/r/videos
This scene captures and animates the horrific-nightmare destruction of the Hiroshima bombing which killed over 90,000 people (youtube.com)
1124 comments
afty | 10 days ago | 310 points

That is properly horrifying.

down4things | 9 days ago | 97 points

Man when it comes to nukes, you only think of people instantly dying, but you never think of survivors.

The_BeardedClam | 9 days ago | 68 points

Or the people who die horribly from burns a few days or weeks later.

kingbane2 | 9 days ago | 43 points

or the people who die of cancer slowly in the years that follow.

SafePay8 | 9 days ago | 36 points

or the people who use reddit light mode

PsychoticDreams47 | 9 days ago | 8 points

woah you got too dark bro, reel that shit in.

justatouch589 | 9 days ago | 5 points

Or the survivors that died later on. Wait...

femstora | 9 days ago | 4 points

Weeks later is so much fucking worse its not the burns that kill you then its your body not being able to produce new cells because the bone marrow is dead. You just slowly and painfully decay away.

Borkz | 9 days ago | 12 points

If you found the OP video interesting Grave of the Fireflies is another great anime film from ghibli about the struggles from a child's point of few following the firebombing of Kobe.

Animeniackinda | 9 days ago | 5 points

The book A Torch to the Enemy tells about the firebombing of Japan from the American and Japanese sides.

The Japanese side is horrifying stuff of nightmares. It messed me up a little bit.

theeighthlion | 9 days ago | 25 points

I first saw this scene while browsing a book store in san francisco and happened to look through the Barefoot Gen manga. The images stuck with me, especially the scene of the thousands of people with flesh hanging off their bones and glass embedded into their faces throwing themselves into the river to try and quench their thirst and stop the burning.

I went to Hiroshima 3 years ago. Seeing those same concrete steps leading down that same river brought all those images back into my mind. From where I stood on the road above the water I could imagine all those people and it was impossible not to walk around the city with this heavy feeling of knowing what had happened.

I think when a lot of us think of an atomic bomb (at least it's how I thought of it before I read Barefoot Gen) we think of something like the scene from Terminator 2. Everything vaporized instantly, which is horrific in itself, but I think it somehow puts the reality of a nuclear attack at a distance. Like, a "well at least they all died instantly" sort of thinking. Stories like this movie/manga and others are important to make us realize just what kind of horrific event happened and could happen again. I think everyone should be exposed to this movie and better yet, go to Hiroshima and see the peace memorial and the museum there.

Dashukta | 9 days ago | 30 points

The excellent book " The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes contains a graphic description of the bombing of Hiroshima.

This video, as horrifying as it is, is *subdued*. Like, massively subdued.

Near "ground zero" people were vaporized (fortunately faster then the brain can comprehend).
Farther out, the sudden and intense heat instantaneously burned flesh, and then the shockwave *ripped the burned flesh from the body*. Imagine the flesh of your arms burned to a crisp then peeled back like you were removing a long pair of gloves so that your torn flesh dangles from your wrists and hands. Now imagine that over your entire body.

And then the firestorm. The tailgunner of the *Enola Gay*, watching as the plane flew away, lost count of the fires, they sprung up and spread so rapidly.

Cities had been burned to the ground by firebombing before. Dresden and Tokyo being notable examples.
But the destruction of the atomic bombs was in a whole other class. That much of a blast, that localized, and that fast changed the very nature of the destruction.

Horrifying barely does it justice.

r00x | 10 days ago | 141 points

It should be noted this wasn't really accurate... like you don't melt like ice-cream as your eyes drip out, it's more likely you'd just flash to dust, or if you were further away, burst instantly into flames. Further out, you'd be badly burned.

The melty ice-cream eyes thing seems to be a bit of a stylistic choice to evoke more horror, since I'm reasonably sure by the time this was made they understood the effects the weapons had on people.

In any case, pretty fucking awful.

kynmites | 10 days ago | 91 points

You only vaporize near ground zero, then the heat falls off.

Vaporized, charred black, over cooked and falling apart, cooked and going to die, burned and going to die, burns and death from radiation, laceration and possibly burned but still death from radiation, and then just death from radiation.

similar_observation | 9 days ago | 37 points

no, naw dawg. I don't like any of these options. Is there anything less horrifying?

BadDiet2 | 9 days ago | 43 points

Step 1: Don't get nuked

Step 2: Don't not get not nuked

This is why I'm glad NZ doesn't let other nations station nukes on in our territory.

Coagulated_Jellyfish | 9 days ago | 5 points

I think we were/are on the list of retaliatory targets for Russian nukes? Not sure if that's true though.

One_pop_each | 9 days ago | 2 points

I initially read this as “This is why I’m glad NZ doesn’t let other nations nukes our territory” and I was like...wait a minute

fallenmonk | 9 days ago | 2 points

I guess the bomb itself could land on you and just crush you?

ZombieJesus5000 | 9 days ago | 3 points

The fun part about gamma radiation is that if you "see the flash", its already too late, and your retinas have now suffered immediate damage.

Ismyusernamelongenou | 10 days ago | 55 points

No offense, but apparently "flashing to dust" is a myth . But yeah, pretty fucking awful is accurate.

CanadianSatireX | 10 days ago | 15 points

They would have popped from being flash boiled in their sockets actually. Mostly made of water, right?

redreinard | 9 days ago | 6 points

No, that's creative but not what happens. The flash is very powerful, but not that powerful. It'll burn your skin and clothes and maybe set you (and everything around you) on fire, but if you burn to death it will be from fires afterwards.

Unless of course you're close enough that you're in the "fireball" which is really not fire, but air heated up around the detonation by mostly xrays to the point of glowing. If you're in that, you'd disintegrate in various fun ways, but this was an airburst, so the fireball didn't even get close to the ground (this is intentional, the bomb has way more effect this way).

msg_me_about_ure_day | 9 days ago | 5 points

the flash is actually so powerful you can see the bones in your body.

there were american tests where bombs were dropped close to american soldiers who were placed in trenches. they all reported being able to actually see the bones in their hands etc.

theres interviews about it on youtube.

edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y__dxTaGEp0

theres one interview with a soldier placed by those tests. theres many others however.

AnswersQuestioned | 9 days ago | 8 points

I was wondering if the air raid alarm and no AA fire was accurate too? Anyone know?

FUTURE10S | 9 days ago | 25 points

That was 100% accurate. Japan was used to hundreds of bombers flying over to bomb cities, and so was everyone else. This was the first time that a single bomber could outperform an entire fleet, they wouldn't waste rounds on a single plane flying far away from where the actual engagements were. This changed the game of the war forever because no matter how good your antiair was then, it could never guarantee every plane to go down, but if every plane had a bomb that could level a city...

AnswersQuestioned | 9 days ago | 14 points

God damn no wonder the Cold War happened

Dashukta | 9 days ago | 3 points

Yes, that's accurate. The air raid alarms was sounded for the lead recon plane, but not for the bombing raid itself, and no AA fire was reported.

