Kenzaburo Oe, (Grove Press, 1965).
by Yves Boisvert
La Presse, Montreal, August 6, 2015
par Yves Boisvert
La Presse, Montréal, le 06 août 2015
HIROSHIMA -- Mitaki might be the most beautiful place in Hiroshima. The 19th century Buddhist temple is surrounded by a small wood and moistened by nearby waterfalls. The urn buried there contains the ashes of unknown Jewish victims from the Nazi prison camp at Auschwitz.
The strange journey that brought this urn here sums up the misunderstandings and ambiguities related to the victims of the atomic bomb.
The journey took place in 1962. Four young Japanese pacifists undertook a “walk for peace from Hiroshima to Auschwitz.” Their goal was to “unite the victims” of the tragedy of the Second World War.
To the crowds that turned out to follow them they declared, “We Japanese, with our double status as aggressors and victims, have, more than others, a duty to call for peace in the world.”
They arrived at Singapore, but it was at the time when mass graves of the victims of Japanese soldiers had been found. Their welcome was not particularly warm.
They came to Israel at the invitation of the ambassador, but they got a cold reception. Their pacifist and anti-nuclear speeches didn’t have much appeal in a nation that felt threatened on all sides, a nation that had drawn different lessons from the war: a people without military power is at the mercy of assassins. Israel was developing its nuclear program, and they weren’t going to listen to the former allies of the Germans telling them to halt it.
Then they arrived in Poland. This time, their arrival was triumphal. The communist nation found these “victims of Anglo-American nuclear imperialism” to be formidable political symbols. They went to the Nazi prison camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, and this is where they were given the urn.
They thought about having it placed in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial in order to symbolize the unity of all victims of the war, but they met with opposition from all directions. What right did they have to use these ashes of unknown Jewish victims? The affair became politically untenable and the mayor had to renounce the idea. With nowhere else to go, the urn ended up at Mitaki.
If the victims of the atomic bomb had an ambiguous status after the war, it was because the memories of the aggression by the fanatical Japanese army were more salient. Among the dead at Hiroshima were thousands of “forced laborers”—Koreans conscripted into slavery in factories.
The American version of history is that the atomic bomb was the lesser evil—the only way to end the war in the Pacific. Tokyo and almost seventy other cities had been bombed, but still the Japanese refused to surrender. A report claimed that a land invasion would lead to the deaths of one million American soldiers and 250,000 British soldiers. The destruction of Japan in an invasion would have been worse than the effects of the atomic bombs.
For Robert Jacobs, this version doesn’t hold up. The 55-year-old American historian, born in suburban Chicago, has been at the University of Hiroshima since 2005. We met in an ordinary-looking café, but the walls were the cut-stone façade of a bank, a rare vestige of Hiroshima before August 6, 1945.
Jacobs describes himself as a self-confessed “nuclear obsessive” and concentrates on the effects of nuclear tests that took place throughout the world, and on the fate of nuclear workers like those who work in Fukushima.
“When a woman falls to the bottom of the social ladder, sex work is the last resort. For men it is nuclear work.”
Jacobs added, “I remember the day when I was eight, when they taught us to hide under our desks in case of a Russian nuclear attack. At that instant I became aware of my mortality and the possibility that my entire city could disappear. I went home in a state of terror. Since the age of fourteen I have considered the atomic bombings as war crimes. It is very easy to blame the imperial Japanese government. They launched a ridiculous war and refused to surrender. It is true that the bomb put an end to the war. But the Americans were pursuing other objectives at the time. Stalin’s army was advancing rapidly. They had to show the Russians that the bomb was strategically important.”
General Douglas MacArthur, like many military leaders, was opposed to the use of the bomb, which was a decision made by President Truman. After the war, it was discovered that negotiations for surrender were taking place. The estimates of casualties of a land invasion were contested, and some historians state that an invasion probably wouldn’t have been necessary.
FROM ENEMIES TO ALLIES
How is it to be living in Hiroshima as an American specializing in nuclear history?
“A small minority expresses its anger against the United States, but in this country with many faces, you cannot always trust appearances. Sometimes forgiving is a way of affirming moral superiority… They say they are happy to have us here.”
The Americans quickly went from being enemies to being occupiers until 1952. During this period, mention of the bomb was banned from the media and works of fiction. Accounts of the hibakusha, or survivors of the bomb, appeared only later, a fact which added to the strangeness of their status.
The United States then became the ally and protector of the country from the communist threat posed by China and the USSR. All of this occurred in a very short time.
“It is interesting to see the reaction of Americans who visit the memorial. Some feel guilty when faced with the destruction of civilian life. Many are disoriented. They are confronted with a new version of history.”
A visit to this sobering memorial does not cover the creation of the bomb. All of a sudden not only the horrifying power of the bomb appears, but also the human disaster that ensued from the only two occasions when it was used.
Ran Zwigenberg, "Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust, Volume 27, Issue 3, 195-211, 2013. DOI:10.1080/23256249.2013.852767
Kenzaburo Oe, (Grove Press, 1965).
by Yves Boisvert
La Presse, Montréal, le 06 août 2015
Over the past six months, Japan has marked several famous anniversaries that occurred during the tragic months leading up to defeat in WWII: the bombing of Tokyo in March, the Battle of Okinawa in June, the atomic bombings in early August, and the surrender on August 15th. During this time, the hawkish government of Prime Minister Abe has re-interpreted the constitution so as to allow Japanese military forces to fight outside of Japanese territory, and it has been pushing steadily to restart nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, the Emperor has been traveling often, domestically and internationally, to express messages of regret for wartime aggression and dedication to the cause of peace. The Emperor is not allowed to comment on government policy, so some have wondered if this effort is a veiled attempt to work against Prime Minister Abe and strengthen the nation’s commitment to pacifism. 
One could also wonder if he may be having some private thoughts about how the crisis in the nuclear energy sector resembles the nation’s irrational gamble on war in the 1940s. Most of the military and political leadership knew in 1941 that war with America would end in ruin, yet because of a rotating cast of reckless deciders, and leaders who refused to lead and halt the madness, the government drifted toward Pearl Harbor. Once the war had begun, the sunk costs made it impossible to surrender no matter how obvious it was that Japan could never win. 
In the same way, it is quite obvious to anyone who is paying attention that you can’t have a corrupt and derelict nucleocracy operating fifty nuclear reactors on a small land mass of earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis and typhoons, and leave all the accumulated nuclear waste (which is also bomb fuel) piling up with no way to dispose of it. It is a crime against nature and future generations, an insult to neighboring countries, and a betrayal of Japan’s commitments to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is just as suicidal and irrational as the determination to keep fighting a war that was lost from the day it was declared.
The Abe government wants to resume operating nuclear power plants in a vain hope to recover the sunk costs and to supposedly “stimulate the economy” by selling this dirty technology to the developing world. The dead-ender military men of 1945 wanted to keep fighting, on empty stomachs and fuel tanks, against both a Soviet and American invasion, along with the prospect of a continuing rain of nuclear bombs. For them a national mass suicide seemed to be preferable. They descended on the palace on August 14th to launch a coup, and the vinyl recording of the Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War had to be smuggled out in a women’s laundry hamper to be broadcast over the radio.
The irony nowadays is that in the nuclear dilemma there is no one to compare to the few men who had the sense to find a way to surrender. There is no monarch with constitutional powers to step in and make the decision that would avoid a greater catastrophe. I have to wonder if the Emperor has ever wished he could walk over to NHK studios and deliver a speech like the one his father gave on August 15, 1945. I’ve got the draft of it all ready to go (see below).
It is easy to read the surrender speech of 1945 and be dismayed by the evasion of unpleasant topics, such as the recent Soviet invasion of Manchuria, or we can laugh at the understatement of phrases such as “the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage.” But in seriousness I suggest it may be just this sort of face-saving language that we should look to as a shining example of a way out of our modern world war that is our destruction of nature. I look forward to the day when the five members of the UN Security Council might muster the courage to make similar admissions. Self-deception can get us into vicious circles of tragic errors, but along with plenty of evasion, euphemism and face-saving lies, it can also provide a way out.
Imperial Rescript on the Termination of the War August 15, 1945
(玉音放送 gyokuon-hōsō, Jewel Voice Broadcast)
Imperial Rescript on the Termination of Nuclear Energy (draft proposal, final decision still pending)
To our good and loyal subjects: After pondering deeply on the general trend of the world and the actual conditions pertaining to our Empire today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure. We have ordered our government to inform the government of the United States, Britain, China, and the Soviet Union that our Empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration (the Potsdam declaration).
To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations, as well as for the security and well-being of our subjects, is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by out Imperial ancestors and which lies close to our heart. Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to ensure Japan’s self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement. But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Although the best has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interests.
The enemy, moreover, has begun to employ a new most cruel bomb, the power which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would only result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation . . . but would lead also to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are we to save millions of our subjects, or ourselves, to atone before the hallowed spirits of our Imperial ancestors? This is the reason we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the Powers.
We cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to our allied nations of East Asia, who have consistently cooperated with the Empire toward the emancipation of East Asia. The thought of those officers and men who have fallen on the field of battle, of those who have died at their posts of duty, or those who have met with untimely death, and of their bereaved families, pains our heart night and day. The welfare of the wounded and war victims and of those who have lost their homes and livelihood are objects of our profound solicitude. The hardships and sufferings to which our nation is to be subjected hereafter will certainly be great.
We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that we come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable. Having been able to save and maintain the structure of the Imperial State, we are always with you, our good and loyal subjects, relying upon your sincerity and integrity. Beware most strictly least any outburst of emotion, which may engender needless complications, or any fraternal contention and strife, which may create confusion, lead you astray and cause you to lose confidence of the world. Let the entire nation continue as one family from generation to generation, ever firm in its faith in the imperishability of its divine land, and mindful of its heavy burden of responsibilities and the long road before it. Devote your united strength to construction for the future. Cultivate ways of rectitude, further nobility of spirit, and work with resolution, so that you may enhance the innate glory of the Imperial State and keep pace with the progress of the world.
To our good and loyal subjects: After pondering deeply on the general trend of the world and the actual conditions pertaining to our nation today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure. We have ordered our government to inform the International Atomic Energy Agency that we accept the provisions of our citizens opposed to our further production of nuclear energy and so-called "nuclear waste."
To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations, as well as for the security and well-being of our subjects, is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by our ancestors and which lies close to our heart. Indeed, we have recklessly endangered the natural world with our energy policy, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the rights of others to live in an unspoiled environment, or to embark upon aggrandizement at the expense of future generations. But now we have been on this path for nearly sixty years. Although the best has been done by everyone—the gallant efforts of our engineers, scientists, corporate leaders, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our hundred twenty million people—the nuclear catastrophe situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage, while the general trends of renewable energy technologies have all turned against our interests.
Our competitors, moreover, have begun to employ a new and most innovative technology, the power of which to not do damage is indeed incalculable, taking no toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to create plutonium, it would only result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation . . . but could lead also to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are we to save millions of our subjects, or ourselves, to atone before the hallowed spirits of our ancestors? This is the reason we have ordered this radical departure from our established policy.
We cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to our citizens, and other nations of the world, who have consistently cooperated with us since the great disasters of the year 2011. The thought of those people who lost their lives, their loved ones or their homes, of those who were terrified and harmed by radiation spreading throughout the world, pains our heart night and day. The welfare of those who have lost their homes and livelihood are objects of our profound solicitude. The hardships and sufferings to which our nation is to be subjected hereafter would certainly be great if we were to continue down our erroneous path.
We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that we come by changing what we thought unchangeable and suffering what is actually bearable. Having been able to save and maintain the structure of the state, we are always with you, our good and loyal subjects, relying upon your sincerity and integrity. Beware most strictly least any outburst of emotion, which may engender needless complications, or any fraternal contention and strife, which may create confusion, lead you astray and cause you to lose confidence of the world. Let the entire nation continue as one family from generation to generation, ever firm in its faith in the imperishability of its divine land, and mindful of its heavy burden of responsibilities and the long road before it. Devote your united strength to construction for the future. Cultivate ways of rectitude, further nobility of spirit, and work with resolution, so that you may enhance the innate glory of our land and keep pace with the progress of the world.
 Emperor prodded Abe with WWII ‘remorse’ remark, The Japan Times, June 5, 2015. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/06/05/national/politics-diplomacy/emperor-prodded-abe-wwii-remorse-remark-commentator/#.VcoLXFSqpBd
 Eri Hotta, 1941: Countdown to Infamy (Vintage, 2014). See location 543/7672, Kindle edition:
“Japan’s fateful decision to go to war can best be understood as a huge national gamble. Social factors made the gamble harder for the leaders to resist, but their final decision to take the plunge was a conscious one. Believing that Europeans fighting Hitler had left their colonial possessions relatively unguarded, some bellicose strategists in the military planning bodies effectively pushed their aggressive proposals forward, convincing their superiors that the more time they took, the fewer resources they would have left to fight with and the more the United States would gain to prepare for what was in their minds an “inevitable” clash—a geopolitical necessity to determine the leader of the Asia-Pacific region… Objectively speaking, it was a reckless strategy of enabling a war by acquiring new territories to feed and fund that war… Not everyone gave up completely on a diplomatic settlement with the United States until fairly late, but nobody was ready to assume responsibility for Japan’s “missing the bus,” in a popular expression of the time, to gain strategic advantage… An unlikely Japanese victory was predicated entirely on external conditions… that were beyond Japan’s control, such as wishful scenarios of the United States quickly suing for peace or of Nazi Germany conquering Europe.”
The New York Times Gloss on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
August 6th and 9th, 2015. Seventy years since the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. The obvious things to say are being said elsewhere, so what follows is an analysis of some American coverage of the dreadful anniversary that has appeared so far.
As this anniversary rolls around each year, the question on everyone’s mind, the aging elephant in the room, is whether an American president will ever visit the bombed cities and admit that, yes, maybe, possibly, WWII could have ended sometime around August 1945 without the atom bomb. And maybe the global existential dread of the following years could have been avoided if America hadn’t scared Stalin into thinking the USSR was the next target.  But we may have to wait a long, long time for any words of contrition to be uttered by an American politician. Some officials may visit and go through the usual contortions to show sympathy and express hope that it may never happen again, but it is still impossible for American leaders to describe it as a war crime, or even as a strategic blunder that wasn’t necessary to end the war with Japan. 
To get an idea of the present limits on American public discourse on this topic, it’s interesting to note who gets to write about it in the perpetrator’s paper of record, The New York Times, one week before the 70th anniversary. The Times could have told the story of its own reporter, William L. Laurence, who was on the payroll of both the Times and the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. He dutifully reported on all the information he had been privy to as soon as the bombs were dropped, then he passed on to the public the military’s lies about the effects of radiation from the bomb blasts in New Mexico, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Journalists and authors who uncovered this gross breach of journalistic ethics have called for The New York Times to apologize for its role as a state propaganda organ, and for Laurence’s Pulitzer Prize to be revoked, but the issue has been studiously ignored by the Times. 
