^What relevance the whole peace party argument has to this discussion? Did it prove smth? Or somehow justify bombings in your eyes?
Did peace party position represent public opinion of majority of Japanese society, the hell with it, at least some meaningful part of it at the time? Even if it did, which I reasonably doubt, how exactly it's relevant to my definition of bombings as war crime? Crime is prosecuted despite an opinion of a victim. The last and the most important part - what these all have to do with my original points, should I repeat them for the third time?
|
Kasz216 said: Though really... even public sentiment of the time seemed to be WITH the peace party. When some survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki started a lawsuit, Japan was against them... including a decent number of people from hiroshima and nagasaki. |
Oh my, now it proves everything! Japan, an occupied country, was against survivors lawsuits (Japan was against... yeah, that's how you worded it)! Obviously history knows no examples of how legitimacy is bought in similar situations. The argument is just too strong, I accept defeat!
Seriously, I'm about to lose any serious attitude left towards this discussion.
