This beggars belief.
Back in November 2009 President Obama visited Japan and bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. Apparently the president had something even worse in mind but was saved from dishonoring himself and our country by the Japanese themselves.He planned to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning WWII with the atomic bomb.
A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"
The Japanese government strongly objected to Obama's planned apology because they feared it would strengthen the opposition on the Left, particularly those opposed to the continuing alliance of the U.S. and Japan.Perhaps they also acted out of a certain compassion, realizing that the actions of a young, inexperienced and frankly stupid president would have caused a firestorm back home in the USA and likewise endangered the America-Japan relationship.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrific, but even most Japanese historians admit that it saved thousands of American and Japanese lives by convincing Emperor Hirohito to surrender instead of the U.S. having to invade the Japanese home islands, something that American military experts at the time estimated might have cost over a million dead and poisoned the relationship between the two nations for generations.
For President Obama to attempt to apologize for America's victory over a fascist foe in WWII and by extension, for the bringing of freedom to Japan staggers the imagination.
It not only shows his abysmal ignorance of history. It's an unforgivable insult to every American who served in WWII and to the country as a whole, and it proves beyond a doubt that we now have a president in the White House whose very morality is skewed and twisted and whose patriotism and love of country can justifiably be questioned.
I can't wait to see how the president's enablers and apologists in the dinosaur media try to spin this.
UPDATE: Yup, they're already at work. BTW, here's a link to the actual cable. The money quote is in part 5, discussing the President's upcoming visit:
"He[Yabunaka] underscored, however, that both
governments must temper the public's expectations on such
issues, as the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to
apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a
"non-starter."
President Obama obviously advanced the idea of a Hiroshima apology. Otherwise, why would Vice Foreign Minister Yabunaka mention it and advise strongly against it?
7 comments:
What's scary is the fact that Obama didn't understand the ramifications of his actions. Pretty stupid considering how smart he is supposed to be.
It's typical liberal elitism. They are so wrapped in their own egos that it's impossible for them to see the world through anyone else's eyes.
I can't wait to see how the president's enablers and apologists in the dinosaur media try to spin this.
why spin it?
don't report it.
it never happened.
you know.
kinda like "fast and furious".
that's a movie, right?
hussein is a reflection/champion of what(?) 38% of the country formerly known as the united states of america.
re-reading ff essay, and reading the referenced link, i can now see hussein insisting on an apology visit.
and more than likely, a chicago style shakedown is in the plans. maybe some sort of appeasement message to north korea prior to leaving, just so the japanese, lose face.
who knows he may twist some israeli arms, just because he can.
I'm a bit confused by all of this. There is not a month that goes by and in some cases scarcely a week that goes by where the United States is not demonized and vilified for the decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan. As such, the standard narrative on this is the United States was wrong to use nuclear weapons against Japan. This is the narrative that is pretty much accepted by everyone and it has causd grave harm to our image around the world.
Given the standard narrative, it seems an apology would have undercut the constant attacks against us in the media regarding this chapter in our history. Now we are being told the Japanese don't want the apology!! If the Japanese really feel as though the use of these weapons were justified, why were they silent while America was and has been dragged through the wringer by the news media who has raoundly criticized this decision and attacked the leaders who ordered this personally. Why have these Japanese hisorians been silent all of these years? If the Japanese really gave a whit about America's image, preserving the relationship, or whatever why have they been virtually silent while America has been repeatedly demonized over that decision?
This is all very confusing!! As with any thing, what really happened is probably much more complicated than any standard narrative. At the very least, I'd be very interested to find out who these "Japanese historians" are? Can yous supply a source for this?
A standard invasion could have or would have poisoned relations between Aemrica and Japan for generations. By generations I'm assuming we mean at least 4 generations and a period that spans greater than 100 years. How do we know relations would have been poisoned? The Soviet Union lost something like 20 million men in WWII yet their relations with Germany is not poisoned in the least.
This whole thing is very confusing. My head is exploding. We've been told for years we should not have used nuclear weapons against Japan yet the Japanese refuse an attempt by our government to offer a sincerer apology.
Finally, if the Japanese had the opportunity to use nuclear weapons on us during WWII they would have done so. This we can "take to the bank" so to speak. In my considered opionion, what we are guilty of is taking the quickest path to victory that we could in a war in which the enemy fought with no holds barred. We could eitehr do the same or surrender!! And yes, we likely did want to show the Soviets our nuclear weapon to give them pause before they would think about messing with us.
Come to think of it had we used a conventional military invasion against Japan and suffered the losses some have projected we would have this would likely have pretty much assured Soviet dominance in the post WWII world. Also, showing the Soviets our new weapon would have been deemed as embarrsing to the Soviets and showed them without a doubt that we could counter them. Undermining Soviet interests is something we could never be forgiven for hence the constant demonization for the decisions made to end to WWII in Japan as quickly as possible and in a manner that failed to advance Soviet interests. This explains allot actually. I'm becoming less confused but still confused.
I would still very much like to know who these Japanese historians are and why have they been silent.
As members of the Greatest Generation who won WWII are rapidly passing away from us and on to the other side of aternity, I've done a great deal of reflecting on WWII and the decisions made to use nuclear weapons against Japan. Due to the narrative we've been given on this it is standard fare and questioned by very few that we should not have used these weapons against Japan. If Mr. Truman and his advisors could be brought back to this side of eternity, I believe there is a strong possibilty they would face prosecution or attempted prosecution for the decisions they made.
Clearly what the use of these weapons did accomplish was to end the war quicker and with fewer Aemrican casualties than would have occurred had we not used these weapons. Just how many men we would have lost in an invasion of mainland Japan is not known. 10,000, 5000,000, or 1,000,000 nobody knows. That decsion was not made!!
There is a long range cost to the decisin that affects us today. To this day, America is very traumatized by the decison made in 1945. As such, it is likely going to be extremely difficult for us to use these weapons again even if we need to. How this affects us today is potentially profound.
Today we face a threat in Iran that is far greater than the threat ever posed to us by Imperial Japan. This does NOT necessarily mean we use nuclear weapons against Iran. The enemy is different and our country is different. As such, appropiate stragegies to confront the enemy will be different. Due to the guilt and trauma we feel over the decisions made back in 1945 I'm concerned we may find it difficult to take certain steps to deal with Iran or any other threat to us should we need to.
Finally, I think a real debeate over the use of these weapons back in WWII would be constructive. I simply don't think the woefully one sided narraitives we all constantly sold are totally helpful. While I can appreciate and understand the difficulty in getting a non conventioal point of view through the media filter, it woudl be extremely helpful if these Japanese historians would make a greater effort to come forward. It seems they can offer perspectives not typically known or appreicated.
I am no fan of Obama or his foreign policy and serial apologies, but this story probably has no legs. The sentence before the "apology" quote is pertinent.
Anti-nuclear groups, in particular, will speculate whether the President would visit Hiroshima in light of his April 5 Prague speech on non-proliferation. He [Yabunaka] underscored, however, that both governments must temper the public's expectations on such issues, as the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a "non-starter."
It's pretty clear from the context that Yabunaka's apology reference was to what he imagined would be speculation by anti-nuclear groups and not (necessarily) to a proposal made by the Obama administration. It's also clear from the following sentence that he felt a visit by Obama to Hiroshima was "premature" in any case.
Toward the end of WWII and in subsequent decades the Soviet Union had the most powerful conventional military forces on earth. Essentially the United States had to develop a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons or it and its allies would not have survived. Nuclear weapons were needed by America and its allies in order for them to have a fighting chance.
Furthermore, for the final year or so during WWII it seems that it was pretty apparent that the allies were going to win the war. Also, it seems pretty evident as well that the Americans and the British knew they were going to need to turn their attention to the Soviet Union once the common enemy of Nazi Germany had been finished off. As such, the development of nuclear weapons and definitely the expansion of these weapons was due in large part to countering the Soviet threat.
Again, America and its allies did not have the conventional forces to be able to match the Soviets. They had to develop nuclear weapons and develop a vast arsenal of these weapons or they would not have survived as independent nation states.
Since America is expected by those of polite company to apologize to Japan for the use of these weapons and if America is to continually be demonized for its possesion of said weapons will Russia apologize for threatening America in such as a way that it made all but inevitable that America would be required to develop such weapons? Some how I think the answer to that question is no.
At a mimimum, the Americans need to do a much better job at representing their position. Every time America is demonized for the use of these weapons in Japan and for possession of such weapons in mass quantities its officials need to throw the Soviet threat back at these people. Also, it needs to remind such people about who supports the nuclear weapons states and soon to be nuclear weapons states of Iran and North Korea respectively. This would be Russia.
Post a Comment