35 of 40 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Not one of the 100,000 corpses made it in. Not one., July 14, 2005
This review is from: Rain of Ruin: A Photographic History of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (America Goes to War) (Paperback)
The dust jacket of this book boasts that it is "the first comprehensive photographic record of the bombings". However, its idea of comprehensiveness - while finding room for a film poster of the 1952 Robert Taylor movie "Above and Beyond" - does not include *a single one* of the tens of thousands of corpses littering the ground of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That's right. As far as the 500+ photographs in this "objective, informative volume" [quoting the dust jacket again] are concerned, our two atomic bombs - while producing a lot of rubble and five mild burn victims - did not cause a single fatality.
The chief author of this book is identified as "a retired U.S. Air Force officer". Make of this what you like.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
38 of 49 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Mostly establishment propoganda, December 11, 2003
This review is from: Rain of Ruin: A Photographic History of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (America Goes to War) (Paperback)
First, I am in no way an apologist for the Japanese or the atrocities they committed before and during WWII. The official Japanese versions of events such as Nanking and the Korean "comfort" women and the people who perpetrate them are in as much denial as the people who defend the atomic bombs as being a military necessity. The winners don't necessarily write history-the textbook writers write it. And for the record, I do live and work in Japan, but having read many books on the subject, I have to view this book as being extremely biased toward the "establishment" version. Most of the Japanese I know are deeply ashamed of the horrors committed by their countrymen.
As for those who criticize "revisionist historians", of which the authors of this book obviously are not, I would ask, what other type of good historian is there? History is not static. It does change. Even if a historian finds evidence that corroborates the "establishment" view, they still have in a fashion "revised" history in that they have added to it. As any new evidence becomes available (e.g., from the FOIA), historians have to revise (these ideas were garnered from "Hiroshima in America" by Lifton and Mitchell. Also, isn't it funny, one never hears of "revisionist geologists," for example-guess they're too politically boring). In defense of the authors, at least they admit their bias from the beginning.
Onto the book, I rate it as a "2" not because of what it says (ok, some of what it says) but mostly for what it does not say, and, more importantly, what it does not show. Granted, many of the photos in the book are powerful, and should be shown--thus the "2". However, most that show the devastation of the bombs focus on the architectural damage, not the human damage. The extremely small percentage of photos that show victims are not extremely difficult to view and in no way show the vast horrors experienced by the victims. And yes, they were victims. Almost all were civilians, and contrary to a claim in the book, there were American victims in both cities, both POWs and American-Japanese who were in Japan at the start of the war. Both of these groups have had incredible difficulty in getting aid from either country after the war, as neither side wishes to claim responsibility.
Several of the photos do appear to have been doctored in one way or another. The most obvious one is on page 149, which purports to show a nurse with a group of orphans from the bombing of Kumamoto (I have no reason to deny this claim), in which the background is completely blacked-out. It is not made clear if the authors did this or the picture they received/found was already this way. Unfortunately, unlike scores of other pictures in which they offer commentary, no explanation is given for this. The only evidence of its origin is in the "Photo credits" section which credits one of the authors, Goldstein, and William Hendricks. This one instance severely undermines their version, in my humble opinion because it so clearly illustrates their bias. Why would a "photographic history", which takes great pains on many other occasions to explain and bring notice to other photographs, leave such a questionable one untouched?
The text of the book also avoids much of which has been shown to be true. As a scholarly document, the book is horrible. It does not use footnotes or endnotes so that independent verification can occur. It offers only a "brief bibliography" which is obviously tilted toward their bias.
For example, while the report of the US Strategic Bombing Survey is cited several times, the authors fail to include this VERY important quotation: "...certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had be planned or contemplated." The Japanese were beat. They knew it, we knew it, and the only thing holding up a surrender was the assurance of the emperor--which we gave them and which we probably shouldn't have.
Basically, the book fails on many levels. Again, it doesn't really show the true horror inflicted upon human beings. It would have been rightly justified in showing the human suffering caused by the Japanese, but that would have meant in some way admitting that the US was wrong in that it was militarily unjustified. It is not a scholarly work, as it offers not chance to verify/discredit their claims. It is not a history book as it is so *extremely* biased and completely refuses to challenge the claims against its stance. I would have much more respect for it if it would take on some of the "alternative" views. It is not a photographic history, at least not in a *complete* sense, in that it leaves out more than it shows.
Read these books, and if you can dispute their claims, write your own:
Hiroshima in America by Lifton and Mitchell
The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb by Alperovitz (the best and most complete of the ones I've read)
Hiroshima by Takaki
Finally, I believe that by saying the atomic bombs ended WWII takes credit away from the people who truly did end it-the soldiers in the Pacific theatre. Their contribution is diminished every time the bombs are given credit for the end of the war.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
