Upvote:2
Obviously, Hiroshima was the first and except for the witnesses to the test less than 2 months before and some top military and politicians, it was a complete shock. On the other hand, that the second bomb was used probably was also shocking in it own way.
Upvote:3
Is there some historical reason for one being more infamous than the other (other than one being the first)?
I think that being the first is, by far, the main reason that, when someone says "atomic bombing", most people think "Hiroshima", or, perhaps, "Hiroshima... and, oh, Nagasaki".
I would say that another factor is, as a deleted answer hinted, the fact that more people died in Hiroshima than in Nagasaki (the bomb in Hiroshima hit the city in full, while Nagasaki was partially protected by hills surrounding the city, that provided some "shadow"). Another possibility is that Nagasaki is probably more well known in the "West" than Hiroshima, for other reasons besides being victimated by an atomic bomb - particularly for having been the only Japanese port left open to international trade during the Tokugawa shogunate and its policy of purposeful national isolation.