Discussion Main / NuclearWeaponsTaboo

Also, who is "Sawyer Wallace" in the first place? I looked up the name on the internet, but I couldn't find a clue.

"Ever since America dropped the atomic bomb on them, Japan has used every single piece of media possible to attempt to guilt them over it. Nearly a century later results have thus far been... mixed." — Sawyer Wallace

This headline should be checked too. This article focuses too much on Atomic Bombing to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when Japan's hesitation toward nuclear power is not only made by them, but also some nuclear incidents like Daigo Fukuryu Maru incident. This line helps to overemphasize "Atomic Bombing" part too. And the line "Japan has used every single piece of media possible to attempt to guilt them over it" makes Japanese objection toward nuclear bombings to be just a hesitation toward looking at their own war crimes, which may not be completely wrong considering how Japan's denazification is done poorly compared with Germany, but not a SOLE reason for it. The main reason of it is Atomic Bombing actually killed and injured civilians in a brutal way, no matter how it is "needed" to end the war or not. Bringing up Japanese own atrocities looks like whataboutism-ish and insulting toward atomic-bomb victims, including children, Koreans who had forced labour, and some American captives.

"you seem to be overlooking that the *only* people responsible for what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the Japanese" "it is insulting to try and make Japan a victim when it is they who set in motion the events which led to the deaths of their own people."

You're right about "why" they are dropped. If the Japanese surrendered earlier or even didn't invade the Asia in the first place, it wouldn't have happened and people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as well as the other Asian nations and colonies) could live in peace. That's what we, the Japanese, are not taught much (not ENTIRELY though). What I am trying to say is the ACTUAL OUTCOME of the atomic bombing which was caused because the Americans dropped them, not "why they are dropped." I criticized Japan's self-victimization in the previous post (which means I am NOT overlooking Japan's responsibility to start the war and committed brutal war crimes). The line "Japanese objection toward nuclear bombings to be just a hesitation toward looking at their own war crimes" and "Japan's denazification is done poorly compared with Germany" are that. And I didn't know that "whataboutism" had a left-wing connotation hence I used the word. Isn't that you overlooking the point that I've made? Again, I'm not making Japan 100% victim of the war. What I'm stressing is that atomic bombing was still a killing of civilians, which should be condemned to some extent, even though the motive is somewhat justifiable. It's like saying 911 is completely justifiable and US civilians who were embroiled in the terrorist attack deserved death because their ancestors colonized and oppressed Middle-Eastern countries.

"The Japanese were also going to kill every Allied pow if Olympic and Coronet had gone ahead." You're right again, but I'm talking about what was "actually" happened. Talking about "what if" doesn't make sense here.

"adult Japanese civilians in factories and such were part of Japan's war machine" I know, Japanese civilians at that time were mainly on board with the war and were really a part of the war (and many people just blamed the military to get away with their contribution to the war). Still, they should try to avoid killing civilians during the war as many as possible. Maybe they tried by dropping them to avoid Olympics and Coronet, but still it made colossal death. Of course Japan killed more people, but number is not an issue when it comes to the death of the civilians.

P. S. I strongly recommend you to read the manga "Barefoot Gen." Not only the manga criticizes the cruel outcome of the atomic bombing, it also criticizes Japanese war crimes, racism inside the Japanese empire and the Imperial system that is used to justify the invasion, rather than making Japan complete victim of the war. Your opinion has a point, but I want you to consider the actual outcome and victims of the atomic bombing.

Imperial Japanese atrocities were definitely worse (and I wish Japan wasn’t the aggressor in the first place), but they’re no excuse to demonize all Japanese people. The children who were killed by the bombings probably weren't responsible for Unit 731 or the Nanjing Massacre.

Modern US foreign policy gets criticized all the time for drone striking civilians and "bombing brown people," but I don't see a lot of people saying "it's necessary to stop the terrorists."

My point, PC, is that people like you also generalize, clinging to an outdated notion that civilians are inherently innocent. The children and babies? Yes. But many if not most of the adults would have been part of Japan's war effort. Wars like WWII are fought between fully mobilized nations, including adult civilians on the Home Front, not just professional armies.

I think the paragraph about Japan's self-victimisation should be kept, not to whitewash Japan's brutal history which made many people think they "deserved" to be nuked. It would be better if there's more about the cruelty of the nuclear power and Japan's complex discourse about the nuclear power (just like the Daigo Fukuryu Maru incident), not enough to explain by just call them "War Crime Denials."

P.S. I'd like to stress that again, in case someone misunderstands: As a Japanese person, I'm neither defending nor denying brutal acts committed by my country in the past. It's a shame these are not much focused on Japanese society and not many people are aware of these (though I personally thinks at least they know the most infamous one like Nanjing Massacre). I'm just saying that the atomic bombings were ALSO the cruel one, even if there were more "justifiable" reasoning, and should not be overlooked "what" happened under the mushroom cloud, period.