Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Beyond that there is also apparently a very specific process of offering an apology and seeking atonement that one can offer when they have committed a serious wrong against someone. Many people have long wanted the emperor to perform this process as a symbolic acknowledgement of crimes and a seeking of atonment and forgiveness. Japan also refuses to pay any direct compensation to victims or accept any legal responsibility for what happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by supermanpansy
I recall hearing about this many years ago. I do remember Japan vehemently apologizing to China. Since when does China a communist country become the victim/ good guy anyway?
If anything, it seems like communist China has always seemed to side with our enemies. They have always been our enemies allies.
I myself am Caucasian. I am strictly writing my thoughts on the matter.
I hear you both.
Many Japanese feel like that every time Japan tried to apologize, China seems to come up with new criteria, new definitions. If they truly do want to let Japan apologize and move on, why not tell the Japanese all the criteria from the beginning? It just feels like China is making up reasons to reject the apologies on purpose.
Granted, no amount of money could ever compensate wartime horrors such as the Rape of Nanking. But it is important to note that Japan is not trying to add insult to injury by withholding reparations.
How many Chinese people know about Japan’s attempted apologies to China? (New York Times’ Chinese-language site is now blocked in China.) How many Chinese people know about the US$40 billion that Japan has sent to China?
Yes, Japan was the bad guy, no doubt about it. There is absolutely no excuse for starting the war against China, against humanity. But isn't it a better solution to allow healing for both countries?
It is important to learn from the history, not relive it. China-Japan relationship is a complicated one, I highly doubt a simple "I am sorry" is going to resolve the issue.
Let's not forget about this simple fact, communist China is North Korea's most important ally, biggest trading partner, and main source of food, arms, and fuel.
The Japanese government and the military command in reality did not intend to capitulate after the incineration of Hiroshima residents. The question of the atomic bombing of the city was not even discussed at a meeting of the Supreme Council for the management of the war. In ignorance of what happened, and kept the country's population, which continues to prepare for the "battle of the metropolis".
Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, Vice-Admiral Onishi Takadziro categorically opposing surrender, said at a cabinet meeting: "to sacrifice the lives of 20 million Japanese in special attacks, we will achieve unconditional victory." In the course of the Japanese propaganda was the slogan "Itioku gёkusay" - "One hundred million one die a glorious death."
The main factor that made the Japanese leadership to surrender were not atomic bombs, and entry into the war against Japan, who defeated the most powerful military machine of Germany Army of the Soviet Union.
Even before the defeat of the Kwantung Army in the morning August 9th, 1945, Japanese Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki said at a meeting of the Supreme Council: "The entry into the war this morning, the Soviet Union finally puts us in an impossible position and makes it impossible to continue the war.
Widely known edict of Emperor Hirohito of Japan on August 15, in which he announced the surrender, referring in particular to the use of the enemy, "the new and the most severe of unprecedented destructive power of the bomb." However, historians, including Japanese, overlook the rescript of the Emperor on August 17, "the soldiers and sailors" in which Hirohito, not to mention the atomic bomb, as the main reasons for the surrender of named entry into the war the Soviet Union. With all certainty, it was stated: "Now that we have entered the war against the Soviet Union, to continue the resistance ... is to jeopardize the very basis of the existence of our empire."
Professor, University of California, an ethnic Japanese Tsuyoshi Hasegawa in his scientific work «Racing the Enemy» on the basis of the documents states: "Without the Soviet Union's entry into the war the Japanese continued to fight." This opinion in his book «Five Miths about Nuclear Weapon» support and scholar Ward Wilson, declared that "victory over Japan, won not a bomb, and Stalin." I read these books are quite interesting and irrefutable facts.
It is well known and the statement by Winston Churchill: "It would be a mistake to think that the fate of Japan was decided by the atomic bomb."
The use of atomic weapons against defenseless Japanese cities, especially against Nagasaki, not pursued military and political objectives, namely to intimidate the Soviet Union and other countries and achieved through nuclear monopoly domination of the United States in the postwar world.
