Hiroshima, through one survivor's eyes 62 years later, man shares his memories of the atomic bomb

star ledger ^ | Sunday, March 16, 2008 | NATALIE PINEIRO

[Coleus]

It was a clear, hot summer day on Aug. 6, 1945, when 10-year-old Kenji Kitagawa kissed his mother and brother goodbye before leaving for school. The fifth-grader didn't know that would be the last time he would see them alive. Life was forever altered for Kitagawa and the rest of the world 62 years ago, as an American B-29 bomber, flying 26,000 feet above his hometown of Hiroshima, Japan, dropped an atomic bomb.

Now 73, Kitagawa travels the world as part of an effort to educate people on the destructive power of nuclear weapons. Sponsored by the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, Kitagawa has been publicly reliving his experiences from Hiroshima for the past three years. With foundation Chairman Steven Leeper serving as translator, Kitagawa shared his experience with an audience of about 60 people at Christ Church in Summit last Sunday.

"After retiring, I had this feeling that I was not going to live much longer, and I thought, 'What is the most important thing for me to do?' and my mind was brought back to this place," he said, referring to Hiroshima. Kitagawa and his classmates were awaiting an assembly program at their school when the bomb hit at 8:16 a.m. A flash of blue and white light came like lightning through the windows, charring all who were directly exposed, Kitagawa said. Confusion and panic followed, as a ferocious blast of wind came crashing into the school.

"There was an amazing roaring sound and the entire school started to collapse," said Kitagawa. "I remember falling and feeling like a hammer was hitting me over the head." When he came to, the classroom was in total darkness. He would learn later that the sun became obliterated by the mushroom cloud from the bomb.

[mkjessup]

Do people still laugh when children are taught to duck and cover in the event of a nuclear war?
Flashback
I remember practicing this back in ’53 or ’54 when I was in first grade. LOL!

What many people do not understand, were not taught, or simply never realized, is that the 'duck and cover' drills were never intended to save anyone from the direct blast effects of a nuclear detonation. When students were given the 'flash' signal (simulating the sudden flash of an atomic bomb going off), climbing under the desks and/or tables was to reduce the possibility of flying shards of glass and debris from cutting us to pieces when the blast wave hit the school building, and nobody was stupid enough to think or suggest that the typical student desk made of wood and light steel tubing was going to save anybody from a direct hit.

Civil Defense was a vital part of our overall national defense strategy, and that is why the Soviets placed so much emphasis on civilian preparations should a nuclear war occur.

50+ years later, our Cold War strategies and tactics are often the fodder of comedians, know-nothings and pacifists who would rather have been "Red than dead", when the fact is that if there had been no Civil Defense preparations at all, the odds are that many Americans would have been both "Red" AND "dead".

[krb]

Dad passed last week.

Prayers and thanks go up for him.

[doc1019]

;-(

[bjs1779]

Why should he? That was a legitimate attack on a military target.

Where do you creeps come from anyway? More importantly, why?

[mkjessup]

Why should he? That [Pearl Harbor] was a legitimate attack on a military target.

It was also a sneak attack made while simultaneously conducting 'peace' negotiations. There was nothing 'legitimate' about the taking of thousands of American lives on December 7, 1941, and you know that.

[jude24]

Do you feel the bombing Hiroshima and Nagasacki was wrong?

A good case can be made either way. Attacking civilians is problematic. Even so, that's irrelevant to what I said - Pearl Harbor was quantifiable different from those two. There, the Japanese attacked no civilians but a military target instead. It was an act of war, to be sure - but war isn't per se immoral.

[nonliberal]

Keep that photo. We will need Japan in the coming war with China.

[jude24]

It was also a sneak attack made while simultaneously conducting 'peace' negotiations.

"Sneak attacks" are not immoral or illegal. Deception has been a part of warfare since Sun Tzu.

[mkjessup]

"Sneak attacks" are not immoral or illegal. Deception has been a part of warfare since Sun Tzu.

So using your logic as a New Yorker, do you contend that the attacks of 9/11 by al Qaeda on New York City were moral and legal?

By all means, share with us your thoughts on that matter.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***”I think that anyone who has ever been to Hiroshima, or has met a survivor and has seen the damage caused by these nuclear weapons, could never justify their use,” ***

***Atomic Bombs***
My dad was with Patton’s army in Europe. After VE day he was sent back to the US to train for the invasion of Japan. The ATOMIC BOMB meant he did not have to go to Japan, which to me, and many others who may have been killed, was justification for it’s use.

[jude24]

So using your logic as a New Yorker, do you contend that the attacks of 9/11 by al Qaeda on New York City were moral and legal?

The WTC were not and never have been military targets.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I would like to see the second page to see if this is a hit piece or not and we are bad Americans for ending WW-II

Suprise: "[Kitagawa] does not resent the United States for the devastation wrought by the atomic bomb -- American military leaders feared a land invasion of Japan to bring an end to World War II would involve tremendous Allied casualties --"

[bjs1779]

"Sneak attacks" are not immoral or illegal. Deception has been a part of warfare since Sun Tzu.

And we formally declared war publicly and you Jap sympathizers still cry foul.

[mkjessup]

We're not talking about military targets, you stated that 'sneak attacks' are not immoral or illegal and you cited Sun Tzu as a source for supporting the concept of deception in launching such sneak attacks.

So is it your view that the Japanese sneak attack of December 7, 1941 was 'legitimate' and not immoral? And does your view extend to the attacks of 9/11 by al Qaeda?

I'd like to hear more about this from you.

[DuncanWaring]

That was a legitimate attack on a military target.

It was no more legitimate than an American attack on Tokyo would be today without a declaration of war.

In other words, NOT AT ALL.

[DuncanWaring]

OK, then, was the al Qaeda attack on the Pentagon moral and legal?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Now that you mention it, the firebombing of Toyko killed more people than the two nukes did as I recall.
I recall the same.***

What gets the “Antis” panties in a wad is that we used only ONE plane with ONE bomb. Had we used one hundred planes, each one dropping 20,000 lb of bombs, killing the same amount of people there would not be a peep out of them.

[AmericanInTokyo]

My reply and thinking has always been, thankful that the War could come to a conclusion primarily over the bombings of those two cities, and so sad that it engendered so many civilian casualties on the other hand. It was evil, but in large part it was necessary. Sometimes situational ethics takes over on these issues. No one who visits the museum in Hiroshima cannot go away sad for the people on the human level, unless one is a monster, so devoid of a human soul and compassion. On the other hand, the military clique that ruled Japan at that time were also abject monsters, and would have fought to the absolute final boy and girl, no doubt. It is a shame we had to do what we did, but, well, we did what we did and had to do.

I could never countenance some thinking by Freepers that, "we should have fried more Japs"; that is no solution and is actually sick. One can be thankful that it did NOT take a third bombing. For both them and for our own sanity and morality.

[bannie]

Thank you.

That is interesting!

I wish I'd listened more to history when I was young. I can't understand why I didn't find it fascinating back then!

[jude24]

Al Qaeda is a non-state actor. Things get sticky, even when they attack military targets, because they have no indicia of lawful combatant status.

There is simply no similarity between Imperial Japan and Al Qaeda.