Apologising for past events

So Prez Obama is not going to apologise for Hiroshima

I have never understood this apparent need to get every tom dick and harry apologising for things that happened in the past.

Did they do the deed, were they responsible for the deed, could they have stopped the deed? In virtually all of the cases the answer is invariably, NO. So why should they apologise. OK, it might make those affected feel better if someone apologises, it might even make getting legal redress easier but its not a genuine apology.

I can apologise for the slave trade, but I didnt do it so why is it important or relevant. Perhaps the French should apologise for their invasion in 1066? or the Scandinavians for the Viking attacks?

Should there be a statute of limitations on apologies and saying sorry?

Acknowledgement that the state has done something wrong comes to mind.

The debate is if you consider the state has done something wrong??

Obviously Obama feels that at the time and in those circumstances it was the best course of action for the Aliies.

I think it's a great step that Obama has taken and his words to the Japanese that have been reported are spot on, as are his intentions.

However, I do think that he should have apologised. It was a terrible act on a terrible scale. The trouble is when he's giving the green light for Americans to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11, then he might think apologising for Hiroshima and Nagasaki might open up the floodgates.

I don't think an apology would have been appropriate. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the USA and Japan have come a long way together and to a very great extent, their mutual benefit. What happened, happened under conditions of total war, somewhere we've thankfully not revisited.

I think Obama pitched it pretty well. Tough gig.

obviously should not have apologised. The use of the atomic bomb or even bombs (there were 2 of them) in August 1945 is not indefensible at all. Although maybe they might have tried waiting a few days more, before they bombed Nagasaki. Perhaps they also want Obama, who is not descended from transported slaves like 90% of black Americans are, to apologise for that too.

I always thought that Japan dragged the country into a war, so it should be their present leaders who should apologise to its people.

So Prez Obama is not going to apologise for Hiroshima

 

I have never understood this apparent need to get every tom dick and harry apologising for things that happened in the past.

 

Did they do the deed, were they responsible for the deed, could they have stopped the deed? In virtually all of the cases the answer is invariably, NO. So why should they apologise. OK, it might make those affected feel better if someone apologises, it might even make getting legal redress easier but its not a genuine apology.

 

I can apologise for the slave trade, but I didnt do it so why is it important or relevant. Perhaps the French should apologise for their invasion in 1066? or the Scandinavians for the Viking attacks?

 

Should there be a statute of limitations on apologies and saying sorry?

It's ok to apologies and then past events need to be learnt.

I always thought that Japan dragged the country into a war, so it should be their present leaders who should apologise to its people.

And everyone else they killed in their quest for power.

Due to the fanaticism that the Japanese at the time were defending the islands such as Tarawa and Okinawa the Americans estimated that on day 1 of an invasion of the Japanese home islands they would suffer 50,000 casualties. That was why the decision was made to use the bomb. A long campaign would lead to very high losses for the Americans.

Due to the fanaticism that the Japanese at the time were defending the islands such as Tarawa and Okinawa the Americans estimated that on day 1 of an invasion of the Japanese home islands they would suffer 50,000 casualties. That was why the decision was made to use the bomb. A long campaign would lead to very high losses for the Americans.

And the 50,000 was just the initial loss of life during the first days of the invasion.

In his memoirs, “Year of Decisions,” Truman wrote that he believed an invasion of Japan would have cost half a million American lives.

There would probably have been equal or more Japanese lives lost.

So that's possibly a million lives saved by killing 70,000.

The deterrent factor must have saved millions of other lives between then and now.

At the time it was a probably a very hard decision to kill all those civilians particularly as the American mainland had never been subject to attack and incurred civilian casualties, I,m glad I did not have to make the decision it must have haunted him.