Blog 87- Obama + Hiroshima = Apology?
“I will never apologize for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are.”
George H.W. Bush
President Obama went to Hiroshima recently and some people were clamoring for an apology to the city or the Japanese people for the dropping of the atomic bomb(s) in August 1945. An individual quoted in the New York Times was quoted as saying that “an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.'”
In the same article, another person said that Obama could “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” A third person said that the president shouldn’t apologize for the bombs because the bombs “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan.”
A fourth opinion suggested that Obama use his speech to get the Japanese to confront their troubled legacy from World War 2 and their atrocities in Korea and China. A fifth person suggested that since Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for advocating the reduction of nuclear weapons, he should announce his veto of a previously approved plan to spend $1 trillion on improving our nuclear arsenal.
When Obama gave his speech at Hiroshima, he said about the victims:
“Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become… How often does material advancement or social innovation blind us to the [truth that science allows us to bend nature to our will]? How easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause… Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of an atom requires a moral revolution as well… Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering [as at Hiroshima]. But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.”
Please read the whole speech here: Click here.
Some things to think about:
– Does America have a moral obligation to lead the way with nuclear weapons since we were the only country to use them on a population?
– Would an apology open up the door to Japan asking for reparations for the bombing?
– Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for his country’s treatment of Native Canadians in the past. An apology “doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.”
– America has apologized to Japanese Americans for their internment, to Rwanda for not getting involved in their genocide. But there are many, many things that America (the president, Congress) has NOT apologized for.
– Americans have been worshipping our war heroes, but the nuclear bombs makes it seem like they might have done something wrong.
– Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?
– It seems that liberals want to be transparent, self-critical, and ask “are we living up to our values?” Conservatives stress national strength and unity, they want to instill pride, and remember the great things that we have done as a country.
My questions:
1. Read over Obama’s speech. Do you think he apologized for the atomic bombings? Why or why not?
2. Using the “things to think about” section, which of these comments resonates with you the most? Explain.
3. Which of the five opinions from the New York Times article fits best with your own views on this issue? Why?
After reading over President Obama’s speech, I have come to the conclusion that his intention was not to apologize to the Japanese for Fat Man and Little Boy, but rather to raise awareness of the dangers that nuclear weapons present to humanity. When considering whether or not America has a moral obligation to lead the world in downsizing nuclear weapons programs because we are the only country that has ever used them, I have come to the conclusion that I agree with the plan of action, but I disagree with the reasoning. We do not necessarily have an obligation to lead the world in this downsizing, however, since we are one of, if not, the most influential countries in the world, it seems appropriate that we begin this movement for the benefit of mankind. I agree most with the third opinion in the New York Times article that states that we should not apologize for the bombings on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Japan has yet to apologize for Pearl Harbor, a complete sucker punch to our Pacific fleet, so why should we apologize for ending what they started (my inner neocon is surfacing)? Mess with the 13 Bars and 50 Stars; get hit with the Red, White, and BOOM! In actuality, we gave the residents of these cities notice to evacuate before we dropped the bombs, so it was not a sneak attack, like Pearl Harbor, and our intention was to showcase our power to bring an end to the war. Japanese culture does not promote surrendering whatsoever, so had we not hit them hard, the war would have escalated further and further and more lives would have been lost. The problem with downsizing our nuclear weapons program is that there are several other nations that do not particularly like us that most likely would not agree to downsize, or even abolish their nuclear programs. I genuinely believe that the reason we have not had more conflicts with countries like North Korea and Iran is because of the size of our military and the capabilities of our weaponry. We are essentially the big kid on the block.
1. Whatever Obama said that can be conveyed in any sense as an “indirect apology” flat-out was not and is not. The speech was vague, extremely likely on purpose. Without the explicit conveyance of “sorry” or another direct form of apology, he never acknowledged that we were entirely to blame for the bombings. He spoke of human morality and capacity for evil, hoping that we would eliminate nuclear weaponrs as a whole, but also dodging around the core of the issue, the fact that we ourselves turned to them and wrought the massive loss of life that is the reason for his speech. Emotional, yes. Inspiring, somewhat. Apologetic, not in the slightest.
2. What resonates with me most are the topics about the treatment of Native Canadians, America’s already-written history of avoiding genuine apology, and our glorification of war (but only the “glorious” side of course), which all go hand-in-hand. What is immediately comparable (though I’m not informed enough to know if the two are on the same scale) to Canada’s treatment of its native people is the same situation in America. The effects of this are catastrophic for them without a doubt, and there’s no way a simple apology alone would fix this. However, I feel that this in combination with actual government efforts to return native land or at least fund native American communities would actually be a proper step toward righting past wrongs. One might bring up the slippery slope argument, the “That would mean we need to apologize for and right other past wrongs,” and such. We absolutely do. As a world power, we have, are burdened with, whichever way you wish to put it, that responsibility to BE responsible.
