Will an American President Ever Apologize for the Atomic Bombings of Japan?

Was Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb right?


  • Total voters
    0
#1

volprof

Destroyer of Nihilists
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
18,149
Likes
10,064
#1
With Kerry's visit to Hiroshima this week (and I don't think there's anything wrong with goodwill), I got to thinking about whether or not the US will ever officially apologize for the bombings. In past eras, this would have been unthinkable, but it seems like the US's actions are thought of in an increasingly negative light globally and domestically with each successive year, given the relative security of our distance from that time. There's even been speculation, via Wikileaks, that Obama has ruminated about apologizing and, while I think him the most likely of candidates to be the first to apologize, I also have difficulty accepting the claims of a Russian SVR (which is what Wikileaks and Snowden both are) tool on its face.

So, I'll do three things here:

1. Provide a poll that attempts to determine what VolNation posters think about the ethics of Truman's decision.

2. Ask you all less formally whether or not you think an American president will ever officially apologize for the bombings.

3. If "yes" to 2 above, then what do you think will be the implications of such an apology?

I will go ahead and answer the above for myself: Truman was right in his decision, whether or not Japan was ready to surrender, and this is largely because his decision to do so most likely prevented Japan from becoming another North and South Korea, as documents have revealed that the Soviets fully intended on invading northern Japan and Hokkaido by the time an American invasion would have occurred and perhaps even despite Japan's surrender. I theorize that Truman's decision therefore saved more lives, whether or not Japan was ready to surrender. Regarding an official American apology, coming from an American president, yes, I do think it will sadly occur at some point. The odds can only be in its favor, especially as Western societies trend more and more towards a bizarre form of reflexive self-loathing, something unseen in any other cultures in history. Lastly, I think that, besides being what will surely prove our most embarrassing moment in "domestic" foreign politics, I think it makes a particularly frightening gesture to other nations concerning our mindset about our nuclear deterrence: we probably aren't willing to use it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3
#3
What's the statute of limitations on apologies? I'm still waiting for the Greeks to apologize for when Alexander burned down Persepolis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#6
#6
As far as I'm concerned any President contemplating an apology should be impeached on the spot.

I agree. The very idea that an American president would do so makes me gag. I just can't help feeling, however, that it is eventually coming. It may take another couple of decades or more, but, at the pace Western societies are currently moving in what can only be described as some sort of bizarre purification ritual it is only a matter of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8
#8
I agree. The very idea that an American president would do so makes me gag. I just can't help feeling, however, that it is eventually coming. It may take another couple of decades or more, but, at the pace Western societies are currently moving in what can only be described as some sort of bizarre purification ritual it is only a matter of time.

As loathe as I am to admit it you're probably correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
Why should we apologize? When America bombed Hiroshima, the next day Japan was given the opportunity to surrender and chose not to. That's why Nagasaki was bombed. Their leader at the time agreed to surrender but as long as he could keep his title even though he would lose all power. The Japanese people were never told he had no power and still continued to call him their leader.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
I agree. The very idea that an American president would do so makes me gag. I just can't help feeling, however, that it is eventually coming. It may take another couple of decades or more, but, at the pace Western societies are currently moving in what can only be described as some sort of bizarre purification ritual it is only a matter of time.

I don't think it will take 2 decades. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama does it before leaving office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#12
#12
Why should we apologize? When America bombed Hiroshima, the next day Japan was given the opportunity to surrender and chose not to. That's why Nagasaki was bombed. Their leader at the time agreed to surrender but as long as he could keep his title even though he would lose all power. The Japanese people were never told he had no power and still continued to call him their leader.

Not saying we should or shouldn't apologize...IDC...but the argument is we should apologize for targeting non-combatants on such a huge scale, regardless of what Japan's military/leaders were doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#13
#13
Not saying we should or shouldn't apologize...IDC...but the argument is we should apologize for targeting non-combatants on such a huge scale, regardless of what Japan's military/leaders were doing.

Not meant as a deflection but I've always considered Dresden much worse if that's the criteria. The bombed cities did have strategic value.

Description of the Cities Before the Bombings | The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
#15
#15
The alternative would have been the absolute destruction of Japan by land invasion. We did them a favor by only dropping two bombs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
Not saying we should or shouldn't apologize...IDC...but the argument is we should apologize for targeting non-combatants on such a huge scale, regardless of what Japan's military/leaders were doing.

Sorry I wasn't meaning that you said we should. I have no issue with what we did to Japan. They basically destroyed our entire pacific fleet and we were not only dealing with them but were on the verge of dealing with hitter. Not sending a message like this would have made us look more vulnerable
 
#17
#17
The alternative would have been the absolute destruction of Japan by land invasion. We did them a favor by only dropping two bombs.

The projected casualties if the Allied had in invaded Japan were around 500,000 Americans dead and 5 million Japanese dead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#18
#18
The projected casualties if the Allied had in invaded Japan were around 500,000 Americans dead and 5 million Japanese dead.

Serious question, but why did we need to invade Japan to win? Hadn't we won enough of the Pacific that we had the upper hand? Couldn't we just sit on what had taken and fortified it. Make them bring the battle to us. Invasion is suicide.

In other words...if there was no A-bomb, would the only choice be to invade Japan?
 
#19
#19
Serious question, but why did we need to invade Japan to win? Hadn't we won enough of the Pacific that we had the upper hand? Couldn't we just sit on what had taken and fortified it. Make them bring the battle to us. Invasion is suicide.

In other words...if there was no A-bomb, would the only choice be to invade Japan?

perpetual war? yeah thats not a good strategy. the goal in any war should be to end it when you have the chance for a killing blow.

especially as it has been pointed out that we knew the Soviets were going to invade. they weren't exactly very kind to those they conquered in WWII.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#20
#20
I agree. The very idea that an American president would do so makes me gag. I just can't help feeling, however, that it is eventually coming. It may take another couple of decades or more, but, at the pace Western societies are currently moving in what can only be described as some sort of bizarre purification ritual it is only a matter of time.
If the current version of Neville Chamberlain doesn't do it, the female one certainly will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#21
#21
With Kerry's visit to Hiroshima this week (and I don't think there's anything wrong with goodwill), I got to thinking about whether or not the US will ever officially apologize for the bombings. In past eras, this would have been unthinkable, but it seems like the US's actions are thought of in an increasingly negative light globally and domestically with each successive year, given the relative security of our distance from that time. There's even been speculation, via Wikileaks, that Obama has ruminated about apologizing and, while I think him the most likely of candidates to be the first to apologize, I also have difficulty accepting the claims of a Russian SVR (which is what Wikileaks and Snowden both are) tool on its face.

So, I'll do three things here:

1. Provide a poll that attempts to determine what VolNation posters think about the ethics of Truman's decision.

2. Ask you all less formally whether or not you think an American president will ever officially apologize for the bombings.

3. If "yes" to 2 above, then what do you think will be the implications of such an apology?

I will go ahead and answer the above for myself: Truman was right in his decision, whether or not Japan was ready to surrender, and this is largely because his decision to do so most likely prevented Japan from becoming another North and South Korea, as documents have revealed that the Soviets fully intended on invading northern Japan and Hokkaido by the time an American invasion would have occurred and perhaps even despite Japan's surrender. I theorize that Truman's decision therefore saved more lives, whether or not Japan was ready to surrender. Regarding an official American apology, coming from an American president, yes, I do think it will sadly occur at some point. The odds can only be in its favor, especially as Western societies trend more and more towards a bizarre form of reflexive self-loathing, something unseen in any other cultures in history. Lastly, I think that, besides being what will surely prove our most embarrassing moment in "domestic" foreign politics, I think it makes a particularly frightening gesture to other nations concerning our mindset about our nuclear deterrence: we probably aren't willing to use it.

What you said.
 
#22
#22
Serious question, but why did we need to invade Japan to win? Hadn't we won enough of the Pacific that we had the upper hand? Couldn't we just sit on what had taken and fortified it. Make them bring the battle to us. Invasion is suicide.

In other words...if there was no A-bomb, would the only choice be to invade Japan?
Seriously?
 
#23
#23
Serious question, but why did we need to invade Japan to win? Hadn't we won enough of the Pacific that we had the upper hand? Couldn't we just sit on what had taken and fortified it. Make them bring the battle to us. Invasion is suicide.

In other words...if there was no A-bomb, would the only choice be to invade Japan?

let me put it this way. You are asking if America should have "Butch Jonesed It circa 2015". its war, you can't risk them coming back to bite you. especially if waiting gives them a chance to fortify and prepare and continue the fight.

and you can't forget that Japan still held significant territory in China, Korea and elsewhere; and they weren't too kind to the locals. This wasn't just ending it for America, this was ending it for everybody.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#25
#25
perpetual war? yeah thats not a good strategy. the goal in any war should be to end it when you have the chance for a killing blow.

especially as it has been pointed out that we knew the Soviets were going to invade. they weren't exactly very kind to those they conquered in WWII.

Estimated 500k American losses doesn't sound like we had a good "chance for a killing blow".
 

VN Store



Back
Top