Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

"like God taking a photograph"... Nukes


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My body is ready

Relax, I am just asking for specifics. Names in particular. How they approached. Why there were separate proposals. I'm not taking such statements easily, because most of the time there are catches

I will not reach agreement with CrankyCat on this matter, not even if we forum-nuke eachother.   Still, I will say that at least some people in the US doubt (or have doubted at some point) the wisdo

Came to this slightly late, but on the subject of dropping the bomb, or the second one, I had this debate almost exactly 10 years ago (the first thing I'm about to re-post (now that I've got c&p working) was posted on the 8th Aug 2004). I'll apologise in advance for the tone of these pieces - the debate was pretty vigorous & I tended to be more acerbic back then. Please don't take offence; it's a bit strident in places, but that's not directed at anyone here - it'd just be too much trouble to edit it all down!

If you're a tl;dr kind of person, because this will be lengthy, in a nutshell, there is no real evidence Japan was willing to surrender after Little Boy. In fact, Suzuki himself, the PM, said they would not have surrendered without the atomic bombs, and surrender was not even discussed until the day Fat Man fell (see below). If you care to know the detail of this position, read on...

======

"Truman repeatedly delayed acceptance of the Japanese government's conditional surrender attempts until after both types of A-bomb had been used" (someone had said in the thread).

The significant words in this are "conditional surrender". What I am basing my following points on is a book I have lately been reading called "More What If..." which includes essays on how nearly Truman didn't become President, & what might have happened if The Bomb hadn't been dropped. I can't quote the essayists sources off the top of my head, & I have no idea what his biases might be, but this, in a nutshell, is what the historian who speculated on The Bomb scenario had to say.

Fact: Japan was ruled by a small military clique. I forget the exact number, but it's something like 6 or 7 people deciding the fate of the entire nation, with unquestioning obedience at their beck & call from the population at large.

Fact: Conditional surrender, which is all that was on offer from the Japanese, meant a surrender in which all the existing power structures remained in place. Does anyone think this was an acceptable proposition?

Fact: The ruling clique was perfectly prepared to spend thousands & millions of Japanese lives (never mind Allied casualties) in an effort to force the Allies to accept a conditional surrender on the above terms. They knew they were beaten, but they (very humanly, if very inhumanely) sought surrender on the most advantageous terms. I ask again, does anyone think this was an acceptable proposition?

Fact: With the exception of Douglas MacArthur (who was rather Patton-esque in many respects, especially as regards his estimation of his own abilities - sorry, that's somewhat my opinion, rather than quoted fact!), the majority of the the senior US commanders, particularly Navy bods, were unenthusiastic (to say the least) about the prospects of invading Japan.

Fact: Geographical limitations determined & limited the possible beach-heads for any American invasion of Japan. Hindsight has established that the Japanese high command (limited in certain respects, but not stupid) had correctly identified every single possibility & defended appropriately. Any invasion would have resulted in absolute carnage. Okinawa would have been a picnic by comparison & the American command knew it. Conservative casualty estimates run way beyond the million mark (try 2-3 million for size), making Hiroshima & Nagasaki small beer by comparison.

Probability: It is likely that Hirohito had far more power, authority & knowledge than the Allies quite deliberately let everyone believe. There are strong indications that quite late in 1945, Hirohito was still in favour of continuing the war.

Truman's decision was never going to be a good one to have to make. It was a choice between diabolical & far worse. Anonymous guests can bleat all they want about "dogma" & "war criminals". Given the choice he had to make, Truman would have had to have been mad or stupid to have done otherwise. It was a horrible choice, even if he knew (which I doubt he did or could have) the full consequences. Nevertheless, I believe he not only saved thousands of American lives, by condemning H & N, I believe he also saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese (& maybe Russian too) lives. Plus, on the whole, he ultimately created a better society for all of those survivors.

======

(Posted a few days later)

Those of you wishing to believe that the Japanese might have surrendered in any other circumstances than post-The Bomb(s) are living in cloud cuckoo land. Prime Minister Suzuki stated that, without the atomic bombs, Japan would not have surrendered (& he ought to know).

Russian invasion made no bloody difference. The Japanese didn't know what had happened in Manchuria for several days, & didn't care anyway. They'd already stripped all the first class units out of those armies for home defence. As to the suggestion that Russian intervention was a complete & unpleasant surprise... The Japs made a remarkably good job of fortifying Maritime Province (Far East - Vladivostock way) in anticipation of such an event. Such that the projected 9th August invasion of Hokkaido would have been at least a fortnight behind schedule, due to the tenacious resistance of Japanese forces, especially on Sakhalin (an important staging post for the Soviets).

Economic collapse meant nothing, & blockade would not have affected the "Big Six" that ruled Japan. Millions would have died from starvation in Japan (including all Allied POW's & internees), which would not have affected Japanese determination in the least. They were dying for their God.

The entire Japanese strategy was to win the "decisive battle". Not "decisive" in any military sense, but to make the cost of any Allied victory so high as to make negotation (acceptance of Japanese terms, in other words) preferable. This had been High Command strategy for many months.

The advent of nuclear war, as Suzuki admitted, made an invasion of Japan redundant. At that point, given that they didn't (& couldn't possibly) know that there were only two bombs, the only strategy remaining was national suicide. Even then, it took unprecedented intervention from the Emperor to initiate surrender. God knows what would have happened if Japan had bluffed for a week or two. The longer it went without the USA obliging with a third bomb...

Fact: there is no pre-Hiroshima document from Japan that suggests that any terms that Japan might have considered were at all acceptable to the Allies.

Fact: no Japanese government had surrendered in over 2,000 years.

Fact: no Japanese unit surrendered before 15/8/45. Even after that date, many units refused to believe in the Emperor's surrender, & many (particularly officers) committed suicide rather than shame themselves.

Fact: the first time the Japanese government seriously discussed surrender is the day Fatman fell (I do not know whether this discussion took place before, after, or with knowledge of, the Nagasaki bomb). Even then, the Big Six were split 50-50 as to surrender terms.

History Lesson: The Political Reality of Japan

Japan was ruled by an Imperial Council, colloquially known as the Big Six. In the twenty-odd years preceding 1945 there are no less than 64 assorted purges, including 2 prime ministerial assassinations. No-one is going to say "Boo" to the Big Six in 1945, gentlemen. Not no way, not no how. The only attempt at a coup in war years is post-surrender & an attempt to continue the war!!! As, I think, has already been pointed out.

For the 'Six' to function, they must be unanimous (it is, if you will, a variation on the Shogun governments that plagued a slightly earlier Japan). Of the 6 members, only one (the Foreign Minister) is a civilian. Of the remaining 5, one is a retired Admiral (I think this is Suzuki, the PM, retired 1937), the rest are serving Flag Officers. Japan is firmly in the hand of militarists.

Even on the day of Fatman, the discussion is split equally between two camps. Both are conditional surrenders. Condition one (common to both) is that the Imperial system must continue. Conditions two through four are: Repatriation of all Japanese combatants; all "so-called war crimes trials" (Japanese wording!) to be conducted under Japanese supervision; no Allied occupation of Japan. Because of the split, the official position will be that of the "all four conditions" party.

Hirohito made an unprecedented intervention at this point. The surrender was offered with only condition one as a rider. The US Sec. of State responded swiftly - only unconditional surrender was acceptable & the Emperor was to be subject to the Supreme Allied Commander. More heated discussion ensued in the Japanese cabinet, but on 14/8/45 the Emperor made a unilateral decision. Radio messages were sent to all Japanese armies, & at noon 15/8/45 many Japanese heard the voice of their god for the very first time as he declared the surrender...

Now don't drop The Bomb...

The Imperial High Command are already seriously considering declaring martial law. Invasion by any of the Allies will certainly trigger this. At this point, Hirohito no longer has an mechanism by which he can intervene. His power is entirely based on the willingness of the government & military to obey him. Take away the Big Six, & there is zero chance that any such opportunity will occur. Moreover, the infrastructure to communicate a surrender would have disintegrated before Hirohito had a chance to announce it.

Fact: Before Fat Boy, the US General in charge of bombing operations over Japan had already decided to change focus. In light of the German/European experience, he had given orders to target communications & infrastructure, instead of cities. Japanese infrastructure is incredibly vulnerable. Keeping the rail network cut in just half-a-dozen or so places (given that their maritime transport network is, in the current circumstances, at a complete standstill) will result in the the civilian (not military - betcha they'll get fed?) starvation of the south.

Fact: In post-war Japan, even with the nuclear-induced victory of the Allies, the ration was cut as low as 1,040 calories/day. Imagine what Japan would have been in the wake of a protacted conventional campaign...

Congratulations to the morally upright amongst you who would not have dropped The Bomb. Conservative estimates suggest you will kill around 5 million Japanese through military intervention & starvation, & 5-10 million others before the war ends. The war will last another 2-5 years. Japan (without substantial economic help) will remain an agricutural backwater. Of course, the Marshall Plan for Western Europe probably won't happen because resources will be lacking, & so on & so forth...

You've just made the world a better place, haven't you... (I'm glad you think Truman was a cold-hearted, gullible, evil, whatever-adjective-you-like bastard - Me? I prefer to think of him as a pragmatist. He didn't choose a good choice, cos there weren't any. He chose the best one he could find, & I reckon history won't judge him too badly whatever the nay-sayers may claim). There is nothing to suggest that anything other than the atomic bomb persuaded Japan to surrender. The alternatives presented are not substantiated by any historical example or precedent whatsover.

 

Amazing post, Raedwulf, and I agree with every word of it. The 2 Nukes ended the war, decisively, and in our favour, saving 100's of thousands, if not millions more lives.

 

CrankyCat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian invasion made no bloody difference. The Japanese didn't know what had happened in Manchuria for several days, & didn't care anyway.

I'm curious. You say the Japanese couldn't react to the Russian invasion within a short time because they couldn't know what happened.

But there are only 3 days between the 2 nuclear bombs. How could they have known what happened in Hiroshima and surrender before Nagasaki?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read all of it yet, looks good so far.

Yeah, conditional surrender is effectively saying nothing, and even the technically unconditional surrender of Germany after WW1 had very unfortunately long-term effects due to not being "defeat enough".

However, the reason why I mess around with the legitimacy of the second bomb isn't because of what happened in the 3 days that passed historically. What I'm saying is that a minimum of 2 weeks would have to pass between the two bombs for any kind of termination of the war to happen. And even 2 weeks is cutting it close, they probably need 10 days just to convince everybody who matters that there was a new kind of attack humanity hasn't seen before.

 

Huh?  Perhaps read all of the post.

 

Whats this '2 weeks' you are on about... perhaps the Japanese, all of 6 people, should have been given 4 weeks, just to make sure that the memo got circulated to the troops. How many more people were being killed and dying in death camps in this two week period. 

 

Well, there was another memo, it was the second bomb. Short, Loud and straight to the Point!

 

CrankyCat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Dar, not quite sure what you're asking.

 

The Japanese didn't know that Manchuria had been invaded, but they had anticipated that it would be. Therefore they had fortified it. However, at this late stage in the war, they were well aware that there was no hope of holding on to it. More importantly, there was no value in doing so, either. What mattered was defence of Japan. So all the first class units had been brought back to Japan. They didn't know that Manchuria had been invaded, not least because (I imagine) their communications over long distances were probably shot to hell. They were basically confined to Japan, and I'd guess even long range radio communication was jammed. So they didn't know what had happened in Manchuria. If they had known... It would have made no difference to them because they had already, effectively, given it up for lost, and their only interest was the defence of Japan & the maintenance of the Imperial system.

 

I'm sure that they could have communicated with the Americans had they wanted to, however. In fact, implicit in my ten year old argument, is that they had offered conditional surrender, which had been rejected. And after Nagasaki unconditional surrender was offered & accepted. So I don't understand what your question is, given the juxtaposition of the two lines of your post, I'm afraid! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say this. The first ever and only nation to drop an atomic bomb on another nation's city is the US.

 

We are talking about an insanely powerful explosive device specifically employed to hit a city full of civilians and cause massive death and destruction.

 

And they did it twice.

 

 

 

A few hundreds years from now history will judge the US and call it a war crime. I hope.

 

I hate nukes.


Amazing post, Raedwulf, and I agree with every word of it. The 2 Nukes ended the war, decisively, and in our favour, saving 100's of thousands, if not millions more lives.

 

CrankyCat

 

I won't deny the nukes ended the war.

 

But that does not excluse it couldn't have been possible without using the nukes. It was a mistake, a woeful act, even if it had a beneficial outcome. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Dar, not quite sure what you're asking.

 

The Japanese didn't know that Manchuria had been invaded, but they had anticipated that it would be. Therefore they had fortified it. However, at this late stage in the war, they were well aware that there was no hope of holding on to it. More importantly, there was no value in doing so, either. What mattered was defence of Japan. So all the first class units had been brought back to Japan. They didn't know that Manchuria had been invaded, not least because (I imagine) their communications over long distances were probably shot to hell. They were basically confined to Japan, and I'd guess even long range radio communication was jammed. So they didn't know what had happened in Manchuria. If they had known... It would have made no difference to them because they had already, effectively, given it up for lost, and their only interest was the defence of Japan & the maintenance of the Imperial system.

 

I'm sure that they could have communicated with the Americans had they wanted to, however. In fact, implicit in my ten year old argument, is that they had offered conditional surrender, which had been rejected. And after Nagasaki unconditional surrender was offered & accepted. So I don't understand what your question is, given the juxtaposition of the two lines of your post, I'm afraid!

In my view, the US didn't give enough time after the first nuclear attack for a surrender. Normal people react to my view by saying 3 days is plenty, to which I reply that isn't how things work in war, in 3 days you cannot even convince high enough people that there was any kind of new attack at all.

In the post I was quoting there was a specific example, which is that the Japanese communication didn't even allow high enough people to learn enough about the Russian invasion of Manchuria, which is a really big deal, in what was it, 2 weeks?

The way I see it a person why recognizes that the Japanese had difficulty being aware and convinced of the invasion of Manchuria cannot possibly think that 3 days were enough time for a surrender before the second nuclear attack. Therefore that person should be inclined to agree that the US had no expectation of a Japanese surrender between the nuclear attacks.

I really don't like that most people either say the nuclear attacks were justified or not but then simplify and entirely skip the part where maybe one attack would have been sufficient to cause a Japanese surrender. A possibility excluded by U.S. timing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, now I understand what you're getting at, but I disagree with what you're saying. Mostly because I think you've not entirely understood the scenario that you're using as an argument. Manchuria is an irrelevance to what is happening in Japan. It doesn't matter how up to date the intelligence that the Big Six have on Manchuria, because they don't care what happens to it. The relevant quote from my earlier post is:
 

The entire Japanese strategy was to win the "decisive battle". Not "decisive" in any military sense, but to make the cost of any Allied victory so high as to make negotation (acceptance of Japanese terms, in other words) preferable. This had been High Command strategy for many months.


Essentially, screw Manchuria, screw Maritime Province. The only thing that matters now is making any & every assault so prohibitively costly that the enemy would rather accept our terms than force our surrender. Whatever your view, if you're going to argue that this wasn't the case, then you are, I am sorry, one of those that ten years ago was in cloud cuckoo land. The state of communications is beside the point because what was happening outside of Japan was, by this time, just as much beside the point.
 
And there is another problem with the case you're trying to make. There is a world of difference between internal & external communication. I can't speak authoritatively on the technical or practical capacities of Japanese communications at the point in the war. Again, though, I will point out that the implication in my argument was that external 'internal' communication was delayed, whilst internal communication & communication with the enemy was not. Ergo, there is no reason to suppose that the Big Six were not fully aware of what had happened internally at Hiroshima. Again, I will re-quote my earlier post,
 

Fact: the first time the Japanese government seriously discussed surrender is the day Fatman fell (I do not know whether this discussion took place before, after, or with knowledge of, the Nagasaki bomb). Even then, the Big Six were split 50-50 as to surrender terms.

 
The only grey area here is whether or not they knew about the Nagasaki bomb when they were discussing surrender terms. Even asssuming the inconceivable; that all instantaneous communication (i.e. radio or telephonic) between Hiroshima & Tokyo (assuming that that's where the Big Six actually were) had been entirely knocked out; take a look at the geography of Japan. It is stretching belief beyond all reasonable bounds to suggest that the govt had not been fully briefed. They knew about Hiroshima. Still, the best offer that any were willing to make was Condition One, and even that was unacceptable to the Allies. Three days, 30 days; I don't see what difference it makes. The evidence strongly suggests that the second bomb was required. At the risk of being tedious, I'll quote myself again,
 

Hirohito made an unprecedented intervention at this point. The surrender was offered with only condition one as a rider. The US Sec. of State responded swiftly - only unconditional surrender was acceptable & the Emperor was to be subject to the Supreme Allied Commander. More heated discussion ensued in the Japanese cabinet, but on 14/8/45 the Emperor made a unilateral decision.

 

I've bolded a couple of words. Hirohito had to make an unprecedented intervention simply to offer the unacceptable Condition One surrender. On the 14th August, a full five days after Fat Man, Hirohito made a unilateral decision. A unilateral decision to offer unconditional surrender. Where, Dar, is your evidence that the Japanese might have surrendered after the first bomb, given enough time? It's always going to be arguable because there were only 3 days between the bombs, and no-one can change that. But the evidence I've given above very strongly suggests that both bombs WERE necessary. However little any of us might like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

{snip a bit}

I hate nukes.

 

I won't deny the nukes ended the war.

 

But that does not excluse it couldn't have been possible without using the nukes. It was a mistake, a woeful act, even if it had a beneficial outcome.

I never said it wasn't possible. However, the cost of winning the war, or rather ending it, given that there was no doubt about the winning, was extortionate, prohibitive. As I have already pointed out! The US High Command had already estimated the likely cost of a conventional victory & they did not like the answers. Would you rather the war had been won conventionally at the cost of 5+ million lives instead of the quarter of a million (approximately & within 4 months of the bombings)?

 

Yes, the bombs had a beneficial effect. Yes, they were woeful actions; they were actions full of woe. But they were not mistakes. They were only rational choices out of a bunch of really shitty ones. As for "war crime", I really don't think you understand what a war crime is. As for "I hate nukes", who here has said they even as much as like them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say this. The first ever and only nation to drop an atomic bomb on another nation's city is the US.

 

We are talking about an insanely powerful explosive device specifically employed to hit a city full of civilians and cause massive death and destruction.

 

And they did it twice.

 

 

 

A few hundreds years from now history will judge the US and call it a war crime. I hope.

 

I hate nukes.

 

I won't deny the nukes ended the war.

 

But that does not excluse it couldn't have been possible without using the nukes. It was a mistake, a woeful act, even if it had a beneficial outcome. 

 

I know of no one, not a single person from that time who regretted the USA dropping those nukes.

 

The Japanese should be lucky a third was not eventually dropped. If a third bomb had been dropped, I propose that the Japanese Imperial family would have been executed, and an elected President of Japan based on USA system would have been installed, regardless of Japanese feelings, and Japan, instead of the quality goods exporter it is today, would still be a 3rd world tin rattler, continually internally ripping itself apart because the Imperial Family was executed.

 

History will not  judge USA poorly at all!  That is just petty USA bashing. The USA was not the aggressor here!

 

Europe and UK had won their war, but they were beaten, tired, broke and bombed out themselves. Millions of upon millions of disenfranchised and deposessed people were forced marched across the European continent. USA and USSR were aggressively dividing Europe up, creating the beginnings of the Cold War.

 

USA had two choices. the land attack of Japan which would take years more to do, and hundreds of thousands of USA Australian, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, and other Pacific States lives ....   or drop the bomb.

 

Thousand of Australians, New Zealanders, Papua New Guineans lives had already been lost in WW2. Look up our populations... how many more deaths could our tiny nations have tolerated before cultural and economic collapse?

 

The Japanese, regardless of how one felt about them, were fanatical and brave fighters. To invade Japan itself would have cost USA hundreds of thousands of lives and millions of Japanese would have been slaughtered, as I suggest old grandmas with blunt kitchen knives would have attacked us, the invading force.

 

We didn't and don't have Kamakasi. Could you imagine an entire nation of Kamakasi coming at you. 

 

....  so you hate Nukes. You appear to be one of the people who would have preferred to see movie reels at the theater of that old Japanese Grandma coming at you with the blunt knife and a stick of TNT, and seeing US marines blown to smithereens... and have a war drag out more and more years, having the civilian populations on food and clothing rations for decades more. Having old people working the grain fields as the young are being slaughtered in Japan.

 

USA was only the first nation to develop the Atom/ Hydrogen bomb in a very tight world wide race. How far do you think Japan would have been from developing their own nukes?

 

USA will be judge poorly?   Perhaps, but only by hand wringing arm chair critics who hate facts getting in the way of a good ol USA bashing.

 

USA in hundreds of years time will still be around, and I think will still be a great world power. It needs to go through brutal economic and political adjustment, and won't be recognisable to what we know now, but its remnants will still be there and it wont allow history to be distorted by history's nail bitters.

 

CrankyCat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. That last post went a bit overboard, I'd say.

 

The truth is that everyone in the position of the USA at that time would have done the same and there is no need to involve emotions. You have a new weapon, two kinds at that, and you want to test it 'in real life' but the war will be over very soon and the opportunity will be lost. Make it happen then - ask for impossible surrender conditions that don't have a chance to be accepted, thus washing your hands, then do the experiment.

 

The defeat of Japan at that point is so inevitable that there is no military reason behind these bombs. To shorten the war and save hundreds of thousands of lives is a bit weird argument, coming at the expense of those others hundreds of thousands of lives. "Yeah but it's not our soldiers, it's there civilians" - doesn't help the cause, really.

 

One other (often missed) reason is that a clear message had to be given to the USSR that "Japan is now ours, so back off". The involvement of the USSR can be considered the only strategic justification of the bombs, as it became important that the war ends fast and the USA get Japan before the Russians. Because one Berlin per world war is quite enough, you know.

 

Again, everyone in this position would have done the same, so I'm far from judging anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not reach agreement with CrankyCat on this matter, not even if we forum-nuke eachother.

 

Still, I will say that at least some people in the US doubt (or have doubted at some point) the wisdom and humanity of the use of the two nukes against Japan during WWII. And they are not the least of people: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread. That last post went a bit overboard, I'd say.

I'd agree. Very parochial & US-centric. If I find time & inclination, I'll do Cranky the courtesy of explaining why I think that in more detail later. However, your post isn't a lot better, Dan.

 

Evidence? None. I've heard this "testing" argument before; I'm fairly sure it cropped up in the ten year old thread too. There's no evidence it's true, or even plausible. It's an argument advanced by the anti-bomb side of the argument because it sounds good & can't be proved or disproved.

 

"Impossible surrender conditions"? What impossible conditions? No conditions were demanded. Japan was the one seeking to impose conditions. The Allied attitude was, quite rightly, "You are beaten, now surrender. No, none of your qualifications on surrender are acceptable. Surrender or face the consequences." Truman made the only reasonable decision he could, I believe; happily, so did Hirohito eventually.

 

Your third para is just... Well, weird. It reads like you haven't read what I've posted. It's not "hundreds of thousands" on each side. It's a choice between hundreds of thousands nuclear, or millions conventionally. It's really a simple choice. How much consideration was given to "Our soldiers" as against "Their civilians"? It was a less-enlightened age that has contributed to our more-enlightened (allegedly) one. It's foolish to try to judge it by our standards. If they were thinking more of "Our's" than "Their's" (which is nothing more than an allegation), I personally find it impossible to blame them for doing so. Truman's choice, and I should think he was aware of it, was between "Millions of ours & millions of theirs, or drop this bomb, the consequences of which are a matter of educated guesswork... Shit, they didn't surrender, OK, drop the other one... Thank christ for that, they've surrendered."

 

An unknown casualty number restricted, roughly, to a single city of a hundred thousand or so, or millions? Defeat is inevitable, yes, but the cost? How many of your own people do you want to be responsible for killing, never mind the enemy? As you say, you're not judging anyone, but the way you put your point doesn't necessarily back that up. And, again, with your last para, evidence, please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rain - that's an interesting link, thank you. Unfortunately, most of what is quoted is rather after the fact. More pertinently, several of the quotes suggest that Japan was, in some way, ready to surrender. On the evidence I've seen, I can't agree that it was. It was in the hands of the militarists & they were not. A "short wave broadcast" as suggested by Hoover, for example, I wish it had been tried; maybe it would have worked. But, in the face of all the available evidence, I'm afraid I don't believe that it would have been anything other than disregarded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not reach agreement with CrankyCat on this matter, not even if we forum-nuke eachother.

 

Still, I will say that at least some people in the US doubt (or have doubted at some point) the wisdom and humanity of the use of the two nukes against Japan during WWII. And they are not the least of people: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

 

If one wants to use words such as wisdom & humanity then perhaps the Japanese government & people should begin to atone for their war crimes during the war in Manchuria.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

Link to post
Share on other sites

If one wants to use words such as wisdom & humanity then perhaps the Japanese government & people should begin to atone for their war crimes during the war in Manchuria.

 

How exactly? Pretty soon in Japan very few Japanese will be old enough to have taken part in that. I agree it sounds terrible. I don't know what statements the government had made in apology.

 

How about the US? In what way should the US atone for the crimes committed to Native Americans? If the US is not expected to, how long will it be before Japan is also not expected to do something for crimes in the past? Didn't the US do some bad stuff in Vietnam - more recent than Japan's crimes in Manchuria?

 

I am not saying this to be anti-US. But how should countries act in response to bad things they did in war generations before?

 

Again, since you said people: should anyone born after the war have to atone for things other Japanese people did in the past? Should people in the US have to atone for terrible things done by others before they were born? Do we have a double standard in asking Japanese people who weren't even born to atone for crimes in Manchuria?

 

Personally, I never felt responsible for anything done before I was born or by someone else. No guilt. No apology. It had nothing to do with me. A government on the other hand - I can support an apology for things done in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly? Pretty soon in Japan very few Japanese will be old enough to have taken part in that. I agree it sounds terrible. I don't know what statements the government had made in apology.

 

How about the US? In what way should the US atone for the crimes committed to Native Americans? If the US is not expected to, how long will it be before Japan is also not expected to do something for crimes in the past? Didn't the US do some bad stuff in Vietnam - more recent than Japan's crimes in Manchuria?

 

I am not saying this to be anti-US. But how should countries act in response to bad things they did in war generations before?

 

Again, since you said people: should anyone born after the war have to atone for things other Japanese people did in the past? Should people in the US have to atone for terrible things done by others before they were born? Do we have a double standard in asking Japanese people who weren't even born to atone for crimes in Manchuria?

 

Personally, I never felt responsible for anything done before I was born or by someone else. No guilt. No apology. It had nothing to do with me. A government on the other hand - I can support an apology for things done in the past.

Because as a nation Japan continues to deny the war crimes that took place in the war with China. So not anti USA. Sorry on the mobile atm so cannot type much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy to be labeled 'parochial', if that means my sense of reality revolved around the South Pacific.

 

US centric.. I have been known to hump the leg of any male Yank I come across in a bar or night club :)  ... in the past.. not now :(   now, male Yanks hate their country more than anyone else which is very sad  :(

 

 

The following expands on my parochialism:

 

People in Australia and New Zealand were angry, appalled and horrified that USA and Britain had decided to protect the Japanese Chief War Criminal, Emperor Hirohito.

 

We were not appalled by the 2 nuclear devises. We were awed.

 

Emperor Hirohito was not some Harbinger of Peace.

 

Far from it. He was Team Japan, Manager and Head Cheerleader combined.

 

When the Emperor does nothing, and says nothing, it means an emphatic 'YES'.

 

The Imperial family must have been terrified that the Emperor, his brothers and cousins might see their 2000 year old reign, end abruptly, swinging on the end of a rope... which is what the South Pacific demanded up until a vote was forced upon the Far East Tribunal ... in 1949... , formally giving the Imperial Family immunity.

 

Australia did not end its war criminal trials until sometime in 1951, a couple of years longer than USA or Britain! Australian and New Zealand press coverage was filled with Japanese war time atrocities, retribution and revenge very much in all red blooded white Australians. 

 

 If those responsible for those outrages are allowed to escape punishment, it will be 

the grossest defeat of justice and a travesty of principle for which the war has been 

fought. In its demand that all Japanese war criminals be brought to trial, the 

Australian Government is actuated by no spirit of revenge, but by profound feelings 

of justice and of responsibility to ensure that the next generation of Australians is 

spared such frightful experiences.

 

Australian Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs Dr Evatt in 1945. 

 

The USA used political pressure to force Australia to end its prosecutions of Japanese suspects in 1951 as: 

 

The US needed a strong and prosperous Japan as a counter to the extension of 

Soviet influence in the Asia Pacific region and the growth of Japanese communism. 

Australia was frustrated by this approach. Until the start of the Korean War in 1950, 

at least, Australia considered Japan, and not the Soviet Union, to be the greater threat 

to peace in the Asia-Pacific region.

 

 

In other words, The USA had moved on, and had transitioned from Reform of Japan to Recovery of Japanese economy. Australia was still stuck in Revenge and Reform. The ongoing effectiveness of the Australian tribunals was also brought into question.

 

Perhaps USA was right in allowing the Imperial family to escape War Time charges, however the repercussions of that decision rebound today, as Japan simply refuses to apologise for its past atrocities. This refusal can be traced right back to the protection of the Emperor.

 

However Japan will not be allowed to forget its past, no matter how it teaches amended history to its children and university students. At the very least it will be reminded quite bluntly by China.

 

I will not mourn the deaths of the Japanese from the two nuclear bombs.  They were starving, however they were 100% behind their Emperor.

 

I will place my mourning in its proper place, with the people of the Marshall Islands and other small Pacific Island Nations who truly were the guinea pigs of the nuclear age.

 

 

CrankyCat

 

Note: Please edit out any quotes from General Douglas MacArthur as proof for anything. That man was a megalomaniac. He was right, and absolutely everyone else, including his Commander in Chief,  was wrong. I would not put it past him to have sat on the Imperial Throne when no one was watching, completing his self allusion of grandeur.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because as a nation Japan continues to deny the war crimes that took place in the war with China. 

 

Not at all true. You might be able to argue that government has denied it, but the people there not at all. Western media has a very simplistic view of Japan. The government of Japan has apologized for what they have done in China. And they apologized for what they have done in Korea. And yes, it was terrible.

 

I know Japan quite well and have been there many times. I have been to the famous shrine that people other governments scream about when a government leader visits it. It is about as anti-war a place as could be. But the media never mentions that fact. The shrine memorial is really about all the very young 16-18 year olds who died in the wars, and is quite a sad and anti-war place - basically a museum that in no way glorifies anything at all.

 

So there is the spin version: Japan refuses to apologize, and there is the reality.

 

"June 22, 1965: Minister of Foreign Affairs Shiina Etsusaburo said to the people of the Republic of Korea: "In our two countries' long history there have been unfortunate times, it is truly regrettable and we are deeply remorseful" 

1972: "Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka said to the people of the People's Republic of China: "The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself. "

 

"1982: Chief Cabinet Secretary Kiichi Miyazawa said to the people of the Republic of Korea: "The Japanese Government and the Japanese people are deeply aware of the fact that acts by our country in the past caused tremendous suffering and damage to the peoples of Asian countries, including the Republic of Korea (ROK) and China, and have followed the path of a pacifist state with remorse and determination that such acts must never be repeated. Japan has recognized, in the Japan-ROK Joint Communique, of 1965, that the 'past relations are regrettable, and Japan feels deep remorse,' and in the Japan-China Joint Communique, that Japan is 'keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war and deeply reproaches itself.' These statements confirm Japan's remorse and determination which I stated above and this recognition has not changed at all to this day."

 

"1984: Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone said [to China]: "There was a period in this century when Japan brought to bear great sufferings upon your country and its people. I would like to state here that the government and people of Japan feel a deep regret for this error."

 

"Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, in a speech to the United Nations, said: "On June 6, 1945, when the UN Charter was signed in San Francisco, Japan was still fighting a senseless war with 40 nations. Since the end of the war, Japan has profoundly regretted the unleashing of rampant ultra nationalism and militarism and the war that brought great devastation to the people of many countries around the world and to our country as well" 

 

I got bored. Pages and pages of apologies from the heads of state of Japan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

 

tl;dr    

there is a ton of bullshit and spin about Japan in the media and put out by other governments for political reasons

 

 

EDIT: adding one more. how is this denying anything? how is it not an apology?

 

1995: Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama said in a statement: "During a certain period in the not-too-distant past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly those of Asia. In the hope that no such mistake will be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humanity, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology" 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all true. You might be able to argue that government has denied it, but the people there not at all. Western media has a very simplistic view of Japan. The government of Japan has apologized for what they have done in China. And they apologized for what they have done in Korea. And yes, it was terrible.

 

I know Japan quite well and have been there many times. I have been to the famous shrine that people other governments scream about when a government leader visits it. It is about as anti-war a place as could be. But the media never mentions that fact. The shrine memorial is really about all the very young 16-18 year olds who died in the wars, and is quite a sad and anti-war place - basically a museum that in no way glorifies anything at all.

 

So there is the spin version: Japan refuses to apologize, and there is the reality.

 

"June 22, 1965: Minister of Foreign Affairs Shiina Etsusaburo said to the people of the Republic of Korea: "In our two countries' long history there have been unfortunate times, it is truly regrettable and we are deeply remorseful" 

1972: "Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka said to the people of the People's Republic of China: "The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself. "

 

"1982: Chief Cabinet Secretary Kiichi Miyazawa said to the people of the Republic of Korea: "The Japanese Government and the Japanese people are deeply aware of the fact that acts by our country in the past caused tremendous suffering and damage to the peoples of Asian countries, including the Republic of Korea (ROK) and China, and have followed the path of a pacifist state with remorse and determination that such acts must never be repeated. Japan has recognized, in the Japan-ROK Joint Communique, of 1965, that the 'past relations are regrettable, and Japan feels deep remorse,' and in the Japan-China Joint Communique, that Japan is 'keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war and deeply reproaches itself.' These statements confirm Japan's remorse and determination which I stated above and this recognition has not changed at all to this day."

 

"1984: Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone said [to China]: "There was a period in this century when Japan brought to bear great sufferings upon your country and its people. I would like to state here that the government and people of Japan feel a deep regret for this error."

 

"Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, in a speech to the United Nations, said: "On June 6, 1945, when the UN Charter was signed in San Francisco, Japan was still fighting a senseless war with 40 nations. Since the end of the war, Japan has profoundly regretted the unleashing of rampant ultra nationalism and militarism and the war that brought great devastation to the people of many countries around the world and to our country as well" 

 

I got bored. Pages and pages of apologies from the heads of state of Japan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

 

tl;dr    

there is a ton of bullshit and spin about Japan in the media and put out by other governments for political reasons

 

 

EDIT: adding one more. how is this denying anything? how is it not an apology?

 

1995: Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama said in a statement: "During a certain period in the not-too-distant past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly those of Asia. In the hope that no such mistake will be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humanity, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology" 

 

Nosam, those rose coloured glasses you wear must be truly blinding!

 

It is not the Yasukuni Shrine itself that is offensive, of course it is peaceful....  it is the 1000+  so confirmed War Criminals buried there!

 

Should you ever visit there again, why not ask an always polite Shinto attendant to show you the names of the confirmed War Criminals, which are by their very presence, mourned just as much as the  "very young 16-18 year olds who died in the wars".

 

The Shinto attendant will not show you!

 

Every quote you have posted, Nosam, not one of them is an apology. Earlier this year, even Germany has asked Japan to be more honest in its world war 2 history. Never ever has Japan labelled, confirmed and listed any of its war time atrocities.

 

These so called apologies are are seen for what they are, empty political speak, that is not fooling anyone.

 

Why they pursue this 'No Apology' diplomacy is beyond me. Just do it. List it. Pay respect, and Repeat. 

 

CrankyCat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cranky, you obviously went to Wikipedia an picked out one thing to support your view.

 

[1] It is not the Yasukuni Shrine itself that is offensive, of course it is peaceful....  it is the 1000+  so confirmed War Criminals buried there!

 

[2] Why they pursue this 'No Apology' diplomacy is beyond me. 

 

You said:

it is the 1000+  so confirmed War Criminals buried there!

 

What a joke. The people are not buried there. 

 

There is just a list of the names of 2,466,532 people (Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese and other nationalities) who served Japan and died in that service. 1068 of those 2.5 million are soldiers that committed war crimes. The list includes women and children who also died. Note that from the US alone, there are many, many times more than 1000 US soldiers that committed war crimes (such as murdering or mistreating civilians). 

 

Then you said:

"Every quote you have posted, Nosam, not one of them is an apology. "

 

How is this not an apology?

"Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama said in a statement: "During a certain period in the not-too-distant past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly those of Asia. In the hope that no such mistake will be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humanity, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology

 

The head of Japan is explicitly saying we do not deny these things happened ("Japan ... caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries ... these irrefutable facts of history"). And then he says this exactly: "I ... state my heartfelt apology".

 

In 1998, Japan again said: "Prime Minister Hashimoto expressed his remorse and apology on behalf of the Government of Japan".

Other than the Japanese government using the exact Japanese word for apology, how can the government apologize?

 

 

 

Anyway, you should visit the shrine in Japan some day. Then you can make up your own mind based on some actual reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Cranky, you obviously went to Wikipedia an picked out one thing to support your view.

 

 

You said:

it is the 1000+  so confirmed War Criminals buried there!

 

1. What a joke. The people are not buried there. Can you make up stuff a little more carefully?

 

There is just a list of the names of 2,466,532 people (Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese and other nationalities) who served Japan and died in that service. 2.1068 of those 2.5 million are soldiers that committed war crimes. 3. The list includes women and children who also died. 4. Note that from the US alone, there are many, many times more than 1000 US soldiers that committed war crimes (such as murdering or mistreating civilians). 

 

Then you said:

"Every quote you have posted, Nosam, not one of them is an apology. "

 

5. How is this not an apology?

"Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama said in a statement: "During a certain period in the not-too-distant past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly those of Asia. In the hope that no such mistake will be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humanity, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology

 

The head of Japan is explicitly saying we do not deny these things happened ("Japan ... caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries ... these irrefutable facts of history"). And then he says this exactly: "I ... state my heartfelt apology".

 

In 1998, Japan again said: "Prime Minister Hashimoto expressed his remorse and apology on behalf of the Government of Japan".

Other than the Japanese government using the exact Japanese word for apology, how can the government apologize?

 

Maybe you should try to learn something, rather than blindly try to defend a narrow view of history that is clearly not true when you look at the facts.

 

Anyway, you should visit the shrine in Japan some day. Then you can make up your own mind based on some actual reality.

 

 

1. Indeed, poor choice of words on my behalf. I tend to think of all shrines as burial sites, regardless of bodies present or not... that rocking horse you are currently sitting on is far too high.

 

Been going to Japanese ski fields and Tokyo for about 15 years now. I get to see the seedier side of Japanese culture... with my ex Japanese partner... by far more fun than the tourist crap you expose yourself too.

 

3. Of those women and children listed at the Yasukuni Shrine :) were they the ones who were forced to serve the Japanese soldiers sexual needs? Now, what were they called again...  oh that's right, "Comfort Women". Were they listed at the shrine? Little girls and women abducted, and flown to another country to attend the Japanese soldiers every need at places called 'Comfort Stations'. There 10's of thousands of comfort women and children, if not 100's of thousands.

 

Does the list have their names? ...  

 

2 & 4.   War Crimes

 

Honestly, the Japanese war crimes make their good friends, the Nazi’s, look like foolish amateurs.

 

At least with Nazi Germany, there was a purpose to their extermination, even if it was warped.

 

There was no purpose to Japanese massacres.

 

Aussie_execution.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

I am really really interested in these legions upon legions of US soldiers you have described committing war crimes? Please expand on this.... 

 

 

 

Now, here I did have to go to the internet, not necessarily Wiki though ;) ... as this is something I have never committed to memory... here goes:

 

Alexandra Hospital Singapore. The brave soldiers of the Imperial Army entered the hospital attempted to killed everyone there, that is the staff as well as patients.... even those undergoing surgery got the pointy end of the knife.

 

Those who survived that round (about 200) were forced to clean up the body parts, and then they were herded outside the hospital and were all bayoneted to death.

 

Were those poor souls list at the Yasukuni Shrine?

 

Palawan Is Philipines

 

150 USA prisoners were herded into a building and burnt alive.

 

Are their names at the Yasukuni Shrine?

 

Tiny Island nation of Nauru.

 

Japanese beheaded and bayoneted 5 Australian prisoners in relatiation for an allied air raid.

 

The complete extermination of the islands leper colony. The Lepers were all put on a boat, dragged out to sea, and the brave Imperial army fired on the boat.

 

Enslaved 1000 island inhabitants and forced them to other islands to serve the Imperial army.

 

Any Leper names at the Yasukuni Shrine?

Did we see any Islander names there?

 

 

Lets go back to Singapore shall we... The Sook Ching massacre.

 

The entire chinese population was interned. Those deemed dangerous were herded into trucks, taken to the city limits and shot. On the mere suspicion, entire villages were executed. Approx 30,000 to 100,000 were slaughtered this way.

 

Were approx 100,000 from Singapore/ Malaysia listed at the Yasukuni Shrine?

 

I-8 the brave Japanese sub mariners.

 

After sinking a Dutch freighter, they took on board 103 Dutch surviving  personnel on board then proceeded to kill them all with bayonettes and sledgehammers. They then bound those still alive, left them on deck as the sub marine dived.

 

Here’s another:

 

The Japanese sunk a US ship and subjected those survivors to some fun as well.. Those survivors had to run a gauntlet of swords and bayonettes. Pieces of the survivors bodies were thrown over board.

 

30 prisoners were still on deck when US fighter plains were spotted. The sub marine dove with them still on deck.

 

I am pretty sure there will be a couple of brave Japanese listed at the Yasukuni Shrine? What about the Dutch and US sailors? Were they listed?

 

The Death Railway

 

13,000 POW and sum 100,000 Asian workers were slaughtered here. Pretty much says it all.

 

I cannot recall these people listed at the Yasukuni Shrine?

 

Manila- they’re only Pilipino, right?

 

The brave Japanese, realising they will lose the coming battle when the Yanks showed up, took their frustrations out on the occupants of Manila.

 

For weeks they raped, pillaged and murdered. They used bayonettes, and beheadings and machine guns to gun down masses of people. 100,000 were slaughtered in that mindless massacre.

 

Are those Philippine names listed at the Yasukuni Shrine?  ..... 

 

The Rape of Nanking

 

nanking-massacre-rape-of-nanking-killing

 

Even get a photo of this one!

 

Over the first 6 weeks of occupation, approximately 200,000 people including children were raped and slaughtered at Nanking.

 

Do I even ask? ....

 

 

 

I can go on and on....

 

 

Back to these US war crimes... Tell me about these 1000’s upon 1000’s of US soldiers committing war crimes again?

 

 

 

Now the biggy...

 

5. The so called Apologies.

 

Not one so called apology has been targeted, specific and timely. It is all broad stroke with no specifics.

 

It is as if the Japanese cannot admit they were capable of the cruelty they inflicted.

 

 

How about the apologies go something like this:

 

I am very sorry our Generals and Soldiers massacred 200,000 men women and infants at Nanking in only 40 days.

 

I am sorry our soldiers starved and beheaded and burned alive and bayoneted POWs without reason.

 

I am sorry we slaughtered your sick people on the tiny little and completely defenceless  island nation of Nauru. We are sorry we enslaved 1000 Nauru people to do our bidding.

 

We are sorry we captured, kidnapped or tricked 10,000’s upon 10,000’s of women and girls across Asia and repeatedly rape them, calling them ‘comfort women’.

 

We are sorry we slaughter captured seamen, torturing them before cruelly drowning them on deck as our submarine descended.

 

 

Here are some quotes for you:

 

Denial of atrocities

"The Nanjing Massacre is a lie made up by the Chinese." 
Ishihara Shintaro, former Japanese Cabinet Minister, interviewed October 1990.

..the Nanjing Massacre is a fabrication. 
Nagano Shigeto, Japan's Justice Minister (1994).

"The Americans brainwashed the postwar Japanese into believing they had committed terrible war crimes." 
Professor Nobukatsu Fujioka, Professor of Education, Tokyo University (1997).

"We have to pass on true history to young people. We must fight this information war against the rest of the world." 
Eiichiro Washio, member of a group of Japanese politicians who deny the Nanjing Massacre occurred in 1937.

"Foreign 'Comfort Women' conscripted for Japanese Army brothels were 'prostitutes'." 
Kajiyama Seiroku, Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary (1997).

... and from the current Prime Minister:

 

The ultra-nationalist Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has shocked decent human beings by denying that hundreds of thousands of women were forced into sexual slavery in conquered countries by the Imperial Japanese Army between 1937 and 1945. Despite an apology to the so-called "comfort women" by Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono in 1993, and support from historians who claim that as many as 200,000 captive women were forced into Japanese Army brothels in conquered countries, this prime minister has chosen to degrade himself and Japan in the eyes of civilised people by promoting a blatant lie that causes even more anguish to the female victims of Japanese brutality. Reported Tokyo, 1 March 2007. Predictably, the willingness of this neanderthal Japanese prime minister to sanitise Imperial Japan's hideous war crimes has encouraged other Japanese politicians to deny the Nanjing Massacre(Rape of Nanking) in 1937. Reported in "The Australian" 2 March 2007. 

 

Denial of Japan's war guilt

"The Pacific War was a war of liberation..."
Nagano Shigeto, Japan's Justice Minister (1994).

"The Pacific War was a war to liberate colonised Asia."
A resolution moved in the Japanese Parliament (the Diet) in 1995 by 221 members of Japan's long-dominant Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).

"Japan was forced to go to war by American oil and other embargoes." 
Hosei Norota, senior member of Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (2001).

"Japan was forced into WW II to liberate Asia from the yoke of Western colonialism." 
Hideaki Kase, producer of the controversial Japanese film "Merdeka" (2001).

 

Rehabilitating Japanese war criminals

"Why should it matter any more?" 
Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto's response to criticism of his paying homage to Japan's worst war criminals at the infamous Yasukuni Shinto Shrine in Tokyo (1996).

"Why do we have to select among the dead." 
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's response to criticism of his paying homage to Japan's worst war criminals at the infamous Yasukuni Shinto Shrine in Tokyo (2001).

Reviving the ideology of Japanese militarism

"Japan is a divine nation centered on the emperor." 
Yoshiro Mori, Prime Minister of Japan (2000).

And the final word"

I do not think things are going well in terms of Japan accepting responsibility for the past." 
Professor Saburo Ienaga, distinguished Japanese historian (1998).

 

 

So, you see, those 1068 war criminals you mentioned as listed at the Shrine, are not some drunk soldier going out and raping someone.

 

The collective crimes those 1068 listed war criminals were horrific beyond thought, and most of those criminals listed were never properly prosecuted.

 

The Japanese are very lucky USA only had 2 bombs, and we warmed to the idea that the Imperial Family would be useful for our purposes.

 

You can purchase clear glass to replace those pretty rose ones you are wearing.

 

CrankyCat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that is a wall of text. 

 

About the US soldiers, you ask how many committed war crimes. Look up the meaning.

 

For example, war crimes include these:

Acts may amount to war crimes because they breach important values, even without physically endangering persons or objects directly. These include, for example, abusing dead bodies;  subjecting persons to humiliating treatment; making persons undertake work that directly helps the military operations of the enemy;  violation of the right to fair trial."

 

And these:

In the case of an international armed conflict, any of the following acts committed against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention: 
• wilful killing;
• torture or inhuman treatment;
• wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health;
• extensive destruction or appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

• wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of a fair and regular trial;
• unlawful deportation or transfer; 
• unlawful confinement;
• taking of hostages.

 

 

Serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during an international armed conflict (continued):
• making the civilian population or individual civilians, not taking a direct part in hostilities, the object of attack;
• launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
• making non-defended localities and demilitarized zones the object of attack;

 

You can read about it yourself, if you really care to know what is a war crime. One set of definitions are here:

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter44_rule156

 

So if you know anything about the Vietnam War, you can see many thousands of US soldiers committed war crimes. And that is only one US war. Also, it is clear in Iraq and Afghanistan US soldiers also committed war crimes. It is also very clear Hamas and Israel are both committing war crimes, BTW.  I am guessing that for any side you view as "good" you will justify and excuse their actions, as atrocious as they may be. Most armies tend to do some very bad things in major wars.

 

Anyway, hopefully you won't respond. What do we have to discuss about the definition of war crimes? You can learn about any of this stuff yourself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that is a wall of text. 

snip

 

 

Oh, I'm sure you can scan the wall of text. I did break it up into paragraphs and put little headings for you.. there is even a picture or two. It was all there to discredit your arguments.

 

All you need to know really was your points of discussion were naive and foolish. Really need to stop reading the information from the tourist brochures.

 

Umm, we were talking Nuclear explosions, Japan, US and WW2... why bring up Vietnam? The Japanese Govt already knows how to deflect uncomfortable questions re WW2. Don't need lessons from you.

 

CrankyCat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...