• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Hiroshima's complex legacy re-examined

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

themadcowtipper

Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
Tens of thousands expected at memorial on 60th anniversary of bombing

HIROSHIMA, Japan - On Saturday morning, 60 years to the minute after the apocalypse, tens of thousands of people will be packed into Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park. Wreaths will be laid and 1,000 doves set free. Temple bells will ring.

For Yoriko Takeuchi, 87, this is always a hard time of year. On Aug. 6, 1945, she lost just about everything.

As laughing children hang strings of paper cranes, and TV crews stake out their positions for the main event, Takeuchi sits on a shady curb, her rake at her side. She and her volunteer cleaning crew have almost finished their six-hour shift sweeping up the park, and now she is taking a moment to reflect
A Hiroshima native, she had been evacuated with many other women and children before the atomic bomb fell on her city. When she returned in December 1945, she found that she had lost her home, many of her relatives, just about everything.

“All I could see was just a flat, smoldering field,” she recalled.

Hiroshima today is a thriving city of nearly 3 million, probably best known in Japan for the Carp, its baseball team.

“It’s a miracle how the city has recovered,” said Takeuchi.

She believes Hiroshima’s message is a simple one.

“We went through hell because of atomic weapons,” she said. “No one else should ever have to. They should all be banned.”

The theme of peace permeates Hiroshima.

The broad, tree-lined thoroughfare leading to the park is called the “Promenade of Peace.” Hundreds of thousands visit Hiroshima’s Peace Museum every year, and they are greeted at the entrance by a Peace Clock, which counts the days since the bomb was dropped. On Saturday it will reach 21,915. (The bomb struck at 8:15 a.m., which is 7:15 p.m. Friday EDT.)

more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8837468/
 
Special Report: Hiroshima Film Cover-Up Exposed

Very interesting article about the history of the footage shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the immediate days and weeks following the dropping of the bombs. Sundance Channel is showing a film tomorrow at 8pm that uses a lot of archive footage and material never before seen. I'm desperately trying to find someone that gets Sundance to tape it for me.
 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are incredibly amazing testaments to the evil that war perpetrates. I fear that as time goes on this will get forgotten just like "Krystalnacht" and other days.
 
ronito said:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are incredibly amazing testaments to the evil that war perpetrates. I fear that as time goes on this will get forgotten just like "Krystalnacht" and other days.
Click to expand...

It was a necessary evil with regrettable effects. It was calculted to end the war. Kristallnacht cannot be seen in the same light, as it was a meditated and ill-willed attack on the Jewish community.
 
Matlock said:
It was a necessary evil with regrettable effects. It was calculted to end the war. Kristallnacht cannot be seen in the same light, as it was a meditated and ill-willed attack on the Jewish community.
Click to expand...

Killing that many civilians is not a necessary evil, it is only evil.
 
Matlock said:
It was a necessary evil with regrettable effects. It was calculted to end the war. Kristallnacht cannot be seen in the same light, as it was a meditated and ill-willed attack on the Jewish community.
Click to expand...

Launching nuclear weapons at not 1 but 2 major civilian populaces is not a necessary evil, its psychotic and an absolute travesty.
 
It is good to hear that people are finding a message of peace. While niether nation has come out without a twisting of certain beliefs, Japan and the US both emerged very well and have shown astounding growth.
 
Schafer said:
Launching nuclear weapons at not 1 but 2 major civilian populaces is not a necessary evil, its psychotic and an absolute travesty.
Click to expand...

Would you have preferred we invaded, causing 10x the casualties?

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
Click to expand...

Operation Downfall
 
Schafer said:
Launching nuclear weapons at not 1 but 2 major civilian populaces is not a necessary evil, its psychotic and an absolute travesty.
Click to expand...
The legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is incredibly complex. Statements like this, which seem to overlook the context of the bombings, such as the death of 55 million people before the bombings or the prospect of still further casualties on both sides based on the fierce fighting throughout the rest of the Pacific campaign, gloss so far over those complexities so as to be as offensive as statements which unquestioningly support the bombings.

The atomic bombings were horrific and truely an unfortunate travesty. But that doesn't make them "psychotic".
 
Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was the only way to end the fucking war, without invading Japan with far more casualties especially on the US side. It's horrible that it had to happen, but what the hell do people who think they shouldn't have been dropped think the US should have done instead? How do they think the war would have further unfolded and ended? Japan left the US no choice in taking that kind of drastic measure. If you have a problem with it, blame Japan, not the US.

And before it's brought up, I believe the reason for dropping two atomic bombs instead of one was out of concern that if only one were dropped, Japan may assume that the US could have only built one such weapon and there would be no reason to surrender, while if two were dropped, who knows how many more the US has. Again, unfortunate such a decision had to be made, but the entire purpose was to put an end to the war that Japan was perpetrating once and for all.

Not only that, but Britain carried out at least one bombing campaign (can't remember where) with around the same number of civilian casualties I believe, only they used lots of bombs instead of two. Where's all the criticism for that?

FoneBone said:
May induce vomiting.
Click to expand...
Why? Because of posts like this?:
Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost - and that number has since been repeated "authoritatively", but in the summer of 1945 US military planners projected 20,000-110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded. [...] The conventional bombardment was killing tens of thousands each week in Japan, directly and indirectly.
Click to expand...
 
Chittagong said:
Killing that many civilians is not a necessary evil, it is only evil.
Click to expand...

Schafer said:
Launching nuclear weapons at not 1 but 2 major civilian populaces is not a necessary evil, its psychotic and an absolute travesty.
Click to expand...

Both sides would have lost a lot more if not for the atom bomb. 'course, you can look back and say "that was horrible," but if you were in the shoes of Harry S. Truman...what would you do? What would you do if they told you it'd cost another 6 million lives if you didn't throw down thunder and lightning?

Now I don't want you to answer this, because it's nothing you can answer. I would never want to be burdened with such a responsibility, nor would I wish it upon any of you. I honestly don't know what I would do...but I can respect that it was a decision that was made.

Not in psychosis.

Not in evil.

But in trying to be decisive and save lives.

demon said:
And before it's brought up, I believe the reason for dropping two atomic bombs instead of one was out of concern that if only one were dropped, Japan may assume that the US could have only built one such weapon and there would be no reason to surrender, while if two were dropped, who knows how many more the US has.
Click to expand...

That was one of the main reasonings, yes. Some will come out and decry that Japan surrendered after the first and America just decided to push the envelope, however.

Not only that, but Britain carried out at least one bombing campaign (can't remember where) with around the same number of civilian casualties I believe, only they used lots of bombs instead of two. Where's all the criticism for that?
Click to expand...

Because they were Nazis, silly.

Total deaths due to bombing of Germany by the allies: ~400,000
Total deaths due to Hiroshima and Nagasaki: ~360,000
 
Well if they weren't nuked they would've been firebombed like tokyo was, yes it was bad very bad but the japanese were going to do the same exact thing to our beloved west coast. If the germans did indeed get them the uranium they needed SF would be like cherynobl right now.
 
My beliefs about the bombing were changed when I learned what led to Truman's decision. He inherited the plan from FDR as well as the entire cabniet. He was surronded with yes men who all colectively thought the same thing; groupthink. Remind you of anything? Maybe
The Bay of Pigs invasion
, or more recently the struggle against the bad men.
 
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/9999344933/qid=1123288664/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-0941290-6135246?v=glance&s=books

What would I have done? I would've done what my commanders told me to do.

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Eisenhower, Newsweek, 11/11/63

"It is my opinion 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons...I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Necessary evil? Indeed. I believed that too, when I was in grade school. Hmmm...we drop the bomb just 3 days after Russia starts their invasion? We were afraid they'd get a foothold in Japan and the war would finish before we could use it. Let's bomb everything you love and then see if you still say it's a necessary evil.
 
You're completely ignoring what statistics were presented, and whipping up commentary from a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the Asian theater of operations. Hell, the shortwave radio idea is so laughable, they'd probably firebomb us out of pity the next day.
 
why didn't we drop the bombs on their military bases or something? I can't get over the fact that we just obliterated so many thousands of civilians.

Some of you are saying "Oh invading would have killed thousands of our soldiers." Well, they are in the military. They know they are at risk. All the people who died in Japan were innocent civilians.
 
I agree that Russia probably had something to do with the decision, but I still think that it was the right thing to do. If russia invades and we do too, then there is a good chance that Japan is split and we have a north and south japan, similar to Korea. That would have been terrible for almost everyone involved.

Also, a good portion of the Japananese military wanted nothing to do with surrender even after the bombs were dropped. In fact they tried to steal the surrender recording that Hirohito had made. The Japanese people were read to defend their homeland to the literally the last man. The only reason they accepted it was because the emperor had decreed it. An invasion of Japan would have far more catastrophic for both sides As horrible as dropping the bombs were, an invasion of Japan would have been far far far worse for everyone.
 
Futureman said:
Some of you are saying "Oh invading would have killed thousands of our soldiers." Well, they are in the military. They know they are at risk. All the people who died in Japan were innocent civilians.
Click to expand...
If the war hadn't ended there, many more US soldiers, Japanese soldiers, and Japanese civilians would have died during the inevitable invasion of Japan. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
 
I agree that Russia probably had something to do with the decision, but I still think that it was the right thing to do. If russia invades and we do too, then there is a good chance that Japan is split and we have a north and south japan, similar to Korea. That would have been terrible for almost everyone involved.

Also, a good portion of the Japananese military wanted nothing to do with surrender even after the bombs were dropped. In fact they tried to steal the surrender recording that Hirohito had made. The Japanese people were read to defend their homeland to the literally the last man. The only reason they accepted it was because the emperor had decreed it. An invasion of Japan would have far more catastrophic for both sides As horrible as dropping the bombs were, an invasion of Japan would have been far far far worse for everyone.

Some of you are saying "Oh invading would have killed thousands of our soldiers." Well, they are in the military. They know they are at risk. All the people who died in Japan were innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

An invasion not only would have killed US soldiers, but also far more Japanese civilians than what the a-bombs did.
 
demon said:
If the war hadn't ended there, many more US soldiers, Japanese soldiers, and Japanese civilians would have died during the inevitable invasion of Japan. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
Click to expand...

Also, after the war many many documents were discovered that show that Germany was also trying to develop the Atomic bomb as well as Hitler's designs on invading the US. There have been some great documentaries on the History Channel about how it really was a race against time because if Germany managed to develop the bomb first and use it the results would've been unimaginably worse.
 
I need some clarification here because I don't know much beyond what high school has taught me regarding this specific event...but were Hiroshima and Nagasaki both military targets?

Where they towns that manufactured weapons to the Japanese military, or did they serve as locations for military bunkers? Or did they contain the Japanese military headquarters, much like the US's Pentagon in Virginia?
 
I do agree however.. that they should have repeatedly used the a-bombs on military targets only until Japan surrendered.
 
After the two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, members of the Japanese military held the Emperor of Japan hostage for a time and tried to prevent the broadcast of his prerecorded surrender over Japanese radio. They were so determined to win the Pacific war that they would continue fighting after knowing that their enemy had atomic weaponry and even rebel against their emperor, who was a living god in Japanese ideology. It took two atomic bombs to convince enough members of the Japanese government to surrender to foil the coup attempt by the military. Somehow, I doubt that they would have surrendered had the Americans not shown them that victory was impossible.

Given the fierce determination of the Japanese military, the horrible brutality of the Pacific war, and the fact that they were planning on using civilians to help repel the invasion, I do not see how invading Japan would be any better than the use of atomic bombs. The losses on both sides would have been enormous.

Its easy for the contemporary thinker to condemn the use of nuclear bombs, but we have to remember how different the times were then. Today the American military can strike with surgical precision and cripple a conventional military force without devastating entire cities and we are clearly superior in terms of our military strength that we know that almost no enemy could overpower us. Back then, the Axis almost conquered the world and the war had killed millions of people. They were determined to conquer the earth and had the military and industrial power to do so. Thus, the Allies had destroy their cities to destroy their industrial power and break their will to fight. They didn't have the luxury of choosing how we would win, they just had to make sure that they did win.
 
Cause you may get something like the Korean and Vietnam War; the division and occupation of Germany; and the rape orgy of the Red Army, and the Allies to a lesser extent, on German, Italian, and Eastern European women and girls.
 
we studies this last semester at uni and there are a few things that worried me. one was how mysterious the bomb was: there is believed to be the thoughts that the bomb would go wrong and destroy the whole world. the guys that autghorized the bomb knew this. Also Japan had pretty much lost the war, Germany was defeated and they had the allies now on top. The only worry if i remember correctly for the japanese was their emperor. They wanted himt o be safe and not occur any harm from the surrender. Im pretty sure horishima was a military targter, but i still can't say the bombs saved lives. An invasion might not have eventuated. who knows.
 
APerfectCircle said:
we studies this last semester at uni and there are a few things that worried me. one was how mysterious the bomb was: there is believed to be the thoughts that the bomb would go wrong and destroy the whole world. the guys that autghorized the bomb knew this.
Click to expand...

Umm, no, by the time they had developed the bombs, the scientists involved were quite certain of its actual capabilities.
 
Not to go into the complexity of the issue, but everyone should see this:
B000060MW1.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


It doesn't necessarily justify nor decry the use of the atomic weapons, but that section of the documentary pertaining to Hiroshima is really interesting. Truman almost seems like a kid with a new wind up toy that he can't wait to get going.
 
Boogie said:
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

...no.
Click to expand...

Well, as far off as he was, Japan did nearly receive a rather substantial amount of uranium from Germany just after the Nazis surrendered. The U-234 was on its way to Japan with a cargo of uranium, as well as some other secret Nazi stuff, when they received word of Germany's surrender. Despite the protest of some understandably pissed Japanese officers aboard, the crew decided to also surrender. Even though they probably couldn't have made a proper thermonuclear device, they could have made some dirty bombs.
 
DarthWoo said:
Well, as far off as he was, Japan did nearly receive a rather substantial amount of uranium from Germany just after the Nazis surrendered. The U-234 was on its way to Japan with a cargo of uranium, as well as some other secret Nazi stuff, when they received word of Germany's surrender. Despite the protest of some understandably pissed Japanese officers aboard, the crew decided to also surrender. Even though they probably couldn't have made a proper thermonuclear device, they could have made some dirty bombs.
Click to expand...

Germany was well into development of their A-bomb. The Allies just had the better minds in order to complete the project well in advance of the Axis. IIRC the estimate was that Germany was anywhere from a couple months to a year to having their own bomb but at the time the Allies didn't know that. All they knew was that Germany also was trying to create an atomic bomb.

NotMSRP said:
My history professor said so.
Click to expand...

If he said Japan was a days away from having a A bomb, omg.

Boogie said:
Umm, no, by the time they had developed the bombs, the scientists involved were quite certain of its actual capabilities.
Click to expand...

Well by the time it was developed they knew the type of devastation it could do, but there was still a worry that it could crack the Earth's crust (but not destroy the planet).
 
My dad was in the Pacific in WWII and he was strongly against the bombings. his reasoning? it set precedent to use nuclear weapons on people (civilian or not).
 
Anyone have a place with pics from the blast, such as victims and such? I heard there's a shadow at the museum of a person that died from the blast, I'd love to see a pic of that.
 
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/

In the fall of 1940, the Japanese army concluded that constructing an atomic bomb was indeed feasible. The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, or Rikken, was assigned the project under the direction of Yoshio Nishina. The Japanese Navy was also diligently working to create its own "superbomb" under a project was dubbed F-Go, headed by Bunsaku Arakatsu at the end of World War II. The F-Go program [or No. F, for fission] began at Kyoto in 1942. However, the military commitment wasn't backed with adequate resources, and the Japanese effort to an atomic bomb had made little progress by the end of the war.

Japan's nuclear efforts were disrupted in April 1945 when a B-29 raid damaged Nishina's thermal diffusion separation apparatus. Some reports claim the Japanese subsequently moved their atomic operations Konan [Hungnam, now part of North Korea]. The Japanese may have used this facility at for making small quantities of heavy water. The Japanese plant was captured by Soviet troops at war's end, and some reports claim that the output of the Hungnam plant was collected every other month by Soviet submarines.


There are indications that Japan had a more sizable program than is commonly understood, and that there was close cooperation among the Axis powers, including a secretive exchange of war materiel. The German submarine U-234, which surrendered to US forces in May 1945, was found to be carrying 560 kilograms of Uranium oxide destined for Japan's own atomic program. The oxide contained about 3.5 kilograms of the isotope U-235, which would have been about a fifth of the total U-235 needed to make one bomb. After Japan surrendered on 15 August 1945, the occupying US Army found five Japanese cyclotrons, which could be used to separate fissionable material from ordinary uranium. The Americans smashed the cyclotrons and dumped them into Tokyo Harbor.
Click to expand...
 
FLAMEWAR V 1.01
===========

A flamewar has erupted, what do you do?

1.) Take information from verifiable, unbiased resources?
2.) Make shit up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Microsoft Deprecates Legacy Printer Drivers on Windows 11
News 
19
115
Futaleufu replied
Monarch: Legacy of Monsters | Season 2 Official Teaser | Feb 27
4
196
AJUMP23 replied
Groundbreaking Findings on the Giza Pyramid Complex Could Re-Write Human History
2 3 4 5 6
292
21K
T-0800 replied
Who would have the greater legacy in terms of discoveries, accomplishments. Nathan Drake or Indiana Jones
31
2K
Drake replied
Monarch: Legacy of Monsters - Official Trailer
11
1K
Aggelos replied
Top Bottom