Hiroshima unveiled the Big One. Nagasaki just showed it wasn’t a fluke.

I learned about both in fifth grade over 60 years ago.

I’ve always known about both of them.

Ditto @Dutchess_III and @filmfann I thought it was common knowledge.

Knew it was both. “ Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

I’ve certainly heard of both, but it does seem to be the case that Hiroshima is mentioned more. I think it’s just a case of metonymy: Hiroshima has come to stand in for both because it was the first (and had the greater death toll).

The same reason the mention the first blast at Alamogordo, New Mexico was big news and not the first H-bomb tests at Bikini Atoll. It was new.

Who can name the second man to fly from New York to France? What was the second satellite shot into space? What was the second shot heard around the world?

Even the first shot heard ’ round the world is non sense. Lexington and Concord was a minor skirmish between some hot headed colonists and British troops who probably would have rather been in a tavern drinking ale. The war eventually snowballed into a global clash only after the French, Spanish and Dutch became involved. And then only because Britain had global interests. Even in the mid 18th Century.

It is a curious question, though. For instance, we hear a lot about Pompeii being destroyed when Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D. but we hear a lot less about Herculaneum, which was relatively just down the road and also suffered devastation. Not sure why, especially since these towns were both destroyed by the same catastrophe, so it doesn’t fit the same bill as one being first and the other happening after the fact.

I do agree with the general reasoning that others have mentioned that Nagasaki was the second target. But if my memory serves me correct, and I hope it does because I’m too lazy to Google it, wasn’t the explosion over Nagasaki done higher up in the atmosphere? So that I think it was more of a spread of radiation and maybe EMT disruption, as compared to Hiroshima where the bomb hit the ground and I think there was just generally a lot more damage to structures and everything.

The bombing of Nagasaki is historically important, because it was what caused the Japanese to surrender.

@LostInParadise True. But that is a given.

More important is not synonymous with more significant.

Hiroshima is more significant in that it was first. It made the world aware. It demonstrated a list of facts. It proved it could be done.

In loss; lives, property, security, etc., both are important.

@LostInParadise, actually the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering and Roosevelt knew it. He decided to drop the bombs anyway.
See the movie “Fat Man, Little Boy.”

I too learned about both in grade school originally.

I once heard a story on NPR about a man who, amazingly, was at both sites when each bomb was dropped…and survived.

He traveled for work to Hiroshima, was there when the first bomb exploded, miraculously survived, made his way home to Nagasaki, just in time for the second explosion. Somehow survived. Lived into his 90s.

His name was Tsutomu Yamaguchi.

We learned about Nagasaki in grade school. (California, 80’s)

I would argue that Nagasaki was more important. It proved that bombs of that magnitude could continue to be dropped. I learned about both the same time.

I hear about both.