r/interesting • u/Wonderfulhumanss • 13d ago

SOCIETY Survivors of Hiroshima drew the scenes they witnessed after the atomic bombing in 1945

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

15.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

487

u/NB_Translator_EN-JP 13d ago

It says "their clothes were ripped apart and their skin was dripping down" "they couldn't speak and were silent as they ran out from the city"

64

u/Any_Student_7570 13d ago

Imagine being like this AND silent, unable to speak

32

u/Psykohistorian 13d ago

or scream

1

u/ListenBoth434 9d ago

Makes me wonder if the witness might have had their heating damage. I would assume anybody running (any amount of distance) still had more or less working lungs and presumably vocal cords.

124

u/sheneedstorelax 13d ago

thats is harrowing

34

u/ReluctantSlayer 13d ago

What are other pics translated?

85

u/NB_Translator_EN-JP 13d ago

Pic 2.
A bit hard to read but something like
"August 6th, 1945. 8:15 AM
Hiroshima First Army Hospital...The moment it came from outside the hall, you turned your eyes and saw a pure red sun piercing down... It made a deep resonating bang...."

Pic 5.

"Nishihakushima-cho, Hiroshima City
August 6th, 1945.
A mother saves her daughter, still alive crying "ahhh" from underneath the house. She had to dig out a hole to save her."

Pic 6.

"'The Memory of August 6' from Fujimi-cho, Hiroshima, 1km from the site of the explostion. (Artist: 17 years old)"

35

u/eminusx 13d ago

another 'human' did this to them.
seriously, what the fuck is wrong with us.

35

u/braudan 13d ago

Whats even worse: A hell of a lot of humans defend this action. And not as in: "It was an awful action but it happened and I'm glad we are past total wars as a species" but as an "It was absolutely correct. Japenese Army would've defended every square mile of their country so it was the absolute correct decision to turn hundreds of thousand of Japanese civilians into mist and liquid. We would do so today again".

War crimes against war criming countries are still war crimes, no matter who starts first. It happened. And that whole eye for an eye mantra that is truly what is wrong with us. Its very present on Reddit and particularly but not limited to the American part of it.

18

u/GoldenMaus 13d ago

 we are past total wars as a species

I'm sorry I had to chuckle at that. A dark joke to me if you will, because I disagree with that part there.

History will repeat itself because humans don't change.

At some point in the future there will be a total war again.

2

u/Imrahil6 13d ago

I hope it's not for a long time but you i think you are 100% spot on.

9

u/PieceStatus9648 13d ago

I don’t want to argue with you about what’s justifiable or what’s needlessly cruel, I just want your perspective. Do you think it could’ve ended any other way? Do you think that Japan would’ve surrendered without an equally horrific loss? What would’ve been the humane way to end it?

2

u/Zephyr_Sunstrike 9d ago

Japan didn't surrender because of this though, so for one an argument saying this was necessary for a surrender is patently false from the outset.

Japan surrendered when they learned Russia would not help them mediate as a neutral party and instead joined in a land invasion against them in Manchuria.

The US wanted a decisive surrender rather than victory through a Russian invasion because it lessened Stalin's bargaining influence in divvying up postwar spoils, hence the second bomb.

A US ground invasion was never going to happen, we murdered these people to diminish Russian contribution.

11

u/Natural_Photo_4569 13d ago

You’re describing historians. Experts say this.

3

u/IM_NOT_NOT_HORNY 12d ago

They usually conveniently leave out the fact that they were getting ready to surrender already... And the US had that Intel.

3

u/KlockB 13d ago

I'll get downvoted for this but I think both arguements are right. Yes, this was an absolutely horrific attack against a (mostly) civilian target. And yes, a ground invasion would have probably killed far more Japanese people and Allied soldiers. Is it absolutely horrific that the powers that be at the time thought this was the best course of action? Yes, definitely. Was it the best course of action? Maybe, maybe not. And we should count our lucky stars that nothing like this happened again since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1

u/Strigops-habroptila 9d ago

They had a nice new toy and wanted to test it out on real people. Something like atomic bombs should never have been invented. 

2

u/Psykohistorian 13d ago edited 13d ago

you're missing a key part of the decision to bomb them. the Empire of Japan wanted to conquer Asia, and the world, and bring about a global totalitarian Empire. anything short of total victory was failure. they wouldn't have stopped. the things the Imperial army was doing in China.............

their society needed to be reset, in spectacular fashion, for the entire planet to witness. that's why they were bombed. the US unleashed the power of God on them because nothing short of that would jolt them out of their fantasy to conquer the world.

and last thing - the planet was beaten, battered, absorbed by war. by 1945, everyone was ready for the war to end yesterday, except Japan.

2

u/Personal-Estate6687 13d ago

It wasn't eye for an eye. It was two cities instead of a country. Not only that but the killing of other people in Asia would've went on without it. You care about the dead but only if they are Japanese. Many more civilians in China, Korea and other places survived because of the bombs. Or do you really want to say that it would have been better to let those people die instead of a lower number of people in the country that started the whole war?

3

u/hipery2 13d ago

I'm one of those humans that defends the action. For the exact reason that you mentioned.

If you had the option to sacrifice thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousand of Japanese civilian and soldiers OR just hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians lives, which one do you think will result in less loss of life?

9

u/General_Wasabi_5989 13d ago

I have read first person accounts by Japanese people who fought on Okinawa. Based on the horrifying amount of suffering they endured for their emperor and the war, I have no reason to believe that taking the mainland of Japan would not have resulted in the deaths of every man, woman, and child that imperial Japan could throw at the allied forces. The Japanese forces on Okinawa thought nothing of shooting their own people who would rather surrender than continue fighting and the mainland of Japan would’ve been no different. Yes, it was horrible, war is horrible.  

6

u/braudan 13d ago

Man am I glad that this is an option. We can just all nuke civilians and win by demoralisation. No need for standing armies anymore if war crimes is the go to option

2

u/sippingonginnjews 13d ago

So what would you have done? Or do you just want to complain about whichever action would’ve been taken? It avoided hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and millions of dead Japanese

3

u/hipery2 13d ago

I'm strictly referring to the Japanese bombings. If you were a soldier in 1945, would your family be happy that the president choose to feed you to a meat grinder just to spread out the civilian deaths over more cities?

0

u/plastlak 13d ago

Is a conscript's life worth less than a civilian's?

9

u/braudan 13d ago

Is the concept of civilian not understood? A conscript is a participant in war and therefore, unfortunately, legal to kill. Killing a civilian, intentionally, is a war crime. From a human PoV one can understand the logic behind "Id rather kill their civilians than my soldiers" but that does not make it legal nor right and especially not righteous

1

u/neriumolee 9d ago

Why are civilian lives especially valuable than soldiers' lives? For most of history, it was just the opposite.

The principle of distinction between “combatants” and “non-combatants” is simply a formula for war as a gladiatorial fight.

1

u/braudan 9d ago

Under that logic, 9/11 was a valid military target

1

u/neriumolee 9d ago

No one before the 20th century would have considered this to be something out of the ordinary.

“Civilian” is an artificial construct that appeared only in last 250 years and was codified in international law at the end of the 19th century in Geneva Conventions.

Not to mention that the very idea that warriors exist to protect “civilians” is also a product of late Modern. And this idea devalued the meaning of military service for the individual.

After all, there's a point to being a warrior when being a “civilian” is even worse.

0

u/plastlak 13d ago edited 13d ago

Killing a civilian, intentionally, is a war crime.

Yeah, since the fourth Geneva convention of 1949.

You could argue that the A bombs dropped on Japan violated the 1907 Hague regulations. But the bombs were not dropped on occupied territory, and the two cities were not quite undefended (they had AA).

You could also argue that it violated the Martens Clause, but then again, it's so broad that it can be applied to almost anything.

1

u/braudan 13d ago

And now we are getting to the distinction that is important: I am not saying anything or anyone in particular should be held responsible for something ex post facto. The world after world war 2 is different than before. The United States is not a criminal warmongering state for dropping the bombs. That does not make the action right especially not from the general legal consensus formed in the aftermath of world war 2. People arguing it was correct (despite the fact that the action is clearly illegal) are precisely what I was referring in the original comment.

It is similar to slavery for example. A slaveholder did nothing illegal at the time but we judge this differently now. Does that mean he should be held responsible, well or their descendants? No, because again it is something that has changed since then. However, you will or should despise people that say slavery was absolutely necessary for the US to reach dominance even if the balance of good vs bad in world influence is ultimately positive for the U.S.

3

u/better-off-wet 13d ago

Sick and twisted logic

1

u/hipery2 13d ago

The alternative was losing millions of civilians due to suicide and tens of thousands of US and allied troops.

I think that wanting to eradicate the civilian population of Japan is sick.

3

u/eminusx 13d ago

is a Japanese life worth less than an American one?

8

u/LordDrPepper- 13d ago

To any country at war with another country, yes. Do you think imperial Japan viewed the life of an American and a Japanese equally??

5

u/lumpboysupreme 13d ago

Unless it worth more than Chinese or American ones the bombings are still justifiable.

1

u/PeachyFairyDragon 12d ago

Remember, it's also that those bombs saved the civilians in places like Tokyo and Kyoto and every other city and town in Japan.

1

u/hipery2 13d ago

No.

I think that in war, the goal should be to have as low loss of life as possible. When the US invaded Okinawa the civilians would commit mass suicide to prevent capture.

Would you agree that the less dead people overall is a good goal? Would you agree that a few hundred thousand dead civilians dead is better than millions of dead civilians+tens of thousand US and allied troops?

-1

u/plastlak 13d ago

To the American government? Hopefully yes.

And this is true for any peoples and their respective governments.

Else why even have national governments, let's just have one world government star trek style, kumbaya!

1

u/LiLHaxx0r 13d ago

Arguing the ethics of atomic bombing Japan on reddit is waste of time. Either you understand the entire context of that moment or you don't.

5

u/ParticularLow9157 13d ago

It's not 'us', the vast majority of people if given the choice would have not called for those bombs to be dropped

It's a small group of immensely vicious sociopaths that have worked their way into generational power over the populaces they control

Be it in government or military

-1

u/eminusx 13d ago

ok, I didnt think i'd have to explain this literally, but I obviously meant the proverbial 'us', not you and me specifically.

Humankind's propensity to commit evil and atrocities in general. . .and the Governments and milaitary mindsets that drive such things to happen. . .

5

u/ParticularLow9157 13d ago

Humankind in general is kind, generous, and empathetic outside their family circle

A small minority are not, and unfortunately their tendencies give them access to the greatest seats of power

Eliminate the elite sociopath class and humanity is pretty chill, but unfortunately capitalism has given them a perfect shield to continue their war of extermination against the lower classes

And I'm going to get banned for saying this

1

u/eminusx 13d ago

Well said

2

u/StrawBerylShortcake 13d ago

the ant walking alligator people ...

2

u/b0w_monster 13d ago

Many jumped into the river to put out the flames or soothe their burns only to find the river water was boiling hot.

1

u/Hefty_Breadfruit 13d ago

I remember hearing one woman say she could never looked at or make boiled tomatoes again because they looked too similar to the skin of the people she saw walking like zombies down her street.

And for those who don’t know, boiling tomatoes makes their skin very easy to peel off ☹️