3. I agree with both perspectives on the article, in different ways. There’s no question that the bombings prevented further war, and it is a rational conclusion that less lives were lost as a result. However, these were innocent lives, many of them with families and some surviving today, and it is imperative that we not only push the elimination of nuclear weaponry past the point of merely saying it, but actually take further action to end its use altogether and therefore plant a major marker in the path of peace Obama says he wishes to take.
1) I don’t think that Obama apologized for the atomic bombings. He did acknowledge the great harm that came to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the error of the ways of humanity, but he never apologized for what happened. Instead, the President recognized that both sides had entered the war and both sides were at fault. He didn’t blame a specific nation, he blamed the ways of humans in the past and present and he chose to talk about how we can rectify these issues but he never explicitly took the blame for the U.S. bombings. I think that Obama did a beautiful job of not focusing on the past and the war but rather on the future and how the world can learn and grow from this terrible time.
2) The comment that Japan did not apologize for Pearl Harbor but the question of if those two events are comparable resonates with me best. Pearl Harbor was a blatant and uncalled for act that took many U.S. lives. America was not involved in the war at the time and it was Japan’s military invasion agenda that prompted this unsolicited attack on American soil. After having said this, I don’t think the two events are comparable. The Japanese attacked American people and land without any provoking done by the U.S. The U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki only after the Japanese continued to take lives and wreck havoc in the world in World War II. There were warnings of the bombings and the bombings are widely thought to have saved lives that would have been lost in the war. The bombs used for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were of a much higher caliber than those used on the U.S. but the reasons behind each of the bombings are very different and make the two events very hard to compare. After all of this, I still feel that because Japan did not apologize for Pearl Harbor, the U.S. has no reason to apologize for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings especially because they were provoked and may have saved lives.
3) The third opinion from the New York Times article best first with my own views on this issue because the opinion is that the president shouldn’t apologize for the bomb because it “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan.” I agreed with this opinion in my first and second question answers when I argued that the U.S. should not apologize for the bombings but rather look to the future and recognize what had to happen to end the war. The atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are widely viewed to have saved countless numbers of lives that would have been taken in the war and this fact alone makes the apology seem, not unnecessary but somewhere near that.
1. As the president of the USA, Obama has a huge job to respect the views of literally all nations. America is a major world leader and influencer. Every word from any American president has to be planned extremely carefully, and the history of all of America’s forging affairs has to be taken accounted for before even uttering a word. Because of this, Obama did not say the words, “I’m sorry”. This is not the first time America has done harm to innocent people, even if something much bigger was a stake. Instead, Obama used Hiroshima as an example for why nuclear weapons are a threat to our society. Essentially, he was blaming and apologizing for the gun, not the shooter. If he were to apologize for the shooter, then he would be taking away the essence of the speech; that nuclear weapons need to be destroyed, and therefore the world would miss the point.
2. The comment, “does America have a moral obligation to lead the way with nuclear weapons since we were the only country to use them on a population.” Definitely resonates with me the most. Firstly, America has the moral obligation to lead the way with the economy, democracy, the geography of our planet, and yes, nuclear weapons. Whether foreign nations like it or not, America has the biggest influences on the world’s society. For example, during the 2008 recession, the whole world felt the ripples of the huge crash in America’s economy. Regardless of WHAT America has done regarding nuclear weapons, to not address and attack the problem would be extremely stupid, and America would be viewed as neglectful to the rest of the world. Because America used nuclear weapons on a population, that only mean that it must be a main priority to attack the issue of nuclear weapons.
3. The second comment, “Obama could “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” best describes my feelings toward the situation. Obama had no need to actually apologize for dropping the bombs. What he apologized for instead was allowing for there to be nuclear bombs to drop at all.
1.) Yes, I believe that Obama did apologize for the atomic bombings, however, it was not directly addressed. If one takes time to actually examine Obama’s format of his wording, it’s a powerful indirect apology to the Japanese and a reminder for Americans how the usage of moral awareness lacked during the bombings. He stresses how the advancements in technology and weapons of mass destruction has given us a slight trigger finger, meaning the usage of these destructive weapons will typically be suggested. Once they are used, America will always find a way to justify their actions. Within the Hiroshima speech, it states how the nation must take responsibility and think more morally in the future. In essence, Obama’s speech describes how America’s decision to release the bombs was influenced by technological advancements instead of moral justice. To ensure that future events like Hiroshima and Nagasaki don’t occur, we must handle warfare more thoughtfully and ask ourselves if we are truly in the right or wrong.
2.) The comment that resonates with me the most, from the list of things to think about, is the third point. This states how Justin Trudeau, Canadian Prime Minister, apologized for the cruel actions hi people did to the Native Americans. He said that the apology wouldn’t fix history, but would be the morally just thing to do. In my opinion, this was an honorable act on his part. For not only someone, but an influential representative of the country to admit their wrong doings is a great amount of moral culpability. This shows that the nation had reflected the events that occurred and sincerely showed their condolences to what happened. In regards to Obama’s Hiroshima speech, I believe he too delivered a genuine indirect apology to the Japanese. Someone saying that he talked in circles or, looked like a coward for not blatantly apologizing must consider the fact this is a controversial topic. As previously stated from the blog background information, liberals have shifted through the wrongs of America and want to critique them, when patriotic conservatives feel we must go forward. Not saying all conservatives are like this, but there are those who take into consideration that Japan partnered with the Germans causing global havoc and organized Pearl Harbor. We both ended many lives and greatly left permanent marks upon one another.
3.) Out of the five presented opinions from the New York Times article that fits best with my personal views on the issue, is the first opinion. An apology does have power behind it, because it shows that someone admits their fault in the situation. This can completely start a spark among other nations, since America is one of the most influential countries in the world. We would be setting a positive example globally by having others take responsibility, reflect on their actions, and show the other country that they truly show contrition. Yes, some may argue that an apology can’t change history or, that back in the time period it was the right choice, but America, let alone the world, can’t forget who did what. With an apology it shows that we are striving towards a moral revolution and are cognizant of the result of our actions.
I do not believe that Obama’s speech was meant as an apology for the atomic bombings on Hiroshima. I believe that if a President was going to apologize for the horrible destruction that we caused then they would have just outright said “We as a nation apologize for the destruction we have caused,” or something along those lines. I believe that Obama wrote that speech specifically that way to show sympathy and compassion towards Japan and those whom they had lost.
The two “things to think about” that really stuck out to me was:
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for his country’s treatment of Native Canadians in the past. An apology “doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.”
Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?
3) The reason why is because, for me, apologize are an important part of life. I believe they make you seem more open and compassionate, but not only that but many interpret it as the person apologizing making themselves more vulnerable, and I do believe that apologizing can make you vulnerable. For the Second “things to think about” I do not believe that the attack on Pearl Harbor and our attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are comparable. Yes we did both lose citizens and people from our country, but there is a massive difference. The total number of dead from the attack on Pearl Harbor is 2,403 people. That number is nowhere close to the staggering estimated 225,000 lost between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are two different incidents but they happened with the two same people. I believe that I would have to agree with the first person’s opinion on what Obama should have done which was: “an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to’”. I am not saying that we are not on friendly terms with Japan, but I do believe strongly that an apology can make a world’s difference in what type of friendship you have.
I feel as though President Obama did somewhat apologize but it wasn’t as direct as it could have been it was more of an indirect apology. There was a part in the speech where he said how easily we learn to justify violence in the name of some higher cause and I feel as though he was trying to actually show that for this situation there is no logical way you can justify it. He talks about those who died and he said ordinary people and I feel as though he was trying to get his point by even more that he felt bad about what had happened. I feel as though with the things to think about questions the question that resonates with me the most is the the one about the Pearl Harbor bombings. The question ask if these two are comparable even though Japan hasn’t apologized and I do believe that they are comparable because in both situations bombs were dropped and civilians were killed but I feel as though Japan still should apologize even if now we have an alliance. I somewhat agree with the third opinion which states we should not have to apologize because otherwise we would have had to invade and I only disagree with this because an apology in my eyes is necessary. I understand fully that they were trying to avoid war and avoid having to invade Japan, but what really throws it off is that what was said as to be an apology could be seen as though it wasn’t an apology because President Obama never directly said I apologize or I’m sorry and I feel as though some people would like to hear that after this devastating event. Even though I agree that an invasion may have killed more people over time since it never happened I feel as though they should apologize for what actually did occur and not some possibility.
1. In reading Obama’s speech and looking closely throughout the wording he used, I do not think that he apologized for what happened during the atomic bombing. He obviously felt sympathetic to the people but never said the words “I am sorry for the bombing”. I think that he apologized to the people and for what they went and are going through, but never apologized for the bombs themselves. I think he didn’t apologize because since this happened in August of 1945, this was not a time where he was in office or had a responsibility in the decision-making. Therefore, Obama indirectly told the people that he was sorry for the way they have been treated.
2. In the things to think about section, the comment that resonates the most with me is where it says “Would an apology open up the door to Japan asking for reparations for the bombing?”. Personally, I believe that an apology to Japan would not lead to the asking of reparations because I think that all Japan wants to hear is that America is sorry for what they did and later on they might work on a friendly agreement. Also, if America and Japan became countries that respected one another we would have another ally across the globe to help us out in a time of desperate need. At this point, America needs as many Allies’ as it can get.
3. The individual from the New York Times said that “an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.” I think this individual has the same idea as I do because we both believe that if an apology were made, it would create a way for all of the nations to help each other out and be sympathetic towards ones damages. Therefore, I totally agree with this statement and hopefully something is done in the future.
1. I personally believe that Obama did not apologize for the bombing done in Hiroshima. While Obama had mentioned the horrors done on that day, he did not directly apologize. In my personal opinion I realized that Obama mentioned the deaths and actions done more than he mentioned his feeling leaving me to the belief that he in fact did not apologize, not even indirectly. Not only do I think America should not apologize for bombing Hiroshima because this was a retaliation due to the attack on American soil done by the Japanese, I believe Obama views this topic the same way as I do.
2. Personally, I consider that the Japanese not apologizing for Pearl Harbor stuck with me the most. In my opinion I believe that there was no reason for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. I believe that the bombing of Hiroshima was necessary for America to do to keep our status and power, maybe this was a little but too far for retaliation, but it is still important to keep America as a strong military power.
3. I believe that the third opinion related to my views the most and supported what I was saying and believe, this opinion stated that we should not apologize for bombing Hiroshima because there would have been an invasion if not bombed. I honestly would support the thousands for millions sacrifice because I agree with the decisions made. If an invasion happened there would have been way more deaths on both sides causing even more of a depression and need for rebuilding after.
1. No I do not think Obama apologized for the atomic bombings. I think the whole point of his speech was to recognized the immorality of dropping the bombs and how Americans are similar to the Japanese but he did not directly apologize. He mentioned twice that the two reasons they came to Hiroshima was to one to memorialize the tragic event and to remember it happened and second to think twice about doing something harmful by putting ourselves in their shoes. He also states that humans are unique because we can learn from our mistakes. So basically his entire speech is recognizing our wrong and promising to be better.
2. The 3rd comment that states, “Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for his country’s treatment of Native Canadians in the past. An apology ‘doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.” resonates with me the most because the Prime Minister is right. An apology shouldn’t have any ulterior motives behind it. And you shouldn’t be expecting or seeking any gains from it. Whether it’s at national scale like this or a 2 kids at a playground, you should only apologize if you are genuinely sorry for what had happened not because you want something in return.
3. I agree with the 5th persons opinion because it’s simply practicing what you preach. If you went all the way to Hiroshima to give an apologetic speech and stressed how America was going to change and even told the Prime Minister of Japan that there would be no more nuclear weapons or attacks he should definitely veto the bill to spend $1 billion on the military. Doing this will prove to the Prime Minister, Japan, Americans, and the rest of the world that we are serious about do and being a better country.
On May 27, 2016, in Hiroshima, Japan, president Obama gave a speech apologizing to the people killed and affected at the bombing of Hiroshima at the end of World War II, in 1945. Although, Obama did not come out and directly say the words “I am sorry”, he did make many statements on the lines of an apology, which in my opinion is considered an apology. He says, “But we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.” To say that we must do something differently in the future insinuates that the dropping of the bombs was a mistake, and was not meant to be. Furthermore, he says, “That memory allows us to fight complacency. It fuels our moral imagination. It allows us to change.” Obama states we can not feel content with ourselves because of this doing; however, there are many that are very proud of this day. Lastly, he says, “For this, too, is what makes our species unique. We’re not bound by genetic code to repeat the mistakes of the past.” Straightforward Obama says it was a mistake and because we are human we will never do it again because it was a mistake of the past. These were all reasons on why it is an apology.
Not only has Japan not apologized for Pearl Harbor, but it began the World War. Even if they did apologize, we still don’t owe them an apology. Although many more lives were taken in the bombing of Hiroshima, it was the end of a terrible war. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was a complete sneak attack from out of nowhere from a nation that had not yet declared war on us. The Japanese had started it and we were ending it. So no, the acts are not comparable because the bombing of Pearl Harbor had a worse and greater effect.
I agree with the third opinion from the New York Times article. He/ she said that the president shouldn’t apologize for the bombs because the bombs “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan.” By dropping the bomb on the Japanese city, America ended the war that could have continued much longer. We also showed how powerful we were, which frightened the Soviets. The bombing avoided many American lives being harmed and if Obama thinks that deserves an apology, he is a very weak man.
After reading the speech by president Obama, I believed it wasn’t his intention to actually apologize for bombing in Hiroshima. He did talk about how bad it was and how bad he thought the that were done were, he never actually apologized. In his speech I believe he did not actually apologize since he more summarized what happened and explained how bad it was. I believe he knew it was wrong but he never actually said the words. Also he probably didn’t feel that responsible about what happened because it didn’t happen during his time in office. So I don’t believe that he actually apologized.
