"Atom bomb attacks were inevitable"

[2pints-mate 0]

I suppose this story is getting a fair bit of attention in Japan. (Is it?)

 

 Quote:

Japan's defence minister has apologised for saying the US atom bomb attacks in World War II were inevitable.

 

Fumio Kyuma's comments had outraged bomb survivors and sparked calls from opposition parties for his dismissal.

 

The minister said he was sorry if he had given the impression he lacked respect for the victims of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Speaking in Nagasaki, where he is from, Mr Kyuma promised not to make such remarks in the future.

 

 

He had said in a speech at a university that the bombing appeared to be "something that couldn't be helped".

 

Question. Even if they might be very unpopular comments, do some/many people actually think so or not?

[daver 0]

the funny thing about this comment is that he is in no way condoning the a-bomb, he is just taking a realistic view of history. something that is quite often hard to find here. case and point, taro aso(the FOREIGN MINISTER AND NEXT SLATED PRIME MINISTER) actually believes the USA intentionally tricked japan in bombing pearl harbor.

[bushpig 0]

it is an opinion that you do hear here from time to time 2pints. I'm in Hiroshima, and I even hear that point of view sometimes. Can't say I disagree with him either on that particular point. In many ways it was inevitable considering the situation in the pacific and the Allies' wish to avoid a bloody push up into Japan.

[BagOfCrisps 24]

Is he getting a good spanking now from the media?

[daver 0]

i find it upsetting though that he has had to promise to not make remarks like this again. basically he has been forced by media (likely the hard right variety) to keep his opinion to himself and from this point forward toe the line.

[ausi ski bum 1]

Its a very tough discussion point, on my last trip to Japan I visited Hiroshima something I have wanted to do for many years, with my family we stood at the Dome and walked to the monument with all the paper cranes, we toured the museum and it was very sullen but spiritual thing, I really am glad I got to visit.

 

I however also met an old digger (Australian Soldier) that was on a ship bound for Japan with a huge invasion force that would have landed had the bomb not stopped the war, estimates of life lost on both sides for an invasion on Japan far outweighed the losses from the bombs, fortunately that was not necessary.

 

All I know generations on is I love the Japanese people, the culture and the country, its just a shame any of this ever had to happen in the first place.

 

People no matter who they are should never be ashamed for their opinion on this subject, if its something you never speak of, then there is a danger the lesson learnt will be forgotten and we will repeat our mistakes of the past.

 

Lest we forget

[bushpig 0]

It's funny though, in reality, people in Japan are more than happy to talk about it. I have yet to meet a person who looks uncomfortable when the subject comes up.

 

Based on the resistance and "fight to the last man, even in the face of inescapable defeat" attitude that the allies had seen throughout SE Asia and then culminating in the battle of Okinawa, I don't really blame them for not wanting to get into a protracted and bloody battle especially on the Japanese homeland.

[Kumapix 0]

I didn't find his statements to be bad in any way. However, I am enjoying the backlash against him and uncle Abe. The more scandals the better!

[NoFakie 45]

The surrender came after diplomatic efforts and further developments post-bomb, and the pre-bomb terms (unconditional surrender according to the Potsdam Declaration) were still rejected after both bombs. We can only speculate on what might have happened had conditional surrender been offered prebomb as proposed by some members of the US War Department. Anyway, since active diplomacy was suggested but not tried, I think it is wrong to say the bombs were "inevitable".

 

As a free speech issue, the bloke should be free to say what he thinks. That said, you'd like to think that politicos would have the simple common sense to avoid a historical pandora's box like this. There are plenty of current events and problems for them to talk about.

[gerard 6]

"Atom bomb attacks were inevitable"

---Pretty heavy topic. No one's gonna really jump on this one?? Probably best that way anyway. Hmm....

[Hokkaidough 4]

What kind of words did the guy use? Open to mis-translation?

[gerard 6]

I missed the news when it broke but checked it out on the Japan Times website yesterday.

 

>>In a speech Saturday in Kashiwa, Chiba Prefecture, he said, "I understand the bombing (in Nagasaki) brought the war to its end. I think it was something that couldn't be helped."

[Oyuki kigan 0]

i'be been wondering for a while now why they didn't drop it on some small island just off the coast of some big city.

I wonder if just the demonstration of its power would have been enough to make the people surrender instead of dropping it on a mainly civilian target...

 

but hindsight is always 20-20...

[cheeseman 1]

He has just resigned.

 

Shouganai I suppose.

[bushpig 0]

he has?

[grungy-gonads 54]

Yes he has. Don't you watch "The Wide*"?!?

 

(* Za Waido)

[daver 0]

i wonder if he resigned as a result of political pressure, or on his own accord as his position does not allow him to have a historical point of view which contrasts that of the yushukan?

[samurai 0]

It was inevitable... it happened. duh.

 

On the topic of 'why it wasn't dropped first on a non-populated island'- from my understanding, the non-atomic bombs did far more damage than the final two.

 

Also, it was the start of a bluff. The US told Japan that if they didn't withdraw, they would drop another bomb... They didn't have another bomb. They bluffed the end to the war.

 

(...as far as my non-educated american version is concerned... flame me as you will. Or- politely correct me.)

 

And now he's resigned? Well... in my measily 3 years in this country, I've managed to see several politicians and highschool principals kill themselves over their mistakes. Good for him.

[SirJibAlot 0]

I love "T H E W I D E S H O W"

 

I suppose you could say 'at least they didn't drop it on Tokyo, Osaka, or (god forbid) Niseko!

[Go Native 70]

Hadn't heard a damn thing about it up here in Kutchan but then I never watch or read the news. It's one of the things I love about living here, I really have no idea what's happening in the world. As the old saying goes ignorance is bliss!

[keba 0]

Poor old Harry S (Truman) was really between a rock and a hard place. The numbers he was looking at at the time were a no brainer. The casualties from the A-bombs were orders of magnitude lower (no disrespect to the victims) than the expected casualties (both civilian and military) that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have resulted in. Their experience with the fighting on the islands to the south was enough to convince him that getting Japan to unconditionally surrender before any invasion was the most humane way to proceed, and the Bombs achieved that. It was awful that it happened, but it could have been much worse.

[NoFakie 45]

Samurai

 

The real father of the bomb, Leo Szilard, said they could have made more bombs quickly if needed.

 

http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html

 

Keba

 

Japan did not surrender unconditionally. Its a myth. Japan surrendered when offered the Emperor. There were many voices (Eisenhower, Grew, Stimson (initially at least), McCloy, Szilard, Einstein and the scientists, ... ) for a negotiated settlement before the bomb. Stimson and McCloy even wrote a line offering constitutional monarchy into Potsdam (Article 12) but it was deleted by Truman. I shall repeat, many prominent voices in the US Administration, Navy and Military were anti-bomb. They wanted negotiations. That is the issue for "inevitability", the topic of this thread. Anyway, its all on the historical record and can be found easy enough if you're interested.

[bushpig 0]

I'd be interested to see where you get that info MR W.

[soubriquet 0]

MrW is right on the mark, soubriquette said more or less the same thing this morning. She's also very happy to see Soka Gakai out.

[keba 0]

My error. Japan's surrender was conditional, with a lot of the obstacles to a negotiated peace involving the future role, if any, of the Japanese monarchy.

 

We'll never know, and Leo Szilard could certainly not have known, that the Japanese would have accepted the terms they eventually did, without having seen Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed. Truman made the decision he did, on the best information he had in front of him, and all we can do is study history so that these choices need not be faced by leaders in the future. For example, the Cuban missile crisis in 62 could have ended very badly, but for JFK bucking the advice of his Chiefs of Staff, and Iraq might be a different place now if the UN had been allowed to do its job by George W... sorry, getting off topic.