Hiroshima and Nagasaki at 65
I have blogged on this in the past, and simply restate my feelings now: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if not war crimes, were certainly not necessary to end the war. I hold that it would have been more than adequate had a “warning shot” been detonated over mountains outside Tokyo, in full view of the capital, and then a warning given that a city a week would be obliterated if Japan did not surrender unconditionally. I do not accept any of the excuses about this; it was a clear alternative anyone could have seen, and had more merit than what was done.
The usual side concerns arise: while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrific, they paled in comparison to what the rest of Japan suffered in many ways. Carpet bombing of civilian populations killed far more people, and a person dying of third-degree burns likely feels little different if the burns came from conventional or nuclear weapons. The A-bombs were essentially the plane crash equivalents of war: they captured attention because they were unusual and horrifyingly spectacular in nature, even though more people died just as horribly by other means.
An interesting twist on this, the 65th anniversary of the bombings: the U.S. ambassador attended the ceremonies in Hiroshima, the first time an official American representative has been present at the proceedings. This was done with the intention of showing America’s commitment to nuclear disarmament, but some Japanese were “disappointed” that America did not take this opportunity to offer an official apology for the bombings. That is very, very unlikely: many Americans tend to feel completely justified about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and get their backs up whenever anyone says differently. Were an American official to apologize in such a manner, there would be political hell to pay. But especially for Obama, who the right wing already pillories for “bowing to foreign leaders” and “apologizing for America” to foreign powers, if such an apology were made on his watch, he would pay an especially high price–not to mention that there is no evidence that he would agree that an apology is in order. Indeed, even sending the ambassador was too much for some people.
Then there is the question about the appropriateness of Japan asking for such an apology, considering the fact that Japan itself has never fully apologized to its Asian neighbors for acts just as horrible and extreme. Not that this has any bearing on any actions that might be taken by the U.S., nor does it suggest that people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are against Japan apologizing to countries such as China. But it does bring such facts to light.
Then there is the idea that America was especially guilty for using such weapons. One would have no doubt whatsoever that had Japan possessed such weapons during the war, that they would have used them without hesitation. Nor can Japan deny that intent, considering that Japan itself had not one, but two different nuclear weapons development programs underway during the war. If Japan was seeking to build nuclear weapons and had the unquestionable will to use them, how pure are Japan’s protestations about the inhumanity turned against themselves? Again, not that this excuses or justifies what America did, but if Japan truly wishes to make a statement against the use of such weapons, to claim victimhood only and ignore its own nuclear intent is more than just a little telling. To admit that the programs existed and those were just as wrong would be a much more powerful statement–and yet I have not heard anyone in Japan make such a statement.
This plays into the larger issue of Japan’s own views of what happened in WWII: its whitewashing of its own aggression and atrocities, its sharp and sometimes extreme focus on how Japan suffered with great emphasis on Japan’s victimhood. I have heard students tell of History teachers in public schools who teach up to the point where Japan started invading other countries, claim there is not enough time to cover all the material, and then jump to the last year of the war where Japan suffered most, without covering the intervening events. Films critical of Japan are regularly blocked or extremely limited, while films lionizing people like Hideki Tojo are well-received. It really does not seem that Japan is itself carrying out the self-introspection and regret that it expects of others.
I remember seeing one of Kurosawa’s final films, Rhapsody in August. It starred Richard Gere as an American nephew of a Japanese woman who comes to visit his family in Japan, learns about the bombings in which the woman’s husband died, and apologizes for what happened. Now, confronted with survivors of the bombings, I myself would offer an apology as an American, so I do not see such a concept as inappropriate. But for a Japanese filmmaker to write such a script is, to say the least, just a bit out of place. Imagine, for example, if an American director like Francis Ford Coppola were to make a movie based in Hawaii where a Japanese visitor learns of Pearl Harbor and decides to apologize to Americans for the attack; I doubt it would be well-received in Japan, nor would they feel it appropriate.
One other note: before this film, despite his status as a legend, Kurosawa had been unable to get funding for his films. George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, and Steven Spielberg had to give Kurosawa the funding necessary to make both Kagemusha and Ran, both receiving widespread critical acclaim. For the less-well-received Rhapsody in August, however, Kurosawa had no trouble getting domestic funding. Take from that what you may.
In the end, I hold to Santayana’s advice: we must remember atrocities and injustices our own people have committed lest we commit those crimes again. Remembering the crimes committed against us by other nations and forgetting or forgiving what we ourselves have done is to ensure we will repeat those mistakes in the future. No one is immune from whitewashing their past; America does so quite often. However, despite right-wing anger and disapproval regarding Americans who “apologize” and “hate America” for recognizing the worst of our heritage, such observation is nothing less than the beginning of peace for the future, and necessary for a far more civilized world to live in.












I went to SoftBank to check out whether or not I should get an iPhone 4, and surprisingly, it looks like I will. My two-year contract & obligation to pay off the iPhone 3G has 4 months left to it, and I figured that I would have to wait until that was out before I could think of getting the next one, and maybe have to pay extra for it as I was not a new customer. However, it would appear that SoftBank is making it easier for existing customers to upgrade than I thought. If I understood what the clerk was saying, I can get an iPhone 4 now, and simply start paying for it subsequent to the previous contract running out.

I am getting similar reactions on trains, with people making comments to each other, often stealing glances and sometimes asking questions. I thought the interest would subside soon after the release of the iPad in Japan, but if anything, it has only gotten stronger.







