There are some fast and loose reasoning that deserve historical criticism; I regret I had not noticed and corrected this earlier.
Shibuyaexpat said:
Yes, that's my point. Where is the tacit and regretful acknowledgement of the thousands of Koreans forcibly brought to Hiroshima (who also perished when the bomb landed) during the colonial rule to provide slave labor for the Japanese War machine?
senseiman said:
Another point I'd like to add is that there IS a monument to the Koreans who died in the atomic attack on Hiroshima. Its in the peace memorial park, not far from ground zero...
There is a monument to the Koreans killed in Hiroshima peace park.
Let's not rush over, senseiman. Let me show you what it took to get that monument in that part of Hiroshima Peace Park. The first monument to memorialise the A-bomb victims was erected in 1955. Of the 420,000 irradiated Hiroshima residents of which 159,283 are dead (acc. to a 1975 statistical study
Atomic Radioactivity and Radiation Sickness) there were ca. 50,000 irradiated Koreans of which 20,000 to 30,000 are dead (acc. to a 1985 statistical study
Statistics on Korean Atomic Bomb Victims), which would mean roughly 1 out of 6 (between 10 and 20% acc. to
here) A-bomb victims were Koreans. But of the 30 some monuments erected for the Atomic-bomb dead, was any dedicated to a non-Japanese people who suffered from the same bomb, who were conscripted to Hiroshima by Imperial Japan for the war effort ? No.
15 yrs after the first Japanese monument, a Korean monument was to be built inside the Peace Memorial. This time, the Hiroshima city gov't opposed the plan on grounds that "There weren't enough space within the Peace Park for another monument," so the Korean-Japanese residents chose
.jpg]a site near where one Korean prince Li Wu became hit by the A-bomb and erected a monument for the Korean dead there April 10, 1970, 35 yrs after the blast.
Numerous petitions by Korean survivors/bereaved were turned down WITHOUT EXCEPTION.Thanks to this firm racist policy of Hiroshima local government, all memorial artifacts were constructed OUTSIDE the Hiroshima Park.
While the only monument dedicated to the 30,000 Korean victims of the A-bomb was laid on the road side with no official recognition, humiliated in the fume and dust of the busy post-WWII city, 7 more momuments dedicated to the Japnaese were erected within the Peace Park which "hadn't enough space for another monument."
29 yrs later in July 21, 1999, a move into the Peace Park space was granted on condition that the costs not be covered by the city of Horishima. On Aug. 6, 1999, 54 yrs after the blast, the Korean dead of Hiroshima were given a proper memorial service as was long deserving. So don't you speak light of the matter, senseiman-san !
Shibuyaexpat said:
Do you think that Hiroshima was just an ordinary town and that American forces chose it as one of the primary targets on whim? Hiroshima was the major industrial city and launching point for campaigns throughout Asia. Children divided their days in school and in factories, making weapons. Are they innocent? Yes, in that they are ordinary citizens dutifully following the mandate of their leader.
senseiman said:
As far as I know the children of Hiroshima were not involved in making weapons in factories. Most young children had been evacuated from the cities and the older ones who stayed were in the process of clearing streets as a fire prevention measure when the bomb struck.
That must explain why the death ratio was considerably higher among the Koreans many of whom did not have families in the city, being conscripts.
senseiman said:
Hiroshima wasn't a major military centre, there was just a regimental headquarters on the site of Hiroshima castle, quite insignificant in military terms. THe bomb didn't specifically target the cities industrial or port facilities either, it was dropped directly over the downtown area where it could inflict the most damage on the civilian population.
Dead wrong, senseiman. Instead of wasting breath, let me just quote wiki for your information.
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
wiki said:
Hiroshima during World War II
At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Some military camps were located nearby such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.
It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force.
The center of the city contained a number of reinforced concrete buildings as well as lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses; a few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs. Many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.
The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 380,000 earlier in the war but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack the population was approximately 255,000. This figure is based on the registered population, used by the Japanese in computing ration quantities, and the estimates of additional workers and troops who were brought into the city may not be highly accurate.
shibuyaexpat said:
Listen, I'm not saying that Japan should not have memorials for their dead. I'm just saying it would a lot easier to sympathize if they acknowledged their own part in the war, rather than trying to either buy forgiveness or alter historical references.
senseiman said:
Japan has acknowledged its wartime past a hell of a lot better than most countries. US atrocities in Vietnam were much more severe than those Japan inflicted on Korea, but no US president has ever apologized nor has the US government given economic aid in compensation. The fact that Japan has gone sixty years without becoming involved in a war whereas most of the western powers who defeated Japan have waged numerous unjust and bloody wars tells me Japan learned the lessons of WW2 better than most.
Please see this and state your response. One must compare FIRSTLY what are comparable, and only thereafter compare the less comparables. For example comparing two Axis countries would be considered more apt and reasonable, whereas comaring one Axis nation with one Allied nation first would be criticised for trying to deflect criticism on Japan by dragging in the US without making a porper comparison with other Axis nations such as Germany and Italy. The following link would serve as a good starting point.
Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes
shibuyaexpat said:
This frustration is compounded by the fact that throughout the Park grounds, there are petitions to sue the American government for use of the bomb. As a direct descendent of someone who faced terrible atrocities committed by the Japanese army, it was the ultimate slap in the face !
seinseiman said:
What exactly is wrong with that? Numerous Chinese and Korean victims of Japanese atrocities (comfort women, forced laborers, etc) have sued the Japanese government for compensation, some succesfully. So why shouldn't victims of American atrocities be afforded the same privilege ?
I am all for Japanese A-bomb victims suing the US for the war crimes; nevertheless senseiman's arguement is highly subjective and misleading. Please do not argue for argument's sake; without a good historical basis with which you can support your argument, it is best to reserve your personal views qualified as such and such only until you can verify/support them. Let's not try to pass them as well-based views as you would sound. Senseiman, I must say you argue well; yet I also noticed that your art exceeds your facts by far.