Quote:
Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL
My first reaction: "Aren't these the same people that, when they knew they were losing, locked POWs in barracks and set fire to said barracks??"
My second reaction: " It was 65 years ago, maybe the best thing for the world is to let it be in the past and move forward. A simple apology doesn't hurt anyone. "
Am I the only conflicted one?
|
The Japanese are, IMHO, culturally in denial about their military aggression as the primary cause of WW II in the PTO, and the atrocities that their soldiers committed, not just against the US military, but against military and civilians in virtually every country that they invaded. China and the Phillipines spring immediately to mind as examples.
Perhaps if they were to apologize and accept the fact that they started the war in the Pacific (many years before Pearl Harbor) and their crimes against humanity, they would see that the measures we took to end the war, while harsh, were no more than was reasonable at the time.
Burned to death by a nuke or an incendiary is all the same to me. I do not see a nuclear weapon as anything more than a time and space saver. Dead is dead. Would the Japanese be happier if we took the time and resources to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki into rubble like Tokyo, then burned them to the ground conventionally and conducted an amphibious invasion of the island, losing a million American lives and the majority of their civilian population in the process? Look at the civilian casualties from Okinawa (including suicides) as a predictor.
I do not see an apology being necessary. Both sides did what they had to. The Imperial Japanese could have either not attacked the US, or sued for peace at any time they chose, which they did, after the two nuclear weapons were employed. I have no issue with the targeting decision. The intent was to get the Emperor and his military staff to see the futility, suffering and cost to the Japanese people of protracting the lost campaign.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR