Should Europeans offer their apologies for their colonization?

Should the European apologize for their colonization?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 10.8%
  • No

    Votes: 119 58.3%
  • No, but educate the European children more about this subject

    Votes: 63 30.9%

  • Total voters
    204
  • This poll will close: .

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,953
San Antonio, Tx
Its very weird. Japan has issued so many war apologies in the last 60 years List of war apology statements issued by Japan - Wikipedia

While America, which has committed greatest act of terrorism and war crime in history of humanity (wiping out two cities through nukes), is not sorry for any thing. In Urdu/Hindi there is saying 'jis ki laatti uski bains" (might is right).
Nonsense. You think that Japan starting the War in the Pacific was less bad than Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Mmmmm, let’s see: Japan carried out a sneak attack against a country with which it was at peace and killed about 2,000 innocent Americans on a Sunday morning and that’s OK, but it’s not OK to nuke two Japanese cities to bring that war to an end. I think you should pull up your t-shirt and contemplate your navel.
 
Likes: Menshevik

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,953
San Antonio, Tx
What the heck is this? its not an apology. The statement is justifying its use of nukes on Japan. "Truly a shameful people in humanity's past".....thats actually true for those who dropped nukes on the two cities. Japan did commit war crimes so did all participants of world war.......yet America and its allies presented themselves as sinless angels. "History is written by victors" as they say and "might is right". Why only Japanese and Germans are apologetic and feel guilty?
If you (Japan) start a war, you (Japan) better know how to finish it or they (Americans) will do it for you.
 
Likes: Menshevik

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,953
San Antonio, Tx
Thats about grievances of Japanese-Americans. Where is apology for nuking two cities of Japan?

Nukes can destroy our planet and America is the only country in the world which has used it on humans , two cities were wiped out in instance. Not only earth becomes scorched and unusable but the survivors are afflicted with cancers and mutations. It was the greatest act of terrorism. America invented nukes and started nukes race and has jeopardized the very existence of this planet.
While you are busy pontificating nonsense about the US bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can you please tell me what the purpose of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons is?
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,066
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Nonsense. You think that Japan starting the War in the Pacific was less bad than Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Mmmmm, let’s see: Japan carried out a sneak attack against a country with which it was at peace and killed about 2,000 innocent Americans on a Sunday morning and that’s OK, but it’s not OK to nuke two Japanese cities to bring that war to an end. I think you should pull up your t-shirt and contemplate your navel.
I don't think it was ok to drop the bombs, IF US intelligence knew that the Japanese were prepared to surrender if given a guarantee on the status of the Emperor (which is after all, what eventually happened), but only if the surrender made clear that Japan was a defeated power, not an "honourable" surrender. I don't know if the Japanese would have accepted that latter part or not.

But if there was any alternative to killing a quarter of a million civilians to force Japan's surrender, it should have been taken.
 
Likes: Futurist

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,953
San Antonio, Tx
And when it has been, possibly still is, institutionalized, so that no single individual is responsible for the maintenance of the system, yet a system there has been?

It's like the recent bad move by the British Treasury, misunderstanding its own role in the end of slavery in the British Empire. It didn't pay to set slaves free, it paid compensation to the slavers for their lost property, now set free. So it asked the British public to take pride in their role in ending slavery – missing the bit where they were asked in fact to take pride in having made sure the slave owners got out of that one with little economic damage to their financial interests. Which is rather different from the freeing part.
The Treasury’s tweet shows slavery is still misunderstood | David Olusoga
I read somewhere a long time ago that Prime Minister Chamberlain’s family used to own slave holdings in Jamaica or some such place and were compensated for having to give up their slaves. I don’t think the old PM had anything to do with these negotiations but what do I know?
 
Last edited:

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,953
San Antonio, Tx
But if there was any alternative to killing a quarter of a million civilians to force Japan's surrender, it should have been taken.
Will we ever know the answer to this question? Of course the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrible. No one wants to kill hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom were as innocent as any civilians in any war torn country. Was this really any different from the thousands who had already perished in “normal” fire raids? At the time, there was no general knowledge of radiation and its after effects, so the military minds that sent bombers over these two targets saw it as a much more efficient way of destroying a city. Instead of thousands or hundreds of bombers aloft, only one was needed. Not hard to see that military planners thought this would save a lot of pilots’ lives and the Americans were definitely interested in doing that.

The alternatives, if there were any good ones, were not very good either. They all involve strangling Japan to death by cutting off its food supply with a naval embargo which had already had a large measure of success. This would have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions as US planners sat back and witnessed an entire nation commit suicide.

What American planners wanted to avoid - because the Japanese were becoming tougher, not easier the closer Allied forces got to mainland Japan. - was the sort of bloody battle that the Japanese government wanted to inflict on the invaders in order to “force” them to give the Japanese a better deal. The military that was running Japan at the time were really a bunch of parochial types who didn’t know very much about the wider world outside. I’m speaking about the army here and not the navy.

I know there was a feeling of dread among American war leaders about the cost of invading Japan, not because they thought they would lose, but because they were fairly certain the price would be higher than they wanted to pay. If it involved killing young girls and boys armed with long spears, I’m pretty sure the US soldiers would have found that quite disturbing.
 
Likes: Futurist

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,066
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Will we ever know the answer to this question? Of course the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrible. No one wants to kill hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom were as innocent as any civilians in any war torn country. Was this really any different from the thousands who had already perished in “normal” fire raids? At the time, there was no general knowledge of radiation and its after effects, so the military minds that sent bombers over these two targets saw it as a much more efficient way of destroying a city. Instead of thousands or hundreds of bombers aloft, only one was needed. Not hard to see that military planners thought this would save a lot of pilots’ lives and the Americans were definitely interested in doing that.
The Allies did try to bring up the bombing of Coventry during the Nuremberg trials, but not very enthusiastically, given that the Nazis could (and did) point out that the Allies had done exactly the same thing to Dresden.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,953
San Antonio, Tx
Nukes can destroy our planet and America is the only country in the world which has used it on humans , two cities were wiped out in instance. Not only earth becomes scorched and unusable but the survivors are afflicted with cancers and mutations. It was the greatest act of terrorism. America invented nukes and started nukes race and has jeopardized the very existence of this planet.
Remind me again of why Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
If you’ve looked at a map of cities in Japan, you will see that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today so while scorched, they were not rendered unusable as cities today.
The atom bombs were developed by the US, but they were also developed with the active collaboration of hundreds, maybe thousands of scientists from around the world.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
32,066
T'Republic of Yorkshire
I know there was a feeling of dread among American war leaders about the cost of invading Japan, not because they thought they would lose, but because they were fairly certain the price would be higher than they wanted to pay. If it involved killing young girls and boys armed with long spears, I’m pretty sure the US soldiers would have found that quite disturbing.
That, of course, was as a result of what happened in Okinawa. I read somewhere that that was an exception rather than the rule, but I can't say if that's true or not. Undoubtedly, the civilian population would have resisted in an invasion, but I'm proposing forcing a surrender before an invasion became necessary. Whether that was possible or not, I agree that we can't ever know now. I believe historical records suggest it might have been possible but I imagine there will be dispute on that.

But one thing I feel was unnecessary was the second bomb. I think the Soviet invasion would have been enough of a shock at that point to drive the Japanese to surrender.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,590
SoCal
I don't think it was ok to drop the bombs, IF US intelligence knew that the Japanese were prepared to surrender if given a guarantee on the status of the Emperor (which is after all, what eventually happened), but only if the surrender made clear that Japan was a defeated power, not an "honourable" surrender. I don't know if the Japanese would have accepted that latter part or not.

But if there was any alternative to killing a quarter of a million civilians to force Japan's surrender, it should have been taken.
I agree with this. Specifically, the Potsdam Declaration should have included an Allied will to allow Japan's Emperor to remain on the throne as a figurehead. Technically, this wouldn't have eliminated the Allies' unconditional surrender policy, but it would have allowed Japan to know what to expect after unconditionally surrendering. I mean, the Allies explicitly stated in the PD that Japan would be allowed to keep its four main islands after unconditionally surrendering; something similar could have been done with Japan's Emperor. Of course, your recommendation would have also had to be followed and the Japanese would have had to be aware that the US would have carte blanche to reshape Japan's political, social, and economic order however it sees fit even if it will keep the Japanese Emperor as a figurehead.

To be fair to the Allies, though, they might not have known how important the Emperor issue was to the Japanese and they were probably extremely stressed out by having to fight and manage a war for several years. Thus, this omission on their part in the PD is at least understandable.