How the Hiroshima bombing is taught around the world(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
How the Hiroshima bombing is taught around the world
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/08/06/how-the-hiroshima-bombing-is-taught-around-the-world/
11 comments
Fog of War, the documentary that inspired this page, is amazing. If you have an interest in history, and how powerful people make decisions, I recommend watching it. It's rare to see someone who once held an office of significant power be so frank in what they did wrong.
Wow thanks for that link. It is really begging for a visualization with the US city comparisons.
Dan Carlin has a wonderful analysis on this topic in his podcast.
There was an interesting Ask Historians thread about Nagasaki recently and the jist of it was that the decision to drop the second bomb wasn't made at the highest levels, or rather that it was hazily delegated much earlier and the call was made by local command. And because of local decisions, the moving up of the Nagasaki/Kokuro bombing by several days due to weather, makes it much harder to justify.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3c6xai/why_d...
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3c6xai/why_d...
>makes it much harder to justify.
Makes what harder to justify?
Makes what harder to justify?
>This is of relevance to the question because there are a lot of people who think the bombing of Hiroshima is justified, but when you get into the question of Nagasaki it gets more murky. Three days is not adequate time for a government to make a major decision; it is not really even adequate time for a government to assess what has happened (whether it was really an atomic bomb, what the damages were like, etc.).
TFP
TFP
If the decision was in the hands of theatre commanders it certainly doesn't make it harder to justify, and in fact deals a serious blow to the "the bombs were only dropped because of political relations with Russia" meme.
> Makes what harder to justify?
The widespread loss of civilian life.
The widespread loss of civilian life.
If Japan had surrendered would they have dropped another one?
Here's how the BBC has approached one aspect of this topic for school children: a short animated story told by a survivor of the bomb. I think it's well done and grounded in a moving personal recollection. It lacks the surrounding context to the bombing of Hiroshima (but then it's not meant to address that).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/33772230
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/33772230
Why is this linking to a Washington Post article that is nothing more than reposting content from Reddit? How is this not just click-baity spam?
Edit: Original Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/3fvjs1/how_is_the_...
Edit: Original Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/3fvjs1/how_is_the_...
The OP in Reddit is the author of this article. He came up with the idea, asked for it and added some context around it. I don't think that is spam.
Also alarming is how the writer has taken the opinion of about a handful of Canadians (I did a search on the reddit page that this writer posed the question and located about 9 self-proclaimed Canadians) and generalized it into an entire Nation's ( of 35 million + people) feedback / experience.
From the WP Post by the writer
>>> Canada: "Most Canadians are unaware of the crucial role Canada played in the development of the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (A uranium refinery in Ontario supplied the Manhattan Project.)
From the WP Post by the writer
>>> Canada: "Most Canadians are unaware of the crucial role Canada played in the development of the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (A uranium refinery in Ontario supplied the Manhattan Project.)
Well, this guy from the WP posted the AskReddit thread and then made an article about it... by copying and pasting quotes from reddit users verbatim.
I wish they had at least edited the responses.
I wish they had at least edited the responses.
Crowdsourcing your work sure is one way to get it done.
The person to automatically build stories reddit posts is going to make a lot of money one day. Kind of like the robostories for recaps of sporting events.
The person to automatically build stories reddit posts is going to make a lot of money one day. Kind of like the robostories for recaps of sporting events.
[deleted]
I think the way children were taught about World War II changed significantly over time in almost every one of the countries mentioned, in general from very simple good vs evil view to a more nuanced one.
Because of that, IMO, this list has little value without information about when the commenters were taught about the bombs.
Because of that, IMO, this list has little value without information about when the commenters were taught about the bombs.
Two related ideas in Japanese culture relevant to the discussion:
Ichi-go Ichi-e, 一期一会, is a 16th century Japanese phrase saying that we meet each other only once in a lifetime. (Opportunities are scarce.)
And then there are the stories of the three samurai and the songbird.
The samurai are Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Ieyasu.
Each of them encounters a songbird and wishes to hear it sing.
Nobunaga says, if you do not sing for me, then I will kill you. And he takes out his sword to slice the bird.
Hideyoshi says, if you do not sing for me, then I will make you sing. Then he offers the songbird something sweet.
Ieyasu sees the bird and says, if you do not sing for me, then I will wait until you do sing. He then sits and waits (forever).
There were many ways the allies could have ended World War II in the Pacific theater. The United States, with the dropping of the atomic bomb, chose to follow Oda Nobunaga's philosophy. Whether that is right or wrong is its own debate.
The philosophy of the 16th century samurai is a big thing in Japanese culture and often an interview question for candidates applying at a company. I have a limited knowledge of the samurai from visiting Nisshinkan in Aizu when I lived there. That was a samurai school where young fighters trained who fought in the civil war.
Ichi-go Ichi-e, 一期一会, is a 16th century Japanese phrase saying that we meet each other only once in a lifetime. (Opportunities are scarce.)
And then there are the stories of the three samurai and the songbird.
The samurai are Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Ieyasu.
Each of them encounters a songbird and wishes to hear it sing.
Nobunaga says, if you do not sing for me, then I will kill you. And he takes out his sword to slice the bird.
Hideyoshi says, if you do not sing for me, then I will make you sing. Then he offers the songbird something sweet.
Ieyasu sees the bird and says, if you do not sing for me, then I will wait until you do sing. He then sits and waits (forever).
There were many ways the allies could have ended World War II in the Pacific theater. The United States, with the dropping of the atomic bomb, chose to follow Oda Nobunaga's philosophy. Whether that is right or wrong is its own debate.
The philosophy of the 16th century samurai is a big thing in Japanese culture and often an interview question for candidates applying at a company. I have a limited knowledge of the samurai from visiting Nisshinkan in Aizu when I lived there. That was a samurai school where young fighters trained who fought in the civil war.
I'm all for parables that shed light on complicated situations, but isn't that one kind of sweeping everything that made it a difficult decision under the rug? When it comes to the decision of whether to drop the bomb there is like horrendous death any which way you go, but with killing a songbird as opposed to waiting it is more one sided.
Hm, I'm not sure. It's hard to tell the scale of something, even something small.
I lived in Japan for six months where I stayed in Aizu, which is in Fukushima, and it was directly after the disaster (Although I was there for different reasons). The bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were something I learned about when I was young because my grandfather was on the USS South Dakota, a battleship that fought in the Pacific theater. Obviously this has sort of shaped my views.
I later looked at which cities were bombed by my grandfather's ship and met some people whose relatives also fought in World War II, so that gave me a bit more perspective, but it's still something that is very hard to judge.
In looking at raw destruction, the Dresden firebombing was more destructive and more lethal. One thing that differentiates this attack was that it was mainly aimed at civilians.
I lived in Japan for six months where I stayed in Aizu, which is in Fukushima, and it was directly after the disaster (Although I was there for different reasons). The bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were something I learned about when I was young because my grandfather was on the USS South Dakota, a battleship that fought in the Pacific theater. Obviously this has sort of shaped my views.
I later looked at which cities were bombed by my grandfather's ship and met some people whose relatives also fought in World War II, so that gave me a bit more perspective, but it's still something that is very hard to judge.
In looking at raw destruction, the Dresden firebombing was more destructive and more lethal. One thing that differentiates this attack was that it was mainly aimed at civilians.
>Ieyasu sees the bird and says, if you do not sing for me, then I will wait until you do sing. He then sits and waits (forever).
The world had spent several years waiting for the Axis powers to be start being peaceful. Suggesting that everyone should have just sat and waited for them to stop waging war goes well beyond ignoring reality.
The world had spent several years waiting for the Axis powers to be start being peaceful. Suggesting that everyone should have just sat and waited for them to stop waging war goes well beyond ignoring reality.
Just China averaged 100,000 civilians killed per month (Korea and Indochina also had a steady massacre of civilians). Waiting for Japan to capitulate would of had its own serious set of costs.
[Edit changed "murdered" to "killed" to make it less inflammatory]
[Edit changed "murdered" to "killed" to make it less inflammatory]
Total estimate by the point of dropping the bombs was around 250,000 killed per month throughout the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, also including Malaya as it was called back then and Indonesia. That wouldn't include the previously liberated Philippines, a battle which cost 100-500K Philippine lives, see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila_massacre
Well, the analogy obviously doesn't cover all cases. Certain concessions could have been made to negotiate a surrender other than demanding unconditional surrender and for the emperor to resign. Again I'm not a historian, so my point of view is limited.
Culturally at the time there was a sort of head down stubborn attitude in Japan. Finding a solution to ending the conflict that fit within the scale of the violence would still be difficult, but it's hard to consider atomic weapons as the only way to end it.
Hindsight is always 20/20. In this case not really. There's no way to know 100% what would have happened, all we know is what did happen.
Culturally at the time there was a sort of head down stubborn attitude in Japan. Finding a solution to ending the conflict that fit within the scale of the violence would still be difficult, but it's hard to consider atomic weapons as the only way to end it.
Hindsight is always 20/20. In this case not really. There's no way to know 100% what would have happened, all we know is what did happen.
Based on this exhaustive study I recently read http://www.amazon.com/Five-Days-August-Became-Nuclear/dp/069... there was signaling we were open to allowing the Emperor to stay.
History's been my thing since, oh, the early 70s, and in the last half decade I've been closely studying WWII history, especially in the Pacific, and the Manhattan Project in general in the last half year or so. Nothing I've come across suggests there was any better option, if you accept the targeting of mixed use civilian-industrial areas.
Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, was toast as originally planned, too many IJA ground reinforcements, and our estimate of the number of Kamikazes was low, actually 8,000 or so (!). Thanks to the latter, the Battle of Okinawa was the most costly in US naval history, and it would have been much worse with their not having to fly so far let alone over the featureless ocean.
Those who knew about the Manhattan Project were planning on using 5-8 bombs to make Olympic feasible, and per the above linked book, there was major discussion about what to do with the 3rd bomb if the 2nd didn't force a surrender.
Those who didn't know were planning on mass use of chemical weapons....
The Soviets wouldn't have been much help, if ever, in taking the home islands (who's navy would land them even if they were willing?), but it didn't hurt how they predictably smashed through the IJA in China when they got started between the two bombs.
Just letting them starve on the home islands ... very bad, and again, costing a quarter million lives a month in the sphere outside of the home islands. East Asia was already enough of an abattoir, 25 million plus lives lost.
As for concessions, besides the fact that we'd pledged "unconditional surrender", which we indeed backed off of for the Emperor, I'm just not aware of what specific concessions we could have made that would have likely made a difference. Especially since unconditional surrender was part of a "never again" post-WWI attitude (per Tom Lehrer's MLF Lullaby "We taught them a lesson in 1918, and they've hardly bothered us since then") we were very determined that we wouldn't have to do this again. And, you know, we succeeded, and as I've noted in a previous recent A-bombing discussion, we've not had another great powers war since then.
History's been my thing since, oh, the early 70s, and in the last half decade I've been closely studying WWII history, especially in the Pacific, and the Manhattan Project in general in the last half year or so. Nothing I've come across suggests there was any better option, if you accept the targeting of mixed use civilian-industrial areas.
Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, was toast as originally planned, too many IJA ground reinforcements, and our estimate of the number of Kamikazes was low, actually 8,000 or so (!). Thanks to the latter, the Battle of Okinawa was the most costly in US naval history, and it would have been much worse with their not having to fly so far let alone over the featureless ocean.
Those who knew about the Manhattan Project were planning on using 5-8 bombs to make Olympic feasible, and per the above linked book, there was major discussion about what to do with the 3rd bomb if the 2nd didn't force a surrender.
Those who didn't know were planning on mass use of chemical weapons....
The Soviets wouldn't have been much help, if ever, in taking the home islands (who's navy would land them even if they were willing?), but it didn't hurt how they predictably smashed through the IJA in China when they got started between the two bombs.
Just letting them starve on the home islands ... very bad, and again, costing a quarter million lives a month in the sphere outside of the home islands. East Asia was already enough of an abattoir, 25 million plus lives lost.
As for concessions, besides the fact that we'd pledged "unconditional surrender", which we indeed backed off of for the Emperor, I'm just not aware of what specific concessions we could have made that would have likely made a difference. Especially since unconditional surrender was part of a "never again" post-WWI attitude (per Tom Lehrer's MLF Lullaby "We taught them a lesson in 1918, and they've hardly bothered us since then") we were very determined that we wouldn't have to do this again. And, you know, we succeeded, and as I've noted in a previous recent A-bombing discussion, we've not had another great powers war since then.
You're right, that does sound exhaustive.
Anyway, I just wanted to share my unique perspective and experiences without getting down voted, and I've already lost 2 karma on this discussion.
If you have an interest in the country's culture more than its military history (or modern military history) you might enjoy some of Alex Kerr's writing, either Lost Japan or Dogs and Demons.
Anyway, I just wanted to share my unique perspective and experiences without getting down voted, and I've already lost 2 karma on this discussion.
If you have an interest in the country's culture more than its military history (or modern military history) you might enjoy some of Alex Kerr's writing, either Lost Japan or Dogs and Demons.
Wish I could upvote this more. Maybe you should submit something like this as an article on the 9th for the second anniversary. The use of the bombs was horrific, but not using them could have been even more horrific.
Well, he was the first Shogun of Japan and he also lived the longest. Take it with a grain of salt.
Another Chinese proverb: 三人行必有我师焉.
Basically, we can all learn from each other.
Relevant because this article gives perspectives from around the world, all of which are interesting.
Ultimately, though, I feel this is an event in history that relies upon the mutual feelings of Japan and the United States.
Relevant because this article gives perspectives from around the world, all of which are interesting.
Ultimately, though, I feel this is an event in history that relies upon the mutual feelings of Japan and the United States.
>There were many ways the allies could have ended World War II in the Pacific theater.
There weren't really all that many ways it would end given that the Soviet Union operated independently and was in a position to invade much earlier.
There weren't really all that many ways it would end given that the Soviet Union operated independently and was in a position to invade much earlier.
Much of it depends on the person writing the textbook/commentary and their political affiliation. For example, just yesterday the speaker of the Russian parliament suggested trying the US for the attacks. I'm pretty sure that the textbooks in Russia are going to be updated soon to reflect a similar point of view.
As a thought experiment, and to illistrate the point so it really sinks in:
How many Americans were taught in school the White House was burnt down by an opposing army?
How many Americans were taught in school the White House was burnt down by an opposing army?
Is the war of 1812 not commonly taught? We learned about it and how the First Lady saved some important paintings from the White House. We didn't spend much time on it relative to bigger wars, but I understood it to be a standard part of American History.
I think that is the point: that Americans universally spend time learning about morally minor damage to an American building, but do not so commonly devote curricular time to truly considering the awfulness of the large-scale bombing of Japanese civilians.
From the comments:
One of the failures of teaching a balanced history is to ignore what was going on in Asia in the run up to the war. Perhaps because of our cultural biases, we focus so heavily on the atrocities of the Nazi's and entirely ignore the murders, rape, torture, etc of the Chinese, Indonesian, Philippines, Burmese, and other countries by the Japanese. When we do talk about their atrocities, we focus primarily on those committed against Caucasians prisoners of wars.
While the ethical aspects of using nuclear devices is important, it is also important to recognize that imperial Japan was arguably the most brutal and sadistic colonial expansions of the 20th century. Japan has done an excellent job of whitewashing their history. The US talks openly about the use of nuclear weapons. Japan is in a state of denial about their regime. Even the Rape of Nanking gets barely a sentence in their high school history books.
One of the failures of teaching a balanced history is to ignore what was going on in Asia in the run up to the war. Perhaps because of our cultural biases, we focus so heavily on the atrocities of the Nazi's and entirely ignore the murders, rape, torture, etc of the Chinese, Indonesian, Philippines, Burmese, and other countries by the Japanese. When we do talk about their atrocities, we focus primarily on those committed against Caucasians prisoners of wars.
While the ethical aspects of using nuclear devices is important, it is also important to recognize that imperial Japan was arguably the most brutal and sadistic colonial expansions of the 20th century. Japan has done an excellent job of whitewashing their history. The US talks openly about the use of nuclear weapons. Japan is in a state of denial about their regime. Even the Rape of Nanking gets barely a sentence in their high school history books.
I'd just like to add another data point. As an American, I don't recall ever being taught anything in school about the atrocities Japan committed on the Chinese, etc. Perhaps I was just a poor student :) but it obviously was not a main focus. It wasn't until I met my wife who is Chinese that I learned about this and she could not believe I didn't know about it. Of course it's a big part of the history education there and why many Chinese still hold strong grudges towards Japanese.
Another data point from Germany: I remember being taught (sometime during the 1990s) about atrocities committed by the Japanese during WW2 in history lessons in school. (Obviously, there was a lot more about the atrocities by the Germans)
Because General Douglas MacArthur granted the Japanese who participated in human biological experiments pardons to get their cooperation in collecting the research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shir%C5%8D_Ishii
But none of this makes justifying the murder of Japanese civilians ok, esp after the fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shir%C5%8D_Ishii
But none of this makes justifying the murder of Japanese civilians ok, esp after the fact.
Wow, that's probably the first wikipedia page I've ever had to close because I simply could not handle reading it...
We are supposed to have overcome this line of thinking. This is basically "an eye for an eye".
Not revenge. Every month sooner that the A-bomb brought the war's end was about 100k-250k civilians saved in the co-prosperity sphere. In the western narrative, the number of deaths the Japanese caused in their own region is rarely compared against the number who died in the atomic bombings.
>One of the failures of teaching a balanced history is to ignore what was going on in Asia in the run up to the war.
No. That's one of the failures of POORLY teaching history. Don't confuse a "balanced history" with "half of history".
No. That's one of the failures of POORLY teaching history. Don't confuse a "balanced history" with "half of history".
You're effectively saying that committing atrocities is justified if it's against someone who also commits them.
It never is.
It never is.
A-bombs saved zillions of lives. If you do not see this then you are a brain amputee.
zillions? raises eyebrow
This is absolutely true, but I have trouble seeing the relevancy of stating that in how it relates to the fact that two non-military, civilian-dense cities were bombed. Normally killing hundreds of thousands of civilians for political gains is considered terrorism, easily a warcrime, despite the fact their government may be driving its population to horrible atrocities all over Asia, or not doing enough to prevent them. In fact I don't think the US really covers this enough, it's usually brought as merely the end of a bloody war, when you can find many generals who opposed, arguable claims that the bombs were the first political move in the cold war as a gesture of power towards the Soviet Union and as a way to have Japan surrender to the US rather than the allies, and therefore under US terms which would cement US-Japanese relations (which are solid to this day), as a test, and within a context where Japan may have offered to surrender under similar conditions as the US ultimately demanded, many months earlier. To be fair, there is no academic consensus on any of these points, but many are credible and sensible claims for which evidence does exist, and my experience of the standard reading in US culture makes little mention of this. It's mostly seen as a necessary evil that saved many lives by ending the war abruptly, which isn't incorrect, but far from the comprehensive truth or the only credible historical narrative.
But as for Japan's whitewashing, yes, in and of itself, viewed separately from the nuclear debate, you're absolutely right. It's quite astonishing they haven't gotten this right yet, and with what power a wrongful national narrative can continue to exist in the age of internet, globalisation and relatively little Japanese censorship. You'd think the latest generation would be acutely aware of its history. And it's not as if they haven't changed. They've done more than enough to consider themselves among the most civilised countries since then, of course there is a sense of shame but we're approaching an age where nobody during that time was alive, and where even the generation after it is on their way out. Internally Japan is long overdue in recognising these parts of its history in full, and I think purely internally few Japanese really would have an issue with that, as painful as it would be, just like I'm completely comfortable as a Dutch person to acknowledge my country's colonial and slave history. But these things are particularly externally, politically sensitive, in terms of Japan's international relations with the various powerhouses in Asia (China and Korea, and populous emerging economies like say Indonesia). Similar to say, if I were a Dutch politician I may be more concerned how our standing in the world changes when recognising the full extent of our colonial history (e.g. apologising for certain political executions the Netherlands committed are still controversial) Just like say Turkey and the Armenian genocide. Although even here as an outsider I think it would warm Japan's relations immensely if it were to reach out in sympathy and make at the very least symbolic gestures like small reparations.
But as for Japan's whitewashing, yes, in and of itself, viewed separately from the nuclear debate, you're absolutely right. It's quite astonishing they haven't gotten this right yet, and with what power a wrongful national narrative can continue to exist in the age of internet, globalisation and relatively little Japanese censorship. You'd think the latest generation would be acutely aware of its history. And it's not as if they haven't changed. They've done more than enough to consider themselves among the most civilised countries since then, of course there is a sense of shame but we're approaching an age where nobody during that time was alive, and where even the generation after it is on their way out. Internally Japan is long overdue in recognising these parts of its history in full, and I think purely internally few Japanese really would have an issue with that, as painful as it would be, just like I'm completely comfortable as a Dutch person to acknowledge my country's colonial and slave history. But these things are particularly externally, politically sensitive, in terms of Japan's international relations with the various powerhouses in Asia (China and Korea, and populous emerging economies like say Indonesia). Similar to say, if I were a Dutch politician I may be more concerned how our standing in the world changes when recognising the full extent of our colonial history (e.g. apologising for certain political executions the Netherlands committed are still controversial) Just like say Turkey and the Armenian genocide. Although even here as an outsider I think it would warm Japan's relations immensely if it were to reach out in sympathy and make at the very least symbolic gestures like small reparations.
[deleted]
Hiroshima had a major naval port and military headquarters. Nagasaki had a large military garrison that accounted for a significant percentage of casualties. Never mind by this stage, degrading military industrial centers was widely considered the best way to end the war. I don't see how you can claim these targets had no military value.
And?
what is YOUR point?
what is YOUR point?
Exactly but you will get downvoted to the oblivion because there's too many japanese,anime lovers that would hit you in the face if you would defend the bombing.
But these are retarded westerners who have no clue. They deserved every shrapnel from the bomb and still have not paid the full price to all of the victims.
HELL THESE japanese denied the free health-care to non-japanese victims. 20 000 koreans died in the bombings. But nobody cares.
Japanese people were and still are a terrible nation. I hope they sink to the oblivion.
But these are retarded westerners who have no clue. They deserved every shrapnel from the bomb and still have not paid the full price to all of the victims.
HELL THESE japanese denied the free health-care to non-japanese victims. 20 000 koreans died in the bombings. But nobody cares.
Japanese people were and still are a terrible nation. I hope they sink to the oblivion.
Hey look, you get my first down vote ever for being a racist.
A lot a brutal things were done by many countries over the course of WWII, the effectiveness and morality of which can be discussed from many interesting points of view. You however chose to say this:
> Japanese people were and still are a terrible nation. I hope they sink to the oblivion.
A lot a brutal things were done by many countries over the course of WWII, the effectiveness and morality of which can be discussed from many interesting points of view. You however chose to say this:
> Japanese people were and still are a terrible nation. I hope they sink to the oblivion.
One of the most racist and misinformed comments I have come across in a while. You are an embarrassment to Koreans everywhere.
honest_joe(1)
[deleted]
What surprised me most in school (and same with this article) is how much focus there is on the atomic bombs, when aside from the significance of the decision itself, the destruction/lose of life is eclipsed by US firebombings. Here is a website with nicely compiled/displayed statistics of the 67 Japanese cities the US firebombed and the resulting destruction: http://www.ditext.com/japan/napalm.html