When will they apologize

>>69155733
Abe is a revisionist and nationalist. It would be out of character for him. He sees the War in the Pacific as a justified struggle against Western imperialism in Asia, not as aggressive colonial war it really was.

Obama knows that nuking Japan was a crime against humanity and it was pointless (Soviet invasion to Manchuria pushed Japan to surrender, not nukes), but it would be meaningless for him to apologise unless American public acknowledges this fact as well. It's not time for that yet.

File: 1370028678221.png (14KB, 255x218px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 255x218px

>>69155968
>Soviet invasion to Manchuria pushed Japan to surrender, not nukes

>>69156081
At the time, Soviet Union had a non-agression pact with Japan. Japanese government hoped that Stalin would act as a mediator in negotiations. That option went off the table with Soviet entry to the war.

They didn't surrender after Hiroshima. Firobombing of Tokyo was similarly destructive, they were used to it.

Truman administration wanted to test this new technology on human subjects and demonstrate willingness to use it to Soviets.

File: ericangdrebino.png (704KB, 1034x655px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 1034x655px

>>69155968
>Soviet invasion to Manchuria pushed Japan to surrender, not nukes

>>69156081
The nukes were to stop the Soviets from taking Japan, not to make Japan surrender.

>>69156263
Sounds like a blessing in disguise, then. 50 years of Soviet occupation would've fucked them up way worse than a couple of nukes.

>>69156216
You can rest assured that Trump will never apologise for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He sincerely believes in this jingoistic narrative and lacks the attention span to read a book about it.

Stop asking why can't Japan apologise for Pearl Harbor then.

>>69156198
>They didn't surrender after Hiroshima.
Correct, it was after Nagasaki.
>Firobombing of Tokyo was similarly destructive, they were used to it.
But those were long campaigns. Obviously the power of the atomic bombs was unprecedented, they didn't just say "sure we can take at least two of these within the span of days".
>Truman administration wanted to test this new technology on human subjects and demonstrate willingness to use it to Soviets.
This is just "le ebil American" meme. Yes, it might have been used in part to intimidate the Soviets but it also prevented a drawn out land war of at least as many casualties.

We Japanese liberals support Abe.
He is a good prime minister.

>>69156081
>>69156216
At the time of the bombings, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were virtually indistinguishable from conventional artillery bombing in terms of casualties and damage done to infrastructure. One of the generals try to address this with the council a few days before their surrender, but he was ignored. Rather, a few days later they addressed a meeting for the Soviets and promptly surrendered.

Nuclear bombs are spooky, but they didn't really have that as a concern until after their surrender.

>>69155733
No point. Everyone who was responsible for the attack is long dead. What would an apology be worth now?