1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Horishima photos

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Dr Diversity, Aug 3, 2005.

  1. Dr Diversity

    Dr Diversity
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
  2. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley
    AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,849
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,222
    The photo's are pretty hair raising but I was heartened to see how "normal" Hiroshima looks now.

    For what it is worth- do an image search for Tokyo after the 1945 firestorm raid. The devastation is actually worse and more people died despite "only" using conventional weapons :(.
     
  3. Bristol Pete

    Bristol Pete
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    5,577
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Bristol.
    Ratings:
    +321
    There was a great article in last Sundays Times 'culture' magazine on the survivors and the effects of the blast over a certain distance.
     
  4. themoid

    themoid
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    849
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Staffs
    Ratings:
    +26
    ditto the Observer a couple weeks ago. the temperatures that were generated were incredible ...

    how long before this thread turns into an argument / rant about why the bombs should / shouldn't have been dropped :D
     
  5. mrtbag

    mrtbag
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    3,509
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Anywhere I want
    Ratings:
    +395
    Tons, I can't find any decent images. Do you know a source? I can't stop thinking what can be worse than the Hiroshima photos now. I need to see how bad it was.
     
  6. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley
    AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,849
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,222
    Images are a bit thinner on the ground than I first assumed- however
    http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
    gives a fair overview whilst I keep looking
    HTH :)

    EDIT= The website that I recall is proving elusive. However this photo I found on a Japanese blog gives some measure of the destruction. The damage is different to Hiroshima- more brick and iron structures have survived but the scale is on a different level.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. smelly

    smelly
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,598
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Bristol
    Ratings:
    +102
    I also read an article recently - can't remember whether in the Times or the Mail ( I was staying with my parents). It took the angle however that although a horrible thing to happen it actually saved lives in the long term. The author believed that the Japanese wouldn't have surrended had it not been for the bombs in Horoshima and Nagasaki and that as a result many more lives would have been lost through convential warfare. He also stated that the aftermath is less than people expected - no major increase in cancer rates, birth defects etc. I can't say how true any of this is but it made for interesting reading.
    And sorry for speeding this thread towards a discussion about whether it was right or wrong :blush:
     
  8. gooner#14

    gooner#14
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    469
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +1
    yeh but war is not pretty!
     
  9. HMHB

    HMHB
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    25,515
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Ratings:
    +3,852
    My mate went there the other year when England were in Japan for the World Cup. He said it was both a moving and a very uplifting experience. The people there were so nice.
     
  10. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Must have been the Mail. Short on truth, long on propaganda. ;) Truman was not (according to his memoirs) that convinced by the argument that the Japanese would not surrender if the bomb was not used. It did save US marines from a bloody hand to hand war to take Japan, but that is NOT certain. The sparce information we have suggests the Japanese were already wavering, as the US bombers had inflicted major damage and the generals felt it might be pertinent to surrender before US troops reached Japanese soil. It would have saved much 'dishonor'. However, they did not react immediately when peace terms were offered allowing the go ahead to be given.

    On the flipside Truman was eager to show Stalin a demonstration of US power to forestall Soviet ambitions in Europe. It has been argued (take it as you feel) that this, not Japan, was the primary reason for the use of not just one, but the second strike as well. There is very little hard evidence available to suggest Nagasaki was necessary for any other than that reason.

    As for the effects of the radiation there was an excellent programme on the long term effects, and many people who were interviewed had family members still having defective births, cancer problems etc as a result.

    A lot of the Right wing press articles, the Mail in particular, take ten seconds to debunk. ;)
     
  11. smelly

    smelly
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,598
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Bristol
    Ratings:
    +102
    Did a bit of research after posting this. Found the following interesting web site on radiation effects. Its jointly funded by the Japanese and US goverments - how much that adds to the accuracy of the info there god only knows :rolleyes:

    It does back up what you're saying by providing stats to show that deaths from cancers (particularly Leukemia) and birth defects of children gestating at the time of the bombs increased. However it went on to say that there's no evidence as yet that there are any genetic effects. The impacts of the bombs seem to have stopped at the generation alive at the time.
    Knowing my parents - yeah probably :rolleyes:
     
  12. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Not much tbh. The US is in denial with regards the effects of it's own nuclear testing and it's effects on both locals and US troops. Japan is tied very closely to the US in terms of economics (Hence they don't like to upset US 'opinion'). Which is why the US managed to squeeze them into WW2 in the first place...............

    It's also interesting to note that despite high rates of leukemia reported around some UK nuclear power plants the offical line is "there is no proven link blah, blah, blah".

    Seems Nuclear power, bombs, and their attendent problems, send officaldom into secrecy and BS overdrive...............
     
  13. shodan

    shodan
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,125
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    shoeburyness
    Ratings:
    +4,406
  14. Miyazaki

    Miyazaki
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14,304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +849
    You can't change the past etc etc.

    One thing I find gaulling is that the USA wave their finger at the likes of Iran for enriching uranium, yet the USA is the only nation on earth to have use the h-bomb against another nation.
     
  15. Rasczak

    Rasczak
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    21,204
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Argyll
    Ratings:
    +2,261
    The bombs dropped on Japan were not Hydrogen bombs. They were Atomic Bombs - and, if you want to be pedantic - the Horishima bomb was effectively a dirty bomb (given how little of the material went critical).
     
  16. The Dude

    The Dude
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,945
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Beverley, East Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +1,253
    .....and it also effectively ended a 40 yr 'global' war, forever?
     
  17. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley
    AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,849
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,222
    Ended is a bit strong but it certainly calmed things down a bit. Once we got out of the "exciting new toy" phase of Nuclear Strategy (do a search for the "Davy Crokett mortar" if you're bored), Mutually Assured Destruction broadly speaking ensured that the world would not go nuclear whilst giving both superpowers sufficient leverage to make a complete horlicks of things in the third world.
    Ahh- Cold War stability- and to think we thought the world would be safer when it ended :suicide:.
     
  18. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Yup. They couldn't fight each other (although it came VERY close on at least three occasions) they could use other nations localised wars as proxies. Because of the two sides arming various nations and factions there's probably been more people killed than if there had been a war (non nuclear) between the two..........
     
  19. The Dude

    The Dude
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,945
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Beverley, East Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +1,253
    hmmm...The official global death toll for WW2 was well over 60million lives...in just 6 years!
    It's also worth noting that figure includes NOT ONE SINGLE US CIVILIAN CASUALTY.

    and this was all back in the 'good old days' when you had to be able to actually see the guys you were shooting at/carpet bombing.... :rolleyes:

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a tragic waste of human life, but then have you seen any pictures from Dresden, Feb13th 1945 ?
    The Dresden death toll (estimated as always) was actually higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined! ... but it wasn't the first time we'd done this, so just not as highly publicised / politicised.

    - The surviving statue in the photo is named 'The Goodness' :thumbsup:
     
  20. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Of which 27 million were Soviets. When you start toting up how many millions have died in Africa alone, not to mention the Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos conflict, the South American guerilla wars, Chile, and of course our fave area for disastrous nose poking, the Middle East, you can see how we can get a pretty hideous total. ;)

    Not to mention the fact that because of the (ultimately back breaking) Soviet manpower superiority by the 70's it would probably have been a short and sweet border conflict in Germany......... Although we've heard that before!

    Dresden was the ultimate realisation of Harris's tactics. He was proved utterly wrong (unlike the A bomb attacks) in that they weakened German resolve not one iota.
     
  21. seb

    seb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0

    Hi,

    newbie here, however, just wanted to record that few doubt that the Nazis wouldnt have dropped the bomb if they could have completed it - there is a record that they also sent stocks of uranium and results to Japan by U-boat to continue the development of the bomb as Germany collapsed.

    Therefore no reason to suggest that Japan had any doubts about using bomb first if they had had the opportunity.

    I also believe that many hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians , soldiers, allied soldiers and POW's would have died if both bombs had not been used.

    There was an order to execute all allied POW's if allies landed on mainland Japan. I had an uncle who barely survived 3 years in a Japanese POW camp, I felt strong enough about this to want to post here.....
     
  22. pjclark1

    pjclark1
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,411
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Thailand
    Ratings:
    +271
    Poor old Joe Stalin, first he's betrayed by his Nazi allies, then he's betrayed by his American allies. No wonder Russia didn't trust the western world.

    All the arguements for dropping the A bomb on Hiroshima may have some validity.
    Dropping another A-bomb on Nagasaki three days later is an atrocity of the sort that only America would dare commit on another country.
     
  23. HMHB

    HMHB
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2001
    Messages:
    25,515
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottinghamshire
    Ratings:
    +3,852
    :eek: poor old Joe Stalin :eek:
     
  24. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley
    AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,849
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,222
    Possibly so but two things to remember-
    Japan only surrendered after this second attack.
    The primary target was (I think) Osaka so the loss of life could have been an enormous amount higher.
    I'd contend that Stalin and Beria's actions against the Army Krajowa and Sudeten Germans in about the same period probably would count as an atrocity against other countries to most people.
     
  25. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Did anyone say they axis would not have used the bomb had they had it first? The situation however, was entirely different. The Axis would have used it to prolong the war not to end it...............

    However, documents the Americans have, suggests the Japanese were merely shell shocked not still defiant. The green light for the 2nd bomb was also given before diplomatic channels were given time to react. Nagasaki was an experiment nothing more.

    I'd agree. Two wrongs don't make a right. The Sudenten Germans, nor the Poles who commited atrocities in the 20's, were saints during WW2...... but that's no excuse for Stalins barbarity.

    I don't however, have much sympathy with the average German after what they did or cynically ignored during WW2. No offense Tons.
     
  26. seb

    seb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    actually overkill I was responding to observations like this singled out America for using the bomb, when as I pointed out, the axis powers were just as desperate to us it.

    Also, I think the facts speak for themselves that the Japanese had not surrendered by the time Nagasaki was destroyed. Both bombs were clearly necessary and saved countless lives.

    The radio yesterday also covered a report in The New Scientist I believe which indicated that post bomb deaths and radiation effects were overplayed and subsequent defects were much lower than expected.

    I do not share in the handwringing and guilt that is displayed by some in this country over the dropping of the bomb - it was perhaps the single most important act in ending the conflict and reducing deaths.

    The ongoing guilt lies surely with the Japanese over the atrocities commited by themselves and which they are disgracefully lacking full contrition.
     
  27. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley
    AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    10,849
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +3,222
    None taken. I'm a realist and have long since accepted that my own ancestry will never be squeaky clean. The put upon bit of me would argue that the residents of the Sudenten land were an unlucky group but given their numbers have increased in that area in the last ten years for the first time since 1945 shows that nothing is forever. Besides I look at Kaliningrad and realise how bad it could have been.
     
  28. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Facts? You mean the documents held by the US indicating that Japan was preparing to surrender pre Nagasaki are bogus? I think not.

    Who overplayed them? The Japanese had no say. The US were trying to prove the opposite, and no-one was (for the obvious reasons) too interested in anyone trying to 'overplay' statistics on post bomb deaths etc. A conspiracy theory is fine until you start to examine the New Scientists motives. I.e that Nuclear power is safe etc, etc,.....

    :rolleyes: As before, Truman himself cast doubt on that idea. If he didn't believe it who the hell should?

    The real reason for the bombs being dropped on Japan seems fairly conclusively to have been to warn off Stalin. Neither side wanted another war in 1945, and as such it seemed the best option to avoid a US/UK war with the USSR. If they succeded in that alone, hideous bloodshed was avoided.

    This sort of comment has a familiar ring to it. The sort of remark my old pal Chard would have made............. ;)

    The Japanese fought the war in the most brutal fashion, and you are correct they still refuse to be contrite over it. However, they are not alone in refusing to be contrite over their history. It does though make it difficult to have much sympathy with them.

    However, the appalling destruction caused in 1945 moves people for the right reasons. If the scenes of human suffering after the blasts cannot induce pity then we are no better than they.
     
  29. seb

    seb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    I was quoting an article in the Mail yesterday which featured an interview with the pilot of one of the bombers which dropped the bomb, the article stated that there was no indication of any desire of the Japanese to surrender till days after the second bomb and infact the americans were considering using a third. I don't know of the Truman comments you mentioned - are you suggesting Truman thought there was another way of ending the war without further massive loss of life or did he just feel guilty?

    As for Japan, the article repeated that there had been a standing order issued the year before that all allied POW's were to be executed if an invasion of Japan took place.


    PS- how do you put different quotes in replies which still list the name of the original posters, ie several quotes from different posters?
     
  30. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Were you? Then stop wasting my time. No offense, but nothing the Mail says is worth repeating, nor is it in anyway factually accurate. Distortion and mistruth is their watchword.............

    I have seen Mail articles on 'historical events' that were so biased, so wide of the truth, that they were hardly worth reading. One is pinned up on the staffroom wall as a classic an example of how poor media coverage of history is.

    Not that the Mail is ever worth reading.
     

Share This Page

Loading...