View Topic

President Obama will be visiting Hiroshima, Japan on May 27th. This is one of two cities that America dropped a nuclear bomb on at the end of World War II, and one issue that has come up is the question of whether he should apologize for America having done so. He will not apparently be apologizing, but what do you think should be done?

There's an interesting article on this issue and Obama's upcoming visit here.

It's a mixed bag for me.  For starters, Pearl Harbor.  I think in the end both sides need to apologize, and that's where it starts.  Was America in the wrong for setting up camps and its nuclear attacks?  Most definitely, but Japan definitely isn't free of apologizing for what they've done as well.

After all, wasn't it that incident that propelled the US into the war in the first place?  I recall reading somewhere that it's because of Pearl Harbor that the US even became adamant later on about the use of atomic bombs, since that became their main propaganda they used in practically anything anti-japanese including their reasoning behind the internment camps.

So should America apologize for using atomic weapons?  Sure.  But again, I think Japan needs to apologize for Pearl Harbor and pushing us into that corner in the first place.

Honestly, Japan brought it on themselves. They attacked the US first. Yes the internment camps were very wrong. The atom bombs however, were a last resort we never wanted to have to use. It was either use them or send more American troops to their deaths and more American families to funerals. Our president made the right choice. Japan merely paid the price for unnecessary bloodshed. I don't think America should apologize for saving thousands of lives that would have otherwise died defending the country from a unprovoked aggressor.

My answer in short: no. Firstly, it would make the American military look weak, which is not an attitude the U.S. wants to portray in these times. Secondly, it would bring back old aggressions, both on the part of the Japanese (whose military might still be relatively anti-U.S., giving us further reason to not relinquish strength) and Americans who are old enough to remember the war. Though the countries are on friendly terms nowadays, the subject is much too touchy to address. And it's not like the U.S. is any good at apologizing for its faults anyway.

No, of course not. Speaking as a Singaporean, the Japanese led a campaign of terror across Asia. They brutalised my people, they killed and stole and destroyed and raped indiscriminately. My grandmother was so traumatised by what the goddamned Japanese did to my country that till the day she died she never got over what they did.  I have no sympathy for the Japanese, quite frankly, given that the alternative would have been the equivalent of Sherman's march in Japan they should be thankful that the Americans stopped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I'm sorry if I sound like an asshole but that's just how I feel.

Honestly, Japan brought it on themselves. They attacked the US first. Yes the internment camps were very wrong. The atom bombs however, were a last resort we never wanted to have to use. It was either use them or send more American troops to their deaths and more American families to funerals. Our president made the right choice. Japan merely paid the price for unnecessary bloodshed. I don't think America should apologize for saving thousands of lives that would have otherwise died defending the country from a unprovoked aggressor.

Arguably yes, the first one was a last resort necessity, but the 2nd one wasn't entirely.  Granted, I, as much as anyone here wasn't there personally to attest to that completely, but from what I've read the 2nd was more just a way to scare Japan into surrendering rather than being something they actually had to do as a "last resort."

I agree with Pengu. Both sides committed atrocities, so both should apologize.

There are other things that could have been done rather than nuke hundreds of thousands of civilians. Saying the ends justify the means is a fruitless argument as we don't know what might have been. If need be, there could have been a non-unconditional surrender by Japan, though there were almost certainly other options than throwing bombs at civilians or more soldiers to their death; many military generals just did not want to see them.

And I think that apologizing would not make the US military look weak, but rather the US as a whole look like it's trying to correct the countless wrongs it has committed in the past. All of these wrongs are why so many countries despise the US and think it's a bully (and some see it as evil). Japan is one the US's strongest allies right now, so bringing this up wouldn't do harm; on the contrary it would strengthen the relations (Obama is already visiting Hiroshima anyway). As for old WW2 veterans, I'm sure most would forgive at this point in their lives; if not, then they're holding way too much hate for too long.

Ultimately, I feel dehumanization is what has caused so much horror. We need to remember that even one's enemies are human and that just because they may commit monstrous acts, they are not monsters (least of all innocents who happen to just be from the same nation).

I'm going to have to go out on a limb and say that no, the United States should not apologise for dropping Atomic weapons on Japan.  It was a completely justified response to the preparations on the Japanese home islands to fight to the last.  Keep in mind that we need to judge this with the historical context in mind. 

The United States had just suffered massive casualties assaulting the first of the Japanese home islands (Okinawa) and the Japanese had suffered similarly high casualties, largely because they refused to surrender, committing mass seppuku.  The entirety of Japanese forces on Okinawa died, and so did approximately 50% of the civilians.  More than 250,000 people died in total on the Japanese side, not even counting the nearly 75,000 American casualties.  Needless to say, the U.S. wasn't willing to commit to an invasion of Japan's home islands, and with the redeployment of Soviet forces to the Pacific, the Truman administration probably wanted to minimise Soviet intrusion in the Pacific region.

But the biggest effect of the Atomic bombs was that the Japanese couldn't fight back against it.  There wasn't a point to their war effort if they couldn't inflict casualties on the United States and its allies, so they surrendered.   By the way, this explanation is very rushed and ahas not been given a fraction of the time that this subject merits

tl;dr: Atomic bombs did end the war earlier than conventional arms would have, and ultimately the firebombing of Japanese cities and Dresden in Germany, a completely non-military target, were far worse in terms of loss of life, etc.

Edit: Total death count from atomic weapons on the Japanese side was roughly equivalent to the death count of Okinawa. 

It's a mixed bag for me.  For starters, Pearl Harbor.  I think in the end both sides need to apologize, and that's where it starts.  Was America in the wrong for setting up camps and its nuclear attacks?  Most definitely, but Japan definitely isn't free of apologizing for what they've done as well.

After all, wasn't it that incident that propelled the US into the war in the first place?  I recall reading somewhere that it's because of Pearl Harbor that the US even became adamant later on about the use of atomic bombs, since that became their main propaganda they used in practically anything anti-japanese including their reasoning behind the internment camps.

So should America apologize for using atomic weapons?  Sure.  But again, I think Japan needs to apologize for Pearl Harbor and pushing us into that corner in the first place.

Japan has apologized. In fact, Japan has apologized so many times that there is a rather lengthy Wikipedia article about it.

However, I don't think that the US should apologize for the nuclear bombings. Other people have already put forth good reasons for that, so I won't really go into more detail.

As for context into Japan's surrender, here's a good read on the subject.

United States could apologize for choosing civilian targets. It'd be a courtesy, not an ultimate sign of weakness.

"Sorry we had to that."

I'm pretty sure the Japanese realize that.

Obama visiting one of the cities is honestly just fine. He is probably going to respect the victims in some manner. Sometimes a gesture is better than a speech, in this case the proper time for a speech may be long gone.

I was going to reply, but everyone seem to have it covered from every angle *thumbs up*

I think in the modern era people have trouble relating to how things were back then and judge the past by today's standards. Maybe today one nation launching nuclear weapons at any other seems unthinkable, but it happened back then because many thought it was the better alternative. Same with many other atrocities...can anyone realistically imagine a global war today that kills millions of people? People were living through it less than 80 years ago.

For better or for worse, the past is written...we should remember the past, for sure, but we can only go forward from here.

It's a mixed bag for me.  For starters, Pearl Harbor.  I think in the end both sides need to apologize, and that's where it starts.  Was America in the wrong for setting up camps and its nuclear attacks?  Most definitely, but Japan definitely isn't free of apologizing for what they've done as well.

After all, wasn't it that incident that propelled the US into the war in the first place?  I recall reading somewhere that it's because of Pearl Harbor that the US even became adamant later on about the use of atomic bombs, since that became their main propaganda they used in practically anything anti-japanese including their reasoning behind the internment camps.

So should America apologize for using atomic weapons?  Sure.  But again, I think Japan needs to apologize for Pearl Harbor and pushing us into that corner in the first place.

Japan has apologized. In fact, Japan has apologized so many times that there is a rather lengthy Wikipedia article about it.

However, I don't think that the US should apologize for the nuclear bombings. Other people have already put forth good reasons for that, so I won't really go into more detail.

As for context into Japan's surrender, here's a good read on the subject.

