EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT - 6

How many people were a sacrifice to this bomb? Those
who had lived through the catastrophe placed the number
of dead at at least 100,000. Hiroshima had a population of
400,000. Official statistics place the number who had died
at 70,000 up to September 1st, not counting the missing ...
and 130,000 wounded, among them 43,500 severely
wounded. Estimates made by ourselves on the basis of
groups known to us show that the number of 100,000 dead
is not too high. Near us there are two barracks, in each of
which forty Korean workers lived. On the day of the explosion,
they were laboring on the streets of Hiroshima.
Four returned alive to one barracks and sixteen to the other.
600 students of the Protestant girls’ school worked in a
factory, from which only thirty to forty returned. Most of
the peasant families in the neighborhood lost one or more
of their members who had worked at factories in the city.
Our next door neighbor, Tamura, lost two children and
himself suffered a large wound since, as it happened, he
had been in the city on that day. The family of our reader
suffered two dead, father and son; thus a family of five
members suffered at least two losses, counting only the
dead and severely wounded. There died the Mayor, the
President of the central Japan district, the Commander of
the city, a Korean prince who had been stationed in
Hiroshima in the capacity of an officer, and many other
high ranking officers. Of the professors of the University,
thirty-two were killed or severely injured. Especially hard
hit were the soldiers. The Pioneer Regiment was almost
entirely wiped out. The barracks were near the center of
the explosion.
Thousands of wounded who died later could doubtless
have been rescued had they received proper treatment and
care, but rescue work in a catastrophe of this magnitude
had not been envisioned; since the whole city had been
knocked out at a blow, everything which had been prepared
for emergency work was lost, and no preparation
had been made for rescue work in the outlying districts.
Many of the wounded also died because they had been
weakened by under-nourishment and consequently lacked
in strength to recover. Those who had their normal strength
and who received good care slowly healed the burns which
had been occasioned by the bomb. There were also cases,
however, whose prognosis seemed good who died suddenly.
There were also some who had only small external
wounds who died within a week or later, after an inflammation
of the pharynx and oral cavity had taken place. We
thought at first that this was the result of inhalation of the
substance of the bomb. Later, a commission established
the thesis that gamma rays had been given out at the time

of the explosion, following which the internal organs had
been injured in a manner resembling that consequent upon
Roentgen irradiation. This produces a diminution in the
numbers of the white corpuscles.
Only several cases are known to me personally where
individuals who did not have external burns later died. Father
Kleinsorge and Father Cieslik, who were near the center
of the explosion, but who did not suffer burns became quite
weak some fourteen days after the explosion. Up to this
time small incised wounds had healed normally, but thereafter
the wounds which were still unhealed became worse
and are to date (in September) still incompletely healed.
The attending physician diagnosed it as leucopania. There
thus seems to be some truth in the statement that the radiation
had some effect on the blood. I am of the opinion,
however, that their generally undernourished and weakened
condition was partly responsible for these findings. It
was noised about that the ruins of the city emitted deadly
rays and that workers who went there to aid in the clearing
died, and that the central district would be uninhabitable
for some time to come. I have my doubts as to whether
such talk is true and myself and others who worked in the
ruined area for some hours shortly after the explosion suffered
no such ill effects.
None of us in those days heard a single outburst against
the Americans on the part of the Japanese, nor was there
any evidence of a vengeful spirit. The Japanese suffered
this terrible blow as part of the fortunes of war ... something
to be borne without complaint. During this, war, I
have noted relatively little hatred toward the allies on the
part of the people themselves, although the press has taken
occasion to stir up such feelings. After the victories at the
beginning of the war, the enemy was rather looked down
upon, but when allied offensive gathered momentum and
especially after the advent of the majestic B-29’s, the technical
skill of America became an object of wonder and admiration.
The following anecdote indicates the spirit of the Japanese:
A few days after the atomic bombing, the secretary
of the University came to us asserting that the Japanese
were ready to destroy San Francisco by means of an equally
effective bomb. It is dubious that he himself believed what
he told us. He merely wanted to impress upon us foreigners
that the Japanese were capable of similar discoveries.
In his nationalistic pride, he talked himself into believing
this. The Japanese also intimated that the principle of the
new bomb was a Japanese discovery. It was only lack of
raw materials, they said, which prevented its construction.
In the meantime, the Germans were said to have carried
the discovery to a further stage and were about to initiate
such bombing. The Americans were reputed to have learned
the secret from the Germans, and they had then brought
the bomb to a stage of industrial completion.


We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use
of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as
poison gas and were against its use on a civil population.
Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in
Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers,
and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending
to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and
thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that
he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of
war against civilians. The crux of the matter is whether
total war in its present form is justifiable, even when it
serves a just purpose. Does it not have material and spiritual
evil as its consequences which far exceed whatever
good that might result? When will our moralists give us a
clear answer to this question?