COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.

Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you think Prime Minister Shinzo Abe should visit Pearl Harbor to reciprocate for President Barack Obama’s historic trip to Hiroshima?

71 Comments
© Japan Today

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

71 Comments
Login to comment

There is something to learn from Hiroshima, as Obama pointed out: we can not destroy the human species. Is that alright? What is there to learn from Pearl Harbor. It will just remind Americans of how bad there self-defence is. Just like 9/11.

-16 ( +7 / -23 )

Don't hold your breath, hard to play the victim card when placing flowers inside the Arizona Memorial

9 ( +11 / -2 )

No, I wouldn't hold my breath either. No sincerity in this guy's actions or words, either.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

It would be nice if we invited Abe and he accepted.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

It would be nice if we invited Abe and he accepted.

That would require too much class from Japan. America has never invited a Japanese politician to Pearl Harbor, because doing so would be very uncomfortable to the Japanese. On the other hand, Japan has repeatedly invited heads-of-state to Hiroshima for decades.

What Japan seems to be avoiding is that it was Japan itself who caused the atomic bombs to be dropped. Japan also avoids the train of thought which leads to the idea that Japan's starting the war caused the invention of nuclear weapons. And had Japan not started the war, these weapons might not been built by the thousands, and threatening every living thing in the world. It is a sobering thought, far too painful for them to contemplate, but certainly possible.

In war, bad things happen, atrocities occur, both sides commit them. But the party which starts the war is responsible for all bad things and all atrocities committed by both sides. Had Japan not started the war, tens of millions would not have been killed, the bombs would never been contemplated, developed, and dropped.

6 ( +14 / -8 )

No. For what? What's done is done. It would be better if they visit places in china, korea, philippines and apologize there.

But, It'll never happen. Look at Louis Zamperini's captors. Years after the war Zamperini wanted to reconcile with his Japanese captors, but they refused. Pride stings.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I know Pearl Harbor was unprovoked, but at least it was a military target...not something we can say about Hiroshima or Nagasaki (at least considering the uncontained scope of the damage)

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

I would be embarrassed if Abe went to Pearl Harbor. He is a war monger. The last prime ministor who could have gone to Pearl Harbor with dignity was Eissaku Sato. And remember that for several decades the US and Japanese soldiers met once a year for a baseball game at Pearl Harbor? That is more significant.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

sangetsu03MAY. 30, 2016 - 09:14AM JST

On the other hand, Japan has repeatedly invited heads-of-state to Hiroshima for decades.

No. Wikileaks showed Japanese government actually discouraged President Obama's visit to Hiroshima a few years ago.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Do you think Prime Minister Shinzo Abe should visit Pearl Harbor to reciprocate for President Barack Obama’s historic trip to Hiroshima?

If he had ANY shred of decency he would. Which means that he will not go.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

No, because I do not think history should remember him for this and it will be a waste of occasion, It will server Japan better to have a real sincere prime minister doing that step.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I know Pearl Harbor was unprovoked, but at least it was a military target...not something we can say about Hiroshima or Nagasaki (at least considering the uncontained scope of the damage)

Hiroshima was the headquarters for Japan's chemical and biological weapons program, Nagasaki was one of Japan's largest ports. And Japan did was Germany did as factories and military infractructure was destroyed, they moved these into people's homes and neighborhoods. The war was unwinnable for the Japanese, but they refused to surrender. Stalin was fast approaching, hoping to take vengeance for the Russian navy's defeat earlier in the century, and to claim as much of Japan as Soviet territory as possible, further extending his reach into Asia. Had the bombs not been dropped, Japan would have become a divided nation, like Germany or Korea.

And when it comes to killing civilians, Japan killed far more civilans than soldiers during the war.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

Abe does not have the honour to visit Pearl Harbor, and does not deserve the honour. You can't be the victim when you have to admit your crimes.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

One could argue that Pearl Harbour (underhanded though it was) was a military target - whereas Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not. In that light Abe should go to Nanking, where 200,000 to 300,000 civilians were brutally murdered by the Imperial Japanese Army. Considering that Mr Abe was educated in the US, I do find it puzzling that he does not want to visit Pearl Harbour

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

I do not think it was necessary for Obama to visit Hiroshima, nor do I find it necessary for Abe to visit Pearl Harbor. I would rather they spend time and effort earnestly discussing how to prevent future wars.