WOW.  Really good reddit article there, tau I am super impressed.  I'm going to be using that A LOT in the future. 

I'm going to have to go out on a limb and say that no, the United States should not apologise for dropping Atomic weapons on Japan.  It was a completely justified response to the preparations on the Japanese home islands to fight to the last.  Keep in mind that we need to judge this with the historical context in mind. 

The United States had just suffered massive casualties assaulting the first of the Japanese home islands (Okinawa) and the Japanese had suffered similarly high casualties, largely because they refused to surrender, committing mass seppuku.  The entirety of Japanese forces on Okinawa died, and so did approximately 50% of the civilians.  More than 250,000 people died in total on the Japanese side, not even counting the nearly 75,000 American casualties.  Needless to say, the U.S. wasn't willing to commit to an invasion of Japan's home islands, and with the redeployment of Soviet forces to the Pacific, the Truman administration probably wanted to minimise Soviet intrusion in the Pacific region.

But the biggest effect of the Atomic bombs was that the Japanese couldn't fight back against it.  There wasn't a point to their war effort if they couldn't inflict casualties on the United States and its allies, so they surrendered.   By the way, this explanation is very rushed and ahas not been given a fraction of the time that this subject merits

tl;dr: Atomic bombs did end the war earlier than conventional arms would have, and ultimately the firebombing of Japanese cities and Dresden in Germany, a completely non-military target, were far worse in terms of loss of life, etc.

Edit: Total death count from atomic weapons on the Japanese side was roughly equivalent to the death count of Okinawa.

*Appears from the shadows*

Excellent and spot on.

The Japanese were not ready to surrender unconditionally.  They wanted to surrender with "honour", and on certain conditions.  Unacceptable.

After the first bomb, they were still wanting to fight.  So much so that a group of Imperial Japanese Army officers were ready to essentially coup against the Emperor to make sure Japan would stand defiant, but that was thwarted.

The Japanese were very brutal to all of their prisoners.  See: Unit 931, Bataan Death March, Rape of Nanking.

In Singapore and Malaysia, they were not forgiving to the population, nor in Korea.  My Korean professor at RIT who taught "Politics in China," explained how he lived under both Japanese and North Korean/Chinese occupation in a place outside Seoul.  He would describe how the Japanese would go so far as to ban even the speaking of the local language and forced the adoption of the Japanese language and culture.

Japan has not apologised nor acknowledged any of this, unlike Germany with their atrocities.  Japan continues to publish textbooks that ignore anything Japan did during the war and the Prime Minister still visits the Yasukini shrine's section housed for the remains of the Class A war criminals.

Japan has not truly accepted its past proper, nor has it apologised properly to the other nations in Asia.

Japan's brutal march across Asia was halted by the Indians at Burma and the Soviets in the north.  Japan left a trail of devastation during its occupation and was ready to fight to the last man, which is what would have happened if we sent our 76 divisions of troops to invade. 

It would have been a bloodbath and caused countless loss of life for both sides. 

In this total war, this was the best possible alternative.  This is one of the few things I will say President Obama is doing good on.  We should not and we shall not apologise for this. 

Japan has no foot to stand on in asking for an apology and has no right to lecture about our actions until they come to terms with everything they did, before and after Pearl Harbour.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

WOW.  Really good reddit article there, tau I am super impressed.  I'm going to be using that A LOT in the future. 

/r/AskHistorians is a great subreddit in general. It's heavily moderated for high-quality content, which makes it a great read, but unless you've spent five years studying the subject in detail, don't bother responding to questions because there's someone out there who knows more than you and your comment will be deleted.

I absolutely despise whoever thought dropping atomic bombs was a good idea. It propelled the whole world to the brink of doom in the aftermath as all the countries began developing their own nukes. The argument of the ends justifying the means are insane when you consider what it actually accomplished. America took one devastating hit with Pearl Harbor. The entire Europe took these hits on a regular basis during the Second World War, and they didn't respond quite the same way. Of course, who's to say they wouldn't have if they had the technology?

Anyway, callous disregard for the innocents who died during the bombings, and the long term effects of it all just don't sit right with me.