Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Both Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima have mythic symbolism in their respective countries. Without Pearl Harbor there would have been no Hiroshima, goes one argument. Another is that a conventional attack o

70 Comments

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

70 Comments
Login to comment

targeting civilians with nuclear weapons.

Those two cities were chosen for their military significance, not their civilian populations

Hiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center.

The city of Nagasaki was one of the most important sea ports in southern Japan. Although it was not among the list of potential targets selected by Oppenheimer's committee, it was added later due to its significance as a major war production center for warships, munitions, and other equipment. This was the very reason why Sweeney hoped that Kokura would have clear weather for the attack, thus avoiding an attack on Nagasaki which housed a greater civilian population.

0 ( +13 / -13 )

Pearl Harbor may have symbolism but Hiroshima is the destination on the road that started in Shanghai in 1932 with "the first terror bombing of a civilian population." It was by Japan and was five years before the more famous Guernica in the Spanish Civil War.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

a conventional attack on a military base is not the moral equivalent of targeting civilians with nuclear weapons

It wasn't a conventional attack at all - Japan didn't declare war - it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

It is somewhat possible that without Pearl Harbor there would have been no Hiroshima.

Pearl Harbor galvanized the American people against Japan. Before then, many more Americans wanted to stay out of the conflicts in both Europe and Asia. After the attack, nearly all Americans were ready and willing to go to war against Japan.

So without Pearl Harbor it is possible there would have been no Hiroshima because the U.S. might have opted to sit out the war entirely. We will never know.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

Total all out war is and still will be all out war. For some it means you try to kill the other army and their resources till they quit. For others it means kill the other populace at all costs. Or they both did that and one is claiming to be better than the others morally afterward. Arguing the morality of the war machine is ridiculous.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Another is that a conventional attack on a military base is not the moral equivalent of targeting civilians with nuclear weapons.

The Japanese military didn't only attack Pearl Harbor. They were one of the first to engage in terror bombing of civilians with a 5-year aerial bombing attack on the city of Chongqing, targeting civilian areas. They engaged in a scorched earth policy against the Chinese populace that the Chinese called The Three Alls ("kill all, burn all, loot all") and the Japanese called the "The Burn to Ash Strategy" policy (燼滅作戦), and which a 1996 Japanese study said killed over 2.7M Chinese civilians.

Hiroshima was preceded by all this, and much more. Trying to compare Hiroshima with Pearl Harbor is just latter-day handwringing.

Even after the two atomic bombings the Japanese cabinet was divided on surrendering, and the Emperor had to step in and force surrender. Curtis Lemay wanted to conventionally firebomb 50 Japanese cities before any invasion. Those cities and the rest of Japan were lucky the Americans forced the Emperor's hand with two nuclear bomb drops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Alls_Policy

7 ( +17 / -10 )

Someone is still reading out of the Chinese Propaganda book written in the last century. LoL

Back then it was called a sneak attack, now a days it's called a preemptive strike. By the way the US was making a lot of provocative moves against Japan with the final straw being the Hull note sending an ultimatum which is almost never mentioned. Also the attack on Pearl Harbor was a complete surgical strike and did not target any of the civilian population or installation which the JIN noted not to harm within their plans again something is hardly mentioned.

Hiroshima was never a target with any high military value, any true historian that had made any study in the subject will tell you that. Kure which was and still is a main military port about 40Km away from Hiroshima had more significant value as a military asset back then. The IJN headquarters for the southern front was located there. The problem for the US was that it was not big enough to make any study of the bomb against a large populated area so they hit Hiroshima instead.

1 ( +14 / -13 )

........ a conventional attack on a military base is not the moral equivalent of targeting civilians with nuclear weapons.

Sums it up very well. Anyway, those who really know about the situation then know that the US knew the attack was coming six days beforehand and used it as a reason to enter WW2.

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

It's difficult to judge the actions of those during WW2, these were completely different people who would be unrecognizable in today's world. Most people would not have thought twice about torturing and massacring the enemy and all sides in the war were guilty of what would be considered war crimes today. No one would have thought twice about terror bombing an enemy civilian population if it were for retribution or to win the war, whether there were any dubious claims to military significance or not.

It's a fallacy to apply today's morals to the dark world of WW2, however we are seeing a disturbing rise in pre-war rhetoric around the world today so it looks as though we have once again not learned anything from history and look likely to repeat it

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Most people would not have thought twice about torturing and massacring the enemy and all sides in the war were guilty of what would be considered war crimes today.

What most people overlook is that the country which starts a war, it becomes responsible for all deaths, crimes, or atrocities committed by both sides. Had Japan not started the war, the bombs would never have been dropped. Millions of people, mostly civilians, would have have been killed. Several hundreds of thousands would not have died as slave laborers building air strips, rail lines, and factories. When you consider the scale of the carnage, the brunt of which was caused by Japan, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are much less significant. And if the bombings had not occurred, and the war not brought to an end, there is no saying how many more people would have been killed. Look how many died in the taking of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. How many would have been killed had the main islands been invaded?

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

I don't agree with your first point, sangetsu03. The country that starts a war is not responsible for atrocities committed by both sides. You can hardly blame Japan or Nazi Germany for atrocities carried out by allied forces, such as rape and murder by some of its soldiers, for example.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

And if the bombings had not occurred, and the war not brought to an end,

because US did not accept Japan's surrender until nuke weapons were ready to test on humanity.

-7 ( +12 / -19 )

I'm sorry, but there is simply no debate. The fact is, if there were no sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, there would have been no Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

hmmmm. moral equivalence is a dangerous game. and saying Hiroshima would never have happened if not for Pearl ?Harbour is debatable. US and Japan could have eventually gone to war even if Pearl Harbour never happened. Having said that the Pearl Harbour attack makes for a much better story and movie than the bombing of Hiroshima.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Japan was made to collect the victim data of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and translate them into English and submit to US because it was dangerous to enter the sites right after the bombings for US doctors to enter.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

It's difficult to judge the actions of those during WW2, these were completely different people who would be unrecognizable in today's world. Most people would not have thought twice about torturing and massacring the enemy

Except that one of the two sides is still doing it today.

What most people overlook is that the country which starts a war, it becomes responsible for all deaths, crimes, or atrocities committed by both sides. Had Japan not started the war,

I disagree with that idea. Plus, I don't think one should only look at what happened starting from Pearl Harbor.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Hiroshima was not even a target primarily, USA could not orient in the weather conditions and had to choose another target for their bomb. Can not say that those "questions" are getting less and less coherent and more immoral, but military naval battle versus mass murder? Really, this is what you can ask in 2016?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Daniel NaumoffDEC. 07, 2016 - 02:55PM JST Hiroshima was not even a target primarily,

If Hiroshima was not a primarily target, which city was a primarily target? And for what reason?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

tinawatanabe: "Japan was made to collect the victim data of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and translate them into English and submit to US because it was dangerous to enter the sites right after the bombings for US doctors to enter."

And? even if that's true, which you haven't backed up with facts, what of it? Are you telling me that Japan went over to Pearl Harbor after their sneak attack to collect data? or even after the war to do so? Why not, pres tel?

0 ( +9 / -9 )

smithinjapan DEC. 07, 2016 - 03:30PM JST And? even if that's true, which you haven't backed up with facts, what of it?

It was a first atomic bomb. It was necessary for U.S. to collect much of intelligence information. What do you don't understand?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Daniel Naumoff: "Hiroshima was not even a target primarily, USA could not orient in the weather conditions and had to choose another target for their bomb."

I think you're confusing Hiroshima with Nagasaki. In the latter case Kokura was the primary target, but because of poor weather they chose the secondary target, Nagasaki. They almost gave up on that due to cloud cover, as a matter of fact, but at the last minute the clouds parted, and Nagasaki's fate was sealed.

sfjp330: "It was a first atomic bomb. It was necessary for U.S. to collect much of intelligence information. What do you don't understand?"

