Hiroshima justified? (Invasion should have been attempted at the very least if not carried thru)

(Greg Moritz) wrote:
"Linda Terrell" wrote
in message ...

what's wrong with ending a war as quickly
as possible
and avoiding a costly invasion?

We had a weapon that could end that war in
a matter of weeks or
days. So let's invade and drag it out for
weeks and months so
we can "justify" ending it with a super weapon?

I lived with lots of Japanese folks and studied
the language
with native speakers and they all agree that
had Japan had such
a weapon, they would have used it. It seems
that most of the
hand-wringing over the use of the bomb seems
to come from
Americans.

Interestingly, the ignorance of Japanese atrocities
is (from
my admittedly limited survey) nearly 100%.
People in Taiwan
know all about the Rape of Nanking, but people
in Japan don't
seem to know that it even happened.

Has anyone seen/heard any thing different?
Just curious.

Also, does anyone know how this thread has managed
to multiply
itself to a half dozen? Posts seem to have
replicated into
duplicate threads. I post one time and see
it four times.
Regarding Japanese attitude on Nanking: A senior Japanese politician called
the Nanking atrocities a hoax by the PRC. The resulting outcry from both
the PRC and Taiwan as well as other SE Asian nations resulted in his apology
and resignation. This was 3-4 years back IIRC. As for Pearl Harbor, a number
of former pilots in Kido Butai have gone back and been welcomed at the Arizona
Memorial by the USN and the Park Service, as well as a number of PH survivors.
The survivors' attitude seems to be "they were doing their job, just as we
were." The survivors attitude towards the Japanese Government is quite different,
however.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!