Designer Issey Miyake, writing in NYT, asks Obama to visit Hiroshima on Aug 6

Wednesday 15th July, 09:56 AM JST

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

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 24 Total Comments Show All

translator300 at 03:06 PM JST - 15th July

I think that he should go to Nagasaki, the "gratuitous" bombing (c.f. wikipedia article on the bombings), three days later. Hiroshima is widely remembered, but Nagasaki, which was much more morally questionable is generally only remembered, at least outside of Japan, in the same breath.
lat at 03:45 PM JST - 15th July

Just out of curiousity, has any member of the Royal family in Japan ever visited Pearl Harbor?

I think it would be a great symbol for Obama to go to Hiroshima or Nagasaki to reinforce his stance on denuclearization. On the other hand, and generally speaking, it would be even greater for the Japanese government/Japanese people to stop victimizing themselves, acknowledge their past without trying to revise or dilute it, and pay the same respects to other countries that they demand.
JeffLee at 07:25 PM JST - 15th July

The bombings quickly ended the most destructive war in the history of mankind. There is NO need to apologize for achieving that.

This isn't merely an opinion. Read the emperor's surrender speech or read about how the Japanese govt decidedly ignored the Potsdam declaration isssued days before the bombings took place.
Potsu at 11:36 PM JST - 15th July

Yes,Japan is just SO important...lol.
smithinjapan at 12:54 AM JST - 16th July

JeffLee: "The bombings quickly ended the most destructive war in the history of mankind. There is NO need to apologize for achieving that."

There is indeed, particularly because it killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS in mere instants (both bombings), the majority of whom were completely innocent of any crime, and because it was politics moreso than 'ending the war' which led to the bombing (pressure from the 'Red Threat', pressure to show what billions of dollars in the 40's had gone into making, etc.), and finally because there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the war was all but over and Japan was ready to surrender.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the single greatest crimes against humanity in human history, without any doubt. I really didn't want to get into this, but since you had to bring it up and justify it, there you go. It's both sad and disgusting in this day and age that so many still equate some sort of apology on behalf of what happened with guilt. Granted, the US government really SHOULD be sorry about the bombings and the deaths of innocents that they caused, even if they DO believe in the moronic idea that said bombings somehow 'saved' lives.

As I said before, though, it would be NICE for an American president to show up and express regret about what happened, even if he felt it was 'necessary', and to apologize for the losses of war in general (it needn't mean s/he is guilty him/herself, you know!).
TheQuestion at 02:00 AM JST - 16th July

There is indeed, particularly because it killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS in mere instants (both bombings), the majority of whom were completely innocent of any crime, and because it was politics moreso than 'ending the war' which led to the bombing (pressure from the 'Red Threat', pressure to show what billions of dollars in the 40's had gone into making, etc.), and finally because there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the war was all but over and Japan was ready to surrender.

I suggest you read up on the alternative to the bombs. An invasion plan devised by McArthur dubed Operation Downfall before he knew of the atomic bombs estimated American casualties in the millions and tens of millions of dead japanese resulting in the extermination of up to 80% of the total population. Would that have been preferable?

Also, there were no talks of surrender by the Big Six only a peace agreement between Japan and the Soviet Union (who were going to turn on the Japanese anyway as a result of the Yalta Conference), nothing about peace with the U.S.
otis123 at 05:24 AM JST - 16th July

smithinjapan: "The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the single greatest crimes against humanity in human history." I read a lot of stupid things here, but that takes the crown for the day. People have been killing one another for little or no reason since the beginning of time. Let's assume that there were no valid reasons for the US to drop the bombs. Is there any reason why the killing of these innocents was a greater crime against humanity than those that were killed before, or have been killed since? Really, what's the point of singling this out over the fire bombings of Tokyo, massacre in Nanjing, genocide in Bosnia? Very bad things happen in wars, and usually not for the greatest reasons. It's kind of morose to compare atrocities, don't you think?
JeffLee at 10:31 AM JST - 16th July

Miyake also wrote that the bomb was dropped out of hatred. Ridiculous. It was dropped to bring a swift end of a war that the rest of the world had grown weary of, especially after the Nazi surrender. I read her piece in the IHT. She fails to mention the, um, war (It was called "World War 2," Issey-chan) that was going on at the time, and focused the usual victimization of the peace-loving Japanese, now by a nuke-armed North Korea.
griff at 10:40 AM JST - 16th July

battle of okinawa:

Casualties totaled more than 38,000 Americans wounded and 12,000 killed or missing, more than 107,000 Japanese and Okinawan conscripts killed, and perhaps 100,000 Okinawan civilians who perished in the battle.

atomic bombings:

Total Casualties 135,000 + 64,000

whilst i agree that there was an element of the yanks wanting to try out their new toy, the battle of okinawa was an absolute bloodbath and is pretty compelling evidence to suggest that the bombings resulted in less casualties than an invasion of the mainland would have
smithinjapan at 03:38 PM JST - 16th July

otis123: "I read a lot of stupid things on here, that that takes the crown for the day".

I'll only touch on this briefly because I don't believe this thread is about saying how badly the bombings were, let alone in comparison to the other atrocities you mention, but I will touch on it. If it IS the stupidest thing you've read, then you have not read very much at all, or else you are just very subjective in your judgments. I NEVER said anywhere that war is NOT bad, and that other atrocities don't happen, or that hundreds of thousands weren't killed in said atrocities, etc. What I was saying was in response to a previous poster who claimed the purpose of the bombings was to end the war, which is not true. The purpose of the bombings were three or four-fold, if not more, and ending the war was least among them. First and foremost was to threaten the Russians, whom it was quite certain were going to be the next 'threat' (I can't remember who said it... maybe McCarthy, but someone said the other 7 or 8 bombs they had ready or nearly ready should be dropped on Russia to end the threat now). Another of the main reasons was to simply show investors what they had paid for, since there was increasing pressure to display what billions (and this was in the 40s!) had gone into making. Then they went about choosing which places would be best to 'test' the weapons, etc., etc. This was nothing like any atrocity seen to date, or to be repeated, and I hope it never will be.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the war was on its last legs and Japan about to surrender, as people here were sicker of the war of attrition than anywhere else in the world, and I'm surprised anyone can say, "If it didn't end there would have been MILLIONS of American casualties" or other such nonsense with a straight face. That is utter nonsense at its worse, and THAT should win stupid post of the day, award.

But back to things at hand... I do think it would be good for a US president to visit the peace memorial and attend a ceremony. Does he/she need to apologize? I think it's up to them, but not entirely 'necessary'. There are ways, however, of apologizing for war and death that do not make it one's fault, and paying respects as such could only serve to strengthen ties and perhaps mend some old wounds.

It's the same with the Emperor visiting Hawaii -- if he does so, and laments war and says he's sorry for the loss of lives and everything, I think it's a good thing.
JeffLee at 07:43 AM JST - 17th July

Smithinjapan: I don't even know where to begin to pick apart your feeble arguments. Here's start: ..."there is plenty of evidence to suggest the war was on its last legs and Japan about to surrender...." What evidence? Funny, you don't mention any. There is, however, a lot of revisionist claptrap that borders on conspiracy theories, much of it being "research" funded by the Hiroshima Peace Institute, whose conclusions are determined beforehand. How's this for evidence: the emporer's surrender speech, in which he clearly explains that the surrender decision was due to the use of the a-bombs. And, Tokyo's official rejection of the Potsdam Declaration, which clearly indicates Japan's determination to continue the war in the days before the a-bombs were known about. They were offered surrender; they refused. They were bombed 2 weeks later; they accepted. Both items are on the record. Check them out. George MacDonald Fraser, serving in the British Army Burma at the time, wrote, "the Japanese soldiers we fought in the early summer of 1945 were in absolutely no mood to surrender." ("Quartered Safe Out Here")

I could go on, and on, but suffice to say that evaluating the bombings while ignoring their immense strategic role (quickly ending World War 2) is utterly absurd. But that's Hiroshima-style revisionism for you.
Seiharinokaze at 02:53 PM JST - 17th July

By the spring of 1945, major cities of Japan had been almost nothing but burn-out ruins. It was matter of time that Japan would surrender. The government began to grope for termination of the war through mediation by the Soviets, the possibility of which the U.S. dared not pursue. Why? Hadn't they grown weary of the war along with the rest of the world?