The situation in the summer of 1945 was bad, but Japanese leaders do not want to think about giving up their traditions, beliefs and lifestyles. Until 9 August. What this could have happened to make them so suddenly and drastically change their point of view? What forced them to sit for the first time after 14 years of war seriously discuss the issue of surrender?
It is unlikely that it was the bombing of Nagasaki.
Here are some more facts -
The bomb was dropped late in the morning of August 9. It happened already after the Supreme Council began meeting on the issue of surrender. And the news of the bombing of the Japanese leaders have learned only in the afternoon - when the Council meeting was adjourned because it was stalled and needed a meeting of the entire Cabinet to continue the discussion. If we talk about the timing and time, the bombing of Nagasaki could cause and incentive for their decisions.
And the bombing of Hiroshima, this role is not very suitable. The bomb on the city was dropped three days earlier. What kind of crisis is such that for the beginning of the discussion takes three days? The main feature of the crisis is the sense of impending disaster and the irresistible desire as quickly as possible to act. Could the Japanese leaders think that Hiroshima has generated the crisis, and then wait three days, without discussing this issue?
Here are some more facts -
August 8, Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori Suzuki came to the premiere Kantaro and asked him to convene the Supreme Council for discussion of the Hiroshima bombing. However, members of the council refused. So the crisis does not grow by the day, until finally manifested itself in all its magnitude 9 August. In explaining the actions of Japanese leaders to focus on the "shock" of the bombing of Hiroshima should take into account the fact that they are thought to hold a meeting to discuss the bombing on August 8 but then decided that this question is too small. And the next day they suddenly decided to meet and discuss the terms of surrender. Either these people were subjected to attack collective schizophrenia, or there were some other events, which have become the real reason to discuss surrender.
If the Japanese leadership decided to give up because of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it means that they are worried about the bombing of cities in general, that the attacks on this city have become for them a serious argument in favor of the surrender. But the situation looks quite different. Two days after the bombing of Tokyo, a retired Foreign Minister Sidehara Kidzyuro expressed the view that while publicly held many senior executives.
Sidehara said -
"People gradually get used to the fact that they bombed every day. Over time, their unity and determination only grow stronger ".
The Supreme Council discussed the question of how important it is that the Soviet Union remained neutral - and at the same time, its members did not say anything about the consequences of the bombing. Of the remaining protocols and archives it can be seen that at the meetings of the Supreme Council of the bombing of the city is mentioned only twice: once in passing in May 1945 and the second time the evening of 9 August, when held an extensive discussion on this issue. Based on the available evidence, it is difficult to say that the Japanese leaders gave at least some value of air strikes on the city - at least compared to other pressing issues of wartime.
General Anami August 13 said that the atomic bombings are terrible no more than conventional air strikes, which subjected to Japan for a few months.
If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no worse than usual bombing, and if the Japanese government does not attach any special significance, not considering it necessary to discuss the matter in detail, how the atomic strikes on these cities could force them to surrender?
If the Japanese did not disturb the bombing of cities in general and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in particular, the fact that they even bother? The answer is simple: the Soviet Union.
The Japanese were in quite a difficult strategic situation. The end of the war, and they were losing the war. The situation was bad. But the army was still strong and well supplied. Under the gun was almost four million people, and 1.2 million of that number were armed Japanese islands.
Even the most hard-line Japanese leaders realized that it is impossible to continue the war.
The question was not whether to continue it or not, and how to complete it in the best conditions.
They had two plan optimal conditions for surrender. In other words, there are two strategic options.
1-The first option is diplomacy. In April 1941, Japan signed a neutrality pact with the Soviets, and the validity of the pact ended in 1946. The group mainly civilian leaders headed by Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo count on the fact that Stalin could be persuaded to act as an intermediary between the US and its allies on the one hand and Japan on the other hand, to resolve the situation. Although the plan had little chance of success, it reflects quite robust strategic thinking. In the end, the Soviet Union is interested in the fact that terms of the settlement were not very favorable for the United States - in fact strengthening of American influence and power in Asia has always meant to weaken Russia's power and influence.
2.-The second plan was a military man, and most of his supporters, who were led by Secretary of the Army Anami Koretika were men of war. They had hoped that when US troops begin invasion, the Army Imperial Army will cause them huge losses. They believed that if we can succeed in the US will be able to clear more favorable conditions. In such a strategy, too, it had little chance of success. The United States was determined to something to get from the Japanese unconditional surrender. But because the US military circles there was concern that the loss of the invasion will be prohibitively large, the strategy of the High Command of Japan has a certain logic.
To understand what is the true reason, forcing the Japanese to surrender - bombing of Hiroshima or a declaration of war by the Soviet Union, it is necessary to compare how these two events have influenced the strategic situation. After the Hiroshima bombing on August 8, both options were still in force. Another could be to ask Stalin to mediate (Entries Takagi has a record of 8 August, which shows that some Japanese leaders still thought about bringing Stalin). It was still possible to try to spend one last decisive battle and inflict great damage. The destruction of Hiroshima had no impact on the readiness of troops to the stubborn defense on the shores of their native islands. Yes, behind them one city there are fewer, but they were still ready to fight. They had enough ammunition and projectiles, and combat power of the army, and if reduced, then only slightly. The bombing of Hiroshima without prejudice to either of the two strategic options in Japan.
However, the effect of a declaration of war by the Soviet Union, its invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different. When the Soviet Union entered the war with Japan, Stalin could not act as an intermediary - he was now the enemy. Therefore, the actions of the USSR destroyed the diplomatic version of the completion of the war. The impact on the military situation was no less dramatic. Most of the best Japanese troops were on the southern islands of the country. Japanese military rightly assumed that the first order to the US invasion would be the most southern island of Kyushu. Once powerful Kwantung Army in Manchuria was extremely weakened because of its best pieces were sent to Japan to organize the defense of the islands. When Russian came to Manchuria, they simply crushed the once elite army, and many of them often stopped only when running out of fuel. 16th Army of the Soviets, which numbered 100,000, a landing in the southern part of Sakhalin Island. She was ordered to break the resistance of Japanese forces there and then within 10-14 days to prepare for the invasion of the island of Hokkaido, the northernmost of the Japanese islands. Hokkaido defended 5th Territorial Army Japan, consisting of two divisions and two brigades. She focused on the strengthening of the position in the eastern part of the island. A Soviet attack plan called for a landing in western Hokkaido.
No need to be a military genius to understand that yes, it is possible to carry out a decisive battle against a great power, to land on the same direction; but it is impossible to reflect the attack of the two great powers, leading an offensive from two different directions. The Soviet offensive nullified the military strategy of the decisive battle, as previously it depreciated diplomatic strategy. The Soviet offensive was decisive in terms of strategy, for it deprived Japan of both options. A bombing of Hiroshima was not decisive (because no Japanese version it is not excluded).
The entry of the Soviet Union into the war also changed all calculations relating to the time remaining for maneuver. Japanese intelligence predicted that US troops begin landing a few months. The Soviet troops could be actually on Japanese territory in a matter of days (10 days, to be more precise). Offensive Soviets mixed all plans relating to the timing decision to end the war.
But Japanese leaders came to this conclusion even a few months before. At a meeting of the Supreme Council in June 1945, they stated that if the Soviets entered the war, "that will determine the fate of the empire." Deputy Chief of Staff of the Japanese Army Kavabe at the meeting said: "The maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is an indispensable condition for continuing the war."
Japanese leaders stubbornly refused to show interest in the bombing, which destroyed their city. Perhaps it was wrong, when in March 1945 began airstrikes. But by that time both dropped on Hiroshima atomic bomb, they were right, believing bombing cities inconsequential sideshow with no serious strategic consequences.
Anything I needed to say in this thread was said on the first page. The actual impetus for surrender was not linked to a single event, but a complex series of events and how those influenced different sections of the Japanese government to accept the necessity of surrender. Both the atomic bombings and the Soviet entry into the war are what resulted in the surrender.
Japan was badly beaten and had zero prospects for any kind of favorable settlement to the war that they started. They should have agreed to terms before Hiroshima was destroyed. But they didn't.
They should have agreed to terms after Hiroshima and before Nagasaki, but they didn't.
They gained nothing by holding out and suffered greatly because they did.
Those bombs ended the worst war in human history.
The lesson to be learned (but probably ignored): Don't start a war that will result in your nation's utter destruction.
It seems to go in the face of clear evidence that the atomic bombs got Japan to surrender. We had leveled Tokyo and Yokohama with various firebombings and they would not give up. After the battle of Okinawa where they lost 100,000 troops and another 100, 000 civilians they still did not surrender. The two atomic bombs did the trick and Japan surrendered.
Anything I needed to say in this thread was said on the first page. The actual impetus for surrender was not linked to a single event, but a complex series of events and how those influenced different sections of the Japanese government to accept the necessity of surrender. Both the atomic bombings and the Soviet entry into the war are what resulted in the surrender.
Yes you are right. for a long time I didn't read this topic. Therefore, duplicate my old post.
interesting here was say that the United States forced Japan start a war. When blocked Japan and imposed sanctions? And is the Russian Scout suggested that the administration of the President of the United States to go to war with Japan?
Truman's handlers wanted to bomb cities with the nukes
to see what would happen and scare the world.
Diplomatic avenues were brushed aside in favor of rushing the bombs.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were among the most heinous war crimes ever committed
against civilian populations. There is no excuse. It was evil and unjustifiable.
I don't think this was the most disgusting. Vietnam was the most disgusting and cartridge bombs with white phosphorus and pahatnyh(fertile) poisoning land poisons that sprayed from aircraft aviation United States.
Truman's handlers wanted to bomb cities with the nukes
to see what would happen and scare the world.
Diplomatic avenues were brushed aside in favor of rushing the bombs.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were among the most heinous war crimes ever committed
against civilian populations. There is no excuse. It was evil and unjustifiable.
If you had family that served and even died in that war (as i have) you would probably have a very different opinion. This was a nation that showed through it actions that it had no regard for western values of humanity.
Japan might have gotten slightly different treatment from America and the allies if it had not attacked Pearl Harbor without first issuing a declaration of war, butchered American soldiers during the Bataan Death March, and shown everyone the extent of their barbarity through earlier events such as the Rape of Nanking. Oh, and here's one of my favorites: Crashing a kamikaze plane into a clearly marked hospital ship and killing a bunch of the people on board that were trying to treat the wounded.
A group that should have given thanks to Harry Truman literally until the day they died were those GI's designated to invade Japan. As NJGOAT's guide showed in great detail, a 1,000,000 U.S. casualties was the prediction. We'd have seen mothers putting grenades in baby strollers simply to kill American GI's if we had had to invade Japan.
I'm sorry we had to drop the two atomic bombs and firebomb most major Japanese cities. However, all the alternatives were worse and would not have brought an end to the war.
In the end, the Japanese people brought this tragedy on themselves.
Last edited by markg91359; 01-24-2016 at 01:13 PM..
A few weeks ago I read "Hiroshima Nagasaki" by Paul Ham who champions the argument that the atomic bombings were not necessary and that Japan surrendered largely as a reaction to the Soviet invasion.
I did not find that Ham had either new evidence or an especially persuasive argument to make, and the book failed to alter my opinion regarding the role played by the bombs in forcing the capitulation.
Still, it is quite an interesting read. I would endorse reading it, if not embracing the main thesis being presented. If you don't have time to read it, you can pick up the gist by reading the reviews contributed on the Amazon site. Robot Check
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
