Japanese survivor of both U.S. atomic bomb attacks dies at 93

[sabra]

Source: USA Today

Tsutomu Yamaguchi, the only person officially recognized as surviving both U.S. atomic bomb attacks on Japan, has died at the age of 93 of stomach cancer, the Kyodo news service reports.

"A precious storyteller has been lost," the mayor of Nagasaki said, the BBC reports.

Yamaguchi, who was in Hiroshima on a business trip on Aug. 6, 1945, was stepping from a tram when the first bomb dropped about two miles away.

After an overnight stay, he returned to his hometown of Nagaski shortly before the second bomb was dropped on Aug. 9. It hit, he said, as he was recalling his experiences in Hiroshima to a supervisor at the engineering company where he worked.

Yamaguchi later later went completely bald and suffered radiation poisoning.

"The reason that I hate the atomic bomb is because of what it does to the dignity of human beings," said Yamaguchi, an outspoken critic of nuclear weapons.

"I cannot understand why the world cannot understand the agony of the nuclear bombs," he said. "How can they keep developing these weapons?"

Read more: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/01/japanese-survivor-of-both-us-atomic-bomb-attacks-dies-at-93/1?loc=interstitialskip

[niyad]

1. RIP

[FourScore]

2. Farewell brave one. n/t

[naaman fletcher]

4. What is brave about him?

I mean, he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.. twice, but I don't see how he did anything brave.

[naaman fletcher]

7. guy seems like a dope to me...

The reason that I hate the atomic bomb is because of what it does to the dignity of human beings," said Yamaguchi, an outspoken critic of nuclear weapons.

Well there's that, and the fact that they kill people. Did the Tokyo firestorm treat people with more dignity?

"I cannot understand why the world cannot understand the agony of the nuclear bombs," he said. "How can they keep developing these weapons?"
It seems people understand it pretty well, which is why none have been used since.

[kenfrequed]

9. Of course...

Why would we want land mine survivors to protest land mines, or survivors of drunk driving accidents to speak out against drunk driving, or James Brady to speak out against handguns?



Of course there must be great dignity in all forms of weapons of war then? I don't think he was speaking comparatively or praising the dignity of previous weapons of war, but I can completely understand how you could read that into his statements. Did you use a crowbar to help you with that?


The reason I think he was concerned is the afteraffects of the weapon and the tendency to use such weapons purely strategically as a means of targeting non-military targets with much greater ease and efficiency.

[Posteritatis]

15. I think a guy who was nuked twice gets to say "you can't understand" about the process, honestly. nt

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RedCloud]

3. Luck finally ran out for this gentle soul.

He must have had a lifetime of agonizing nightmares.

[proteus_lives]

23. So did the survivors of Japan's rampage throughout Asia.

[izquierdista]

24. He doesn't look like a rampager

That's the problem with atomic bombs, they don't spare the women and children and kill just the rapists and plunderers.

[WriteDown]

5. Pretty amazing considering his exposure to a host of things. nt

[krispos42]

6. Wow, talk about unlucky.

Or perhaps lucky... surviving both of the only two hostile uses of nuclear weapons.

I hope his observations of the events were very well documented.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

8. Beats my worst "Business Travel Nightmare" story by a mile (nt)

[Faryn Balyncd]

10. Inspiring. Thanks.

K & R


:hi:

[JVS]

12. Wow! Nuked twice!

[Demeter]

13. amazing story, horrible nightmare

WW2 is full of them. After that, governments shoot the story tellers, rather than let them tell the truth to the world, or lock them away for ever, disappear them, or bind the press to secrecy.

[drm604]

14. And he lived to 93.

Really good genes I guess.

[Uncle Joe]

16. The ultimate bad week, I can only imagine his PTSD must have been off the scale.

RIP Tsutomu Yamaguchi.

Thanks for the thread, sabra.

[marshall]

17. Was the atomic bomb known to cause stomach cancer?

I remember all the folks in the western US who got cancer after the testing blew the wrong way and hit populated areas.

[cowcommander]

18. The nuclear tests done after Hiroshima were many, many times more powerful

Radiation levels from the first three A-bombs were pretty small, compared to the more powerful nukes used in testing years later.

[Zynx]

20. That's because they were Uranium bombs and Uranium is not very radioactive compared to

Plutonium. Plutonium is some nasty stuff.

[hunter]

55. One was uranium, one was plutonium.

"Little Boy," the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was a gun-type uranium bomb. "Fat Man," the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, was an implosion type plutonium bomb.

That the United States would use both sorts of bombs suggests a rather sickening attitude of experimentalism. The U.S. was also very keen to collect the grim "scientific" statistics of Japanese and German genocide, all for "defensive" purposes, of course...

But the key point here was to demonstrate to our enemies that we had the capability of being as nasty and as genocidal as the very worst in human history when provoked, as our own grim history has amply demonstrated.

Tsutomu Yamaguchi's hideous experience demonstrates that the United States will sink as low and as dirty as any "bad guy" in a firefight. The higher ethical ground we often proclaim is merely an expedience.

[grantcart]

68. Your response is devoid of historical accuracy on a breath taking scale.

It is possible of course to be against any use of nuclear weapons but pure hard core numbers show that the motivation for using them was in reducing loss of life.

First the reason that the two bombs were used was that they were the only two left, all others having been tested. It would have been some time before more fissionable material could have been used.

Second Japanese war mentality had reached a point of madness in which surrender was no longer a possibility. This is proved both imperially and anecdotally.

In the latter island battles virtually no Japanese gave themselves up either fighting past any chance of victory or committing suicide. In fact many Japanese civilians, including pregnant women committed suicide rather than be captured by 'white devils'.
On the Island of Iwo Jima for example out of "the 22,786 Japanese soldiers entrenched on the island, 21,570 died either from fighting or by ritual suicide. Only 216 were captured during the battle. The Allied forces suffered 26,038 casualties, with 6,821 killed in action." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima#Aftermath

Further evidence of the difficulty of getting the Japanese to surrender is of course the fact that after Hiroshima surrender was not fully accepted by the government and after Nagasaki significant parts of the military wanted to continue to fight, even after the announcement of the Emperor.

Not only would an invasion of Japan certainly caused more casualties than the atomic bombs, but people forget how many Japanese soldiers remained in theater. There were over 100,000 soldiers still stationed in Siam and if the casualty rate of Iwo Jima was sustained there then the total number of casualties there would have exceeded those of the two nuclear blasts.

More people died from the bombing of Tokyo and the fires that erupted every night than the nuclear explosions, but the incremental destruction of neighborhoods at a time did not have the dramatic effect of the concentration that the nuclear basts had.

But if the clear light of statistics are not persuasive there is this, the life of Tsutomu Yamaguchi.

After experiencing Hiroshima, being in great pain and bandaged up what did he do? The next morning as soon as he was bandaged he reported to work for Mitsibuishi, Japans largest military contractor. Hiroshima did not stop Yamaguchi from doing his part in the war effort, he was ready to continue.

Beyond the armed combatants an invasion of Japan opened the horrific possibility of tens of thousands of civilians committing suicide. Ironically those included the family of Yamaguchi.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/6943088/Tsutomu-Yamaguchi.html

So despondent was he that he considered, in the event of Japan losing the war, killing his wife and baby son with an overdose of sleeping pills.

At this point time nuclear weapons have become redundant and counterproductive and should be eliminated. Misrepresenting the facts of their original use undermines rather than supports that argument.

[hunter]

69. The U-235 bomb was a certainty. The plutonium bomb was an experiment.

Plutonium production at the end of the war greatly exceeded U-235 production and it was obvious the technically more difficult plutonium bombs would be the primary atomic weapon of the post-war U.S. arsenal.

If the Japanese had not surrendered after two atomic bombings it was estimated the U.S. might have one U-235 weapon and as many as a dozen plutonium weapons by December.

The invasion of Japan would have been nothing like the bloody ground battle the "...if Truman didn't drop the bomb..." propagandists depict. It's very likely we would have simply backed off a bit and launched a full scale nuclear attack.

"...If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth..."

Truman wasn't spewing any bullshit. He had a very big stick and he was willing to use it.

Blaming Tsutomu Yamaguchi for the war is as silly as blaming World Trade Center survivors for our own torture of children and murder of civilians in Iraq.

Your own lack of historical accuracy is of a "breath taking scale."

[ZombieHorde]

77. "This is proved both imperially and anecdotally."

Yet proved to be completely false when Japan actually surrendered.

[marshall]

27. I guess it gets everybody sooner or later

And we just increase our daily exposure to the stuff.

[izquierdista]

25. It can

So does a Helicobacter pylorii. And so does the Japanese diet. They have a high incidence of stomach cancer.

[Vidar]

19. RIP Mr. Yamaguchi.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Socal31]

22. Good for him.

Many of his countrymen, and many of our fellow US citizens, were spared due to the surrender. I may not have ever been born if we invaded the mainland. (Grandfather was Pacific spy.)

[Bonobo]

26. The fact that a thread like this gets responses like this is the reason I have lost respect for DU.

It is pathetic.

[Romulox]

29. Why would you expect DU to be a congregating place for apologists for Japan's WWII genocide?

:shrug:

[Bonobo]

30. So well put. Thanks for confirming. nt

[Romulox]

31. You want to condemn people morally AND put no effort into it whatever?

Pretty lame for somebody on a high horse. :hi:

[Bonobo]

34. It is America that is on the high horse.

The only nuclear bombs ever used on Earth and all you can do is make reflexive, unexamined, tired and over-used arguments.

Typically there is ZERO self-examination in the process. Just like an 8 year old who blames everyone else for their own actions.

[Romulox]

38. Actually, "blame" is the childish concept. I refer to cause intersecting with effect.

And this really is projection: "Typically there is ZERO self-examination in the process."

You offered a photo montage of European colonialism in defense of Japanese genocide downthread. Why do you point out the mote in my eye?

And btw, I've never seen you actually admit that the Japanese killed some 20-30 million civilians on the Asian mainland during WWII--lemme guess--you think that number is "blown out of proportion", don't you? :puke:

[Bonobo]

39. I will not use this thread for that type of discussion.

It is your (and others) inability to see that this is an inappropriate thread to post that kind of thing.

Simply, you (seem to) have no class or ability to decide what is appropriate for any given situation.

If I was at a party, I am sure I would not speak to you. I feel the same here.

You actually are starting to disgust me.

[Romulox]

42. LOL. Thanks for confirming my hunch. You can't bring yourself to admit it.

You could admit to Japan's genocidal activities during WWII--but you just don't want to!

:hi:

[Bonobo]

43. Whatever. You are unable to see anything beyond your own jingoism. nt

[Romulox]

45. My avatar was an upside down flag for 6 months. I am no jingoist.

America is pathetic, and I would likely prefer to live in modern Tokyo than my present home.

But, to bring this back on subject Japan committed a horrific genocide in WWII. Judging the morality of the Bomb outside of this context is not possible. :hi:

[Bonobo]

46. I have admitted they committed horrible crimes. So did we.

Would you suggest that every eulogy over an American that has died should contain a proviso that America killed 3 million innocent Vietnamese? Or untold native Americans? or Iraqis?

When you die, should your eulogy mention that while you were alive America was responsible for horrible crimes?

[Romulox]

50. The US didn't committ a genocide in WWII. Not all things are equivalent.

But even assuming arguendo that the US and Japan's action were "morally equivalent", it is not wrong to point out Japan's crimes to provide context to the decision to drop the Bomb.

"When you die, should your eulogy mention that while you were alive America was responsible for horrible crimes?"

If my eulogy contained my quote condemning Viet Cong forces for their indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, it would be more than fair.

[Bonobo]

51. He never condemned the US. He condemned nuclear weapons.

Most Japanese of that generation are rather complimentary of the US in my opinion due to their conduct after the war.

[Romulox]

53. Right. But a truly wise man would've condemned WAR as well

or at least Imperial genocidal aggression.

[Romulox]

58. Is it worth pointing out how you resist quantifying Japanese WWII civilian slaughter? nt

[Bonobo]

60. I have done nothing of the sort except in your imagination.

I told you I would not further pollute this thread and I told you my reasons.

Start a new thread on the subject YOU want to discuss if it is so important to you.

You clearly want the last word. I will let you have it.

[Romulox]

62. Then I invite you to do so one more time.

How many civilians did Imperial Japan slaughter on the Asian mainland, according to your histories?

(And I notice that the moral invective rises when you get defensive. Calm down. I am not attacking you, and there's no need for you to attack me. If you can't see that I am a decent person with a different perspective on this matter then perhaps there really can't be much meaningful communication between us.)

[Bonobo]

63. How could I possibly come up with a number?

There are different numbers bandied about and I pay little attention to them because I don't see much difference between killing 1 million or 10 million. Morally, it is the same.

Since I have no way myself of confirming what the correct number is, I honestly have never considered what the "correct" figure is.

Is that honest enough for you?

[Romulox]

64. Historians have not been reluctant to come up with a number: 20-30 million civilians dead.

"Is that honest enough for you?"

Yes, it is. Thank you. I think this is as much of this conversation as I can handle at the moment. The next time I come across you, I will not assume you're coming from a place of evil intentions (even if I strongly disagree.) I can't tell you what to think, but consider the same as to me.

And I don't think we'd discuss this matter at a party! :silly:

[Bonobo]

65. Fine, let me leave our conversation with this little tidbit.

As of today, 2010, YOU (Romulox) are supporting an evil empire that is killing innocent men, women and children all over the world.

The Japanese of today would NEVER do such a thing. As of today, they are the innocents and it is YOU, YOU, YOU that is on the wrong side and supporting the evil acts of a cruel empire.

The Japanese who committed the crimes you describe are dead and buried and Japan has foresworn violence.

What about you?

[Romulox]

66. I largely agree with you as to this point.

I am disgusted by what my country is doing.

"As of today, they are the innocents and it is YOU, YOU, YOU that is on the wrong side and supporting the evil acts of a cruel empire."

Yes. Can you imagine me going to the grave condemning Iraqis? At any rate, I promised I would stop...

[Romulox]

33. Imagine posting article after article about the suffering of "ordinary Germans"

without mentioning the Holocaust. That's the precise analog of this situation. And it would rightfully be labeld Holocaust denial. :hi:

[Bonobo]

36. Ridiculous. Your rhetoric is now officially out of control.

A 93 year old man who was nuked twice dies. A nice DU post is made and a bunch of pieces of shit have to spit on his eulogy.

Try looking in the mirror.

[Romulox]

40. Right. It would be just like a story about an "ordinary German" who died at 93

After surviving a horrific firebombing.

And, his wisdom, laid out in article that not once mentioned his country's genocidal aggression is quoted criticizing the allies who dropped bombs on his village.

No critique of aggression, or genocide. Just of firebombing.

This would be the exact analog of this article. It's a form of genocide denial.

(And it has nothing to do with Mr. Yamaguchi personally--he is being used as a propaganda tool here.)

[Bonobo]

41. Keep defending the A-bomb. I am saying it is classless of you to spit on graves, that's all.

You want to talk about Japanese aggression in WWII? FIne, start a new thread.

You want to spit on the memory of a man who just died, a man who endured more pain, suffering and loss than you will ever feel in your lifetime or 20 lifetimes?

In that case, I will call you a classless and callous ass.

[Romulox]

44. I'm defending CONTEXT and the FULL TRUTH, nothing more. nt

[Bonobo]

49. Great. Let me write your eulogy when YOU die.

I will provide full context on YOUR life as well.

[Romulox]

57. OK. nt

[bitchkitty]

52. Agree totally - except

I would have said nasty, Fred Phelps-esque pieces of shit.

[Romulox]

54. Providing the context of Japan's WWII genocide is NOT hate speech

(Shouting down of same comes close, however.)

[hunter]

59. I celebrate my hatreds for genocidal empires on a rotating basis...

Today I happen to be hating the genocides committed by the United States of America. I see for now you are fixed on Japan, Romulox. Which empire is next in your queue?

[Romulox]

61. This thread is about Japan. I will gladly join you in condemning the US's war crimes

(not the least of which is ongoing wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq.

Moreover, the internment of Japanese-Americans was an unforgivable crime too, albeit of a different magnitude than what we are talking about here.

So...whose position is more consistent? Me or the "Nanking must never be spoken of in the context of Hiroshima" crowd?

[Romulox]

28. Wonder if this man had any choice words for the genocidal empire he lived in?

Nuclear bombs = bad. But how does Mr. Yamaguchi feel about babies impaled on bayonets?

It seems a true "precious storyteller" might set his attention on the latter as part of the causal chain that lead to the former. :shrug:

[Bonobo]

32. If you want to chase that chain to the beginning, it is here, 90 years earlier.

[Romulox]

35. Japan's genocide on the asian mainland is excused by the opium wars, HOW, exactly?

(Words this time, please.) :hi:

[Bonobo]

37. I will not be your college professor. Do your own research.

I kept it in pictures because I thought it was appropriate for the level of conversation you started with your ham-like response to me.

[Romulox]

47. Again, if the country in question was Germany, this would be easily identified

as Holocaust denial.

British colonial activity in China, for example, in no way excuses the slaughter of 20-30 civilians on the Asian mainland by the Imperial Japanese. That a photo, presumably of a Chinese opium den, is offered in defense of same is, frankly, disturbing.

However, I will not attempt to cover the weakness of my arguments with moral invective. I will just ask to consider if I am really the monster you want to make me out to be for pointing out this factual context from this historical period?

And if you have the courage to answer that question, perhaps you might consider just why it is that the mention of the Rape of Nanking in the context of Japan's WWII activity is so outrageous to you?

Do you believe that the facts and events I've mentioned should be omitted from our history books? :shrug:

[Bonobo]

48. Of course not, now you are really twisting and manipulating my words beyond belief.

Where did I defend anything? I am offering an explanation for how things got to be the way they are.

Western Imperialism has been the root behind nearly all wars fought in the 20th century. Africa, South America AND Asia.

[Romulox]

56. I have no intention of manipulating your words. Just of providing context.

"Western Imperialism has been the root behind nearly all wars fought in the 20th century."

This is historical revisionism; Japan was a genocidal imperialistic aggressor in WWII (and incidentally, only the Japanese see themselves as victims of WWII--please ask the Chinese what they think!)

Japanese people have moral agency. Your argument suggest they have not. "Western Imperialism" isn't the "root" of the infamous photo of a baby at the end of a Japanese soldier's bayonet--Japanese Imperialism is.

[grantcart]

67. You omitted Japanese aggression during the Russian/Japanese War of 1905

[Art_from_Ark]

70. You might want to dig a little deeper into "Japanese atrocities"

The Japanese Imperial Army was pretty nasty, no doubt about it, but you should take a deeper look into the situation that existed in China in the 1930s. The Japanese just didn't decide to invade China on a whim-- they made their decision to invade the mainland because of the chaos that was engulfing the country as a result of the Chinese civil war that had already been raging for several years between the Nationalist forces (led by Chung Kai-shek) and the Communists led by Mao Tse-tung. Mao, especially, took advantage of the Japanese presence to "kill two birds with one stone", as it were, by massacring nationalist supporters, and blaming it on the Japanese (and thus gaining more recruits for his own side). There will never be an accurate count of "who killed who", but given Mao's record after seizing power,it would be safe to say that he had already killed uncountable numbers of his countrymen before the Japanese were driven out of the country.

[wickerwoman]

71. The Japanese Imperial Army wasn't "pretty nasty", they commited acts of genocide

for which they have never been held properly accountable because directly after WWII the US was desperate for Asian allies in the face of the communist threat in China.

Japan killed *hundreds of thousands* of civilians in Nanjing alone and raped 20,000-80,000 women over the course of six weeks. Official sanction to kill civilians are well documented and came from the emperor himself.

Mao Zedong didn't stage the Rape of Nanjing and then blame it on the Japanese, that's patently absurd.

Japan had absolutely no legal right to intervene in China, regardless of the internal political situation and to believe that it was a peacekeeping mission is woefully naive. Their invasion was about "leibensraum" just as much as Hitler's invasion of Poland was.

And to this day, Japanese textbooks gloss over the atrocities and the Prime Minister of Japan prays at the shrine set up for convicted war criminals.

[Art_from_Ark]

72. No, Mao Zedong didn't stage the Rape of Nanjing

he just took advantage of it.
We will never know how many people Mao killed before he finally wrested power from the Nationalists, but the hard truth is that he used every dirty-handed trick in the book to achieve his goal, and that included annihilating his enemies when he had the chance. Do you think he was all flowers and puppies in the 1920s when his Communists started their insurgency against the Nationalists? That would be patently absurd. Mao was as bad as any of them.

I had an office-mate once from the mainland who hated Mao and the Communists with all his heart and soul. Why? Because they nearly wiped out his family during the Chinese Civil War.

[wickerwoman]

74. I'm not here to defend Mao Zedong.

The point is that absolutely nothing that he did justified in any way the Japanese invasion of China, which is what you implied when you accused another poster of not having all the context for his comments condemning that invasion.

Japan didn't invade China to settle the Chinese Civil War. They invaded China to clear out all the Chinese people and make more room for Japanese people. Japanese atrocities in Korea, China and the Phillipines are extremely well-documented and even Japan didn't try to pretend it was about stopping the spread of communism or settling internal conflicts.

And in the course of that invasion, they committed undisputed acts of genocide which have been recorded in numerous pictures, news reports and on film. They were not "pretty nasty". They kept sex slaves. They made walls of severed heads. They raped women and left them for dead with bayonets sticking out of their genitals. They buried people alive and used captured civilians for bayonet practice. Their commanding office is on record in writing giving orders to "kill all captives."

And what is more insulting and infuriating than anything else is the absolute refusal of the Japanese government to take responsibility for any of these acts even in the face of insurmountable piles of evidence that they were officially sanctioned.

At least the Germans have taken on board a sense of national shame for their genocide. Japanese textbooks barely even mention it and when they do, it's usually to dispute the obvious. 200,000-300,000 civilians killed in six weeks. By the Japanese. Under orders. There's no "context" that makes that acceptable. That's the point.

[Art_from_Ark]

75. And I'm not here to defend the Imperial Army

They saw the Chinese Civil War as a chance to invade the mainland. They killed lots of Chinese along the way. But so did Mao. In fact, he had been doing it for several years before that, and continued killing fellow Chinese until the SOB finally kicked the bucket in 1976. A lot of the killing attributed to the Japanese was actually the handiwork of Mao. The Japanese had killed enough Chinese that ANY massacre could be blamed on them. Mao took advantage of that by killing his own enemies. In short, both the Japanese Imperial Army, and Mao and his army, were as bad as they come.

By the way, Japanese prime ministers do not pay regular visits to the Yasukuni Shrine to pay homage to war criminals. The only PM who did that in recent memory was Junichiro Koizumi, and he has been out of office for several years now.

[wickerwoman]

76. But I believe you are, unintentionally, by confusing the issue.

What is the relevance of Mao's atrocities to a discussion of the immorality of Japan's actions during WWII? Why bring them up if not to provide an excuse for the actions of the Japanese army or to minimize the extent of those atrocities? Are you not arguing that the scale of Japan's actions aren't as serious as generally understood because some of those atrocities were actually committed by Mao?

And if that is your position, how do you explain the claims of genocide and war crimes by the Japanese in Korea, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia and Burma?

I would like to add that my position is that the deliberate killing of civilians in unacceptable under any circumstances. It was unacceptable to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. It was unacceptable to fire-bomb Dresden. It was unacceptable to commit genocide in Nanjing (as well as many other places) and it was unacceptable for Mao to kill nationalist civilians. I'm sure we can agree on that much.

What I take issue with is coming to a discussion of Japanese atrocities with the claim that you need more "context" to understand them. I find this somewhat insulting because I think no amount of "context" can ever make vivisecting civilians or testing chemical weapons on them "understandable".

On edit:

Here's some more context for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 (***GRAPHIC***)

[miyazaki]

73. Back to the story, rest in peace old man.

Sorry to tell you that some here feel that dropping two fucking A-Bombs
on top of your head was'nt enough.