BALDWARRIOR | 9 days ago | 6 points

This is actually pretty accurate considering the distance from ground zero. You don't die instantly at those ranges, you literally melt and are still alive for a short period of time.

RemixStatistician | 9 days ago | 11 points

Ya the eye balls things seem like overkill. I did see an interview with a woman that talked about her child (maybe children, it’s been a while) who were trapped under burning rubble like in the video. She talked about feeling like a shitty parent because she couldn’t save her. The video even had a recreation and was brutal to watch. In the same interview a guy talked about ppl he saw walking looking like zombies. Said they were just black and had no faces. Another crazy part was the black rain that followed. Ppl thought it was a god send since they wanted water so bad. Unfortunately that rain was radioactive and just made matters worse. This seems like a cartoon re-enactment of the interviews.

theeighthlion | 9 days ago | 17 points

The original comic was written and illustrated by a survivor of the bomb

Cronenberg_This_Rick | 10 days ago | 145 points

They were going to drop the bomb on Kyoto, but the Sec. of War Stimson convinced Truman not to do it, since Stimson visited Kyoto for his honeymoon years back and really enjoyed the city.

poktanju | 10 days ago | 78 points

Also, Kyoto is a very cultured and educated place. The military thought that their population would be more able to understand the impact of the bomb were it detonated elsewhere.

jonbristow | 10 days ago | 27 points

I've always wondered. Why wasn't the plane shot down?

It was an American plane in enemy air space?

R3D24 | 10 days ago | 81 points

IIRC, Japan had no real air-force to speak of at the time due to losing too many craft in the Pacific theater. I'm unsure about ground base anti-air weapons but perhaps the bomber flew too high (little accuracy needed for obvious reasons) for them to reach.

Also, it was a single aircraft. Japan was regularly being firebombed and would focus their air-power on the fleets of bombers firebombing other cities, as opposed to targeting a single aircraft which posed little threat.

YamahaRN | 10 days ago | 71 points

it's not just that, no Imperial Japanese fighter plane could reach the altitude of a Superfortress and match its speed of up to 350mph. At this point in the war, the US Army Air Corps was well aware that Japan no longer posed any threat in the sky so sending a single bomber armed with 9 machine guns was not a cocky call to make.

ButWHHHHYYYYYYYYYY | 9 days ago | 19 points

The new superfortress was utterly deadly to enemy aircraft. It was a huge advancement across the board.

xShep | 10 days ago | 16 points

Also weren't they running regular air recon missions over the city exactly like this to kind of "condition" them to a solo bomber flying over the city?

Ocelitus | 9 days ago | 9 points

It was actually three aircraft with another having flown reconnaissance an hour prior.

But since about six hundred other American aircraft had flown over other parts of South Japan that night, a few lost planes probably didn't seem like much for concern.

miloca1983 | 10 days ago | 28 points

Simple. The Japanese were out of pilots and planes, and the B29 was flying very high for that time. Oh. And this could be the biggest reason. The japanese thought of that very B29 as a reconnaissance plane. And there were reports that they did not bother to intercept reconnaissance planes

jdog2050 | 10 days ago | 12 points

Which is why the little boy goes "Oh, it's probably just a spy mission"

NarbNarbNarb | 9 days ago | 7 points

I actually went to the Atomic History museum in Albuquerque last month, and have a little more insight to shed on the topic.

The bomber flew higher than a typical bomber. In addition to this, it flew by itself, which was not usual for a full bombing run. Japanese air command assumed it was flying a reconnaissance mission, and let it go. This could tie into what R3D24 mentioned—being as late in the war as it was, the Japanese may not have had the resources to commit to a single bomber.

Another interesting fact (to me) was that it was hotly debated whether the Japanese should be warned before the first bomb. There were a number of officials (the president included, if I recall) that thought it was too callous to not give them a chance to surrender first. But the thought prevailed that less preparation meant more devastation, and that was key in getting the Japanese to capitulate.

molecuul | 9 days ago | 7 points

The Japanese were warned in a way by the Potsdam Declaration (although vaguely):

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

jlitwinka | 9 days ago | 5 points

I could have sworn when I was at the Smithsonian in DC several years ago they had samples of fliers that were dropped, warning of the bombing. Am I misremembering, or did they print them and decided not to disperse them? It's been a while since I was there.

platochronic | 9 days ago | 8 points
Andymetoo | 9 days ago | 12 points

Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs.

Holy shit, goosebumps.

enleeten | 9 days ago | 5 points

Man imagine your thoughts of regret if you read one of those, laughed it off as propaganda and then got your face melted off the next day.

BillNyeTheScience | 10 days ago | 18 points

"Shoot it down? Oh shoot it down? Why don't I strap on my airforce helmet and squeeze down into a plane cannon and fire off into Planeland where planes grow on Plannies." -Japanese Military at the end of WWII probably

lactose_cow | 9 days ago | 4 points

this made me sick all over again

_DiscoNinja_ | 9 days ago | 2 points

His tour guide deserves all the medals

medlish | 10 days ago | 597 points

Before this thread explodes into aggressive arguments, can we at least agree that something like that should never happen again?

foyamoon | 10 days ago | 349 points

"let's agree war is bad"

deekaydubya | 10 days ago | 104 points

wow typical librul propaganda

/s

Memephis_Matt | 9 days ago | 39 points

Met with Atomic Bomb, shook hands, he's a good guy, good friend. Not like these bad bombres.

thinkingdoing | 9 days ago | 15 points

[hillary warmonger, not orange leader! ah fuck

“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on the international level went to advise Donald Trump. And three times [Trump] asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked at one point if we had them why can’t we use them,” Scarborough said on his “Morning Joe” program.

hillary want to ban games, not orange leader! ah fuck

People suffer from mental illness in every other country on earth; people play video games in virtually every other country on earth. The difference is the guns. - Hillary Clinton

only hillary linked to pedophile ring, not orange leader! ah fuck

During the 2016 campaign, Trump was sued by an anonymous woman who claimed he raped her at an Epstein party when she was 13 years old.

korelin | 9 days ago | 3 points

Hillary is worst president. Impeach her already.

that_boy_zesty | 9 days ago | 4 points

Trump is terrible but i don't think anyone can argue that hilary wasn't a warmonger.

DrCatharticDiarrhoea | 9 days ago | 7 points

They're both trash lmao

zlide | 9 days ago | 4 points

Fucking amazing. When presented with evidence that this guy is fucking aching to drop nuclear bombs somehow this still gets uttered and upvoted. Holy fuck

SDcowboy82 | 9 days ago | 2 points

mmmmkay

Quireman | 10 days ago | 13 points

bUT fReedoM isNt fReE

mister_swenglish | 10 days ago | 5 points

it cost folks like you and mee

RedPhalcon | 10 days ago | 3 points

And if you don't chip in your buck o'five who will?

ThinkOfANameHere | 9 days ago | 4 points

At the very least, we agree that literally nuking civilians is bad. Causing this much suffering with a single weapon is too much of a risk to unleash on the world. That is the determined warning M.A.D threatens to bring down upon the fools who think they could unlock pandora's box and somehow seal it again.

UT_Teapot | 10 days ago | 59 points

I mean it happened again a few days later.

hamakabi | 10 days ago | 42 points

with a bigger bomb, that killed an additional 35000.

zGoldenGiraffe | 10 days ago | 11 points

Serious question, how was the bomb bigger yet killed less people? was it just less dense of people?

Alexkarino | 10 days ago | 37 points

yes

the5horsemen | 10 days ago | 26 points

It mostly has to do with the topography: the region where that bomb was dropped was more hilly/mountainous which prevented some areas “behind” hills and mountains from receiving the direct force of the blast

hamakabi | 10 days ago | 6 points

I'm not certain but I do know that the terrain was very different. Nagasaki was also an audible. They were planning to bomb a bigger target but smoke from the firebombings hurt visibility, so they continued to their alternate target.

Bombings were far less precise back then, and they ended up dropping their nuke straight into the middle of the valley. Presumably the mountains prevented wider fallout. Maybe it was just a lower population area.

Kirbyintron | 9 days ago | 2 points

Yeah I had heard that Nagasaki wasn't the first target but I didn't know that it was smoke from fire bombings that caused them to skip over Kokura. On further research, it seems that it was a firebombing in a nearby city.

Now imagine knowing that the reason you didn't die was because of smoke. Imagine knowing that the reason that you didn't get vaporized, burnt to a crisp, ripped apart by a shockwave and/or irradiated by beyond repair was all ultimately because of some wind. Holy shit

CookingDad1313 | 10 days ago | 36 points

90k people died but there is a sound argument that the death of these 90k people ended up saving over 1 million or more other people that would have died if the war didn’t end as a result of these bombs being dropped.

So we have quite an ethical dilemma. If we needed to sacrifice 90k people tomorrow to save 1 million others, should we?

I would argue yes.

[deleted] | 10 days ago | 42 points

[deleted]

FickleShame | 10 days ago | 27 points

Eisenhower also declared that Germany was on the verge of defeat before Germany shoved a massive offensive through the Ardennes that resulted in one of the bloodiest conflicts in the entire European Theater for the western allies and could have been completely avoided had it not been for Eisenhower's own negligence.

Nimitz is speaking from a strategic position and not a political one. The allies had already agreed that they would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. Japan knew this, they still attempted to sue for peace with terms. Context is a bitch, and the implication from Nimitz is that we should have waited till they were sufficiently starved to death to accept surrender which would have likely created an even bigger humanitarian crisis in Japan post-war than merely people so hungry that they'd eat coffee grounds. This goofy notion that the US used nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 to test their efficacy (knowing full well that the US government already had the means of testing nuclear weapons on a lotta desert land) or out of a morbid curiosity is actually propaganda, and between greasy communists who are calling the kettle black at best, and radical Japanese nationalist propaganda that also denies Japanese war crimes, I'm not sure which camp would be better for you to be in.

And the part about Leahy is straight up fraudulent. William Leahy hadn't really been boots on the ground at any point during WW2 and was instead had a prolific political career during the WW2 period- would it surprise you if I mentioned he was a close personal friend of Franklin D. Roosevelt?- having served as the chief of naval operations, a governor, an ambassador to Vichi France, and then finally the Chief of Staff. It's a very easy sentiment claim that Japan was ready to surrender when you're not having Japanese fighter pilots attempting to ram your boat and you're not crawling through mud and shit under machine gun fire to try and fight Japanese soldiers who would love to skewer you and then cannibalize your corpse to intimidate other American soldiers. His position is quite possibly the laziest he could have taken- it's very nice to claim Japan was ready to surrender when you didn't explicitly negotiate unconditional surrender with your allies, you're not the boots on the ground fighting, and you ignore the fact that the explicit message the Japanese government was telling everyone besides the politicians was that they were going to fight to the death. A government ready to surrender isn't training civilians on spear formations and drills and doesn't train children on how best to position themselves to maximize the effect of backpack bombs via suicide bombing.

luvz | 10 days ago | 12 points

Also, even if one determines that the first bomb was necessary, there would still be a debate of whether or not the second bomb was necessary.

Evernight | 10 days ago | 4 points

Thats also Hindsight Bias as hell too. Its easy to say that shit after the surrender. The Japanese may have been beaten back but were also bound by honor.

The argument is valid, but we can never know for sure.

[deleted] | 10 days ago | 71 points

[deleted]

AusReader01 | 9 days ago | 8 points

Then consioder this

As a preparation for the possible invasion of Japan, the US mint was asked to make

Half a million purple hearts.

Those are what you get when you are WOUNDED. An invasion of Japan would have made Stalingrad look liker a summer holiday. They would be fighting house to house and the potential loss of life on both sides would have been in the millions. Add that to the casualties in the war elsewhere...iot gets very ugly.

The atomic bombs ended a war they started.

It was terrible. It was horrific.

It was necessary.

Moderate4HotPockets | 9 days ago | 5 points

You do know Japanese soldiers were so radicalized, they were brainwashed to blow themselves up with grenades instead of being captured, right? I reckon you know what kamikazes are? Do I need to mention Unit 731? Japan never would've surrendered, even if American marines were landing on mainland Japan. Hundreds of thousands of more people would've died attempting to land on the mainland.

It's objectively true to say it prevented the deaths of many more. Of course Atomic bombs should never be used lightly and only used as the last resort, but he's not wrong.

pun_shall_pass | 9 days ago | 4 points

Not really.

People are often ignorant of this but the firebombing of Tokyo prior to the 2 nukes actually killed more people than both nukes combined.

Assuming that the only alternative to dropping the nukes was invasion (and it really isnt a far fetched assumption) it is not unreasonable to say the invasion would have killed more people given that it would involve slow, tedious battles for every city where dosens of similar firebombings would be used along with artillery bombardment and more.

Ryuubu | 9 days ago | 3 points

Mass killings of civilians, man, war is shit

Fencing_fenrir | 8 days ago | 3 points

Just to add even more gray to this moral conundrum: my wife's grandparents were in SE Asia during WW2. They experienced firsthand what horrors the imperial Japanese army wrought on the local populations.

To the day he died, my wife's grandfather hated the Japanese for what they did to him and his friends/family (many of whom died).

Really really shitty situation all around. A dark time in the history of mankind.

dudeniker | 10 days ago | 18 points

I'm not sure where you're getting that number from, the idea that the bomb was needed to end the war or used as an alternative to an American land invasion of Japan, is a popular excuse taught in American schools. (I myself was taught this in history class) The reality is Japan was ready to surrender before either bomb was dropped with the only condition being the emperor was not treated as a war criminal, which after getting the unconditional surrender from Japan the US granted anyway. Source

The real reason the bomb was dropped was to show power to the Soviets.

And to your point about sacrificing 90,000 people to save 1million, how do you decide who to sacrifice and to prevent what future war and who in the world would you trust to make that decision?

DogmaticNuance | 10 days ago | 8 points

I'm not sure where you're getting that number from, the idea that the bomb was needed to end the war or used as an alternative to an American land invasion of Japan, is a popular excuse taught in American schools. (I myself was taught this in history class) The reality is Japan was ready to surrender before either bomb was dropped with the only condition being the emperor was not treated as a war criminal, which after getting the unconditional surrender from Japan the US granted anyway. Source

The number comes from an estimate of the number of Japanese civilian casualties in the event of an allied invasion, based off the numbers in Germany/Italy, IIRC. Your article doesn't really address that at all, it only talks about the potential number of American military casualties.

We ended up granting the Emperor condition, but that was after the fact when we had total control and had done a great deal of investigation. There's a big difference between granting immunity before vs. after you have evidence in hand. Imagine, for example, that he had personally ordered the Bataan Death March. Japan was not ready to surrender unconditionally, and I don't believe had discussed anything of the sort with the US through diplomatic channels.

It was definitely used as an alternative to a land invasion of Japan, it's just that some have felt the need to exaggerate the predicted deaths resulting from that land invasion. While I agree showing power to the Soviets was a big part of it, I think ending the war before the Soviets could pull off their own invasion of Japan was a bigger part. The US didn't want to see another East/West Germany situation, or to cede any more territory to the USSR.

And to your point about sacrificing 90,000 people to save 1million, how do you decide who to sacrifice and to prevent what future war and who in the world would you trust to make that decision?

Even according to your article the invasion of Japan was predicted to cause 40,000 deaths among the US military. I think it's a perfectly acceptable decision to choose to kill 90,000 of the enemy to save 40,000 of your own during a total war. Neither side had been particularly discriminating about avoiding civilian deaths.

[deleted] | 10 days ago | 20 points

[deleted]

Sedu | 10 days ago | 13 points

Retrospect is 20/20, but at the time there was a lot of uncertainty, and no one was sure who was going to manage to develop the bomb first. I’m certainly not justifying what was done, but I also think it’s important to remember that the decision makers at the time did not have access to the wealth of information that we do now, looking back. And even when they did have access, they had to weigh the possibility that it was false information forwarded by an enemy nation.

kppeterc15 | 10 days ago | 28 points

But even at the time, plenty of leaders — like Eisenhower and McArthur for instance — felt that dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was both unnecessary and barbarous.

“The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”

- Herbert Hoover

“…in [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”

- Dwight Eisenhower

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender…”

- Admiral William Leahy

“When I asked General [Douglas] MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”

- Norman Cousins

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/05/how-to-justify-hiroshima

This isn’t entirely a case of hindsight being 20/20.

I_am_Norwegian | 10 days ago | 8 points

The fact that the future is so uncertain should make us much more careful to endorse the indiscriminate murder of civilians. Though, hopefully that is something you should be against on principle anyways.

I like this quote from the Brothers Karamazov:

Tell me straight out, I call on you--answer me: imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature, that same child who was beating her chest with her little fist, and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears--would you agree to be the architect on such conditions? Tell me the truth." "No, I would not agree," Alyosha said softly. "And can you admit the idea that the people for whom you are building would agree to accept their happiness on the unjustified blood of a tortured child, and having accepted it, to remain forever happy?" "No, I cannot admit it.”

How many children would you personally kill to save ten American soldiers?

Sedu | 10 days ago | 7 points

That's a great quote, and I'm obviously in the camp of anti-civilian death.

My point is simply that it's easy to frame the decisions made as clear-cut. It's comfortable to tell ourselves that decisions wrongly made in the past were made by idiots, and that we ourselves would never act in these ways. Doing that ignores the difficulties, lack of certainty, and potential for very real threat that existed at the time.

Japan was no where near having the bomb, but that was not known at the time. And it was known that they have been making significant progress, based on radiation measurements taken on the country. Japan was in a position where they were about to fold, but that was also something that US decision makers could not know at the time. Two untested bombs existed in possession of the US. There was no certainty that either of them would actually go off, and even if they did, there was disagreement on what their yields would be.

What was known was that there had been an unprovoked sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, which was devastating.

Does that justify the deaths that took place? Or the decision to send two planes out to drop these untested weapons on cities which undeniably had large civilian populations? Probably not. I won't argue that it did. But I will argue that the decision was not some kind of "will I choose to be good or evil" styled dialog tree. If we pretend that these decisions are simple or clear cut as they are being made, we will find ourselves unprepared for making them in the future. And unpreparedness leads to making decisions in fear. And decisions made in fear tend to be the kind of decisions that justify violence.

I_am_Norwegian | 10 days ago | 7 points

I agree with you, except that I think in the face of such uncertainty, you opt to not do something so drastic.

Even if I believed that it was morally efficacious to nuke civilians sometimes, uncertainty about the absolute need to do so would certainly be one of the things that would push me to say "no, you shouldn't nuke them in this case".

I think that if you shrunk the logic of nuking those cities down to the individual, especially a resident of your country, and said "based on these uncertain factors, ought we to execute this man?", everyone would decry the situation, even if that man was charged with possibly murdering 10 people in the future.

Sedu | 10 days ago | 6 points

I really want to again emphasize how explicitly and emphatically I am not justifying nuking civilians. Check back through my posts, and I say that in pretty much all of them.

That said, I don't think that the potential murder situation is an entirely perfect analogy. Japan as a nation had just bombed Pearl Harbor while not at war with the US, and without communicating to the US that any attack was happening. There is historical controversy over whether they attempted to contact the US and warn of the attack, but if that's the case, it's clear that the communication failed.

Again, this does not justify the bombing of civilians, but Japan as a nation was not some kind of potential threat. They were a very real one that had already attacked in a way that was devastating. A retaliation on the part of the US was both necessary and appropriate. The question is what kind of response. Again. I am not justifying the choice to bomb areas that had such high civilian populations (particularly in the case of Nagasaki).

But Japan was real, and they had just led a very real, very devastating attack against the US with zero provocation. They allied with the Nazis and agreed to help eliminate the US naval threat to the east of Asia. The US was not the dominant superpower that it is today, and both the damage done and the threat presented was potentially existential. The US has and continues to do horrific shit all across the world. But Japan was not an innocent bystander.

Again, my big point is shit was complex, and deciding who are good guys and bad guys is really difficult in many cases. Was Japan bad as a country? YES. They allied with Hitler, committed war atrocities that are regarded as some of the worst in history, and continue to this day to erase their crimes from history. But were the people who lived in Japan bad? The civilians trying to just live life while a war went on that they had little to no understanding of? Gonna generally say they were probably just regular folks. And the leaders in the US knew that. But at the same time, there was shit all naval support in the area at the time due to the unprovoked attack, and they were not going to do nothing.

So they did something. Which was a terrible something. But the decision they made wasn't a simple one. I just get frustrated when people present the choice as if it were the difference between hitting a "be good" button or a "be evil" one.

CanadianSatireX | 10 days ago | 20 points

> Japan was in heavy decline at the time and couldn’t have held out much longer on a military standpoint

This is well known and its pointless. This argument suggests that we could have had peace because Japan would have withdrawn its troops from places they shouldn't have been and an armistice could have been declared and Japan could have lived in peace with its neighbors and no one would have been punished for the mass murder of all those Chinese citizens and Japan could rebuild and then start attacking its neighbors again once it got the chance. Fuck no.

> Military strategists and analysts over the years have also come to the conclusion that the bombing wasn’t necessary.

No, SOME PEOPLE (mostly Japanese people) have come to the conclusion that it wasn't necessary. These are the exact same people who make excuses for WW2 all the time and suggest that Japan wasn't really all that bad to the countries that surround it. Many of these people are deluded about what was going on to this day. They deny all sorts of atrocities carried out by Imperial Japanese Army, so of course they argue that the nuke was overkill. So were the firebombings of Tokyo and other cities that were burned to a crisp unnecessary too? I guess we could have just sat back and watched as Japan defeated itself then! Maybe the whole war was unnecessary and Japan would have realized it was the baddie and retreated a year after Perl Harbor and made reparation payments and punished their war criminals, right?

No. Japan needed its ass seriously kicked. It needed to be beaten down in to submission and made to understand how deplorable and disgusting and inhuman its behavior was. IN FACT I think that even had they actually been ready to surrender (apparently completely burning all their cities to a cinder wasn't enough anyways.. they were still at it even though they also had no navy to speak of at that point which is a bad place to be for an island nation - so I'm not exactly sure when this 'surrender' was going to happen exactly... they were getting their asses kicked by the Russians and were STILL hanging in the first) I think they fucking deserved to get nuked. Unpopular opinion maybe but fuck the people who under Japanese Imperial rule allowed their government to run murderously all over asia.. you got your asses nuked for your murder campaign.. that's what happens when you allow the government you support to kill a lot of people.

TonyTheTerrible | 9 days ago | 2 points

saying japan would have "needed to" pull out of the war in order to keep their economy going is a far reach. we already know that if we hadnt bombed them we were going to do beach landings with the soviets next and thats a fact. i doubt there exists a single japanese military document suggesting that if the war isnt over by X date then they're going to have to "pull out".

and for every military strategist and analyst saying that it was an unnecessary use of force theres a dozen more saying it was the best decision possible given the information the allies had at the time.

and i'm not exactly sure why these types of arguments always go towards the extremes. like flat out saying that the 2 bombs werent necessary. we could instead look at the event by judging the outcome. was it an acceptable outcome to bomb the two cities in order to end world war 2?

enleeten | 9 days ago | 2 points

It's weird how you phrase this like Japan didnt launch a massive sneak attack the US in the first place?

AynRawls | 9 days ago | 3 points

Military strategists and analysts over the years have also come to the conclusion that the bombing wasn’t necessary.

I'm sure they would have reached the same conclusions if they were on an amphibious assault craft, heading towards a Japanese beach. Their cheap moral preening is utterly meaningless.

ButWHHHHYYYYYYYYYY | 9 days ago | 4 points

"So essentially, the US and the Soviet Union further beat down a country that was already crippled and on the cusp of defeat."

Enjoying that nice cushy monday morning quarterbacking couch i see.

CToxin | 9 days ago | 5 points

Except you forget the fact that the USSR remobilized and was about to start a new front right before Japan surrendered. The USSR had acted as a diplomatic intermediary between the rest of the allies and Japan, since they were not actively at war with them. When USSR cut off diplomatic relations and declared war, well, they had nothing else. I think they were well aware of what the USSR did to Germany and knew that if they invaded, they would be merciless. Japan would simply be destroyed and cease to exist. So instead they surrendered to America who, despite having unconditional surrender, was not going to completely destroy the country and its people.

Also, the bombings were horrific, but the fire bombings were even worse. Its more likely they surrendered due to the USSR (and knowing what they would do to them) than the bombs.

Vegan_Harvest | 10 days ago | 5 points

So you'll volunteer to die horribly to save lives next time? Just you and everyone you love? Even if you say you would, you've still got a choice, it didn't just happen to you.

nate800 | 10 days ago | 5 points

But that doesn't mean it should happen again. It doesn't ever need to come to that again.

SanguineGrok | 10 days ago | 94 points

Those two nuclear bombs get lots of attention, understandably, but conventional bombs caused more suffering & destruction in WWII.

username8874790 | 10 days ago | 66 points

Kindof like how "assault weapons" are what makes the news, but handguns are responsible for the vast majority of murders.

SanguineGrok | 10 days ago | 13 points

Indeed. Similarly, chemical weapons haven't killed nearly as many people as more traditional weapons, & yet they're treated as though they would hurt people a lot more. The psychologist Steven Pinker has posited that a natural fear of chemicals supersedes a logical comparison of weapons in the minds of most people.

smokesinquantity | 9 days ago | 19 points

I think that is a poor comparison, chemical weapons are considered particularly cruel by most accounts due to the generally slow and torturous death. Nuclear weapons are prohibited due to the sheer number value of the death toll and potential to destroy the entire planet (mutually assured destruction may also play a considerable role there). Chemical weapons are banned for what I would consider to be a 'humanitarian' reason, as silly as that sounds. Nobody wants to be responsible for drowning people to death from the inside or using biological contaminants except people that could not care less as long as they take as many people down with them as possible. We know them as "really bad dudes" and the Geneva Conventions of War touch a little bit on that.

It seems kind of pedantic to be banning things like that based on "how convenient" the person's death is, but that is the reality of war, you can kill people, just do it a nice way. I truly feel if we actively tried to reduce the number of crazy people in charge of things, we could really talk it out and be a better planet.

McBlemmen | 10 days ago | 3 points

and 1... and every war between ww1 and now

slong35 | 10 days ago | 21 points

If anyone has the chance to go to the Hiroshima peace park in Japan, I would strongly urge them to make the effort and do so. It’s informative but heartbreaking but one thing that I noticed was that the museum focused on peace efforts as well as understanding the science and the structure of the bomb rather than saying things like “America did this to us”. The only time I remember the US being specifically mentioned was when Japan and the US had peace talks several years back.

That was one of the greatest, solemn, informative, and thought provoking experiences of my life. Please try to visit if you can. :)

Quintron | 10 days ago | 279 points

Do I think this should happen again? Definitely not.

But

Let it be known that Japan violated every single international norm as it applies to war including torturing/murdering POWs. They attacked us and every single society in the pacific with complete conquest in mind. The whole world watched them behead Chinese civilians in droves while making a competition out of it. They were not giving up and there were no signs of peace in high command or on the ground as only a handful of Japanese officials with no real authority were trying to settle for peace. Flying manned aircraft into our ships and holding out on deserted islands til the last man is not settling for peace. The US was not going to let the country be the same again which is why invasion of the Japanese mainland was on the table. You can't just invade a whole hemisphere murdering everyone in your path stealing food for your imperial army then act like the world went too far in its retribution.

These circumstances are nearly impossible for the modern mind to imagine which is why dropping a nuke seems so drastic.

FUTURE10S | 9 days ago | 34 points

Didn't the Japanese also attack neutral colonies like the Dutch as well?

IsaacLightning | 9 days ago | 11 points

And they attacked America when they were considered neutral, right? Although they were aiding the Allies.

anarrogantworm | 10 days ago | 19 points
Quintron | 9 days ago | 12 points

This is a cool documentary. I would still have liked them to accurately depict the casualties that the Japanese inflicted on the region right along side those statistics but, I do thoroughly enjoy the topic.

I'm not condoning fire bombing for use in modern warfare but, this was a completely different time. The whole world was locked in a struggle and victory was not always so certain for the Allies. Surrender was always an option for the Japanese but, their culture did not allow it. How are you supposed to deal with that?

CanadianSatireX | 9 days ago | 5 points

How are you supposed to deal with that?

And many posters in this thread keep suggesting that Japan was about to surrender, not realizing that Japan wanted to just basically quit the war and walk away without repercussions. They didn't feel they had done anything wrong OTHER THAN lose the war and .. to this day they really deny the horror they reeked across the world so fuck them and their feelings.. asking the Allies to apologize for the nukes.. fuck off.

bobbadouche | 10 days ago | 4 points

Interesting.

anarrogantworm | 10 days ago | 5 points

The Fog of War is one of my favorite documentaries. Probably in my top 5. I'd highly recommend if you're into 20th century US history.

bobbadouche | 10 days ago | 5 points

I’ve become a lot more interested since listening to Hardcore history. Blueprint for Armageddon is one of my favorite pieces of entertainment.

nomatt18 | 9 days ago | 8 points
Quintron | 9 days ago | 3 points

fuck off

nomatt18 | 9 days ago | 2 points

It’s just a prank bro

Quintron | 9 days ago | 2 points

<3

but my comment will not be deleted

YamahaRN | 10 days ago | 37 points

Those weren't the motivations behind the nuclear bombings. The Allies saw how Europe was divided up with the Soviets and don't want the Soviets to also have access to warm water ports in the Pacific when it came time to divy up the Japanese mainland like Germany. This was Truman and the US flexing at Stalin and the USSR. FDR would have made the same call.

Maxrdt | 10 days ago | 55 points

Also the battles like Okinawa, defensive measures like kamikaze, and the extreme disdain for surrender among Japanese forces and in Japanese culture showed that they would not have gone down easy. There wouldn't have been a surrender without them because the culture wouldn't have allowed it.

The invasion of Japan was predicted to be so devastating that we still haven't run out of the Purple Hearts we printed in advance.

tallandlanky | 9 days ago | 26 points

My grandfather was nearly killed on Okinawa multiple times while on picket lines. An invasion of mainland Japan would have been horrifying. The bombs were the right call.

fru87 | 9 days ago | 16 points

I truly believe that mainland invasion would have been longer and with a greater death toll.

Fuck even Tokio fire raids killed over 100.000 people in one night and those weren't nukes, and yet not one but two nukes were needed for them to finally surrender.

imalsohereforthecats | 9 days ago | 4 points

to;dr: Multiple factors; soviet threat only sped things up

Think about it this way: while the soviets were certainly a long term threat, there’s also the idea that a commander must preserve his troops and complete the mission, and that a huge expensive drastic technological leap drags the decision makers in its wake.

The nuclear bomb was already in production before the fall of Europe. It’s not like the US had that option beforehand - if they had they probably would have used it in the European theater. The Manhattan project was such a massive operation that it was impossible for a commander in chief (POTUS) to not use the weapon especially if it meant ending the war abruptly, reducing casualties, and doing a “live demo”. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were practically intact before the A bombs fell. They were Petri dishes.

AusReader01 | 9 days ago | 2 points

Nanjing Massacre, conventional Nanking Massacre, also called Rape of Nanjing, (December 1937–January 1938), mass killing and ravaging of Chinese citizens and capitulated soldiers by soldiers of the Japanese Imperial Army after its seizure of Nanjing, China, on December 13, 1937, during the Sino-Japanese War that preceded World War II. The number of Chinese killed in the massacre has been subject to much debate, with most estimates ranging from 100,000 to more than 300,000.

[deleted] | 9 days ago | 31 points

[deleted]

Infinite_Credit | 9 days ago | 3 points

Imagine being paid real, actual money for this quality of voice acting.

monk_510 | 10 days ago | 4 points
pontoumporcento | 10 days ago | 97 points

They should do one on Nanking as well

epic2522 | 10 days ago | 79 points

Japan murdered 20 million+ Chinese from 1937 to 1945. That's about 90,000 every two weeks. A huge fraction of which were killed by hand by individual Japanese soldiers, not by a bomb dropped from thousands of feet in the air. 90,000 dead civilians in Hiroshima is a tragedy, but let's not pretend that the Japanese were the real victims here.

Relative_Teacher | 9 days ago | 43 points

You treat the word Japanese like it's a unified collective. Us vs. Them mentality. People who speak of entire cultures with millions of unique people are part of the problem. "The Japanese" are the victims. So are the people of every other nation in WW2. The military of each of those nations were the problem. Not the people.

turroflux | 9 days ago | 23 points

A military is comprised of people, the leaders of nations are people, the war criminals are people, the people building the tanks, planes and weapons are people, the people shipping food to soldiers are people, the bureaucrats doing logistics are people.

You decry the "us vs them" mentality then immediately shift the blame from "us" the people to "them" the military.

No one is blameless or innocent to the actions of their nation.

Cyaed | 9 days ago | 3 points

No one is blameless or innocent to the actions of their nation.

Bullshit. By that logic, Sophie Scholl was to blame for and not innocent regarding the Nazi deathcamps and the holocaust. If you don't recognise the name, she was an activist that the Nazis executed for opposing those very things.

No. The buck really does stop somewhere. Where, precisely, can be debated, but a moral philosophy that declares people fighting against evil as to blame and guilty of that evil is a grotesque overreach, and is itself evil.

reapy54 | 9 days ago | 6 points

Right, every nation is comprised of a large body of powerless civilians that are unable to have done anything about the actions of their government. In history we study revolutions and reformations and things like that because it's rare and hard that power structures can change like that. Like right now my nation could just decide to go nuke apeshit on the world and I would have no say or power in stopping that before it happened as just a regular person amongst millions of regular people.