It's not so much the A-bombs as the Soviets' entering the war that made Japan decide to surrender. Those in the military who were in no mood to surrender could only plan the decisive battle on the mainland inasmuch as the Soviets kept the neutral treaty and stayed out of the war. How could Japan fight with the Soviets while continuing to fight with the U.S., Britain, China? Also the advocates for peace move feared most that Japan would have to follow the tragic destiny of the prewar regimes of East Europe which collapsed after the invasion by the Soviets. Attrition by the war and invasion by the Soviets were enough to end the war.

We were offered surrender on July 26, 1945 but the order to drop the bombs was already issued on July 25th. They decided to drop it with or without Japan's disregard for the Potsdam Declaration. But I wonder why the Potsdam didn't clarify the deadline for acceptance or the post-surrender status of the emperor. And why was it declared under the names of the U.S., Britain and China to which the Soviets did not join her name if she would enter the war in two weeks, when Japan though ostensibly ignoring the Potsdam was still placing her stupid hopes on the Soviets to terminate the war with the imperial system intact?

The U.S. decided to drop the bombs in haste which were fresh from the laboratory before the Soviets began invading. They even decided it without conferring with the U.S. commanders in chief of the land, sea and air forces. Gen. MacArthur afterwards said that if he had been consulted beforehand on the A-bombing on Japan, he would have answered that there would be no need for that. The U.S. wanted to end the war with least possible influence by the Soviets to take initiative in the post-surrender disposal of Japan. A-bomb was a timely and desirable substitute for the Soviets' invasion to end the war. They dropped it not to save lives but to have as much portion to themselves as possible, with of course smallest casualties on their side only. Very rational thinking indeed.
Gombei424Canada at 04:21 PM JST - 17th July

Well, I feel Obama SHOULD come to Miyake's furusato (hometown).News Flash: he is only like the most popular person on the planet at the moment and his speeches play 24/7 on MY ipod.(Of course I mean Obama) Anyway, my friends, The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just incredibly iniquitous, particularly because they decimated HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people in a few mere seconds of time, and because it was all PURE politics as we all know.Seriously, it reminds me of bush's war in Iraq and Afghanistan.Why can't they fight hand to hand if they are so devoted to their cause?Why do they need to drop their weapons from airplanes? Finally,I really need to say there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the war was all but over, and that Japan was ready to agree to surrender.But I can't be bothered to post any of the proof here.Anyways, said proof is out there.Take my word for it.

Anyways, kudos to IM, one of my FAVOURITE designers. Woody Guthrie used to have a guitar that had this message,so Ghandi-like,written on it: "This machine kills fascists" Well, it's the same in this situation,but It's hard to explain. Issey Miyake's festive scarves kill fascists!
otis123 at 03:51 AM JST - 18th July

Smithinjapan: No, regardless of your intent, you did say that the bombings were the worst atrocity in human history. The reason I think that statement is ridiculous is not because I think the bombings were justified, because I don't. But by claiming that it is the "worst atrocity" you seem to be valuing those 200,000 lives that were pointlessly wasted over the millions who have been killed in other atrocities. Now I'm sure that wasn't necessarily your intention, but by making a comparative statement like that (even if it is as a comeback to some of the other crazy comments written here), you are then comparing the relative worth of the lives of the victims. Whether it is 200,000 people killed in an instant or millions of people killed over several years, is there any point in saying something was the "worst atrocity" ever? Atrocities are atrocities...their relative "value" is solely determined by our relationship to people involved.
jhk at 12:22 PM JST - 18th July

Obama will announce that all nuclear weapons have been moved out of the cities, and then redraw the borders of the cities to accomodate, or else sell them to Israel. When he said, "yes we can", he was only referring to himself and wall street.