I know as a fact that coverage of the devestation was surpressed by the Japanese government, but when did they finally let people see it? I’m sure the few people who still had a grudge against the Japanese were in for an unpleasant surprise, heh heh heh.
I’m not an advocate of war but I’m reasonably sure that more than just a “few” had a grudge against the Japanese people once the horrors of their prison camps had been made public.
The dropping of both atomic bombs saved counless allied lives, the Japanese would have fought fiercl y should an invasion of their homeland have been made neccessary and in this respect I cannot help but feel that the dropping of these terrible weapons was justified. No doubt there are many who will disagree.
Well, seeing as how your opinion on whether the bombings were justified or not is completely and totally irrelevant to the factual question at hand, I’ll suggest that the American public became aware of the full extent of the horrors of Hiroshima withthe publication in the New Yorker in August 1946 of “Hiroshima,” a magazine-length piece written by John Hersey. It was later published in book form and became a best-seller. My WAG anyway.
Many Allied troops saw the devastation firsthand, and, as I recall, the effects of radiation poisoning were learned about and reported in the subsequent couple or so years. I think an understanding of what nukes could do was pretty widespread within a few years. It was certainly widespread by the 1950s.
Prominent Americans expressed reservations about the atomic bombings almost immediately. Contrary to popular belief, the bombing of civilians was NOT universally accepted; a great many people weren’t at all supportive of it.
This is OT but if you’re interested there have been several lengthy discussions (with people on both sides of the fence) on the very issue you mention here on the SDMB. If you’re interested try a search in the Great Debates forum. Very interesting and worthwhile I think.
There was extensive coverage a few months after the Japanese surrender in National Geographic.
Wow, there’s some uninformed revisionist history. Go read some books on World War II. Preferrably ones that are more than ten years old.
In addition to Hersey’s book and the firsthand testimony of troops who were witnesses to the aftermath, the American public saw the effects of the atomic bomb when the Hiroshima Maidens came to the United States in 1955. The Maidens were a group of 25 women in various stages of disfigurement–mainly keloid scarring–who received free reconstructive and plastic surgery at Mount Sinai Hospital in NY. They lived with American families during their stay; some women were adopted by their families. Their presence in America was controversial at best; some saw the surgery offered the Maidens as apologizing for the war, while others saw it as a humanitarian imperative.
It seems Rodney Barker’s book on the subject, The Hiroshima Maidens, is hard to find but it’s well worth the read.
… and what, pray tell, is just so funny?
So… do you want to know when the Japanese “public” (outside of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that is…) knew about the atomic bombings, or when the American “public” heard about it?
That is, assuming that the American “public” ever really heard or cared about it beyond buying into the whole myth that it was necessary to end the war…
Considering the general acceptance of the exhibit of the fuselage (couldn’t they afford the space for the entire plane?) of the Enola Gay in the Air and Space Museum in D.C., I’d say the more apt question would be; “Has the American public ever cared about the horrors of Hiroshima?”
“Considering the general acceptance of the exhibit of the fuselage (couldn’t they afford the space for the entire plane?)”
Do you know how big a B-29 is? It may fit in the museum but it would leave little space for the rest of the planes.
Is that really appropriate to General Questions? Both of those issues look more like Great Debates to me.
So… why do you keep putting “public” in quotes? Is that ome sort of twisted attack on the class system? If so, it has no relevence here. And unless you were one of the people who actually read firsthand the intelligence reports about Japan back in May-June 1945, I’d advise you to knock it off with this buying into the whole myth that it was necessary to end the war crap."
Because that’s A) Asking a leading question, and B) asking an irrelevant question. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan led to the end of the Second World War more quickly/faster and with many fewer casualties then if they hadn’t been dropped.
And do try and keep up with current events.
The entire Enola Gay is now proudly on display at the Air & Space Museums Annex out at Dulles Airport in Virginia, open to the public.
“horrors”? :dubious: The bombing of Hiroshima was no more “horrible” than the firebombing of Dresen or Tokyo, or some similar german attacks on England. Why would you say Hiroshima was any more “horrible” than Tokyo? More people died- and in a particulary horrible & painful way- in the Tokyo firebombings than at either atomic bombing.
True “horrors” were the deliberate and coldblooded mistreatment of people to their face, such as at Buchenwald and the various Japanese camps, especially their experimental “medical” team. We did some covering up of the Japanese atrocities after the war- my guess is, if we hadn’t, hardly anyone would have said anything but “they had it coming” about Hiroshima.
That’s highly debateable since radiation sickness isn’t the most painless, nor the most fun way to die.
Also, while the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo may have killed upwards of 500,000, none of their grandchildren and greatgrandchildren are coming down with leukemia and other types of cancers due to genetic mutations. That is what’s happening to the grandkids and great grandkids of those caught up in the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings.
That’s a lot more horrible then a firebombing any damn day.
As for when the American people found out about the bomb, well Truman made a radio address to the American people in which he said that a new weapon had been used on the Japanese. Not having yet been born I don’t recall if he went into specifics about the weapons being atomic bombs, but I don’t believe that was the case.
-
I never said it was- however, being burned to death- or worse- almost to death is certainly one of the most painful ways to die- or be injured.
-
Cite? I think Cece disagrees with you.
This is not the forum for debates, so we’re not going to have further discussion of this. If you want to discuss this, you may open a thread in Great Debates.
General Questions is for factual answers. Please confine your posts to the original question:
I’ve left out the part about a grudge and I’ve left out ElectroSunDog provocative ‘heh heh heh’ closing, because they are inappropriate to this forum. We’re not going to discuss that part of the OP here. Anyone wishing to discuss this is invited to open a Pit thread.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
My grandfather was among those allied troops and he said it was pretty awful in there. I think it mutated his genes … that’s the only thing I can think of that would explain me 
Essentially, yes. This is the broad conclusion of chapter 6 of Nuclear Fear: A History of Images (Harvard, 1988), Spencer Weart’s study of (primarily) US attitudes to nuclear physics, which considers public knowledge of the bombings in some detail.
I am a bit amazed in that all the discussions I have read, here or elsewhere, noone has mentioned the Fact that the headquarters of the 7th Japanese army was located there, it was an army base! My father pointed out that little tid bit becuase he would have been in the invasion force. War is Hell, we did not start it!
Well, this is tangential at best, but I’ve seen dozens of videos regarding nuclear weapons from the 50’s, and while I know that people knew about the horrors of the bomb, the American government seemed to be trying awfully hard to convince them otherwise.
The Duck and Cover campaign, as well as several military “saftey” videos are the prime examples that come to mind.