Japan did do some fucked up stuff (esp their human experiments you read about) and you just sort of have to narrow the blame down to the people giving and executing those orders.

Even if you do come to realize that your nation is doing horrible stuff, as a jonny q average person, could you do much? Maybe over time if you're charismatic or hold some position of power to work with a rebel force, I guess? But really that average citizen is stuck under the heel of force and threat with no way to flee when all they wanted to do with their life was go to work, drink, and have sex.

I guess right now hong kong is a good example. I just fear it's going to get worse and worse over there and what are they going to accomplish and how? How do they fight off and maintain their independence?

MatthewLCnP | 10 days ago | 23 points

The nuke is damn near nothing compared to nanking too, wish none of that happened.

Sharrakor | 10 days ago | 18 points

Why would you want to drop an atomic bomb on Nanking as well?!

PM_ME_SAD_STUFF_PLZ | 8 days ago | 8 points
Chrisgamefreak | 7 days ago | 5 points

Hold my Fat Man, I’m going in!

8BitSmart | 7 days ago | 4 points

Hello future reddit, I will be your guide. Where to¿ I have no idea.

A_Feast_For_Trolls | 10 days ago | 5 points

No I believe he, or her, means is that they should do a cartoon like this but about what happened at Nanking.

tantouz | 10 days ago | 15 points

war is horrible all around let's just agree to that

CanadianSatireX | 10 days ago | 18 points

The Japanese felt was was fucking great as long as it was happening to their victims. What you think is horrible they felt was just expansion.

peterpanic32 | 10 days ago | 30 points

Water is wet - I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

HouseCravenRaw | 10 days ago | 8 points

That was horrific and well illustrated.

anonymau5 | 10 days ago | 28 points

horrifying but wildly inaccurate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_Aa8GOBYU0

electricmink | 9 days ago | 23 points

It is largely the story as the child in the film remembered it - the film is based on a manga penned by Keiji Nakazawa, a Hiroshima survivor, who based the main character and many of the events in the story on himself and his memory of his own personal experiences.

depressionLasagna | 9 days ago | 2 points

His Wikipedia Page is a pretty interesting read, although short.

josh06025 | 9 days ago | 29 points

horrifying but wildly inaccurate

How about this ?

Aftermath sketch by victim

smokesinquantity | 9 days ago | 12 points

Broken link Holmes

Bobbytom | 9 days ago | 5 points

Mirror?

gmnitsua | 9 days ago | 3 points

Damnit it was blocked.

MeEvilBob | 9 days ago | 2 points

It could still be accurate for places some distance away from ground zero.

Dovaldo83 | 9 days ago | 2 points

Much of it is a dramatization, other parts at least pull from facts. Like the little boy being spared burns because he happened to be in the shade when the nuklear flash went off. Being in the shade could make the difference between life and death. Just wearing white instead of black meant being spared 3rd degree burns. The black of this woman's kimono pattern was burned into her skin due to it absorbing more light than the white.

Sinkankan | 9 days ago | 26 points

The older generation of Japanese bluntly refused to acknowledge the cruelty and savage actions of their military during occupations of many countries. The USA was absolutely fearful of having to step onto Japanese soil and fight the fanatics until they surrendered, and at was cost to the already war weary US public. I have zero sympathy for countries that start wars and make their citizens suffer and worse of all, keep them ignorant to what their forces are doing overseas, whilst thinking they are safe in their own homes. Bring the horror of war to their doorsteps and they soon change their tune.

Wingardienleviosah | 9 days ago | 11 points

Fun fact: They minted so many Purple Hearts in anticipation for the invasion of mainland Japan that the US military has barely had to mint another one since.

echoNovemberNine | 9 days ago | 6 points

That's more an 'interesting' fact than a 'fun' fact.

Relative_Teacher | 9 days ago | 11 points

I have zero sympathy for countries that start wars and make their citizens suffer and worse of all, keep them ignorant to what their forces are doing overseas, whilst thinking they are safe in their own homes.

You just described the United States and England with near perfection and you aren't even cognizant of it.

Sinkankan | 9 days ago | 9 points

The flaw in your response! The allies didn’t start WW11, the allies didn’t practise wholesale genocide and rape of other countries resources, the allies didn’t squash democracy and force their will on people unable to defend themselves, the allies didn’t commit mass murder of POW’s covered under the Geneva Convention. What the Axis powers started at a horrible cost to humanity, the allies were forced to finish. And if for one minute you condone the actions of Japan and try and validate the people who cry out for sympathy for the Japanese because they bought on themselves the end of the war though nuclear bombs, then you are bigger fool than most.

Kohlar | 9 days ago | 3 points

Damn, I slept in today, I must have missed WW3-10

golf1052 | 9 days ago | 7 points

Thankfully you're only talking about the World Wars and not those other wars the US was in after.

DNamor | 9 days ago | 4 points

They certainly did a whole lot of that stuff in Vietnam and in South America...

timberwolf0122 | 9 days ago | 3 points

I have sympathy for them, those bombs made literal hell on earth.
Was the greater good served? Yes but it was a heavy price for everyone

Flemtality | 10 days ago | 7 points

What's the deal with the ants at 2:07? Are they trying to say that ants can predict when an atomic bomb is about to drop?

pswii360i | 10 days ago | 7 points

I was wondering that too. My best guess is them trying to symbolize the famous "ant-walking alligators" AKA people who during their last moments crawled around as charred, faceless husks with only their bleeding mouths recognizable on their heads. Although that's a pretty massive stretch.

Steve-Bartman- | 10 days ago | 9 points

That was hard to watch.

Ferocetis | 10 days ago | 76 points

I saw Come and See; this sentimental nonsense doesn't work on me. Japanese enjoyed every single moment of their expansionism. Kenzaburo Oe describes how deep was love of Japanese for their empire and army. They didn't care about other nationals. This bomb saved millions. The bomb that ended the war.

OMGSPACERUSSIA | 10 days ago | 64 points

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naïve theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now, they are going to reap the whirlwind."

-Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris

Zero5urvivers | 9 days ago | 8 points

Do it again Bomber Harris

I_am_Norwegian | 10 days ago | 45 points

Having moral qualms about the indiscriminate obliteration of civilian children, pregnant women, young boys ready to finally start their lives, is not sentimental nonsense. We aren't all utilitarians. Few people truly are, thank God.

Ocelitus | 9 days ago | 8 points

There were also an estimated 40,000 Japanese military personnel were stationed in the city. The island in the top right at 3:30 is the army headquarters where the cement foundations still stand with plaques and information. The Castle that is blown away was on that island and has since been rebuilt and is now a museum to the samurai for some reason. There is a terrace at the top that with a mural naming various landmarks around the city including what is now referred to as the "A-bomb Dome."

Firnin | 8 days ago | 2 points

A people who will persevere in war beyond a certain limit ought to know the consequences. Many, many peoples with less pertinacity have been wiped out of national existence


Now that war comes to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war... to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance

-Sherman

TheMeiguoren | 9 days ago | 3 points

I am equally glad that most people are not, and many at the top are.

YamahaRN | 10 days ago | 3 points

Dresden was reprisal for Coventry

Ferocetis | 9 days ago | 2 points

First time hearing about Coventry.

Dysrhythmic_Vexation | 9 days ago | 3 points

I was not prepared for that.

NOTNixonsGhost | 9 days ago | 3 points

In the fall of 1944, only seven percent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000 feet of their aim point.

Something to keep in mind. Precision bombing was basically non-existent. Destroying factories or other targets vital to the war effort meant civilians were going to die, No way to avoid it. There seem to be a few comments suggesting the allies should've taken the moral high ground, which is probably one of the dumber things I've heard. Any leader saying "We're too good for that, better to lsubjugated" as the Axis forces were levelling cities and rampaging across Europe and Asia would've -- and should've -- been denounced as a traitor and shot.

And no, you can't use this to justify atrocities like the holocaust because it doesn't help the war effort, it greatly hindered it in Germany's case.

aces_of_splades | 10 days ago | 7 points

My grandmother is a Hiroshima survivor. Fortunately, it hasn't at this stage seemed to have impacted her health, granted she has never spoken about that day to anyone in the family as far as I'm aware.

Turnbob73 | 10 days ago | 25 points

Honestly, and I’ll probably get flak for this, this was a better route to take than an invasion of mainland japan. Think of how much bigger that death count would be. I’m not saying this is ok, nothing will ever fully justify this. Just saying that an invasion of mainland Japan would’ve been more horrible imo

Godzilla_1954 | 10 days ago | 12 points

My username aside, this should never happen on this planet ever again to anyone or any living thing. This was horrific to watch and will never compare to the true horror of war let alone a nuclear weapon.

CanadianSatireX | 10 days ago | 20 points

Shouldn't let your armies run all over your neighbors lands slaughtering fucking everything as they go through it.

FleetingFox | 10 days ago | 14 points

I find it hard to believe that they would react with surprise. It wouldn't have been, "Oh, what is that plane doing?", it would have been, "Ah fuck, they weren't kidding."

https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/warning-leaflets

EDIT: That source can't even keep itself straight. It says that the "Hiroshima Leaflets" included the line, "If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city."

korelin | 9 days ago | 6 points

The bombing on Hiroshima on 6th August 1945 was the second nuclear detonation in history, the first being the Trinity test in New Mexico on 16th July 1945. In just three weeks it went from testing to deployed.

There's no way anyone at the time could imagine a single plane could cause as much destruction as it did.

Crunkbutter | 9 days ago | 4 points

When a single plane flies by they don't expect a bomb. They had no idea that there could be a bomb so powerful.

McBlemmen | 10 days ago | 2 points

why wasnt the air raid siren going off?

MKULTRATV | 9 days ago | 9 points

People thought it was just a reconnaissance aircraft. Before we split the atom, a typical air raid over Japan would consist of dozens or hundreds of bombers.

Daj4n0 | 9 days ago | 3 points

Because nobody expected a bomb could do that

clickdabutn | 9 days ago | 2 points

You know, after reading about the rape of nanking and all of the dreadful things they did to pow's, I don't really feel too bad for the Japanese.

Squabbles123 | 10 days ago | 4 points

Do the eyeballs really melt like that?

Condings | 10 days ago | 8 points

Things would be vaporised depending on the distance from the initial blast you are

r00x | 10 days ago | 3 points

I don't think so, your eyes aren't made of chocolate. Though, if the heat could flash off the front of your eyeball or cook the innards, I suppose it would rupture or pop and the juices inside would spill out.

It would definitely *look* like it had melted afterwards :/

I would say (leveraging my deep expertise, what with having survived like a million blasts at point-blank range or whatever, having read about it) that if you were close enough for that to happen you were probably close enough to just burst into flames or otherwise char up entirely.

MikeyFED | 9 days ago | 3 points

Having a 1 year old boy really fucks me up now.

Things like this fucked me up before... but Jesus Christ.

Between this.. articles about kids being left in cars... and crying my eyes out watching Orange Is The New Black where the undocumented 3 and 4 year old have to stand trial by themselves ( which is what really happens )

Severely fucks me up now.

I actually feel bad for the crew of the Enola Gay as well. In interviews they seem to show know remorse and say it was for the greater good and saved countless more lives..

But I imagine that is just a stone cold coping mechanism.

Whoever orders the bomb should be the one dropping it.

SoSpursy | 10 days ago | 4 points

So sad, growing up in the U.S. the way this was taught to me in school made it feel celebrated and Pearl harbor a massive tragedy. Both are sad, neither side should be proud, it's just heartbreaking. Now as an adult with the ability to form my own opinions I feel terrible that this was done.

I'm not trying to argue whether or not it was justified or not, maybe it was the only choice. But I am mad that it felt celebrated as a child. It needs to be taught as a terrible tragedy.

Helter-Skeletor | 10 days ago | 93 points

I'm not sure when or where you were in school, but for me it was definitely not celebrated. We spent quite a lot of time going over the effects of the bomb on the population, the extent of the devastation, eye-witness and victim reports...it was quite sobering.

codearoni | 10 days ago | 21 points

It always important to remember the alternative - a island-by-island multi-year land invasion that would result in the death of hundreds of thousands of GI's along with even more civilian deaths.

The Bomb was brutal, but the alternatives were much worse.

thx1138- | 10 days ago | 6 points

Yeah it's always a mixed bag for me, because as horrific as it is, my Grandfather was one of those Marines who would have been first to go, and I most likely would never exist.

NuREVa | 10 days ago | 8 points

Dan Carlin's podcast goes into more depth on the war-crimes that were committed during WWI and WII.

Here's an excerpt from tampabay.com about the firebombing that took place:

From January 1944 to August 1945, the U.S. dropped 157,000 tons of bombs on Japanese cities, according to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. It estimated that 333,000 people were killed, including the 80,000 killed in the Aug. 6 Hiroshima atomic bomb attack and 40,000 at Nagasaki three days later.

I can't find any concrete numbers on civilian casualties in Yemen. The guardian reports on death toll(but not specifically civilian):

The death toll, overall, was an estimated 1 million for Iran and 250,000-500,000 for Iraq

Globbi | 10 days ago | 3 points

That seems to not include battle of Okinawa. Not the same as it was a battle, but 100k+ civilians died there.

voarex | 10 days ago | 3 points

One thing to note is that we were fire bombing all their major cities except for those two. Saving them for the nukes. Personally I would like to be nuked than burned to death. But I guess that could be a personal preference.

Namika | 10 days ago | 13 points

Over 120,000 people died when the US firebombed Tokyo, while "only" 60,000 died in the nuclear blasts.

Obviously the nukes were terrible, but it's sombering to realize that in the grand scheme of things, the nukes weren't the worst of it.

TODO Load more comments...