Why has Japan not asked for forgiveness for WWII?

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Japanese population being “really aroused” at that point is totally irrelevant since they had no say whatsoever in how Japan was run.

What, were they going to fly their planes into American ships twice?

Maybe the average Japanese didn't have any more actual say in how Japan was being run then than the average American has any actual say in how America is being run now, but they most certainly had some say in whether or not an average American who had invaded the Home Islands lived or died.

 

[Tigerace117]

Maybe the average Japanese didn't have any more actual say in how Japan was being run then than the average American has any actual say in how America is being run now, but they most certainly had some say in whether or not an average American who had invaded the Home Islands lived or died.

Lol yeah, they would have had REAL good luck with that going up against Sherman tanks with bamboo spears Almost as much say as the Volkssturm had in stopping the Allied advance towards Berlin.

Considering that Imperial Japan was a vicious dictatorship where officials who were insufficiently radical were routinely assassinated by army or navy officers, the attempt to draw an equivalence to America today is completely nonsensical.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I can't believe that anybody would actually try to defend Japanese war atrocities like @Atomic Kid is doing. It is astoundingly immoral.

There is a difference between "understanding why" and "defending".

Anyone who is reasonably familiar with the history and culture of Japan can "understand why" the Japanese treated the "lesser beings" the way that they did, just as anyone who is reasonably familiar with the history and culture of the southern United States of America can "understand why" those Southerners treated the "lesser beings" the way that they did.

You can "defend" (i.e. "understand why they did what they did) the actors (because they really had no cultural option to their actions) while "condemning" the actions.

When you know the historical facts even such things as "The Battan Death March" are understandable - the Japanese had no idea that they would accumulate so many prisoners and their logistical system was simply overwhelmed and it was "only natural" that their own people (members of the "superior being class") should get fed in priority to the prisoners (members of the "inferior being class").

Much more difficult to understand would be the actions of the government of (at least) one of the "victorious powers" in granting not only immunity from prosecution, but citizenship, employment, and honours to people who were clearly guilty of (at least being accessories to) war crimes and mass murders.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Lol yeah, they would have had REAL good luck with that going up against Sherman tanks with bamboo spears Almost as much say as the Volkssturm had in stopping the Allied advance towards Berlin.

Considering that Imperial Japan was a vicious dictatorship where officials who were insufficiently radical were routinely assassinated by army or navy officers, the attempt to draw an equivalence to America today is completely nonsensical.

Thank you for such a fine example of cultural and historical ignorance.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Considering that A) Hiroshima and Nagasaki both had major military targets; B) the Imperial Japanese rivaled the Nazis in terms of sheer evil; and C) every other option would have cost far more lives, your hysterics are rather ridiculous.

My goodness, the blind pig has found an acorn.

 

[Tigerace117]

There is a difference between "understanding why" and "defending".

Anyone who is reasonably familiar with the history and culture of Japan can "understand why" the Japanese treated the "lesser beings" the way that they did, just as anyone who is reasonably familiar with the history and culture of the southern United States of America can "understand why" those Southerners treated the "lesser beings" the way that they did.

You can "defend" (i.e. "understand why they did what they did) the actors (because they really had no cultural option to their actions) while "condemning" the actions.

When you know the historical facts even such things as "The Battan Death March" are understandable - the Japanese had no idea that they would accumulate so many prisoners and their logistical system was simply overwhelmed and it was "only natural" that their own people (members of the "superior being class") should get fed in priority to the prisoners (members of the "inferior being class").

Much more difficult to understand would be the actions of the government of (at least) one of the "victorious powers" in granting not only immunity from prosecution, but citizenship, employment, and honours to people who were clearly guilty of (at least being accessories to) war crimes and mass murders.

Screeching about “logistical systems being overwhelmed” does not excuse murdering a MINIMUM of five thousand POWs during the Death March. Nor does it excuse the torture of POWs during the Death March, which included the “sun treatment” and random bayonet attacks on various prisoners. And the fact that you think it does is truly appalling.

 

[Tigerace117]

Thank you for such a fine example of cultural and historical ignorance.

Coming from the guy who didn’t know the US had already implemented a law beginning the Filipino transition to independence years before the Japanese invaded....that’s a laugh.

Read up bud.

“ Some 28 million men and women were considered "combat capable" by the end of June 1945, yet only about 2 million of them had been recruited by the time the war ended, and most of them did not experience combat due to Japan's surrender before the Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands. The Battle of Okinawa took place before the formation of Volunteer Fighting Corps.[3] At this stage of the war, the lack of modern weaponry and ammunition meant that most were armed with swords or even bamboo spears.”

Volunteer Fighting Corps - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The feasible options available to the US were

1. Drop the nukes.
2. Launch a conventional invasion
3. Try to starve the Japanese into surrendering.

Both 2 and 3 come with MUCH higher death tolls than 1.

Yep

[1] Drop the nukes = around 100,000 Japanese deaths + less than 12 American deaths

[2] launch a conventional invasion = around 3,000,000 Japanese deaths + around 1,000,000 American deaths

[3] Starve the Japanese = around 6,000,000 Japanese deaths + less than 100,000 American deaths

Surprisingly enough, Option [1] is the "best" option (of the three given) for BOTH the Japanese and the Americans.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You can drop the nuke on a military target not surrounded by civilians. We already went over this.

Or, yes, you actually can drop such a bomb in the middle of nowhere. Demonstrate its power, and the futility of resisting.

Your proposition entails the Japanese surrendering because they were scared of the United States of America.

Please consult an elementary text on Japanese psychology to see how ludicrous such a proposition is.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Screeching about “logistical systems being overwhelmed” does not excuse murdering a MINIMUM of five thousand POWs during the Death March. Nor does it excuse the torture of POWs during the Death March, which included the “sun treatment” and random bayonet attacks on various prisoners. And the fact that you think it does is truly appalling.

Where did you see me say it "excused" it? I said that it was "understandable". In fact, had the American military leadership had a better understanding of the Japanese culture the officers surrendering the troops to the Japanese would have known that it was almost inevitably going to happen.

When you hear

​

the time to think about surrendering has passed and the time to start thinking "I'm going to take as many of those bastards with me as I can." has arrived.

 

[Deuce]

Your proposition entails the Japanese surrendering because they were scared of the United States of America.

Please consult an elementary text on Japanese psychology to see how ludicrous such a proposition is.

You... think they weren't afraid? What on earth do you think they surrendered for?

 

[Tigerace117]

Where did you see me say it "excused" it? I said that it was "understandable". In fact, had the American military leadership had a better understanding of the Japanese culture the officers surrendering the troops to the Japanese would have known that it was almost inevitably going to happen.

When you hear

​

the time to think about surrendering has passed and the time to start thinking "I'm going to take as many of those bastards with me as I can." has arrived.

Actually, a “better understanding of Japanese culture” wouldn’t have done them any good, because what Imperial Japan thought bushido was, and what bushido ACTUALLY was, are two very different things. Furthermore, since the Japanese did not commit such atrocities against the Russians in 1905 or the Germans during WW1, there was no reason to assume that what did happen was going to beforehand. Nor was there an alternative at that point other than surrender anyway. Corregidor held out about as long as it feasibly could have been expected to.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You... think they weren't afraid? What on earth do you think they surrendered for?

The Japanese surrendered because the US inflicted ACTUAL damage AND because their Emperor told them to surrender.

Had Emperor Hirohito NOT told the Japanese government to surrender AND announced that that had been done before the "war faction" could assassinate him, Japan would NOT have surrendered at that time and, since the US didn't have any more nuclear weapons (and wouldn't have for at least six months) American casualties would have escalated markedly.

Surrendering because the US THREATENED to inflict damage was unthinkable and Emperor Hirohito would have been assassinated almost immediately had he suggested doing so.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Actually, a “better understanding of Japanese culture” wouldn’t have done them any good, because what Imperial Japan thought bushido was, and what bushido ACTUALLY was, are two very different things. Furthermore, since the Japanese did not commit such atrocities against the Russians in 1905 or the Germans during WW1, there was no reason to assume that what did happen was going to beforehand. Nor was there an alternative at that point other than surrender anyway. Corregidor held out about as long as it feasibly could have been expected to.

"Actually, a “better understanding of Japanese culture” wouldn’t have done them any good, because what Imperial Japan thought bushido was, and what bushido ACTUALLY was, are two very different things."

That's where the "better understanding" bit comes in.

"Furthermore, since the Japanese did not commit such atrocities against the Russians in 1905 or the Germans during WW1"

They also didn't get a chance to either.

"Nor was there an alternative at that point other than surrender anyway. Corregidor held out about as long as it feasibly could have been expected to."

Indeed, that was the American point of view. From the Japanese point of view, it was better to die than to surrender and thereby dishonour yourself, your comrades, your family, your country, and your Emperor. You might want to take note of the fact that the American defenders of "The Alamo" fought on long after it was no longer feasible to do so (partly because they knew that there would be no prisoners taken (or left unexecuted).

 

[swing_voter]

Coming from the guy who didn’t know the US had already implemented a law beginning the Filipino transition to independence years before the Japanese invaded....that’s a laugh.

Read up bud.

“ Some 28 million men and women were considered "combat capable" by the end of June 1945, yet only about 2 million of them had been recruited by the time the war ended, and most of them did not experience combat due to Japan's surrender before the Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands. The Battle of Okinawa took place before the formation of Volunteer Fighting Corps.[3] At this stage of the war, the lack of modern weaponry and ammunition meant that most were armed with swords or even bamboo spears.”

Volunteer Fighting Corps - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We also gave Cuba its independence on day 1


We would've done the same for the Philippines but the Philippines had trouble forming a unified government and we were worried one of the colonizing nations would take the Philippines over.



.

 

[Deuce]

The Japanese surrendered because the US inflicted ACTUAL damage AND because their Emperor told them to surrender.

But as people keep pointing out, non-nuclear bombing methods were resulting in greater damage and greater casualties.

Had Emperor Hirohito NOT told the Japanese government to surrender AND announced that that had been done before the "war faction" could assassinate him, Japan would NOT have surrendered at that time and, since the US didn't have any more nuclear weapons (and wouldn't have for at least six months) American casualties would have escalated markedly.

This would be true regardless of nuclear weapons use.

Surrendering because the US THREATENED to inflict damage was unthinkable and Emperor Hirohito would have been assassinated almost immediately had he suggested doing so.

Again, we were inflicting greater casualties with firebombing.

So, it's not about the bodycount. What is it about a nuclear weapon that prompts surrender that is exclusive to its use against a civilian target?

 

[Bodi]

There is a difference between "understanding why" and "defending".

Anyone who is reasonably familiar with the history and culture of Japan can "understand why" the Japanese treated the "lesser beings" the way that they did, just as anyone who is reasonably familiar with the history and culture of the southern United States of America can "understand why" those Southerners treated the "lesser beings" the way that they did.

You can "defend" (i.e. "understand why they did what they did) the actors (because they really had no cultural option to their actions) while "condemning" the actions.

When you know the historical facts even such things as "The Battan Death March" are understandable - the Japanese had no idea that they would accumulate so many prisoners and their logistical system was simply overwhelmed and it was "only natural" that their own people (members of the "superior being class") should get fed in priority to the prisoners (members of the "inferior being class").

Much more difficult to understand would be the actions of the government of (at least) one of the "victorious powers" in granting not only immunity from prosecution, but citizenship, employment, and honours to people who were clearly guilty of (at least being accessories to) war crimes and mass murders.

I understand that and there was a reason I used the term that I did.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

But as people keep pointing out, non-nuclear bombing methods were resulting in greater damage and greater casualties.

This would be true regardless of nuclear weapons use.


Again, we were inflicting greater casualties with firebombing.

So, it's not about the bodycount. What is it about a nuclear weapon that prompts surrender that is exclusive to its use against a civilian target?

Yes, indeed, greater casualties - but not by such a unique and horrific means.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, indeed, greater casualties - but not by such a unique and horrific means.

So it was the nature of the device and not the actual damage it did.

And for some reason this does not apply if you drop it on a military target only, or even just an uninhabited area while the enemy watches.

 

[Tigerace117]

"Actually, a “better understanding of Japanese culture” wouldn’t have done them any good, because what Imperial Japan thought bushido was, and what bushido ACTUALLY was, are two very different things."

That's where the "better understanding" bit comes in.

"Furthermore, since the Japanese did not commit such atrocities against the Russians in 1905 or the Germans during WW1"

They also didn't get a chance to either.

"Nor was there an alternative at that point other than surrender anyway. Corregidor held out about as long as it feasibly could have been expected to."

Indeed, that was the American point of view. From the Japanese point of view, it was better to die than to surrender and thereby dishonour yourself, your comrades, your family, your country, and your Emperor. You might want to take note of the fact that the American defenders of "The Alamo" fought on long after it was no longer feasible to do so (partly because they knew that there would be no prisoners taken (or left unexecuted).

Um....yes, they absolutely did. They captured quite a few Russians in 1905 and Germans during WW1.

Which was absolutely nutty, and which only produced numerous casualties— not to mention the civilians forced to commit suicide— long after the war was lost.

 

[Atomic Kid]

"Because the jetstream over Japan rendered the B29's high altitude bombing efficiency and accuracy all but useless"


No link or nothing. You're just making this crap up, aren't you?


Japanese buildings were mostly of wood construction. Incendiaries were the way to go, and incendiaries are best dropped at low altitudes.


"jet stream"


lol


.

It would appear then that you aren't really all that familiar with WWII history.

Hellfire on Earth: Operation MEETINGHOUSE | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans

The first B-29s over Tokyo were pathfinders. Coming in over the target from opposite directions, the pathfinders dropped their payload, which immediately burst into flames. The pathfinder's job now done, they retreated from the area, the target now brightly illuminated in the shape of an...

www.nationalww2museum.org

The November 24 raid, while hyped beyond belief, did little damage. Incredibly fierce winds and thick cloud cover limited the strike to a paltry 24 bombers. What bombs rained down on the capital widely missed their target. More raids followed and more failures occurred. The B-29s, cruising along at 32,000 feet, were literally sucking their fuel tanks dry due to massive head winds, forcing many to crash into the sea on their way home with the silver behemoths devoid of the precious fuel needed to get the crews back to their island homes. Even when the winds up high weren’t that bad, they were below. Blowing sometimes at over 250 miles per hour at around 23,000 feet, the newly discovered jet stream blew the hundreds of bombs raining down on Japan harmlessly into the sea, where the Americans racked up an impressive fish kill total that would have made any Japanese fisherman green with envy. Resources and lives were being wasted in the daylight high-altitude attacks. Clearly something had to be done. Enter the general known as “Iron Ass."

Why Was the Discovery of the Jet Stream Mostly Ignored?

Maybe because it was published in Esperanto.

www.airspacemag.com

Had Japanese meteorologist Wasaburo Ooishi not been an Esperantist, U.S. scientists during World War II might have been more aware of a national vulnerability. Between 1923 and 1925, Ooishi completed almost 1,300 observations of fierce high-altitude winds, later named the jetstream. The somewhat eccentric Ooishi was not only the director of Japan’s Tateno atmospheric observatory but also the head of the Japan Esperanto Society, proponents of the artificially constructed language, created in the 1870s as a means of international communication. Ooishi announced his discovery of the swift, high-altitude river of air in the Tateno observatory’s annual reports, which he published in Esperanto. Not surprisingly, his research was ignored, and the U.S. military was caught off guard by two consequences of the invisible jetstream.


The first surprise came in 1944 when B-29 pilots flying toward targets in Japan discovered at their cruising altitudes winds as high as 230 mph. The winds caused bombs to miss targets and, as headwinds, required bombers to use far more fuel than expected—so much more that they sometimes ran out on the return trip.

Read the National WWII Museum piece. It's account of the firebombing of Tokyo (Operation Meetinghouse) is especially horrifying.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So it was the nature of the device and not the actual damage it did.

And for some reason this does not apply if you drop it on a military target only, or even just an uninhabited area while the enemy watches.

"So it was the nature of the device and not the actual damage it did."

Yep.

"And for some reason this does not apply if you drop it on a military target only, or even just an uninhabited area while the enemy watches."

Considering that there were no "military targets" in Japan that were not surrounded by civilians, the first isn't even applicable. As for the second, such a demonstration could have been faked AND, that is exactly how the Japanese "war party" would have treated it.

Face it, horrific as it was, dropping those nuclear weapons DID ACTUALLY SAVE LIVES.

 

[Deuce]

Considering that there were no "military targets" in Japan that were not surrounded by civilians, the first isn't even applicable. As for the second, such a demonstration could have been faked AND, that is exactly how the Japanese "war party" would have treated it.

Wildly speculative. Faking a nuclear detonation? Why didn't they proclaim the Hiroshima bomb was fake?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Wildly speculative. Faking a nuclear detonation? Why didn't they proclaim the Hiroshima bomb was fake?

Since no one (other than Americans) knew what a nuclear detonation looked like, it wouldn't have been all that difficult to do.

It would have been "slightly" difficult for the US Corps of Engineers to do the necessary prep work for a fake under the conditions prevailing - wouldn't it?

 

[Deuce]

Since no one (other than Americans) knew what a nuclear detonation looked like, it wouldn't have been all that difficult to do.

It would have been "slightly" difficult for the US Corps of Engineers to do the necessary prep work for a fake under the conditions prevailing - wouldn't it?

This scenario is absurd. The Japanese military wouldn't witness one of its facilities vanish in the largest explosion in human history and call it fake.