Why do the Japanese get so upset about the A-bomb when they first attacked us at pearl harbor?

Question

I was just reading that story about the HBO documentary on hiroshima and nagsaki. It seems that it is a very sore subjust with japan. Dont they realize that were were not involved in that war until they killed our men in a unprevoked attack at pearl harbor?


your thoughts please.

Answer 1

I'd imagine it has something to do with leveling non-military targets and leaving them irradiated for a very long time.

Answer 2

It's a sad fact of life, but war is a legitimate form of foreign policy. It always has been, and even today the US can start a war anytime, anywhere, on any pretense, or even on no pretense at all. There is nothing inherently 'illegal' about starting a war. And technically, according to the accepted norms of warfare, Japan did 'declare' war just prior to the attack. Even if they hadn't, imagine a scenario where the US attacked a country in the same manner and we wouldn't call it a 'sneak attack,' we would call it a 'brilliant military strategy.'

But while war itself is recognized as a legitimate form of foreign policy, certain actions committed during war are deemed so egregious they are called 'war crimes.' Many, many nations, including the US, have agreed to abide by certain rules of warfare. Indiscriminate bombing of urban areas and the deliberate targeting of non-combatants are war crimes, pure and simple. And they were considered war crimes BEFORE the beginning of WWII. Pearl Harbor was a legitimate act of war, and the targets were purely military. Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not to mention the carpet bombing of Tokyo and just about every other major Japanese city with conventional bombs) were war crimes. The only reason US servicemen weren't tried as criminals is because, as they say, 'might makes right.'

Answer 3

The point about actually saving more lives by using the A-bombs has been well established. So let us try a new approach. This goes out to all of the Japanese people and anyone who is still wringing their hands about the evil A-Bomb. Ask yourself this question: If Japan had developed the A-Bomb first, would they have used it?

The answer is yes. Not only yes but HELL YES! So stop all this hypocrisy. Imperial Japan was one of the most violent and evil empires in modern times. They committed atrocities on the Chinese that rival anything the Nazis did. They tortured, starved, abused and killed POW's. No, I do not cry for the Japanese civilians that died due to the A-Bombs. At least those people lost their lives in a meaningful way. Their sacrifice ended further bloodshed and resulted in a far better Japan than what they were trying to protect.

.

.

Answer 4

distinctive people have self assurance this to be the case. the U. S. ha the 'Enigma' encrypting gadget and ought to study any and all radioed eastern messages. There are 2 theories: a million. the U. S. intelligence companies did not take this heavily and skipped over the advice. 2. Roosevelt felt the conflict might stumlate the nonetheless faltering american financial device, and the did not beleive the attack could be so effective. study under bout 80 3 messages we knew approximately earlier the attack: An Interview with Robert B. Stinnett by using Douglas Cirignano On November 25, 1941 Japan’s Admiral Yamamoto sent a radio message to the gang of eastern warships that would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7. Newly released naval records tutor that from November 17 to twenty-5 america military intercepted 80-3 messages that Yamamoto sent to his agencies. area of the November 25 message study: “...the job rigidity, protecting its strikes strictly secret and conserving close shield against submarines and airplane, shall strengthen into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very establishing of hostilities shall attack the biggest rigidity of america fleet in Hawaii and deal it a mortal blow...”

Answer 5

All this righteous indignation about an 'unprovoked' attack on the US. What was the US invasion of Iraq? That was unprovoked.

The immediate response to that will probably be 'well don't forget 11/9' Oh yeah, some buildings were blown up and people killed by some Saudis ... so we'll bomb Iraq. Brilliant! How can a once great nation such as the US have an idiot such as Bush at the helm?

In any event, the Pearl Harbour attack was sorely provoked by the US, which was doing its darnedest to cut off Japan's oil ... it's lifeline.

Answer 6

Since you asked here are my thoughts. I have been to Japan on two different occasions. While there I had the opportunity to visit Hiroshima several times. If you could see the destruction we caused on their cities and the suffering they went trough you would understand why they feel bitter. Now the younger generation hold no grudge. The older ones who were alive when it happend do. They Japanese are some of the kindest people i have met. They are very polite.
Did the innocent people there deserve it? in my opinion no. But our only other option would have been to invade the mainland thus resulting in heavy American and Japanese casulties. Perhaps the sacrifice of a few saved many. I had a chance to meet a Japananse WW2 veteran there. He was no different than any American War Veteran i have met.

Answer 7

It is called pointing fingers to make you look better. Hiroshima was the main headquarters for the Japanese militay-their version of the Pentagon was there-so it was not really a civillian target. Many more casualties would have been killed in an invasion of mainland Japen. They had "armed" much of the population and they would have either fought to the death or committed suicide rather then surrender, as many Japanese civillians did on Okinawa. As for Japanese Bushido Code and not attacking civillians because of it but just military targets; it is not correct. The code applies to Japanese and not gui-jen (Barbarians) who are everyone but Japanese. Look at the Japanese treatment of civillians in Korea, the Phillippines (my former mother-in-law was a civillian Spanish national who was interred in a Japanese camp and her stories were stomach turning but she was treated well compared to the Phillipinoes there), and notably in China (Rape of Nankng being a big historical event) where even today the inability of the Japanese to admit wrong doing or apologize is still a political sore point with the government and people. Cannot forget to mention treatment of military prisoners was as bad or worse; this treatment included using them (military prisoners and civiliians) as guinea pigs for biological warfare experiments.
Re-writing history to make it "politically acceptable" seems to be a favorite thing to do right now, especially if it makes the U.S. look bad or "war mongerring", but looking back at history sometimes tells a different story.

Answer 8

Possibly because we told the Red Cross that Hiroshima was not a target and would not be bombed, then destroyed it with a new and horrendous weapon?

They were using it as a refugee city, we probably should have hit a different target (we did a lot during WWII though, luckily things have changed since).

They attacked the US to get us to drop sanctions against them, to make us realize their power. We attacked with the A-bomb to speed the end of the war (which it did not really do), to scare the Russians (who ended the war by threatening the Japanese with their army which was well known for raping and murdering civilians in the areas they invaded), and to some degree for revenge (if you disagree just read War Without Mercy, or Dr. Seuss Goes to War, or military newspapers from that time period, or watch some things like Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips).

_____

People who say the Japanese dont kill civilians--just spend 5 minutes reading about their invasion into Manchuria. Just because the US didnt recognize the Chinese as important enough to care about at the time doesnt mean that they werent people. They were just as bad as the Russian military and the Nazi's, possibly worse. (Note, we werent always much better in the Pacific theater, it was definately a racially fueled war).

Answer 9

Heh. When my dad was stationed in Okinawa, the kids that were running artound would always flash him the peace sign, and my dad would return it. But, under his breath, he would say "That's right. Two bombs, two bombs."
I guess that doesn't answer your question though. It is a sore subject, and will be one. Many many people died, and that's a hard thing to get over. I mean, look at 9/11. It's just another war between political power with civilians caught in the crossfire. And that pretty much bothers everyone.

Answer 10

Their leadership at the time viewed the oil embargo as provocation. Perhaps there's still some sentiment in that regard. I don't see the logic in fussing over the nukes, either. One could make a case against indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, or against any "total war," but the Japanese can't make that argument, at least not in China, and the gripe about using one type of bomb over another seems specious at best.

Answer 11

I've been to Hiroshima and pearl harbor and they're both grim reminders of WWII...the Japanese i knew when i lived there were mostly concerned about nuclear arms/power being brought into their country by the US military (post war) and once a month held an orderly protest