Why has Japan not asked for forgiveness for WWII?

[Tigerace117]

I understand what your are saying however, I would simply say there have been many many questionable acts by many countries throughout the world. Each situation must be judged and the events that occurred and ramifications of that considered.

The point I am trying to make is this: Does Japan's wrongful and heinous actions suddenly make the US's actions alright?

Considering that A) the Japanese government had issued standing orders to murder every last POW they still had once the Allies landed and B) every other option would have killed far more Japanese civilians, to say nothing of the Allied casualties, it’s pretty clear that deploying the nuclear weapons in order to destroy the regime running Japan was both worthwhile and necessary.

 

[goldkam]

What actions are those that you now speak towards?

I am not referencing specific events in my answer.

However, for the sake of my point: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Bay of Pigs invasion.

 

[Bodi]

I am not referencing specific events in my answer.

However, for the sake of my point: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Bay of Pigs invasion.

I don't see anything wrong with those incidents... Vietnam is horrible though.

 

[Bodi]

Considering that A) the Japanese government had issued standing orders to murder every last POW they still had once the Allies landed and B) every other option would have killed far more Japanese civilians, to say nothing of the Allied casualties, it’s pretty clear that deploying the nuclear weapons in order to destroy the regime running Japan was both worthwhile and necessary.

Yeah... I don't really get the people that think that dropping the bombs was so horrible... the whole thing was horrible. But we had already fire bombed 64 cities to ashes and killed several hundred thousand civilians... then they are like... but the A-Bomb!!!

 

[goldkam]

I understand your point and Japan should have undoubtedly been met with force. This is also a tricky issue because it concerns hindsight and what could of or should have happened.

However, the simple fact in August 1945 the US use humanities most evil and heinous weapons on two civilian cities. This resulted in at least 200,000 people killed by the flashes, firestorms and radiation; tens of thousands more injured and intergenerational radiation, cancer and trauma. I simply don't agree with this. There is a growing number in the US who don't approve or believe these actions were justified. My view is further cemented by the use of the second Atomic bomb, as I believe there were other justifiable and effective mechanisms that should have been used rather than additional and unnecessary civilian deaths.

It is very easy to assert the atomic bombs as being worthwhile and necessary when you live in the country that was not on the receiving end.

 

[Tigerace117]

I understand your point and Japan should have undoubtedly been met with force. This is also a tricky issue because it concerns hindsight and what could of or should have happened.

However, the simple fact in August 1945 the US use humanities most evil and heinous weapons on two civilian cities. This resulted in at least 200,000 people killed by the flashes, firestorms and radiation; tens of thousands more injured and intergenerational radiation, cancer and trauma. I simply don't agree with this. There is a growing number in the US who don't approve or believe these actions were justified. My view is further cemented by the use of the second Atomic bomb, as I believe there were other justifiable and effective mechanisms that should have been used rather than additional and unnecessary civilian deaths.

It is very easy to assert the atomic bombs as being worthwhile and necessary when you live in the country that was not on the receiving end.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had significant military targets. Not only that, but casualties for the invasion were projected to be so high that by 2003 there were still over a hundred thousand unissued Purple Heart medals which had been created in preparation for the landings. Oh, and the Japanese, again, were preparing to murder the hundred thousand or so POWs they still had in the Home Islands.

Japanese potential casualties, meanwhile ranged in the millions. A conventional invasion would have killed FAR more Japanese civilians than dropping the nukes did.

But as the reality of what Imperial Japan was continues to fade there are indeed numerous Americans whose only knowledge of the situation is “nukes bad”.

 

[goldkam]

I don't see anything wrong with those incidents... Vietnam is horrible though.

I have a moral issue with the Atomic bombs, underpinned by the fact the US pursued a second Atomic bomb. I agree with you on Vietnam.

 

[goldkam]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had significant military targets. Not only that, but casualties for the invasion were projected to be so high that by 2003 there were still over a hundred thousand unissued Purple Heart medals which had been created in preparation for the landings.

My fundamental issue is this is all based upon assumptions and as if there was no alternative to dropping two Atomic bombs.

Oh, and the Japanese, again, were preparing to murder the hundred thousand or so POWs they still had in the Home Islands.

Once again, this is premised upon an assumption that it was an Atomic Bomb or nothing.
There were other more conventional options which should have been adopted such as naval blockades and conventional strategic bombing and/or invade of the Japanese Home Islands. It is important to note there is historical consensus that these other options have merit.

Japanese potential casualties, meanwhile ranged in the millions. A conventional invasion would have killed FAR more Japanese civilians than dropping the nukes did.

Not necessarily. Invasions can be targeted to a specific area and focus on primary military and political hubs. Atomic bombs don't have this sort of focus. Not to mention the inter-generational devastation this causes. Do you not accept that there has been significant inter-generational trauma that has occurred?

But as the reality of what Imperial Japan was continues to fade there are indeed numerous Americans whose only knowledge of the situation is “nukes bad”.

I fundamentally agree with that statement. It is rational.

 

[maxparrish]

My fundamental issue is this is all based upon assumptions and as if there was no alternative to dropping two Atomic bombs.

Once again, this is premised upon an assumption that it was an Atomic Bomb or nothing.
There were other more conventional options which should have been adopted such as naval blockades and conventional strategic bombing and/or invade of the Japanese Home Islands. It is important to note there is historical consensus that these other options have merit.

Not necessarily. Invasions can be targeted to a specific area and focus on primary military and political hubs. Atomic bombs don't have this sort of focus. Not to mention the inter-generational devastation this causes. Do you not accept that there has been significant inter-generational trauma that has occurred?

I fundamentally agree with that statement. It is rational.

On an emotional level, it's difficult to NOT be appalled by use of these two nuclear weapons, just as its difficult not to be appalled by the even more destructive use of fire bombing. One cannot help but wonder if the exigencies of war turned allies, not just the axis, into war criminals (e.g. Hamburg, Dresden, etc.).

However such introspection does not compel one to make assumptions about other choices. The what-ifs of history are conjectural, not knowable not even in hindsight. It may well be that the decision to drop the two A-bombs was immoral, but IF that only depends upon the existence of other equally effective choices then one cannot truly judge it to be wrong. We simply don't know.

What we do know is that with the information at hand, decision makers made a choice that they thought unavoidable IF the war was to be concluded on an acceptable basis. The Truman administration was deeply concerned about the fortitude of the American people to continue a war another year or two, or to accept the horrendous causalities estimated after an invasion of Japan. And the Truman administration was well aware of their failure to break Japanese up to that date.

And in the cold calculus of anticipated deaths on both sides, from either a blockade into starvation or an invasion, they made a choice...not a good choice but the only choice available to them that might bring the war to a quick closure.

By that measure, it worked. Truman was right.

 

[Bodi]

I have a moral issue with the Atomic bombs, underpinned by the fact the US pursued a second Atomic bomb. I agree with you on Vietnam.

That is fine. Some people have that line. I make my conclusion based on the number killed, in cases like total war, not in how they were killed.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yay nukes!

What do you believe should have been the alternative?

 

[Jredbaron96]

The point I am trying to make is this: Does Japan's wrongful and heinous actions suddenly make the US's actions alright?

Nothing the Allies did in WW2 matches the scale of depth of atrocity of the Axis powers.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions were killed by Allied bombing. But tens of millions were butchered by Axis forces.

Millions of women were raped by Allied soldiers. The conservative estimate for German rapes on the Eastern Front is 10 million.

There is ultimately no comparison. Pretty much every atrocity visited upon the Axis by the Allied powers was part of a greater campaign to bring the end of the war. The Allies stopped bombing Germany and Japan when they surrendered.

By comparison, the vast majority of people killed by the Axis were civilians that posed no threat to their power. Certainly the ~30 million Chinese and Soviet peasants butchered by the Germans and Japanese stand uncontested as the worst crimes of them all.

 

[Jredbaron96]

There were other more conventional options which should have been adopted such as naval blockades and conventional strategic bombing and/or invade of the Japanese Home Islands.

It's highly likely either of these actions would have ended up killing more Japanese civilians than died in the atomic bombings.

 

[goldkam]

On an emotional level, it's difficult to NOT be appalled by use of these two nuclear weapons, just as its difficult not to be appalled by the even more destructive use of fire bombing. One cannot help but wonder if the exigencies of war turned allies, not just the axis, into war criminals (e.g. Hamburg, Dresden, etc.).

However such introspection does not compel one to make assumptions about other choices. The what-ifs of history are conjectural, not knowable not even in hindsight. It may well be that the decision to drop the two A-bombs was immoral, but IF that only depends upon the existence of other equally effective choices then one cannot truly judge it to be wrong. We simply don't know.

What we do know is that with the information at hand, decision makers made a choice that they thought unavoidable IF the war was to be concluded on an acceptable basis. The Truman administration was deeply concerned about the fortitude of the American people to continue a war another year or two, or to accept the horrendous causalities estimated after an invasion of Japan. And the Truman administration was well aware of their failure to break Japanese up to that date.

And in the cold calculus of anticipated deaths on both sides, from either a blockade into starvation or an invasion, they made a choice...not a good choice but the only choice available to them that might bring the war to a quick closure.

By that measure, it worked. Truman was right.

I appreciate your response and completely understand where you are coming from.
The moral conundrum for me still rests with nuclear weapons and their uses and inevitably the inter-generational impacts that are being felt still today. Also, more broadly the threats the US actions did have and ultimately could have on the global order and use of nuclear weapons.

Whilst many saw this as necessary and the 'least terrible option' I still believe hindsight can be used as a means of disagreeing or undermining a decision. The fact we simply don't know something doesn't mean we cannot speculate or look at alternatives. The alternatives I have mentioned previously, from my understanding were realistic and reliable solutions to the problem (a consensus generated among historians, military strategists and others). I do acknowledge however we will never know how Japan would have reacted in these situations and it impossible to draw up hypotheticals.

I am a strong believer in anything but the nuclear bomb, which is one of the single biggest threats to humanity. It can wipe us out in the click of a button.

 

[Tigerace117]

My fundamental issue is this is all based upon assumptions and as if there was no alternative to dropping two Atomic bombs.

Once again, this is premised upon an assumption that it was an Atomic Bomb or nothing.
There were other more conventional options which should have been adopted such as naval blockades and conventional strategic bombing and/or invade of the Japanese Home Islands. It is important to note there is historical consensus that these other options have merit.

Not necessarily. Invasions can be targeted to a specific area and focus on primary military and political hubs. Atomic bombs don't have this sort of focus. Not to mention the inter-generational devastation this causes. Do you not accept that there has been significant inter-generational trauma that has occurred?

I fundamentally agree with that statement. It is rational.

Because every other alternative would have been killed far more. We had already tried the naval blockade. We had already conducted strategic bombing campaigns against the Japanese for years.

Those projected casualty reports come from the Allies’ designated landing sights. Namely, Kyushu. Regardless of anything else, those casualties are still exponentially higher than the actual losses caused by the nuclear bombs.

 

[TurtleDude]

Did we ever apologize for dropping two nukes? That would seem to be the worst thing of all.

why? it saved thousands of American lives

 

[Rexedgar]

Nothing the Allies did in WW2 matches the scale of depth of atrocity of the Axis powers.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions were killed by Allied bombing. But tens of millions were butchered by Axis forces.

Millions of women were raped by Allied soldiers. The conservative estimate for German rapes on the Eastern Front is 10 million.

There is ultimately no comparison. Pretty much every atrocity visited upon the Axis by the Allied powers was part of a greater campaign to bring the end of the war. The Allies stopped bombing Germany and Japan when they surrendered.

By comparison, the vast majority of people killed by the Axis were civilians that posed no threat to their power. Certainly the ~30 million Chinese and Soviet peasants butchered by the Germans and Japanese stand uncontested as the worst crimes of them all.

The above made asking for quarter by the Germans a moot point.

 

[TurtleDude]

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki had significant military targets. Not only that, but casualties for the invasion were projected to be so high that by 2003 there were still over a hundred thousand unissued Purple Heart medals which had been created in preparation for the landings. Oh, and the Japanese, again, were preparing to murder the hundred thousand or so POWs they still had in the Home Islands.

Japanese potential casualties, meanwhile ranged in the millions. A conventional invasion would have killed FAR more Japanese civilians than dropping the nukes did.

But as the reality of what Imperial Japan was continues to fade there are indeed numerous Americans whose only knowledge of the situation is “nukes bad”.

as I noted in earlier posts on earlier threads, I had two uncles serving the Pacific theater. One, a naval aviator, was KIA over Okinawa near the end of the war. The other was an officer on one of the big battleships that would be spearheading the invasion (that didn't happen due to us nuking Japan). He noted that armorers and engineers were reconfiguring the triple A batteries on his ship to be used for firing upon infantry during a beach invasion. Quad fifty machine guns, 20 and forty mm cannons. They had seen films of Japanese civilians practicing mass wave attacks with spears. He was contemplating what that sort of firepower would have done to essentially civilians trying to repel heavily armed US Marines and soldiers during a beach invasion

 

[maxparrish]

I appreciate your response and completely understand where you are coming from.
The moral conundrum for me still rests with nuclear weapons and their uses and inevitably the inter-generational impacts that are being felt still today. Also, more broadly the threats the US actions did have and ultimately could have on the global order and use of nuclear weapons.

Whilst many saw this as necessary and the 'least terrible option' I still believe hindsight can be used as a means of disagreeing or undermining a decision. The fact we simply don't know something doesn't mean we cannot speculate or look at alternatives. The alternatives I have mentioned previously, from my understanding were realistic and reliable solutions to the problem (a consensus generated among historians, military strategists and others). I do acknowledge however we will never know how Japan would have reacted in these situations and it impossible to draw up hypotheticals.

I am a strong believer in anything but the nuclear bomb, which is one of the single biggest threats to humanity. It can wipe us out in the click of a button.

If anything the use of the nuclear bomb in WWII created a revulsion to its future use, one reason that MacArthur's idiotic and desperate plan to use dozens of A-Bombs to stop the Chinese in Korea was rejected by Truman. Indeed, it may well be that but for the tragic results of the two bombs dropped, a future conflict involving far more copious use of such weapons (and under-estimated radiation effects) could have been far worse. Indeed, it was only AFTER the bombs were dropped and the effects seen that critics of its use developed, save perhaps for one advisor.

As to alternatives, I've looked at this pretty closely and under the circumstances I don't see them. A continuation of the war into and through 1946 was technically feasible, using mass famine to kill a few 10s of millions, while the Soviets would demand co-occupation of Japan if an when it finally surrendered. However, that was a risk because the American people, it was feared, would not stick it out.

The only other alternative was invasion...by every estimate a bloodbath for both sides.

The bomb would be developed by someone, and the "threats to humanity" would arise in a different context - one that may have been far worse. Romantic notions to the contrary, nation states are eventually going to do what they do, at least absent any actual experience with a weapon. (It took WWI and use of gas warfare in order to outlaw it...as well as mutually assured use of gas as a retaliation for its use).

I have found that the more you know about the war, the less you see an alternative.

 

[AmNat]

Why?

Japan had a more merciful administrator post-conquest than Germany. So Japanese children aren't taught to hate their country to the extent that Germans are (or Americans for that matter). Thus they don't grovel before the world to the same extent.

 

[X Factor]

I appreciate the allansplaining, but I clarified where my remark was aimed. If you’d like to have a larger conversation about ww2, that’s fine, I guess? I don’t care.

Have you always been so pleasant?

 

[Tigerace117]

Japan had a more merciful administrator post-conquest than Germany. So Japanese children aren't taught to hate their country to the extent that Germans are (or Americans for that matter). Thus they don't grovel before the world to the same extent.

Considering the fact that Japan’s atrocities rival those of Nazi Germany, your sputtering is as meaningless as ever.

Anyone sane hates the Nazis.

 

[AmNat]

Considering the fact that Japan’s atrocities rival those of Nazi Germany, your sputtering is as meaningless as ever.

Anyone sane hates the Nazis.

My statement remains accurate, your hate notwithstanding. Japanese are not taught that their nation is evil in the way Germans are. I'm sure this upsets you.

 

[Tigerace117]

My statement remains accurate, your hate notwithstanding. Japanese are not taught that their nation is evil in the way Germans are. I'm sure this upsets you.

The Japanese not being taught to fully acknowledge the incredible evil carried out by the Tojo regime annoys anyone with even half a brain. There are few regimes more worthy of hatred than the one running Imperial Japan up until 1945.

Your sobs of misery over Germans being taught to hate the Nazis, meanwhile, are rather telling.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Worthless OP, worthless thread, apologies have been issued, nothing of worth to discuss.

Epic failure of a thread.