot to say it was in Tokyo.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

My son is 5 years old....

My son is 23 now. Born and raised in Kumamoto, he's recently returned from five years of American college education in LA and NY. His views of this tragedy differ from mine - but then, generations differ, and there exists no "correct view." This event is not cause for argument. It is a time for reflection.

20 ( +21 / -1 )

Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be remembered forever as the first and the last time the nukes were used in a war.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Oh, and let's be clear here: Neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima were "civilian targets". Both contained substantial military bases, and substantial industrial factories supporting the war effort of Japan. There's no practical difference between those bombings and that of any other strategic bombing in WW2, other than the number of bombers required to cause the amount of damage done.

-1 ( +24 / -25 )

"War is hell." Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman

As horrible as its creation and use was, there's no question that the Germans or Japanese would have used it during WWII and done the exact same thing had they come up with it first. It's the nature of war. A no holds barred street fight.

Let Hiroshima serve not just as a reminder about the horrors of nuclear warfare but as a reminder that war itself is a plague and that the next world war will be the last one.

Ironic that a natural disaster did in the dinosaurs, but a man made disaster might do the same to our own species.

Such a shame that the human race has focused so much of its time, knowledge & energy on how to destroy life rather than on the enhancement of life.

16 ( +22 / -6 )

use of the a-bombs was necessary.

-11 ( +14 / -25 )

Abe undermines these sentiments when he allows Japan to become an arms dealer. Can't really promote peace and arm it too now can you? Nippon Kaigi only care if it means people get angry not about actual peace.

Anyway, this is a lovely park and memorial. If you get the chance there's a garden beside it with a Buddhist bell with world messages of peace on it.

Don't walk past, ring that bell!! You'll be glad you did. Such a wonderful resonance

4 ( +11 / -7 )

@ Toasted, in case you think I believe they deserved it you couldn't be more wrong. I think it was a crime. But if Japan wants to play the victim, they should also mark their crimes with solemnity and respect.

0 ( +17 / -17 )

So...

My son is 5 years old....

Today he saw the front page of the newspaper with a picture of the Hiroshima Dome next to an article about the Hiroshima anniversary.

He said, "What is that, daddy?"

The difference between him being 4 years old and being 5 years old is that he now grasps enough of the basics of life that I could begin the process of educating him about things like war.

And the fact that the two countries he is a product of, Japan and the U.S., once fought against each other but are now friends.

16 ( +19 / -3 )

You can thumbs-down me until the cows come home, I don't care. Nobody can ever give me a straight answer about what are the requirements.

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

Terrible time in history. I have been to the museum and park 3 times and I am moved every time I visit.

There is much debate as to whether the U.S. should have used these weapons or not. I am an American who thinks the U.S. should not have used these weapons.

Although I disagree with the use, I can accept some of the debate on the first bomb and I listen to all arguments respectfully, but I cannot even accept any excuse for using the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki.

Oppenheimer expressed great remorse for the use of the bomb and what I found fascinating that he quoted from the Bhagavad-Gita when attempting to express how he felt.

6 ( +15 / -9 )

73 years on and still some people reckon all those people deserved it.

In my darker moments, I sometimes wonder how the reaction would be, had the same unspeakable act of genocide happened to the US?

RIP to the victims.

This must never be allowed happen again.

8 ( +31 / -23 )

It's a beautiful park. Let's recognize it for what it is, not what politicians want to make of it.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

"...from hibakusha survivors"

Isn't that redundant? It translates into "nuclear bomb survivor survivors"

-15 ( +7 / -22 )

What are the requirements to qualify as a "hibakusha"?

-15 ( +5 / -20 )

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