Obama will not apologize for Hiroshima attack, he tells Japanese TV

[Melech 9,900]

13 hours ago, MJHolland said:

Good, an apology isn't needed. 

Every living historian will tell you that the bombs saved lives in the long run by ending the war. It was a necessary evil, but Japan got in bed with Nazi Germany at the time and sanction the killing of millions of Jews, blacks, gypsies, and gays. Sorry if I don't feel empathy for Nazi Japan. 

Also Japan done some pretty ****ed up stuff in Asia too 

[FATCAT 60,888]

13 hours ago, Economy said:

Tbh. Virtually no one responsible for it is alive anymore. Its history done

 

The US tried to invade and anex Canada in war of 1812 now we have the most interlinked economy and financial market in the world

 

Past is the past. Lets move on.

We're coming for you

[uo111 5,282]

14 hours ago, teo said:

No it's not false. And yes London also suffered a great number of civilian casualties(around 20 000) during the bombings there and the British responded accordingly with air raids in Germany. The Royal air force was the the best one in the time of WWII and they won "the Battle of Britain". But this is not what we are talking about here, right? The Japanese were unable to protect themselves from the US air raids and they were already loosing the war cause their cities were being bombed left and right. I'm not making this up, like I'm literally sitting here with a book and you can google everything I say. The US war with Japan didn't start nor ended with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were bombing Tokyo and other cities even after the Japanese started the negotiations to surrender.

 

You are the one that needs to learn history. And also I already said that I don't think Obama should apologize about the nuclear bombings, cause it's pointless.

2 attacks on military operations facilities after Japan declared an intention to surrender. Hardly "bombing Tokyo and other cities," during that time.

You are right as to why we targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But even though the war was won, it wasn't almost over like you are framing it. Just because Japan stood no chance doesn't mean they wanted to surrender.

The person you keep quoting likely thinks atomic bombs are great and wants to bomb the middle east, in case you didn't know.

[teo 609]

1 minute ago, uo111 said:

2 attacks on military operations facilities after Japan declared an intention to surrender. Hardly "bombing Tokyo and other cities," during that time.

You are right as to why we targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But even though the war was won, it wasn't almost over like you are framing it. Just because Japan stood no chance doesn't mean they wanted to surrender.

I'm pretty sure they were willing to negotiate, but the other side wanted unconditional surrender so they continued to bomb them, but that's not important. I have my opinion on the atomic bombings and you have yours and that's fine. My whole point is that it was not a one sided story and it's stupid to pretend that it was. 
 

[TiphEret 1,320]

7 hours ago, Simon said:

Also Japan done some pretty ****ed up stuff in Asia too 

So does this justify the use of the atomic bomb? If we follow your logic Germany would not be how it is now. Plus if you look at history every country has done at some point or the other some pretty ****ed stuff including the US, yet I don't see this as a justification to drop atomic bomb because the consequences are just too important. Furthermore who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Civilians mostly. 

[uo111 5,282]

19 minutes ago, teo said:

I'm pretty sure they were willing to negotiate, but the other side wanted unconditional surrender so they continued to bomb them, but that's not important. I have my opinion on the atomic bombings and you have yours and that's fine. My whole point is that it was not a one sided story and it's stupid to pretend that it was. 
 

They wanted to keep their government. That is obviously unacceptable.

Some Japanese officials had wanted to surrender beforehand but the way their government worked, they couldn't. Even in July, before the soviets declared war, the Japanese were trying to negotiate "peace" with the soviets so they could focus on fighting just the US. Even after the bombs and attack by the soviets, some of them still didn't want to surrender. It wasn't quite so simple as they wanted to surrender. Some, yes. But that wasn't enough.
 

10 minutes ago, TiphEret said:

So does this justify the use of the atomic bomb? If we follow your logic Germany would not be how it is now. Plus if you look at history every country has done at some point or the other some pretty ****ed stuff including the US, yet I don't see this as a justification to drop atomic bomb because the consequences are just too important. Furthermore who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Civilians mostly. 

The military officials kept the bombs hidden from the people, or the civilians all could have fled as Truman issued several warnings for both bombings.

Ending the war is the justification for the bombing used today and used back then. Whoever says it's revenge or that they deserved it isn't even worth responding to.

[TiphEret 1,320]

8 minutes ago, uo111 said:

They wanted to keep their government. That is obviously unacceptable.

Some Japanese officials had wanted to surrender beforehand but the way their government worked, they couldn't. Even in July, before the soviets declared war, the Japanese were trying to negotiate "peace" with the soviets so they could focus on fighting just the US. Even after the bombs and attack by the soviets, some of them still didn't want to surrender. It wasn't quite so simple as they wanted to surrender. Some, yes. But that wasn't enough.
 

The military officials kept the bombs hidden from the people, or the civilians all could have fled as Truman issued several warnings for both bombings.

Ending the war is the justification for the bombing used today and used back then. Whoever says it's revenge or that they deserved it isn't even worth responding to.

I think they also used the bombs because it was the first time so they didn't know I guess, like we know now and I really hope their justification is ending the war and nothing else because that would be quite horrible otherwise. I don't know if civilians were warned enough ahead, but the result was many casualties anyway. Hopefully never again.

[MelbHawker 6,583]

Obama's not responsible for the Hiroshima and neither are the people he represents by being the president of the United States. He can state to Japan that his country was wrong in attacking Hiroshima, or that he's not in support of what occurred in history - but to apologise is taking responsibility for something. 

Rather than countries seeking apologies from others for what has occurred throughout history - why can't countries and their leaders forge peace? 

 

[teo 609]

2 hours ago, uo111 said:

They wanted to keep their government. That is obviously unacceptable.

Some Japanese officials had wanted to surrender beforehand but the way their government worked, they couldn't. Even in July, before the soviets declared war, the Japanese were trying to negotiate "peace" with the soviets so they could focus on fighting just the US. Even after the bombs and attack by the soviets, some of them still didn't want to surrender. It wasn't quite so simple as they wanted to surrender. Some, yes. But that wasn't enough.

 

The military officials kept the bombs hidden from the people, or the civilians all could have fled as Truman issued several warnings for both bombings.

Ending the war is the justification for the bombing used today and used back then. Whoever says it's revenge or that they deserved it isn't even worth responding to.

They dropped flyers warning people about bombings and people were used to that not only in Japan but everywhere, it was a practice to do that, nobody hid that from anyone, cause it's imposible. Also nobody knew back then what the weapons of mass destruction were. They never demonstrated it, they didn't announce it. And if you honestly believe that the motivation behind nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was only strategic and there wasn't even  %1 political motivation idk what more can i tell you. Btw the Japanese had only one condition to surrender and that was to keep their Emperor which was not an outrageous term if you look at their history and understand what that figure means to them. The only reason the US wanted unconditional surrender was because they were worried that the Soviet Union would have influence in Japan.

Wars have never been only about the good guys vs. the bad guys there's politics behind everything.

[Melech 9,900]

3 hours ago, TiphEret said:

So does this justify the use of the atomic bomb? If we follow your logic Germany would not be how it is now. Plus if you look at history every country has done at some point or the other some pretty ****ed stuff including the US, yet I don't see this as a justification to drop atomic bomb because the consequences are just too important. Furthermore who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Civilians mostly. 

I just think that this discussion of apology is important, but we also need to acknowledge that there are two sides and one side is that Japan didn't do apologies like Germany for example did. How can they expect an apology when they are not even able to acknowledge their mistakes ?

[TiphEret 1,320]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

I just think that this discussion of apology is important, but we also need to acknowledge that there are two sides and one side is that Japan didn't do apologies like Germany for example did. How can they expect an apology when they are not even able to acknowledge their mistakes ?

Euhh...well actually one of the article linked here mentioned they did apologize so I am not sure what you are talking about. So Germany didn't deserve the Atomic bomb because after what they did which is the mass murder of 6 million people, they apologize (I mean we did wait a loooong time for some nazis to be tried though..) but Japan didn't apologize so that's why they deserved the atomic bomb? I am sorry but this is not related nor does it makes sense. I am not sure what you are trying to say. 

The issue at core is will the US apologize for using the atomic bomb? Currently not. And many members here don't ask them to do so, including me. I quoted you because you said Japan did horrible things. I understood it justified the use of the atomic bomb and I quoted you saying that if we had to use it on every country doing horrible things Germany would not be what it is today because they were probably on top of the list during WWII. This all I am saying. that we can't really have a good justification such as "they did horrible stuff" in order to use the atomic bomb against them. And the official version from the US is that it was the only way at the time for them to end the conflict because Japan would not surrender. Now this version is debatable but that's not what is the question here anyways.

[uo111 5,282]

1 hour ago, teo said:

They dropped flyers warning people about bombings and people were used to that not only in Japan but everywhere, it was a practice to do that, nobody hid that from anyone, cause it's imposible. Also nobody knew back then what the weapons of mass destruction were. They never demonstrated it, they didn't announce it. And if you honestly believe that the motivation behind nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was only strategic and there wasn't even  %1 political motivation idk what more can i tell you. Btw the Japanese had only one condition to surrender and that was to keep their Emperor which was not an outrageous term if you look at their history and understand what that figure means to them. The only reason the US wanted unconditional surrender was because they were worried that the Soviet Union would have influence in Japan.

Wars have never been only about the good guys vs. the bad guys there's politics behind everything.

No one said that there wasn't politics involved. That doesn't automatically make the decision bad though.

The Japanese government also knew about the power of the atomic bombs. Every government did at the time, it was the people who were kept in the dark.

 

4 hours ago, TiphEret said:

I think they also used the bombs because it was the first time so they didn't know I guess, like we know now and I really hope their justification is ending the war and nothing else because that would be quite horrible otherwise. I don't know if civilians were warned enough ahead, but the result was many casualties anyway. Hopefully never again.

I think the lack of knowledge played a part too. Hopefully never again, no matter the intentions, the atomic bombs are a blight on humanity.

[Melech 9,900]

42 minutes ago, TiphEret said:

Euhh...well actually one of the article linked here mentioned they did apologize so I am not sure what you are talking about. So Germany didn't deserve the Atomic bomb because after what they did which is the mass murder of 6 million people, they apologize (I mean we did wait a loooong time for some nazis to be tried though..) but Japan didn't apologize so that's why they deserved the atomic bomb? I am sorry but this is not related nor does it makes sense. I am not sure what you are trying to say. 

The issue at core is will the US apologize for using the atomic bomb? Currently not. And many members here don't ask them to do so, including me. I quoted you because you said Japan did horrible things. I understood it justified the use of the atomic bomb and I quoted you saying that if we had to use it on every country doing horrible things Germany would not be what it is today because they were probably on top of the list during WWII. This all I am saying. that we can't really have a good justification such as "they did horrible stuff" in order to use the atomic bomb against them. And the official version from the US is that it was the only way at the time for them to end the conflict because Japan would not surrender. Now this version is debatable but that's not what is the question here anyways.

What the fück. You know me and now I'm offended you put those words in my mouth. I never said that I support any atomic bomb. I don't really get Germany in your arguments now (considering that more people died in the allies bombing in Germany than in the atomic bombs and guess what no one apologised for that too, though I think it can be justified considering if they didn't bombed Germsny, Germany wouldn't surrender and more of my people would have died) 

[Economy 52,842]

13 hours ago, FATCAT said:

We're coming for you

What?

[TiphEret 1,320]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

What the fück. You know me and now I'm offended you put those words in my mouth. I never said that I support any atomic bomb. I don't really get Germany in your arguments now (considering that more people died in the allies bombing in Germany than in the atomic bombs and guess what no one apologised for that too, though I think it can be justified considering if they didn't bombed Germsny, Germany wouldn't surrender and more of my people would have died) 

Yo chill Simon, I quoted you so you can clarify what you meant because it didn't make sense to me. If it's a misunderstanding then explain how so instead of being offended, I could also use the argument of "you know me"