DP: Why was U.S. envoy in Hiroshima?

[zoony]

what US conventional bombs did to Tokyo and for that matter, Dresden, was far more destructive. Of course you don't hear about that much because there is no political ax to grind.

We could have done it to Nagasaki and Hiroshima... bomb them into far worse shape conventionally... but we chose the nuclear route instead.

Again, the bomb provided a way for the Japanese to surrender without losing face. It was a perfect exit strategy for them. Their culture would not have allowed surrender under any other circumstances. We literally would have had to kill every one of them.

This is very, very important, and I wish it weren't glossed over

[zoony]

I met Floyd Tibbets. Sold him some shotgun ammo, actually... around 1996. You'd never know who he was.

[Sticksboi05]

Makes you realize just the absolute havoc that occurred; I think I saw this on Discovery Channel a couple years ago...

WR840NpV8Ic

[twa]

It is a measure of the power of narrative that we publicly grieve more for the deaths of our enemies than those of our allies in a war that is now fading quickly from human memory.

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2010/08/narrative-and-memory-of-war.html

[skinfan133]

You know what? Thank God for the Atom Bomb, and may those who died because of it rest in peace.

And may the millions of innocent civilians who were viciously murdered and the hundreds of thousands of allied POWs who were mutilated and killed at the hands of the Japanese rest in peace as well. Never forgot the atrocities of the Japanese, just as much as we should never take the suffering induced by the atom bombs for granted. :2cents:

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

You know what? Thank God for the Atom Bomb, and may those who died because of it rest in peace.

And may the millions of innocent civilians who were viciously murdered and the hundreds of thousands of allied POWs who were mutilated and killed at the hands of the Japanese rest in peace as well. Never forgot the atrocities of the Japanese, just as much as we should never take the suffering induced by the atom bombs for granted. :2cents:

Well said.

[Veretax]

It's more of the Obama apology tour, nothing to see here.

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

It's more of the Obama apology tour, nothing to see here.

Roos did not speak at the ceremony. But in a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy, he said, "We must continue to work together to realize a world without nuclear weapons."

Who apologized?

[Madison Redskin]

It's more of the Obama apology tour, nothing to see here.

We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. We did so to bring an end to the war and save lives, but the fact is we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. I can't see why some would be so pissed that we would pay tribute to those civilians who were killed so that we could end the most bloody conflict int he history of mankind.

Suppose that, on 9/11, fighter pilots were able to intercept and shoot down the second plane over the Hudson before it hit the tower. They would have had to do so to save lives, but they would have killed a lot of civilians on board the plane in the process of doing so. Now, suppose that GWB sent Administration officials to attend the funerals of those civilians who were killed. Would it be wrong to do so? Apparently to the drooling, Fox News viewing crowd.

[nonniey]

We killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. We did so to bring an end to the war and save lives, but the fact is we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. I can't see why some would be so pissed that we would pay tribute to those civilians who were killed so that we could end the most bloody conflict int he history of mankind.

Suppose that, on 9/11, fighter pilots were able to intercept and shoot down the second plane over the Hudson before it hit the tower. They would have had to do so to save lives, but they would have killed a lot of civilians on board the plane in the process of doing so. Now, suppose that GWB sent Administration officials to attend the funerals of those civilians who were killed. Would it be wrong to do so? Apparently to the drooling, Fox News viewing crowd.

That is a pretty bad analogy, hope you didn't pull anything serious in that particular stretch. There is a reason the United States had never sent an official representative to this annual commemeration. The event not only commemerates the victims but condemns the act of the bombing as immoral, unjustified and criminal. They want an apology, and an official representation is one step towards that goal.

[Unforgiven]

It's more of the Obama apology tour, nothing to see here.

No one apologized for anything, the only mention of it came from some Japanese professor.

Did you read the story or just go with the Fox News method of creating your own fictional account of what happened to suit your agenda. Fair and Balanced.

[Ryman of the North]

Granted, I'm probably debating semantics, here, but every time I see the phrase "moral equivalence" being used, I seem to have a really weird reaction.

I think it's because, as near as I can tell, the definition of "moral equivalence" is:

"The belief that the morality of an action doesn't change, depending on whether I'm doing it to someone else, or if someone else is doing it to me".

And my weird reaction is because every time the phrase is used, it's being hurled as an insult.

:halo:

I think the reason they used that phrase was that they were saying that the US was morally equivalent to Japan because of the use of atomic weapons, of course that would also mean that the rape of nanking, the severe abuse of POWs and the experimentation on humans by japanese scientists was considered to be equivalent to killing a couple hundred thousand civilians.

Im torn tbh, soldiers die, thats what they get paid for and they know the risks but at the same time dragging the war out would have meant more civiliian deaths too.

[Ryman of the North]

For Pearl, it was just the sneak attack part that riled us up. We weren't at war with Japan, from the public's perspective they sneak attacked us out of the blue. And the Japanese commited more than their fair share of atrocities against civilians, from Nanking to Indonesia. Of course, stuff like the Bataan Death March shouldn't be marginalized because the Japanese did it to our soldiers, not civilians. An atrocity is an atrocity.

Your nuke example: If we get into an actual war with China over say Korea, and they drop a nuke on LA, I'm sure we'd be outraged. But we would be even more outraged (if possible) if just out of the blue say today, China nuked LA with zero provocation.

Operation Downfall was to be staged from Okinawa. No Chinese support needed. Maybe the Commonwealth would have used Chinese bases, like Formosa, but Chiang Kai-shek had his own problems, and the Communists weren't in position to do anything to affect Japan one way or the other.

Agree with your main points and all the rest.

the only thing you have wrong here is that the US in fact caused the war on the pacific and literally baited the japanese into attacking, there are also several historians who think that pearl harbour was the best possible outcome as they lost no carriers and easily refitted most of the ships.

[DjTj]

No one apologized for anything, the only mention of it came from some Japanese professor.

Did you read the story or just go with the Fox News method of creating your own fictional account of what happened to suit your agenda. Fair and Balanced.

This whole thing really has a lot more to do with present-day concerns about Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and to some extent, the growing military strength of China in the Pacific, than it does with anything that happened during World War II.

Nobody sees this as an apology. Here's what a Hiroshima survivor said:

Sunao Tsuboi, 85, the leader of an organization of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima with some 50,000 members, said, “We’re very happy and want to express our gratitude for the attendance by so many representatives of countries including nuclear weapon-possessing superpowers.”

But Mr. Tsuboi, whose body suffered severe burns at the time of the bombing and who was unable to walk for a year afterward, said, “While I appreciate that Mr. Roos came here today, I don’t praise [the gesture] highly,” adding that a further apology would have been appreciated.

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2010/08/06/us-move-falls-short-for-hiroshima-survivors/

Here's a left-wing British editorial mocking the non-apology:

At last we’ve apologised for Hiroshima – well, sort of. We’ve recognised the suffering our atom bombs caused –well, kind of. President Obama was showing off his anti-nuclear credentials in the killing grounds of Hiroshima, but this was not to be confused with saying sorry.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/an-apology-fatally-devalued-by-the-passage-of-65-years-2045890.html

There was no apology, and there is no apology coming. Representatives from Britain and France also attended the ceremony for the first time because this was more about standing unified on nuclear non-proliferation. The U.S. Embassy's statement simply said:

"For the sake of future generations, we must continue to work together to realize a world without nuclear weapons."

The UN, the United States, England, and France are trying to be more vocal about nuclear disarmament, and they are trying to build stronger diplomatic relationships with Japan. Present political issues are more important here than 65-year-old emotions.

[Hubbs]

Apologists in this context are those who fall under following:

1) Those who agree or espouse apologizing for dropping the Atomic Bombs on Japan

2) Those who now think it was morally wrong to drop the bombs

3) Those that think this was an an evil act that stains the reputation of the United States.

Erm... no, they're not. Once again:

[twa]

DJTJ...why did the gent use the word further?

But Mr. Tsuboi, whose body suffered severe burns at the time of the bombing and who was unable to walk for a year afterward, said, “While I appreciate that Mr. Roos came here today, I don’t praise [the gesture] highly,” adding that a further apology would have been appreciated.

Bad translation?...or he inferred a apology from the Ambassador's actions?

A apology in deed but not fact?:evilg:

[DjTj]

DJTJ...why did the gent use the word further?

I don't think he used the word further.

But Mr. Tsuboi, whose body suffered severe burns at the time of the bombing and who was unable to walk for a year afterward, said, “While I appreciate that Mr. Roos came here today, I don’t praise [the gesture] highly,” adding that a further apology would have been appreciated.

The word "further" is not in quotes, so I assume that the reporter paraphrased something else that he said.

Bad translation?...or he inferred a apology from the Ambassador's actions?

A apology in deed but not fact?:evilg:

And there is some reason to believe that the paraphrase is inaccurate.

If you look in the Wall Street Journal article on the same topic, the paraphrase is actually different:

"While I appreciate that Mr. Roos came here today, I don't praise [the gesture] highly," said 85-year-old Sunao Tsuboi, the leader of a 50,000-members organization of Hiroshima survivors. Mr. Tsuboi said he was looking for a U.S. apology.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703309704575413444205924152.html

I haven't been able to find the original Japanese, so I don't know exactly what he said (or how it translates). But I guess the Wall Street Journal edited the language from saying "a further apology would have been appreciated" in their Japan blog to "looking for a U.S. apology" in their main article.

I'm not sure which one we should assume is more accurate? :whoknows:

It's probably not worth trying to parse the words of an 85-year-old A-bomb survivor whose words are being translated from Japanese into English and then paraphrased by newspaper writers and editors. All we can know for sure is that he's not satisfied.

[twa]

It's probably not worth trying to parse the words of an 85-year-old A-bomb survivor whose words are being translated from Japanese into English and then paraphrased by newspaper writers and editors. All we can know for sure is that he's not satisfied.

Now you're trying to take all of the fun out of it.

Want try to parse a inferred apology by the unprecedented attendance then?

I'm bored

[HailGreen28]

the only thing you have wrong here is that the US in fact caused the war on the pacific and literally baited the japanese into attacking, there are also several historians who think that pearl harbour was the best possible outcome as they lost no carriers and easily refitted most of the ships.

Wait... what?

We didn't literally bait the Japanese into anything.

I'm sure the 2403 American dead appreciate that we wouldn't think to use our carriers for anything until our battleships had all been sunk..... wait not really.

[thehogs]

the only thing you have wrong here is that the US in fact caused the war on the pacific and literally baited the japanese into attacking, there are also several historians who think that pearl harbour was the best possible outcome as they lost no carriers and easily refitted most of the ships.

do you mean the oil embargo the US introduced due to Japanese expansion in China and SE Asia? The US supplied most of Japans oil and certainly such an act rolled the dice for an eventual war as Japan decided it had to get oil through military means. Hence, Pearl Harbour which was suppose to be a single, knock-out blow - significant miltary commanders in Japan knew that a drawn out war with the US would be disasterous (the famous 'sleeping giant' quote).

To say the US started the war though misses the point that the Japanese government of the day was basically a military dictatorship itching for a fight and to become the number one power in the region - if the US had its own ideas about regional power well that was fine with the people running Japan, they were prepared to go to war, bring it on. All attempts by the US to agree some kind of diplomatic agreement to ease tensions in China etc were refused.

[Veretax]

I am not under any allusions, that everything that we have seen reported is the entirety of it. But when i heard he was going to go that was my initial thought the Obama apology tour. Of course this time he sent some underling (for lack of a better word) We can argue whether this was appropriate or not, frankly I've got more important things on my mind right now.

[Bang]

I am not under any allusions, that everything that we have seen reported is the entirety of it. But when i heard he was going to go that was my initial thought the Obama apology tour. Of course this time he sent some underling (for lack of a better word) We can argue whether this was appropriate or not, frankly I've got more important things on my mind right now.

It's pretty simple. It's a show of simple respect while a former foe but NOW fast ally commemorates a significant event in both of our histories.

No one apologized.

In fact, one could argue it was exactly the same sort of international cozying that allowed Ronald reagan to visit Bitburg and the German military cemetery there.

No one apologized then, and it caused all sorts of furor, and in the context of being able to see it's effect over the last 27 years, it was ultimately nothing more than a meaningless gesture of symbolism. Neo Nazis did not rise in America as was fretted over. The US Government was not revising history, Reagan was not showing solidarity with nazis.

And the US and Germany continue to have a strong relationship.

~Bang

[Prosperity]

Lives were SAVED by dropping the Bomb(s).....on Both sides

An invasion of Japan would have been VERY costly

false dichotomy 101

[Bang]

false dichotomy 101

Revisionist history 101

~Bang

[Sticksboi05]

Estimates of troop deaths from a land invasion were up over 265,000. Others said half a million.