Is it possible that United States will officially apologize in future for atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Status
Closed
Jun 2017
2,879
Connecticut
#12
How exactly do you know that the first bombing might have been enough?
I think three days was too brief a timetable to expect them to reevaluate their situation and/or get the emperor to step in(when traditionally he doesn't). Perhaps it wouldn't have been enough but it could have been and given the severity of what we were doing , think we should have given them at least a little more time.
 
Aug 2014
1,249
pakistan
#13
Why should USA apologize for atomic bombing, when it was a justifiable act?
Slavery was also justifiable act (free labour for farming) yet America has apologized for it.


"Greatest incident of terrorism in human history" was 9/11 by Muslims.
Only if Al-Qaida had detonated three nukes of "Fat man" size in New York city.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,463
KL
#15
its not like japan was a holy cow either, they were known for their merciless butchering, genocides, has japan apologized for its genocides?

i read an article that japan welcomed a guy who forgot that war was over and was lost in the jungles of philippines and kept butchering innocent people, farmers, herders etc, the killer was welcomed as a ''hero'' by japan.

regards
 
Jul 2016
9,301
USA
#19
It's possible in the far future. There's a difference between someone saying I'm sorry and the government officially saying it was a mistake. The consensus in the US is that the atomic bombings saved a ton of American and Japanese lives that would have been lost to an invasion. I think most Americans are sorry about the bombings but that's not the same as saying the decision was wrong. The Japanese indicated very heavily both through their fierce resistance over tiny islands and their propaganda that they were willing to fight to the last man, woman and child and that hyperbole is what led to Truman's decision. Did the Japs think the US could be forced into a peace settlement(true Unconditional surrender throughout history between great powers is rare and I understand why the Japs might have thought it was all talk) and was the US's ultimatum of destruction too vague to qualify as a serious warning? Yup but given the proportionality doctrine the bombings were in the best interest of the service members under Truman's command and the Japanese citizens of every other location in the country whose lives didn't end as a result. Under that logic the decision should not be apologized for and were for the benefit of the most people on both sides of the conflict.

Second bombing is more questionable than the first given that the first might have been enough to induce surrender in which case those deaths are for nothing and I'd somewhat agree with the spirit of the OP..
After the Hiroshima bombing, the three pri-war ministers of the Big Six (which ran Japan) told the Emperor it wasn't a nuke, just a big conventional bomb. Then after radiation readings confirmed it was an atomic bomb they changed their tune again, this time claiming there was no way the US could have made more than one.

The Big Six and Emperor only even openly contemplated surrender after the Nagasaki bomb. They met the morning of Aug 9 to discuss the Soviet declaration of war. During that meeting a messenger arrived with news that Nagasaki just got hit too.

At that point the pro-war ministers were still very a very limited surrender, with four completely unrealistic conditions. But other pro peace ministers started finally talking. Foreign Minister Togo admitted to everyone that, per the Emperor's secret orders, he'd previously been trying to open negotiation talks through the Soviet Union for a cease fire, but that was obviously out.

They cut that meeting, then met up later that night for a marathon night session, where the Emperor finally gave his opinion, that he wanted to end the war however. None of the Big Six were pro unconditional surrender, required per the Potsdam Declaration. Three pro peace wanted the emperor protected, three pro war wanted emperor protected, Japan retreats to pre Pearl Harbor territory,Japanese govt (meaning the Big Six) controls their disarmament and controls their own war crime trials to punish subordinates for following their own directives, and no occupation of Japan. Absolutely absord, but it was only after a night of bickering, into Aug 10, and after the Emperor brow beat them (he had caught them in another lie about defenses they swore were ready that hadn't been built yet), so it was only Aug 10 day that they decided unconstitutional surrender.

There is a theory that Truman could have added the stipulation to protect the emperor and they'd have surrendered earlier. The evidence to that is completely contradictory to the historical events. Its nonsense.
 
Aug 2014
1,249
pakistan
#20
If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, I can assure you that no atomic bombs would have been dropped at all.
More than 100,000 people were killed in firebombing of Tokyo by America yet i have not declared it "greatest incident of war crime and terrorism in human history". United States simply did not need to use nukes to defeat and break Japan. The use of nukes on Japan is evil and sinister because it was nothing more than testing on humans, to see if it can wipe out a city of humans, and the intention was to terrorize the entire world, and to show off that America has such deadly weapons. It did not kill just humans on the spot, it killed the very soil and messed up the genetics of surviving population there. America is the only nation in the human history which has used nukes on population of enemy. Objectively speaking, Its definitely greatest incident of war crime and terrorism in human history.


If you just want to rant about the US, why not be honest and just say so, but don’t use bogus and dumb arguments to criticize the US “indirectly’ which is a rather cowardly thing to do. Oh, and while you’re at it, maybe you can “pre-apologize” for the incendiary use of Pakistan’s nukes when they are launched against India. Hypocrite.
You are sitting behind PC screen, so am i. If you want to test my bravery or cowardice, you have to face to me in person. Then i will see whether an American has the to guts in real life to call me a hypocrite and coward on my face.
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions