Job Discussion Forums

[gaijinalways]

Note to moderators;
I did a search for this topic, but the search function seemed to be pulling up a lot of unrelated topics. If the mods find a closely related thread, please merge them.

The part of his actual remarks that got him in trouble with the Japanese public, in case you have missed the flurry of news reports, were, "I understand the bombings brought the war to an end. I think it was something that couldn't be helped." (referring to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Basically, he felt that the US wanted to force Japan to surrender sooner, so even though the American government felt that Japan would surrender eventually, they still dropped the bombs. What was termed in the Daily Yomiuri as a 'naive' statement turned into a media circus as bomb victims twisted the minister's statment into showing support for nuclear bombs.

Personally, I think Japan is a little out of touch with why they were bombed (never mind geting into whether Truman's decision was justified or not); to end a war more quickly, to stop the Russians from entering further into mainland Japan, for cold war reasons, and for the Americans to use a new bomb they had.

What many people seem to forget, especially Tojo's granddaughter, was that Japan started a war and brought the US actively into the Pacific theater by bombing Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. There was nothing innocent about that.

But anyway, back to my original question, should the defense minister have resigned?

I personally think he should have been allowed to stay after clarifying his statements and issueing apologies to the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then again, I'm not in political office, and maybe am unaware of the political games one must play. Of course, politicians often have to deal with what people think, rather than what is the truth.

[Brooks]

Kyuma is from Nagasaki, so he got a lot of flack.
Abe's popularity is taking a dive, so that's why he left.
Abe has an election this month, and it looks like the LDP is going to get beat.

[flyingkiwi]

Let's just hope he doesn't go the way of the agricultural minister

[callmesim]

Is there a federal (wrong word?) election this month?

When I was in Japan, I couldn't get any information from students as to when the next election was. Most said "in a few years, I think".

[User N. Ame]

[Brooks]

the election date was changed. Abe will have it on July 29th. My wife can vote early since she will be with me in Hawaii that day.

Abe is in trouble about the pension issue. The LDP is going to lose many seats, and so cannot afford to have a minister getting criticized like this.
As my wife said, what he broke is a taboo about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Atlas*]

[Brooks]

yeah, I agree User.
Japan killed millions in the 30s and 40s yet wants to play the victim.
Japanese civilians were victims, but who started the war?
My wife's grandfather was a victim too. He died in the Philippines of disease in 1943.
In August the government was arguing about the war, and hadn't
surrendered.
If the US had invaded Kyushu in November, 1945, there would have been a horrific amount of deaths. Truman didn't want any more US soldiers to die. The war was over in Europe, and the US government was impatient.
Actually a few US generals were against the bombing
but Truman did what he wanted.

I didn't know that many Koreans died in Hiroshima. Their names should be listed.

[furiousmilksheikali]

If a US president said "It's not really that surprising that some guys flew planes into the World Trade Center given our foreign policy decisions." then I expect he may not be around too much longer either.

You said it doesn't matter whether the atomic bombs were justified or not but that Japan should see them in a wider context.

[Mothy]

[quote="Atlas*"]
while japans method in pearl harbour may not have been the best response to what was happening in their country, it was one of few options the US were pushing on them. the us had crippled japan by cutting off all of its incoming and outgoing trade and oil, which from what i remember studying japan had about 2 weeks left before their whole country would have been at a standstill. japan took a stand.
sometimes i wish people realised that pearl harbour is as much americas own fault as japans.[/quote]

That's ridiculous. We cut off all of Japan's incoming trade and oil because THEY WERE ALREADY INVADING ALL OF ASIA!!! They'd had Korea for many years, were quickly acquiring mcuh of China, seizing much of the islands in the area, Taking Indonesia, New Guinea, with eyes set on the Phillipines and New Zealand. And America was supposed to ignore this? To blame the US for Pearl Harbor is freaking stupid. Yeah Japan took a stand. A stand that they weren't going to cease conquering Asia.

[Sage]

[Yawarakaijin]

[Nagoyaguy]

The minister learned that there is one thing you can NEVER EVER do in Japan- attempt to go against the Cult of the Victim that has been carefully nurtured after WW2. You can screw with any other issue- women's rights, the economy, whatever. Just leave the comfy warm feeling of being the innocent target of a nuclear weapon the hell alone!

I hate to say it, but Japan fully deserved to be nuked. Actually, in the long run untold lives were saved on both sides as a result of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They gave Hirohito the excuse he needed to intervene in the political process and push for a surrender. Never mind the allied military casualties (hundreds of thousands minimum) that would have occurred during an invasion of Japan, think of the rest of Asia. In the areas occupied by the Japanese empire, civilians were dying at the rate of 200,000 per month. A 5 month delay in the end of the war would have resulted in an additional ONE MILLION deaths.

As for the comparisons of the atomic bombings to 9/11, they are ridiculous. The atomic bombings happened at the end of a years long global conflict between nation states. The terror attacks of 9/11 were the cowardly actions of a small group of freaks.

[callmesim]

[furiousmilksheikali]