MacAurthur

[tohoku]

Originally posted by mdiehl
"Are you saying we should have invaded or stood of the coasts getting kamikazied daily for another 3-9 months while Japan finally starved into submission? "

I think it is more likely that American analysts would have decided that manpower casualties in ground assault were not worth the cost. We'd probably have continued the strategic bombing effort and blockade through 1946. After a 50 or 70 million Japanese civilian deaths, the Emperor's Advisors would have come around to the Unconditional Surrender demand or they'd have been assassinated.

IMO, the biggest problem *was* the US unconditional surrender demand. It lengthened the war by several months.

The Japanese were already trying to surrender (through the Swiss). They had even got to the point (a week before the US atomic attack) of asking to surrender so long as the Emperor wasn't tried as a war criminal. But the US would have none of it. Given that, there's not much point in surrendering - you may as well continue fighting when your enemy has specifically stated they reserve the right to do anything they want to you once you lose.

Unilateral statements are apt to lead to bad results for all concerned. Bush II doesn't seem to have learnt this lesson of history.



tohoku
YMMV

[mdiehl]

"Really - can anyone imagine the US backing down in the face of an Asian nation even for the sake of peace? I can't."

I can. 1. Korea, in which the US backed down in the face of China rather than unify the peninsula under southern rule. 2. Viet Nam, in which the US backed down in face of China rather than unify the country under southern rule. 3. The Phillippines, in which a vocal majority of the populace said "please get out" to the US installations at Clark and the US, to their surprise (and economic demise), said "OK."

Japan casts the US as the irresolute party in this in much the same way that the Old South claims that the War of the Rebellion had primarily to do with "states rights" rather than slavery. It's after-the-fact extemporaneous excuse-making. The US position vis a vis China, prior to the Truman administration, was decolonialism. If Japan had come up with an economic development plan in China that involved international access and cooperation with the United States, there'd have been no war. Heck, there probably would have been a Pacific Rim Golden Age The problem with Japan was that the Army was calling the shots, and self-interest was allowed to take priorty over national interest.

The Japanese apology is warranted because history matters to its vicitms. An apology is not needed to the US as a people, because the US did not suffer all *that* badly. Rather to the POWs, and to Koreans, Phillippinos and Chinese. Their experience with the Japanese makes the revisionist Japanese claim to 'merely have wanted freedom for Asians' an *ongoing* tragic joke.

And, no, Japan was not about to surrender. And no, "No war crimes trial for the Emperor" was not the only sticking point. See the recent book Downfall, by, uh, Richard Frank I think.

[CynicAl]

Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard B Frank, from Penguin Books, ISBN# 0-14-100146-1. BookCloseOuts.com has a really good price on this book right now, at http://www.bookcloseouts.com/bc/display ... &pagenum=1 .

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by mdiehl
"Really - can anyone imagine the US backing down in the face of an Asian nation even for the sake of peace? I can't."

I can. 1. Korea, in which the US backed down in the face of China rather than unify the peninsula under southern rule. 2. Viet Nam, in which the US backed down in face of China rather than unify the country under southern rule. 3. The Phillippines, in which a vocal majority of the populace said "please get out" to the US installations at Clark and the US, to their surprise (and economic demise), said "OK."

Japan casts the US as the irresolute party in this in much the same way that the Old South claims that the War of the Rebellion had primarily to do with "states rights" rather than slavery. It's after-the-fact extemporaneous excuse-making. The US position vis a vis China, prior to the Truman administration, was decolonialism. If Japan had come up with an economic development plan in China that involved international access and cooperation with the United States, there'd have been no war. Heck, there probably would have been a Pacific Rim Golden Age The problem with Japan was that the Army was calling the shots, and self-interest was allowed to take priorty over national interest.

The Japanese apology is warranted because history matters to its vicitms. An apology is not needed to the US as a people, because the US did not suffer all *that* badly. Rather to the POWs, and to Koreans, Phillippinos and Chinese. Their experience with the Japanese makes the revisionist Japanese claim to 'merely have wanted freedom for Asians' an *ongoing* tragic joke.

And, no, Japan was not about to surrender. And no, "No war crimes trial for the Emperor" was not the only sticking point. See the recent book Downfall, by, uh, Richard Frank I think.

You go Mdiehl, and not a single statistic sited.

I just cant believe we actually agree for once.

[GET TRANSPT]

Originally posted by mdiehl
[

The US position vis a vis China, prior to the Truman administration, was decolonialism. If Japan had come up with an economic development plan in China that involved international access and cooperation with the United States, there'd have been no war.

[/B]

I've read many xenophobic, myopic posts from the US (not reflective of all of us, really), but this this one got me to reply because of its arrogance. I wonder (not much effort really needed) what "phillippinos" as you name-colonize Filipinos, think about Douglas MacArthur's father and how he helped, uh, "non colonize" the Philippines from 1899-1902.

Similarly, not much wonder nor effort is needed to see what China as a whole thought about US "access and cooperation" with Chiang's corrupt and venal despotism pre-1949. And Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1910s, 20s and 30s? Can't blame Truman or Japan for that Banana Republicanism.

Colonialism in the 20th century isn't a bunch of European guys in bush hats with porters beatng the bush: it's Coca Cola, Exxon, Ford, IBM, GM ,and yes, Microsoft; US based multi- and supra- national corporations staffed by arrogant functionaries who are the last to feel its nefarious effects. Colonialism isn't juts economic-- it's psychological, linguistic and pedagogic. It's notbale in the logorrhea of quotes and citations that self righteous US colonial authors are deployed to support US colonialism with attendant colonization of language. Colonialism still continues, and seeing it supported TODAY on this list by deflecting the responsibility for its insidiousness on Japan of the 1940s is silly and disingenuous.

but oh so colonial

[mdiehl]

Get Transpt writes:

"I've read many xenophobic, myopic posts ... [yadayada]... is silly and disingenuous. "

I'll ignore all your pejoratives, and oblique smears at my intention. I'll assume that you were being so hasty that you did not spend any time thinking about was said. "You are," as Pete Townsend said, "forgiven," whether you like it or not.

There's no disputing that many Americans in the PI treated Phillippinos like chattel. There is also no disputing that, uniquely among colonial powers, (well, there was Hong Kong), the US set timetables for handing over the administration of the PI, Panama, and Cuba to local governments. Nothing in this implies any generosity towards the locals. Only that American military imperialism was different, ** prior to the late Truman and Eisenhower admins.** Sadly, everything changed when American foreign policy became about opposing communists to the exclusino of remembering what we were supposed to be for.

Chiang was corrupt. The US open-door policy in China predates Chiang. The extraterritoriality agreements wrest from China are offensive. But the US did not establish any significant colonies in China, and the foreign policy goal was always equal access to development in China. That may be a kind of economic imperialism as you have implied, but it's not military imperialism, and there is a world of difference between the two, behavior-wise.

One could argue that the Sp-Am war was abject colonialism. If so, it resulted in the replacement of one colonial regime, the genocidal Spanish one, with a repugnant but far less genocidal one backed by the US. Among the World Class Skunks of the time, the US was a rather minor mustelid.

Corporate globalism is another thing entirely. Most of the examples that you mentioned, however debatable their list of offenses, post-date the Truman administration. So they do not apply to my post.

Frankly, I did not say anything arrogant. Nor did I attempt to deflect the responsibility for the world's ills on Japan. I merely remarked that Japanese unwillingness to come up with a satisfying apology to Koreans, Chinese and PIslanders hurts them deeply in an emotional and nationalist way. And bayoneting babies, raping civilians en masse, driving your own nationals off of cliffs (in Okinawa) in the thousands, enforced prostitution, brutalizing and systematically starving POWs, and the numerous other offenses are acts that warrant a Japanese apology.

I'm not an expert on Japanese apologies. I understand that they come in many more kinds and subtleties than American ones. Surely there must be some form of apology that allows one to honorably bear witness to the historical wrongs inflicted by Japan on other countries, without having to get all weepy abou it or without assuming an excessive economic responsibility. If your honor can't embrace that much, then you have no honor worth mentioning, as far as I am concerned.

[Ranger-75]

Looks like mdiehl and I are in complete agreement. I'm not going to blast get tnrspt but I will re-emphasize the importance of economic versus military imperialism. Big difference, the first you can ignore or even play off against another offer. The latter is literally "an offer that you can't refuse"

As far as tohoku's posts are concerned, I will respond to them, I just need a few days to get the Enola Gay warmed up and out of the smithsonian for a return trip to Hiroshima.

[tohoku]

Originally posted by Ranger-75

As far as tohoku's posts are concerned, I will respond to them, I just need a few days to get the Enola Gay warmed up and out of the smithsonian for a return trip to Hiroshima.

