Obama's trip to Hiroshima - Good or bad?

[mirage62 0]

I believe this could actually be a good thing, but it will be a fine balancing act. If anyone can pull this off it could be Obama.

You can cut throw all the debate about America using the bomb by answering one simple question: Did America dropping the bomb save American life's? The answer is certainly. Generally, in war you wish to minimize the deaths on your side and maximize the death of your enemy. There is absolutely no doubt that had Germany or Japan had the bomb they would have used it.

Japan needs to formally apologize to the people of China for many, many war time atrocity's. By Obama acknowledging the deaths of so many people - but not apologizing - perhaps this will happen.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[JerryBaumchen 1,067]

Hi mirage,

Quote

Good or bad

Since I have been there, I think it is a good thing for everyone to experience.

What he might/might not say while there is a different matter. And I have no idea on that.

Jerry Baumchen

[quade 3]

Both sides look at the war differently.

Japan seems to have forgotten it started the war with the US and I'm not kidding either. Their current mythology about it seems to begin and end with Hiroshima.

Don't get me wrong, it was a bad deal all the way around, but I don't see how they can forget they ultimately brought it on themselves and the horrible things they did too.

As for the US, yeah, we were stopping the war. We saved US lives and maybe even a good chunk of Japanese as well when you consider how long some ground wars go on. US dropping the bomb was both good and atrocious and humanity has to live with it.

Fortunately, Japan and US relations seem up to it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[CygnusX-1 42]

quade

... but I don't see how they can forget they ultimately brought it on themselves and the horrible things they did too.

Really? It isn't too hard to understand. We seem to forget that we ultimately bring on terrorist attack(s) by our foreign policies and/or who we support.

When your country can do no wrong and everyone else is just out to get you, is all you understand - it's very easy to see where they come from.

[quade 3]

CygnusX-1

We seem to forget that we ultimately bring on terrorist attack(s) by our foreign policies and/or who we support.

To be somewhat fair, most of the things we did to make the Middle-East pissed at us were a bit more subtle than the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Sure we prop up terrorist dictators like the House of Saud who dictates not only his own country, but a sect of religion as well. Yeah, I get that. And I get that easily 80% of the US has no clue what I'm even talking about.

That said, Pearl Harbor was a pretty visible manifestation of Japan's involvement. Kind of hard to miss.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Quote

That said, Pearl Harbor was a pretty visible manifestation of Japan's involvement. Kind of hard to miss.

They probably saw the Ben Afleck movie and tried so hard to forget it that they forgot the real thing too.

- Dan G

[mirage62 0]

(LOL DanG)

I'm NOT an "America is always right guy" way to many times history has proven that wrong but dropping the bomb(s) IMO was correct for reasons stated......

But the idea that we need to apologize is beyond me. Having that position should we expect the Japanese people to apologize to China, Korea ect?

I've also found it strange that the firebombing raids that killed so many people get's very little press.

What's the difference in being burned alive in a fire storm or vaporized in a nuclear bomb? Nothing - dead's, dead. It did require a lot less planes to kill so many with single bombs.....

If Obama DOESN'T straight out apologize but pays his respects he'll get dinged by the nutty far right but may do some good. If he apologizes he will do a LOT of harm because it will validate the victimization of the Japanese people.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[quade 3]

Obama has made it crystal clear the visit is not an apology.
Japan has made it crystal clear they don't expect one.

Between the officials involved, this is about moving forward.

What other people want to make of that is on them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 622]

Bingo.

[mirage62 0]

Quade that's great - I hadn't read that, can you link it for me? The article I read said that it was expected that Obama would apologize.

Thanks

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

Obama has made it crystal clear the visit is not an apology.
Japan has made it crystal clear they don't expect one.

Between the officials involved, this is about moving forward.

What other people want to make of that is on them.

UHHHHHHHH....WELL.....MAYBE
In the balance I don't disagree. The problem with state craft and diplomacy is that actions (as much as words) carry with it explicit meaning and implicit nuance which invites speculation for the chattering classes. I don't recall any US President on a state visit to Japan visiting either Hiroshima or Nagasaki for the very reasons everyone is talking about here. Perhaps it is time to move on but I hope Obama is very careful in his words and his actions.

[DJL 232]

In 1937 Japan initiated a total war in which they killed over 26 million civilians and 4 million soldiers. No action against Japan after that point short of war crimes requires an apology.

I don't see the point of a state leader trip to Hiroshima for political purposes. It was no different than Tokyo, Desden, or any city in which there was an immense loss of life.

However, the use of nuclear weapons in warfare is not something to sweep under the table because of the validity of their use in the past. Acknowledging that the loss of life was tragic does not mean that it was not justified and acknowledging it was justified does not mean it was not tragic.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,435]

>What's the difference in being burned alive in a fire storm or vaporized in a nuclear bomb? Nothing . . .

Burning people alive did not scare Russia. Seeing a working US nuclear bomb did. That's the big difference - and the primary reason it was used. The US was very worried about our new "ally" the Soviet Union becoming our biggest enemy once the war ended.

>You can cut throw all the debate about America using the bomb by answering one simple question:
>Did America dropping the bomb save American life's? The answer is certainly.

Given that Japan was trying to surrender at the time - that's not at all certain. Japan’s minister of war was planning a surrender that involved an immediate end of the war, retention of the emperor, complete disarmament, no foreign occupation and Japanese trials for Japanese war criminals. (Japan as a whole was aghast at both the collapse of Germany and the impending involvement of the USSR; they realized it was just a matter of time before they were defeated and were looking for a way out.) We didn't like the "retention of the emperor" and "no foreign occupation" aspects of that surrender and so would not consider it.

But accepting that sort of surrender before August 6th would almost certainly have saved more American lives than dropping those bombs.

[quade 3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-historic-visit-hiroshima-during-asia-trip-122210256.html

https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/obama-to-visit-not-apologize-for-hiroshima-2016-05-10

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-japan-obama-idUSKCN0Y11KC

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-defends-president-obama-182715728.html

It was fairly widely reported as such.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Phil1111 915]

CygnusX-1

***... but I don't see how they can forget they ultimately brought it on themselves and the horrible things they did too.

Really? It isn't too hard to understand. We seem to forget that we ultimately bring on terrorist attack(s) by our foreign policies and/or who we support.

When your country can do no wrong and everyone else is just out to get you, is all you understand - it's very easy to see where they come from.

Wrong and Wrong.

Hideki Tojo and his similar thinking war council started the Japanese involvement in WW ll. The Japanese people had no say in the matter whatsoever. Arabs and Muslim extremists can look at Arab governments and themselves for their current state of affairs.

Some reading on the subject:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2014/11/09/The-West-isn-t-duty-bound-to-solve-Arab-problems.html

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21606284-civilisation-used-lead-world-ruinsand-only-locals-can-rebuild-it

[DJL 232]

billvon

>What's the difference in being burned alive in a fire storm or vaporized in a nuclear bomb? Nothing . . .

Burning people alive did not scare Russia. Seeing a working US nuclear bomb did. That's the big difference - and the primary reason it was used. The US was very worried about our new "ally" the Soviet Union becoming our biggest enemy once the war ended.

>You can cut throw all the debate about America using the bomb by answering one simple question:
>Did America dropping the bomb save American life's? The answer is certainly.

Given that Japan was trying to surrender at the time - that's not at all certain. Japan’s minister of war was planning a surrender that involved an immediate end of the war, retention of the emperor, complete disarmament, no foreign occupation and Japanese trials for Japanese war criminals. (Japan as a whole was aghast at both the collapse of Germany and the impending involvement of the USSR; they realized it was just a matter of time before they were defeated and were looking for a way out.) We didn't like the "retention of the emperor" and "no foreign occupation" aspects of that surrender and so would not consider it.

But accepting that sort of surrender before August 6th would almost certainly have saved more American lives than dropping those bombs.

Got a source on that to save me a lazy google search. All I've ever read is about how the nation was preparing to fight to the last man and the citizens were being told that they had to fight or else we'd slaughter and torture them (As they did against their foes).

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Got a source on that to save me a lazy google search. All I've ever read is about how the nation was preparing to fight to the last man and the citizens were being told that they had to fight or else we'd slaughter and torture them (As they did against their foes).

