Rare photo of A-bomb split cloud found in Hiroshima

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

  • 26

    Vernie Jefferies

    If anyone wants to get a real sense of this bomb's destruction and if you have the chance, please go to Hiroshima and visit the Park and Museum. Pray that something like this never happens again.

  • 15

    detlef langer

    @Vernie Jeffries

    I was there last summer and I can only second that! It's really depressing and disturbing. In the museum you will discover that you won't find the really harrowing Photos on Google or elsewhere. The "taking photographs prohibited" sign is not for show and it's consequently enforced. I couldn't have dinner that day.

  • -6

    basroil

    An American B-29 bomber named Enola Gay dropped the atomic bomb nicknamed “Little Boy”, turning the western Japanese city into a nuclear inferno and killing an estimated 140,000

    The "nuclear inferno" part is pure nonsense. The firestorms were indeed started by the bomb, but entirely caused by flammable wooden structures and fuel packed too closely together (made easier to burn by physical destruction), much like the non-"nuclear inferno" of Tokyo firebombing runs that also killed over 100000 people. It is likely that the fires themselves kill far more people than radiation. Luckily the government of Hiroshima had been building fire breaks since the year before, and that likely slowed down the fires long enough to save some of the victims.

    Since the effects of the bomb were not fully known at the time, we'll never know how many of the 70-80 thousand that died the first day and 20-90 thousand in the following year died of regular burns or radiation related injuries. In fact, most that received even fatal levels of radiation were likely killed by regular fire, though neither way they died should ever be acceptable. However, the destructive power of that single bomb did end up killing as many as 200000 people by 1950, and another 2000 since then. (not just the 140k this article states)

    Hopefully people have learned that massive bombs and other weapons of mass destruction are not acceptable, even in war. Two cities are more than should have ever been needed to learn that lesson.

  • 0

    Crazedinjapan

    It was a terrible way to end the war with so many lives being lost in a instant. Looking at this it makes me wonder why other parts of Asia are still demanding a apology ...Japan was tried and punished horrendously with those two Bombs . Making people apologise for their forefathers mistakes is redundant if asked repeatedly to do so. It loses true value when it's said too many times.

    It's history and may the mistakes from the past be learned from and studied so that we use our intelligence for peace and meaningful prosperity.

  • -11

    technosphere

    Rare photo of most brutal Act of State Terrorism in human history.......

  • 12

    jessebaybay

    I get really angry whenever the bombings come up in conversation. So all I will say is that, as vernie said, lets hope that something like this never happens again.

  • -4

    technosphere

    I get really angry whenever the bombings come up in conversation. So all I will say is that, as vernie said, lets hope that something like this never happens again.

    Hope is a good thing, but national nuclear triad is much better for safety of your country.

  • 4

    Matthew Simon

    @technosphere That is an interesting statement. The bombs were a necessary evil though the civilian toll was great and regrettable it actually saved lives considering millions probably would have died in a ground assault on the Japanese main islands. Also considering virtually nobody on this site (if any) is a WWII veteran or was even an adult during that time period its hard to objectively judge a situation after the fact.

  • 3

    edojin

    Interesting picture. Also saw another one nearly like it in the book "The Untold History of the United States," by Oliver Stone & Peter Kuznick. It's on Page 169. According to the caption, temperatures at the hypocenter reached 5,400 degrees Fahrenheit. The book also contains an account given by one of the crewmen in an accompanying plane, as he watched the incredible explosion come roaring up past the airplane. Too long to write here ... but a good read ...

  • 8

    wipeout

    The firestorms were indeed started by the bomb, but entirely caused by flammable wooden structures and fuel packed too closely together (made easier to burn by physical destruction), much like the non-"nuclear inferno" of Tokyo firebombing runs that also killed over 100000 people.

    It's really quite misleading to say that that firestorms were "entirely caused" by the wooden structures. Incendiary bombs were used by both sides in Europe in the earliest air raids, and these were intended to cause fire to spread through bombed areas. As the raids got bigger, they observed out the firestorm effect and raids were designed to maximize it - as in Hamburg and Dresden. The presence of wooden buildings is not a requirement, the Allies knew very well how to create firestorms when bombing urban centres.

  • 1

    alliswellinjapan

    Interpretations may change over time with new findings or new perspectives through looking back at history in a longer term decades if not centuries down the road, but there are certain facts that will never change such as what the museum displays.

  • 8

    BurakuminDes

    The scary thing is many Japanese seem to be pushing for a revision of Japan's Pacifist Constitution - and more alarmingly - pushing for nuclear weapons of their own. So terrible that many Japanese just have not learnt anything from history and the mistakes of the past. I dare say many just have no knowledge of the horror unleashed upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, like those of us who have been there. Rest in Peace to the Korean and Japanese civilian women and children of these horrible bombs.

  • 2

    Kabukilover

    basroll, that is a a very good posting. Informative. Don't worry about the negative responses.

  • 1

    Kabukilover

    The information from wipeout is good but does not contradict what basroll wrote. Regarding the A-bomb, the Americans did not really know what to expect. They did not know if it would work at all. They had only Whitesands, New Mexico to work from, which was not much. At that time they did not know the full effects of radiation. Witness that Los Alamos they dumped radioactive refuse into a gully (now off limits). There were a lot a case of cancer in Los Alamos.

  • 1

    Saul Schimek

    And an estimated Calculation of ! million plus Casualties (drawn from previous engagements in the Island hopping Campaign) from trying to invade Honshu figured into the calculations to drop the bomb. Plus trying to prevent the Soviets from creating North And South Japan.

    For Japan, it was simply the wrong place at the wrong time and the wrong philosophy that lead to the dropping of the bomb

  • 7

    bokuwamo

    In general the postings here lack the cause of the bombs to be dropped. The bombing of Pearl Harbor, as someone posted about dropping the bombs on Japan, a act of terrorism, yes. Peal Harbor's attack gave America the reason to declare war on Japan. In the final days before the bombs were dropped, Japan was asked to surrender more than once. Japan refused to surrender before the bombs were dropped. The U.S had informed Japan, the destruction they would see, would be beyond anything they could imagine. Someone posted about how the bombings were suppose to reduce the dead from a land invasion of Japan, because Japan was determine not to stop the war, until everyone died fighting for Japan. Proven by how Japanese soldiers fought when the U.S invaded and captured on islands in the pacific. Was the bombings a terrible event, yes. Mass killings can not be called anything but terrible. This was war time and the entire series of events during that time have to be kept in mind, before casting terms about America being terrorists.

  • -6

    nedinjapan

    I think as the prime minister of Japan said, we should look forward and forget what happened in Hiroshima and .. what was the other place? Well, not that important. Just look forward and stop talking about years before 1950 ...

  • 1

    basroil

    wipeoutJan. 10, 2013 - 06:17PM JST

    It's really quite misleading to say that that firestorms were "entirely caused" by the wooden structures.

    In the case of Hiroshima, it is 100% caused by the availability of fuel in the form of destroyed wooden structures (with a bit more in the form of gas and oil in those structures). Fire can't happen without fuel, and a nuclear bomb, unlike incendiary devices, carries no fuel for fires. The underlying cause is the structures, even if the starting energy was the bomb.

    KabukiloverJan. 10, 2013 - 07:28PM JST

    basroll, that is a a very good posting. Informative. Don't worry about the negative responses.

    Oh, I always get negative votes simply for posting. I could say hello and be downvoted!

    Regarding the A-bomb, the Americans did not really know what to expect.

    They knew the effects as a weapon quite well actually. 5psi overpressure was certainly known to be enough to completely destroy weak buildings, and that the 5psi area was about a mile in diameter. They just didn't expect the fire after that to be so strong, the effects of radiation poisoning to be so widespread, or the effects of destroyed infrastructure to further complicate things.

  • 2

    Anthony Leone

    Whenever this comes up, a lot of people say how evil this was. And perhaps they are right, but it was a necessary evil. The other option was to drop more napalm and watch Tokyo burn to the ground, killing a lot more people. The other option was a complete invasion, which would have resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1 million Americans and unknown numbers of Japanese, according to some historical accounts that I read.

    But that being said, I have a completely biased reason as to why I am glad that we dropped the bombs on Japan. You see my wife is from Japan and her parents were very small children living in Tokyo during World War II. Had the Americans invaded Japan or continued their napalm drops, there is a very real possibility that her parents would have died or perhaps never met.

    And if they died, I wouldn't' have met my wife and we wouldn't have two beautiful children together.

    So while I hope that we would never use nuclear weapons on each other again, I will say that I would never change the outcome of what happened in Japan either.

  • 0

    overchan

    War is horrible and the people who cause them are worse. A bomb is a necessary evil when your enemy has them... sadly.

  • 4

    multitasker

    Burakumin:

    Rest in Peace to the Korean and Japanese civilian women and children of these horrible bombs. YES! And probably others from the "empire," such as Taiwanese. Anyway, it`s an incredible photo to find in an elementary school so many years later.

  • 4

    oliver p reilly

    ****Everyone should go to the peace park and just maybe they will then understand mans inhumanity to man,

  • 1

    Open Minded

    IMHO absolutely nothing justified dropping these A-bombs above cities at first. US could have shown its power by dropping at least the first one off-shore or over a not urbanized area or at higher altitude. I just cannot imagine the feeling of the guy who took this picture.

  • 1

    LFRAgain

    "Rare photo of most brutal Act of State Terrorism in human history......."

    Rolls eyes...

  • 0

    Matthew Simon

    @ open minded And how would this have accomplished anything in a time before mass media and the internet. And as was said above they were warned repeatedly to surrender.

  • 1

    Saul Schimek

    sigh

    While I understand your objection to using the Bomb on an inhabited area, the cold facts at the time is that State Bushido adherents at the time would have perceived the use of the bomb off shore and not on them as a sign of Weakness, stiffening resistance to an anticipated American invasion. The U.S. would have lost one of it's two usable assets (we only had the two at the time), and nothing to show for it but a bloodier ground invasion after the nuking of one of the other cities of japan.

    Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time, breaking the Japanese will was paramount. It's not nice, but that's life. And Japan had blood on it's hands in ways that have never truly been acknowledged by them. At the time, I would have had no sympathy.

  • 9

    Ray Carpenter

    My father's ship, the American destroyer escort 410, USS Jack Miller was one of the first, perhaps even The First, into Nagasaki Harbor after the surrender. The pictures in his photo album are distorted by the residual gamma rays of the weapon, yet still convey the horror of the event. America was gearing up to invade Japan when the weapons were used. It is estimated that the conventional invasion would have accrued around 1 million dead Americans, and well over 4 million dead Japanese before resistance was ended. The heinous affair of WWII illustrates clearly why we citizens of the world must be vigilant of those we promote to power, and of how we treat the nonsense they endeavor to sell us. I am proud of my country and of the way we treated Japanese citizens after the surrender. I am also proud to call the Japanese my friends and allies today. They are a wonderful people, brave and worthy of all our mutual creator has granted, yet had I been of combat age during WWII, I would not have given a dime for their existence. Let us continue to move on, and never allow our leaders to take us into the horrific night of war ever again.

  • 0

    technosphere

    That is an interesting statement. The bombs were a necessary evil though the civilian toll was great and regrettable it actually saved lives considering millions probably would have died in a ground assault on the Japanese main islands. Also considering virtually nobody on this site (if any) is a WWII veteran or was even an adult during that time period its hard to objectively judge a situation after the fact.

    I know an American myth about "necessary evil". No need to be a veteran of WW II for making valid conclusions. Your military leaders dropped A-bombs on japanese cities, filled by civilians. Not on naval harbour or, say military base but right on heads of innocent women and children. By the way, Imperial Japanese Air Forces bombed Pearl Harbour. Japanese did not bomb american cities.

  • 3

    theFu

    Visiting both cities is on my "places to visit in the world" list. This photo rekindled my desires for that visit.

    War is terrible. Unnecessary death is terrible. I took a semester history class about the atomic bomb project in college. Truman knew about the likely deaths, but he also was looking at estimates with 100K killed Americans if he didn't use at least 1 bomb. He hoped that 1 bomb would be enough, there are papers proving that, but Japanese leaders of the time did not surrender. It is hard for an American to understand why not. I certainly don't.

    In the Washington DC, there is the Holocaust Museum about the Jewish killings by the Germans. It is an extremely depressing place, but should also be on everyone's "places to visit in the world" list so we can strive to make certain nothing like those terrible things ever happen again, anywhere in the world.

    Peace to all the peoples of the world. I love Japan and the Japanese people.

  • -1

    technosphere

    The other option was a complete invasion, which would have resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1 million Americans and unknown numbers of Japanese, according to some historical accounts that I read.

    But that being said, I have a completely biased reason as to why I am glad that we dropped the bombs on Japan. You see my wife is from Japan and her parents were very small children living in Tokyo during World War II. Had the Americans invaded Japan or continued their napalm drops, there is a very real possibility that her parents would have died or perhaps never met.

    History doesn't know words such as "could", "would", "should".

  • 6

    Serrano

    If only the Japanese had surrendered before August 6, 1945, they would have just had to deal with the near total destruction of Tokyo 5 months before. .

  • 1

    SamuraiBlue

    basroil

    You are so off. First of all anyone who died of the heat died from the radiation that came with the nuclear blast. Second the blast would have flattened any and all wood structures within a 5000 meter radius that would have caught on fire. Last nuclear burns and conventional burn marks are quite different and can be easily distinguished from one the other.

    Basically your hypothesis is completely off.

  • -2

    avigator

    Let's run the math. 200K killed Vs. 35 million killed by the Japanese. Not that bombing these two cities would solve the problem. But by the way Japanese stubbornness to surrender, an attack on the Mainland would have caused even more casualties. So, in retrospect, I guess we could call these two bombings two random acts of kindness.

  • 4

    Anthony Leone

    @technosphere

    History doesn't know words such as "could", "would", "should".

    No, but our military leaders had a pretty good idea of what would happen based on experience and knowledge of the Japanese people. Many on here are right when saying the death toll of the Americans and the Japanese would have been far worst than what happened with those two A-bombs.

    That said, I'm not willing to jeopardize the existence of my wife and children either.

  • 3

    Matthew Simon

    @technosphere No they didn't bomb Americans cities they were content with rape and genocide in China and Korea.

  • 1

    Fadamor

    Rare photo of most brutal Act of State Terrorism in human history.......

    Nah. I'm going to have to continue to award the Holocaust with that title, followed in second place by the carpet bombing of civilian populations by the allies. The nukes come in third.

  • -4

    technosphere

    No, but our military leaders had a pretty good idea of what would happen based on experience and knowledge of the Japanese people. Many on here are right when saying the death toll of the Americans and the Japanese would have been far worst than what happened with those two A-bombs.

    Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing short of field tests of combat nuclear devices. Plain and simple. All talks about "saving many American soldiers and Japanese civilians" were invented some later, to cover asses of American leadership after those brutal acts against civilians of Japan. Perhaps, Dropshot Plan (about bombing of main Soviet cities by A-bombs) was also developed by Americans "for saving American soldiers", huh?

  • 0

    Open Minded

    Matthew: dropping the bomb 10 km off-shore Tokyo did not need Facebook to be seen and understood by the Emperor. Re "they were told to surrender", this is totally irrelevant. How could Japan know about the power or even the possibility of an A-bomb? It was not on wikipedia yet. I am wondering when US will admit Hiroshima was a big mistake. Moreover, except the Pearl Harbour attacks, US was far from being at threat, thus there was no defensive reasons to kill blindly thousands of civilians just to show the power.

  • 1

    Fadamor

    You are so off. First of all anyone who died of the heat died from the radiation that came with the nuclear blast.

    If you're talking thermal radiation then I agree with you even though your statement then becomes redundant. Death due to radiation exposure is the result of cell damage leading to organ breakdown and subsequent death. The people at ground zero had their cells destroyed instantaneously by the fireball. There was no opportunity for the radiation to do its damage prior to death. For those farther away, they took cell damage from the radiation, but the organs had not failed yet when they perished in the subsequent fires. Then you have the people who survived the fires, but died from the burns they got in the fires - again - before the radiation dosage had a chance to become fatal. It's not until you get past those groups of people that you start to find the deaths caused by radiation exposure.

  • 4

    LFRAgain

    "...Japanese did not bomb american cities."

    The Japanese tried to bomb civilian American targets on the West Coast through a series of interesting, but ultimately unsuccessful schemes, including launching some 9,500 "fire balloons" and an airplane raid using incidiary bombs against forests in the Pacific Northwest for the express purpose of starting massive forest fires that could potentially burn out entire towns and throw the civilian population into a panic. Japan tried several approaches and largely failed.

    This constantly perpetuated fallacy that only the United States was engaged in total war -- and was therefore a uniquely cruel and unjust aggressor -- is the stuff of revisionist "social awareness" purchased with a four-year liberal arts degree and far too many hours whinging with like-minded conspiracy theorists in a local coffee shop when everyone should have been in class instead.

    Japan was looking for a way to get The Bomb first. Germany was as well. Russia was also. Make no mistake, if Japan had had the means to deal as definitive a blow as an atomic bombing of a U.S. city in order to weaken U.S. resolve, it would have in. In a heartbeat.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    "History doesn't know words such as "could", "would", "should"."

    What a load of pap. The study of history predicates itself on the very concepts of "could have," "would have" and "should have." They are the essence of why we study history at all and at the heart of how we plot a course through the present and future in order to avoid the more noxius mistakes we've made through the ages.

  • 2

    Anthony Leone

    Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing short of field tests of combat nuclear devices. Plain and simple

    technosphere, if you have any proof of this I would love to see it.

    But you have to realize that in war it is an us vs them. As LFRAgain rightly pointed out, the Japanese did try to attack American cities and that they and Germany were trying to developed the bomb first. If you think they wouldn't have used it you are sadly mistaken.

  • -4

    technosphere

    No they didn't bomb Americans cities they were content with rape and genocide in China and Korea.

    Oh, here is another one version of american nuclear bombings of japanese cities. Not " saving american soldiers of possible high death toll" but simply a revenge for "rape and genocide in China and Korea". Excellent. As far as I know, "rape and genocide in China and Korea" were committed by japanese military forces. Once again : why your military leaders did not order to bomb japanese naval harbour or military base?

  • 4

    Upgrayedd

    Once again : why your military leaders did not order to bomb japanese naval harbour or military base?

    Hiroshima was a military base. It was the HQ for the 2nd General Army which was in charge of the defense of all of Southern Japan. Also present in the city were the Japanese 5th division, 224th division, and 59th army. In all, more than 40,000 military personnel were stationed within Hiroshima's city limits the day the bomb was dropped.

  • -3

    Cat5

    Definitely two crimes against humanity by the US.

  • -2

    Cortes Elijah

    Dropping that bomb was a sick and evil thing to do. A sign of weakness. The Allied pulled the low move here....

  • 2

    Badboyinjapan

    http://badboyinjapan.blogspot.jp/2011/01/japan-thank-god-they-dropped-atomic.html

    It is ironic...odd?...I don't know the best word to describe reading stuff like this:

    "I get really angry whenever the bombings come up in conversation."

    Why? Why are YOU angry when none of the people I have spoken with who were alive at the time and witnessed or lost loved ones angry? They are sad and felt betrayed by their own leaders who brought this to their shores. They were there. Alive at the time listening to their own propaganda being propped up against what they saw. You shouldn't act like a child. You should listen and learn.

  • 2

    whiskeysour

    General McArthur didn't want the bomb to be dropped also many Generals opposed the 2 bombings. it was an executive order by the President Truman.

    Check the history

    Watch the Showtime Historical viewpoint form Oliver Stone's documentary series

    It will OPEN your eyes.

    http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states/home

  • -2

    Bill Bush

    Oh yes...Oliver Stone the purveyor of the "truth" about JFK. Anyone who believes the pure BS from the left is a moron.

  • 3

    WordsnCollision

    How could Japan know about the power or even the possibility of an A-bomb? It was not on wikipedia yet.

    Wikipedia wasn't needed - Japan's Nuclear Research Laboratory led by Dr. Yoshio Nishina at Riken Institute was well on its way to producing a nuclear weapon when the war ended, and unsubstantiated rumors state an actual test of a fission bomb took place near Konan in what is now North Korea on August 12th, 1945. If the IJA had acquired one or more atomic bombs before the surrender, do you think they would have used them for demonstration purposes?

  • -3

    basroil

    SamuraiBlueJan. 10, 2013 - 10:29PM JST

    You are so off.

    A lot of people want to believe that. They are almost always wrong though.

    First of all anyone who died of the heat died from the radiation

    No, very few died from thermal radiation, maybe a few thousand directly under the blast area and entirely exposed. Most died from regular burns, burning alive, and other injuries related to non-radiation conditions. A vast majority of the total deaths came in the days and months after, from burn injuries, infection, and radiation poisoning.

    Second the blast would have flattened any and all wood structures within a 5000 meter radius

    You have not even bothered to read anything out there. The damage was 3.2 km radius, with just 1.6km radius directly from the blast.

    Last nuclear burns and conventional burn marks are quite different and can be easily distinguished from one the other.

    No, they actually aren't. Just look at a bad sunburn (which is radiation burn) victim, there is nothing that could tell a doctor at the time immediately a burn was caused by radiation or by regular fire. With 90% of the medical staff of Hiroshima dead, nobody was left trained enough to distinguish between two nearly identical things. And most radiation burn victims also suffered other injuries, further complicating treatment and in the case of death, cause of death.

  • 1

    Fadamor

    Hiroshima was a military base. It was the HQ for the 2nd General Army which was in charge of the defense of all of Southern Japan. Also present in the city were the Japanese 5th division, 224th division, and 59th army. In all, more than 40,000 military personnel were stationed within Hiroshima's city limits the day the bomb was dropped.

    Wow. All those divisions AND AN ENTIRE ARMY were sitting in Hiroshima while the Battle for Okinawa was going on? Riiiiiiight.

    If what you claim is true, then riddle me this, Batman... Why hadn't Hiroshima been included in the B-29 firebombing campaigns? If it had so many troops in the city, it should have been one of the FIRST to get bombed, yet until Little Boy was dropped, Hiroshima had received NO attacks. I'll answer the question for you: Hiroshima was one of a group of cities intentionally left off the general bombing target list so that when an atomic bomb WAS to be used, they could get an unadulterated bomb damage assessment from photo recon. Hiroshima was left "virgin" so that any damage viewed from the air could be solely attributed to the atomic weapon. The target wasn't military, the target was the city itself in order to see just how much damage to a city could be delivered with one bomb. The target was every human being in that city; the aged, the adults, the young, and the infants. Little Boy was a trial run on a "live" target. When it was dropped, U.S. scientists still had only an inkling of the effects of the bomb. The dropping of Little Boy was an experiment just like the Trinity detonation was an experiment.

  • -3

    issa1

    Fadamor, If what you claim is true, then riddle me this, Batman... Why hadn't Hiroshima been included in the B-29 firebombing campaigns? If it had so many troops in the city, it should have been one of the FIRST to get bombed, yet until Little Boy was dropped, Hiroshima had received NO attacks. I'll answer the question for you: Hiroshima was one of a group of cities intentionally left off the general bombing target list so that when an atomic bomb WAS to be used, they could get an unadulterated bomb damage assessment from photo recon. Hiroshima was left "virgin" so that any damage viewed from the air could be solely attributed to the atomic weapon. The target wasn't military, the target was the city itself in order to see just how much damage to a city could be delivered with one bomb. The target was every human being in that city; the aged, the adults, the young, and the infants. Little Boy was a trial run on a "live" target. When it was dropped, U.S. scientists still had only an inkling of the effects of the bomb. The dropping of Little Boy was an experiment just like the Trinity detonation was an experiment.

    I totally agree with you. The japan was already on its knees and there was no need to kill thousands of innocent people. In Hiroshima the americans used a atomic bomb loaded with uranium and Nagasaki the atomic bomb was made ​​of plutonium. Why use two different types of atomics if the target was to make Japan surrender. That's a lie! It was the biggest terrorist act in human history.

  • -6

    Mohamed Al Hashimi

    Asian should know fall of China means fall of Asian under western colonists again means slaves of the west !

  • 3

    gokai_wo_maneku

    Just to add: Japanese government was pursuing surrender in April or May of 1945 because they knew it was over. But they made the mistake of going through Stalin. Unfortunately, Stalin had his own ideas about getting a chunk of Japan, so he didn't advance the process. Japan had a friendship treaty with Russia. Great friend Russia turned out to be.

  • -7

    Hide Suzuki

    @Matthew Simon

    People like you make me feel not so bad about the 9/11. I'm sure they got what they deserved and something similar will happen again and again judging from all the innocent people you guys killed in Iraq and Afghanistan among others

  • -1

    Outta here

    technosphere

    I know an American myth about "necessary evil". No need to be a veteran of WW II for making valid conclusions. Your military leaders dropped A-bombs on japanese cities, filled by civilians. Not on naval harbour or, say military base but right on heads of innocent women and children. By the way, Imperial Japanese Air Forces bombed Pearl Harbour. Japanese did not bomb american cities.

    Well let see, you obviously forgot that hiroshima was infact a major military industrial center, it was the departure point for forces fighting in the southern pacific area and was also the headquarters for those forces. Hiroshima castle was used as the headquarters building as well as a major communications hub. They used young kids to run their military messages from the castle. Nagasaki was a majorposer and shipbuilding facility as well as other arms manufacture. Infact a mere 90% of the cities workforce where directly involved in arm manufacture.

    The other thing about these cities, they did not have large POW camps near them unlike say Nagoya or other cities. And given that the Japanese government had ordered that all POWs where to be killed in the event of an invasion. Well the bombs actually died save some lives.

    You also say the Japanese didn't bomb US cities. Correct but they certainly bombed many other nations cities killing thousands in not hundreds of housands of civilians......

  • -4

    Hide Suzuki

    @Outta here

    "90% of the cities workforce where directly involved in arm manufacture."

    Do you realize that people back then didn't have an option ? It's not like most people chose to produce weapons. They were forced to do so most of the time by the Japanese government back then.

    And somehow they dropped A-bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not Tokyo. Especially the second one in Nagasaki was 100% unnecessary. They just did it because they didn't want Russia to invade into Japan. Yeah, that's a good enough reason to kill over 100,000 people. .

  • 5

    Matthew Simon

    Applying modern morality to this situation is not a fair. To be fair remember that the average Japanese of the time considered the Emperor to be a god and were just as brainwashed by dogma and propaganda as North Koreans are today. To be honest I will retract my statement from above and not even call this an evil act, It was plain just necessary. If you were in possession of a weapon during a World War that could end the war now or not use it and make it last possibly years more against an enemy that was determined to fight you to the last man what would you do? I think that there are a whole lot more Japanese alive today because those bombs were used. Also those targets were chosen in part as a warning. Nothing was stopping them from dropping it on Tokyo or Osaka, I think the exercised some restraint and made the more humane choice by dropping them on smaller cities. Many people these days Love to paint America as the brutal party in WWII it seems that either they don;t know history or they are buying into the revisionist version of it the pollutes history books in schools all across this nation.

  • -4

    issa1

    Matthew Simon Many people these days Love to paint America as the brutal party in WWII it seems that either they don;t know history or they are buying into the revisionist version of it the pollutes history books in schools all across this nation

    Oh yes, so when a terrorist attack happens in an American city with a atom bomb too will allowed.Very good.

  • 5

    Chubaka

    Fadamor and Hide Suzuki argue that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were solely due to the desire to ward off Soviet ambitions for the Home Islands and to test the effectiveness of nuclear weapons on major population centers. Unfortunately this version of history is largely taught in Japan today, although most Westerners would be surprised at this argument. And well they should, because it is NOT substantiated by any of the massive number of documents available to historians today. Of course there were scientists and some military leaders who had an interest in these outcomes, but documents available from the political and key military leaders show nothing to support this argument.

    What is shown in Allied documents is the knowledge that Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be potential staging areas for large numbers of fresh Japanese units that had sat out most of the war in China and Indochina. This is besides the large military industrial base still remaining in major cities such as Kokura, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. The planned invasion of Kyushu that would start on November 1, 1945, known as Downfall, meant that these large cities would have flattened by conventional bombing prepatory to an invasion of Kyushu, regardless of whether atomic bombs had been available or not. The fact that Kamikaze units and random Imperial naval ships were continuing to attack Allied units towards Okinawa also made southern Japan the primary target for invasion.

    The high casualty rate of US forces during Okinawa, combined with the shocking disregard that IJA forces had for local civilians that resulted in massive casualties caught in the crossfire, were major considerations during the planning for Operation Downfall. The expected high casualty rates for Allied invading forces in Kyushu combined with the expected high costs of supplying the invasion, as well as having to rebuild these areas in the post-war (something NEVER considered by revisionists), were all major concerns. The fate of Japanese civilians in Kyushu was also a concern, as Japanese militarists were expected to make civilians part of the resistance to invasion, instead of evacuating them from battle areas. The large caches of deposited WWII weapons and ammunition found to this day in Japanese cities provides evidence of the resistance mentality that Japanese militarists enforced among their civilian populace. This was a no-win situation no matter what the US and their Allies did. Southern Japan would have been destroyed to a greater degree by conventional means during an invasion. The stubbornness of the Japanese militarist faction saw to that.

  • 0

    danako

    @Fadamore, why is it so hard to believe that there were 40,000 troops in Hiroshima during the battle of Okinawa. There were over 3 million troops in Japan at the end of the war. Okinawa was a lost cause and Japan knew it. That's why the battleship Yamato was sent there on a one way mission.

    My opinion is that there were 3 reasons to use the nukes, first to save lives on both sides. By war's end, the Japanese had built up Kyushu to 13 divisions. It would have been a long and costly advance and certainly the Americans knew it. Second, it was a science experiment hence the choice to attack cities that had not been damaged much by the war. And third, to show the Russians that we have a big stick and we're not afraid to use it.

    And btw, Nagasaki was the secondary target, Kokura was the primary target that had heavy cloud cover.

  • 0

    danako

    @Issa1, the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the results of more than three years of war with no end in sight. The terrorist attacks on the US were from people that don't like the American way of life.

  • -3

    Hide Suzuki

    @Matthew Simon

    Again, the second A-bomb in Nagasaki was 100% unnecessary. You can write 50 page essay but you can't convince me that it was necessary. Japanese government was going to surrender within a few days.

    Lives of more than 100,000 people in Nagasaki were lost for what ? So that you could end the war 2 days quicker ?

  • 1

    Outta here

    Hide Suzuki

    Do you realize that people back then didn't have an option ? It's not like most people chose to produce weapons. They were forced to do so most of the time by the Japanese government back then.

    An the old, l didn't have a choice they made me do it argument. The same argument that was tried during the war crime trials by those accused of war crimes. I suppose one that cheered at the news of the Nanking massacre where also forced to do it by the government. You see there is a rather moving picture at one of you memorials (l think from memory yasukuni shrine) showing Japanese celebrating the news of the Nanking massacre, l suppose you will argue they where forced by the government as well?

    And somehow they dropped A-bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not Tokyo.

    Why would they drop it on Tokyo? There was no military value left in Tokyo to bomb. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki still had military industry and military formations despite already being bombed ( in the case of Nagasaki). Why bomb a destroyed city with no industry and lots of allied POW's (like the ones locked in the animal cages at Ueno zoo, eh don't me toon that on the zoo tour now do they?)

    Especially the second one in Nagasaki was 100% unnecessary. They just did it because they didn't want Russia to invade into Japan. Yeah, that's a good enough reason to kill over 100,000 people. .

    Wow, you are upset about the death of a 100,000 Japanese from a bombing. What about the millions that the Japanese killed. You complain about 100,000 killed in a bombing, how about the hundreds of thousands killed in Nanking. How about the thousands of prisoners killed while in Japanese custody. What about the imperial order that ALL POWs where to be executed in Japan if the allies invaded? That's right lets forget all them and worry about 100,000 Japanese who mind you where not all civilians, who stayed after the Japanese started evacuating the cities, who ignored the US warnings dropped to them, who worked as part of the military establishment. Yeah you see when you say they killed 100,000 people that honestly does sound bad l agree. But how many of them where soldiers? How many working in military related occupations? How many stayed despite the Japanese evacuations? And most damning how many people did the Japanese in their rampage?

    I will say l would hate to ever see a nuke used in anger ever again. But more than that l would hate to see a nation conduct a murderous spree like Japan did. And if it took a nuke to stop the carnage. Well so be it....

  • 4

    RHO1953

    It is certainly worth noting that the US has yet to receive an apology from Japan for the Bataan Death March. Japan shamed itself by striking the US without a declaration of war, fought brutally with the sole intent to win, committed numerous atrocities, and yet feels as if we owe it an everlasting apology for using the weapon that ended the conflict without the need for a land invasion of Japan by US troops. My father and uncles served in WWII for the US. Anything that saved US lives is perfectly fine with me. Had Japan or Germany developed the atomic bomb before the US, they certainly would have used it on us.

  • 2

    danako

    @Hide, I'm not convinced that the Japanese had planned to surrender in a few days. High ranking officials believed that the US did not have another bomb and wanted to continue fighting. The first bomb was dropped, the US waited for word to come but none came. The Japanese were insisting on their conditions that there be no occupation, they would disarm themselves and they would try their own war criminals. That wasn't going to happen. It didn't help that the US insisted on unconditional surrender. In the end, there was a conditional surrender, Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal and Tojo became the fall guy. If there had been no bombng, Hokkaido probably would have been under Russian control for the next 50 years, or longer. Agree or disagree, the war did end a week after the nukes were used. I don't think it was a coincidence.

  • -3

    danako

    @RHO1953, I don't think they shamed themselves with Pearl Harbor. I think it was a brilliant plan. The US knew that there would probably be an attack but were so arrogant that they believed it would be closer to Japan and never happan as far away as Hawaii. As for not declaring war first, so what. If I am a small country with no resources I would certainly want to get in one good shot first. It was Japan's intent to give notice an hour or two before the actual attack, but even if that did happen it would not have made any difference. The US had broken their code, picked up their planes on radar, and had attacked a midget sub in the harbor all before the actual bombing. And yet they did nothing.

  • -1

    technosphere

    What a load of pap. The study of history predicates itself on the very concepts of "could have," "would have" and "should have." They are the essence of why we study history at all and at the heart of how we plot a course through the present and future in order to avoid the more noxius mistakes we've made through the ages.

    FYI, history as science operates with events, not assumtions. Where did you study? Perhaps, in American public school, huh?

    The Japanese tried to bomb civilian American targets on the West Coast through a series of interesting, but ultimately unsuccessful schemes, including launching some 9,500 "fire balloons" and an airplane raid using incidiary bombs against forests in the Pacific Northwest for the express purpose of starting massive forest fires that could potentially burn out entire towns and throw the civilian population into a panic. Japan tried several approaches and largely failed.

    Come on, this is pretty laughable. Two nuclear bombs, dropped on cities with civilian population Vs hot air baloons that could start fires in the forests of USA?!

    Hiroshima was a military base. It was the HQ for the 2nd General Army which was in charge of the defense of all of Southern Japan. Also present in the city were the Japanese 5th division, 224th division, and 59th army. In all, more than 40,000 military personnel were stationed within Hiroshima's city limits the day the bomb was dropped...................... ......................Well let see, you obviously forgot that hiroshima was infact a major military industrial center, it was the departure point for forces fighting in the southern pacific area and was also the headquarters for those forces. Hiroshima castle was used as the headquarters building as well as a major communications hub. They used young kids to run their military messages from the castle. Nagasaki was a majorposer and shipbuilding facility as well as other arms manufacture. Infact a mere 90% of the cities workforce where directly involved in arm manufacture.

    A couple of dozen of civilians onboard an air craft carrier doesn't transform war ship into civilian cruise liner. 40 000 soldiers inside a city with big civilian population did not transform a city into military camp.

    But they made the mistake of going through Stalin. Unfortunately, Stalin had his own ideas about getting a chunk of Japan, so he didn't advance the process. Japan had a friendship treaty with Russia. Great friend Russia turned out to be.

    Before 1945 Imperial Kwantung Army tried to attack Soviets on Khasan and Khalkhin-Gol. Japanese tried to seize parts of Soviet territory. Soviets successfully fought back. There was no sweet "friendship" between the USSR and Imperial Japan. In 1945 Stalin ordered to attack Imperial Kwantung Army according to promises given to American and British leaders in Yalta Conference. At least, in 1945 Soviets fought Imperial Kwantung Army, not a civilian population of Japan. Soldiers Vs soldiers, Army Vs Army. Soviets were warriors, not infamous cowards. They did not bomb cities and towns of Japan. Because there are neither courage nor honour in bombings of cities with civilian population.

    People like you make me feel not so bad about the 9/11. I'm sure they got what they deserved and something similar will happen again and again judging from all the innocent people you guys killed in Iraq and Afghanistan among others

    True. Further, according to "american way of logic", WTC was also a legitimate target for 9/11 hijackers. Americans insist that "40 000 soldiers inside Hiroshima made that city a military base". According to this wonderful logic, a few armed policemen or members of security unit inside WTC towers automatically transformed WTC into warehouse of weaponry.

    technosphere, if you have any proof of this I would love to see it.

    Even Wikipedia says about . Please, read "Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" attentively.

  • -1

    technosphere

    And third, to show the Russians that we have a big stick and we're not afraid to use it.

    Good point. This was a first even sign of the up-coming Cold War. Soviets saw true nature of Americans, their allies of World War II. That's why Russians made huge efforts to create a powerful fleet of ICBMs and large amount of nuclear warheads. Lessons of Hiroshima were perfectly learned in the USSR.

  • 1

    danako

    @techno, hard to believe that they were allies when there was so little trust between them. I guess the US believed that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I still think it's a great line from General Patton, even though he denied saying it, that if found between the Russian and German armies he would attack in both directions.

    It was this arms race that eventually led to the fall of the USSR, and in my opinion, made the world a much more dangerous place.

  • -2

    technosphere

    hard to believe that they were allies when there was so little trust between them. I guess the US believed that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I still think it's a great line from General Patton, even though he denied saying it, that if found between the Russian and German armies he would attack in both directions.

    Little trust, yes. You are also right about principle " the enemy of my enemy is my friend.". According to historical documents, Stalin promised to Truman and Churchill "to attack" japanese military forces "within 90 days after capitulation of NAZIs". So, he ordered to attack Imperial Kwantung Army under agreement with allies. When Americans bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they threw away masks of "allies" according to mentioned principle "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". They showed true faces of bloody aggressors and murderers of women and children. That's why some later Soviets weren't so surprised about existance of Dropshot plan. According to Dropshot, Americans developed a strategic plan to attack mayor Soviet cities and industrial centers by huge amount of heavy bombers armed by nuclear bombs. The main idea was to exterminate Communism despite of huge death toll among ordinary Soviet civilians. Only creation of first ever ICBM, famous R-7 capable to deliver a nuclear warhead in any part of the USA stopped Americans. Funny, but when in 1957 Russians launched Sputnik, only Americans were scared, thinking about "Red A-bomb" orbiting the Earth. :-)))) As for "arms race that eventually led to the fall of the USSR", modern Russia also creates ICBMs, bombers and nuclear-powered submarines, supporting nuclear triad. Further, India and China do the very same . Americans must remember about "thousands of Hiroshims" they will get on their own soil in case of attempt of aggressive war.

  • 1

    Wonbatto

    Lives of more than 100,000 people in Nagasaki were lost for what ? So that you could end the war 2 days quicker ?

    While I tend to agree that the bombing of Nagasaki came before the Japanese government had the ability to comprehend the nature of the destruction at Hiroshima (and more adequately weigh surrender), every day that the war continued was a death sentence for POWs as well as civilians in Japanese-controlled areas of Asia that were living in increasingly dire conditions. So yes, every day that the war ended sooner really did count.

  • -1

    Outta here

    technosphere

    A couple of dozen of civilians onboard an air craft carrier doesn't transform war ship into civilian cruise liner. 40 000 soldiers inside a city with big civilian population did not transform a city into military camp.

    Its funny you know, just last year on this site there was an article about the commemoration services in Darwin remembering the Japanese raids on that city. And some Japanese posters here used the argument that Darwin was a legitimate military target because there where warships in the harbour and a military airfield and presence in the city. Yet when Hiroshima or Nagasaki are mentioned as legitimate military targets we have arguments like yours thrown up. I find that amusing. So a couple of ships and a few planes make an allied city a legitimate target in many pro Japan posters eyes. Yet a military regional headquarters (at Hiroshima castle), a major communications hub for the military (again Hiroshima), large military industrial complex (at both cities) and a major military port with repair and shipbuilding facilities are not good enough when it comes to bombing Japan...... I can see your logic, the Japanese can bomb what they want at will no issues. The allies bomb Japan and suddenly its a war crime, a disgusting act. Its amusing even the peace memorial in Hiroshima acknowledges the military in both cities and that they where the target.

    Soviets were warriors, not infamous cowards. They did not bomb cities and towns of Japan. Because there are neither courage nor honour in bombings of cities with civilian population.

    Again. Amusing.... They were warriors that dont bomb civilians hey. Maybe you should look at what they did on their journey through eastern Europe and then revise your statement to Japan should consider itself lucky the Soviets didnt do to them what they did in Eastern Europe.

    True. Further, according to "american way of logic", WTC was also a legitimate target for 9/11 hijackers. Americans insist that "40 000 soldiers inside Hiroshima made that city a military base". According to this wonderful logic, a few armed policemen or members of security unit inside WTC towers automatically transformed WTC into warehouse of weaponry.

    Again, unbelievable.... You compare 40,000 soldiers. Troops that have fought in places like Burma, DEI, Singapore, Papua and other battle grounds. Troops that have murdered, raped, and burnt their way across countless regions killing allied soldiers, POW's and civilians with out remorse. And you compare these to a few police and security at WTC..... Wow what warped planet is that logic from. The WTC attacks where terrorism, had those attacks been carried out on purely military targets (Pentagon, defence industry etc) then in my mind they would have been while not justified but not as disgusting.

  • -3

    technosphere

    Its funny you know, just last year on this site there was an article about the commemoration services in Darwin remembering the Japanese raids on that city. And some Japanese posters here used the argument that Darwin was a legitimate military target because there where warships in the harbour and a military airfield and presence in the city. Yet when Hiroshima or Nagasaki are mentioned as legitimate military targets we have arguments like yours thrown up. I find that amusing. So a couple of ships and a few planes make an allied city a legitimate target in many pro Japan posters eyes.

    Did Japanese Air Forces bomb warships in Darwin's harbour or civil population of Darwin? Did Japanese Air Forces bomb airfields nearby Darwin or civil population of Darwin?

    Again. Amusing.... They were warriors that dont bomb civilians hey. Maybe you should look at what they did on their journey through eastern Europe and then revise your statement to Japan should consider itself lucky the Soviets didnt do to them what they did in Eastern Europe.

    First of all, it was not a "jorney". It was fighting most powerful military forces in Europe, a military machine of NAZIs. It was a work for real Warriors by comparison to, say cowardly actions like bombings cities filled by civilians. Second. Soviets liberated prisoners of Auschwitz and other death camps of NAZIs. In general, Soviets liberated Eastern Europe. So, what's your point? You insist that American carpet bombings of Japanese cities and towns combined with nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were better, than liberation of prisoners of death camps in Europe?!

    Again, unbelievable.... You compare 40,000 soldiers. Troops that have fought in places like Burma, DEI, Singapore, Papua and other battle grounds. Troops that have murdered, raped, and burnt their way across countless regions killing allied soldiers, POW's and civilians with out remorse. And you compare these to a few police and security at WTC..... Wow what warped planet is that logic from. The WTC attacks where terrorism, had those attacks been carried out on purely military targets (Pentagon, defence industry etc) then in my mind they would have been while not justified but not as disgusting.

    Yes, 40 000 troops for entirely population of Hiroshima is a same scale comparison as a few armed policemen for entire WTC complex. What "terrorism" you are talking about? You even fail to understand that most amount of victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were not some mythic "40 000" troops but ordinary civilians, including women and children.

  • 1

    all4faj

    Its my opinion and only my opinion that everyone should have a look at both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki war museums or peace parks as they are referred to, whatever you think you believe now might be brought into question after seeing first hand. I was brought up believing that it was necessary to stop the war and possibly it was , after all it was the last war the Americans ever brought to a succesful conclusion. There is no doubt that besides their motives for stopping the war and saving a lot ( no-one really knows how many ) after all the Japanese were starving and had by all accounts lost ) of American lives, they also used it as a testing ground, there were a few different cities that they had back up plans for, but unfortunately for both Nagasaki and Hiroshima the weather was against them that day.

  • 1

    Outta here

    technosphere

    Did Japanese Air Forces bomb warships in Darwin's harbour or civil population of Darwin? Did Japanese Air Forces bomb airfields nearby Darwin or civil population of Darwin?

    REALLY! You really need me to answer this? They bombed both. Like they did in Singapore, Hong Kong, Manila, in fact you name a city or population center in the area the Japanese attacked and you will see that they bombed it regardless of its military value. You see it was the Japanese in the 30's that actually started bombing civilians as a terror weapon. But lm thinking you knew this....

    First of all, it was not a "jorney". It was fighting most powerful military forces in Europe, a military machine of NAZIs. It was a work for real Warriors by comparison to, say cowardly actions like bombings cities filled by civilians.

    Wow.... So the Russians never bombed cities or killed civilians hey? Funny, did you know the Russians bombed Berlin? Yes these brave warriors, the same brave warriors responsible for ethnic cleansing in Poland, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Germany, and everywhere else they went. While they may not have used bombers to destroy whole cities like other nations (only because their airforce was not capable) they certainly found other ways to kill civilians much like the Japanese...

    Second. Soviets liberated prisoners of Auschwitz and other death camps of NAZIs. In general, Soviets liberated Eastern Europe. So, what's your point?

    Wow, the Soviets liberated Eastern Europe. Well maybe you should go talk to an eastern european and see how they felt about the Soviet liberation of their country and the subsequent occupation by soviet forces. My point is you quite ludicriously stated that the Soviets were warriors that didnt bomb (hence massacre) civilians. They may not have used bombers but they certainly where not the good clean whole some warriors that you claim that is my point.

    You insist that American carpet bombings of Japanese cities and towns combined with nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were better, than liberation of prisoners of death camps in Europe?!

    Nope never said that. Now did I?

    But lets see the US and allied bombing of Japanese cities where a sad necessity bought about by Japans instigation of a war of aggression, its actions during that war of aggression, its refusal to surrender, its murder of innocents in their custody during the war and the wholesale order to murder ALL prisoners rather than let them fall back into allied hands. So where the bombings better than liberation of concentration camps. The two dont compare now do they?

    Yes, 40 000 troops for entirely population of Hiroshima is a same scale comparison as a few armed policemen for entire WTC complex. What "terrorism" you are talking about? You even fail to understand that most amount of victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were not some mythic "40 000" troops but ordinary civilians, including women and children.

    Lol, Lets see Hiroshima had a population of around 340,000 at the time of the bombings, if you take accepted figures of 40,000 troops that means 300,000 "civilians" which means for every 7 "civilians" there was a soldier. Also it is well documented that many children had been evacuated prior to the bombings (intact around 80,000 people had been evacuated prior to the bombing). Many of the "children" left in the city actually worked for the military in communications roles, in helping to clear fire lanes to stop fires spreading etc. Now if you had been to the Hiroshima memorial and read some of the stories about these children and their roles you would see most where still in the city doing roles for the civil defence and military. And according to the rules of war at the time this made them legitimate targets. You see it clearly states that civilians assisting the military in time of war cease being seen as civilians. Now if you actually researched the topic with some unbiased view you would see that the headquarters at Hiroshima castle was in charge of a mere 400,000 men fighting in the southern pacific region (the 2nd Army), as was the 59th army which was responsible for the defence of Japan itself and most of its command staff where killed during the bombing. Now if you also did your research you would be aware that Hiroshima castle apart from being the headquarters of these two army groups was also a major communications centre (employing children to run messages, operate telephone equipment etc). So if you cared to do some research you would soon see that rather than a "civilian" city Hiroshima was a vast military complex with "civilians" living there.....

  • 1

    Richard White

    Very sad, but so is the oil still leaking out if the USS Arizona on the bottom of Pearl Harbor. While it is sad, the bombing of Japan by use of atomic weapons did save up to estimated 500,000 to 800,000 Allied serviceman lives by ending the war before an invasion of the Japanese homeland. Add to this the number of deaths of both civilian and military Japanese lives and wounded and one can begin to understand President Truman's dilemma. We must never forget all the innocent lives lost in the years before those fateful days, China, Korea, The Philipines, and the Batan Death March, must also be remembered and factored in. I can write this today because my father was on his way to take part in the Japanese Homeland invasion, but instead spent his time helping beginning the rebuilding process.

  • -3

    Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

    These weapons of mass disturction should not be in the hands of anyone! Let his be a reminder to us that under American influence, we will always suffer.

  • -1

    wipeout

    In the case of Hiroshima, it is 100% caused by the availability of fuel in the form of destroyed wooden structures (with a bit more in the form of gas and oil in those structures). Fire can't happen without fuel, and a nuclear bomb, unlike incendiary devices, carries no fuel for fires. The underlying cause is the structures, even if the starting energy was the bomb.

    BasroiI, I read your explanation, I read a bit online, and I concede the point. I think.

  • 0

    SamuraiBlue

    Fire can't happen without fuel, and a nuclear bomb, unlike incendiary devices, carries no fuel for fires. The underlying cause is the structures, even if the starting energy was the bomb.

    Actually with enough heat many atoms itself will turn into a plasma which happens within a nuclear explosion. Any where spontaneous combustion occured it was becuase of the heat from the bomb and not from the accelerant around.

    One more thing is there was a fall out phenomenon known as "Black rain", a downfall of rain saturated with radioactive particle that poisoned many.

    People really thinking that a nuclear blast is the same as an conventional blast should have their head examined.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    I think that there are a whole lot more Japanese alive today because those bombs were used.

    Another by product of the failed U.S. education system.

    Let's be clear. The decision for Japan to surrender was due to Soviet's declaration of war against Japan.

    The decision to surrender(Imperial council) subject to condition on 国体護持 was decided at early Augusut 10th (meeting concluded 2:30 am) The vague report on Hiroshima(which indicate it was either an atomic bomb or new weapon) was relayed to the government at 10:00 am.(Please also recall that Nagasaki has been bombed already) The confirmation that it was actually a nuclear bomb was relayed on August 15th from the August 10th investigation conducted by the six experts from Kyoto University as per request of the Navy.

  • 0

    Upgrayedd

    Let's be clear. The decision for Japan to surrender was due to Soviet's declaration of war against Japan.

    Japan was looking for ways out of the war long before the atomic bombings and the Soviet invasion.

    Hirohito himself later wrote that he decided to surrender on the morning of the 10th for three reasons.

    1. Because Tokyo couldn't be defended.
    2. The new American weapons would destroy the Japanese race.
    3. Ise Shrine would fall to the Americans and that would result in the permanent destruction of the Kokutai.

    Note that there is no reference to the USSR here but direct references to the atomic bombs and American military might (Soviets did not have the navy required to invade the main islands - ie they were never considered a serious threat to Tokyo or the Kokutai - unlike the US and its new weapon).

  • -1

    Olegek

    Richard White Very sad, but so is the oil still leaking out if the USS Arizona on the bottom of Pearl Harbor

    Really ? Until now the Japanese suffering from the effects of that nuclear blasts radiation

    While it is sad, the bombing of Japan by use of atomic weapons did save up to estimated 500,000 to 800,000 Allied serviceman lives by ending the war before an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

    Sorry - but why Allied forces need this invasion ? Japan (sorry this short lesson) - it's a group of over-populated islands main part of its occupied by by mountains

    No food no fuel no mineral recourses - nothing !! Strong sea blockade - and Japanese will die from hunger....

    I think it is obvious that such countries like Japan&Britain can be defeated WITHOUT invasion

    Add to this the number of deaths of both civilian and military Japanese lives and wounded and one can begin to understand President Truman's dilemma.

    I understand that US military never was very professional, but in August 45 it was obvious that Japan was totally defeated... no food no ammo no fuel....hunger and disaster reigned in Japan ....

    US NAVY circled Japan islands Russian troops destroyed Kwantung Army in Manchuria... A-bomb ??? Tell me WHY ?

    We must never forget all the innocent lives lost in the years before those fateful days, China, Korea, The Philipines, and the Batan Death March, must also be remembered and factored in.

    It was a revenge ? Not military operation?

    I can write this today because my father was on his way to take part in the Japanese Homeland invasion, but instead spent his time helping beginning the rebuilding process.

    the main problem of U.S. armed forces - low operational effectiveness and unwillingness to suffer losses

    from here follows carpet-bombing

    from here follows Hiroshima

    from here follows burned from air but not defeated Vietnam

  • -5

    technosphere

    REALLY! You really need me to answer this? They bombed both. Like they did in Singapore, Hong Kong, Manila, in fact you name a city or population center in the area the Japanese attacked and you will see that they bombed it regardless of its military value. You see it was the Japanese in the 30's that actually started bombing civilians as a terror weapon. But lm thinking you knew this....

    Huh, I knew that Japanese forces bombed ships in the harbour and aircrafts on air fields. Ships and air crafts were primary targets, not civilians of Darwin. Even sources of internet tell a lot about it.

    Wow.... So the Russians never bombed cities or killed civilians hey? Funny, did you know the Russians bombed Berlin? Yes these brave warriors, the same brave warriors responsible for ethnic cleansing in Poland, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Germany, and everywhere else they went. While they may not have used bombers to destroy whole cities like other nations (only because their airforce was not capable) they certainly found other ways to kill civilians much like the Japanese...

    FYI, Russians stormed Berlin by tanks and infantry with a support of artillery. By aerial bombings, Soviets would NEVER seize a citadel of Hitler. What "ethnic cleansing In Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Germany" you are talking about ? Where did you study history, I wonder? On baseball stadium , maybe? :-))))) Russians had enough bombers after 1942.. Total domination in air helped Soviet troops to break NAZI resistance in Eastern Europe. Betcha, you have never heard about Tu-2 or Pe-2 diving bombers. But Soviet bombers used to bomb military plants and factories instead of civilians.By the way, there is a Statue of Soviet Warrior- Liberator in Treptower Park of Berlin. People of Germany bring flowers to that Statue every year. This memorial has never been vandalized. Too strange for people of Germany, suffered after "ethnic cleansing", right? People of Eastern Europe are grateful to Soviet / Russian liberators. They will never buy a cheap lie about "massacres" or " ethnic cleansings" from arrogant Western hypocrites and plain liars.

    Wow, the Soviets liberated Eastern Europe. Well maybe you should go talk to an eastern european and see how they felt about the Soviet liberation of their country and the subsequent occupation by soviet forces. My point is you quite ludicriously stated that the Soviets were warriors that didnt bomb (hence massacre) civilians. They may not have used bombers but they certainly where not the good clean whole some warriors that you claim that is my point.

    Huh, I have enough friends from Eastern Europe. They have deepest respect to Soviets. I can talk with them a lot. . Hardly they would talk with you :-)))) Especially after infamous NATO aggression in Serbia. My friends from Eastern Europe hate western hypocrites and liars.

    But lets see the US and allied bombing of Japanese cities where a sad necessity bought about by Japans instigation of a war of aggression, its actions during that war of aggression, its refusal to surrender, its murder of innocents in their custody during the war and the wholesale order to murder ALL prisoners rather than let them fall back into allied hands. So where the bombings better than liberation of concentration camps. The two dont compare now do they?

    Seems, you have no any idea about "liberation of concentration camps". And your wonderful attitude to nuclear bombings of Japanese cities explains a lot. That's why some guy wrote in this comments thread that " the USA deserved 9/11."

    Lol, Lets see Hiroshima had a population of around 340,000 at the time of the bombings, if you take accepted figures of 40,000 troops that means 300,000 "civilians" which means for every 7 "civilians" there was a soldier. Also it is well documented that many children had been evacuated prior to the bombings (intact around 80,000 people had been evacuated prior to the bombing). Many of the "children" left in the city actually worked for the military in communications roles, in helping to clear fire lanes to stop fires spreading etc. Now if you had been to the Hiroshima memorial and read some of the stories about these children and their roles you would see most where still in the city doing roles for the civil defence and military. And according to the rules of war at the time this made them legitimate targets. You see it clearly states that civilians assisting the military in time of war cease being seen as civilians. Now if you actually researched the topic with some unbiased view you would see that the headquarters at Hiroshima castle was in charge of a mere 400,000 men fighting in the southern pacific region (the 2nd Army), as was the 59th army which was responsible for the defence of Japan itself and most of its command staff where killed during the bombing. Now if you also did your research you would be aware that Hiroshima castle apart from being the headquarters of these two army groups was also a major communications centre (employing children to run messages, operate telephone equipment etc). So if you cared to do some research you would soon see that rather than a "civilian" city Hiroshima was a vast military complex with "civilians" living there.....

    Once again : 40 000 soldiers inside a city with overall population of 300 000 did not transform that sity into military camp. It was just a city with unsignificant amount of soldiers inside. If you defend a hypocritical viewpoint that " little japanese boys and girls were working on military factories and plants and therefore they were combatants", you show nothing except hypocrisy.

  • -3

    technosphere

    The scary thing is many Japanese seem to be pushing for a revision of Japan's Pacifist Constitution - and more alarmingly - pushing for nuclear weapons of their own. So terrible that many Japanese just have not learnt anything from history and the mistakes of the past. I dare say many just have no knowledge of the horror unleashed upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, like those of us who have been there.

    Good that Japan slowly awakes and refuses to learn a perverted version of "history", imposed by American "teachers".

  • 3

    nigelboy

    Japan was looking for ways out of the war long before the atomic bombings and the Soviet invasion.

    Not disagreeing with that at all. Look at it this way. U.S. themselves knew that Soviet's entrance would be a vital blow to Japan so they promised them Sahkalin and Kuriles during Yalta. The Potsdam declaration did not include the Soviets and the Japanese counterparts were still negotiating truce in hopes using Soviet as a mediator. So when it came official that Soviets did in fact declared war on Japan breaking the Neutrality Pact, they had no choice but to accept the Potsdam declaration.

    Hirohito himself later wrote that he decided to surrender on the morning of the 10th for three reasons

    You're mixing the Emperor's radio announcement with what had transpired during the 8th Imperial Confenrence. Again, the confirmation that it was an atomic bomb was confirmed in August 15. Let's not forget that at that time, we didn't live in a world of live coverage or internet. The actual assessment of the damages to months and years. Secondly, Japan's mainland at that time, dare I say, was use to the aerial bombings with Tokyo just experienced the largest catastrophic single day bombings ever (til this day I might add). Hence, the Hiroshima bombing at that time, was deemed nothing special.

    Having said that, I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of bombing of civilian population during war.

  • 0

    FrEcKlEfAcE

    The Japanese of WWII were of the mindset that death in battle was an honor and that suicidal death in battle would command supreme nobility. The bombs were needed to convince Japan that there was neither honor nor nobility awaiting them in further resistance to the Allies.

  • -4

    technosphere

    The bombs were needed to convince Japan that there was neither honor nor nobility awaiting them in further resistance to the Allies.

    The existance of honour or nobility have nothing to do with nuclear bombings. The bombs were needed exclusively for testing purposes. Two Japanese cities were choosen by Americans for most barbaric experiments in human history. Americans wished to research consequences of explosive power in cities with different architectural elements.

  • -1

    SamuraiBlue

    The US government NEEDED to drop the bomb because they had poured so much money and resources. The government had to show the result of their investment to the public so they can defend their action in congress. If the government didn't use it in an effective way, the opposing party would have used it to tear the government down.

    It's always the same, POLITICS , nothing more nothing less.

  • -4

    CrisGerSan

    I am again surprised to see posting on subject such as this filled with antagonism towards the host country of this news service. I wont go on about it, but it does make me sad. I apologize to Japan and to the Japanese people for the terrible acts carried out against them by the United States armed forces. Much of that was far beyond acceptable military practice then or now. Much of the Pacific War was carried out far below the level of humanity, unrestricted submarine warfare, carpet bombing of cities and towns, brutal tactics in the invasions of the islands including Okinawa and Iwo Jima, and disregard throughout the war for Japanese people both in the Home Islands and in the United States. History has been censored and altered by American authors, and so called experts and still is. There is little understanding of respect for Japan even here where supposedly people are interested in Japan enough to keep posting about the topics so well presented. And the final tragedy, the totally needless use of massive new bomb technology against civilian filled cities can only be called an act of madness carried out by a country ..the USA ...traumatized by a massive war effort, and anxious to get it over with at any cost, with no respect or regard for the impact of its acts on children, infants, women, old people and just ordinary citizens, it is beyond my belief that anyone can defend that use.

    I have several items of interest to share, firstly I knew Openheimer's daughter in New Mexico as a friend and learned from her her father, who had led the US effort to create the bomb was destroyed by its use, he was appalled that it was used against civilian targets, and horrified by the results, and his health and eventually he himself declined to death over it. Many of the other scientists were as well and had had the understanding that the bomb would not be used against cities but against only military targets. Secondly i have seen again and again that there is little understanding or sympathy in the US or other modern cultures for Japan, beyond lip service, and little acceptance that they have a strong, long lasting and very respectable and individual culture. They have every right to move forward in their own modern history and to make honest assesment of past events and to feel horror and great sadness over the use of the bomb against their cities and innocent people, both from the atomic and the other "normal" bombs used in intentional and immensely destructive ways that the American commanders KNEW would happen. The same was done against Germany, and the same sadness i feel for that too. I am glad to see a few people posting who appear to understand some of these basic principles and to understand the truths about that history, who have not been brainwashed by the standard American superficial re writing of history.

    Yes the Japanese war effort did work to develop nuclear weapons and did work toward possible plans to use massive biological vectors against West Coast cities, but they did not carry them thru. We, the US, did. And for that I appologize and am very deeply sorry. I hope in the future Japan will continue to strong and independent of the US and any of its allies. In the modern world each nation must trust on itself and its own culture first and foremost.

    I pray for peace but we must always be strong to deserve it.

  • -3

    SamuraiBlue

    CrisGerSan

    If you live in the US you may not notice but the US is a very theortical state in which cannot tolerate being morally wrong and that is the reason why there are many conspiracy theories. They maybe wrong and/or right but both sides are talking about "the Right thing to do" in terms of the bble and not about national security.

    The US needs to get off the moral high stool and examine history for what it is without it's moral blinkers.

  • 3

    LFRAgain

    CrisGerSan,

    "Yes the Japanese war effort did work to develop nuclear weapons and did work toward possible plans to use massive biological vectors against West Coast cities, but they did not carry them thru."

    Your interpretation of history is shockingly and embarrassingly loose with the facts. Japan didn't carry through with its plans to build atomic weapons because it suddenly had some sort of moral epiphany. It failed to produce an atomic bomb because it lacked the technical know-how and material resources. Had it possessed one or the other, or both, it would have built an atomic weapon and used it immediately to reverse its poor fortunes in the Pacific War.

  • 0

    Upgrayedd

    You're mixing the Emperor's radio announcement with what had transpired during the 8th Imperial Confenrence. Again, the confirmation that it was an atomic bomb was confirmed in August 15. Let's not forget that at that time, we didn't live in a world of live coverage or internet. The actual assessment of the damages to months and years. Secondly, Japan's mainland at that time, dare I say, was use to the aerial bombings with Tokyo just experienced the largest catastrophic single day bombings ever (til this day I might add). Hence, the Hiroshima bombing at that time, was deemed nothing special.

    Having said that, I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of bombing of civilian population during war.

    You seem to know a lot about the subject so I am very surprised that you don't know that the Emperor's radio announcement was written by Imperial aids, primarily Chief cabinet secretary Sokomzu with assistance from Kawada Mizuho and Yasuoka Masahiro. And they used the Emperor's own words from the meeting on the 9th-10th as the basis for the document presented to the Japanese people on the 15th.

    But I was most certainly not mistaking the different events. Hirohito was talking about the events on the 9th and 10th in which he came up with his decision to surrender.

    Source: 昭和天皇独白録 page 121.

    Once again, check the Emperor's own words.

    Three reasons for surrender 1. Tokyo's defenses wouldn't be complete before the American **invasion 2. Ise Shrine would be lost to the **Americans 3. Multiple atomic weapons had been deployed by the Americans and these would lead to the death of the Japanese race

    The Soviet Union's entry into the war really didn't matter because It didn't change the strategic situation. The Soviet Union had no ability to invade Honshu therefore they were no threat to the Japanese government nor the Japanese Emperor. The Americans were different. They were preparing a fleet to invade Kyushu and Honshu and everyone knew that...

  • 1

    humanrights

    Ironic that the Japanese want to build these Bombs now with their new Gov. I thought they learned something from history but obviously not. Hiroshima museum is lacking lots of information regarding other matters of the Japanese history and the role the city of Hiroshima & Nagasaki & its people had during the War. Museums should hide the whole truth.

  • -1

    toguro

    "@RHO1953, I don't think they shamed themselves with Pearl Harbor. I think it was a brilliant plan. The US knew that there would probably be an attack but were so arrogant that they believed it would be closer to Japan and never happan as far away as Hawaii. As for not declaring war first, so what. If I am a small country with no resources I would certainly want to get in one good shot first. It was Japan's intent to give notice an hour or two before the actual attack, but even if that did happen it would not have made any difference. The US had broken their code, picked up their planes on radar, and had attacked a midget sub in the harbor all before the actual bombing. And yet they did nothing."

    @danako:

    Since you feel that way, then be content with the end result of those actions, and stop bellyaching about the atomic bombs. You pretty much "reap what you sow". Start a war, then don't cry when you get smacked back.

  • -2

    Mohamed Al Hashimi

    The West can't play their old game as China with Russia are becoming stronger. However, Japan should increase their relations with China to get full independence from United States so Japanese can start build their military freely including nuclear bombs. (Asia Union)

  • 1

    Wonbatto

    However, Japan should increase their relations with China to get full independence from United States so Japanese can start build their military freely including nuclear bombs. (Asia Union)

    The prospect of any sort of greatly increased relations between China and Japan is pretty remote at this point.

    It's also worth noting that Japan, Korea, and countries of SE Asia are free to align themselves (or not) however they see fit to match their national interests. These countries are overwhelmingly choosing closer ties with the US at the expense of China.

  • -1

    technosphere

    The Soviet Union's entry into the war really didn't matter because It didn't change the strategic situation. The Soviet Union had no ability to invade Honshu

    It changed the strategic situation because Soviet troops defended main ground forces of Japan in Manchuria. Soviets did not wish to invade japanese mainland just because they fought Imperial japanese Army, not japanese civilians.

  • 3

    Scott Hines

    The 1 milion casualties quoted here, is an erroneous number. The U.S. government report suggested 250,000 American casualties. The Japanese casualty assessment was based on losses from Iwo Jima and Owkanowa, which were three to for times higher than the U.S. You should actually study history. The Emperor of Japan was not in control of the country, he was a figure head. The Military had taken control by 1930. Japan had long been warring in china before U.S. involvement. An oil embargo by the U.S. on Japan was the reason for the bombing of pearl Harbor. The Japanese military officers thought that Americans were lazy and would not fight. This attack was designed to knock out our ability to stop them from taking Indochina. the needed the raw materials from there to support not only their war efforts but also day to day living needs. Now to get to the two atomic weapons dropped. The Imperial army at the time new they could not win the war against the U.S. They were hoping that the severe losses that they were imposing on the U.S. would force them to sue for peace. In other words they new even then that the American population didn't have the stomach for a long bloody war. Truman, who had just become president, learned of the weapons power and warned the world of it's destructive capabilities at the Ponstan (not spelled right) comfrance. At this point in the war Germany had already been defeated and the U.S.S.R. had agreed to join the war against Japan. The military had been fire bombing Japanese city for months. Two thirds of Tokyo had been leveled, paper and wood buildings burn nicely. 250,000 people killed on that one raid alone. Hiroshima was chosen as a target because of its military importance, and location, as well as the fat that it had not been bombed previously. Other cities were on the short list as well, but were scrubbed from the target list for reasons like, cultural heritage or religious signification. The little boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was a uranium bomb. Scientist new for certain it would work, but there was only enough uranium for that bomb. it took Oak ridge running at full capacity for two years to produce the material. They knew how much power it would produce, and at what height to detonate it above ground to get the strongest shock wave. The U.S. waited for Japans response from the bombing. The answer they received from Japans war counsel was. What difference weather it takes one plane or a thousand to destroy a city. With that answer it was decided to drop "fat man". Fat man was a plutonium fueled device like the one tested at White Sands New Mexico. Hartford in Washington state was producing enough Plutonium to keep building this style of bombs. Nagasaki was also a military sight chosen for its industry. It was the secondary target, the first being obscured by clouds. The bomb, which was more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima did far less damage for several reasons. First it missed the target by three miles. Second Nagasaki sits in a bowl shaped valley that didn't allow for the propagation of shock waves. Still Japan refused to surrender. Sorry Americans but you have been lied to. The Japanese only surrendered after their army in Manchuria was completely destroyed by the Red army. You see most of Japan's factories had been moved to Korea and main land china. Once the U.S.S.R. threatened these factories, and the decimation of there armies they had no choice but to surrender. Truman at this time was smart enough to take the conditional surrender offered. Up until this time only unconditional surrender was acceptable. A lot of the facts that people have posted here, are not true. If you rely on movies or director of movies for your history, well I fell bad for your ignorance. Let me finish with this thought. America had taken several island back from Japan, Very few prisoners were taken. This is because of the Japanese Bushido code. It was considered cowardly and disgraceful to surrender. It was better to take your own life than to disgrace the Emperor. Thus the Japanese fought ferociously and the American didn't bother to take prisoners. The few Japanese that did surrender often carried explosives on them selves and detonated them in order to kill the enemy. Many people have started rewriting the history of world war II. It is up to every one to read source material from the time so that the true history is not lost. The U.S. was not perfect during the war. Did they do things to provoke Japan , yes. Was Japan already killing thousands before we were involved, yes. Does Japan acknowledge that they were using biological and chemical weapons on Chinese civilians, no. Was the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan right. In hindsight probably not, but at the time would any of you not used them if you were told they would save, not only American lives, but also Japanese lives also. That I will let you think about and decide for yourself. Just do it from the view point of a world full of war, not from the arm chair.

  • -1

    danako

    @toguro, where did you read anything from me "bellyaching" about the atomic bombs? I hadn't addressed that in anything that I wrote. But I will say this, I was in support of the decision to drop the bombs. Just my opinion but I think it did end the war earlier. I have seen some excellent posts on both sides. My grandfather had just returned from 2 years of war in Europe and was on his way to the pacific and would have been part of the invasion of Kyushu. I think it may have saved his life.

    Now I really believe the firebombing was evil. My wife is Japanese and her mother was six years old when her city was firebombed. Now if someone here can tell me what a six year old girl did that her home should be bombed. Or her eight year old sister, or her home maker mother, or her postal worker father.

    And further toguro, have you ever heard of the American Volunteer Group, aka the Flying Tigers? This was a covert military force set up months before Pearl Harbor by the United States with American money, American planes, and American personnel to fight against the Japanese, who we were not at war with at the time. So in some ways, the Pearl Harbor attack could be viewed as a pre-emptive strike.

  • -1

    danako

    @SamuraiBlue, I fully agree that politics played a major role in the decision. The three most expensive develpoments of the war were radar, the B29, and the atomic bomb. If Truman had not used the nukes, he would have never been able to run for re-election. How would you ever be able to tell the American people that you had a weapon that could have ended the war sooner and didn't use it.

  • -1

    nigelboy

    You seem to know a lot about the subject so I am very surprised that you don't know that the Emperor's radio announcement was written by Imperial aids

    Upgrayedd.

    I do know. That's not the point. What needs to be addressed is the need for the Imperial Conference on August 9th and the discussion to suddenly focus on the 国体維持. It doesn't matter whether or not Soviets were "greater" threat to Honshu for prior to that, Japan felt Soviet's being neutral with Japan and having a clout among the Allieds were very much hoping that some truce could be worked out. When the Soviets declared war and invaded Manchuria and were moving towards North, the last glimmer of hope was lost.

    As for the 昭和天皇独白録 , let's call it what it is. It's a memoir of the Imperial aids which I question the accuracy simply because of the fact that confirmation that it was an atomic bomb was only confirmed on August 15th. Let's also not forget the fact that 8 conventional bombing took place after Nagasaki so as much as U.S. wants to place the two atomic bombings as "symbolic end to the Pacific war with Japan", the reality is more like U.S. wanted to launch two atomic boms beause the "war was ending."

  • 0

    bratran

    I wonder if the USA was tried for war crimes since Hiroshima or not? To my best understanding they are the only cruel nation ever having used Weapons of Mass Destruction against any other nation (in this case, against Japan). According to international norms, conforming to civilized human standards, I think the USA should be held responsible for this heinous act.

  • 0

    Outta here

    peanut666

    Yeah, I get it hateful Americans. It was a necessity. Japan was already going to surrender.

    Yeah right! They were going to surrender you claim..... They where still fighting, they where still preparing for an invasion, they where still killing. Hardly surrendering....

    So you dropped an A-bomb on Hiroshima, which was mainly just filled with school children and their mothers since most of the men had gone off to war and killed 70,000 people.

    Lol, funniest quote ever. So most men had gone off to war hey. Kinda forgetting all the military men stationed in the city. Familiar with Hiroshima castle?...... How about all the men working in the defence manufacturing industries in Hiroshima? You forgetting that.

    Ground zero in Hiroshima was Shima hospital. Ground zero in Nagasaki was St. Mary's Cathedral . The largest Catholic church in the orient at the time. 75,000 people died in Nagasaki.

    Actually the targets where not the hospital but rather the bridges several hundred meters away. Closer to Hiroshima castle and the imperial japanese headquarters....

    All the fallacies regarding Japanese war atrocities in Asia are over exaggerated. Japan didn't target the civilians as much of the Chinese communist government wants you to believe.

    Funny one. So how do you explain all the other nations other than china that had atrocities committed and civilians killed by your IJA? I find your comments disgusting and distasteful. But totally expected.

    And before you go commenting on me being a brainwashed Chinese or American. I'm neither!!!

Login to leave a comment

OR
  •  Burmese Sales Staff

    Burmese Sales Staff
    Autocom Japan (オートコムジャパン株式会社)、Kanagawa
    Salary: ¥350,000 ~ ¥1.0M / Month Commission Based
  • Mongolian Sales Staff

    Mongolian Sales Staff
    Autocom Japan (オートコムジャパン株式会社)、Kanagawa
    Salary: ¥350,000 ~ ¥1.0M / Month Commission Based
  • GooglePlay Partner Operations Manager <English-Japanese Bilingual>

    GooglePlay Partner Operations Manager
    Link Marketing Inc. - 株式会社リンク・マーケティング、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month
  • GooglePlay Partner Operations Manager <English-Thai Bilingual>

    GooglePlay Partner Operations Manager
    Link Marketing Inc. - 株式会社リンク・マーケティング、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month
  • Technical Support Engineer

    Technical Support Engineer
    株式会社 日本イントリピッド・コントロール・システムズ、Kanagawa
    Salary: ¥3.5M ~ ¥4.5M / Year Negotiable

More in National

View all

View all