Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
national

In her own words: A Hiroshima bomb survivor learns English to tell her story

63 Comments
By Tom Bateman and Akiko Okamoto

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2023.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

63 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Where Japanese WW2 soldiers survivor who willing to study English to tell the actual things that Japanese did abroad?

-8 ( +28 / -36 )

The fact that the bombs were dropped is horrific and I admire this lady for her drive to learn English. It's sad that so many Japanese forget the dropping of the bombs was retaliation for the attrocities committed by the imperial forces during the first half of last century. The imperail forces killed more civilians in Nanjing China than were killed by both nuclear bombs. The victim card gets played over and over again for the nuclear bombings. However, Japan was a victim of its own desire to rule Asia and the Pacific. They only have themslves to blame.

-14 ( +21 / -35 )

In her own words: A Hiroshima bomb survivor learns English to tell her story

A noble effort.

But the question arises, “Do ‘memorized words’ = ‘her own words’?”

Does she have the English language ability to form thoughts into English words that accurately covey her emotions, feelings, experiences?

I doubt it based only a recent video of her speaking about her experience: https://youtu.be/MrTPmIbaHLo

We should also remember that she was only seven years old on August 6, 1945.

But good for her for her efforts to share her experience with the world.

-4 ( +11 / -15 )

… the dropping of the bombs was retaliation for the attrocities committed 

Perhaps not “retaliation.” After the Hiroshima attack, the majority of Japan’s supreme war council refused to accept the Potsdam Declaration, i.e., the terms for unconditional surrender.

After the Nagasaki bombing and just hours before Emperor Hirohito’s noontime radio broadcast announcing the Japanese surrender, a military coup was attempted, during which the rebels seized control of the Imperial Palace and burned Prime Minister Suzuki’s residence.

Nuclear weapons do take a terrible toll, but Japan’s supreme war council had no mind to surrender after the Hiroshima bombing, and a significant portion of the council was still resistant after the Nagasaki attack.

Yes, Japan may have eventually surrendered. But the impact of the massive firebombing campaign and atomic bombs was that Japan surrendered in August. If Japan didn’t surrender in August, the Soviets would have invaded. And the Americans would then have invaded too, and Japan would have been carved up — just like Germany and the Korean Peninsula eventually were. And the other thing that would have happened is that millions of Japanese would have starved to death that winter — because surrendering in August gave MacArthur time to come in with his occupation forces and feed Japan.

Yes, nuclear weapons are awful, but most of Japan’s residents would have had a radically different future if those bombs had not been used and the nation had not resultantly surrendered in August.

-14 ( +18 / -32 )

Let the whole world know the reality of this genocide..

I think with the gun violence and the fentanyl crisis they are paying for it in easy installments...

Everything is paid in life..

-15 ( +6 / -21 )

@Asiaman7

No, using nuclear weapons on innocent people is never justified.

You are wrong.

It is never acceptable to use nuclear weapons.

9 ( +26 / -17 )

Perfectly justified for the numerous war crimes, innocent civilians killed, Korean women forced into prostitution and lack of standards in POW camps

-19 ( +11 / -30 )

Let the whole world know the reality of this genocide.

Hindsight is 20/20, There is a long, long, list of Japanese atrocities that need to proceed this first.

I guarantee you that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would never have happened if Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor

-10 ( +15 / -25 )

Soldiers killing people one by one with a gun or bayonet is of course terrible. But it is difficult to see a difference between the Nazis gassing groups of civilians en masse and dropping atomic bombs on civilians that basically burns them to death (and with the added evil of radiation poisoning for those who somehow survived). One could argue those bombs were far more indiscrimate than the gas chambers of Auschwitz etc. How could that not be a war crime? Also, the nuclear weapons now developed are far more powerful than those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

Perfectly justified for the numerous war crimes, innocent civilians killed, Korean women forced into prostitution and lack of standards in POW camps

Yet, you too are using hindsight to justify the act. Numerous things you are stating here, were not known to be facts, at the time.

Problem with many of the posts here, while there were questions and serious concerns about the use of the "bombs" the real threat was the fact that at least a million lives could be lost, by attacking/invading mainland.

Both sides were wrong, but that's totally in hindsight!

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Too bad that's what it took to make the Japanese government admit they lost the war and save a lot of blood, seat and treasure for both sides.

-13 ( +7 / -20 )

Yubaru - Problem with many of the posts here, while there were questions and serious concerns about the use of the "bombs" the real threat was the fact that at least a million lives could be lost, by attacking/invading mainland.

Something that many overlook is, at the time of the bombings there were 2 million Russian troops lined up on the eastern front ready to invade Japan through Hokkaido with orders to kill everyone and everything. The US actually brought the bombings forward a month so the Russian troops couldn't invade. In a dark and sadistic way, the US actually did Japan a favor by dropping the bombs and forcing them to surrender. If they had not there would be no Japan. It would be part of Russia.

The history of the first half of last century is horrid. So many millions of people were killed in the two world wars and many other conflicts during that time. The one event of the atomic bombings is quite insignificant to many other attrocities committed during that period.

-12 ( +9 / -21 )

I just returned from Japan last month as my wife is a Japanese citizen. We go back to Japan about every 18 months to see family. This time we went to Hiroshima for four days. Every world leader who has their finger on the nuclear trigger should spend an hour or so in the museum. You cannot spend time there without feeling a sadness in your heart. As horrible as the bombs were, they ended the war and prevented the need for an invasion of the Japanese Mainland. That would have cost millions of Japanese lives and hundreds of thousands of American lives. One only has to look at the battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa to appreciate the carnage that would have followed. Yes the Japanese committed unspeakable atrocities in China, the Philippines, and against POW’s during WWII. War is never a pleasant endeavor, and it seems to bring the worst out in some. The goal to abolish all nuclear weapons is an essential goal for mankind. We either abolish them, or one day they will abolish all of us!!

10 ( +17 / -7 )

Whatever mind gymnastics you do to justify using Nuclear Weapons on Civilian Cities, the same reason, justification, can be made against your own country, and people in the near future.

I'm sure Russia, North Korea and China, will make the same justification against, Ukraine, Taiwan or South Korea.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

The way these events are taught still makes it a herculean task to get the truth out. One English textbook mentions the subject (JHS) by literally beginning with the sentence, "One day, a big bomb fell on the city of Hiroshima". Absolutely zero context, and none taught by the teacher either.

Fact is that Japan was preparing to commit national suicide in the summer of 1945. The government had no thoughts of surrender, even after being warned by Truman via the Potsdam Declaration. Instead, tens of millions of civilians were being instructed how to make themselves into human bombs, and also how to attack Allied soldiers with spears. It would have been a bloodbath of apocalyptic proportions. By comparison, the atomic bombs (while terrible) were the more acceptable option.

-8 ( +9 / -17 )

The thing I don't get is why don't the schools teach the kids in schools the events that lead to the retaliation of dropping the bomb? Based on what the kids here know is that it was a peaceful morning when all of a sudden America decided to just drop a bomb for no reason at all. They don't teach the kids the HOW or WHY. I think doing this, I think the kids would grow up learning how to not follow the path that lead to the perishing of many. How to avoid something like this ever happening. Not with paper cranes. That's why there are alot of people here with some deep embedded hatred for foreigners which bleed out into their children, grands and great grands. They have stories of the aftermath and all these gruesome details, but no truths. I've been to the Peace museum in Hiroshima and the Peace Park and cried at some of the pictures copious amounts of times, but they always only mention the event, the deaths and the aftermath.

-6 ( +10 / -16 )

I'm sure Russia, North Korea and China, will make the same justification against, Ukraine, Taiwan or South Korea.

If Ukraine, Taiwan, or South Korea attacks them, they might be justified like the US.

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

There is a very important lesson here to learn beyond the emotional blackmail and revision of history. One that today Putin would do good to learn. Don't start wars you cannot finish.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Soldiers killing people one by one with a gun or bayonet is of course terrible. But it is difficult to see a difference between the Nazis gassing groups of civilians en masse and dropping atomic bombs on civilians that basically burns them to death (and with the added evil of radiation poisoning for those who somehow survived). One could argue those bombs were far more indiscrimate than the gas chambers of Auschwitz etc. How could that not be a war crime?

10 million Chinese = 10 million Eastern Europeans 300,000 Japanese

Time to balance your views.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

DisillusionedToday  07:26 am JST

The fact that the bombs were dropped is horrific and I admire this lady for her drive to learn English. It's sad that so many Japanese forget the dropping of the bombs was retaliation for the attrocities committed by the imperial forces during the first half of last century.

Absolutely incorrect. The A-bombs were used by the US to bring Japan to a quick surrender and Allied occupation before the USSR could enter Japan.

The imperail forces killed more civilians in Nanjing China than were killed by both nuclear bombs.

Another incorrect statement. The actual number of civilian casualties atNanking has never been establshed. Westerners on site in 1937/38 used the term "tensof thousands". The Republic of China at the end of WWII tried to bring charges at the Tokyo Trials on the basis of 100,000 casualties. The Allied Court dismissed the claim for lackof evidence. It was the PRC that revived the issue many decades later on a claim of 300,000 casualties. However in response to arguments made by Western historians that the population of Nanking was only 200,000 in 1937/38, the PR amended their claim to "Nanking plus the region around it". To this date the actual number of civilian casualties, taking into account that some ROC troops had abandoned their uniforms and mingled with the civilians, has never been officially established.

The victim card gets played over and over again for the nuclear bombings. However, Japan was a victim of its own desire to rule Asia and the Pacific. They only have themslves to blame.

The civilians of these two A-bombed cities were indeed "victims" as are civilians in any country in any war. The Japanese civilians in WWII were living under a military dictatorship, kept in the dark as to the Military's actions as well as defeats. The US was carrying out indiscriminate bombing of cities, both in Japan and Germany.

Because civilians are "victims" 93 countries have attended the Hiroshima Memorial Ceremony. Nobody is playing blame games, only you.

9 ( +18 / -9 )

The US was carrying out indiscriminate bombing of cities, both in Japan and Germany.

If the US was carrying out indiscriminate bombings, so was the UK and Germany. We may never know how many Chinese died at the hands of the Japanese but at least a few million doesn't seem off given the Japanese military training at the time. In short there is nothing accurate that doesn't show the atomic bombings in a wider context of civilians being targeted by all sides.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

Perhaps not “retaliation.” After the Hiroshima attack, the majority of Japan’s supreme war council refused to accept the Potsdam Declaration, i.e., the terms for unconditional surrender.

Japan sued for peace before Potsdam and Truman brushed it off. It's in his own handwriting in his diary (it's available online). He wanted the Japanese (and Stalin) to see the power of the new bomb. He received word that the first test was successful while at Potsdam.

The final terms of surrender were precisely the terms offered by Japan through the Swiss before Potsdam.

Those are the facts, and they are not in question.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Soldiers killing people one by one with a gun or bayonet is of course terrible. But it is difficult to see a difference between the Nazis gassing groups of civilians en masse and dropping atomic bombs on civilians that basically burns them to death (and with the added evil of radiation poisoning for those who somehow survived). One could argue those bombs were far more indiscrimate than the gas chambers of Auschwitz etc. How could that not be a war crime?

It can be debated if dropping 2 atomic bombs on innocent people was the right way to stop the war, but I think it is very inappropriate to compare this with the killing of 6 Mio jews by the nazi during WW2.

With the atomic bombs, there was a right finality even though the means were atrocious. With the killing of Jews, there was no justifiable goal whatsoever but pure hellish hatred against a particular people.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Where Japanese WW2 soldiers survivor who willing to study English to tell the actual things that Japanese did abroad?

Matsui Minoru and Oguri Ken'ichi's film features 14 WW2 soldiers doing just that!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it’s innocent victims should never be forgotten and it must be a reminder how humans are capable to build such horrific weapons of mass destruction.

Saying that,we also must recognize that the ultra right wing nationalist government of Japan is trying to portray Japan as a victim of the last world war brainwashing it’s citizens as victims of a bling attack.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

A poster codenamed Randy Johnson wrote on another thread that there was no demarcation drawn between civilians and military personnel; all Japanese were soldiers during the war, thus intimating that the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justifiable and not blamable.

True, Japan at the time was all mobilized when the prospect of the war was dim; women left behind at home by their forcefully conscripted husbands trained on a regular basis hand-to-hand fighting with bamboo spears or were engaged in fire-fighting exercises with a bucket relay.  The rest, school children and elders, spent their daily life as usual.

Can one tell that there was no line drawn between civilians and professional soldiers?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The point is that when large numbers of people (in the hundred or thousands or more) are killed in large groups at the same time by poison gas or an atomic bomb, it is very difficult to say one is less of an atrocity than the other. If 6 million Jewish people were killed by the Nazis over a few years, does that make killing 150,000 or so in one day (Hiroshima) somehow less atrocious or criminal?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

William77

and that's the rub right there

0 ( +2 / -2 )

serendipitous1Today  12:55 pm JST

The point is that when large numbers of people (in the hundred or thousands or more) are killed in large groups at the same time by poison gas or an atomic bomb, it is very difficult to say one is less of an atrocity than the other. If 6 million Jewish people were killed by the Nazis over a few years, does that make killing 150,000 or so in one day (Hiroshima) somehow less atrocious or criminal?

It is not a matter of number. Would be the same if only 10000 Jews had been gazed. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a justifiable goal: stop a war that would have continued for a long time otherwise. Did the end justify the horrible means? I do not know. What was the goal of the holocaust? Killing Jews just because they were Jews. I think it is very different.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Japan sued for peace before Potsdam and Truman brushed it off. It's in his own handwriting in his diary (it's available online).

The final terms of surrender were precisely the terms offered by Japan through the Swiss before Potsdam.

Those are the facts, and they are not in question.

Like many Trump diatribes, too many inaccuracies to even waste time on.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

My grandfather told some stories about the war. He was a genuine survivor who spent 3 years fighting against the Japanese in the Pacific. He was one of only 2 survivors from his entire outfit. He shed no tears over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and why should he? A government represents the will of its people, and therefore the people must suffer the consequences of the choices of their government. What did Hitler say when the Soviets were overrunning Berlin when his High Command asked permission to evacuate civilians? "The people gave me my mandate, so their fate should be the same as mine." Tyranny, corruption, and war are not the fault of tyrants, crooks, and, the bloodthirsty, but of the people, who have shirked their responsibility and suffered tyrants, crooks, and the bloodthirsty to have their way. Millions were killed by the Japanese during the war, yet all we hear about the war in Japan today are stories of the A bomb survivors? That isn’t right.

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Nuclear bombing was to stop war and so it did. Moreover the agressor was Japan.

No US citizen wanted to die to end war while Japanese would have died for war at that time.

War is never fair.

Watch List of Schindler to understand the difference between a bombing, even nuclear, and a genocide.

The why and how is of utmost importance.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

A Quick Guide To Japan's Role In The Second World War

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/a-quick-guide-to-japans-role-in-the-second-world-war

Teruko Yahata, a World War II Hiroshima atomic bombing survivor harrowing narrative, should be presented with lessons that must be learnt from Japan involvement that brought such horrific consequences, the tragic human cost into J classroom.

There is a far wider a more fundamental message to Japan role in World War II, that led to the devastation wreaked upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, occupation, then a perceived rehabilitation of the Japanese state.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

If the US was carrying out indiscriminate bombings

They didn't. They distanced themselves from Dresden and the bombing raids on other non military targets in Germany.

Until they got islands that gave their bombers range of Japan's major cities. The Tokyo air raid is a prime example of how Germany and Japan were treated differently by the US. Years of "yellow peril" propaganda made Japan " the most likely target" for the new A bomb. The Nagasaki one (much more powerful) at least was definitely unnecessary.

Nott one Japanese person I know that I have talked on the topic thinks what America did was justified. Japan and Germany were brainwashed extreme fascist states. America was a democracy government that should have known better than to do what did.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Nott one Japanese person I know that I have talked on the topic thinks what America did was justified. Japan and Germany were brainwashed extreme fascist states. America was a democracy government that should have known better than to do what did.

According to a Gallup study done in 2015 14 % of Japanese approve Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So indeed a vast majority are against but not all.

Actually, just talked with a friend about this and she told me that it is because Japanese were so brainwashed there was no other way.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

According to a Gallup study done in 2015 14 % of Japanese approve Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So indeed a vast majority are against but not all.

That's interesting. Thanks fir sharing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

People in Japan get drummed into their heads that they are victims of war

My kids all went or go to regular Japanese schools. I don't think any history was "drummed into" them. The reality of Japanese schools is more humdrum than some Westerners imagine.

As for the lady in the story, oral history is vitally important. In her case, since she was only seven, her observations will not be as valuable as someone who witnessed the bombing as an adult, but they will still form part of how the bombs were experienced. No-one who fought in WWI is still alive, and given time the same will be true of people who experienced WWII as adults. 15 in 1939 now makes you nearly 100. We must record their memories for posterity.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Through the actions and words of peace-cherishing hibakusha such as Teruko Yahara, humanity can learn lessons that simply cannot be taught in a textbook or museum.

May the souls of all those who perished in these tragedies Rest in Peace eternally. Never again should humanity use nuclear weapons - although it remains to be seen, sadly, if totalitarian states such as Russia, China or North Korea care anything about the message from these wise and honourable hibakusha.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

They didn't. They distanced themselves from Dresden and the bombing raids on other non military targets in Germany.

The US was still involved in roughly equal share in the Dresden bombing.

Until they got islands that gave their bombers range of Japan's major cities. The Tokyo air raid is a prime example of how Germany and Japan were treated differently by the US. Years of "yellow peril" propaganda made Japan " the most likely target" for the new A bomb.

There you go again. It seems you are obsessed with the "yellow peril" argument. Well I will continue to point out that Germany was still in consideration.

The Nagasaki one (much more powerful) at least was definitely unnecessary.

That's the one that ensured you aren't speaking Russian now. You shouldn't forget that.

Nott one Japanese person I know that I have talked on the topic thinks what America did was justified. Japan and Germany were brainwashed extreme fascist states. America was a democracy government that should have known better than to do what did.

Then they aren't being educated properly. Adults should at least be able to keep two thoughts in their head at the same time. There was no Fourth Geneva Convention before 1949.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

People in Japan get drummed into their heads that they are victims of war

I don't think that is the case generally. I think most people don't think about it much until the summer months and the anniversaries of the bombs. Then it's a case of WTF??? Imagine the sun appearing 600 m above Hiroshima for a split second, which is what happened with the Hiroshima bomb, the weaker of the two. I would find that hard to get over to be honest.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

And there you go again with your raw nerve.

That's the one that ensured you aren't speaking Russian now. You shouldn't forget that.

Nagasaki was a war crime plan and simple. Don't you forget that.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Nagasaki was a war crime plan and simple. Don't you forget that.

I'm fine admitting there were war crimes all around. Are you?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I'm fine admitting there were war crimes all around. Are you?

Yep never said the Japanese were angels. You respectfully have been saying America was the perfect gentleman

What made the Pacific war so brutal?

Many Japanese soldiers refused to be taken prisoner or to take prisoners themselves. Such tactics, coupled with American racial prejudice, turned the Pacific Theater into a more brutal and barbarous conflict than the European Theater

Deeply rooted views of Asians as inferior framed the enemy threat in racial terms in the United States and other Western countries. Even before the war began, Race and War in the Pacific the media often depicted the Japanese and other Asians as animals, madmen, or childlike figures, and these views had long bolstered discriminatory policies at home and abroad. As the war progressed, American media increasingly portrayed the enemy as savage, subhuman, and bloodthirsty. The racial stereotyping was so deeply ingrained that American authorities embarked on an extensive propaganda campaign to distinguish between the “good” Asians (America’s Chinese allies) and the “barbaric” Japanese. For many Americans, Japanese wartime atrocities and the fact that many Japanese soldiers chose death over surrender seemed to confirm prejudices about the subhuman and irrational nature of the enemy.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

No, not on the same scale. Only Japan and Germany created that level of widespread barbaric and evil acts.

Nagasaki was the biggest single act of death and destruction ever my; worst still on a civilian population. The bomb was much bigger than the Hiroshima bomb , dropped on a country that was well and truly defeated considering Hiroshima had pulled off.

The ethics of the Hiroshima bomb is another kettle of fish

2 ( +5 / -3 )

You respectfully have been saying America was the perfect gentleman

I never said that.

What made the Pacific war so brutal?

Many Japanese soldiers refused to be taken prisoner or to take prisoners themselves. Such tactics, coupled with American racial prejudice, turned the Pacific Theater into a more brutal and barbarous conflict than the European Theater

Deeply rooted views of Asians as inferior framed the enemy threat in racial terms in the United States and other Western countries. Even before the war began, Race and War in the Pacific the media often depicted the Japanese and other Asians as animals, madmen, or childlike figures, and these views had long bolstered discriminatory policies at home and abroad. As the war progressed, American media increasingly portrayed the enemy as savage, subhuman, and bloodthirsty. The racial stereotyping was so deeply ingrained that American authorities embarked on an extensive propaganda campaign to distinguish between the “good” Asians (America’s Chinese allies) and the “barbaric” Japanese. For many Americans, Japanese wartime atrocities and the fact that many Japanese soldiers chose death over surrender seemed to confirm prejudices about the subhuman and irrational nature of the enemy.

You're actually going to claim that American racism made the Pacific war so brutal. I believe the 10 million Chinese and the brutalized POWs would have liked to had a word with you on that. Find. Better. Sources.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Find. Better. Sources.

The sources are fine.

I never said that.

Indeed. Your hurt butt says it all.

I claim nothing. I do have a bit more worldly experience than you it seems.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

However, Japan was a victim of its own desire to rule Asia and the Pacific. They only have themslves to blame.

Someday fairly soon, after an unimaginably terrible attack on the US mainland, people will be saying this about Americans.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Someday fairly soon, after an unimaginably terrible attack on the US mainland, people will be saying this about Americans.

Not likely as the world will be over, including the chump nation that launched the attack.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Victim mentality by those that started a war with the US with a sneak attack, invaded other countries, killed millions, and allied with Nazi Germany. Using the bombs was justified and the Japanese gov’t could’ve prevented them by surrendering. The notion that civilian population were innocent isn’t true. The vast majority wholeheartedly supported the war of aggression. Doesn’t sound like victims to me.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Which is more significant to history

if I had to choose, which I don't normally do, industrially manufactured weapons of mass destruction that can wipe cities and their populations of the face of the earth instantaneously are most significant in history and the future.

I'm not sure were you got your estimate death toll from I think it is fundamentally unknown

Admit it, the bombs were war crimes and deployed with racial intent.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You're actually going to claim that American racism made the Pacific war so brutal. I believe the 10 million Chinese and the brutalized POWs would have liked to had a word with you on that. Find. Better. Sources.

Well, if they could talk I would be willing to listen. (No disrespect intended)

I wonder what Teruko Yahata (the subject of this article) has to say to Uncle Sam. You could drop her a line.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I know two survivors. A woman from Hiroshima and a man from Nagasaki. They both told me their stories in detail. Either blamed the US or expressed any hate. They both blamed the imperial government for starting the war. They didn't go across as being victims.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Teruko Yahata - A very wonderful Japanese Lady!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Can one tell that there was no line drawn between civilians and professional soldiers?

No, because in reality the overwhelming majority of the soldiers in WW2, from all sides, we in FACT civilians either volunteering, or being forcibly conscripted into the service of their country.

Oh and in Japan, "civilians" were expected to give their lives in defense of Japan, if it came to that, so to your misguided logic, ALL civilians in Japan were "quasi" (a word you love to use) soldiers!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Sooner or later the penny will drop.

The Governments Russia and China will not, I suggest ever comply with any form of disarmament or non-proliferation treaty. India, Israel, Pakistan have refused any efforts of negotiation.

North Korea, Iran is activity developing a next generation nuclear capability.

Appeasement will not protect Japan from the aggression that Russia and China represents.

It never has and never will.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Elvis is here: "An outright apology from the US president would be a good step in the right direction."

Japan's consequences have actions, and what's more, most politicians won't even admit those actions, and did Kishida apologize to Korea the other day? Nope. He went a little farther than some and said he'd "Stand behind previous administrations," but as said, most of those admins won't admit the facts and in fact claim everything Japan did was to benefit the world. Heck, they gave Taiwan the ability to take baths and read, "Which is why Taiwan loves us!" If Japan had not been doing the things it did, they would not have been bombed. Period. It was a heinous crime, absolutely -- a war crime in my opinion -- but until Japan is held to account for its own actions it should not demand any apologies or have proxies that do.

And on that note, as I suspected when I heard Hiroshima would be chosen for this summit, Japan is instead of a victim tour. If that's NOT the case and you think I'm being extreme, why not invite Nanking Massacre survivors to also speak of the horrors of war? Ukrainian refugees... err, wait, "evacuees"? Korean sex slaves to speak on the horrors of war and the victimization of women in them? Nah... it's all about Japan and how they have suffered.

Good on this woman for speaking of her experiences, but I hope she also talks about the horrors of what Japan did too to bring that suffering about, and how ALL are victims of war in the end.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites