This is probably not the best place to ask this in terms of sights since we're all non Japanese but I'll ask anyway.

I was watching a documentary on the A-bombs in Japan and it seemed like people who didn't see it themselves or lived through that time period barely knew anything about it.

Is this the case in most of Japan or was it just specially selected interviewees who didn't have a clue?

I can't answer your question directly, but I think it's possible that current generations of Japanese people who live in a free and non-murderous country created after the war do not associate themselves with the previous regime that raped and murdered Asia. Thus some may attach little emotional significance to the event or not express sympathy for the militaristic dictatorship they see themselves as separate from.

Although there's a whole different dynamic with censorship in China, take a look at how few people there know or even care that their country starved and worked up to 50 million people to death only a few decades ago. People often don't want to examine a black mark in history if nationalistic pride gets hurt.

Makes sense. we do the same thing in America.

Considering the massive time school kids spend learning about Hiroshima and Nagasaki I find the OP hard to believe. They even have Hiroshima essays in the English textbooks (JHS New Horizon 3年).

Edit: I think a bigger problem is the fact that Japanese society is so fixated with being the only victims of atomic warfare that they completely neglect to educate their kids the horrors of war that Japan brought to the rest of Asia.

What kitakitsune said.

I dunno, it was weird.

The movie white light black rain started with asking a bunch of people, 'what happened on august 6 / 9 1945' and all they could say was わからない

probably selected interviewees

I'm not defending Japanese war time aggression, but I think Japanese students probably spend about as much time learning about Japanese perpetrated war crimes as (non German or Italian) westerners do about war crimes committed against the axis or Chinese do about Tibet/Uighar etc.

Perhaps they just didn't know the date of atomic bombings?

Or perhaps you're the victim of clever editing....

@blackbrich yeah, but that would kind of be like not remembering 9/11, except worse.

@kazelee that's what I was suspecting - with the interviewees they took a lot, and then just showed the ones of people with no clue.

9/11 was 10 years ago.... Most of us lived through it. For children in the future it'll just be a date with nothing to attach it to...
1945 was a while ago...
But then again it depends... were they asking old people?(assuming it was made around 2010)

zachandhobbes Wrote:I dunno, it was weird.

The movie white light black rain started with asking a bunch of people, 'what happened on august 6 / 9 1945' and all they could say was わからない

probably selected interviewees

That is completely meaningless. I suspect that 99% of people throughout the world don't know the date on which Hiroshima was bombed. If you asked them "What happened to Hiroshima in 1945?", they would be able to tell you. 9/11 is referred to by its date, that's not comparable at all.

zachandhobbes Wrote:@blackbrich yeah, but that would kind of be like not remembering 9/11, except worse.

9/11 is 9/11, that's why people know the date it happened. In addition to it being used as a political tool for the past 10 years; it's impossible to forget. What date did the Oklahoma bombing happen? How many American high-schoolers would explain to you what happened on 7th December 1941 when asked on the spot? Are dates really that important outside high school history tests?

Regardless of the dates, I don't think there's a Japanese person alive who doesn't know about the bombings, even if it's 通り一遍に. The more interesting point, as brought up already, is what they know about before those dates.

zachandhobbes Wrote:I was watching a documentary on the A-bombs in Japan and it seemed like people who didn't see it themselves or lived through that time period barely knew anything about it.

What do you mean by ‘barely knew anything about it’?

I'm surprised you haven't come across things about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese media or in media about Japan that indicates awareness of the nuclear attacks. It's a pretty well-known topic. They even have memorials and stuff. Recently I think the BBC apologized to Japan for making some joke about that fellow who survived both bombs.

Edit: By the way: Atomic Bomb Survivor Documentary Gets Japan Release

The atomic bombings are central to modern Japanese society even if kids don't know the exact date.

What's the name of the documentary btw?

What I've always found puzzling is why the Americans didn't drop an A-bomb on Tokyo? Could anyone please shed some light on it?

buonaparte Wrote:What I've always found puzzling is why the Americans didn't drop an A-bomb on Tokyo? Could anyone please shed some light on it?

If the USA wiped out the Japanese leadership then who would surrender?

Plus the military wanted to study the effects on an untouched city and the psychological effects that would have on Japanese leadership.

I've thought about it as well. But when you want to crash the enemy as soon as possible, the first thing you do is kill their leaders.

And why was Kyoto spared?

buonaparte Wrote:I've thought about it as well. But when you want to crash the enemy as soon as possible, the first thing you do is kill their leaders.

And why was Kyoto spared?

The story everyone tells is that some general spent time there before the war and liked the city and so kept it off the target list.

The truth is that it was kept pristine in order to drop a nuke on it to see what the effect would be on an untouched city. Only weather saved it in the end. It was actually the #1 nuke target.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

Tokyo was very heavily firebombed so there would be no huge psychological impact from the destruction, and it wouldn't be useful for data gathering on the effects of a nuke.

Jarvik7,
thanks for the link. An interesting read. Damn it!

They did consider Tokyo:
(6) The possibility of bombing the Emperor's palace was discussed. It was agreed that we should not recommend it but that any action for this bombing should come from authorities on military policy. It was agreed that we should obtain information from which we could determine the effectiveness of our weapon against this target.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.



I found this extremely interesting. The longer I live, the more I doubt we are human beings.

Official Bombing Order, July 25, 1945 - The bombing order issued to General Spaatz made no mention of targetting military objectives or sparing civilians. The cities themselves were the targets.



6 August 45
General Groves call Dr. Oppenheimer, Santa Fe at 2:00 pm

Gen G: I'm very proud of you and all of your people.

Dr. O: It went alright?

Gen G: Apparently it went with a tremendous bang.

Dr. O: When was this, was it after sundown?

Gen G: No, unfortunately it had to be in the daytime on account of security of the plane and that was left in the hands of the Commanding General over there and he knew what the advantages were of doing it after sundown and he was told just all about that and I said it was up to him; that it was not paramount but that it was very desireable.

Dr. O: Right. Everybody is feeling reasonably good about it and I extend my heartiest congratulations. It's been a long road.

Also on the topic of Tokyo,

The emperor of Japan was a figurehead, not the leader of Japan. Killing him would be of psychological impact only, but likely it would have been hidden from the populace. Imperial Japan was run by the military, who were not all concentrated in one convenient place to bomb.

Let's say Germany wanted to start WW3 and defeat England. The queen would not be the first target for assassination.

Hirohito might have been not as important as Hitler in Germany, but not as insignificant as the British Queen or the King.

Besides, all the miltary headquaters were in Tokyo.

Hirohito was very heavily involved with day to day decision making during the war. Herbert Bix covers this well in his biography of the emperor.

GHQ actually intentionally downplayed his role to help manage the occupation.

The emperor wasn't a position of power since the 11th century...
Every time there was a civil war/revolution it was to "restore power to the imperial house" but it was always just a ruse.

At best he was informed of decisions and gave a ceremonial approval. Rubber stamping != commanding.
I haven't read the book you mention though

Ever since the Meiji Restoration the Emperor was not just a figurehead. He had real power.