I think that when they said the thing about if apologies would open doors to Japan asking for reparations, that stuck out to me, because I don’t believe that was true. That was probably just said because the U.S did not want to pay for the reparations and they used that point to justify why they didn’t apologise. They know they should have but the don’t want to pay for the reparations. I do believe that Japan just wants to know that they are sorry but they don’t want them to pay for any reparations, they probably have enough money to do that for themselves, or they have other allies that could help them but I think that if we apologized we could have one less enemy. I agree with the third opinion because it states that we did not apologise but I do not agree because I still believe we should have apologized and not kept this to ourselves. I know they tried to avoid a war but still just apologizing wouldn’t have done anything bad to the country. Even though I am talking about the third opinion I don’t agree that we should not apologize because If we didn’t apologise there would have been an invasion and no one would have wanted that because it would have caused more dead and that would have made all of this worse. I do agree that that might have happened but an apology for bombing should still be given to the Japanese.
1. I do not think that Obama apologized on behalf of the US for dropping the A-bomb. Throughout his speech he talks about the evils that is the use of nuclear weaponry, and is causes a moral revolution when it is used. Obama doesn’t come out and say sorry, but in my opinion you can feel how upset he is personally by the actions that took place in Hiroshima. Obama might not have been able to apologize for the US, but that doesn’t mean he cant be sorry that this cruelty was committed against hundreds of thousands of people. The tone of the speech was about looking towards the future, but never forgetting the people who lost their lives and I think that Obama did a great job of making the people of Hiroshima feel like they got an apology, even though he didn’t.
2. The two “things to think about” that really stood out to me where;
– Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for his country’s treatment of Native Canadians in the past. An apology “doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.”
– America has apologized to Japanese Americans for their internment, to Rwanda for not getting involved in their genocide. But there are many, many things that America (the president, Congress) has NOT apologized for.
I love when the Canadian prime minister says that apologies cost nothing. The fact is, that America does pick and choose who they want and don’t want to apologize to. If anything, Hiroshima should be at the top of the list. Although most say that the dropping of the A-bomb stop full out war, we can forget we changed the lives of over hundred of thousands of people. the 9/11 attacks is a very sensitive subject for most people, and Im not trying to compare the two in any way because a live lost is a life lost, but we lost maybe 3,000; They lost over 100,000. The magnitude of our actions were so enormous. It really does cost nothing to apologize, it was our government who decided to commit this atrocious act and it should be our government to apologize for a decision that seemed right at the time.
3. One person said, “an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.’” I so agree with this. The US has been one of the only nations to actually use a nuclear bomb on a population and I think an apology would really set an example foe everyone else. The US kind of likes to be nosey in other countries business but I think that this horrible event could be used to show others the awful repercussions. In my opinion the bomb should not have been dropped, those were innocent people. Just a simple apology could really show others how we see that that action cost a price that we didn’t have today for and we are willy to take responsibility and say we are sorry. This could show others that its not worth it to anyone to ever use the atom bomb.
1)Recently President Obama visited Hiroshima in Japan to visit the site that we dropped the bomb on. While there the President gave a speech, in which he talked about how we have to work together as a world to make sure nothing brings us to the point where we have to you such force to create such disastrous destruction. I don’t think Obama apologized, because he has nothing to apologize for. He didn’t give the order to drop the bombs and the Japanize forced our hands when we did it. Obama was right to say we have to not let it happen again and he didn’t have to apologize.
2) From the things to think about section, I would like to focus on Does America have a moral obligation to lead the way with nuclear weapons since we were the only country to use them on a population? Yes, I believe that we should lead the way with nuclear weapons along with Japan because we are the only two populations to have used and been used on to see the effects of the the nuclear bombs. We should put regulations and stick to them so that our countries never have to suffer a tragedy like this again.
3) I agree with the third opinion from the New York Times article the most because I believe that the president should not have to apologize for the bombing, because it saved a lot of lives of our military and other countries militaries. I think that dropping the bomb was a necessary evil because it saved many lives but it also destroyed many people lives and took many peoples lives. Without the bombs droppings the war’s outcome could have been very different. It was a tragedy and a savior.
1. Having read over Obama’s apology speech, I noticed nowhere in his speech he actually apologized for the bombings, though he did acknowledge the harm that came to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the error of our decisions. He recognized we were both to blame, because we both entered the war. I believe it wasn’t his job to apologize, he wasn’t in charge. I understand that Harry Truman did it because we were provoked by the Japanese, but never the less its still not ok.
2. The comment that Japan did not apologize for Pearl Harbor is not comparable to the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Pearl Harbor was a blatant and uncalled for act that took many lives of innocent Americans. The US bombed Japan only after they continued to take lives and wreck havoc in the world in World War II. The bombs used for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were of a much higher caliber than those used on the U.S. but the reasons behind each of the bombings are very different and make the two events very hard to compare. After all of this, I still feel that because Japan did not apologize for Pearl Harbor, the U.S. has no reason to apologize for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings especially because they were provoked and may have saved lives.
3. The third opinion from the New York Times article best first with my own views on this issue because the opinion is that the president shouldn’t apologize for the bomb because it “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan.” I agreed with this opinion in my first and second question answers when I argued that the U.S. should not apologize for the bombings but rather look to the future and recognize what had to happen to end the war. The atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are widely viewed to have saved countless numbers of lives that would have been taken in the war and this fact alone makes the apology seem, not unnecessary but somewhere near that.
I do not think Obama’s speech was directly an apology, however his actions did dictate sympathy from the American people, and being the first president ever to make an appearance to Hiroshima clearly meant a lot to the people of japan. His speech itself wasn’t so much an apology, however the brave action that it took to make an appearance and discuss such a sensitive issue regardless to the pride of our country and being too arrogant to acknowledge the fault of our ways definitely speaks volumes about our president. When I first discovered that president Obama would be making an apology regarding the Hiroshima bombing I was confused about my feelings about the topic. I understood that his apology would upset some people, and after giving it a lot of thought and conducting research, I concluded that the advantages of this visit will outweigh any concession of our American pride. What we did was an overall greater good for the world by bombing Hiroshima, however Nagasaki may have been a bit excessive however still necessary. Although what we did was definitely a better decision, its even better as Americans that we address the negative aspect of what we did making us all around a better country. Ignoring the negative, and there are many, things that we have done in the past have led to poor relations abroad such as the soviets, china, japan, and Vietnam. As Americans our job is to be morally just, not to be arrogant or hypocrites. Once again I say that America did make the right decision in bombing them, however just because we go back and apologize doesn’t mean that we are conceding that our decision is a bad on, it just means that we understand the bad parts of our nation’s history, and at the time were forced to make a decision. This speech means that we understand the cruelty that they underwent, and is bettering our world relations especially with a country historically as powerful as japan. As far as the “things to think about” section, there are a few comments resonating in my mind. To begin with, I have always had a huge problem when people make remarks like “oh they bombed pearl harbor, so we bombed them back”, first off, pearl harbor was a naval base, and the Japanese were thinking strategically in how to attack us. If any, there were few civilians affected of killed, however Hiroshima and Nagasaki were direct attacks on civilians and unusually cruel for a country that claims all their actions in moral justification. I understand that pearl harbor got us into the war, and the bombing was a necessity, however ending the war is justification enough, you don’t have to try and say we bombed Hiroshima because of pearl harbor, because those attacks are completely on two different levels, one a nuclear bombing on civilians which affected them for decades to follow, and another a strategic bombing of a naval base. Secondly, in response to the question “Would an apology open up the door to Japan asking for reparations for the bombing?”, no, because the U.S has already heavily assisted japan and all of the axis powers following world war II, we helped repair the world, and get us back to a state of stability. In regards to the comment “Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized for his country’s treatment of Native Canadians in the past. An apology “doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.” I completely agree with this quote, no policy or concession of the wrong decision is being made by an apology the only thing getting hurt by this decision is American pride, and if we are a country too proud to admit our faults what better are we than anyone else? An apology as an acknowledgement to our negative past, sets America up for all but a better future, and to be the moral figure to the world we claim to be.
I don’t think that Obama apologized for the bombings. He showed that he is sad that the bombings happened by remembering the victims, but did not apologize for the actual event. He said that “…we have a shared responsibility to look directly into the eye of history and ask what we must do differently to curb such suffering again.” By saying there is a shared responsibility, I think he is pointing out that it wasn’t only the United States’ fault that the bombings occurred. Japan was warned and are part of the reason that it happened. While the US made and sent the weapons, Japan did have the ability to prevent it.
The comment that resonates with me the most is that “America has apologized to Japanese Americans for their internment, to Rwanda for not getting involved in their genocide. But there are many, many things that America (the president, Congress) has NOT apologized for.” There are many things that America has not apologized for, including things we have done to our own people, especially the Trail of Tears, and other things around the world. I don’t think it is possible to apologize for everything, but I do think that the person/people who caused a bad event should apologize. However, I don’t believe that other people years later should apologize for then. Instead, they should show regret and express remorse for lives lost and damage cause by the past event.
The person who said that Obama could “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use,” which I think he did do. He reflected on the loss of life and the damage caused to the individual people for the years fallowing. I don’t think he should apologize for their use; it wasn’t his fault and Japan shares the responsibility with the US.
