Japan forgivable?

Hello. I'm new here, so I apologize if this is controversial and inappropriate, but I wanted to ask this question to people who were Japanese enthusiasts as apposed to somewhere like yahoo answers where I'm likely to find racist comments.
Ok, before I ask my question, I wanted to explain my relationship towards Japan. I've never really been on bad terms with Japan. As a child, I enjoyed their various forms of entertainment. From Godzilla and Nintendo to Pokemon and Digimon. For about 10 years, though, we didn't really have a close connection to Japan like we do now. However, during that time, we followed and supported Nintendo and respected the men behind it. Such as Shigeru Miyamoto.
In recent years though, me and my siblings have become friends with an otaku and that encouraged us to look closer at Japan. As I've matured, my respect for Japan had matured as well. I'd began looking into some of their more revered anime movies such as Studio Ghibli's and Mamoru Hosoda's and once I did, I heartily enjoyed them. Even putting them on a higher level than most American movies. We also looked into many anime series and manga, such as Dragonball Z, Azumanga Daioh, Yotsuba&!, Clannad, etc.. As time went on, I began to respect the Japanese, not just for their ability to create high quality entertainment, but them as a whole.
Now eventually, I grew interested about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As I did research I grew very disturbed the Americans would deliberately annihilate hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians simply as a war tactic. As I researched it on the Internet, however, I learned that a popular rebuttal was bringing up the things the Japanese had done themselves, such as Nanking. In a way, implying that the atomic bombs were excusable and holding the Japanese in contempt.
Now, I'm not a big history buff, but I'm inclined to take sides with the Japanese. I obviously wasn't alive during WWII, so I can't appreciate what the bombings meant to the Americans at the time. But the moral issue of bombing civilized cities really bugs me as I mentioned above. But what I want to know is do the events of Nanking and so forth change anything? Does it really affect how Japan is viewed today?
I'm sorry if this sounds like old news or one big history question, but this is all new to me and I'd like someone to explain it plainly and simply, as opposed to looking up mountains of WWII books or something from Wikipedia. Thanks.

How old are you now and how old were you when you learned of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

22. I learned of it about a month or two ago.

Was this not covered in History class at any time when you were in school?

Well, I was home-schooled. I didn't retain much information about Hiroshima and Nagasaki because I wasn't particularly interested at the time. It wasn't until recently I did more research into it.


Look, I'm sorry. I didn't mean for it to sound like that. I didn't want to sound like I wanted a complex history lesson or anything like that.

No, not at all. I was just curious if the schools have quit teaching WWII in History.

I agree with Mike, I mean I too had thought it weird you had not heard of it till now. That said, I might not be the most appropriate person to explain anything about it. I have only studied what happened in general, in Europe they tend to concentrate on the German side of the war, a fact I will never understand, just because we are closer to Germany? In any case...I don't think such atrocities should be a reason to hold a grudge against present generations. Horrible acts have been committed throughout history by many nations and people, but that doesn't mean that every Japanese is a Kamikaze, every German a Nazi not any American a nuclear head nut

Well, it wasn't so much I had not heard about it. I just didn't know quite as much or have any personal feelings about it before.

Have you considered that there are a great many people alive today in Japan who owe their lives to the atomic bombs?

Because of the possibility of an American invasion, you mean?

Invasion, continued conventional bombing, or the effects of a prolonged blockade.

Are you aware of the Tokyo fire bombings?

Yeah, I've looked into them. It still bugs me though. I get that more Japanese and American lives were spared because of the bombs, and I am grateful for that. But part of me is still disturbed by it. Such as the manner in which the victims of the bombs suffered and the fact they were civilians.

caleb89sw said:

Yeah, I've looked into them. It still bugs me though. I get that more Japanese and American lives were spared because of the bombs, and I am grateful for that. But part of me is still disturbed by it. Such as the manner in which the victims of the bombs suffered and the fact they were civilians.

Click to expand...

That's what war is. It's disturbing no matter what. I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you feel less disturbed because there's no way around it. People were going to die and suffer whether the bombs were dropped or not; that's an inevitable fact of war. The best alternative is for there to not have been a war in the first place.

I have always thought it absurd to sympathize more for people who were killed by one type of a bomb than another type of bomb.

Mike Cash said:

I have always thought it absurd to sympathize more for people who were killed by one type of a bomb than another type of bomb.

Click to expand...

The point is not and never was the type of bomb as far as sympathy goes. The point is the wanton and and intentional targeting of civilians, and the total awareness of how many innocent men women and children would be murdered. You cannot just write off dropping a nuke on a civilian city as "collateral damage", and then say, oh, sorry, the actual target was the military headquarters in the city and the military port, not the people. If that made any sense at all, police would flatten entire city blocks with explosives to get one drug dealer, and never mind if you are sleeping in your own house.

In other words, when the nukes were dropped, they knew perfectly well tens of thousands of innocents would be killed. Its a hell of a lot different than being one guy among many shooting bullets at enemy combatants, taking the risk that one of your shots might stray and hit a civilian. Its even different than being one bombadier among many dropping hundreds firebombs among them and burning a city to the ground. One plane, one crew, one bomb, one city and most of its dwellers destroyed. Not even to say the firebomb scenario is remotely excusable, but the instant finality of the nukes is quite overwhelming. You might run from a firebombing and survive. There is no running from a nuke.

Also, things get real stupid when people start saying "the Japanese" and "the Americans" as if they are all the same and equally responsible. Its nonsense. Nanking was also unforgiveable, but even if you targeted the wives and children of the perpetrators it would still be dead wrong and evil. But even that was not done! Instead, people who never even met those buttholes were murdered just for being born in the same country! Its madness, pure madness.

But as to the question of whether Japan is forgivable for the war, its a non sequitor of a question. There are almost no Japanese alive today that had anything to do with the war. There is nothing for 99 percent of Japan to be forgiven for, as they did nothing.

If Japan bears any guilt and shame today, its for not owning up to the facts of the war and trying to whitewash it. All Japanese doing this deserve a slap across the face. But hey, the same crap goes on in America too, and Americans are fed a lot of crap when the atomic bombings come up and they eat it all readily.

Have you considered that there are a great many people alive today in Japan who owe their lives to the atomic bombs?

Click to expand...

That is just crap. Its obfuscation of the lowest order. The bombs were totally unnecessary and completely and utterly reprehensible. Any and all attempts at justification are completely ridiculous, and that is why they are so hard to eradicate. You get something that is just a little ridiculous and everybody admits it. But somehow, the more ridiculous something becomes the harder it is to get the truth out.

Nobody knows who or how many lives were spared by the atomic bombings. In fact, there is ample reason to believe the figure would be in the high negatives if anything. Hardly matters. You don't slaughter babies to save anybody.

And if thousands died in the course of a blockade for refusing to surrender, it would totally be on the head of the Japanese government and military, and not a stain on American history.

But we don't even need to go down that path. The Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombings, and the core reason was Russia's entry into the war. Saying the A-bombs ended the war is a fat lie Americans and some others learn in their history brainwashing classes in order to instill patriotism. Its pure horse$#!T.

But I have little hope that I will knock years of childhood indoctrination from anyone's mind with any amount of truth and logic. People almost always take the pretty lies over the ugly truth.

Caleb was home schooled, so he does not suffer from the delusions most Americans have about this topic.

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:54 ----------

Yeah, I've looked into them. It still bugs me though. I get that more Japanese and American lives were spared because of the bombs, and I am grateful for that.

Click to expand...

Its bullocks. Its not provable but people state it like its a fact. Hell, its not even plausible if you have amassed enough facts.

It's still remarkable that people can't comprehend that a similar effect could have been achieved by dropping the bombs 5 km off shore. Some would have still died, and there would have been after effects, but it would have been a display of power, rather than a brute use of one.

Mark of Zorro said:

Also, things get real stupid when people start saying "the Japanese" and "the Americans" as if they are all the same and equally responsible. Its nonsense. Nanking was also unforgiveable, but even if you targeted the wives and children of the perpetrators it would still be dead wrong and evil. But even that was not done! Instead, people who never even met those buttholes were murdered just for being born in the same country! Its madness, pure madness.

But as to the question of whether Japan is forgivable for the war, its a non sequitor of a question. There are almost no Japanese alive today that had anything to do with the war. There is nothing for 99 percent of Japan to be forgiven for, as they did nothing.

If Japan bears any guilt and shame today, its for not owning up to the facts of the war and trying to whitewash it. All Japanese doing this deserve a slap across the face. But hey, the same crap goes on in America too, and Americans are fed a lot of crap when the atomic bombings come up and they eat it all readily.

Click to expand...

Ok, I see. Look, I'm not trying to sound like I'm attacking Japan or its people or anything. All I know is there are people who hold all of Japan, past and present, in contempt because of what they did. Not just the army, but the whole country all its population. But I know that there are many people who, regardless of Japan's past, have great affinity for it. So, that began to raise questions for me. Questions like why does Japan have to be hated by certain people in present day? if Japan is "so unforgivable", why are there people who support it now in present day?

nahadef said:

It's still remarkable that people can't comprehend that a similar effect could have been achieved by dropping the bombs 5 km off shore. Some would have still died, and there would have been after effects, but it would have been a display of power, rather than a brute use of one.

Click to expand...

I'd actually thought of that myself. Detonating the bomb over the ocean would've been easier to accept than a populated city.

It has been estimated that the casualties, if an invasion were to take place, would be in the MILLIONS. The a-bombs swiftly ended the war and limited the casualty numbers to the thousands.

War is hell for all sides including civilians. As far as targeting civilians, I suggest you look into what the Japanese did to the people of the Philippines, particlularly the atrocities in the POW camps, Manila Massacre and the Bataan Death March for starters.

The Japanese were fanatical during the war. Take a look at their actions in Okinawa. They committed suicide rather than surrender. They fought fiercely, using that (and other examples), the Roosevelt and Truman administrations saw that an invasion would be bloody for both sides. The a-bombs prevented that.

Mark, if you're going to quote my posts then please have your remarks be germane to what you're quoting rather than using just using my remarks for a launching pad for your rants.

Thank you.

"The Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombings, and the core reason was Russia's entry into the war. Saying the A-bombs ended the war is a fat lie Americans and some others learn in their history brainwashing classes in order to instill patriotism. Its pure horse$#!T."

The USSR didn't declare war on Japan until August 8, 1945, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, so your theory is bunk.

"It's still remarkable that people can't comprehend that a similar effect could have been achieved by dropping the bombs 5 km off shore. Some would have still died, and there would have been after effects, but it would have been a display of power, rather than a brute use of one."

At the time the US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, we only had two functional A-bombs, and we weren't even sure they were functional. If a demonstration hadn't worked, it would have taken months to make enough fissile material for a third bomb. Meanwhile many thousands more would have died as the war dragged on. Recall that the Hiroshima bombing alone wasn't enough to convince the military to surrender.

Under the concept of total war, as perfected by the Germans in Spain and Japan in China, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets because they had manufacturing plants churning out war weapons and material. When a country locates military assets near civilian populations, those civilians become collateral damage, regrettable but necessary in the thinking of war strategists.

President Truman, who made the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was guided by estimates that failure to use the A-bombs would have caused the war to drag on for another year, resulted in a million more US deaths, and caused the death of many millions more Japanese. This advice was guided by experience in taking Okinawa, where thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians committed suicide rather than surrender. Japanese authorities had convinced their people that US soldiers would rape and butcher women and children. I've seen real films of Japanese women jumping off of cliffs while US interpreters tried to talk them out of it.

ArmandV said:

It has been estimated that the casualties, if an invasion were to take place, would be in the MILLIONS. The a-bombs swiftly ended the war and limited the casualty numbers to the thousands.

War is hell for all sides including civilians. As far as targeting civilians, I suggest you look into what the Japanese did to the people of the Philippines, particlularly the atrocities in the POW camps, Manila Massacre and the Bataan Death March for starters.

The Japanese were fanatical during the war. Take a look at their actions in Okinawa. They committed suicide rather than surrender. They fought fiercely, using that (and other examples), the Roosevelt and Truman administrations saw that an invasion would be bloody for both sides. The a-bombs prevented that.

Click to expand...

Exactly what is stated here. Look was is regretable in all forms. But sometimes when you are at war you have to do things that would be considered morally wrong in order to save lives. You can't be sure if it will save lives but you are doing it because it probably will save at least some lives. If the bombs were not dropped it is possible that the war may have lasted a very long time and resulted in many american and japanese deaths.

The bombs were a very effective way of showing japan just how out-matched they were at the time. And since we dropped two of them it was a way to show that we had the means to make more than just one. Which could mean that we had more than we already dropped. It was very regrettable but overall needed.

ArmandV said:

It has been estimated that the casualties, if an invasion were to take place, would be in the MILLIONS. The a-bombs swiftly ended the war and limited the casualty numbers to the thousands.
War is hell for all sides including civilians. As far as targeting civilians, I suggest you look into what the Japanese did to the people of the Philippines, particlularly the atrocities in the POW camps, Manila Massacre and the Bataan Death March for starters.
The Japanese were fanatical during the war. Take a look at their actions in Okinawa. They committed suicide rather than surrender. They fought fiercely, using that (and other examples), the Roosevelt and Truman administrations saw that an invasion would be bloody for both sides. The a-bombs prevented that.

Click to expand...

This is a classic I've heard from Americans a lot. The a-bombs were needed to stop the war. Okay, so why not drop them kilometers away from civilian centres? Then, the "besides" Japan did a whole bunch of terrible stuff, so dropping a-bombs on a civilian population wasn't bad.

It was either necessary to end the war, or it was okay since the Japanese did bad stuff. I think all (patriotic) Americans have had to adapt this narrative to the atomic bombings, since the alternative is too frightening to consider: that one's country committed an atrocity. It's interesting to see the late life interviews with Pacific war leader Robert McNamera in "The Fog of War," where he admits that if America had somehow lost, he would have been charged with war crimes.


I most definitely think Japan committed war crimes and atrocities in World War II and the years leading up to it. They shall not be forgotten. But I won't use them as an excuse for America's actions either. Civilians. What was the population like of Hiroshima like? San Diego? Cleveland? Would their ever be an excuse Americans could ever accept if two of its cities were wiped off the map? Many Americans are still bitter about Pearl Harbour.

Something to think about.

Dropping the first bomb offshore would IMO have proved nothing to the Japanese except we could make a big noise. I say this because even after the first one was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan didn't surrender.

I learned that a popular rebuttal was bringing up the things the Japanese had done themselves, such as Nanking. In a way, implying that the atomic bombs were excusable and holding the Japanese in contempt.

Click to expand...

Who makes such a rebuttal to the A bomb use? I don't think I've ever heard such a thing, and I think it's rather silly.

Your home schooling seems to have been pretty poor, despite what so many people say about the quality of such education.

And, as far as things like Nanking go, read up on them. Japan took forever (if at all) to properly apologize. Forever, and if you consider the annual visits by the Prime Ministers to the war-crime shrine of Yasukuni, the feeling of non-apology is STILL going on. Is that "forgivable"?

nahadef said:

This is a classic I've heard from Americans a lot. The a-bombs were needed to stop the war. Okay, so why not drop them kilometers away from civilian centres? Then, the "besides" Japan did a whole bunch of terrible stuff, so dropping a-bombs on a civilian population wasn't bad.

Click to expand...

It is "classic" because it is true. Facts are stubborn things.

As for the "show of force" b.s., Roland explained it perfectly.

If it had been a hundred planes dropping a thousand conventional bombs killing the same number of people, that would have been alright?

Constant fixation on the nature of the bombs not only misses the point it insults the memory of each and every one of the countless thousands of civilians who died as a result of conventional bombings but who are forgotten about because the instrument of their death was less noteworthy.

I'm not against sympathizing for the innocents slaughtered by the atomic bombs, but there is a tendency to focus only on those slaughtered by the atomic bombs. It is tantamount to saying that the suffering, loss, deaths, and lives of those killed by conventional bombs were lesser; it demeans them. Have your indignity and outrage over the fact of the bombing and slaughter itself, not the nature of the explosive device.

I'd love just once to see somebody pause to contemplate the pure hell that was unleashed in the spring of the same year by the carpet bombing of Tokyo with incendiary bombs, resulting in a similar death toll, unspeakable horror on the parts of countless thousands with no place to run to escape the fires, and a landscape reduced to charred rubble. Never a word for them, decades of pompous pontificating blather about the atomic bombs.

It is the slaughter which is repugnant, as is missing that point by focusing on the means.