That is a surprisingly tasteless comment, even for an American.




tohoku
YMMV

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by tohoku



What it hasn't done is the sort of bending-over backwards apololgising that the likes of Germany did. But then, Germany has more to apologise for.

Hmmmm.....comfort women and allied POW's might have a different view on that.

I'd agree there are points that *do* need better airing in Japan, but the situation *isn't* as bad as ranger or some others have made out. Japan *is* facing up to it's past. It just isn't doing it at the speed some people (here) might like.

It is now 2002, the war ended in 1945....how much longer do we have to wait?????

(all this english is hurting my brain!)

Your English is as good as mine.....keep the posts coming.....I enjoy reading the view from the "other" side:)


tohoku
YMMV [/B][/QUOTE]

[Kensai]

As far as tohoku's posts are concerned, I will respond to them, I just need a few days to get the Enola Gay warmed up and out of the smithsonian for a return trip to Hiroshima.

Well, if its so funny to kill civillians, I wonder what you think about the WTC? Maybe we should make some fun about this too.

[boomboom]

What is that?

[ratster]

WTC = World Trade Center

[tohoku]

Originally posted by Raverdave


Hmmmm.....comfort women and allied POW's might have a different view on that.



It is now 2002, the war ended in 1945....how much longer do we have to wait?????


Your English is as good as mine.....keep the posts coming.....I enjoy reading the view from the "other" side:)

[/QUOTE]


I fully accept that there were things done that shouldn't have been.

The general level of treatment of POWs was below the standards required by the Conventions. In some cases it was positively inhumane, but not as widespreadedly so or with deliberate intent as some here seeming to think. (I don't want to get into this because it would take much to explain why I think this and I don't think most of the US posters would really listen.)

The forced prostitution was just wrong and this is one area where I think Japanese government *should* give a clear apology about those *forced* into it. Prostitution itself is not bad and the US should get over it's childish attitudes towards sex.

On both those things Japan *has* apologised (Japan PM apologised last year in Korea for 'comfort women') in a way. What it hasn't done is apologised in a manner that would allow lawsuits to follow... I understand this upsets the US.

But, and I think this is an equally important point, *why* are apologies important? Should *everyone* that owes one be delivering it? To be advocate, will the US be (seeing as people are demanding from Japan an apology and compensation) apologising and compensating all the Germans raped and looted from by US 1st Army in WW2?

German police recorded over 5000 instances of rape by that army, yet the US military police at the time investigated and prosecuted less than 100 cases, even though evidence in far more was provided by the police.

These days such a thing would be called a war crime (as it was then), but few in the US even know about it. And Japan is accused on living in denial... (The only book I've read in English that mentions all this was one by Max Hastings)


Where do we stop on the apology game? What's the point of it? Why are people trying to sue Japan when it was the US-mandated SF peace treaty that extinguished soldier claims? Shouldn't they be suing their own government for doing that to them?


*My* opinions is that aplogies are now pointless. Writing better histories that cover the *facts* well and try to explain the *points of view* well are more important to the future than trying to maintain past injustices and ill-will. To be honest, I think Japan is dong no worse than the US in this regard... ;-(

(Thank-you about my English. Spending five years in an English-speaking country helped lots. But trying to make argument in English still hurts my head! :-> I think everyone should spend some years living and speaking in a different country. You learn *so* much about yourself and others!)


tohoku
YMMV

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by tohoku

I fully accept that there were things done that shouldn't have been.

The general level of treatment of POWs was below the standards required by the Conventions. In some cases it was positively inhumane, but not as widespreadedly so or with deliberate intent as some here seeming to think. (I don't want to get into this because it would take much to explain why I think this and I don't think most of the US posters would really listen.)[/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry but I am yet to read of any allied POW that had an enjoyable time while being a guest of Japan during the war, it was indeed "widespread". I would look forward to your reasoning as to why you think or know that it was not.

The forced prostitution was just wrong and this is one area where I think Japanese government *should* give a clear apology about those *forced* into it. Prostitution itself is not bad and the US should get over it's childish attitudes towards sex.

The current US attitude towards sex...if they do indeed have one has no relation to what we are talking about. What we are talking about is government sanctioned and enforced slave sex, not the current US culture or attitudes.

On both those things Japan *has* apologised (Japan PM apologised last year in Korea for 'comfort women') in a way. What it hasn't done is apologised in a manner that would allow lawsuits to follow... I understand this upsets the US.

But, and I think this is an equally important point, *why* are apologies important? Should *everyone* that owes one be delivering it? To be advocate, will the US be (seeing as people are demanding from Japan an apology and compensation) apologising and compensating all the Germans raped and looted from by US 1st Army in WW2?

Apologies are an important way for victims to heal and move on, it is an acknowledgement of the fact that they were poorly done-by.

German police recorded over 5000 instances of rape by that army, yet the US military police at the time investigated and prosecuted less than 100 cases, even though evidence in far more was provided by the police.

The German women did much worse under the soviets.......at least under the US they were able to make a claim.......something that couldn't be done under the soviets...indeed there is hearsay that the soviets troops were given the "wink" to do as they pleased. This was not the case with the US troops whom if they were found guilty were charged.

These days such a thing would be called a war crime (as it was then), but few in the US even know about it. And Japan is accused on living in denial... (The only book I've read in English that mentions all this was one by Max Hastings)

Yes it is a war crime, and as I said before, those troops whom were found to be guilty were charged. As for how well known this is in the US I could not tell you as I live downunder and not in the states.

Where do we stop on the apology game? What's the point of it? Why are people trying to sue Japan when it was the US-mandated SF peace treaty that extinguished soldier claims? Shouldn't they be suing their own government for doing that to them?

Solong as there is still a living person from that time period....as for treaty that extinguished the claims.....I have not read much on that to make a response.

*My* opinions is that aplogies are now pointless. Writing better histories that cover the *facts* well and try to explain the *points of view* well are more important to the future than trying to maintain past injustices and ill-will. To be honest, I think Japan is dong no worse than the US in this regard... ;-(

I think that you better have your facts and proof ready on this one as I think that you will get a hard time from some of the Yanks on this point ! LOL !

(Thank-you about my English. Spending five years in an English-speaking country helped lots. But trying to make argument in English still hurts my head! :-> I think everyone should spend some years living and speaking in a different country. You learn *so* much about yourself and others!)

I have spent some time in Japan....Tokyo/Narita....although it was only for a SHORT time. The BEST thing about Japan??? The fact that you can still smoke in Mac Donalds

[tohoku]

Originally posted by Raverdave


Sorry but I am yet to read of any allied POW that had an enjoyable time while being a guest of Japan during the war, it was indeed "widespread". I would look forward to your reasoning as to why you think or know that it was not.


The German women did much worse under the soviets.......at least under the US they were able to make a claim.......something that couldn't be done under the soviets...indeed there is hearsay that the soviets troops were given the "wink" to do as they pleased. This was not the case with the US troops whom if they were found guilty were charged.

Yes it is a war crime, and as I said before, those troops whom were found to be guilty were charged. As for how well known this is in the US I could not tell you as I live downunder and not in the states.

POWs - what I was tryig to say was that people doing the loudest complaining always point at the worst conditions and imply such conditions were the normal. No one (with any sense!) argues that Japanese POW prisons weren't worse than US camps. *My* point is that in many instances the camps were as good as they could be - by the end of the war the guards were often in near as bad a condition as the prisoners. Together that with simply having different cultural standards and things were, well, bad, but not for the reasons often suggested.

Germanany - I don't see that the Russians being even worse somehow makes it okay what the US 1st Army did. The German police supplied the US forces with evidence to pursue the cases. The number I mentioned (less than 100) is the ones they bothered to do *anything* about. The rest of the cases were simply ignored.

Don't you have to be investigated and then charged before you can be found guilty? That's what I was trying to say: the US military didn't bother investigating even when given evidence.




tohoku
YMMV

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by tohoku



POWs - what I was tryig to say was that people doing the loudest complaining always point at the worst conditions and imply such conditions were the normal. No one (with any sense!) argues that Japanese POW prisons weren't worse than US camps. *My* point is that in many instances the camps were as good as they could be - by the end of the war the guards were often in near as bad a condition as the prisoners. Together that with simply having different cultural standards and things were, well, bad, but not for the reasons often suggested.

Well it is going to take some evidence from you before I can come anywhere near believeing that. There are just to many men here in Australia whom are still alive and still talking about their experances as POW's. Many many books have been published on this subject, and while I could agree that the guards were suffering from lack of food, it was still no-where near what the prisoners were enduring and had been through.

Germanany - I don't see that the Russians being even worse somehow makes it okay what the US 1st Army did. The German police supplied the US forces with evidence to pursue the cases. The number I mentioned (less than 100) is the ones they bothered to do *anything* about. The rest of the cases were simply ignored.

Don't you have to be investigated and then charged before you can be found guilty? That's what I was trying to say: the US military didn't bother investigating even when given evidence.

I agree that any case of rape that was not followed up correctly by the authorities of the time is just as much a crime as that of the one committed. And I was in no way trying to make any excuses, what I was pointing out is that at least the women wereable to make a complaint in the first place.......I wonder who would have listened on the soviet side???

[mdiehl]

"I fully accept that there were things done that shouldn't have been."

It's exactly this sort of wishy-washy non-admission that gets the goat. "It was a *bad call,* Ripley." and all that. "Things were done. Decisions were made." Just rubbish.

"The general level of treatment of POWs was below the standards..."

Japan had other options. "We could not afford to support the prisoners" is not a legitimate excuse. The standard alternative used when you don't want the expense of keeping prisoners is "parole." You release the prisoner on a conduct agreement that forbids the prisoner from going back into the military service for the duration of the war. Not the best way because you have no control over compliance, but it is the standard.

"The forced prostitution ... childish attitudes towards sex."

Non sequitur, as someone else pointed out. But I very much suspect that if Japanese women had been enslaved by Chinese men, Japanese would not attempt to deflect the issue on to something as inapplicable to the case as social mores.

"On both those things Japan ...."

Yeah. Maybe military retirement pay for service in the Japanese armed forces would be a better alternative than lawsuits.

"But, and I think this is an equally important point, *why* are apologies important? Should *everyone* that owes one be delivering it?"

Yes.

"To be advocate, will the US be (seeing as people are demanding from Japan an apology and compensation) apologising and compensating all the Germans raped and looted from by US 1st Army in WW2?"

Well, inasmuch as the US 1st Army did not have an apparatus for organizing, aiding and abetting such conduct I do not see why the *US* owes anyone an apology. I have no problem with criminal proceedings against soldiers who commit such offenses.

"These days such a thing would be called a war crime (as it was then), but few in the US even know about it."

It'd be called a war crime if it was organized by the military. Otherwise it'd be called a crime. If it were substantively proven that such events occurred, an apology is certainly in order, and living victims deserve compensation.

"Where do we stop on the apology game?"

You can *start* by not treating it as a "game."

"What's the point of it?"

Because history matters to its victims, and because people don't just forgive and forget. Harder to forgive and forget still when the perpetrator pretends nothing happened. Look at Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Think anyone *there* is in a hurry to just forget about the last 30 years? *Memory* is a reality that affects international events.

More importantly, no one in Korea or China is going to let Japan off the hook, no matter how many ways you try to deflect the issue. We here on this board, at least the Americans among us, are in no position to tell or even ask the Chinese or Koreans to "just drop it" even if we were inclined to do so. So, if you are happy with N. Korea or China "test firing" missiles over your island, fine.

"Why are people trying to sue Japan when it was the US-mandated SF peace treaty that extinguished soldier claims? Shouldn't they be suing their own government for doing that to them?"

Because you sue the perp first. Then you sue the perp's associates.

"To be honest, I think Japan is dong no worse than the US in this regard... ;-("

To be honest, I do not agree.

[Ranger-75]

If anybody didn't like my reference to the enola gay, theny you sure won't like what I have to say in a few days.

You want some facts tohoku?

Fact: Japan started wars of agression wagainst Korea and Manchuria in 1932. Doesn't matter what they called them, they were invasions of other countries.

Japan invaded China proper in 1937. Numerous atrocities were practiced daily against the Chinese.

Japan forced France to conced territory rights in northen indo-china in 1940.

All this time Japan was exploiting all the natural resources they could get from these areas, particularly food (rice). Koreans nearly starved each year so Japan could feed its population. Your earlier comment of japan being short on food is interesting in the light of what Japan was doing to these asian countries.

Japan invaded the southern part of indo-china in 1941. This prompted a combined US, British and Dutch embargo of among other things, oil.

in 1941 Japan having planned the operations for a full year attacked the US, Great Britain and Holland without a declaration of war.

And you wonder why we had to take extreme measures in 1945?????????

I'll be back.

[tohoku]

Originally posted by Ranger-75
If anybody didn't like my reference to the enola gay, theny you sure won't like what I have to say in a few days.

You want some facts tohoku?

I would like to discuss facts, yes. Please remember what I said about facts versus motivations earlier though.

Fact: Japan started wars of agression wagainst Korea and Manchuria in 1932. Doesn't matter what they called them, they were invasions of other countries.

If it doesn't matter what they're called why do you use the phrase "wars of aggression"? To repeat, please be careful to distinguish between 'facts' and 'beliefs'. Please try and avoid using perjorative terminology - you'll end up begging the question. Which brings me to my question: why are you getting so angry? All I did was say that your joke about Hiroshima was crass.

Also, your 'fact' that the Japanese started a war against Korea in 1932 is wrong. Japan invaded and conquered Korea much earlier than that. How can I trust the rest of your 'facts'?

Japan invaded China proper in 1937. Numerous atrocities were practiced daily against the Chinese.

A particular section of the Army invaded China without (in fact, contrary too, I think) orders. Japan, the nation state, didn't find out about it until later.

Atrocities were indeed committed. Maybe every day. (How can we *know* it as a fact? If we can't it is just emotion from you) But even so, other country military also commit attrocity during war. Maybe every day. I have never said otherwise about Japan. I *have* said that some of the things Japanese forces are accused of are, IMO, not attrocities - what one culture calls an attrocity another may not. This saying of mine is not the same as saying they never happened. I could give an example if you wanted of the culture difference about that things.

Who you judge as worse, the Japanese for committing attrocities and acknowldging they happened (but not apologising the way you want them to), or the Germans for attempting outright and organised genocide (but saying sorry afterwards), or the US for commiting attrocities (and ignoring them afterwards, not apologising at all)? Don't take this an accusation. It isn't. I'm simply trying to get you to realised that the situation is more difficult than you seem to want to think about.

Japan forced France to conced territory rights in northen indo-china in 1940.

True. So? Nation states force each other to do things. Again, the US did it. Still does - look at the force exercised against Nahru when it told the US it's fishing fleets could no longer carry out unlimited exploitation of their fisher resources. I would prefer if all nationa states stopped doing that.

All this time Japan was exploiting all the natural resources they could get from these areas, particularly food (rice). Koreans nearly starved each year so Japan could feed its population. Your earlier comment of japan being short on food is interesting in the light of what Japan was doing to these asian countries.

Japan has always had to import food, since the Restoration. Even today. What does the last sentence mean? Are you trying to imply I was not telling the truth? If not imply, then what?

Japan invaded the southern part of indo-china in 1941. This prompted a combined US, British and Dutch embargo of among other things, oil.

This is also true. But please tell everyone what the conditions for the *lifting of the embargo (organised by the US) were*. Then explain how likely it really was for Japan to comply with those conditions. As I've said, the US (as organiser of the embargo and setter of the terms) *knew* well that Japan wouldn't back down on the stated terms. Both sides were war-wanting stupids.

in 1941 Japan having planned the operations for a full year attacked the US, Great Britain and Holland without a declaration of war.

Japan declared war. It tried the beste to deliver the declaration. It is anyway well known that Hull *already* had the declaration of war before the Enbassy had finished typing it up and deliver it. He issued no warning. Strange?

More, Japan considered war an option. The forces were told to plan. Nations do that. Do you condemn the US for the plans it has now for nuclear war against other countries as news recently did beat-up of? I don't think you would.

Your sentence above makes it sound like they decided a year before and planned and trained with the intent of going to war. But *the facts* of diaries of those invovled (Ugaki and Yamamoto are available in English, amongst others) demonstrate that the decision wasn't taken until ery shortly before the actual date of the attacks. So are you being careless in saying or are deliberate? Deliberate would be dishonest, I think.

And you wonder why we had to take extreme measures in 1945?????????

No, I complained about your crass comment about Hiroshima.

I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion here about the needed of the atom bomb attacks themselves.




tohoku
YMMV

[corbulo]

First of all, this thread is extremely interesting, I have read every post carefully. Here is my 2 cents:

For the US to ask Japan to apologize for atrocities is the height of hypocrisy.
The war crimes trials in the philippines and japan were mainly about the treatment of allied POWs, not about treatment of civilian populations (except for Homma and Yamashita).
Japan was imperialistic and expansionistic, but what were the French, Americans, British, and Germans (before WWI) doing in Asia?
Japanese Military(Kwantung Army) ran amuck and could not be controlled by the civilian government. This is always a great fear in democracies - in the US we have civilian control of the military -
but no one seems to control the CIA.
The War against Germany was morally unambiguous (outright aggression and genocide and civilian populations)
whereas the War against Japan was not. I am trying not to make this too polemical. Japan certainly committed atrocities in WW2, US certainly committed atrocites in Vietnam. US is still trying to punish Vietnam with an embargo. It shows one has a desire to hate those whom one mistreats.