I don’t know as I am not Japanese, but I think there are probably many different possible interpretations. But I think there’s a difference between acknowledgment and apology…
This may also have a lot to do with it:
The visit by Ambassador Roos Friday also provides a much-needed boost to U.S.-Japan relations in the wake of a tense period between the two allies that stemmed from the previous Japanese government’s wavering over an agreement to relocate a controversial U.S. Marine airbase in Okinawa.
As with any conflict in life it takes an acknowledgement and apology before parties can move on. Two sides slugged it out until one was beaten , but japan has never acknowledged it’s faults and has never apologised which itself is the height of insult. That’s why the Chinese hate them so much.
Japan has never learned the simple lesson of manners. Quite strange for a country which prides itself on dignified tea ceremonies and proper decorum. It has all the outward show of respect and politeness and none of the substance.
I like your style.
hahaha
not sure how i feel about this
yes it was a war crime.
but then again
i suppose given the history of the two countries it could be justified by what our counterparts have suggested.
Wayfarer, you might have said all of that in one post… Its considered impolite to pump up one’s post count.
Um, firstly, watch yourself with trite shit posting like this. I can’t imagine this subject being in any way funny…
Secondly, are you from Virginia or Philly, PA?
You, dipshit, wouldn’t know if a train was up you until the passengers got out.
tankgeezer and Nickdfresh are the nice mods. I’m not.
Which is why I didn’t waste my time and the site owner’s bandwidth being nice to you, because you stuck out like dog’s balls as a crap user of this site from your first post.
You’re banned, and the reasons are here http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?11064-An-Interesting-Find-(Elie-Wiesel-c)
Apart from being unable to spell Philly properly, he’s from Virginia.
And lonely. http://www.okcupid.com/profile/dmbwayfarer
Hell of a haircut though…:lol:
And a hell of a liar too, as he is definitely NOT “smart,” “funny,” nor “charming!”
“No, it was a way of ending war and saving lives”
This is a true fact,the atomic bomb was made shorter the japanese american conflict.
My notion is the atomic bomb was too hard judgement,and kill many innocent people,Japan was unauthorized to attack the US to begin a undeclared war,but the bomb was too hard choice killing civilians.
Japan attack military targets,the americans killing many innocent.
The Jap’s isn’t got too much chance without the atomic bomb too.
Japan routinely exploited; oppressed; starved; maimed; tortured; worked the sick to death; withheld medical supplies and treatment from the sick; and killed civilians and POWs in vastly greater numbers than were killed by the atom bombs. And Japan did it with no intention of ending suffering but just because of its misguided imperial arrogance and contempt for other peoples, and at times pretty much just for evil fun by people who preferred primitive warrior values to the humane notions and ideals preferred by their Western enemies.
If the Allies had invaded Japan a huge multiple of the Japanese lives lost in the atomic bombings would have been lost.
Then I suppose that now we would have people in Japan and elsewhere bleating that America should have used the atomic bombs to avoid that loss of life, instead of those bleating people just facing up to the reality that the American political and military leaders didn’t just wake up one day in August 1945 and decide to nuke Japan for no good reason (which is pretty much the Japanese ‘we are innocent victims’ approach) but that it was the consequence of Japan’s aggression and refusal to surrender when it had long known it was beaten.
If you’re trying to say that the Japanese attacked only military targets and that the Americans killed innocents, that is utter bullshit! It was very much the other way around.
Japan slaughtered civilians in China before and during the war and in all the territories it occupied during the war. The Americans and Allies never even began to approach the routine and mindless brutality of the Japanese wherever they went.
That was the consequence of stupidly starting a war they couldn’t win anyway.
Japan never held back from killing people when it had the upper hand and, unlike the atom bombs, often for no military or other sound purpose beyond racial arrogance and contempt.
If we cut through all the hand-wringing and well-intentioned humanitarian revulsion arising from the atom bombings, the simple fact is that Japan started a war which resulted in it being nuked because it wouldn’t surrender when it knew it was beaten. All responsibility for the war and everything that happened to the Japanese people lies with the Japanese leadership. As indeed does responsibility for all the atrocities etc committed by the Japanese before they were forced to surrender. The problem still is that a lot of people in Japan and elsewhere are incapable of grasping that simple reality.
imi,
You need to read up on the history of WW2. The bombing of cities to terrorize the population started long long before the atomic bomb. Japan did this in China before we even got involved (the U.S. that is.) The Germans did this in England long long before the U.S. got involved.
The Japanese experimented with gas and germ warfare in China (the infamous Unit 731.)
The Japanese murdered hundreds of thousands of Chinese by bayonet (yes bayonet not bomb or bullet.)
Now in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki there were military factories and units. Truman purposely targeted those cities to at least say it was a military operation and not one to target civilians (unlike what the Germans did to London.)
Harsh? Imi THAT WAS WAR!
And I totally agree with Rising Sun on what he said.
You really do need to read up on the history of WW2 imi.
Deaf
So do I.
Most of the people in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were either working in war production plants and/or were under military discipline and being trained to oppose an invasion of Japan. There were extremely few “innocent” civilians in either city.
If you have ever read anything on the Pacific War, especially regarding China, you might know how patently offensive that statement is…
Correct! You beat me to it.
I create usually strong feelings from the americans about the righteous of the nuke 
Heard about the “Rape of Nanking” and saw a few brutal picture,troops murdered babies with bayonets.(the black french legionists do also with the surrender Afrikakorps soldiers)
I think the nuke was too hard choice.
No. Some of us Americans weren’t particularly happy about the nuke. But making idiotic statements essentially denying the fact that the Japanese Imperial policy murdered millions across the far east and playing into Japan’s ‘victimhood’ in regards to Nagasaki and Hiroshima is sort of like using Allied strategic bombing to justify the Holocaust…
You are on very thin ice here…
I’m Australian, not American.
I’m not a great fan of a lot of American foreign policy and military adventures, or more usually misadventures, since WWII, so I’m not automatically pro-American.
But America, with useful help from its Allies including Australia, was the major force which defeated Japan.
Without America, Japan probably would not have been defeated. Certainly not in the mid-1940s.
Without America, my parents and my grandparents and their contemporaries would most probably have been slaughtered or worked to death or starved to death (or all of the above) in the same way that Japan did that everywhere else it went, and more so because of Japanese outrage about the White Australia policy.
If you think that Americans have strong feelings about Japan, you ought to find out how Australians feel as they, unlike Americans, were at the end of the line of Japanese advance and rightly feared invasion, which was never going to happen to America despite some early fears there.
If America hadn’t decided to base troops in Australia in 1942 we quite possibly would have been conquered by Japan in one way or another.
By basing troops here America, even if it did it for its own strategic reasons, probably saved Australia. And for that every Australian should still be grateful to America.
As for nuking Japan, if America hadn’t done that then a lot more Allied POWs would have died in captivity in Japan and various Japanese occupied territories where the Japanese starved and abused and tortured and withheld ample medical supplies from them as they had done since early 1942.
For example, if America had nuked Japan a couple of months earlier this would have avoided the extermination of nearly 2,400 Australian POWS on the Sandakan death marches, which left only six survivors out of those 2,400 men. http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww2/sandakan.htm
Don’t expect me to get all upset about Japanese casualties from the atomic bombs and regard the atomic bombings as war crimes when the Japanese leadership, realising that they had lost, were happily exterminating Allied POWs to try to conceal their own war crimes and setting up their own people to die in the millions in the pointless defence of a defeated country.
And don’t think it’s funny to upset Americans or anyone else with your ill-informed comments based on the same sort of selective blindness which allows some Japanese to present themselves as victims in the atomic bombings rather than participants, willing or unwilling, in the aggression and inhumanity which led to those bombings.
Yes.
That is exactly what alarmed my parents’ generation as Japan advanced towards us, because they knew that that was what Japan would do here against the hated Europeans.
Okay, now you’re the man with all the Allied power in 1945 who has managed to live until 2010 when everyone is judging you with the benefit of hindsight and without the urgency and sentiments attached to the war which you have waged against a brutal enemy for the past four years or so. Justify why, with the benefit of hindsight, it was so much worse to nuke Japan than to pursue the only other two choices available to you.
The choices were:
- Strengthen the naval blockade of and air attacks upon a virtually defenceless Japan and slowly starve untold millions to death over however many years until the recalcitrant Japanese leaders finally decided to surrender, if ever.
- Implement the invasion plans for Japan and kill millions upon millions of suicidal Japanese facing the well armed invaders with wooden spears etc.
- Nuke a couple of military-industrial cities, killing a few hundred thousand people, and hope to shock the leadership into surrender, thus avoiding the consequences of the two preceding choices.
Which of the first and second choices do you think was so much better than the third? Why? And how was it less hard on the Japanese people than the atomic bombs?