In the past two weeks leading up to August 6, 2015, the Times has run several articles about the 70th anniversary, but they have all been short on historical analysis and long on biographical sketches of survivors or scientists from the Manhattan Project. In the example discussed here, the honor of commemorating the occasion went to Ian Buruma, who in 2010 was ranked by the journal Foreign Policy as one of the “top 100 global thinkers.”  He was described therein as a “classical liberal” in the political and economic sense of the term.
Included on the list were several members of the political and business establishment (Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Robert Gates, David Petraeus, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos…) and intellectuals who can be generally described as those who downplay what Western civilization has done to the “developing world” yet hold up Western liberal democracy and economics as the beacon of hope for those who are yet to experience the benefits (Niall Ferguson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Steven Pinker, Malcom Gladwell, Christopher Hitchens, Thomas Friedman, David Cameron…). Conspicuously absent from the list are famous dissidents such as Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader, as well as many others who are too far outside ideological boundaries to be included.
In the July 28th edition of The New York Times, Ian Buruma addressed the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombs by reviewing the non-fiction book Nagasaki: Life After Nuclear War.  He paid the obligatory respect to the victims and the peace movement, and he acknowledged the “barbarism” of the atomic bombings and the neglect of the victims during the censorship of the American occupation. The curious omission, however, was the avoidance of the one thing historians have become more certain of over the years: the bombs were not essential for bringing the war to a quick end.
More curious still is the way Buruma accuses the peace movement of being naively manipulated by both rightist and leftist politics. The atom bombs, defeat and the American occupation supplied both left and right in Japan with anti-American grievances, so Buruma asserts, without any explanation, that the peace movement was manipulated by the extreme right, as well as the left.
The problem here is that Buruma confounds two competing views of Japanese history as being one thing called “the peace movement.” Most people who follow Japanese society think of the peace movement as leftist, against all forms of militarization, and very prone to denouncing Japan’s wartime atrocities. In contrast, the views of conservative political parties and right-wing groups are never associated with anything one would call a peace movement. The real peace movement has in fact fought constant battles to portray Japan’s wartime atrocities accurately in textbooks and museum exhibits.
Elsewhere in the review Buruma laments that monuments in Nagasaki Peace Park were donated by the likes of the Soviet Union, Poland, Cuba, the People’s Republic of China and East Germany, and then he drops in the completely irrelevant sentence, “Whether the world would have been a safer place on the terms of the Soviet Union and its satellites is less clear.” There is something strange about the placement of this statement here, and the implication that is attempted. First, was Nagasaki supposed to humbly accept these expressions of sympathy and shared hopes for a peaceful future, or was the city obliged to denounce the givers as insincere hypocrites? It’s not as if the “peace movement” was so politicized that monuments from the USA and other Western countries would have been refused because of their ideology or past deeds. For some strange reason (it’s so hard to imagine what it could be), their contributions are absent. Second, there is the inconvenient fact that the Eastern Bloc and China, for all their flaws, never used atom bombs in an act of war. That’s just something that the cheerleaders of capitalism and liberal democracies have to live with. Finally, it is ridiculous to imply that the acceptance of a few peace monuments meant that “the peace movement” was duped into supporting a world order based on “the terms of the Soviet Union.”
In a similar scaremongering slight directed at the peace movement, he added, “preaching world peace and expressing moral condemnation of nuclear bombs as an absolute evil are not a sufficient response to the dangers facing mankind.” He seems to suggest here that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have to speak out on every other problem in the world before they should be taken seriously.
The dangers Buruma referred to were actually left unspecified, but it seems the point was made as a deflection to minimize responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Supposedly, nuclear abolitionists are deluded if they are not fighting threats that lurk somewhere outside the influence of liberal democracies. One would normally think that the only other threat that comes close to the danger of nuclear war is ecological collapse, which is certain to come if current trends continue. But since this is a problem that has been created by the industrial revolution that rode along with classical liberalism, it goes unmentioned. It’s better to just refer vaguely to “dangers facing mankind.” By implication perhaps we are supposed to understand that this refers to the common euphemisms found in American discourse: “instability in the Middle East” or “saber-rattling” by Russia and China.
Finally, Buruma discusses Japan’s attitude toward its post-war liberal reforms. He refutes Southard’s claim that these were forced on Japan by an occupying nation, but again, the facts get in the way. Japan was an occupied nation and the new constitution was imposed in the absence of democratic representation. Most Japanese people may have liked the reforms, but it is an undeniable fact that they had no choice in the matter. Buruma wrote, “They didn’t have to be forced, for they cooperated quite willingly with the Americans who helped instigate them [the reforms].” But it depends on what you call “willing cooperation.” People tend to willingly cooperate in many circumstances where there are no alternatives. The fact remains that they were denied pride of ownership of these reforms because they had no voice in creating them.
What is more important here is that Buruma neglects the national pathology that arose from this lack of agency. It can’t be remedied as long as Japan remains saddled with its American-supplied constitution, occupied by American military installations and subordinate to American policy. The right feels the nation has been emasculated, and the left suffers from the delusion that Japan has been a pacifist country during an era in which the occupation never really ended. Japan has hosted American military bases, and colluded in, supported and profited from American wars ever since the Korean conflict in the 1950s. The left, and the new generation of protesters decrying the recent re-interpretation of Article 9 (which forgoes the use of force as a way to settle international disputes) is upset that Japan is parting from its post-war tradition of pacifism, but they seem unaware of how complicit Japan has been in American wars. In one sense, it will be a good thing if Japanese soldiers are asked to join the next one. In that case, military cooperation with America might become less popular than it is now, and politicians will finally be held accountable for aiding and abetting American strategic goals.
For someone who is considered a leading intellectual and a Japan specialist, Buruma’s discussion of Japanese history here is surprisingly facile and evasive. On the surface, the review is what passes these days as a compassionate think piece on one of the greatest atrocities of history, but on further reflection, it becomes apparent that the review actually serves up mostly backhanded compliments to the victims and the millions of people who have worked to eliminate nuclear weapons. This wouldn’t be the case if he had not decided to use this opportunity to deflect blame onto his ideological opponents from a bygone era and to chastise the anti-nuclear movement for being “politicized” and naïve about unspecified “dangers facing mankind.”
 Kate Brown, “The Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters,” interviewed on TalkingStickTV, January 18, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Ys8ii6r_M As early as September 1945, Soviet spies had found American contingency plans for targeting Soviet cities with atomic bombs, and this shock came on top of the Soviets’ bitter feelings of betrayal and abandonment by America, a wartime ally that suddenly seemed to want to take maximum advantage of the USSRs devastation in the post-war era. See also Kate Brown’s book Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters, pages 97-98.
 Roger Goodman (director), “Hiroshima: Why the Bomb was Dropped,” ABC News, August 1995. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-WnLNLe3sk This documentary is an exceptional case in which a report produced for a mainstream American news channel gave comprehensive coverage of the decision to use the bomb. While leaving the question open for viewers to decide, the evidence presented strongly suggests that American motives were based on objectives beyond the war with Japan, which was sure to end soon thanks to the threat of Soviet involvement.
 William Burr (editor), “The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II,” National Security Archive, George Washington University, August 5, 2005, updated August 4, 2015. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/ This resource provides a wide range of primary sources that have been used by researchers to support their interpretations of the way America chose to end WWII.
 Amy Goodman and David Goodman, “Hiroshima Cover-up: How the War Department's Timesman Won a Pulitzer,” CommonDreams, August 10, 2004. http://www.commondreams.org/views/2004/08/10/hiroshima-cover-how-war-departments-timesman-won-pulitzer
 ahughey, “The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers,” Foreign Policy, November 23, 2010.
 Ian Buruma, “‘Nagasaki: Life After Nuclear War,’ by Susan Southard,” The New York Times, July 28, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/books/review/nagasaki-life-after-nuclear-war-by-susan-southard.html?_r=3&referrer=