1. I don’t think that Obama apologized for the atomic bombings. He makes many
points and comments a lot about the harm that it has done to the people and
communities of the Nagashaki and Hiroshima, but I don’t see where he
considered the fact that the US was the cause of the bombing. I think the easier
read and vagueness of the speech reflects this indirect apology that many describe
this speech as, because although it does address the immortality, it doesn’t address
that it was completely wrong. However, I think an apology so late in history is a
difficult thing to do, especially with the morals that come with it.
2. Two thoughts that really stick with my mind include what the Canadian Prime
Minster said when apologizing to Native Americans. Specifically, he said that it
has no affect on the policies one take and thus they should be okay with doing it. I
think that this is an accurate statement. With this, I began thinking about many
things that the United States has not apologized for (one of those being slavery, I
believe) and its just a big epiphany for me, because I really don’t see how it
would have any effects on policy, so why not make an apology? Especially with
something as immoral as slavery and all of the treatment of Native Americans,
you would think that it would be an automatic thing to divide about because at
this point in age it wouldn’t necessarily “divide the nation” as it did before the
Civil War.
3. I agree with the fifth persons opinion of “practice what you preach” the most.
President Obama makes many statements about how we wrote our constitution in
the hope of democracy and equality and many other positive, influential
attributes. However, there are many times in history that we have not followed
this, and gotten called out for it. For example, at the start of the Civil Rights
Movement many other countries noticed that we were preaching for equality in
other nations, but questioned the authenticity of that statement considering that
there were still jim crow laws and segregation everywhere. Practicing what we
preached could allow for influence of other nations, as they would be expected to
stick with the (hopefully) positive moral that they have in their own nation.
He said America was moving forward and indirectly apologized, but did not actually say sorry. But how can he apologize for something he didn’t do? He is going to take action, which is what he can do. He said he learned from it, but did not straight up apologize.His purpose was to remember the event, but not to take back what happened. You cannot deny what happened or brush it aside. I don’t think Obama could have actually apologized, that is kind of unreasonable to expect him to be able to apologize.
The Canadian Prime Minister may have apologized for Canada and is certainly a nice thing to do, but it does not really change the course of history. A leader/country can take action and aknowledge it to recognize it, but they can’t take it back. Saying sorry is important, but action is more meaningful and actually helps. Sorry doesn’t really mean anything. However, it is still important that both the Prime Minister and Obama have taken steps to bring attention to the corruptness.
I agree with the first opinion because even though an apology does not really change anything, it still will show other countries that they need to acknowledge their wrong doings. If the recognization of previous unfair treatment. Once the past problems are addressed, that different governments can then move forward.
1) While Obama never actually apologized, I think he did sort of indirectly say sorry to the people of Hiroshima. He remembered all the people who lost their lives in the war and the people who were killed by the bomb. I don’t think he needs to outright say “I’m sorry” for him to express regret and sorrow. After all, it’s not like he was the one that ordered nuclear bombs on Japan. He had nothing to do with it so it would be strange for him to apologize for somebody else’s decision. The best thing he could do was respect all the people who were killed, and reflect on how we need to be more careful with nuclear weapons in the future lest we repeat our past mistakes.
2) After reading through the things to think about, I think the most interesting question is whether America has a moral obligation to lead the way on nuclear weapons. America was the first country to develop nuclear bombs and we used them on them on Japan without even telling anyone of their existence. Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons ever invented without question because they can destroy cities and kill millions and even affect the entire planet, and their radioactivity stays for years. I think that because America has been the leading superpower in the world for the past century, we should take it upon ourselves to regulate and protect the world from nuclear weapons. We have the responsibility because we were the ones who invented them and most importantly America is the most influential country, so we should protect the world as best we can.
3) I agree with the second person the most. He said that Obama could lament the damage caused by the bombs without apologizing, which is basically what Obama did. This is exactly what I said in my first paragraph. I think that it’s appropriate for us to mourn the deaths that happened that day but at the same time realize that it was a long time ago and in the middle of the biggest war ever. It probably saved many lives by dropping the bombs instead of continuing total war.
After reading over President Barack Obamas speech in Hiroshima, Japan, I do not believe that he was attempting to apologize for the atomic bonbon a of Horoshima and Nagasaki during World War II. Obama goes on about how America bombed Hiroshima killing thousands of people but I really don’t think he is apologizing for the bombing. Obama is mourning for the loss of life, “We have come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 men women and children.” Obama then goes on to say how their souls speak to us and how it was a brutal end to the war. Nowhere does he say he is sorry for the bombing, he is just sorry for the people the got bombed. From the things to think about section, the thing that struck out to me the most was the Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor comment. Yes, Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor but the acts are not very comparable. Japan tried to put the blame on us for bombing them when they clearly intimidated our involvement in the war. As far as I know, there were about 3000 casualties from Pearl Harbor on December 7, whereas America killed hundreds of thousands in Japan with a brutal piece of new technology. However despite all of this, I believe both countries are in the wrong for not apologizing to each other some 70 years after the violent war. I most agree with the third stance on the issue with Japan because although violent and deathly to many Japanese civilians it saved many lives by ending the war and causing a Japanese surrender rather than continuing planned American invasion which would’ve resulted in more losses for both sides. I can relate to this because although America may have been in the wrong based on how many people they killed at once, they overall saved many lives and helped Japan and themselves for the better.
1. I don’t believe that Obama truly apologized for the atomic bombings. He did in fact acknowledge the harm that came to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but he did not straight up apologize for it which is what i feel was necessary in this situation. Instead of apologizing he blamed the ways of humans in the past and present and he talked about how these issues could be corrected. Even though he did not apologize in my opinion i still feel that him focusing on the future and how to fix the issues put minds a little more at ease.
2. After reading through “the things to talk” about section, the comment that resonates with me the most is the the 2nd one asking if an apology would open up the door to Japan asking for reparations for the bombing. I believe that Japan greatly wants an apology and should have gotten won. I feel that if they get this apology then maybe they would be willing to work on a friendly agreement with the U.S. and maybe become one of our allies. This would help the us out greatly as it would give us another ally across the globe which America surely needs just in case a war time rises up.
3. I agree with the first opinion because even though an apology truly doesn’t change anything that happened, it still would sow other countries what would need to be done if they were in a position like this. It sets an example, by showing countries that they need to acknowledge their wrong actions. Even though it might not do much an apology in my opinion is needed and might actually help us gain another ally.
I feel like the president is somewhat apologizing for the attack, but maybe more could have been done. He seems to show regret for the attack and realizes what had happened is wrong and horrible, but still doesn’t flat-out apologize. I liked how he said he wanted to work towards preventing attacks such as these, I think that’s a really good response to what happened. He can’t control what happened, but he can help prevent it in the future.I think the question, “Does America have a moral obligation to lead the way with nuclear weapons since we were the only country to use them on a population?” is something that makes you think. Personally, I don’t think that we have to lead with nuclear weapons, because we’ve seen the effects and its not pretty. It may have been a good idea back in the day, but I think that today we need to work toward less damaging ways of attacks. I think that the fourth opinion, the one on Obama vetoing the 1 trillion nuclear weapon deal, is the best choice. In his speech, he talks about working to reduce nuclear weapon use, and going against that and his Peace Prize is hypocrisy at its worst.
I believe that the president is trying to apologize for the attack but not as up front as many people would like it. It seems more to the fact that “it was a bad thing to do but hey you started it” at least that’s what it comes off as to me. I do give him credit for saying that he wants to prevent more of such attacks globally and keeping up the peace but he still did acknowledge that we still have our stockpile for safe keeping. I do fully believe that we have that obligation to put an end to nuclear weapons because we’ve seen what this does to a population and it’s by far the worst weapon out there that shouldn’t be used. Japan can’t say “I’m sorry” after what that bomb has done. Even if we tried to get an apology out of them we would look too ludicrous to even be on the world stage if we tried to pull that stunt. America wouldn’t be respected if we tried to get a sorry from a, in a sense, quick jab compared to a complete knockout blow.
After reading over President Obama’s speech I would say he kind of beated around the bush and dodged the whole apology it’s self. If that was his way of apology it was definitely indirect and twisted up in his words some way some how. I’m sure when they asked for an apology that’s not what they were necessarily looking for. Throughout his speech to the Japanese, he made it very clear that he is concerned about the many dangers that nuclear weapons (the bombs) could possibly bring. I would say the comment “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable? ” resonates with me the most.
The Pearl Harbor attack was an attack where the Japanese thought they could take over the pacific islands, and if they attacked Pearl Harbor we would give up Hawaii. Because they were so confident they sent planes and small submarines to attack the Pearl Harbor early Sunday morning of December 7, 1941. Most people were at church during the time which is why they strategically chose to send a second wave of 170 Japanese aircraft, mostly torpedo bombers, to attack the fleet anchored in Pearl Harbor. A total of nine ships of the U.S. fleet were sunk and 21 ships were severely damaged. The overall death toll reached 2,350 including 68 civilians, and 1,178 injured. There was no warning on their behalf whats so ever. The actions the Japanese had taken were terribly petty and uncalled for, for as many lives to be taken as there were. We have taken many innocent lives yes, and it’s a terrible thing, but when it comes to protecting our country against one who might as well have no motive for causing so many deaths on our land, it is necessary to take action. So because the Japanese continued to take lives the U.S. responded by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Considering we were not given warning before the Pearl Harbor Was attacked we were quite generous for actually doing so. I don’t think the president has to apologize for anything. With that being said I agree with the third opinion given by New York Times, dropping the bomb saved many lives by avoiding a total war and preventing the military invasion of Japan.