Teeqoz said:
Nuvendil said:
Well there is a major difference: Japanese atrocities were performed upon occupied populations who had already surrendered. Millions died at their hands, most civilians or medical non-combatants. The deaths in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while a show of force, were colateral damage in the bombing of legitimate military targets, Hiroshima being the center for command of southern Japan and a sizable military base (40,000 toops stationed there) and Nagasaki a major cog in the industrial machine that produced warships, munitions, etc. Both cities would have been bombed severely in the course of a conventional invasion. Welcome to total war in a period without precision weaponry.
And the bigger issue is Japan has never fully accepted their past actions and elements within its government and civilian population have acted in a revisionist action, going back on admissions of crimes and even trying to deny or whitewash what happened. So the general sentiment I have is that if they are going to do that, what right does anyone from Japan have to demand appologies for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not that all people in Japan are this way, some have even tried to sue the Japanese government for stubbornly ignoring the Potsdam Declaration and trying to hide it from its people all so that they could shoot for an armistice that would have helped *no one* but the government leaders. But to appologize for the atomic bombings would only further encourage the frankly disgusting revisionist attitudes in Japan. I would just say nothing if I was Obama; apologizing, while a sentimental idea, is an unhealthy exercise.
|
But what I'm saying is that the actions of the Japanese government during WW2, while much more atrocious that probably anything else during WW2, are completely irrelevant to this discussion, because this is about civilian victims asking for something. This entire dicsussion of who did what and who is worse (which clearly was Japan!) is stupid, because IT. DOESN'T. MATTER.
|
Agreed. I am just explaining why it rubs many the wrong way. It seems unreasonable to ask the States to take the stance of a wrongdoer when Japan was a worse one.
However, I do feel my second point is important to keep in mind. Revisionism is a major issue in Japan and such an apology would feed that movement. I just don't think it's worth that. Revisionism only moves people back, not forward. If Japan as a whole nation had accepted its past like the States with regards to the Trail of Tears - universally seen as tragic - or Germany with regards to their own atrocities, I would be more meh on the whole thing.