What the citizens were told was going to happen and what was going to happen would be two different things. The Japanese high command may have been nationalist fanatics but they weren't completely blind to reality.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DJL 232]

jakee

Quote

Got a source on that to save me a lazy google search. All I've ever read is about how the nation was preparing to fight to the last man and the citizens were being told that they had to fight or else we'd slaughter and torture them (As they did against their foes).

What the citizens were told was going to happen and what was going to happen would be two different things. The Japanese high command may have been nationalist fanatics but they weren't completely blind to reality.

Oh yeah, entirely. Even what we know now is mostly fueled by propaganda. One issue is that the high command was also very split between factions. There were both fanatics and realists, some who had power, some who didn't. They at least thought they had a quantity of time to decide and act. I wonder if that was based upon the time it would take for the US to mount an invasion vs. the time it would take the Ruskies.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jakee 1,259]

Probably. I think they were also hoping that they could make it seem that an invasion would be bloody enough that they could persuade the US to agree to favourable terms in the surrender instead (as Bill said above - keep the Emperor, no occupation).

After the bombs, unconditional surrender.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,435]

>Got a source on that to save me a lazy google search. All I've ever read is about how the nation was
>preparing to fight to the last man and the citizens were being told that they had to fight or else we'd
>slaughter and torture them (As they did against their foes).

The wikipedia article "surrender of Japan" is a good overview. Some specifics:

USSR refuses to renew non-aggression pact against Japan: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/s3.asp

The book "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461. It contains a lot of documentation recovered after the Allies occupied Japan. One important quote from that book:

"I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them." (Japanese emperor, June 22 1945) He said this at a closed meeting with the top officials of the government and military. The "existing policy" he was referring to was a piece of propaganda written by the Army stating that the Japanese would fight to the last man. This was a document intended to be leaked to the Allies to discourage them from invading, and that is most likely where the "fight to the last man" thing came from.

[mirage62 0]

I think in general we can still agree that the bombs ended the war quicker than any supposed peace talks that were going on somewhere.....

If you believe that there were serious and possible peace talks going on then the question becomes would it be worth the life's of allied soldiers deaths for that to come to pass.

I'd easily say no. That's just not the way that game is played.

Thanks to Qaude for the links. If anyone can pull this trip off and not apologize but make a statement I think it is Obama. I believe he might even LIKE to apologize which is probably why he will even go while other American presidents would not even remotely consider apologizing and wouldn't "risk" the trip for fear of looking like they might be.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[billvon 2,435]

>If you believe that there were serious and possible peace talks going on then the question becomes
>would it be worth the life's of allied soldiers deaths for that to come to pass.

Well, no. I am saying that if the US was willing to accept Japan's surrender on their terms, rather than the Potsdam terms, the war could have been ended before the first bomb was dropped, thus saving American lives.

But that wasn't going to happen for several reasons, chief among them being that the US very much needed to demonstrate that they were a nuclear power, since they knew that the USSR was growing in strength and would soon have their own nuclear weapons - and wanted to expand.

[quade 3]

billvon

But that wasn't going to happen for several reasons, chief among them being that the US very much needed to demonstrate that they were a nuclear power, since they knew that the USSR was growing in strength and would soon have their own nuclear weapons - and wanted to expand.

Not to mention, the US public was never going to accept Japan's terms.

Losers don't get to dictate terms, especially "no fault" ones that keeps the leaders in power and where they get to keep some of the land they "won" during the war. Come on now.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,435]

>Not to mention, the US public was never going to accept Japan's terms.

Well, they didn't have to - the government was the one making the decisions.

But you are right at a larger level. The US government wasn't going to accept a conditional surrender when they could get an unconditional one. There were lots of positives - better PR (as you mention) better control of the future of Japan, the ability to demonstrate a nuclear weapon to the USSR. The only negative was more US soldier (and secondarily Japanese) deaths. And during wartime that's a cost that the government had already signed up for.

[DJL 232]

Quote

The US government wasn't going to accept a conditional surrender when they could get an unconditional one.

Another issue of war politics related to this is that Americans were starting to become weary of War by this point and we didn't really care about the Asian region. It would take quite a while to plan an invasion and if a treaty was on the table the American public would never support further loss of life and the US would have to accommodate Japanese terms.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher