Israel forced to apologise to Japan over offensive Hiroshima comments - Polidicks

[quote]Israel has been forced to issue a formal apology to Japan over offensive comments posted on Facebook by its head of online public diplomacy. The apology followed a complaint by the Japanese ambassador to Israel, Hideo Sato, after senior government official Daniel Seaman disparaged commemorations for the victims of the 1945 atomic bombs, causing a wave of protests in Japan. "I am sick of the Japanese, 'Human Rights' and 'Peace' groups the world over holding their annual self-righteous commemorations for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims," Seaman wrote on his Facebook page. "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression. You reap what you sow."[/quote] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/israel-apologise-japan-offensive-facebook-comments[/url] This is rich coming from an Israeli, considering Israelis are some of the most self-righteous people on this planet.

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression. You reap what you sow." My literal sides

He's kinda right in saying "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression". Very insensitive, but right. And I'm sure that the nukes actually spared a lot more lives than they took, in that a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed towards millions of civilians.

[QUOTE=Riller;41937237]He's kinda right in saying "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression". Very insensitive, but right. And I'm sure that the nukes actually spared a lot more lives than they took, in that a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed towards millions of civilians.[/QUOTE] The issue that comes to hand is calling the commemorations for those who died from the bombs self-righteous, that is just positively ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Riller;41937237]He's kinda right in saying "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression". Very insensitive, but right. And I'm sure that the nukes actually spared a lot more lives than they took, in that a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed towards millions of civilians.[/QUOTE] He's right However that's not something an Israeli should be saying.

[QUOTE=Lamar;41937253]I believe the issue that comes to hand is calling the commemorations for those who died from the bombs self-righteous[/QUOTE] That's true. Japan is self-righteous about a lot of their WWII history (Rape of Nanking, Unit 731, anyone? If you don't know what it is, don't look it up. Just sayin', Japan was just as bad as Germany, if not worse), but the atom bombings are not part of it.

[QUOTE=Riller;41937237]He's kinda right in saying "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression". Very insensitive, but right. And I'm sure that the nukes actually spared a lot more lives than they took, in that a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed towards millions of civilians.[/QUOTE] nothing justifies purposely dropping atomic weapons on purely civilian targets. and saying a conventional invasion would have caused less damage/death is pure conjecture, the other side of the conjecture is that japan was planning to surrender anyway

[QUOTE=Riller;41937270]That's true. Japan is self-righteous about a lot of their WWII history (Rape of Nanking, Unit 731, anyone? If you don't know what it is, don't look it up. Just sayin', Japan was just as bad as Germany, if not worse), but the atom bombings are not part of it.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't disagree with that, Japan cannot come to terms with some of terrible things it has done. However like you said, the atom bombings are not part of it. Imagine this as well, the idiot who said it was self-righteous is actually head of some kind of new PR department established to improve Israel's image.

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression. You reap what you sow." Eat up those words, Israel. Eat all that hypocrisy up.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41937294]nothing justifies purposely dropping atomic weapons on purely civilian targets. and saying a conventional invasion would have caused less damage/death is pure conjecture, the other side of the conjecture is that japan was planning to surrender anyway[/QUOTE] Well, both cities were major military industrial centers, that's why they were picked. Mainly civilian, yes, but it wasn't just senseless bombing of innocents with no strategic value apart from the show of force and the blow to morale; even if Japan did not surrender from the bombings, their industry would have been crippled and they'd have a hard time keeping up the fight. I've never seen sources saying that Japan was ready to surrender pre-bombing, though. Would love to be proven wrong.

[QUOTE=Riller;41937352]Well, both cities were major military industrial centers, that's why they were picked. Mainly civilian, yes, but it wasn't just senseless bombing of innocents with no strategic value apart from the show of force and the blow to morale; even if Japan did not surrender from the bombings, their industry would have been crippled and they'd have a hard time keeping up the fight. I've never seen sources saying that Japan was ready to surrender pre-bombing, though. Would love to be proven wrong.[/QUOTE] it's hard to find direct sources or sources that appear unbiased this one seems reasonable but i only skimmed it [url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html[/url] another argument though is that despite the emperor wishing to surrender many of the japanese high command still wanted to continue the war. even then i still don't feel there is any real justification for use of atomic weapons let alone against what i feel were largely civilian targets (and also with little or no regard to the after effects which are still being felt today) [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] and it's not like a conventional invasion of japan would even be necessary, it's an island nation, it's fleets had been either destroyed or rendered useless. they could have just been bottled up until terms of surrender that both parties would accept were reached

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41937386] and it's not like a conventional invasion of japan would even be necessary, it's an island nation, it's fleets had been either destroyed or rendered useless. they could have just been bottled up until terms of surrender that both parties would accept were reached[/QUOTE] It'd either be invasion, or constant bombing of military-industrial targets and raids on naval convoys to avoid them rebuilding that navy and/or airforce. Also there's the whole issue of all of eastern Asia being Japanese at the time thanks to their aggression. They could prolly use that for something or other.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;41937232]"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression. You reap what you sow." My literal sides[/QUOTE] What makes it hilarious to me is that this is Israel's diplomacy.

[QUOTE=Riller;41937237]He's kinda right in saying "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression". Very insensitive, but right. And I'm sure that the nukes actually spared a lot more lives than they took, in that a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed towards millions of civilians.[/QUOTE] Technically speaking Japan was considering a formal surrender before the U.S. wrote up the conditions, even then the conditions mentioned nothing of the Atomic Bombs.

[QUOTE=Riller;41937237]He's kinda right in saying "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the consequence of Japanese aggression". Very insensitive, but right. And I'm sure that the nukes actually spared a lot more lives than they took, in that a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed towards millions of civilians.[/QUOTE] It was a tragedy no matter who caused it. Nobody is pointing fingers and asking for apologies, anymore. Only for empathy, and that's natural and normal.

Does this guy even realise how guilty the Japanese felt after the atomic bombings? Their culture led them to feel responsible, and they responded by [i]totally rebuilding their society[/i], or at least removing the more imperialistic parts. In contrast, the Israeli approach to reconstruction after a major tragedy seems to be getting as close as possible as doing it to somebody else.

"Yeah, fuck all those civillians not involved with the war, they deserved to get annihalated by nuclear fire for living in a country with a government that cant behave!"

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41937294]nothing justifies purposely dropping atomic weapons on purely civilian targets. and saying a conventional invasion would have caused less damage/death is pure conjecture, the other side of the conjecture is that japan was planning to surrender anyway[/QUOTE] It's not conjecture actually, military estimates put American casualties range from half a million to several million, with over twice as many for the Japanese. [QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;41937858]"Yeah, fuck all those civillians not involved with the war, they deserved to get annihalated by nuclear fire for living in a country with a government that cant behave!"[/QUOTE] Welcome to Total War, where collateral damage is still damage, and all damage is favorable. All sides bombed the shit out of civilian population centers. We just found out how to make bigger bombs, way bigger.

On a side note, this "Japanese aggression" was a direct result of the USA and the Philippines' economic strangling of Japan that forced them to "attack now and maybe win, or wait and slowly lose" [quote]This move prompted the United States to embargo all oil exports, leading the Imperial Japanese Navy to estimate that it had less than two years of bunker oil remaining and to support the existing plans to seize oil resources in the Dutch East Indies. Planning had been underway for some time on an attack on the "Southern Resource Area" to add it to the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere that Japan envisioned in the Pacific.[/quote] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor[/URL] I'm not saying Japan isn't to blame (they were imperialistic and fascist and invading Asia) but the USA was forcing them into war, too.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41938090]It's not conjecture actually, military estimates put American casualties range from half a million to several million, with over twice as many for the Japanese. Welcome to Total War, where collateral damage is still damage, and all damage is favorable. All sides bombed the shit out of civilian population centers. We just found out how to make bigger bombs, way bigger.[/QUOTE] military estimates done by the same military that wanted to drop the bombs to show how strong they are. you can't just say 'well we totally know more people would have died if we didn't drop the bombs' because you DON'T know that. there's no way of knowing it's done now. but no matter what there is no justification (in my mind at least) for use of atomic weapons on civilians (or anyone to be honest) [editline]23rd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deltasquid;41938169]On a side note, this "Japanese aggression" was a direct result of the USA and the Philippines' economic strangling of Japan that forced them to "attack now and maybe win, or wait and slowly lose" [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor[/URL] I'm not saying Japan isn't to blame (they were imperialistic and fascist and invading Asia) but the USA was forcing them into war, too.[/QUOTE] i personally think it's more of a direct result of them siding with the nazi's and dividing the world between them and hitler

I think it's retarded to counter with a war that was fought several generations ago just to cover up your own current atrocities.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;41938169]I'm not saying Japan isn't to blame (they were imperialistic and fascist and invading Asia) but the USA was forcing them into war, too.[/QUOTE] They attacked us because we threatened their imperialistic goals. They wanted Asia, and we were starting to get in the way. Not only with the embargo, but with the Philippines, an American territory which they had set their eyes on taking. They wanted to cripple the United States Pacific Fleet so they could more forward without us getting in the way and hopefully without a Navy to back us up, talk us down to an agreement. If things went there way, they would have had much much less resistance to worry about.

yeah, japan didn't deserve the bombs, but they were on the bad guys side they deserved to lose

[QUOTE=deltasquid;41938169]On a side note, this "Japanese aggression" was a direct result of the USA and the Philippines' economic strangling of Japan that forced them to "attack now and maybe win, or wait and slowly lose" [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor[/URL] I'm not saying Japan isn't to blame (they were imperialistic and fascist and invading Asia) but the USA was forcing them into war, too.[/QUOTE] You mean the embargo the US put in place due to Japanese aggression and atrocities in Asia beforehand? The USA holds no blame in what happened.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;41938244]military estimates done by the same military that wanted to drop the bombs to show how strong they are. you can't just say 'well we totally know more people would have died if we didn't drop the bombs' because you DON'T know that. there's no way of knowing it's done now. but no matter what there is no justification (in my mind at least) for use of atomic weapons on civilians (or anyone to be honest)[/QUOTE] Well the bombs were an alternative. We could either drag out the bloody war for a few more years and a couple million lives, or we could use our new super weapon and have it over in no time. It was a very heavy decision, but eventually the President decided to use the bombs. Not to mention the massive uproar there would have been if people found out he could have ended the war with 0 American lives but instead chose to go with the invasion anyway. We can't know exactly how many would have died, the estimates they came up with were based on casualty rates sustained in the Pacific from similar invasions, then scaled appropriately. The US Military manufactured 500,000 Purple Heart medals in preparation for this attack. To put that into perspective, after all of the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and everything in the Middle East, we still have over 110,000 of those original medals. It's also worth mentioning that unlike Europe, we wouldn't be greeted as Heroes in Japan. US Military Intel was expected resistance from all branches of the Japanese military, as well as "a fanatically hostile population". [QUOTE=Lachz0r;41938337]yeah, japan didn't deserve the bombs, but they were on the bad guys side they deserved to lose[/QUOTE] They didn't 'deserve' them, but it was the quickest way to end the war, and everyone was sick of the war.

again, there's no way of knowing how costly the invasion would have been, but i believe an invasion wouldn't have been necessary, because either japan would have surrendered or they could have just been cut off from the world, they did not have the means to continue waging the war anywhere else other than their own soil.

Can't help but think Israel should be 'forced to apologise' for a whole lot fucking more than that.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41938414]Well the bombs were an alternative. We could either drag out the bloody war for a few more years and a couple million lives, or we could use our new super weapon and have it over in no time. It was a very heavy decision, but eventually the President decided to use the bombs. Not to mention the massive uproar there would have been if people found out he could have ended the war with 0 American lives but instead chose to go with the invasion anyway. [/QUOTE] I don't think it would mater what method the Americans used to end the war, people would still call it the wrong choice. To quote that old film war is "An interesting game, The only winning move is not to play."

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41938414]They didn't 'deserve' them, but it was the quickest way to end the war, and everyone was sick of the war.[/QUOTE] Tbh the Japanese were trying to negotiate an end to war months before the bombs were dropped, through the Russians. But the Russians deliberately stalled them as long as possible so they could act out their own designs for Asia. The atomic weapons were not the 'quickest way' to end the war. If it was quickness the Allies were after then they would have negotiated a conditional surrender of the Japanese a long time ago. They wanted an unconditional surrender which they knew the Japanese wouldn't take out of pride unless they killed hundreds and thousands of their civilians.

[QUOTE=Lamar;41937219][url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/israel-apologise-japan-offensive-facebook-comments[/url] This is rich coming from an Israeli, considering Israelis are some of the most self-righteous people on this planet.[/QUOTE] Sweeping generations are only okay when it comes to Isreal