Doesn't change the fact that the comment saying Japanese had to collect the information (which is hogwash, the US did as well) on the ground because it was dangerous for the US to go in and do so is ridiculous. Even if in some cases Japanese went where the US would not, if they were so concerned about safety, why did they go sneak attacking Pearl Harbor and ultimately bring about their own destruction anyway? So, again, to counter the idea that the US did not go into Hiroshima to study the effects (as stated by tinawatanabe), did the Japanese go into Pearl Harbor afterwards to study how their attack left things? No. The information gathered was of a very different nature, of course, but the point remains.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

smithinjapan DEC. 07, 2016 - 04:16PM JST Doesn't change the fact that the comment saying Japanese had to collect the information (which is hogwash, the US did as well) on the ground because it was dangerous for the US to go in and do so is ridiculous. Even if in some cases Japanese went where the US would not,

It is true. U.S. military and the support group knew ahead about the danger of radiation from Los Alamos report. Japanese didn't know and had look at as a big bomb, but were clueless on radiation fallout. They didn't understand the problems of radiation to humans.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

enough of these PH & Hiroshima BS, Pearl Harbour wasnt the start of the Pacific War, the 1937 invasion of China by the IJA and its expansionist policies was the precursor to the Pacific war. The IJA targeted and slaughtered many more civilians than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and this was even before America was pulled into the war. If half of the brainwashed zombies weren't so ignorant or had selective memories of the Pacific War and WW2 as a whole they'd realise Japan wasn't the main victim they've come to believe If it wasnt for the huge sacrifices of the Soviets, America UK and their allies would have been hard pressed in containing Hitler and the IJA , WW2 probably would have ended very differently.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

US killed more than 100,000 Tokyo innocent people in one night by largest in history air raid but neatly avoided the Palace. After the war, the American Curtis ReMay who did the raid received !st Order of Merit from Japan.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Pearl Harbor may have symbolism but Hiroshima is the destination on the road that started in Shanghai in 1932 with "the first terror bombing of a civilian population." It was by Japan and was five years before the more famous Guernica in the Spanish Civil War.

Nope... the Germans used airships in WW1 to bomb British towns and cities from 1915... THAT was the first "terror bombing of a civilian population"

As far as the outcome of the Pearl Harbour attack... it can be seen as being instrumental in the destruction of Nazi Germany. American manpower helped to defeat the Germans.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Realistically, I think both were pretty despicable acts, and from everything I've read on both, and I've read plenty, the justifications are flimsy at best.

Pearl Harbour was a pretty cowardly, pre-emptive blindside. Hiroshima was a supreme act of human barbarism, the likes of which the world has only seen once since, which was at Nagasaki.

After the war, the American Curtis ReMay who did the raid received !st Order of Merit from Japan.

LeMay. He also very famously said that, had the US lost the war, he would have been done for war crimes. And rightly so.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

That's absolute nonsense that Hiroshima or Nagasaki had any military significance. The drop target was the dome of Hiroshima and the only military base anywhere near was a naval shipyard across the bay... and it was was barely damaged at all. Both cities were virgin targets that were on the list to test body count vs. radius.

By mid 1945, there were very few military targets that hadn't been struck.

The story that they were military targets is "fake news."

1 ( +7 / -6 )

This is going to go down poorly on a board full of Americans, but I contend Hiroshima was the more evil of the two attacks.

Pearl Harbor was of course not remotely sunshine and puppy dogs, but it was at least an attack on a predominantly military target. Yes, civilians around the base died, but the majority of victims of Pearl Harbor were people who knowingly signed up to put their lives on the line in defense of their country. The same can't be said of the attack on Hiroshima. The majority of victims in Hiroshima were civilians who had no power to dictate Imperial Japan's military strategy, hence most of them must be thought of as innocents.

It's always struck me as odd that so many people try to portray Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima as parallels. The real parallel to Hiroshima is Nanking. Americans may not be comfortable with that because it puts us on a similar moral footing to Imperial Japan in its worst moment and doesn't net too many victimhood points, but an attempt to destroy a city without regard for who is the victim in the wholesale slaughter should not be seen as remotely similar in immorality to a sneak attack on a military target.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

This book: Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York, Free Press, 2000), conclusively documents the truth about Pearl Harbor without any hearsay or unsubstantiated claims. Document after document spell out the people, plan and path that lead to Pearl Harbor.

Unfortunately, the story is fact and not schoolbook fiction, so many Americans are unable to digest the conclusion laid out in plain sight.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Leaders who opt for war are NOT FIT TO LEAD.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Those two cities were chosen for their military significance, not their civilian populations

Wrong. Nothing to do with military significance. And first target was actually Kyoto which was rejected by Stimson. Target cities were selected completely based on optimum locations with densely-populated for **maximum destruction effect as possible

That was nothing but EXPERIMENT. Too many american pepple believe it was for ENDing the WAR to save more victims of both countries, but that's just hypocritic narrative covering-up the true motive.

It’s even questionable Truman as POUST formally and clearly decided and authorized it before dropping. Groves himself saying (in the video) that they could not waste $2.2billion spent already for the project.

Anybody watched NHK Special 決断なき原爆投下 (Atomic Bombs dropped without definite determination translated by myself)? If you have no problem in listening/understanding Japanese, you should definitely see this.

Quite a few readers here seem not know the TRUTH Even those who have problems in Japanese listening, just try to pickup the testimonies in English and see the pictures. It is worthwhile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Z1JUx3jQc

to post my opinion wrt this thread, Remember Hiroshima/Nagasaki!! It is not even comparable

If you think the program is fake, you should know where to take your anger to, not to me.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

turbotsat: ... the Japanese called the "The Burn to Ash Strategy" policy (燼滅作戦), and which a 1996 Japanese study said killed over 2.7M Chinese civilians.

Triring: Someone is still reading out of the Chinese Propaganda book written in the last century. LoL

'JAPANESE study'

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Forgot to link

NHK Special 決断なき原爆投下 米大統領 71年目の真実 Atomic Bombs dropping without definite determination.The president and Truth after 71 Years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Z1JUx3jQc

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

turbotsat: ... the Japanese called the "The Burn to Ash Strategy" policy (燼滅作戦), and which a 1996 Japanese study said killed over 2.7M Chinese civilians.

Triring: Someone is still reading out of the Chinese Propaganda book written in the last century. LoL

Showing how much you are reading pseudo history books based on Chinese propaganda. Try reading some opinions from actual historians for a change. I recommend the one below since you read Japanese.

中嶋嶺雄 編『歴史の嘘を見破る 日中近現代史の争点35』文藝春秋(文春新書)、2006年5月、118頁。

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The most cruel thing was that the surviving victims were not allowed for any treatment or medication because they were subjects of data US is collecting. They were made to cooperate by blood, pictures, etc taken until they die at the US facility called ABCC on the top of the hill

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't agree with your first point, sangetsu03. The country that starts a war is not responsible for atrocities committed by both sides. You can hardly blame Japan or Nazi Germany for atrocities carried out by allied forces, such as rape and murder by some of its soldiers, for example.

Apply simple logic (if possible). Would American soldiers have attacked Japan, killed soldiers and civilians, and committed atrocities had the war not started? This is a yes-or-no question, and the answer is obvious.

The same can be said for Germany. Had Hitler never invaded Poland and the rest of Europe, there would have been no allied forces collected to attack Germany, right?

When you start a fire, and a firefighter dies trying to fight that fire, you would be considered responsible for that firefighter's death.

But ideology (or "idiotology") always overrules logic, doesn't it?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Apply simple logic (if possible). Would American soldiers have attacked Japan, killed soldiers and civilians, and committed atrocities had the war not started? This is a yes-or-no question

Actually it's an unknowable question. I could answer yes, and could answer no, and neither of us would be right or wrong, since it never happened, and therefore is entirely speculation that cannot be proven either way. Who knows how the world would have went if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

Leó Szilárd, Manhattan Project scientist and advocate for demonstration as a deterrent, but not use against civilians, of the atomic bomb.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

First of all comparing PHarbour & Hiroshima/Nagasaki asking if they are somehow equivalent is kind of daft. The two mark points in WWII history NOTHING more.

Japan is known to have killed between 20-30million, so that works out to between 111,000 & 166,000 PER MONTH, of EVERY month for 15 years straight NON-STOP!! That is a LOT of "Hiroshima's & Nagasaki's".

Bottom line is IJA was a massive killing machine & this is one aspect, most on this site & in Japan still cant comprehend or acknowledge. The number of Japanese who died was between 3-4million.

And yes the bombings were tests! They were also to show, the Soviets & YES they were also to END the damned WAR & save lives!! Plus a LOT more other things...... there no ONE REASON!

Japan bears HUGE responsibility for all this death & destruction period, including Japanese who died. The leaders of the IJA were insane & off their rockers, the allies were ABSOLUTEY correct in making Japan unconditionally surrender!

That surrender was the BEST thing to happen to Japan at the time & is a BIG reason why Japan was able to return to prosperity with a huge helping hand from the Yanks(& I am not one) over the following decades.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Like Gulf of Tonkin Incident over which US entered Vietnam war, all the US wars started with US inside jobs.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

You can argue this point until you are blue in the face, but it is a false equivalence because the decision to drop the atomic bombs was never related to Pearl Harbor in the first place. The U.S. had numerous justifications for its use of atomic weapons, but the one which stands out in my mind was that President Harry S. Truman, a politician to the core, did not want to have to face the families of tens of thousands of American soldiers, sailors and airmen when the military had the means to bring the war to a speedy conclusion.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

to bring the war to a speedy conclusion.

It is established fact by American historians that the use of nuclear bombs prolonged the war and increased the death of US soldiers because Roosevelt was waiting for the weapons ready and did not accept Japan's surrender..

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Japan never did surrender before the nuclear outcome and tried to bite back every way they could, only after they were presented with an extermination by atom option, not only a lost war, they came to terms with defeat and the Emperor Akihito surrendered a few days later. Never once they tried to surrender before. No false facts in favour or othewise, please.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Daniel Naumoff

Japan tried to surrender around May 1945 contacting the Russian Embassy in Switzerland. This was discussed at Potsdam meeting but was rejected by the US. That is why they placed an ultimatum of"Unconditional Surrender" which was never heard of before. The reason behind this is they knew Japan would not agree buying time to finish the bomb.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

War is war and anything goes if you want to be victorious.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Another is that a conventional attack on a military base is not the moral equivalent of targeting civilians with nuclear weapons. What do you think?

I think that people in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks. The Japanese are not in a position to claim the moral highground considering their behavior in the rest of Asia.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Triring: 中嶋嶺雄 編『歴史の嘘を見破る 日中近現代史の争点35』文藝春秋(文春新書)、2006年5月、118頁。

Probably this is more useful:

http://books.rakuten.co.jp/rb/1087639/

Nanjing Incident and Sanko Operation: Memory of War to be Taken into the Future / 南京事件と三光作戦 未来に生かす戦争の記憶

At least it seems so, from a mention in this:

https://sites.google.com/site/historicaltranslations/shokunnankingsurvey

(translation of) FOR THE RECORD - Complete Survey of the Three Schools: The Illusion School, the Middle-of-the-Road School, and the Great Massacre School

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Japanese are not in a position to claim the moral highground considering their behavior in the rest of Asia.

It were the west powers including US that invaded and colonized the rest of Asia for centuries. Japan was merely kicking them out.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

As For PearlHarbor Attacks

It was one of tactics, preemptive attack. Not sneaky defined as stealthy, coward, furtive, considering the fact Japan’s planned 30min in advance declaration fell behind due to the technical errors at Japanese embassy. Nothing as intentional as USSR ‘s fell behind intentionally as much as 4 hours

Besides, under the rule of the days where no minimum lead time specified, if it was even a minute before, it makes the attack legitimate but if falling behind just a minute, does it make Big Surprise Coward Attack?

The treaty didn’t specify what sort of advance notice to be required ahead of hostile action.

You might call it surprise if you are lower-ranked soldiers or civilians but It could never be real surprise attack for FDR and his cronies. No matter how much those conspiracy theorists got refuted already you believe, War Department secret circulations clearly recognized and stated that "Surprise aggressive action at any moment is possible and it is desired that Japan commit the first overt act if hostilities cannot be avoided"", hence, urging preparedness for such surprise attacks.

They just did not know, then maybe, exactly when and exactlywhere. Yet, no such rule existed, which required to specify where to attack, existed.

US was also good at (sneak) attacks in her undeclared wars those days too.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/undeclared-war-in-the-atlantic-the-u-s-navy-versus-the-u-boats/

http://historyarticles.com/undeclared-war/

and Native Hawaiians remembered it was american's undeclared sneak attacks too

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

It were the west powers including US that invaded and colonized the rest of Asia for centuries.

Sure they did. But did they perform medical experiments on them like Japan's Unit 731? Did they bury people alive? Did they practice bayonetting them while they were still alive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Japan was merely kicking them out.

Japan was merely slaughtering the people of Asia in horrible and perverse ways. And no amount of denial is EVER going to change that.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Aly. You are believing Chinese propaganda. wiki is hearsay, no evidence.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

It was one of tactics, preemptive attack.

A preemptive attack is simply an attack. It's a way of speaking for the attacker to make themselves feel better about being in the wrong for attacking first.

Aly. You are believing Chinese propaganda.

Tina - you believe Japanese propaganda. You should probably find out the truth before accusing others of something you do yourself.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Aly. You are believing Chinese propaganda. wiki is hearsay, no evidence.

Tina, when it fits the Japanese narrative you have no problem using it.

In April 2003, the families of Toshiaki Mukai and Tsuyoshi Noda filed a defamation suit against Katsuichi Honda, Kashiwa Shobō, the Asahi Shimbun, and the Mainichi Shimbun, requesting ¥36,000,000 (approx. US$300,000 in 2003) in compensation. On August 23, 2005, Tokyo District Court Judge Akio Doi dismissed the suit on the grounds that "[the contest] did occur, and was not fabricated by the media".[18][19] The judge stated that, although the original newspaper article included "false elements", the officers admitted that they had raced to kill 100 people and "it is difficult to say it was fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contest_to_kill_100_people_using_a_sword

So here we have a JAPANESE judge saying that this attrocity( Contest to kill 100 people using a sword)Happened. He's not chinese.

Tina, when japanese soldiers have come forward to tell their story, (and many have) the right wing in japan starts screaming at them "aren't you Japanese??" because they came forward and told the truth. There is lots of proof. The Japanese right wing is trying to bury the truth and is not interested in the truth or dialogue. Just trying to make Japan out to be a victim. It isn't.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Aly You may not know but Phlippine people still remember that US brutally killed by guns called "peace maker" more than 100,000 of them who were trying to be independent from US.

I don't understand why Americans keep blaming others while ignoring what they have been doing.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Aly You may not know but Phlippine people still remember that US brutally killed by guns called "peace maker" more than 100,000 of them who were trying to be independent from US.

Tina, You may not know but Phlippine people have been asking for Japan to remember what it did in the war including the filippino comfort women and the terrible slaughter which was much more than 100000.

I don't understand why Americans keep blaming others while ignoring what they have been doing.

I don't why Japanese keep trying to deny history.

I'm not American
1 ( +5 / -4 )

@tinawatanabe

It were the west powers including US that invaded and colonized the rest of Asia for centuries. Japan was merely kicking them out

And who were the Japanese kicking out of Thailand? That was never colonized before Japan invaded.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

who were the Japanese kicking out of Thailand? That was never colonized before Japan invaded.

Japan never kick out Thailand. It is the only independent country surrounded by west powers colonies. Japan needed to protect their position because Thailand was Japan's friend and strategically important.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Japan never kick out Thailand. It is the only independent country surrounded by west powers colonies. Japan needed to protect their position because Thailand was Japan's friend and strategically important.

This comment proves that your last comment was wrong:

It were the west powers including US that invaded and colonized the rest of Asia for centuries. Japan was merely kicking them out

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@MsDelicious War is war and anything goes if you want to be victorious.

Are you saying killing 6 million INNOCENT people 'goes' because one ethnic group 'wanted to be victorious', that live experiments on humans 'goes', that using poisonous gas against civilians 'goes', that all the hideous things humans have done to others because they 'wanted to be victorious' 'goes'?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A preemptive attack is simply an attack. It's a way of speaking for the attacker to make themselves feel better about being in the wrong for attacking first.

There should be nothing wrong with attacking first. Without it, there would not be any war or any fight on the street.

Desiring the first overt act is a way of speaking for the hypocrite ( who make yor opponent to punch you first) to make themselves feel better about being in the wrong for taking the fight to the extreme, or in some particular case, to make good excuse to deceive public opinions.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

AlyRustom: Sure they did. But did they perform medical experiments on them like Japan's Unit 731? Did they bury people alive? Did they practice bayonetting them while they were still alive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Noted the other day that a print preview of the English version of the 'Japanese war crimes' wikipedia page was 86 pages long, but a print preview of the Japanese version was only 5 pages long.

Japanese and English versions of the 'United States war crimes' page have parity at 9.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It were the west powers including US that invaded and colonized the rest of Asia for centuries. Japan was merely kicking them out.

I agree, and the west could allow that to happen, and want to make sure they never could in the future. That's why all the evils have been piled up on Japan.

Apply simple logic (if possible). Would American soldiers have attacked Japan, killed soldiers and civilians, and committed atrocities had the war not started? This is a yes-or-no question, and the answer is obvious.

Using your logic, if the NHK guy comes knocking on your door, you could take out a baseball bat and beat the crap out of him and then just say that if he never came knocking on your door, you never would have beaten him. Beating the crap out of him would not have been justified. Just like Pearl Harbor does not justify the atomic bombings.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Apply simple logic (if possible). Would American soldiers have attacked Japan, killed soldiers and civilians, and committed atrocities had the war not started? This is a yes-or-no question, and the answer is obvious.

I think the answer is yes. Please study the other US wars such as against Mexico or Spain or Vietnam or Iraq, etc.

Since Perry first came to Japan in Edo period, US was interested in Okinawa as a strategic location. Japan was fearful of imminent danger in becoming westerners colony like the rest of Asia had become.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

and did not accept Japan's surrender...

Whatever you think about the use of these horrific weapons, Japan was not offering an unconditional surrender...heck many even think the US let Japan off too easily post WWII (especially prominent families who really were benefitting from the war).

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The Japanese are not in a position to claim the moral highground considering their behavior in the rest of Asia. exactly, the IJA slaughter more civilians in asia (approx 6 million) than all the deaths between the US / Japan fighting combined.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The terms of surrender that Japan offered before the dropping of the bombs were the exact same terms of the final surrender after the incineration of several hundred thousand civilians.

Just a coincidence, I suppose?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

domtoidi: The terms of surrender that Japan offered before the dropping of the bombs were the exact same terms of the final surrender after the incineration of several hundred thousand civilians.

Where are the "terms of surrender that Japan offered before the dropping of the bombs"?

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/52502

The Greatest Hoax In American History: Japan’s Alleged Willingness to Surrender During the Final Months of World War II - 7-28-08

A staple of Hiroshima Revisionism has been the contention that the government of Japan was prepared to surrender during the summer of 1945, with the sole proviso that its sacred emperor be retained. President Harry S. Truman and those around him knew this through intercepted Japanese diplomatic messages, the story goes, but refused to extend such an assurance because they wanted the war to continue until atomic bombs became available. The real purpose of using the bombs was not to defeat an already-defeated Japan, but to give the United States a club to use against the Soviet Union. Thus Truman purposely slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Japanese, not to mention untold thousands of other Asians and Allied servicemen who would perish as the war needlessly ground on, primarily to gain diplomatic advantage. ... One might think that compelling substantiation would be necessary to support such a monstrous charge, but the revisionists have been unable to provide a single example from Japanese sources. What they have done instead amounts to a variation on the old shell game. They state in their own prose that the Japanese were trying to surrender without citing any evidence and ...

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

To be fair, Japan should be grateful to americans for what happend after the war. The economical miracle, technological advancement and becoming what it always wanted, a leading world country (thought not at war, in economy and technologies) is all based on post-war cooperation and extraordinary people from the Westland helping Japan to start over. Though now it all seems to be going down for Japan... But undoubtedly those who made a nuclear drop on those civilian targets are scum and they commited a crime against humanity. Except, in the end they won. This is a difference.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

turbostat is quoting the same site that claims people who voted for Trump display the same characteristics as Hitler.

Wow.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Look how some of the families of power were let off easily. Many around the world agree despite the opinions of some in Japan.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites