JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Do you support same-sex marriages?
( 57 )
-
Do you enjoy watching movies in 3D?
( 24 )
-
Do you support torture as an interrogation method if the objective is to prevent a terrorist attack or capture criminals?
( 73 )
-
Would you like to see all U.S. military forces removed from Okinawa?
( 95 )
-
Should Japan be pledging funds to the IMF, Mekong and for other causes overseas?
( 11 )
-
1
Hosono visits Fukushima No. 4 reactor amid concern over fuel pool
-
2
Lady Gaga's Indonesia concert canceled after threats
-
3
Oceanographer says beachcombers on West Coast may find bones in tsunami debris
-
4
New Jersey town's monument to Korean sex slaves upsetting Japanese officials
-
5
241 civil servants file suit over salary cuts
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
168 Comments
Login to comment
0
USNinJapan2
No, there should be a completely separate ceremony of equal scale for the victims of Imperial Japan's aggression before and after WWII.
0
sourpuss
good question. yes, and no.
0
MistWizard
There is only one reason anyone would want that. That would be people of the Allied nations, especially Americans, trying to make themselves feel better about bombing civilians in war time. Adding such references would be nothing more than trying to find an excuse for the unexcusable and lead to fingerpointing which would mar the ceremony. Such as it is, there is NO fingerpointing. Americans see it in the their own heads only.
That said I agree with USNinJapan2, but the burden for that is not on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the slightest.
0
MistWizard
Gah! My brain seems to be waking up now. If the victims are CIVILIAN victims, then yes. But if its Pearl Harbor, etc, then no. I voted no, but that holds for parameters of the question which would include military victims.
0
whiskeysour
I have an idea Have a tour/roadshow or showcase showing both sides of the war Japan's acts of aggression before and during World War II and A-bombings. Show the reasons why the bomb was dropped. And let the people make their own conclusions.
0
gogogo
Japan has their own nuclear weapons program so it is easy to play the victim card because you didn't manage to get your program out first.
0
Bholder
do you think any part of history could/should be commemorated for it's own sake or is providing wider background always needed? how wide should the scope of such references be? should we go further back and include what provoked japanese to aggression in the first place? or even further to establish the link between subjective behavior of any nation's elite and the objective conditions that resulted in a prevalence of a particular outlook and policies in any given epoch? we certainly cannot limit ourselves to that without showing how the planet on which any of this was made possible itself came to be in the form we know it...
come on, there's no end to it!
0
12_year_sensei
Of course events prior to WWII should be referenced. Aerial bombings of civilians in Chinese cities from 1937, numerous atrocities from Singapore to Nanking, all because Emperor Hirohito and his aides wished to reinforce his power, so they expanded police authority, put the military in schools and used the new invention of radio to enthrone the Emperor as a god and brainwash the people. Japan had it's own A-bomb project, begun before the Manhattan project. All of this is highly relevant, if you think about it.
0
Fadamor
I'm American and I voted "No". Leave the memorial ceremony for the atomic bomb victims solely for the atomic bomb victims. Create a separate memorial service for the victims of Japan's agression.
0
sabiwabi
I hope that by "both sides" you also mean showing the allied acts of aggression before and during the war. If you show the war a the good allies against the evil axis, it is very one sided (and wrong).
Do you mean the excuses for why they were dropped. Or do you mean the real reasons, to show the world (mainly the Russians) what powerful weapon the US had.
Anyway, whatever is done to show the war in its proper or deceptive perspective, it should be left out of these ceremonies, which should focus on the deaths and suffering of innocent civilians caused by these two atomic bombs.
0
cumbrianruss
Clearly not. The concept is too simplistic. Is there a memorial ceremony in the US to remember the civilians burned in fire bombing of Japanese cities? Collective guilt doesn't apply. Coventry, Dresden, Shanghai, Tokyo; it's still the elderly, children, non-combatants being killed. To justify it is to sacrifice part of your humanity. Does Japan have to come to terms with its wartime aggression? Probably yes. Does this have anything at all to do with the dreadful act taken against its civilian population? No. The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just that; victims.
0
Frungy
Absolutely not. The overwhelming majority of the people who died in the A-bombings were innocent civilians, women and children, neither of whom had the right to vote (women were only allowed to vote in Japan in 1945), and in the 1920's women were deprived of even their unofficial voices in the then "Women's clubs" when these clubs were dissolved by the IRAA (Imperial Rule Assistance Association).
Regardless about the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of arguments about Japan's contribution to the events that lead up to the bombing it is critical to bear in mind that the vast majority of the victims being remembered in these memorial services had absolutely no part or influence in creating these situations, and so to imply in any way that the slaughter of these innocent women and children by the U.S. was in any way justified woiuld be a horrendous miscarriage of justice, and nothing more than pressure from a bunch of murderers (and their decendents) trying to shift blame from themselves to the innocent.
0
moonbeams
After some deliberation, I voted yes, but the reference should be kept minute. Something along the lines as to "these events led down the path of this conclusion. let us not repeat this"
0
toguro
I voted no. Keep it in perspective. At the same time, don't let it be used as a means for Japan to get on their soap box, and claim how wrong it was, while at the same time, burrying their heads in the sand to the many attrocities that they committed as well. As 12 year sensei pointed out, Japan had a WMD program as well, they were fortunately, unable to use it first. And as sabiwabi pointed out, showing the Soviets that the U.S. had the bomb, was just one of the reasons that the bomb was used. Revenge for Pearl Harbor was another, as well as the fact that Japan was a non white country, and was seen as inferior. And last, but not least, to save the many American lives that would've been lost in invading the mainland of Japan.
0
KinuyeOshiro
Japan's aggression to other countries prior to WWII is very distressing. The forcing of Okinawans to commit suicide is equally distressing and more so for us that lost so many of our families, but what I will never understand is why civilian targets were destroyed when the Japanese Empire including the tops leaders should have experienced this horific destruction. The fire bombing of cities were aimed at destroying innocent civilians as well, all in order to demonstrate what the USA was capable of? I always wonder if the Japanese High Command including the Emperor were saved because the USA was looking beyond the war and leaving the infrastructure intact because that was where the money was for the future of US Political Agendas in Asia. The killing of innocent civilians in Japan by Americans, Chinese and others by Japanese...Which was more intolerable? Commemorate the loss of all innocent lives.
0
sf2k
well of course
if you were atomically bombed maybe it would behoove you to know why. It's not like you weren't doing anything at the time. You can't turn the page if you can never leave it.
0
TigerDragon
Hmm Japan attacks a military base and the U.S. attacks a civilian city....
0
sf2k
Modern Germany doesn't have a problem with this because they have turned the page and can move forward. They know that is has nothing to do with Germany today.
Japan can never turn the page because everyone is still afraid of right wing nutters who are not under any laws to cease. Note that it is a crime in Germany to deny the Holocaust and there are strong hate crime laws. In Japan, what do you have? Seems common practice to continue the denial of war as it happened in Japan. The tale of two countries recovery from war couldn't be more different. Germans protest in the streets against Neo-Nazis while Japanese turn a blind eye to Uyoku dantai.
THus these memorials should be a rallying cry for change in Japan to end discrimination and hate. Not just cry for those who died but challenge yourselves to improve the nation.
0
sf2k
TigerDragon:
Kyoto was on the list and disregarded because Truman didn't want a holy war. So the port towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected and also due to their remoteness.
When I visited Hiroshima I also visited the remade castle. In it, I noted period photos showing Hiroshima as a military port town. That was a while back though.
War is stupid and people die. Thinking that only civilians died in one case and only military in another is just cherry picking. This I find rather disingenuous to a history that you can discover in Japan itself.
0
Branded
Tigerdragon-
"Japan attacks a military base and the U.S. attacks a civilian city...."
It seems history, and the good folks at wikipedia, would disagree with your position.
On Hiroshima they write:
"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops."
As for Nagasaki:
"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."
"Civilians" you say ? Hardly !
0
genkimark
Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both cities that provided labor and material to support the war. They were not randomly chosen.
0
timtak
More emphasis should be given to Nagasaki, as a seperate event to Hiroshima, and yet occuring only 3 days after the first bomb, while generals in Tokyo were still denying that the Hiroshima bomb was atomic.
0
Exitpoller
No.
Looking for causality undermines the heinous crime of A-bombing. It was the worst of what man resorted to.
May it never again happen. For any reason or excuse.
0
Branded
"It was the worst of what man resorted to."
Nonsense- both countries were in a "declared state of war". Unlike the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Sad how so many forget the facts.
0
Patrick Smash
No. This is a special time for those two cities to remember and mourn their dead. It has nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the Pacific War or the bombings. These were two huge events which killed an awful of of people in these two cities. They have a right to mark it how they wish.
0
Branded
"They have a right to mark it how they wish."
Through denial, reconstructive history, and blatant ignorance of the truth ? No wonder Japan has yet to move on from it's wartime past.
0
Farmboy
Absolutely not. This is a "ceremony for the victims," not a political football. Let people mourn their relatives.
0
Patrick Smash
Branded, that is Japan as a whole, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the two citties that were devastated by A bombs. Japan should face up, square up and educate; I completely agree. These two cities should be able to have a ceremony to mourn their relatives though. Just my opinion.
0
sabiwabi
This does not apply any more to Japan than to most Western nations (yes, even Germany). Just because they lost the war does not mean they must forever accept all the pre- and post-war propaganda the world throws at it.
Anyway, references to Japan's alleged acts of aggression do not belong in these ceremonies. Just like references to a person's sins do not belong in their funeral.
0
bicultural
Believe it or not, they do teach in Japanese schools that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and that it was before a formal declaration of war had been made. What they didn't tell me in school (America) was that 70,000 people (most of which were civilians) were instantly killed in the Hiroshima bombing. If this is a ceremony in Japan for the Japanese survivors of this tragedy, then I think it's up to them what to say. I do believe textbooks in every country should strive to give a clearer picture.
0
liefjapan
In this ceremony, they just mourn the people who were killed by A-bombs. Thus it is not necessary to include such references to the victims of Japan's acts of aggression before and during World War II.
By the way, who are "the victims of Japan's acts of aggression before and during World War II?" People died in Pearl Harbor?
0
USNinJapan2
liefjapan
You're kidding, right?
0
Tokyoapple
They should definitely blame the emperor's father and uncles and all the rest of the imperial family that have so much blood on their hands.
0
TigerDragon
TheU.S.'s excuse was it wanted to end WWII with as few American casualties as possible. They said they probably could have won using conventional fighting methods, it would have ended with more casualties on the American side and arguably the Japanese as well. But Japan had already surrendered as long as they got to keep there emperor. the states also wanted to test there new bombs so 2 billion dollarsdidn't go to waste. The United States spent so much money on them and they knew the war was ending so the States were in a rush to set them off. So (while the scientists were directly opposed to doing so) Harry Truman said to fire the bomb. they planned it on 2 previously unaffected cities to see the damage it caused. right after the bombs were sent, Harry Truman was quoted saying "This is the greatest event in human history." The Hiroshima bomb killed 135,000 civilians. they knew the damage it had caused and that no one was likely to do anything after that point, they bombed Nagasaki, killing only 64,000 civilians this time. the United States did this more or less to say 'Don't mess with us, look what we have! we will destroy you.' the American schooling has been brought up to glorify this event in history, as 'reparation' for pearl harbor, but this was a mass killing of innocent people.
0
limboinjapan
I would say "NO" if it were not for the fact that the ceremonies are not limited to mourning the dead, but that it is used as a platform to promote the "We were innocent victims" card.
More people died in the fire bombings of Tokyo but they can't focus on that because Japan did the same fire bombings in China (they were the ones that perfected the type of bombs used on Tokyo! until then the US had some idea of using bats.)
Drop the "victim" thing and mourn the dead if not then people will have the right to say "what about the victims of Japan's aggression"!
People seem to have short memories and that is the real danger in history.
Many civilians died in these 2 bombings and that is often the argument but we seem to forget that from 36 to 43 while Japan was winning the civilian population were all for the war and were there right behind the troops as they advanced to claim the newly conquered territories for Japan (where do you think all those "left behind children in China come from?).
So to have a ceremony for the dead is all and all fine but to promote it as a ceremony for the "Victims" without adding the context of the civilian complacency during the war is not really a call for world peace as they often claim during these 2 ceremonies but more of "look at us we are victims of the big bad US".
0
UnagiDon
Ah, the good old chestnut of Pearl Harbor, never fails to get trotted out as some justification for the atomic bombings as if there was some kind of inevitability linking the two events. Simplistic thinking at its finest. I think a lot of Americans are more miffed about the fact that they got their butts kicked militarily in a big way by a foe who wasn't eve white.
But hey, if we're going to ask Japan to do this, why not ask the US to include references to why the US even had a naval base at Pearl Harbor? At the next Pearl Harbor memorial service, let's talk about the coup the US instigated to grab Hawaii, or to broader US imperialism in the Pacific such as the annexation of Guam after the Spanish-American War or up to one million dead Filipinos when the Philippines decided that they didn't want to be annexed by the US. Fair is fair, and we don't want the Japanese to be the only ones who are victims of ignorance of their own historical bad deeds.
0
Zenny11
I am still confused that there are multiple reasons being thrown around dropping the bombs.
1.) Because of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour. 2.) To force Japan to surrender. 3.) To prevent a Major invasion that would cost MILLIONS of lifes, more than any other conflict/confrontation so far. 4.) Because Japan committed great atrocities in asia(like anyone appointed the USA to punish Japan). 5.) To show a mighty weapon and the force that it has to cow other nations(most likely, IMO).
Question:
I know USA had an agreement with Hawaii for military bases for some time but was Pearl Harbour/Hawaii actually USA territory at that time of the attack.
0
UnagiDon
limboinjapan;
Ive seen you post this claim before but had never heard of it before and it sounded interesting so have tried to look it up. Have found no evidence anywhere that the US developed its fire bombs based on Japanese designs used in China, so could you kindly point out where this comes from? I find it pretty hard to believe, especially since US firebombs used napalm which wasn't even invented until 1942, in the US.
0
limboinjapan
TigerDragon; You need to check your facts Japan only came to the agreement to "unconditional" surrender with one condition the uninterrupted continuation of the Imperial family after the second bombing (and this is from the Japan's own records of the ruling council and those of the Imperial council, prior to that Japan was still trying for a conditional surrender that included no occupation of the main islands.
This is what I mean by history and that danger when it is distorted or miss used.
I am not saying that the bombing were right or justified (as I have stated before maybe just far enough of of Tokyo bay may have done the trick with less casualties.)
But to also promote the false information that Japan was ready to accept "unconditional" surrender is again promoting the "we were innocent victims" mentality that is so prevalent at these ceremonies.
If these ceremonies were so much for the horror of the atomic bombings then why for so many years did these places resist the idea of adding the names of Korean and Chinese laborers who also died from it?
0
TheQuestion
If its a ceremony for A-bomb victims then just keep it simple. If it was a WWII memorial that would be different.
0
limboinjapan
UnagiDon: You are correct on the Napalm part but the "bomblet" type Incendiary bomb (as opposed to a single chamber bomb) was first used by Japan form 38 to 43 in China see "Bombing of Chongqing" and the Germans like them so much that they adopted them as of 41 to bomb London.
0
Fadamor
Zenny, 2 and 3 are correct. 1 and 4 are smokescreens that really had no bearing on the decision. 5 is used by cynics because 2 and 3 are too logical for their liking.
Re: Hawaii UnagiDon is correct that in the late 1800's, the U.S. "engineered" a bloodless coup in the Hawaiian Islands - effectively ending the Hawaiian Monarchy and placing Hawaii under U.S. territorial status. At the time of WWII the Hawaiian Islands were still a U.S. territory. They did not get U.S. statehood until 1950.
0
Zenny11
Fadamor.
Thanks.
0
UnagiDon
limboinjapan;
The Bombing of Chongqing I know, I still don't know of any direct link between that bomb and the ones used on Tokyo, other than the one you are trying to make.
0
arrestpaul
There has been a constant attempt to disassociate the dropping of the 2 atomic bombs from the reality of WWII as if they had occured in some sort of vaccum or alternative universe. These ceremonies for the "victims" is more of a statement against the use of atomic weapons. In 1945, Little Boy and Fat Man were just another weapon of war. Weapons that reduced the risk to the lives of U.S. servicemen and to force their enemy to surrender sooner than later. The earlier the Japanese military surrendered, the fewer Japanese that would be killed and maimed by the planned invasions with their more conventional methods of warfare.
These ceremonies should include the Imperial militaries defensive plans to counter the expected invasion and should include their estimated timelines of how long they expected to hold out before being beaten. One month, one year, two years????
0
nigelboy
Bholder nailed it.
0
Sarge
I see that I'm in the 56% who said yes. I'm surprised only 56% said yes, and 36% said no.
0
toguro
As I read through the posts, niether country is in any position to claim innocence as far as what is written in their history books, and what is taught in their schools, as both have distorted their histories. As for the reasons why the bombs were used, i've never said that they were good reasons. I'm just merely stating the reasons that i've found, and researched. When you're at war with a country, you do want to show the world what you have, and what you're capable of. I am of the opinion that if Japan had never attacked the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, and gone to war with them, that Japan would never have been in any danger of being bombed. Japan, in a sense reaped what it sowed.
0
bicultural
Have you ever been the ceremonies, interviewed survivors and their relatives? I've spent some time in Hiroshima and I have never heard anything remotely close to this being said and yet posters here proclaim it like the gospel.
0
triumph
I suppose they could. But then maybe ceremonies for the 9/11 victims should include references to the "My Lai" massacre in Vietnam.
0
toguro
Thats probably because there are posters on here who actually say it, and feel as such.
0
triumph
So how about seriously putting an end to this ridiculous question. It is very stupid and irresponsible to have a "poll" like this in the first place.
Moderator: How about explaining why you think so?
0
toguro
I agree with you triumph, because the people that this is supposed to be about, have gotten completely lost in the mix, as people are starting to comment on things, and events that are 20-60 years after the fact, and have nothing absolutely to do with what the poll was about. LOL
0
limboinjapan
bicultural; "Have you ever been the ceremonies, interviewed survivors and their relatives?"
Yes I have! And I have been her a long time and I remember when the Korean families wanted to put the names of their relatives killed by the bomb and those who were forced after to clean up (subsequently dying of radiation) and how the then Mayors and "Victims" association refused claiming "this is a Japanese tragedy" it took some time and international humiliation before they finally accepted to add those names.
All I am saying is if they are really serious about peace and the horror or war then make it at least look like its for everyone and not just the Japanese casualties!
0
bdiego
Japan has never taken real culpability for the dozens of atom bombs they dropped on the world. They didn't even consider any non-Japanese to be victims - including the Chinese and Korea who died in the atom bombs! Pretty ridiculous and just exposes all their lip service apologies as totally shallow and insincere.
0
TigerDragon
LimboinJapan: While yes there was no "unconditional" surrender agreement yet,it is obvious that the droping of the 2 bombs were done as retaliation for Pearl Harbor. If Truman wanted he could ahve easily used the bombs out in the ocean far away from anyone. Also America bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima so many times before you could hardly call what they had left a military outpost,therefore I say mostly civilians.
0
Branded
"Also America bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima so many times before you could hardly call what they had left a military outpost,therefore I say mostly civilians."
Once again the good folks at Wiki would disagree... On Hiroshima in particular they write:
"It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb"
"Bombed so many times" you say ???
0
MrMojo
Let's not forget about the "Rape of Nanjing" for the Chinese whom the Japanese attacked. Japan REFUSES to admit ANY wrong doing by their military. This is the typical Asian method of "saving face"!
I know as I'm Chinese!
Old hatred is hard to forget and to forgive >:(
It's been so long that... Maybe it IS the time NOT to forget but to FORGIVE so PEACE can be achieved!
Remember, Japan STARTED the Pacific War so we should the Allied forces be Sorry for ENDING it?!
Remember those that died by the Japanese army! Never forget!!
Let's try to put away the hatred and move on towards prosperity and peace :)
0
VelvetRosetta
toguro.." niether country is in any position to claim innocence as far as what is written in their history books, and what is taught in their schools, as both have distorted their histories"....I agree. ...
MrMojo..."It's been so long that... Maybe it IS the time NOT to forget but to FORGIVE so PEACE can be achieved!"
I also agree I read an article on the Japanese, when they invaded Nanjing..and was astonished and wondered what kind of ppl do such horrid acts, and then go on to to ask for apologies when they can't even apologize for what their country did to those men and women in Nanjing..
"Let's try to put away the hatred and move on towards prosperity and peace :)"...this would be a wonderful thought, that maybe in the future our childrens children, can look at each nation, country, race, as human beings and not hold the pasts against one another...but for now it's just a wonderful thought
0
limboinjapan
TigerDragon;"is obvious that the droping of the 2 bombs were done as retaliation for Pearl Harbor. If Truman wanted he could ahve easily used the bombs out in the ocean far away from anyone."
The Pearl Harbor reason is just revisionist garbage and anyone with a brain knows that! and I'm not American so I really don't have any stake on this point.
But I have said the same thing about possibly dropping one in the ocean near Tokyo but AGAIN here is where HISTORY comes in to mess all the revisionist up.
Put yourselves in the shoes of the Allied leaders in the wake of a little battle called OKINAWA in which you just witnessed an enemy who had total disregard for their troops lives and even less for their civilians lives with an enemy willing to Sacrifice 100,000 plus of their soldiers and as many as 150,000 of their civilians.
Faced with such an adversary and just 2 of these bombs what do you say to your self?
If I drop one in the ocean and show them what it can do maybe they will be scared and then if not I will hit a city but have nothing in reserve to back it up!
I think not you will use it to it's fullest potential on such an enemy.
Those are the facts of war.
Had the American president not used the bomb and the war been prolonged and more Americans died, once it was known he had this weapon and did not use it, he would have at the least been impeached and at worst be tried for treason, that is the reality of the times back in the first part of the 20th century.
Applying today's knowledge and moral standards with hindsight is not an option.
0
limboinjapan
It is interesting to note that though the memorial park in Hiroshima was opened in 1954 no mention of the 20,000 plus Korean that died there was mentioned until they themselves built their own in 1970 and it took until 1999 for it to finally be incorporated into the actual park!
0
noriyosan73
When I visited Hiroshima in 2004, I went there with the belief that the park was a tribute to peace, a physical representation of what the world should strive to achieve. Realistically, utopia cannot be reached on the world's present path, but without a model way to follow, it can never be found. I was told by my guide that Hiroshima is like a funeral - a ceremony and park for the living. It seems that the YES votes want to continually put the historical road blocks on the path. Finally a question for the YES voters: "Do you think that the victims of the Chinese, Mongolian and Korean aggressions in previous 20 centuries should be mentioned in their history books so that their people understand exactly what their military inflicted on their neighbors." The Asian world needs to move on and provide a positive culture for the living. If it doesn't, it is doomed to be exactly like the present Mid-East. No peace for the living.
0
nigelboy
I think you're confused. There are Koreans listed on 原爆死没者名簿 (List of names who died as a result of Atomic Bomb) since they started compiling in 1952. It's just that the Korean civic group wanted to build a separate monument memorial 慰霊碑 for themselves even though they were already honored at the main monument memorial "20 Cenotaph for the A-bomb Victims"
0
sabiwabi
There are very many, including Americans, who do not agree with this.
And there are even more people who do not believe that dropping these two bombs was necessary to end the war or save American lives.
You shouldn't believe everything they tell you. They lie today, and they lied back then.
0
bicultural
Well, thank you for clearing that up nigel.
0
TheQuestion
I like that.
0
yelspal
No I don't. the services are for the victims of the only wartime atomic bombing.
However - there was no reason why, possessing a superior weapon, the USA should have wasted any more of their men's lives by invading Japan. The fanaticism was such that even after two atomic bombs much of the Japanese military wanted to fight on. Duh.
0
sabiwabi
Indeed, they do teach the "atomic bombs saved lives" in school, and unfortunately many still believe that.
It is known that the Japanese wanted to surrender. It is also known that the American leadership did not want the Japanese to surrender before they had a chance to show the world (the Russians, mainly) their new weapon. They did not want to divide Japan with the Russians in the same way that Germany was divided. The US wanted Russia to back off so that they could keep all of Japan.
Furthermore, there was no legitimate reason to completely destroy two civilian cities
0
Sarge
I see the yes vote has dropped from 56 to 55%. I'm in the 55%.
0
MisterCreosote
You have to be pretty drunk on post-modernist moonshine to vote No on this one.
0
MistWizard
Very well put. As I said earlier, the fingerpointing is merely a figment of imagination. Its primarily Americans who imagine it, without ever having been there. Even my junior high school English textbook concering Hiroshima blandly proclaims "that day a big bomb fell from the sky". If that is denial of Japanese war guilt, it is twice as much denial of American atrocity. But rather than count their blessings, these Americans issue a battle cry! As an American myself, they embarrass me greatly with their rashness and presumptuousness, as well as abject stupity and being so quick to attack based on shadows in their own minds.
0
MistWizard
This is like saying its okay to kill a man's wife and any number of his children if it will end his crime spree! For some of you, callousness and shortsightedness seem to be virtues!
0
smithinjapan
I said 'yes' because ideally the ceremonies, while using the anniversaries of the atomic bombings as a backdrop and the most serious instance of loss of Japanese lives in single incidents, should ultimately point out the folly or war, and the suffering and tragedies it brings. I'm not suggesting they point out all that Japan did, or what other countries have gone, but it should certainly NOT be EXCLUDED from mention at the ceremonies. Acknowledging that Japan had done plenty wrong in the past towards its neighbours, etc., does not at all mean finger pointing, or suggest the children of today need to suffer the sins of their (great) grandparents, but limiting the ceremonies STRICTLY to the atomic bombings, in my opinion, undermines the spirit of the event.
0
genji17
No...cuz its a ceremony for the victims of the A-bombs. Lots of innocents there...starving in the valley of death. Its in their honor not to honor the spirits of the soldiers in battle or those that were in Nanjing.
0
mareo2
Depends, do americans put pictures of the victims of the A-bombs with the Enola gay? Because that is not complete without showing the results of that plane. If the answer is yes, then I agree. If not then don't even ask.
0
limboinjapan
nigelboy: here is what is written on the Korean memorial and what the Mayor of Hiroshima finally did 1999.
The monument reads: "The Korean victims were given no funerals or memorial services and their spirits hovered for years unable to pass on to heaven."
In 1999, Hiroshima's mayor, calling for an end to prejudice against Korean residents in Japan, gave the memorial a new home within Peace Memorial Park.
Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum (and I have been there) Makes little or no mention of Japan's role in the War it mentions Pearl Harbor then pretty much Jumps to the atomic bombings leaving those who visit it the impression that the bombings were a response to Pearl Harbor!
Like I said if you are going to CRY PEACE then do it genuinely decry all aspects of war not just what affected you without taking responsibility for your actions!
Come on Stop trying to whitewash history! The Japanese went along with the war willingly as long as Japan was winning (as did the Germans but they at least admit it) that fact needs to be addressed by the Japanese if they are ever going to be taken seriously about peace!
0
yelspal
um - no it's not. Tell me why the USA should have expended one more life than necessary to end a war Japan started? Started by dropping bombs on civilian targets in China by the way.
The USA expected fierce resistance. Japan had fought like crazy - sacrificing military and civilians alike right across the Pacific - for useless islands of no sovereign importance to Japan. I just don't see why they should have done that when they had another option.
0
genji17
Sure yelspal or some would argue that US rushed to drop both bombs to end the war before Russia to get there in order to curb communism and get a strategic location in Asia...
Agree with the post about the victims photos on the enola gay...
this is to honor the victims of the bombs not an attempt to justify WWII.
0
MistWizard
yelspal, if you insist on seeing all Japanese as one homogenous group where soldiers, politicians, men, women, children, babies in their cribs, old senile people and teenagers are all one in the same, you would be correct that anything goes. But you can not drop an atom bomb on babies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for what some guys in Tokyo did and call that just desserts. That is complete bullcrap. I can only call your inability to make such a differentiation temporary insanity brought on by guilt. You need to bet beyond it, because no one is holding you responsible for the atom bombings, NO ONE.
My analogy was apt.
0
limboinjapan
genji17; "this is to honor the victims of the bombs not an attempt to justify WWII."
In that case then they should change the names of "Peace Memorial Museum" and "Peace Memorial Park" to "Atomic victims memorial museum" and "atomic victims park" and drop all pretense of it being a peace thing!
If that were the case then I and many others would not be so critical about the two faces approach to this ceremony!
0
MistWizard
Honor? Conventions of war? Humanity? Shame? Fairness? Oh, sorry, you only asked for one. The babies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not start the war. They were not even born when the war started, nor were they being used as human shields. Bombing a harbor in war time is legit. Blowing away a whole town full of civilians to get at the harbor is NOT, NOT by a LONGSHOT.
0
limboinjapan
MistWizard;"Honor? Conventions of war? Humanity? Shame? Fairness?"
Are you serious? Name me one war in which any of these were ever taken seriously?!
These are all complete myths made up by those who wanted to glorify past wars and so-called heroes!
Go back as far as man can go in written history and in just about every conflict civilians bore the brunt of war. (I'm not trying to justify anything here just pointing out fact)
Looking back at history is one thing judging it by today's standards is a completely other thing.
0
yelspal
Japan had thrown those out years previously. Their military and leadership were responsible for VASTLY VASTLY more innocent lives lost than anybody in history, except perhaps Hitler's Germany.
This was putting down a rabid dog - not a game of cricket my good man.
When there's a monument to the victims of Unit 731 in downtown Tokyo - I'll take this whining a bit more seriously.
0
sabiwabi
NO! JAPAN WANTED TO SURRENDER!
The US should have accepted their surrender, but someone did not want to stop the war before they had a chance to drop the bomb.
But regardless, dropping the two bombs on civilians is inexcusable. Only a sick (or brainwashed) mind could find it acceptable.
0
mareo2
Ok... I tried to stay the most neutral for the respect showed from some readers. But some others readers are making opinions that push morality in to a gray zone that I disagree.
If the soldiers of one country kill civilians do that means that the soldiers of our country can kill civilians of that country? Dont that lower our soldiers to the same level of them? Do innocent babies deserve to be killed by bombs for the crimes of their parents did? It is moral to kill hundreds or thousands of babies if that save hundreds or thousands of your comrades? Do God is going to judge us free of sin for enter the paradise when we die with our hands covered with the blood of innocents?
If we have to discuss these every year I am going to say it again every year. Let me make clear my opinion for the record: I don't question the reasons for drop atomic bombs in Japan. I am questioning the targets. Aim cities for kill civilians is wrong. That the bombs are high explosive, incendiary or nukes don't change the sin in my eyes. To say that there was no other option than kill civilians is only a convenient excuse with questionable morality and contested by many scholars.
0
yelspal
I do not believe that.
Of course it is. A single bomb that even might injure a civilian instead of a (volunteer) soldier is wrong.
0
MistWizard
You are not listening. Babies don't represent Japan or its war actions. Babies are babies. The guys responsible for the rape of Nanking are the guys responsible. They two groups don't mix. If your position is that the killing of Japanese babies as vengeance for what other Japanese is okay, say so. If your position is that killing babies is okay to save soldiers, then say so. You can have your opinion, but please, give up the charade.
0
MistWizard
Deaths from famine and disease for so so many, yes, but not direct attack. The U.S. hit a very low point with the Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the firebombing of Tokyo.
In WWI civilians did NOT bear the brunt of military attacks. Same with the U.S. Civil War, the Spanish-American war, and the Gulf War.
Bombing civilians from the air is a new tactic and just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. It is being done for convenience, killing innocent people so that soldiers do not have to perform what is their duty. My sympathy for soldiers is limited. My sympathy for babies is endless. Anyone opposite is simply not thinking straight. We, the civilians, should not give the military one single inch when it comes to intentional attacks on civilians, otherwise, we line ourselves up to be next.
0
MistWizard
Believe it. Its all here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SurrenderofJapan
The U.S. knew Japan wanted to surrender before the atomic bombings and had one single condition, preservation of the King (Emperor? no!). This they got AFTER the atomic bombings. The bombings were completely unnecessary for the ending the war. FACT.
All the U.S. had to do was drop the demand for unconditional surrender, which was too preposterous to think it was anything but a design to extend the war, and simply extend an offer for conditional surrender, which they did in the end anyway.
You have any idea how many lives could have been saved by offering that conditional surrender earlier, both military and civilian? Please, don't try to tell us the U.S. government's over-riding concern was saving soldier's lives. That is absolutely not true and would be ridiculous even if it were, which it certainly isn't.
0
Seiharinokaze
So the ceremony might include, if anything, references to the U.S. decoding of messages sent by wireless among the Imperial navy of Japan before the Pearl Harbor as well as between Tokyo and Moscow before the A-bombings.
0
nigelboy
limboinjapan.
You're still not understanding. Koreans who are listed on 原爆死没者名簿 (about 2,300 Koreans) are honoured in the memorial service. (風通し） For those who are unidentified, there is a separate memorium based on occupation and those were even constructed in the late 80's.
Like Bholder stated, there's no end to it. Should Ground Zero in NY contain U.S. actions in the Muslim states which lead to the 9/11? According to your logic, the victims of 9/11 are not technically "innocent"
0
Patrick Smash
All the US really had to do was tighten the blockade. The US did not have to invade the mainland. Kamikaze was introduced when there was no fuel to fly the planes back again, and with no fuel, Japan had to surrender. Japan was trying to negotiate a surrender, no more US soldiers had to die and hundreds of thousands of innocent people in two cities (civilians/victims) did not have to suffer the bombings. At very least we can let them remember the event in their own way. It wasn't the innnocent victims in these 2 cities who started the Pacific War and when I read these sites and comments it seems that America rivals Japan for revisionist history and civilian brainwashing.
0
Patrick Smash
nigelboy:
According to most US posters it clearly should. What on earth do they get taught over there? Oh yeah, they saved Britain in the other war, even though they arrived 4 years after the battle of Britain, and landed in an unoccupied UK when Russia had Hitler on the run. Unbelievable...
0
limboinjapan
nigelboy; "about 2,300 Koreans) are honoured in the memorial service."
Yes only those who were active members on the imperial army at the time BUT there were 20,000 Koreans killed! They were left off the list! And it seems that both the Koreans and the then Mayor of Hiroshima in 1999 disagree with you!
MistWizard: I think you need a history lesson.
I could start with Jericho move on to Troy then Jerusalem then Constantinople then I could keep going right up to Nanking,Chongqing, Warsaw, Stalingrad, Berlin, Dresden, Sarajevo, Srebrenica I could keep going and or fill in just about every period in between.
Also I tried your posted link and it doesn't exist but I did find this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SurrenderofJapan#SupremeCouncilfortheDirectionofthe_War
And I find no mention that Japan was ready to "unconditionally" surrender prior to the bombing instead I did find this:
"At first, some refused to believe the Americans had built an atomic bomb. The Japanese knew enough about the potential process to know how very difficult it was (the Japanese Army and Navy had their own independent atomic-bomb programs). Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, argued that even if the Americans had made one, they could not have many more"
And again I'm not American or Japanese and in my country we do teach History and not revisionist fantasies.
0
limboinjapan
Patrick Smash;"All the US really had to do was tighten the blockade."
I think you should also take another look at the war. It seems that many here forget that Japan had hundreds of thousands of troops in Korea and China, blockading the main islands would not have changed those facts and the killing there would have continued not to mention French Indochina (as it was called at the time), Burma, etc..
I wish people on both sides would actually check their History, its no like the only place fighting was taking place was Japan!
0
susano
Good post limboinjapan. too many apologists on this thread are expert at peddling half-truths.
0
limboinjapan
MistWizard: "In WWI civilians did NOT bear the brunt of military attacks."
On this one you had again better check you facts and leave western Europe. Here is a quote "the first large-scale bombing from the air was undertaken and some of the century's first large-scale civilian massacres took place, as one of the aspects of modern efficient, non-chivalrous warfare." from: http://www.worldwar-1.net/
Then take a look at Serbia and civilian Massacres, you will find some interesting reading, you could also look up Armenians, Greeks and many more.
0
MistWizard
No you had better check the dictionary. Look up brunt. No, civilians did not bear the brunt of attacks in WWI. The Armenian massacre was not an attack like an A-bombing. It was a genocide and not strictly a part of the war either as it was internal to Turkey. I don't know what else you are refering to as you did not name the incidents, but it does not matter. Far more soldiers died from violence than civilians, and civilians were unusual targets. There are lots of firsts in WWI including that, but it does not compare to the A-bombings and firebombings that razed cities to the ground, sorry. You might have to go back to Sherman's march or medieval or biblical times for that.
Especially for Americans, it was a disgusting aberation and I should think far beneath us. As such, it is an embarrassing episode.
0
MistWizard
I think you need an internet lesson. If you go to wiki and search "surrender of japan" you will find the proof. Even if you don't want to accept that Japan was trying to surrender through Molotov, or that we knew it prefectly well, good luck explaining the demand for unconditional surrender. How many lives are worth a couple conditions?
And yeah, I know about Jericho. The point was that civilians do not always bear the brunt of war, though they often do. Hardly makes me proud as an American to intentionally bomb babies and have people still making excuses for it 65 years later.
0
MistWizard
limboinjapan said: I wish people on both sides would actually check their History,
And I wish you would check your moral compass. Its way off. Fighting is fighting and bad enough. Bombing civilians is utterly deplorable. You don't bomb innocents to end fighting between non-innocents and maintain a moral high ground. We would all be happy if you just got off your high horse about it. America did a scummy thing. Just admit it.
0
alphawolf
I don't think it should for the same reason I don't think anything should be said before the 9/11 ceremonies that refers to sanctions the US/UN put on Iraq which made millions of Iraqi's suffer and the base put in Saudi Arabia which Bin Ladin cited as the reason for 9/11.
The politics should be left out of it, these are humans that were killed and had nothing to do with the reasons given (weather we agree with them reasons or not) for the attacks.
0
nigelboy
Active members of the military??? No. They are civilians and workers with confirmed names/identities. The 20K or so are rough estimation by the Korean group without names. Unless of course, you can come up with the names.
A separate memorial which includes the remains of unknown (70K) are maintained below.
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseumj/tour/ireihi/tour09.html
内部には納骨堂があり、一家全滅で身内の見つからない遺骨や氏名の判明しない遺骨約7万柱が納められています。
0
limboinjapan
MistWizard: My moral compass is very clear I was not saying that it is right to target civilians I'm just stating those are the facts of war and reality.
You on the other hand you are so set on your views that you refuse to even see the facts. Japan's civilian casualties pales in comparison to the countries it invaded, Fact!
"but it does not compare to the A-bombings and firebombings that razed cities to the ground, sorry. You might have to go back to Sherman's march or medieval or biblical times for that."
No you just have to go back to China in WW2 and Serbia in WW1 were entire cities and towns were burn to the ground with all there inhabitants while the troops surrounding the towns and cities shot anyone trying to escape.
As for unconditional surrender those were the same terms given to Japan's allies and they took it. And for the "few conditions" just look again at history, the allies were not going to make the same mistakes they made at the end of WW1.
If you choose to ignore historical facts then do so but remember that that best way to repeat the mistakes of the past is to ignore them or distort them.
I am not here to give a history lesson but I cannot just sit back and watch others make a mockery of historical facts.
0
alphawolf
Historical facts may have had a reason also, depends when we want to start history. My point is that the people who died should have a ceremony not clouded with politics. An office worker killed in 9/11 in the US or an office worker killed in the A bombings, should be separated from the politics that got that person killed. It's more a time to reflect on their deaths rather than to debate whether they "got what they deserved" because of their nationality.
0
jianadaren
Absolutely, they should. And repeated daily until the Japanese "get it" that their leaders - and their sheep followers - were directly responsible for their own demise. And should they try the same ever again, they will be annihilated - again.
0
limboinjapan
alphawolf; I wholly agree and that has been my point all along.
If they want to have a ceremony for those who died do so but leave the politics out!
Unfortunately that is never how these ceremonies go they inevitably bring up the immorality of these bombing and how unfair it was like it was something special as if all the other civilians killed by so-called conventional weapons had it better.
I say have your memorial mourn the dead but leave the politic out!
0
nigelboy
I really hate the above statement simply because you can simply replace some of the Allied nations with Japan in the above sentence. And as alphawolf stated, depending on when we want to start history, anyone can manipulate the casualties numbers to suit their argument. Hence, you can make a case that U.S. should be bombed at this very moment.
0
mikehuntez
Since this is a ceremony for the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki I think it should remain just that. If people want victims of the Imperial Japanese Army remembered they should have their own ceremonies for that purpose. These events are held in these cities for those people who lived there. Let them have their day to remember them.
0
Triple888
It's like if someone were mourned for their death without knowing he'd been a murderer in the past.
0
HonestDictator
I haven't read most of the comments, yet. But all I know is when I was being taught US history in my local public school when the a-bombs were dropped they didn't just say, "The war with japan ended and everyone lived happily ever after..."
Instead it gave us details about the aftermath caused by radiation poisoning as well the Japanese generations of children affected by the aftermath with birth defects and other problems and why atomic and nuclear weapons should not be used and how much damage it causes even decades after on is released.
So it would be reasonable to put in the reason why Japan was attacked with A-bombs was due to the war time aggression on Japan's behalf and of course lead up to the aftermath of the atomic weapons and the destruction it caused to the Japanese as well. Nobody gets off with clean hands in these moments of history, but these exhibits shouldn't try to make it into something one sided. The Americans regretted the decision to use the atomic bombs when the saw the aftermath, and long term affects. Japan needs to accept their role as well for the countries they harmed and destroyed as well.
0
sabiwabi
Reading the above posts suggests that many do not regret it.
No agressions by Japan would excuse these two bombings. These were civilian targets.
The US pushed Japan to attack, and Japan responded by attacking Pearl Harbor, a military base, not Honalulu.
0
sabiwabi
The bombs were completely unnecessary to bring about a Japanese surrender and Truman knew it. Truman knew that the emperor had accepted the terms of an unconditional surrender at least 19 days before the first atomic bomb was dropped. Truman and his staff were cognizant and fully aware that the Japanese wanted to surrender, and so did Stalin and Churchill. They all knew, yet they chose to ignore the emperor’s official request to accept a Japanese surrender.
Exactly 19 days before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan, Truman wrote in his own handwritten diary:
"Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. (Churchill) of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace…"
Also, Walter Brown, assistant to Secretary of State Byrnes, wrote in his diary that the President, Byrnes, and Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to the President: "agrred [sic] Japas [sic] looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden."
Also, Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard met Byrnes (Truman’s most trusted advisor) on May 28, 1945. Szilard recalled what Byrnes "was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Rumania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia." – (Leo Szilard: His Version of the Facts, pg. 184).
The emperor of Japan had personally sent a telegram asking to surrender, knowing what the terms for surrender were. Nevertheless, knowing full well that the Japanese had accepted the terms of surrender, and that invasion of Japan was not necessary to end the war, the United States became the very first nation to use an atomic weapon of mass destruction on a civilian city. Until they teach in American schools that these bombing were war crimes and 100% unnecessary, they have absolutely no lessons to give to the Japanese about what they should teach.
0
jason6
I know the war(s) were a controversial precursor to the bomb, intricately related and, furthermore, Japan in its role as aggressor lead some to feel that the bombing of civilians was justified..
BUT, consider this for a second: The ceremony is for the victims of the atomic bomb. No matter how politicized and partisan we get, the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no decisions on the war and were as much victims as the civilians of Nanking, or Stalingrad, or Poland, or any other place.
Furthermore, this is a memorial ceremony for the people who died in the bomb. Take a walk in a cemetery. Now tell me, on the gravestones, have you ever seen the following in an epitaph?
I'm pretty sure you haven't. This is basically what the poll has asked the organizers of the ceremony to do. A memorial is a show of remorse for what has happened and respect for the deceased's memories. If you don't agree with it, then don't attend the ceremony!
They're not asking for universal acceptance of the past motives of the Japanese nation, just for remembrance of the people that have sympathy for the innocents who had their lives taken away, just like any memorial.
(By the way, if they have tried to include a revisionist history or any politicized interpretations into the memorial, please excuse my ignorance of that.)
0
MistWizard
I suppose I should not sit here and let someone split historical facts like little hairs. The intentional targeting of civilians in this manner was wrong far beyond the pale. It was disgusting, horrible, honorless, inexcusable and unnecessary to boot. It was a war crime and a crime against humanity and no other historical fact or written convention can ever change that. You, with your lukewarm statements about how it was "not right" disgust me with your wishy-washiness about the topic.
But we know you will never change because some part of you feels a need to exuse it, and you will stop at nothing to gloss it over and pretty it up. And THAT is why the ceremony should not include victims of Japan's aggression, because you will go on and on about it trying to CYA. Even if the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did this, you would no doubt play the sore winner just as you now play the sore loser.
Japan certainly needs to do more to educate on the atrocities it committed, but this thread proves that Americans do too! But its naught to do with this ceremony! There can can should be other ceremonies to do that.
0
arrestpaul
Not true. There was no attempt to discuss an UNCONDITIONAL surrender with the Allies. There was an attempt to see if a CONDITIONAL surrender was possible.
0
sabiwabi
arrestpaul, the Emperor had accepted the terms of surrender. But regardless, the quotes I provided still prove that the bombs were completely, 100%, unnecessary. Those who decided to drop the bombs were complete, 100%, scum.
0
limboinjapan
MistWizard;"You, with your lukewarm statements about how it was "not right" disgust me with your wishy-washiness about the topic." and "But we know you will never change because some part of you feels a need to exuse it, and you will stop at nothing to gloss it over and pretty it up."
I have not attacked you or impugn your character (as you have towards me)I have only stated historical facts, if you feel that these facts hurt you directly, I cannot be held responsible for that.
I am not American or Japanese so I really have no stake in this! And no part of me feel any need to make excuses or feel guilt.
The facts are that these ceremonies inevitably get politicized in a way that distorts history. If they wish to just sticking to mourning the dead then fine BUT if they wish to bring up morality and it being unnecessary as they inevitably do, then they themselves open up the subject of Japan's actions.
The facts speak for themselves and are available in several places including the minutes taken during the ruling council meeting and the Imperial council meeting.
I do not know if they are available online but they are available (on micro fiche still 7 years ago) at Canada's National Library and archive in Ottawa (French, English and Original Japanese pre-kanji revision), the library of congress and Les archives National in France. Also available are the Yalta and Potsdam note outlying the reasons for the unconditional surrender of ALL Axis members.
And YES I have read them (Thousands of pages) in English and French as well in Japanese with the help of a Japanese scholar (I cannot read pre-revision Kanji just like most Japanese can't).
And they clearly state that Japan was not ready to surrender after August 6th and they believed that if it was an Atomic bomb that had been dropped on Hiroshima the USA did not have another one!
Were these bomb necessary no one can't tell you that either way for sure.
Were they cruel? Well by today's standards or looked at in a political vacuum without taking into account the times of 1945 then I suppose so.
So I will say this again. If those conducting the ceremonies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki wish to bring up the morality, cruelty or necessity of the bombings then they themselves open Japan up for criticism for its behavior during the war!
0
jam_sandwich
Before any country can look beyond it's borders and say, "______ has wronged us", they need to be able recognize their own faults. Japanese people aren't the only ones to know tragedy, and they should recognize this.
0
chotto
Sigh. Same old arguments.
Look, it's always the innocent ones who are victims of war. And people need to understand WHY these bombs were dropped.
0
yelspal
arrestpaul, the Emperor had accepted the terms of surrender. But regardless, the quotes I provided still prove that the bombs were completely, 100%, unnecessary. Those who decided to drop the bombs were complete, 100%, scum
BS. And Truman had the final decision to drop that bomb. If you compare the integrity of Truman (and Roosevelt before him) and the Japanese leadership, it's clear where the epitaph "scum" belongs.
0
sabiwabi
yelspal, I like the way you criticize the education system, and then follow it up with comments that prove without a doubt that the education system is indeed faulty. You definitely have gone through a faulty education system, actually so have I since I only learned what happened after I left school.
0
Ah_so
sabiwabi - I remain unconvinced by your revisionist arguments. You state to arrestpaul that "the Emporer had accepted the terms of the surrender." My interpretation of the communications with the Russians is radically different to yours. With less than a week before the bomb, Japan was rejecting unconditional surrender.
I am posting below a few quotations from secret telegrams between Togo (Japan foreign minister) and Sato (ambassador to USSR):
July 12: His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war...however, as long as American and England insist on unconditional surrender, our country has no alternative but to see it through in an all-out effort for the sake of survival
Reply July 12: the possibility of getting the Soviet Union to join our side and go along with our reasoning is next to nothing.
Reply July 15: Although they understand the Imperial wish concerning the termination of the war, they lack clarification ...
From Togo, July 17: if the enemy insists on unconditional surrender to the very end, then our country and His Majesty would unanimously resolve to fight a war of resistance to the bitter end.
July 19: the Soviet Government has declined to accept such an envoy for the time being on the grounds that the mission is not specific.
Sato to Togo, July 20: Do you think that the Emperor's safety can be secured by the sacrifice of seventy million citizens? ...I believe that it is the duty of the statesmen to save the nation by coming quickly to a decision to lay down our arms. If we seek peace, of course, we know roughly what the terms will be by observing the example of Germany....For the future, we must clearly recognize our past mistakes and fundamentally reconstruct our foreign policy. I realize that it is a great crime to dare to make such statements, knowing that they are contrary to the views of the government
Togo to Sato july 21: Although it is apparent that there will be more casualties on both sides in case the war is prolonged, we will stand united as one nation against the enemy if the enemy forcibly demands our unconditional surrender.
From Sato, July 27: It is absolutely impossible to cause the Soviet Government to make a move with such a noncommittal attitude on our part.
From Sato, July 30: Therefore I believe that Stalin feels there is absolutely no necessity for making a voluntary agreement with Japan. On this point I see a serious discrepancy between your view and the actual state of affairs.
Sato to Molotov; July 31: Unconditional surrender is, after all, out of the question for the Japanese Government.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/correspondence/togo-sato/corr_togo-sato.htm
0
limboinjapan
sabiwabi: I spent 5 years working with a Japanese scholar reviewing the handwritten (in wartime Japanese) minutes of the ruling counsel and Imperial counsel and if you would read some of what I posted you would see that many of your assertions do not match Historical facts.
As I must regularly say, I am not American or Japanese so I don't have any stake in this debate except for the fact of Historical accuracy.
And what many here including yourself seem to over look is that the war did not start in 1941 and was not just USA and Japan nor was it just Pearl Harbor then Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The war effectively started in 1936 and by 1945 there had been tens of millions of civilians killed and in August of 45 unlike some seem to believe Japan proper was not the only place left to fight in.
Japanese troops were still fighting all over Asia and well documented they were burning, pillaging and killing civilians as they retreated.
I am not in a position to judge (none of us are) the morality or justification of these 2 bombings that took place in a time of devastation and slaughter and on a scale of which had never been seen before and has never been seen since.
But I will ask you to think about this:
What do you think the civilians in places like China thought at the time when suddenly they found themselves no longer the target of retreating Japanese soldiers?
The question here is should these ceremonies mention the victims of Japan?
And the answer is quite simple:
If these ceremonies just commemorate and mourn the dead without politics or bringing up the morality or injustice, then: NO
But If these ceremonies are used as a political platform and to try and make a statement of injustice and morality then they themselves open Japan up to criticism of its morality and injustice during that time and therefore the answer is: YES
0
Zenny11
Personally, I see the Hiroshima and Nagasaki memorials removed from WWII and simply focusing on the bombings themselves.
As such they should NOT even mention Nanjing, etc as many people claim tney should. Same as an Engola Bay exhibit should NOT mention atrocities by japanese NOT connected to the bombing.
Just muddies the water and hence we get Opinions that the bombs were dropped for some 40+yrs of japanese atrocities, etc.
Unless japanese occupation killed 30+ million between 1941 and 1945.
Peoples emotions get in the way and thus we get outlandish request and demands.
Example: Not sure but is My Lai, etc taught in US schools, when are excuses and payments coming forward to "Agent Orange" victims(non-US) being made, etc. Is the US involvement in the "Comfort women" issue being taught and I can go many non-japanese instances too.
Stop arguing from emotions and look at things in context.
0
limboinjapan
Zenny11; I have to regrettably disagree with you though I get your point.
To focus on the bombings without context will inevitably bring up the war, that is just the way it is.
Now to focus on mourning the dead and remembrance for them, leaving the bombings, the war and politics out then I hope people would shut up and just let the dead be remembered.
0
Zenny11
Limbo.
Agree, but people don't just bring up the war, they also bring up the whole colonization of Asia and use them as a justification for the bombings.
Yet, no-one hits britain, spain, portugal, france, germany, etc for their colonisations.
0
genkimark
The Japanese Imperial Army tortured, killed and raped hundreds of thousands of people throughout Asia before/during WWII. They did terrible things beyond the normal laws of war, and what happened to their country (including the war-time factories in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) was a direct result of that unbridled agression.
Did innocent civilians die from the atomic bombings? Yes. Did this hasten the end of WWII and the Allied Victory? Absolutely.
0
sabiwabi
Several months before the bombs were dropped (January), the Japanese were already offering to surrender under conditions that were very similar to what the allies accepted after the bombings. Even more so in the weeks prior to the bombings.
Funny how the allies insisted on humiliating the Emperor up until the bombs were dropped; they clearly did not want the war to end before they had a chance to drop the two bombs. Its not just me saying it, its also some who were closely connected with Truman.
Yes, crystal clear...
0
sabiwabi
I doubt that is completely true. But regardless, does that mean it would be OK to nuke a couple of American cities because of Guantanamo and other American crimes?
0
limboinjapan
Sabiwabi:
Please, please, please my Japanese scholar (former boss) spent 25 years of his life (and 5 of mine) researching this subject and for people to come along with complete fabrications is just not right,
As late as August 6th the Japanese were still insisting on no occupational force and those are true facts.
0
morriconelover
@Zenny11 Of course because Japan lost the war, then they have to answer to history in a different way than other colonial nations. Countries that were on the winning side can relax more on these issues. But there are also many historical differences when it comes to colonial systems throughout history. Look for example at the difference between south Korea and Taiwan when it comes to dealing with Japans colonial past. In taiwan there is a totally different attitude towards Japan than in south Korea. Of course there are commonly accepted theories as to why it is like that. South Korea is still seen in some way a young nation that can gain a lot from playing with its muscles, and not only towards Japan, but they also have to look strong against north korea nad China. taiwan has for many decades been against influence from China, so in the post-ww2 years, the politics of taiwan chose to move towards a less critical approach to Japans colonial past in taiwan.
0
Zenny11
morriconelover(best composer in my opinion).
But that is the exact problem. You lost therefore you are in the wrong, we won and thus we are saints. Is the cause of so many probs today, in the olden days people respected each other fter a war and said "you gave as good as we did. all over now".
Maybe because war was more personal where you killed the enemy at 2 feet vs....
0
yelspal
Sabiwabi - I have utterly no idea what this sentence means - maybe with some more time at that school... However I stand by the statements although they have been pulled - I don't know why as they were on topic.
Like many people posting here - I consider your version of history to be so flat out wrong as to be offensive. And, while Pearl Harbour was a cowardly act and foolish strategic error on Japan's part - there is no direct relationship to the atomic bombings.
Implying atomic bombs were dropped on a country trying to surrender in retaliation for Pearl Harbour is disingenuous at best, but a dangerous lie at worst- because it tries to equate US actions during WW2 with Japan's. An implication that everybody involved was equally culpable of war crime. Whereas that is just not true - Japan committed vast vast atrocities - more than any country except, perhaps, Germany.
0
Ah_so
Sawabi, I posted above substantial excerpts from Japanese telegrams, which quite clearly show that the Japanese had no intent on surrendering unconditionally. If Japan was offering conditions similar to what were being offered, it never made it clear to anyone.
However, if you have any reasonable argument why I should not take the view that the original sources lead me to, I would be happy to hear it.
0
sf2k
I answered Yes.
If you do not know why you were blown into sub atomic particles during a memorial then there's little if any reason to expect that the events of that time will ever resonate into a peaceful nation. You'll have to apologize forever until you get the point. Only a nation simmering in hatreds that throws those hatreds away can be allowed to be free of its despised past. Hiding from history will never be a solution. That is unacceptable.
At the time war was a fad in Japan. But the fad for racism and the fad for hate is long over. Time enough to turn a page and treat all people as you yourself wish to be treated. Engage into a world that also wishes to engage peacefully. Not endless complaining. Accept it, look it square in the eye and say never again.
This is a message of a free Japan. A Japan that accepts but is moving forward. Not hiding, no more hatred. Be a strong Japan free of tyranny. That is the uplifting message needed. That is the memorial message the world waits to hear.
0
sf2k
When the politicos are instead lining up to render their own I have a dream speeches as opposed to visiting Yasukuni, where they are reinvesting their commitment every year for a Free Japan instead of hiding and sulking, then I can really be happy for the country and happy for a new dawn long overdue for Japan and the rest of Asia. It's a bitter moment but can be made to be bittersweet. The moment of change to Free Japan. Not victimizing itself but seeing itself in a new way.
Ironically with a Free Japan movement, it would put China in its place as a country not devoted to freedom and may force it to support change as well, otherwise it would be supporting the old hidden Japan and hidden agendas. Even if not, such a positive movement in Japan could not be easily dismissed by China and would be a positive influence in the region and trading partners wary of China. As it stands now Japan is a ghost to itself and others, and I feel is missing the real opportunities of change that it could be in fact leading.
This then invigorates the younger generation to reflect these changes instead of their shallow lives without purpose. Lots of positive connections possible all determined by Japanese themselves, no longer a US puppy dog. But mindful and aware.
Such transcendence can be achieved with really good speakers, as the best memorials I have attended on other personal matters have almost always done.
The victimization culture must come to an end. But not replaced by bitterness, but by positive aims.
0
Disillusioned
The ceremony should start off with words to the effect of, "As a result of Japan's insane quest for total Asian imperial totalitarianism over the prior forty years and our need to kill the tens of millions people throughout Asia that disagreed with us the western world dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan to make us wake up to ourselves."
0
sabiwabi
yelspal, your offended by my "lies"? I never said those things, so you should only be offended at your own faulty logic. I clearly wrote several times that the bombs were dropped to impress the Russians; the US wanted all of Japan and did not want to split the jackpot with Russia, as they did when they divided up Germany.
So please, before calling someone a liar and disingeneous, at least make an effort to understand their posts.
BTW, I would never imply "that everybody involved was equally culpable of war crime", as I happen to believe that the axis powers were the least culpable. But they lost so they don't get to write history, but that's a debate for another day.
0
Disillusioned
What a load of rhetorical rubbish! The bombs were dropped to stop the Japanese war machine from their attempts to take over Asia and to shock the general population out of mass suicides. - Yes, there were 2 million Russian troops ready to invade Japan, which only sped the delivery of the bombs by a few days because if the Russians had got into Japan the war would have continued and we would be typing in Russian, not English. The Russian plan was to wipe out Japanese civilization altogether and to leave no Japanese survivors what-so-ever, the same as the plan for Berlin, so in a twisted kind of way the West did the Japanese a favor by dropping the bombs and stopping the Russian invasion.
0
yelspal
I can assure you that the USA wanted none of Japan - if Japan hadn't have provoked the USA they would have remained isolationist and continued to distance themselves from the mayhem Japan was creating in Asia.
Jackpot? - gee they got to pour Billions and Billions of dollars in to a spiritually, morally and financially bankrupt country for decades. What was second prize?
Ludicrous - and I'm not commenting to you further. No-one is that misinformed, so it is deliberate revisionism.
Trying to rewrite the history around them dishonours the memory of victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and makes their deaths even more senseless than they were.
"Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it" (George Santana).
0
Ah_so
To claim that Japan was about to surrender unconditionally in August 1945 is laughable. After all, Japan could not even make its mind up after the first one was dropped.
0
cracaphat
Well as my grandmother used to say,"If you cant hear... feel."
And including references to achieve what ?... Closure ?
0
sabiwabi
I guess you missed a previous post of mine, where I provided quotes illustrating the mindset of the American leadership.
Exactly 19 days before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan, Truman wrote in his own handwritten diary: "Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. (Churchill) of telegram from Jap emperor asking for peace…"
Also, Walter Brown, assistant to Secretary of State Byrnes, wrote in his diary that the President, Byrnes, and Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to the President: "agrred [sic] Japas [sic] looking for peace. (Leahy had another report from Pacific) President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden."
Also, Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard met Byrnes (Truman’s most trusted advisor) on May 28, 1945. Szilard recalled what Byrnes "was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Rumania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia." – (Leo Szilard: His Version of the Facts, pg. 184).
So these are not my fantasies I am writing.
Indeed, it is quite twisted. So if the Russians were so terrible, why do you think Truman was "afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden"?
I bet you are one the few who still think the US is in Iraq to fight terror!
That must be why these things have a habit of repeating themselves, few seem to know what really happened.
0
knews
sabiwabi
I agree with you. It is only natural that the US education system paints the US in a positive light. As you say only very few seem to know the truth but many of those who hear the truth don't want to believe it because it is too shocking for them and goes against everything they learned so far in their lives.
As for Japan Today's question above, I think there should be a separate day to remember other atrocities that were committed by Japan in her colonizing quest for more territory and resources.
0
yelspal
"...her colonizing quest..." ?????? Unbelievable.
0
knews
Weren't Korea and Taiwan considered to be Japanese colonies?
0
sabiwabi
Colonizing, maybe; but there are also those who say that Japan was only trying to liberate Asia from Western colonization. I wonder how much of that is true. You can be sure that Japan will no longer interfere with Western plans in Asia.
0
MeanRingo
There was a second world war? What happened in the first one?
0
toguro
"second world war? What happened in the first one?" Germany lost.
0
Bholder
Historian Thomas McCormick has eloquently summarized the decision: “In two blinding glares—a horrible end to a war waged horribly by all parties—the United States finally found the combination that would unlock the door to American hegemony. A prearranged demonstration of the atomic bomb on a noninhabited target, as some scientists had recommended, would not do. That could demonstrate the power of the bomb, but it could not demonstrate the American will to use the awful power. One reason, therefore, for American unwillingness to pursue Japanese peace feelers in mid-summer 1945 was that the United States did not want the war to end before it had had a chance to use the atomic bomb.” (America’s Half-Century, 44-45.)
0
Molenir
This goes to show you, that revisionism exists even amongst so-called historians.
0
nigelboy
I belive those comments you wrote were on a different article which involved Roos.
In any case, replace the above statement with from Japan to U.S. and from USA to Saudi Arabia. Good thing Saudi Arabia had little to gain. For whatever it's worth, as a civilization, we hadn't progressed that much have we?
0
seaforte03
Ceremony to commemorate what? What's the difference between an A-bomb and bio and chem warfare or firebombing civilians? So the US obliterated two cities - boohoo. If you want to play the ugly game of war - eat the consequences. All I see is Japan continuously trying to pretend to be victims of their own aggression. As for obliterating civilians - Japan should consider the millions it murdered during it's occupations and invasions of SE Asia, China, and Korea. The number of victims was so numerous (more than the Jews slaughtered by the Nazis) that the west often ignores the carnage. And remember this - after the war, only 56 Chinese POWs were officially released - Hirohito exempted Chinese POWs from POW treatment. The death rate of foreign POWs under Japan was almost 30% but Chinese POWs were usually exterminated via execution, slave labor, or human experimentation.
0
nutsagain
It's true, 'we really haven't progressed much'. I find no pleasure in agreeing that the dropping of the bomb, as bloody awful as it was which utterly fails, and is hopelessly ineadequate to describe it, was an act of ultimate mercy. A contradiction? The A bomb merciful? Some pretty deep and dark irony here. Of course but none of us posters would be here now if it hadn't and how would the county be now? That's pretty obvious to me. Look at the northern Russian occupied islands. That's how this place would be.
0
martinli92
These ceremony was wrong and 'unappropiate' from the begining! That shouldnt allow to held! The ceremony has nothing to do with peace but provocating 'obbressor views' to encourage hostility!
Those inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shared the 'blood in hands' of war kicked off by Hideki Tojo! They yelling mansei,mansei,mansei slogans to show their support of war against the world! How can you tell me the nuclear atacks was artrocities? They are no innocence but collaborators and of course no need to feel sad of those 'casualties'! Japan has no 'Staffenburg' in her military or civilians because the entire populations were sworn in to commit the war with or without 'uniforms','ranks'! This is the difference between Germany and Japan!
0
martinli92
Those 'casualties' in Hiroshima,nagasaki inflicted by nuclear attacks were no 'victims'. In fact these inhabitants were'combatants'! japan has no 'civilian's at the final stage of war because it was a national duty to sworn in to serve for the emperor of japan regardless you are in uniforms or not! the entire populations has sworn in to fight and supporting the 'Great asia holy war' even you dont have 'ranks'! That was what happened in Japan 1945! So those 'nuclear casualties' were all 'combatants' instaed of civilians and they were killed in actions due to their hostile activities! There is no difference if you shoot down a japanese 'kamikaze' pilot while he is attempting to attack. Is it necessary to apologize to that 'kamikaze' pilot's widow or children?No because he is hostile1So the scenario of Hiroshima and nagasaki was the same.
0
martinli92
The entire japanese populations has sworn in to commit to the'great asia holy war' under the eemperor's name,including those inhabitants in Hiroshima and nagasaki, so they should be treated as 'combatants' instead of civilians.
Was that necessary to apologise to those'Kamikaze' pilots' widows or children for killing their husband and father? The scenario of nuclear attacks over hiroshima and nagasaki was relevant.
0
nutsagain
martinli92: Where on earth do you get your information from? To say that 'the entire Japanese population had sworn a holy war' is sheer fallacy. Do you in fact read? There were many people deeply opposed to the war but couldn't express an opinion for fear of bayoneting. Many of the military also had deep reservations about it, so for heaven's sake do 'read' more.
0
palisadez54
Whether or not many Japanese opposed the war for fear of being bayonetted, the Japanese organized the Patriotic Citizens/ Volunteer Fighting Corps—which included all healthy men aged 15–60 and women 17–40 to perform combat support as well as combat jobs. Through this, 28,000,000 people were organized to fight. So would they be considered "combatants"?
0
nutsagain
We're talking about a Japanese Dad's Army here. Grannies and kids poking at the sky in unison with broomsticks etc. If you or I had been in the same situation we'd have done the same thing. They were taught that foreigners would kill, rape and maim all Japanese, so to see them in the light of 'combatants' is a stretch I must say. The war ended with two terrible bombs and saved a hell of a lot of lives. Was it a good thing? Of course not ... But it did save a lot of people on both sides. One just wishes Japan would stop playing the 'victim' card in this part of modern history. If they do, perhaps we can all move on for it's high time.
0
sabiwabi
Simply accepting Japan's surrender many months before the bombs would have saved many more lives.
Back to top