Slashdot Mirror


Obama To Become First US President To Visit Hiroshima Since 1945 Nuclear Attack (independent.co.uk)

An anonymous reader writes: The White House announced U.S. President Barack Obama will visit Hiroshima, becoming the first sitting American President to do so since the city was destroyed in 1945 by a U.S. nuclear bomb. President Obama and Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will visit the city on May 27th "to highlight his continued commitment to pursuing the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement. Obama said he hoped to visit both Hiroshima and Nagasaki when he first visited Japan in November 2009. "The memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are etched in the minds of the world, and I would be honored to have the opportunity to visit those cities at some point during my presidency," President Obama said at the time. At least 140,000 people died from the nuclear attack on Hiroshima on August 9, 1945. Three days later, the U.S. dropped a second atomic weapon on Nagasaki. Japan surrendered to Allied forces within a week after that second attack.

10 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Cue the millenials... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Cue the millennials' halfwitted observation that the bombs were "unjust" and my grandparents should've gone into another brutal, horrifying ground war in Japan.

    My grandfather had a stroke and spent the last eight years of his life screaming, "I'LL KILL THAT FUCKING HITLER, GOD DAMN HITLER!" He had never swore before the stroke. That ground war was burned into his mind, and was a burden he had to carry the rest of his life.

    1. Re:Cue the millenials... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "To the victor goes the spoil."

      And that spoil includes living long enough to write the history books.

      It's as true with the Cheyenne as it is with the Japanese... or anyone else. This fact has not changed in all of human history, nor will it.

    2. Re:Cue the millenials... by nukenerd · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Cue the millennials' halfwitted observation that the bombs were "unjust" and my grandparents should've gone into another brutal, horrifying ground war in Japan.

      Why would a ground war have been necessary? By the time the bombs were dropped Japan was no longer a serious threat. Any ship that ventured out of harbour was being sunk, and Jap ground troops around the Pacific had run out of food and ammo (most of those never surrendered anyway). The British had defeated them in Burma (partly because the Jap supply system had collapsed), and it could have been left to Russia to drive them out of China.

      Japan has few natural resources, in particular no reliable source of oil. Any attempt to re-supply themselves with strategic materials or to resume building aircraft or warships over the following decades could have been nipped in the bud with some pin-point conventional bombing (seriousy, the USAF was good at that).

      A "surrender", conditional or otherwise, was unnecessary - Japan could have been simply cut off and left to get on with fishing and to stew in its own fish juice. But Western politicians wanted something dramatic.

    3. Re:Cue the millenials... by AdamHaun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The parent is obvious flamebait, but I like history, so I'll share some here...

      There was an interesting article in Foreign Policy a couple years ago (possibly paywalled link here) which argued that the Soviet declaration of war was what really prompted the surrender. The author bases this on several arguments, among them:

      * The atomic bombing of Hiroshima did not particularly stand out in the context of a huge and destructive conventional bombing campaign.
      * The Japanese Supreme Council did not discuss the Hiroshima bombing at all, and indeed, did not seem to care much about the destruction of cities.
      * Soviet mediation was seen as the last hope for avoiding an unconditional surrender.
      * Japanese forces were deployed to defend against a U.S. invasion, not a Soviet invasion from the opposite direction.
      * Giving the atomic bomb credit for provoking the surrender was politically convenient for the emperor as well as the United States.

      It's worth a read if you can actually get to the article. There's a comment on the AskHistorians Reddit about the article by Restricted Data (Alex Wellerstein), which gives the original source of this argument (Tsuyoshi Hasegawa), and offers some historiographical context:

      Hasegawa's book is very well done. He has managed for the first time to really put together a cohesive, persuasive argument about the end-game machinations in Japan, the United States, and Soviet Union. The other historians of the bomb I know are pretty convinced at least to the point that the Soviet invasion was more influential on the Japanese than the bombs. Not all of them think the bomb was of no influence, or that it would have ended without using them, though Hasegawa himself is apparently convinced of this, from what I've read.

      (Personally, I am on the fence to the degree that I just don't see how we can disentangle the atomic bombs from the Soviet invasion as fully as would be necessary to say this with authority, but I am convinced that the Soviet invasion mattered at least as much, if not more, than the atomic bombs.)

      The same comment also points out an important aspect of the "moral" debate:

      Note that the question of whether the bombs "worked" or not is a completely separate one from whether the people who used them were justified in doing so according to what they knew at the time. People tend to think that the former implies a moral argument about the latter, but it is an entirely separate issue regarding motivation and "the decision." (Note that even characterizing the use of the bomb as being the result of some large moral deliberation, or some sort of invasion vs. bombing tradeoff, is kind of anachronistic.)

      He also has a related article here.

      I don't have much of an opinion on whether the atomic bombing was "justified" or not. Large-scale attacks on civilians were common through the war in both theaters, so focusing solely on the atomic bomb seems rather limited to me.

      --
      Visit the
    4. Re:Cue the millenials... by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I believe the reason for the different awareness of WW2 atrocities committed by Germany and Japan amount mainly to cultural differences, but also the generally higher focus and interest in Europe as opposed to the far east, coupled with a well organized Jewish community that naturally has a high interest in clearing up and highlighting the events that took place.

      If you had to describe German culture in one word, it would have to be "pragmatic".In the face of overwhelming evidence on the atrocities committed by the Nazis (which many Germans where blissfully unaware of), the only way forward was to accept the facts for what they were, soak in all the guilt and make the best possible thing of it by keeping the memory alive and doing the very best that something similar never happens again. Now it has relaxed somewhat, but throughout the 80's and 90's there were critical documentaries about WW2 and the atrocities on the Nazis in German TV practically every week, and this was also a big topic for all students in German schools.

      Japan on the other hand, as most other far-east cultures, has this very important cultural theme of upholding hohor and not losing face. Even when it is irrefutably clear that mistakes are made or something is not right, the Japanese way is to ignore it as much as possible and do business as usual, so that nobody has to lose face (least of all the Japanese culture itself). This is essential, as losing honor, in traditional Japanese interpretation, would basically mean that you should kill yourself. While Japan has westernized and modernized over the last decades, there are still many nationalist elements in Japanese society that do their best trying to silence any voices about Japanese WW2 atrocities while at the same time promoting the theme of the "honorable" and "brave" soldiers who sacrificed themselves for the Japanese Empire.

      So obviously, we have two very different ways of dealing with the past here. Then, as I said earlier, there was also the Jewish community actively working to promote awareness for the atrocities committed by the Nazis, something which was lacking in Asia for the Japanese atrocities. The Chinese and Koreans, the main candidates for this endeavor, where too busy with their own problems after WW2.

    5. Re:Cue the millenials... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      About 15% of the people killed in the Hiroshima atomic bombing were Koreans brought over as a slave labor force. They're just classified as Japanese deaths because Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910 and Korea politically ceased to exist. That didn't stop the Japanese from denying them health benefits for surviving the atomic bombings.

      On a personal level, Japanese soldiers forced my grandmother to watch as they raped then killed her sister and niece. All as a ploy to coerce my grandfather (the village doctor) into treating their commanding officer. That's the sort of stuff the people against the atomic bombings are advocating the Allies should have let continue for who knows how many more months.

    6. Re:Cue the millenials... by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There are a few documentaries on the subject - one named Hiroshima (strangely enough) where such sentiments are expressed. One lady seemed only to regret that we studied her like a bug afterwards and made her stand naked, barely pubescent, in front of a bunch of doctors and non-doctors - and did so a number of times as we studied the progress of the folks who were in the area.

      However, there are other such sentiments being expressed in a number of the recap documentaries. You can probably pick any two and find one of them with someone in there mentioning it. I'd suggest also Hirohito's War. I don't know if it will give you any insight in that direction but it will actually give some information as to why the war ended when it did and how it did.

      It's a myth to say that the bombing made it happen. It's a myth to say that it didn't hasten the choice. It's a myth to discount the Russians stomping down across Manchuria and taking some islands (angry Russians are angry). It's a myth to say that Japan was trying to surrender.

      Really, it's rather complicated - as it usually is. People like simple so they remain stupid and polarized and you get threads like this where people who have only chosen one source are adamant about what they believe. The reason I suggest the latter is because much of it is from the Emperor himself. I don't know but I think we can count that as authoritative, don't you?

      I believe that the Emperor expressed sorrow at having forced the American's hands. There are those who say we should have staved them out but that's probably the most retarded thing I've ever heard - on the subject. It discounts the continued atrocities and soldiers elsewhere and the blind devotion to war that they had going on. I'm sure (I've not made it far into the thread) that someone will suggest that. It's almost always present in every one of these threads.

      I am not, technically, a historian or anything but I'm going to wager that I'm fairly well versed in the history and have opted to get my history from myriad sources and not just the US versions. There are inherent biases so it's important to get as much information as one can and go from there.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Re:pander to republicans?!?!?!?? by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why would history judge his presidency to be horrible?

    Why wouldn't it? The primary arguments for Obama are checking off the appropriate ethnicity boxes, kludging pre-existing medical conditions, and being the lesser of two evils in two presidential races.

    The arguments against include pathological and often criminal behavior in his administration on par with the worst in US history, remarkably bad legislative and regulatory efforts, terrible economic policy, terrible foreign policy, and a larger than normal number of unanimous Supreme Court defeats for blatantly unconstitutional practices.

  3. Re:pander to republicans?!?!?!?? by shanen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Obviously President Obama did a terrible job because he couldn't clean up the mess left behind by Dubya and the big dick Cheney.

    The ability to blame OTHER people for their mistakes and incompetence is one of the trademarks of today's so-called Republican Party. NOT to be confused with Abe Lincoln's party that accepted "government of the people, by the people, for the people" as a good thing. Later on the GOP shifted to "government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1%", but at least Teddy and Ike expressed some reservations.

    Now we have Trump, who may bring us "government of the Donald, by the Donald, for the Donald".

    Not trolling. Just stating what is "intuitively obvious to the most casual observer" of American political history.

    By the way, as regards the original article, I have concluded that we were not really experimenting when we dropped the bombs. From our test we knew it was a bad thing. Mostly we wanted to send a very clear message to everyone, but especially to the Soviet Union.

    My belief is that if we had really wanted to end the war ASAP, then we would have dropped the first one on Mount Fuji, and the second one would have been the first and probably only city. No one in Hiroshima could figure out what had happened. There was only one physicist close enough to the city to see it, know what it was, and survive. If we had hit Fuji first, then ALL the physicists in Tokyo would have known EXACTLY what it was, and the second bomb would have made it absolutely clear that it wasn't a one-off.

    Second disclaimer: I live in Japan now. While I think my views are consistent, they have evolved somewhat over the years since I walked through the Enola Gay during its brief exhibition in the Smithsonian.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  4. Japanese people turned on former gov't by drnb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It constantly amazes me that the japenese don't appear to harbor extreme hatred to all americans. I know I would if they had nuked my country for whatever reason.

    First, the nukes were such a small percentage of casualties. Civilians don't really distinguish between being nuked, firebombed or starved to death.

    Secondly, you don't understand the perspective of the Japanese people at the time. After the war they quickly came to understand the truth about the magnitude of the lies their militarist government had told them, manipulated them into war. The Japanese public had a incredible turn of opinion against their former leaders. Many genuinely grew to like General MacArthur during the occupation. Having spent so much time in Asia earlier in his career he was one of the few generals who understood their culture and perspective on the world and was well equipped to co-opt that perspective.

    Little things he did had a vast impact. When he first landed in Japan and went into Tokyo for the first time he allowed Japanese troops to line the streets on his route and provide security. He had minimal US security on that drive. The public noted that, was surprised at such "civilized" behavior by the American military. It didn't make sense, it didn't match what they had been told. Plus as people came home and told their stories of interactions with Americans even on the battlefield, the anger at the former government grew. In one documentary I recall a Japanese Army Nurse describing how Japanese soldiers on Okinawa gave them hand grenades to commit suicide with. Hers was a dud and failed to detonate when she tried to use it at a later date. She was wounded by mortars and when an American solder approached her, drew his knife, she expected to be raped and tortured and killed as all the American barbarian soldiers would do such things. She was absolutely shocked when he used the knife to cut open her pants near her wound and began to sanitize and bandage her wound before he moved on to another injured person. As she watched the Americans she began to realize she had been lied to, that they weren't barbarians. She had literally been told that some American soldiers were cannibals. Seeing victorious Americans act in humane and civilized ways was a complete shock to many Japanese given what they had been told for so many years. This had a huge impact on the post-war occupation. Probably the wisest, although most likely a quite unjust thing, that MacArthur did was to allow the emperor to live and continue on in a ceremonial role.