WWII was terrible with atrocities committed by all sides.

I do think it was classy for Obama to visit Hiroshima. These visits become highly politicized however which is unnecessary and does not really accomplish anything.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I do not think it was necessary for Obama to visit Hiroshima, nor do I find it necessary for Abe to visit Pearl Harbor. I would rather they spend time and effort earnestly discussing how to prevent future wars.

Agree, but a cry in the wilderness to the unicorn riders and rainbow walkers who think Obama's visit did "something". As well as flying in the face of reality for those who fail to inform themselves that Obama has increased our nuke capabilities more than Bush The Younger.

He is a war monger.

So Abe and Obama DO have some things in common.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

sangetsu03, you are spilling too much of BS here.

sangetsu03MAY. 30, 2016 - 09:14AM JST

Japan's starting the war caused the invention of nuclear weapons. And had Japan not started the war, these weapons might not been built by the thousands, and threatening every living thing in the world. It is a sobering thought, far too painful for them to contemplate, but certainly possible.

During WW2, the main concern of Americans was the war in Europe, and the war in the Pacific was overshadowed. In addition, US government would have made the scientists invent A-bombs regardless of Japan, for it could not lag behind the development race of nuclear weapons with Germany and Russia. Saying "Japan's starting the war caused the invention of nuclear weapons", is rewriting of history.

In war, bad things happen, atrocities occur, both sides commit them. But the party which starts the war is responsible for all bad things and all atrocities committed by both sides.

No, it is not. Think of this case. Iraq started the war in the Middle East. Is Iraq responsible for Abu Ghraib? Obviously, the country which violated the international law is responsible for the violation, regardless of which started the war.

Had Japan not started the war, tens of millions would not have been killed, the bombs would never been contemplated, developed, and dropped.

Killing of civilians is prohibited by Hague Convention on War on Land. The country which mass slaughtered civilians bear the responsibility.

sangetsu03MAY. 30, 2016 - 11:45AM JST

Hiroshima was the headquarters for Japan's chemical and biological weapons program,

That is most surely untrue.

Nagasaki was one of Japan's largest ports.

Being a civilian port does not make is a military target.

The war was unwinnable for the Japanese, but they refused to surrender.

Because US insisted on "unconditional" surrender.

to claim as much of Japan as Soviet territory as possible, further extending his reach into Asia. Had the bombs not been dropped, Japan would have become a divided nation, like Germany or Korea.

Regardless of the A-bombs, Japan surrendered and accepted US occupation to avoid communism. This is clear from the Japanese documents during the last days of WW2.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

What I would like to see is President Obama visit Pearl Harbour - which right now he has NO plans to do.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Reciprocate? That's a funny thing to say. Pearl Harbor cannot be compared with the atomic bombings. Many of those who suggest that Abe should Pearl Harbor visit seem to be forgetting the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack on a military base, whereas the US atomic bombings were done against civilian non-combatants, most of whom were women, children and elderly people. I am very grateful that the incumbent US president visited Hiroshima at last to pay respect to the A-bomb victims. If Abe should visit PH, it would only diminish the significance of Obama's historic trip to Hiroshima.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

No. I've had more than enough of seeing Abe sniffing around Obama' ring piece.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yes, Abe should visit Pearl Harbour, but only after going to Nanjing.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

I agree with Wc626 and gonemad. He should pay if forward and visit Asia. But knowing him, he would make a visit to Yasukuni immediately afterward to completely cancel out any good it might do.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

What exactly is an insincere apology from a neofascist Nationalist worth these days?

Diddly squat.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Because US insisted on "unconditional" surrender.

You don'r remember the treaty of Versailles? And how a conditional surrender after the first war set the stage for a far larger and more deadly war? The US and the allies were completely right to demand an unconditional surrender. There was no way they were willing to make the same mistake twice, and risk the deaths of further millions in later times.

Killing of civilians is prohibited by Hague Convention on War on Land. The country which mass slaughtered civilians bear the responsibility.

100,000 or so civilians died building the Thailand-Burma railroad as slave laborers. Countless other thousands died in similar projects around Asia. Japan tortured and killed tens of thousands of prisoners of war. Both things are prohibited by the Hague and Geneva conventions. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese were tortured, raped, and killed. The news of these atrocities naturally reached the allies, and this of course would color the allies' attitude when fighting against the Japanese, and encourage allied soldiers to do a little "payback."

Once again, Japan started the war, and killed tens of millions of living human beings. No bombs would have been dropped, no surrender necessary, had this not happened. Stop trying to justify the actions of Japan and blame America and the allies for the results of the war, as your posts seem to imply.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I know Pearl Harbor was unprovoked, Japan's starting the war What Japan seems to be avoiding is that it was Japan itself who caused the atomic bombs to be dropped.

Wasn't there a sequence of actions of which Pearl Harbour was a part? E.g. the UK killed tens of millions with drugs and starvation over the previous 2 centuries in India and China, and the Japanese could see that they were likely to be next in line unless they got strong and did similar. I think that all this "you started it, so you are to blame" is cobblers. The killing of Chinese in China, and Americans in Pearl harbour, was perpetrated in the context of colossal empire -- killing for profit -- that the Japanese started to do too, partly but not solely, in self-defence.

Iraq started the war in the Middle East.

This seems very unlikely to me too. How did Iraq "start" the war? The partitioning of Kuwait from Iraq may have been partly a British divide and conquer thing, as part of empire building, for cash.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

First: War is War just as Survival is Survival Second: What is it to be Human, or Humane, or Honor, or Righteous in, during and after a war?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Obama waited till the end of his Presidency for his visit to Hiroshima. Abe will most likely not be able to repay President Obama for this debt. Wounds take time to heal and Hawaii has maybe the best weather around - any date in Hawaii is a good date (easy to arrange).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

One can never recover time used. Once past it is gone.

One may learn from the time used (the actions taken) and from that wisdom gained take better action to get better results. But to dwell on the past like an accountant only burdens the future. Let the past be in the past. There is so much we need to do now and in the future. When the time comes for each of us to give up our time, let the past be good memories of the past that helped to shape the future we endeavor to build.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama did not come to HIroshima to aplogize but to appeal for nuclear disarmament. Nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Besides, Hawaii was stolen from Hawaiians by USA.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Yes, but the president should be there too and while he can regret the loss of life he probably shouldn't apologize either. While Pearl Harbour was a sneak attack and Hiroshima was genocide, the logic of not apologising for Hiroshima applies to Pear Harbour, more so probably. Not to mention Pearl Harbour was carried out by a non democratic regime that had ceased power by violence, Hiroshima was carried out by western democracies that still exist today.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Obama did not come to HIroshima to aplogize but to appeal for nuclear disarmament. Nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

Right on!

Besides, Hawaii was stolen from Hawaiians by USA.

Oh, boy! "Besides", Japan surprise attacking Pearl Harbor has nothing to do with Hawaii being stolen by the USA. ( I'm in total agreement with that last part by the way; but it's totally irrelevant) And before you you start dropping morality, Okinawa didn't bequeath itself to Japan as gift, either. The point is is that Obama came to Hiroshima and talked to hibakusha; the question is whether or not Abe has the integrity to do the same. If not at Pearl Harbor, at least China, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, etc? And it doesn't mean an apology with one's fingers crossed. Will he actually go to those places and talk to the victims like Obama did? But by the way you always seem to deny and whitewash everything I think we all know the answer to that, right? Because Japan never did anything wrong in WW2, right? Everyone is just picking on poor, little innocent Japan, right? Japan suffered more than anyone else, right?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Ok. Obama visited only one city. This is true. So I guess you're still unsatisfied with even this, right? Not until we all grovel on the ground and proclaim Japan the ultimate victim, right? How many Japanese PMs have visited a city violated by the IJA? And yes, I've heard about the late message theory and the theory that says the US knew about the attack in advance. But I've also heard that the US dropped leaflets over Hiroshima before they dropped the bomb, but that the leaflets were crumbled up and tossed away as enemy propaganda.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ok. Obama visited only one city. This is true. So I guess you're still unsatisfied with even this, right?

I never cared about Obama's whereabout. The question was about reciprocation. so I said it was not an equal reciprocation at all.

How many Japanese PMs have visited a city violated by the IJA?

It is hard to tell what is violation but Japan has visited many places and apologized many many times. The Japanese are not small ass like some people. Japan has good relations with all countries except China/SK/USA.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Japan has good relations with all countries except China/SK/USA.

What about the UK ? France? They were (hope they still are) hardcore American allies too.

It is hard to tell what is violation

Not that hard; the sex slaves; the occupations of korea, formosa, manchukuo; Nanjing etc. Was Hitler's systematic extermination of jews a "violation." Imperial Japan was allied with Hitler, so maybe not huh.

Japan still has a black-eye with, Tina's kind of logic.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Japan has been to many places...

I mean as a conciliatory gesture, a gesture of Japan's acknowledgement and atonement for its imperial past. Where has a Japanese prime minister gone in this capacity?

the US knew about Pearl Harbor in advance ...

Japan was just following the European model...

It's sad that you guys actually believe this. What a classic example of how Japan dodges any responsibility and blames others for what it did.

Getting back to the original question. It's a stupid question because Japan apparently didn't do anything wrong during the war and therefore have nothing to reciprocate or be apologetic about.

Alright then, good morning , good afternoon , and good night.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

PM and Emperor and Empress visited all of Asia.

Don't give me a vague and meaningless answer like this. Tell me specifically, when and where, a Japanese PM has gone to places victimized by the IJA in the same capacity as Obama did in Hiroshima. And that doesn't mean to apologize; Obama didn't apologize. But tell me when and where a Japanese PM went and seriously reflected on the actions of Japan and embraced such victims. So far, all Japan's ruling politicians, much like yourself, are being dishonest and in denial about the comfort women and Nanking despite there being overwhelming evidence. The Japanese army even took photos of their atrocities! Japanese scientists of unit 731 have admitted to what they did in exchange for exoneration because the US wanted their secrets! Japan set up comfort stations in China as well as Korea!

It was legal annexation ...

You're being very incoherent right now. Just above you berated the US for stealing Hawaii which was a legal "annexation" in the way you're using the term to justify Japan's colonization of Korea. You're not making any sense which makes me believe you're not actually thinking about what you're saying but regurgitating some crap you picked up from an ultra nationalist blog or something.

Japan's current generation shouldn't have to bear the responsibility of what their ancestors did 70 years ago, but denying facts and trying to present the country as blameless is a dishonorable way to proceed.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

WWII is over. Thousands of battles were fought and millions died everywhere.

No use pointing out specific battles and prolonging these endless commemorations.

MOVE ON.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You can only laugh at the people who think Japan woke up one day and said, "Hey, let's go attack Pearl Harbor!"

3 ( +4 / -1 )

You can only laugh at the people who think Japan woke up one day and said, "Hey, let's go attack Pearl Harbor!"

Well, ignoring the fact that logically this indeed did happen, he who strikes the first blow is in the wrong.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

PM Abe should be encouraged NOT to visit Pearl Harbor, and even disallowed from visiting.

I would have wholeheartedly welcomed a visits to Pearl Harbor by former PMs Noda or Murayama who were willing to face uncomfortable truths and act with diplomacy in dealing with Japan's neighbors.

PM Abe, however, is not qualified to visit Pearl Harbor as long has he continues his strategy of actively denying Japan's past wrongdoings through government committees and working groups whose purpose is to whitewash history in schools and the media both in Japan and abroad, and as long as he insists on sanctioning government visits to war glorifying Yasukuni.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan was victimized by USA. Tokyo Tribunal was nothing but retaliation by the 11 war winner judges, which was illegal by the international law. There was only 1 judge of international law expert (from India which was England colony) said that Tokyo Tribunal was illegal.

The real war criminals were Churchil, Roosevelt, and Truman. But The presiding judge (William Webb?from Aussie) answered "This court is to criminalize only Japan" He was such an idot. He knew Tokyo Tribunal had no jurisdiction. Later he admitted the tribunal was mistake.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

Japan didn't drop a nuclear weapon on Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima are not nearly in the same category. Pearl harbor wasn't obliterated by a nuclear weapon and Obamas visit and speech were related to that- the abolishment of nuclear weapons (despite the irony of the US holding the largest storage of nuclear weapons in the world...).

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan was victimized by USA...

Yes, Tina... We know... Japan was a victim of WW2.

There was only 1 judge of international law expert...

Be happy there weren't any Chinese, Korean, or Philippine judges.

The US was pretty lenient. Hirohito got away scott free. All the blame was shoved on to only 14. This allowed Japan to view themselves as victims and teach victimhood to further generations. The truth is is that the death toll from Japan throughout Asia is around 14 million which is why it's referred to as the Asian holocaust. But because the US only charged four, and let the emperor, a.k.a., God, go, Japan has wrongfully categorized itself as a victim. And Abe and his kind will never demonstrate the courage, class, and honor to go to Asian countries and man up.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The attack of Pearl Harbor was military against military.... The Nuclear Bombing of the civilian population of men women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an atrocity and unforgivable. Obama is a low life loser for insinuating the PM Abe should visit Pearl Harbor.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Obama is a low life loser for insinuating the PM Abe should visit Pearl Harbor.

I wouldn't say a loser. Obama should've suggested Abe visit Nanking instead. The death toll there was greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Reciprocate is not the right word to use. If it's you scratched my back now I'll scratch your's mentality then hello no don't go.

It all depends upon the intent and sincerity of the message intended to be given. It should NOT just be a message for America but the world, and Abe's sincerity is paramount, otherwise it's a meaningless gesture.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The death toll there was greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.

Without evidence, you can make it any greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.

It should NOT just be a message for America but the world

SA/China/SK are not the world in case you don't know. The rest of the world didn't care (neither the majority of the Japanese) about Obama's Hiroshima visit, why would they care where Abe visit? Stop stick to the past like Chinese or Koreans.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

SA/China/SK are not the world in case you don't know. T

Over a quarter of the world's population lives in the region, that's one thing. Another thing, it should be a message to the world, and if you took your blinders off you would see why.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The war ended over 70 years ago. Can we move on? There are very pressing problems today, with the fate of the world economy, the world environment and the world's people hanging in the balance. It drives me crazy to see politicians who should be looking forward and trying to find solutions instead bickering over history and who should apologize to who.

It's like Game of Thrones in real life. Small leaders tackling smaller issues while the fate of humanity is left to the Whitewalkers.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The war ended over 70 years ago. Can we move on?

Sadly no. And for a host of reasons, ONE being the introduction of the internet into the equation that was never available until relatively recently. Because of the 'net, more propaganda and misinformation from all sides is now instantly disseminated throughout the world.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

He should have paid his respects at Pearl Harbor prior to Obama's Hiroshima visit.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If he dressed in a Hawaiian shirt, shorts, Giants cap, and flip flops, nobody would recognize him. Thousands of Japanese come to Pearl Harbor every year and they enjoy a very memorable day. Is an apology necessary by either side? No! The point is it is time to say, "Let's agree to disagree." The threat is NK - the neighborhood knows it and so does the USA.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Can we move on? There are very pressing problems today, with the fate of the world economy, the world environment and the world's people hanging in the balance. It drives me crazy to see politicians who should be looking forward and trying to find solutions instead bickering over history and who should apologize to who.

Sure. After Japan acknowledges what we are moving on from. At present most people have no idea.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Why should Abe visit Pearl Harbor when Obama already apologized for the US' aggression by visiting Hiroshima".

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Why should Abe visit Pearl Harbor when Obama already apologized for the US' aggression by visiting Hiroshima".

DO you know the difference between paying respects and apologizing?

1 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama already apologized for the US' aggression by visiting Hiroshim

Obama didn't apologize.

2 ( +3 / -2 )

YubaruJUN. 01, 2016 - 05:28AM JSTDO you know the difference between paying respects and apologizing?

So what your saying is that "heartfelt apology" is not paying respect? Do you know what paying respect is? The 1995 statement issued by then PM Murayama and the 2005 statement by former PM Koizumi both included “heartfelt apology” for the suffering Japan inflicted on the peoples of other nations through its colonial rule and acts of aggression. How many times do you want Japan to continue your "paying respect tour" that will satisfy you? Next stop: Seoul, Nanking, Manila, Old Burma, Singapore, Australia, New Guinea, England, France, Holland....etc. Mr. Abe will have to get a frequent flyer miles card.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So what your saying is that "heartfelt apology" is not paying respect? Do you know what paying respect is?

First off my comment was not directed toward any post that YOU made, unless you have two accounts here.

But in response to this....yes I do.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Paying heartfelt respects would be...enacting laws to make war crimes denial (and that of existing apologies) a crime

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Nope. I'm simply suggesting Japan follows Germany's example. They have no intention of repealing laws denying the Holocaust, and why should they? Those laws have permitted Germany to reconcile with its neighbours, and to be forgiven. You don't see Merkel laying wreaths at the site of the Reichs Chancellery in Berlin. Japan hasn't done this, so old wounds have still been left open. Granted, China may at times use Japan's 1931-1945 war of aggression for its own political ends, but Japan is doing nothing to defuse the situation by allowing politicians to visit Yasukuni shrine, or by pushing a revisionist agenda. So in that light, Abe could show some of Obama's statesmanship by being the first Japanese Prime Minister to visit Nanking.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No.

Pearl is in no way analogous to Hiroshima.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

No! Those who dwell in the past will always live in the past, those who accept the past and move on, will learn from the Past and lead to better future for all!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Better to invite him to go to Nanking and place a reef there. Better than building reefs in the Pacific.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, I think that would be an act that at least a little will close some wounds that are still kind of bleeding....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

We are in agreement!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What a silly comparison. Obama's going to Hiroshima was keeping in line with recognizing the horrors of atomic (now nuclear) weapons, and the dire stakes involved in the unleashing of the atom's power and how we must work to avoid such a weapon's use. Pearl Harbor is of such a de minimis nature that it bears no comparison. Certainly, it was a heinous act that eventually brought about the defeat of Japan via-a-vis the USA's ire but historically and politically the two events are of entirely different calibers and significances. Japan engaging in an act of remembrance and recognition concerning Pearl Harbor would be a meritorious act, but it should not be linked to atomic-age events, for better or worse.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Because of the 'net, more propaganda and misinformation from all sides is now instantly disseminated throughout the world.

Apparently not for Chinese and Koreans. As of course, their objective is not about finding out the truth.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

their objective is not about finding out the truth.

I find this to be very ironic. The facts are these: Japan attacked Pearl Harbour - a military installation - and caused about 2,000 casualties. Earlier Japan raped and murdered 200-300,000 people in Nanking. So personally I think the latter place is more deserving of a visit by Abe.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

There is no need for Japan to be political correct under Western definition. Obama's visit was merely a political charade as well.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Pearl Harbor to reciprocate

No matter what you think, Hiroshima and Pearl Harbor are not reciprocal events.

Japan engaging in an act of remembrance and recognition concerning Pearl Harbor

The Japanese have never denied it. J-officials have been to a million of ceremonies about Japan doing the war to the US. There were no such event yet in Pearl Harbor ? Abe and the Emperor could go, nobody really cares. But the Americans prefer taking them to Arlington to cry over the war. In Hawaii, there are topics the US prefers avoiding.

in Nanking. So personally I think the latter place is more deserving of a visit by Abe.

You're talking as if he had been invited. In real life, Beijing would never let him go there.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Abe's visit to Pearl Harbor would be a good idea, however, before he does that, don't you think he should apologize to China for Nanking? The Japanese killed more people there than the US did with the bombings. Ah, how quickly we seem to forget........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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