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.
I tried to tell a joke to Obama about Hiroshima once...it bombed.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
This is all a celebration of Obama. He is in "First President to do X" mode, in a vain attempt to make his terms in office, not look so horrible, when history ultimately judges it to be so.
The only question is if He will apologize for Pearl Harbor or not. You, mean America putting that island in the way of all of those Japanese planes and bombs.
This is ZERO republican, and 100% Obama.
I wonder if he'll get in any golf while he's over there?
There were a lot American GIs, a lot of Chinese, a lot of Koreans, a lot Filipinos, a lot of Burmese, and so forth, who shed no tears for the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was an aggressor state, an expansionist militaristic empire that caused the peoples of Asia significant grief and death. The atrocities the Japanese committed in Asia have never got the attention they deserved.
At any rate, even after the first bomb, the Japanese government dithered on whether to surrender unconditionally. Even after the second bomb, some officers briefly attempted to kidnap the Emperor to prevent him ordering the unconditional surrender. So all this rubbish that so frequently gets claimed about Japan being ready to surrender before the atomic bombs really is revisionist crapola. Japan wanted a conditional surrender that would have largely left the aristocracy and the military leadership intact, and there was no way the US was going to allow the regime to remain intact. Japan needed to brought low. The Japanese people needed to be brought low, just as the German people needed to be. Yes, the Emperor was ultimately preserved, but largely for continuity. Everything else about Japan was transformed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Do you all think it's accidental that as soon as we know who the candidates for president are going to be that Obama's approval ratings go up? It's as if people are saying, "Holy shit. Obama wasn't really so bad after all."
He's currently got a higher approval rating than Ronald Reagan at the same point in their terms.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"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.
President Carter visited the site after his presidential term was complete.
In total war, there are no innocents. That's why modern war should be avoided.
It was American lives or Japanese lives, and the US rightly decided to save American lives. In the end, an invasion of the Japanese main island would likely have cost a lot more Japanese lives than the two atom bombs.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
At any rate, even after the first bomb, the Japanese government dithered on whether to surrender unconditionally.
There are official communications within the government that indicated the military leaders insisted Hiroshima wasn't a nuclear bomb. It was a large-scale conventional bombing (like Dresden) with a dirty bomb at the end, to make it look nuclear. The radiation levels were lower than expected, and the destruction less (see the modern day conspiracy theorists that insist there are no atom bombs), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... was still standing and was near ground-zero. The destruciton wasn't dissimilar to a conventional bombing, with scattered buildings left standing.
Japan surrendered both before and after Hiroshima. Though every surrender before Nagasaki included the conditions that the Japanese government be left as-was (including domination by the military in civilian affairs), and nobody be tried for war crimes. Both of those were unacceptable conditions at the time.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm always a bit baffled by how the world keeps looking at Germany and Japan's WWII histories. Germany's is 'What we did was horrible, never forget when we did' and Japan's is always 'What was done to us was horrible, never forget what happened to us.'
Anytime I see any sort of WWII memorial sort of thing here and there, it's almost always about either the Holocaust or the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings. Well, those are two very different things. The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, the Rape of Nanjing, Unit 731, the so-called 'comfort women' (or to call that what it actually was, sexual slavery)...I mean, without even considering Pearl Harbor, let's not pretend that there wasn't one hell of a lead up to the bombings.
It just seems wrong that we spend so much more time talking about the thing that ended the war than the actions, and victims, that made those means necessary.
What? I mean the holocaust happened during the same war even.
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:
The same comment also points out an important aspect of the "moral" debate:
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
My father was in the 10th Mountain Division in Northern Italy fighting the Nazi's 1945 earning a Silver Star and Purple Heart. His company, being battled tested, was told next stop is the south Pacific... Then the Bomb was dropped and the course of history changed. Nevertheless I am not angry about Obama visiting Hiroshima. It is about time politicians paid attention to the past and understand the terrible power we wield and the horrendous consequence of war. Now maybe a Japanese leader will visit Nanking or a Turkish leader will visit an Armenian site. Bout time I say.
It is mathematically impossible for Obama to beat Reagan's record for vacation time while in office, no matter how are he tries...
Presidents get paid to make decisions, not to dig ditches by the hour. If a vacation helps clear his mind, so he makes better decisions, then that is a good thing. Eisenhower once cut short a meeting on a proposal to send troops into Vietnam because he had an appointment to play golf. If Lyndon Johnson devoted as much time to golf, then 58,000 American casualties could have been avoided.
The lifetimes of those involved.
Time to get over it.
It's time to stop cursing Alexander the Great. But some cultures pass down this hatred as part of their oral tradition to keep the hate alive.
There were a lot American GIs, a lot of Chinese, a lot of Koreans, a lot Filipinos, a lot of Burmese, and so forth...
There was also my Father, fighting the Nazis from early 1940 until VE Day in 1945, who was told that he would be sent, with his regiment to fight in Japan. I don't know if they would have mutinied, (they probably wouldn't have) but I can tell you he was very angry at the thought of another 2 (or 3 or more) years of war. My father was extremely happy about the atom bombs, they saved millions of lives, possibly including his.
it was far far less than had we NOT dropped the bomb.
Japan had no intention of surrendering and it was going to be a bloody battle all the way through Japan to make it happen.
By dropping the bombs, it solved everything with a lot fewer loss of lives, esp. of Allied lives who were attacked by Germany and Japan.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
That is a piss-poor excuse for bad presidents. The president does a lot more than make decisions, this trip to Hiroshima is not "making a decision," it's strengthening our relationship with Japan. It's an act of diplomacy, one of many responsibilities that the president has.
Destroying the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Ukraine, what government working in Iraq, Afghanistan, screwing over our relationships with Russia, China, Saudi Arabia letting Turkey fail to religious fascism, getting walked over by Iran and Cuba. The man should stay home locked away till the end of year if he wants to stop the pain.
Which Germans offered to surrender?
In 1943, Wilhelm Canaris, the head of the Abwehr (German Intelligence) offered to assassinate Hitler and end the war. Churchill's reply was that the Allies would accept no terms but unconditional surrender. Later in the war, the Nazis executed Canaris for treason.
In July 1944, a coup was launched and an attempt was made to assassinate Hitler. The plan was to kill Hitler, and then immediately negotiate a surrender. The assassination failed, but the coup did not collapse until it was clear that the Allies had refused to negotiate and were unwilling to accept any terms that included soldiers returning home, rather than going to labor camps (where, at least in Russia, most inmates died). From 1944 on, the Allies were fighting for the right to have death camps, and nothing more.
The summary says Hiroshima was on the 9th, followed by Nagasaki three days later, but the Hiroshima bombing was on the 6th of August, 1945, followed by Nagasaki on the 9th.
No apology of any type should be issued.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
So they still got that emperor?
Hirohito's son, Akihito is the current emperor of Japan. Their family dynasty dates back to Emperor Jimmu in 660BC, making it, by far, the longest reigning dynasty in history. The main reason for the dynasty's longevity, is that for nearly all of that time, the emperor was just a figurehead with very little actual authority, while the real power was exercised by the Shogun.
In addition, the Japanese had organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps, which included all healthy men aged 15 to 60 and women 17 to 40 for a total of 28 million people, for combat support and, later, combat jobs. Weapons, training and uniforms were generally lacking: some men were armed with nothing better than muzzle-loading muskets, longbows or bamboo spears; nevertheless, they were expected to make do with what they had.[53][54] One mobilized high school girl, Yukiko Kasai, found herself issued an awl and told, "Even killing one American soldier will do. ... You must aim for the abdomen."[55]
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
I don't know, I think most of the Japanese are appropriately sorry for what they did. Why'd you ask? 'Cause there's not many, only a few, that still worship their war criminals. So, I'd say the Statute of Limitations has passed and the average Japanese citizen needn't worry any more. Funny that you mention it though.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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."
I thought you weren't retarded?
To those who read my above post. See? I told you there'd be one. *sighs*
Yes, you're RIGHT because there were no atrocity committing Japanese anywhere else on the globe but on that island! Sure thing, you brave warrior cum historian you! Sure thing.
*sighs* I should know better than to go to these threads.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You're implying Americans read? Ha!
No, we don't worship libraries - nice try but no. Still, does Bush have one yet? I really haven't kept track. Note: I don't even *like* Bush - so I don't worship him. If anyone does worship him, I'll call them dangerous and idiots. Probably dangerous because they are idiots.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The Soviet attack on the mainland of Asia was of little consequence. The Soviets did not possess the ability to launch a large scale amphibious attack on the Japanese home islands. The millions of Japanese troops on the Asian mainland could not be returned to the Japanese home islands for its defense due to the US Naval dominance of the sea. The threat against the home islands was entirely US, either invasion or blockade and famine.
... however these diplomats lived in fear of the militarists learning of their opinions and actions which would have resulted in immediate execution. Surrender was only possible for one and only one reason, the emperor decided so. And even after he decided so the militarists assaulted the imperial palace to rescue the emperor from the "lies" of these "traitors", and to capture the emperor's message to the Japanese people announcing the surrender.
We can argue about what diplomats might have thought and might have wanted and might have secretly made inquiries about
There is quite a bit of whitewashing and revisionism among Japanese sources. They often downplay the "ground truth" of the militarists control of the situation up to the moment of the Japanese people hearing the surrender broadcast of the emperor.
No tears shed even for the innocent killed?
Yes, it's a shame that the Japanese government was so willing to see so many of their own innocent people die. That is entirely, 100%, on them. Luckily the US was able to use the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to greatly reduce the number of people that the Japanese government would otherwise have sacrificed in horrible, bloody, flaming "conventional" fighting before it was over. But yes, go ahead and shed tears for those victims of the government that the Japanese people allowed to run them into the ruin they experienced. It's a shame. Good thing the US was able to end it abruptly and save so many lives.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
So, no respect for Jefferson or any of the other founding fathers that were slave owners or benefitted from it?
Attempting to judge a man by modern mores isn't the brightest idea and you need to learn & understand his historical context before judging him.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
The Japanese had already agreed to cease hostilities and surrender.
No, they hadn't.
The Germans also offered to surrender in 1943
That didn't happen either. And I can't help but notice you defended that latter point with the following:
In 1943, Wilhelm Canaris [wikipedia.org], the head of the Abwehr (German Intelligence) offered to assassinate Hitler and end the war. Churchill's reply was that the Allies would accept no terms but unconditional surrender. Later in the war, the Nazis executed Canaris for treason.
So two observations here. First Canaris is not Germany. He was at best a representative of a faction which may have been attempting to negotiate in good faith or not with the British. And since he got executed, that indicates his faction probably couldn't have delivered on their promises even if they wanted to.
In July 1944, a coup was launched and an attempt was made to assassinate Hitler. The plan was to kill Hitler, and then immediately negotiate a surrender. The assassination failed, but the coup did not collapse until it was clear that the Allies had refused to negotiate and were unwilling to accept any terms that included soldiers returning home,
Again, a relatively weak faction is not Germany. And the squashing of the coup leaders indicates they didn't have the power to negotiate a surrender just like Canaris didn't in 1943.
Finally, even if we pretend the situation were as you suggested, why would it be better to accept those terms of surrender? The obvious flaw with this argument is that the Second World War was a rerun of the First World War with the same parties starting both wars. Accepting conditions of surrender that allow Germany to start the Third World War in another generation are not an improvement.
You can't justify killing one innocent person to prevent crimes being committed against another innocent person.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You're still using hindsight to use modern values to judge when you're picking out minority opinions as correct when they were not at all guaranteed to become so at the time these men were alive. You yourself, while certainly believing yourself to be morally superior to men in history do not hold the values that will predominate in the future. Using your yardstick, lacking in context as I have been saying would be judged poorly in a few decades.
Mahatma Gandi's are vanishingly rare that can escape from being poorly judged by your yardstick and it is thus of little use when judging the actions of most men.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
And again, any offers to cease hostilities in both Germany and Japan were based on the leadership and senior military being protected and preserving their positions. The Allies were not going to allow the Axis powers to get away with preserving their political structures just to end the war early. They rightly brought those countries low, occupied them and imposed new governing models on them.
And the results speak for themselves. West Germany and Japan became firm allies and among the strongest economies on the planet.
If the existing power structures had been left in place (as some Germans and Japanese in senior positions hoped) then five years of war would have been utterly wasted. The enemy might have been defeated, but the core would remain, and it would have meant either endless occupation or risking a repeat of the 1930s.
Unconditional surrender was the only option, and it was absolutely right to force both countries to open themselves up without limit to the Allies.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
At the end of WWI, the Germans signed the Armistice while there were no invading boots on German soil. The German Army then launched on a very impressive campaign to deny their responsibility and claim they were doing just fine until they were stabbed in the back by civilian authorities, in one of the more impressive cases of military failure of moral courage I've seen.
Hitler and other conservatives argued hard that the Germans had not been beaten in the field, and used that lie to push for rearmament and a new war. The Allies were particularly anxious to make sure WWII didn't end in another twenty-year armistice (a French comment on the Treaty of Versailles), and wanted to make sure the Germans knew that they had been defeated militarily.
Also, in January 1945 the West was still reeling from the large German offensive in the Ardennes, popularly known as the Battle of the Bulge. The offensive had been contained by the end of the year, but still looked dangerous. (The Germans launched their last large-scale attack in the West at the very end of 1944.) The Western Allies really did want the Soviets to continue fighting.
You say that the Soviets were going to fight until they reached Berlin, but that wasn't at all obvious to the Western Allies at the time. The Red Army had expelled the invaders from the prewar Soviet Union in 1944, and had continued West from there, so there was no clear reason they wouldn't effectively stop pushing and let the Germans mass against the Western Allies. In 1944, the Soviets were still facing and killing many more Germans than the West did, and Western leaders were seriously worried about Soviet commitment. One big reason why the West wouldn't entertain a separate peace was that they feared Stalin would learn of it and do the same.
Also, your timing is wrong. In January 1945, Hitler was very much in charge, and the Germans were fighting hard in the West. Their morale started to waver in March and pretty much collapsed in April. I don't remember the details, but I believe the "surrender" offers you refer to came in April, when Goering and Himmler thought (incorrectly) that they could negotiate independently of Hitler. Their attempts were why Doenitz wound up as Fuhrer after Hitler's death; he was the high commander outside Berlin that Hitler thought he could rely on.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
After everything that had happened, and two nukes, the Japanese surrender was done with an arguably unconstitutional intervention from the Emperor. Nobody at the time knew if the Minister of War would go along with it, or if he'd order the Japanese Army to fight on. There were several raids in Tokyo by those who wanted to continue the war, including one in the Imperial Palace with the intent of stopping the surrender.
My conclusion is that I don't know what else would have caused the Japanese to surrender. I know how it proceeded historically, but I don't see surrender in other conditions as anything but speculation.
I do know that the nukes made a very large impression on Japanese leadership. In his announcement of surrender, the Emperor specifically mentioned"a new and most cruel bomb", and lumped the destruction of the Japanese navy, the continuing liberation of Japanese-occupied territory, the Soviet attack, and the destruction of the Japanese economy under "developments not necessarily favorable to Japan".
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes