75 thoughts on “Blog 87- Obama + Hiroshima = Apology?”

1. Isabella Levitt June 5, 2016 at 12:17 pm

   1. I think that Obama did indirectly apologize for the atomic bombings. Through his words, it is clear that he feels regret. It seems that he is apologizing more for the unspeakable tragedy that came with all the deaths of innocent people, rather than the actual bombings themselves.

   2. In the “things to think about” section, the comment that resonates the most is the one about Canada’s prime minister. I think that was very admirable of him, to own up to his country’s mistakes, regardless of if he had any personal say in the way Native Canadians had been treated. It takes a lot of courage to stand up and admit to the faults of your native country, and it was important to acknowledge all the suffering that the group of people went through. I think that Obama was trying to do something similar, without directly saying that he apologized for what happened. Though the idea comes with the best of intentions, beating around the bush can make it seem like he doesn’t want to apologize or own up to the mistakes of his country.

   3. I agree mostly with the first opinion from the New York Times article. I think it is true that an apology could start something big. If people see that one of the most powerful nations in the world can own up to the mistakes of their past, it could be worthwhile and lead other people or countries to do something similar. Although the use may have been justified in the sense that it ended such a terrible war, it is still important to make Japan feel like we have some remorse or understanding of the real tragedy that they suffered. If there is no apology, then the country can’t have any understanding that as a country we feel for the loss of so many people. It obviously wouldn’t fix what we’d done, but it could help to ease Japanese citizen’s minds in the slightest.
2. Aldo Buttazzoni June 5, 2016 at 1:21 pm

   1. I don’t think Obama apologized for the atomic bombings in his speech. He never came out and directly said sorry or took blame on behalf of America for what happened. When speaking about something so serious like an atomic bombing, if you don’t make an apology crystal clear, than you didn’t apologize. I think Obama more so discussed and acknowledged the bombings more than apologized for them. I think he did a very good job talking about what happened because I think he appealed to some of the people that said we should apologize for it by describing that we were at some fault by jumping to violence or justifying violence. He also appealed to the people that said we shouldn’t apologize for the bombings by not coming out and apologizing for them directly.
   2. Out of the many things to think about questions, the one that resonates with me the most is the one about opening up doors to reparations for the bombings. I do think that apologizing for the bombings and taking full responsibility for something that happened in the 40’s would make it seem like we owe them money or more than our acknowledgments to a tragic event. I also don’t agree with the notion that, America in particular, owes something to everybody, weather that be the Native Americans, black people, or the people of Japan now. I think we need to focus on the now and not try and make up for something that happened over 60 years ago.
   3. Out of the opinions in the Ney York Times article, the one about lamenting the damage caused by the bombings without apologizing for them is the one I agree with the most. What happened and what the bombings cause was a horrible tragedy and we all need to think about the damage they did, but I don’t agree with apologizing for the decision to drop the bombs and end a war. I think the decision to drop the bombs was a hard one and but we can’t take so much blame and weight on our shoulders for an extremely hard decision made in 1945.
3. Nathan June 6, 2016 at 5:31 pm

   After reading through the whole speech I can conclude that President Obama did not in fact apologize for the actions of the US on August 6th 1945. He says nothing about an apology and at most exhibits regret for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His main point is that we have a moral responsibility to not make weapons out of our advanced technology. He quotes, “Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us” (Obama). And while this isn’t an apology by any means it is a plea for peace. The comment that stood out to me the most was that Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor and I think that these two acts are comparable because ultimately the dropping of the atomic bomb and the bombing of Pearl Harbor were acts of war and should be treated as such. I doubt that we would ever apologize for our destruction of Germany as well as most of Europe during World War 2 as these are the results of a brutal and vast war. The Japanese won’t apologize for Pearl Harbor just as we would never apologize for the Atomic Bomb because they felt as if it was the right thing to do to achieve their ends. I agree with the third opinion in the article and that is that we shouldn’t apologize for the bombs because without them we would have had to invade. Japan was ready to fight to the bitter end and their entire country was mobilizing to fight. An invasion would have meant millions of lives lost, Japanese and Americans alike, and truly the dropping of the Atomic bomb saved more lives than it destroyed. While we must remember the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we must also remember that in order for peace to be found in war there must also be great sacrifice.
4. David Kent June 6, 2016 at 6:37 pm

   1. I believe that President Obama did apologize for the atomic bombings. He said that humans should consider and reevaluate the capabilities of our technological advances, such as the development of nuclear weapons that can quite literally destroy the world. Every time we brought up a positive advancement in our history, he countered it with the negative consequences. While he didn’t directly apologize for the bombings, he did let on that the bombings were a negative course of events that needlessly wasted human lives. This can be interpreted as Obama admitting that America was in the wrong, thus him delivering an apology.
   2. The comment that resonates with me the most is the one about what the Canadian Prime Minister said about giving apologies. I think that he is right with saying that an apology is costless and is the morally correct way to go. I believe giving an apology shows that a nation understands that it has made mistakes, and it now learning from them. The first step is accepting the fact that you have wronged someone, and by admitting this can a country put itself and the party harmed in a position towards a better relationship. I don’t see the harm in delivering apologies; I think it is important to put principle before pride and open up to the fact that our nation has done terrible things in its past. Only by this admittance can we hope to not let history repeat itself.
   3. Of the five opinions from the New York Times, I agree with the first opinion that said the US could let an example for reconciliation that the world can follow. As a world superpower, the actions of the US are felt throughout the globe, and other nations look at what we do for reference. If the US is able to admit its unmoral actions, then what is stopping other nations from doing the same? By apologizing, the US can show to the world that we are not so prideful that we refuse to accept the consequences of our actions. By doing this, we can make it a norm to apologize for past wrongs in order to stimulate more fruitful future relations.
5. Dahvi Lupovitch June 7, 2016 at 4:54 pm

   1. President Obama did not apologize for the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima. In his speech during his visit to the country of Japan, he said that it was important to mourn the lives lost from this occurrence but he did not apologize for it happening. This was a time of war and it was time for the war to end. At this point during the war Germany had already surrendered, but Japan had not. In order to avoid an invasion of Japan, President Truman decided to go with this option. While Obama understands the sadness of so many innocent lives lost, during a time of war measures need to be taken in order to end it.
   2. The United States has a moral obligation to lead other countries of the world with nuclear weapons because we are the first nation to ever use them. This comment resonates with me the most because it shows America’s vital position as a world power. We need to show the world that nuclear weapons should not be used at all. One of the reasons the Cold War was so dangerous was because of the arms race because if the world were to start using nuclear weapons it would soon result in World War III, which would result in the end of the world because nuclear weapons are so dangerous. We have discussed in class the America is the police officer of the world and this is something that we need to take responsibility for in order to ensure the safety of the world.
   3. I most agree with the second opinion from the article that says that Obama should fix the damage caused by the dropping of the atomic bombs without actually apologizing for it. This is because when Harry Truman dropped the bombs in 1945 he had the intention of saving lives by choosing the lesser of two evils because if he had not dropped the bombs the U.S. would have had to invade Japan to end World War II. Since this action did cause a lot of damage and many innocent lives lost, Obama should help Japan to rebuild the destroyed area. I do not think that Obama should apologize because the war was a long time ago and the U.S. had good intentions, even though it was still tragic that many people died. Also, Obama was not in charge of the country at this time.
6. Courtney D June 7, 2016 at 7:32 pm

   1. I don’t think that President Obama apologized for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don’t think that Obama apologized because he danced around the subject of wanting to pay respect to those who lost their lives that day and making life better for future generations. A good speaker doesn’t want to talk in circles around his or her point to the speech. If Obama planned to say he was sorry on behalf of the United States I believe he would have said so instead of being so cryptic. I also believe this wasn’t an apology because there would be a certain amount of disrespect that can be found coming from someone who won’t outwardly apologize if that is the intent of the message. I believe this is why the President emphasized that his visit to Japan was NOT for the purpose of expressing so any such thought would never penetrate the minds of the Japanese.

   2. The comment that resonates with me the most is the one that reads “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?”. I like this comment because it makes me think of the circumstances surrounding each event. Instead of comparing the act of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the attack on Pearl Harbor, let us compare the events and situations of each. Before the attack on Pearl Harbor, tensions with the US and Japan had been escalating and many anticipated a declaration of war from one side. According to an article about the events before and after Pearl Harbor by National Public Radio, after the Japanese invaded Manchuria and Northern China, the United States instituted an embargo on Japan to try and get them to stop invading the rest of Asia. Japan decides to try and cripple the US Navy by attacking a naval base in the Pacific. There were many rumors and warnings about a possible attack on Pearl Harbor but it was believed Japan would instead attack a military base in the Philippines. On December 7th, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. A declaration of war against the United States came from Japan two hours later (Japan declares war, 1941). Now to discuss the circumstances of the usage of atomic bombs—nicknamed Little Boy (Hiroshima) and Fat Man (Nagasaki)—on Japan. By this time, Germany has unconditionally surrendered which ended the war in Europe. The last country that was still significant in the war to surrender was Japan. The Allies also demanded an unconditional surrender from the proud Japanese, which they were not going to do willingly. Several warnings were issued to Japanese citizens to evacuate the area because their cities were scheduled to be bombed. Josette Williams wrote an article on the bombings and the events leading up to them: “…[P]resses on Saipan were rolling with notices warning civilians to evacuate 35 Japanese cities scheduled to be bombed within the next few days. About 1 million leaflets fell on the targeted cities whose names appeared in Japanese writing under a picture of five airborne B-29s releasing bombs”. In the next few days after these warnings, the bombs were dropped—first, Little Boy and second Fat Man. I just find these two events interesting.

   3. I agree with the opinion that the atomic bombs “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan.” I agree with this thought because I believe that more lives would have been lost from both countries if a full on war ensued. The Japanese were notorious for their unwillingness to surrender—the reason for the whole situation in the first place—and the United States did not want to draw out the end of the war longer than was absolutely necessary. There was a need for a relatively quick end to the war and it was one of the most controversial ends to date. Despite the carnage that was left in Japan subsequent to the dropping of the bombs, I believe it would have been worse given the other option.
7. Courtney D June 7, 2016 at 7:34 pm

   *(“Japan declares war, 1941”)
8. Allison Miller June 7, 2016 at 8:31 pm

   President Obama’s speech at Hiroshima sent a powerful message to those who took the time to listen and fully comprehend his entire speech and decide how they felt on the topic. I read his speech online first, then I looked up a video to watch and get a better understanding of how the lines were delivered and to whom and where. I’m glad I did this because it was interesting to watch Obama’s face as he gave his speech, and then see the immobile faces of the Japanese leader when the camera panned over them. After understanding the speech, I would have to agree most with person two. This is because I don’t believe Obama was apologizing in his speech for what America did, but at the same time he certainly expressed grief and sorrow on the part of all Americans for the death and destruction that occurred there in Japan. Obama’s point in his speech was not to make amends by trying to change what happened, because he knows nothing can bring the dead back to life or change nation’s past decisions, however he speaks of the future and how it can be changed for the better. He encourages a literal revolution of the mind to go along with the revolution of science and technology so that our moral standards don’t fall away and become forgotten again in the face of fear and massive power. The world has witnessed the force of atomic bombs, and now we need to learn from the pain we have all experienced and change our ways so history can’t repeat itself. I liked Obama’s line about how we aren’t programmed beings, that we have the power to change our ways. He reminds us that horrible things race happened, but we as a human race possess the capabilities to grow from what happened and what we learned and as a collective world become something better and more collaborative. THE opinion that Americans have been worshipping our war heroes, but the nuclear bombs makes it seem like they might have done something wrong is something that caught my interest. I agree that it is so easy and so comforting to believe American Heroes in the military can’t do any sin simply because they are American. When one stops and really thinks about the personal death that occurred in Hiroshima 71 years ago they realize that there is so much more complication to the story. I don’t have an answer to whether the American atomic bombing was wrong or not, because it depends on whose side is talking. It is wrong to the innocent Japanese families and children who died, it was wrong to end a human life simply because they are a different race and country. As Obama said, we all must follow certain laws of humanity and spread the values of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, since these rights aren’t written into a Japanese constitution, some may argue, do they still deserve the rights? I say we as Americans must treat everyone, no matter what origin, with the same decent respect as we would another American. If we can’t abide by our own standards, how can we possibly expect anyone else to do the same?
9. Callie B June 7, 2016 at 10:46 pm

   Obama did not apologize for the bombings in his speech in Hiroshima. Never once are words of apology or regret for the use of nuclear weapons on the population mentioned in his speech; however, Obama addresses the terrible deaths of the victims along with how we mourn and remember them. Then he continues to broaden his speech to current acts of violence worldwide and how humanity should reflect on past events to make future decisions. Instead of faulting the United States, Obama mentions a lot about humans as a whole and their morals for justifying violence and destruction. The trend of placing importance on how it is in fact all of humanity that needs to take responsibility for finding different approaches for ending conflicts is evident throughout the speech. The comment made on how the nuclear bombings making it seem as if our American war heroes did something wrong resonates with me the most. It is easy for us today to quickly point out how dropping nuclear weapons on two of Japans cities was an unjust and rash decision, yet we have to remember that making the decision wasn’t easy back during WWII either. The soldiers in the war and involved in the bombings were doing as they were told in a situation that took courage to face, and to many the nuclear bombs may have seemed like the only hope for ending the war. They did nothing wrong in following their duties to defend the American people in a time where fear was widespread across the country. We are living without that fear which makes it harder to empathize with the soldiers and understand what they went through. I agree with the opinion from the article of president being able to “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use”. It is difficult to determine for sure whether the bombings were morally justified or not and whether America should take full responsibility. However, it is not hard to say to the people of Japan that we apologize for the mass number of citizens that were killed by the atomic bombs along with the damages that followed.
10. Ari Mattler June 8, 2016 at 8:10 am

    1. In his speech at the Hiroshima peace memorial I do not believe President Obama apologized. While he often did mention the affect of the atrocities in his speech, no clear apology followed. While some could argue he did or that he indirectly did so, I believe he did not apologize and kept his stance. I think Obama did not apologize for the Hiroshima bombings because they were only due to prior attacks. Also, millions had already been killed in the war. The bombs caused many deaths but some would say they saved even more.

    2. Personally, the thought that an apology open up the door to Japan asking for reparations for the bombing resonates with me the most. In American history, Native Americans were mistreated and murdered. Today, funds and reparations are given to natives along with apologies for the massacres and harshness they had to deal with in the past. I think if the United States were to apologize for the bombings, something similar would happen. Funds would be requested by survivors and the cities local and federal government even. But, an apology should not be given.

    3. I agree most with the third opinion in the article saying that we should not have to apologize for the bombs because otherwise we would have had to invade. The sacrifice of thousands for millions is a choice I know I would make in a heartbeat. If lives of others can be saved and even prevented from being put at risk, it seems like a clear choice to me. An invasion in the long run would have killed possibly even more people along the way. The Japanese are a proud people and are very patriotic. However, this makes them stubborn as well. The Generals would not surrender until they were dead. While the bombs destroyed the cities and lives of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the rest of Japan and possible American troops, were spared from more atrocities of war.
11. Paige S June 8, 2016 at 12:38 pm

    I do not think that Obama apologized for the use of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After examining his speech, it seems as though the president just acknowledged the fact that the bombing happened and was terrible without apologizing for it. He clearly stated that the use of the bombs was a cause by both sides, Japan and America. Although the president believes the bombing to be an awful piece of history, it really didn’t seem like his place to apologize considering he personally had nothing to do with it. It isn’t fair to place the blame of one event that occurred over fifty years ago on the current president of the United States.

    The thing to think about that stuck with me the most was the one about how the Canadian prime minister apologized for the awful treatment of the Native Canadians in the past and how an apology doesn’t cost anything and just helps rather than hurts. I totally agree with the fact that an apology doesn’t cost anything and is necessary and helpful, not harmful. The only problem with this is that if we apologize for one awful thing that occurred because of America, we must apologize for all of the terrible things that have occurred on America’s behalf so no one feels left out. For example, if Obama apologized for Hiroshima like the Canadian prime minister apologized for the treatment of the Natives, then he would also have to apologize for slavery and for the trail of tears and that just wouldn’t be right. It would take way too much time to apologize for all of the terrible things that this country has done to others. It just wouldn’t make sense to do so.

    The opinion that I agree most with is the one about how Obama should “lament the damage caused by atomic bombs without apologizing for the use.” This is the best way to go because as horrible as this event was, it is not the fault of Obama. It happened a very long time ago and the current government had nothing to do with it. Although Obama should not apologize, he should definitely acknowledge that it happened. It is an awful thing and should remembered along with those lives lost from the occurrence. That is the most logical way to deal with this. Overall, the tragic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be remembered and not apologized for.
12. Max C June 8, 2016 at 3:50 pm

    1. I think it is clear that Obama is indirectly apologizing for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He expresses regret, but does not come out and directly apologize for the bombings. In fact, I believe that it would be ridiculous to apologize for the atomic bombings, as they saved the US from an extremely dangerous invasion of Japan that could have cost the lives of countless Americans. I believe that Obama is right not to directly apologize, as the atomic bombs were very possibly the option with the least death involved.
    2. I agree most with the Canadian Prime Minister’s position, that apologies are free and thus should be used to improve relations. It doesn’t hurt a country to show regret about past actions, and to try to move toward a mutually beneficial arrangement. In essence, you don’t have much to lose by apologizing for something. Once a country accepts it wronged another, they can move to address that problem and start to work together and improve the world as a whole.
    3. I strongly agree with the third opinion of the New Your Times, which we should not apologize for the bombings. Japan did not apologize for Pearl Harbor, as they believed that it would make us more open to peace by crippling our Pacific fleet. Likewise, we deployed atomic bombs on Japan because we believed that showing our ability to destroy cities with a single bomb would force Japan to sign a peace treaty. During a time of war, it is the responsibility of nations to end the war as soon as possible, on their terms. By dropping atomic bombs on Japan, we forced them to sign a treaty ending the war on our terms, and did so with a minimum of deaths.
13. Josh Klein June 8, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    1. I do not think President Obama apologized to Japan for the bombings, which occurred in 1945. Instead, I feel that he purposely tried to make it sound like he was apologizing without actually mentioning the phrase. Despite his failure to apologize, I personally believe that he had no intention to apologize, but instead, to try and downplay America’s role on that fateful day. It is difficult to understand what Obamas’ intentions were, or how Japan and its people still feel about the bombings, but I feel that in his speech, Obama is trying to put the issue behind him and pin it on others. It seems as if he is targeting to presidential administration of the time, but as Americans, we should all take responsibilities for our actions and the actions of our forefathers.
    2. I feel that Japan not apologizing for Pearl Harbor resonates with me the most. I am not fully clear for the reasons Japan had to attack the Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, but unless it was it was something massive, there is no reason to take a handful of American lives as they did. That being said, America shouldn’t have bombed Japan as they did, taking many more lives, countless of them civilians, in response to Pearl Harbor. If the U.S. Government felt that an attack on Japan was the only option, it should have been directed at their military and not their civilians.
    3. I agree with the person who stated their opinion by saying “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” I do not think that Obama can apologize for the bombings. However, he can start improving relations and trying to earn respect, trust, and forgiveness. The decision to drop the bombs occurred in 1945. It is difficult to believe that an action taken to end a world war is still being carried around as weighted guilt. Even if it was the wrong decision, it wasn’t settled upon solely for the purpose to kill people, but instead to cripple Japan, allowing for the war to come to an end.
14. Yuval K. June 8, 2016 at 4:39 pm

    1. After reading Obama’s speech at Hiroshima, I believe he did apologize for the atomic weapons. He didn’t say directly “I am sorry for what happened here,” but he indirectly said that he is sorry. One doesn’t have directly say “I’m sorry” to apologize about something, there are many ways to say it. Obama said in his speech that all of us share a responsibility to face history and ask ourselves what we have to do differently to limit similar suffering.
    2. There were two comments in the “think about it” section that resonates me. The two are that Japan didn’t apologize for Pearl Harbor and that the Canadian prime minister apologized for what had happened to the Canadian natives. The one that resonates me the most of the two is the Canadian prime minister. I think it was a very important thing he said that I agree with. I also agree that an apology doesn’t cost anything, in fact I believe that apologies can even improve certain relationships, not necessarily make them 100% back on track, but at least improve them slightly. I think that apologies show that someone acknowledges that they have made a mistake and would like to improve upon it.
    3. I agree with the first opinion from the NYT article. I think an apology shows that the country shows that we have made a mistake and that we can take responsibility for it. An apology shows that we feel regret about what we have done. I understand why some people say that we shouldn’t apologize because Japan didn’t apologize about Pearl Harbor. But no one has to wait for someone else to apologize. An apology can happen by any one at any time. Just because Japan didn’t apologize doesn’t mean the U.S. can’t. In addition, there were thousands of more deaths in Hiroshima than in Pearl Harbor. In conclusion, I believe that the United States should apologize because it is the least we can do for killing thousands of people and because it is a way to say that we regret the horrible event and understand the consequences.
15. Frances Van Wordragen June 8, 2016 at 4:54 pm

    1) Though Obama did not directly say “I’m sorry”, I believe that he did apologize for Hiroshima, albeit indirectly. In his speech, Obama says that the world and the U.S. are learning from their mistakes and that instead of wars, friendships and democracies are growing. By saying this Obama is giving more than a simple apology, he’s telling Japan that the U.S. has looked back on our mistakes, is reflecting on them, and using them to better ourselves, which, in my opinion, is better than giving a simple apology and moving on.

    2) The comment that stuck out the most to me was the one addressing America’s moral obligation to lead the way on nuclear weapons. My opinion on this comment is that no one country should lead the way with something as dangerous as nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can cause devastating damage, letting one country decide when they should and should not be used would be a big mistake, instead the morality of nuclear weapons should be discussed by several countries. Having several people discuss this should, hopefully, prevent any other major disaster, like Hiroshima, from occurring.

    3) I agree with the first opinion that “an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.’” If the U.S. apologized more directly it would set the stage for more peace and forgiveness all around the world. As one of the comments in the “things to think about” section, “An apology ‘doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.’” Apologizing would show that American truly cared about the suffering Hiroshima caused, and would only improve Japan and the U.S.’s already friendly relationship. Directly apologizing would also be kinder to those who survived Hiroshima, or had family members go through it.
16. Giovanni Romano June 8, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    1. I believe that Obama somewhat dodged the chance to apologize for the events at Hiroshima. I don’t believe we needed to or have apologized for the use of atomic weapons on these cities. I do however believe that President Obama understood and tried to get everyone to realize the sadness of that day and what occurred there in 1945. Instead of apologizing he chose to rise people to action to prevent war and general violence in the world. He wanted this in order to prevent other atrocities like this one from happening around the globe. He seemed to be sad and empathetic but not apologetic, he felt for the people that were effected by it but wasn’t about to apologize for it.
    2. The thing to think about that resonated with me the most was the one about how Japan hasn’t apologized for the attacks on Pearl Harbor. I think that the US shouldn’t have to apologize for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that instead the Japanese should apologize for Pearl Harbor. The attacks on Pearl Harbor were unprovoked and an the start of a war with America. Whereas the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in the midst of war and there for isn’t something that is needed to apologize for before and apology is received. The US was attacking cities of a country in which they were at war with, whereas the Japanese were attacking a country in which there had been no violent outbursts before hand.
    3. The opinion I agreed with was the one in which we should deplore the events of that day and the use of nuclear weapons. This horrible tragedy is one that we shouldn’t wish to repeat any time soon and we should try our best to never have the need to use such powerful weapons. I however don’t believe we should apologize for the bombings of the two cities, though the use of nuclear weapons is an excessive display of power it was used fairly in my opinion.
17. Victoria Lurz June 8, 2016 at 5:20 pm

    1. After reading Obama’s speech at Hiroshima, I do not believe that it was an apology. I believe that his speech brought forth the cruelties that follow nuclear advancements. The scientific revolution in which weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons were created was seen as a great technological leap in the scientific world because at the time we were at war with other nations and any nuclear advancement one nation could get, was seen as a leg up on another nation. President Obama sheds light on the fact that yes, our nation was the nation to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we wouldn’t have gotten to this position had the general population of both nations grown morally. The technological advancements put our nations against one another in a competitive way which ultimately led to nuclear war. I think Obama apologizes more for the behavior of the people and how both nations failed to see one another as members of the human race.

    2. The comment that resonates most with me is, “Americans have been worshipping war heroes, but the nuclear bombs make it seem like they might have done something wrong”. I do not think it is fair to say that the nuclear bombings make it seem as though the soldiers have done anything wrong because they were only protecting their families, their people, and whats sacred to them. As stated in the article, one cannot hate the people for fighting for their nation, the only thing to blame is war itself.

    3. The opinion from the New York Times that best fits my personal views on the issue is the second opinion. This opinion is that Obama could “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use”. I don’t think that Obama should apologize for the usage of the atomic bombs because the Japanese have yet to apologize to us for the attack on Pearl Harbor. Not only this, but I also think that we mustn’t apologize for actions made to protect our people. The United States usage of nuclear weapons was a defense mechanism and I do not think Obama should apologize for the protection of the people of his nation. The sole thing that Obama could lament is the lives lost from this bombing. Therefore, this opinion from the New York Times fits best with my beliefs on the issue.
18. Jackie Sullivan June 8, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    1. No, I do not think Obama apologized for the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If Obama was seriously sorry he would have literally said “I am sorry American did this to Japan,” on behalf of America. Instead I believe he gave this speech to remember the 140,000 people that were killed because of this attack. I think he didn’t literally say “sorry” because he believes the attack was the only way to end WW2 and more people would have died if Japan wasn’t bombed and the war continued. Or maybe he does and wasn’t allowed too or didn’t want to cause more of this attack. This speech was more of a remembrance than an apology.

    2. The comment that resonates with me the most was “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?” I think that these acts are comparable in some ways. They are the same obviously because they killed people but the bombings were with new deadlier weapons. America did this to end the war and Japan invaded Pearl Harbor to continue a war. Of course, there is no excuse to this and I am not trying rationalizing what happened to the victims of these attacks. But, after reading this article I felt that this was in response to the Japanese questioning why Obama apologized because they think he should. I believe that if Obama apologized it wouldn’t do much and would make Americans question why the Japanese haven’t apologized for Pearl Harbor. This was also 70 years ago with a different president so not a lot would come out of it.

    3. I agree with the third opinion from the article that states that the president shouldn’t apologize for the bombs because the bombs “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan.” Like I said in my response to question one, this bombing was done to end WW2 and not to continue it. If America did not bomb Japan then the war would continue and more people would have been killed. Also this could be seen as a blessing in disguised. Using our atomic bomb showed the Soviets that America was serious about the Cold War and would drop a bomb on them as well. The Cold War was borderline WW3 which proves that more people would have been killed if the bombing of Japan didn’t happen.
19. Claire B June 8, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    1. I do not think Obama apologized for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Instead, I think Obama chose to speak of Hiroshima as a reminder of the past, the present, and the future. Obama used Hiroshima and WWII to remind everyone that war is a primitive invention, and began with the very first man, using crude tools like wood and stone. War is something that we have carried throughout the ages, empire to empire, it is the one constant throughout time. Obama reminds us that although war is not a new idea, in the present, we have the choice to put an end to a trend that started so long ago. Obama used Hiroshima to make people realize how powerful the nations of our world have become, powerful enough to destroy ourselves. He used this time to urge everyone to move away from the use of nuclear weapons, which is what destroyed Hiroshima. Obama tried to push science into a better direction, to causes like medicine and treatment, instead of dangerous weapons. He also pointed towards the future. Obama spoke of the future as a possibility for prolonged peace, peace without nuclear weapons and without a notion towards war itself. He spoke of this a movement that needs to be continued for generations, not just right now.

    2. The question that resonated with me the most was: Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor but are the two acts comparable? I believe that, in the future, if there ever was a time when a president apologized for bombing Hiroshima, then Japan would absolutely need to apologize for Pearl Harbor in return. And if Japan didn’t, I don’t think it would be good for our countries’ relationship. I also believe these events are different, but similar in some ways. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was larger than Pearl Harbor, and nuclear, and because of this, did more damage. Pearl Harbor was still a very large bombing attack, and killed innocent people, like in Japan. But both of these bombs were dropped for very different reasons, which is of large importance. The U.S. dropped the bomb to end the war, a war which Japan would have almost definitely, if we did not end the war with the bomb more lives would be lost, Japanese and American. Japan was also warned about the bombs, and given a choice to surrender, a choice they did not take. But, Japan dropped Pearl Harbor, to start the war, to bring America into the already very bloody European conflict. They bombed us for no reason, but to bring us into WWll, hoping that they had destroyed our Navy. That is why, if we apologize for Hiroshima, then Japan needs to apologize for Pearl Harbor.

    3. I most agree with the view that Obama can lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use. I do not think Obama should apologize for the bombs because we had to avoid a total war and get Japan to surrender so both Japanese and American lives could be saved. But, you can’t just ignore the lives lost and damage caused by the bombs, which is why I think Obama should do that without saying we’re sorry. He can address the lives lost in Hiroshima, and in all of WWll, and honor their memory. To ignore the innocent lives lost would be on the ignorant side, but to apologize and say we regret our actions would be very pacifist and false.
20. Mary Kauffman June 8, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    1) I believe that Obama did not directly apologize for dropping the atomic bombs; he mentions how much damage they caused, however he never specifically addressed on behalf of America that we were sorry. He did mention how the bombs had a negative effect in a way, and how we should consider reevaluating our mechanical weaponry and be more cautious about how and when we use it. I don’t believe that this was an apology; I know that if my country got bombed like Hiroshima and Nagasaki did, I would want a clear apology and for the opposing country to specifically state that they were in the wrong. Obama also talks about the technological revolution and how it can create many problems, but I think he kind of dances around the fact that we used this technology to kill thousands of innocent people.
    2) In the things to think about section, I think the comment that resonates with me the most was definitely the comment that he makes about the Canadian Prime minister. Like my other classmates I agree that it is important to acknowledge your mistakes especially if they have such a big worldwide effect like it does in this case. I think that Obama should have been more like this, and been more direct while delivering his speech to Hiroshima. To really admit that you did something wrong takes a lot of courage, and I’m sure it would mean more to other countries if you phrase it in that way.
    3) I believe that the opinion from the New York Times that I most agree with is the one where they say that Obama could “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use.” I agree with this statement because if Obama did fully apologize, than that wouldn’t have been totally true, although this was a terrible event that Americans were involved with, it was necessary to ensure the Japanese wouldn’t invade, and there would be a full blown nuclear war. However, I believe that Obama should have said it to Hiroshima in more of those words, that we are extremely sorry that it has to happen that way, and we are terribly sorry for your losses, but unfortunately it was what needed to be done at that time.
21. Heather Flannery June 8, 2016 at 7:15 pm

    1. After reading Obama’s speech, I do not believe that he truly apologized for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He never directly said that he was completely sorry for the bombing. He indicated the topic but never flat out stated it. To me, the speech focused more on war and basic “facts”. It is true that Obama was not alive at the time of the bombing, but if he truly wanted to apologize for the bombing I believe he would have made that much clearer. He avoided that actual statement and discussed the tragedy of lives lost, rather than the bombing itself.
    2. The comment that resonates with me the most is the one about Justin Trudeau. Canadians treated the Native Americans in the same way Americans treated their Native Americans. It was not quite as severe, but it still was a negative part of Canadian history. When Trudeau apologized for the past Canadian wrongdoings, it was something that he felt would make others feel better. Canadians have a reputation of being “nice”. This just adds to the reputation. The apology also most likely meant a lot to the Native Americans not only for its purpose, but for who it is from. Justin Trudeau is well liked throughout Canada and having the highest government official care for a previous issue regarding one group of people would be extremely appreciated and accepted.
    3. The opinion I most agree with is the one where it states that Obama should fix the damage that resulted from the bombings without flat out apologizing for it. Obama was not alive for the bombing, so the bombing cannot be blamed on Obama. He just happens to be the leader of the United States and the bombing apology in some ways fell on his back. The bombing also was done to protect more lives than if the War had spread to Japan. It has been many years later, and if those still need help recovering, that is the Americans job. This is what Obama should do compared to simply saying sorry for the American wrongdoings.
22. Joan La Mar June 8, 2016 at 7:59 pm

    I think in a way Obama did apologize for the bombing, he didn’t state it outright but he did recognize the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Japan and the U.S. have maintained a friendly relationship and over the past 70 years we have offered our protection to the country and in turn they have assisted us in a plethora of working fields and manufacturing; Japan is also a big trading partner with the U.S. In Michigan just about every major city has a sister city in Japan from the Shiga prefecture; going even further every single state in the US has at least one sister city with Japan. Though he may not have formally apologized he still aims to keep relations with Japan in positive light, because Japan is one of the US’s biggest allies. Honestly most would be surprised how involved the two are involved with each other from big car companies like GM and Toyota to Disney productions.

    2) I don’t necessarily think that an apology to Nagasaki or Hiroshima would open the door to them asking for reparations, if anyone has done any research on the bomb sites they’ve been turned into memorials and the cities around it have rebuilt themselves. Those who have fought in WWII are in there 90’s now and only about 600,000 American veterans are still alive; likewise veterans in Japan are of the same age, and as time has passed and the numbers, causes, and people killed or injured has been confirmed the morality and intentions may not have been the desires of everyone involved. There have been thousand world wide who opposed war and hated it, others may not have even like what they were fighting for. Though there was a wrong and a right, discriminating against different races is wrong, going so far as to be anti-semitic is worse, and killing for it unforgivable; none the less people were alienated and discriminated worldwide and still are. We apologized to our own citizens because they were citizens of America, or pending citizens, because it wrong to send them into concentration camps took their homes, jobs, and made them look like they were criminals/spies, those who were less than but they weren’t many activists for Asian American rights such as Yuri Kochiyama pushed for the Civil Rights of Asian Americans right alongside African American Civil Rights activists in the 1960’s and later Yuri pushed for an apology to Asian Americans in the 1980’s. Incidents America has not apologized for such as world surveillance, Agent Orange in Vietnam, the 1953 coup in Iran, the 1973 coup in Chile, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Iran air flight 655, etc. are some of the issues has not apologized for; though I wouldn’t be able to assume why there hasn’t been any. Image, audience, the effect of an apology so on and so forth.

    3) I agree most with the second opinion, because it matched my opinion the most. Basically we stated the same thing; like they did I thought it was important that we do recognize the deaths of multiples of a hundred thousand people. I also see Obama’s speech as a slight apology yet it wasn’t a full apology, and I don’t think the US will ever issue one. Some could argue that we won’t because we don’t want to seem weak, but in my opinion recognizing your mistakes and trying to fix them is what the bigger person does even if the opposite side is also to be blamed. At the end of the day we’re all human, no one is perfect, no society comes without flaws, and that goes for all societies there may be a definite wrong and right but there will also be a grey area in the middle. And if we could find a way to diplomatically solve our issues I think we’d be better off. Though that’s just my opinion.
23. Sean S. June 8, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    Personally, I did not see an apology in President Obama’s speech in Hiroshima. In my opinion, the president talked about the event itself, but in no way made a formal apology to the city of Hiroshima, or the people of Japan for that horrible event 70 years ago. He talked about how the world needs to progress past needless killing and war, and into an age of diplomatic peace and prosperity for the entire world. While he did bring up details of the events, he did not apologize for our actions, even though an apology from the U.S. would set a great example for the rest of the world. Had Obama intended to apologize during his visit to Hiroshima, he would have made a much bigger deal about it and he would have used it to lead as an example for the world.
    The comment about Pearl Harbor was very interesting to me. In my opinion, the events of Pearl Harbor, and the bombings 71 years ago have some slight similarities, but some major differences. One of the few similarities is that both countries bombed each other. While this is only a minor similarity, it is still there, but that is about all the two events have in common. I think the biggest difference I need to point out is that when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, there were only a fraction of the casualties, with only a few thousand people dying at Pearl Harbor. That is compared to hundreds of thousands of people killed in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    The opinion that I most agree with from the article is the first quote they gave. I think that by apologizing, President Obama could set a great example for the world and start putting an end to unnecessary conflicts, fighting, and death. By setting this example, the world could enter a new, much more diplomatic and civilized age of long-lasting peace and prosperity for not only wealthy nations, but one where developing nations are given the aid they need to join the world political stage.
24. Harvey R. June 8, 2016 at 8:27 pm

    I do not think that Obama apologized for the atomic bombings. Throughout his speech, he frequentely highlights the changes that came as a result of the explosions. He went over how Japan and the United States have formed an alliance and a friendship that helps with out relations in Asia and throughout the world. Union in Europe has allowed a stronger world body to form and more trust in other countries as trade and border restrictions are eased. However, Obama never specifically apologized for the tragedy that was caused. He speaks of the horror of the bombings and how awful it was for those who experienced it, but he moreso stated ways in which it helped as a means to almost justify the attacks because it did help make the countries closer together. One of the comments from the “things to think about” section that resonates the most to me is “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?”. I completely disagree and believe it should not be down to one countries belief. Using the justification that they were the first people to use it is foolish in my opinion. In this day and age, when a large number of countries throughout the world have access to nuclear warheads, having just our country involved would not allow the cooperation necessary to satisfy every country’s desires. Together with the other nations of the world, we must unite on global standards on how we treat nuclear weapons and not just have America in control of how it is handled. I agree with the third opinion that the president shouldn’t apologize for the bombs because they “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan”. Although it did cost thousands of innocent lives, it was necessary. America could not get caught up in a war like they did years later in Vietnam. Prolonging the war that had been destructive throughout Europe would have damaged the world’s economy and people even more than it already profusely had. Using the nuclear bombs was the better of two evils and had to be done at the cost of lives. It was a sacrifice that was made with the safety and security of the world in mind.
25. Joe Behrmann June 8, 2016 at 8:51 pm

    1. I do not believe that Obama apologized in the speech in Japan. He addressed the bombings and of course he did not do this in an excited tone, but a somber one. However this does not mean he apologized on behalf of America. It would have been difficult for the president to go through this speech in a tone that sounds happy, or used words that made it sound like the bombings were a good thing. It is unrealistic to expect our president to do this.
    2. The questions asking whether or not the Pearl Harbor attacks and the bombings on Japan resonates the most with me. I do not think these bombings are very comparable, I think that the Pearl Harbor bombings were much more sinister. These were conducted on Americans before we had even entered the war and they were unprovoked. These bombings were completely unnecessary and they ended lives that did not need to be ended. On the other hand, the American bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very much necessary. Throughout the Second World War, the Japanese had proven that they just would not quit. They were already using kamikaze pilots which is proof that they did not value human life. The bombings on Japan were necessary for the Japanese to leave the war and in the long run probably saved more innocent lives. Pearl Harbor may be something that deserves an apology, but not the bombings of Japan.
    3. I agree with the third person in that America does not need to apologize for the bombings because they most likely even saved lives. World War Two was a very violent time and the violence needed to end quickly. America warned Japan that if they did not leave the war, they would be nuked. Because of this, America definitely does not to apologize to Japan. Also, apologizing now would be virtually pointless because a very small percentage of their living population was affected by the bombings at all. Apologizing would only be weakening America’s image towards other countries.
26. Alexis Arbaugh June 8, 2016 at 9:04 pm

    1. From reading over Obama’s speech in Hiroshima I do not think that he apologized for the atomic bomb being dropped. Although he did apologize for the many Japanese people in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki that died in the bombs but never formally came out and said sorry to the people. He also apologized for a Japanese woman who was killed by a former US Marine.
    2. The comment that affects me the most is the one from the Canadian Prime Minister when he said “an apology doesn’t cost anything”. I think that what he said makes total sense. Just because he apologized for something that doesn’t mean he owed them anything. All he said was sorry and that didn’t cost him any money. Obama could do the same thing with Japan. All he has to do is say sorry, he had no part in the bombing what so ever so it shouldn’t be hard for him to apologize. I can imagine that because of this reason it would be tricky for him because he shouldn’t have to apologize for something that he didn’t do. But he is the president of the United States and he probably does good things for the country that he doesn’t want to do all the time because that part of his job.
    3. The opinion in the New York Times article that best fits my views on the subject is the first one: “an apology by the president would set the tone of reconciliation that all the nations can respond to”. I agree with this statement because the Japanese have had harsh feelings towards us ever since then and if an apology were to happen they might try to see things our way. All the other nations in the world would respond to this too because the US would be stepping up to the plate to do something that they really don’t want to do but have to because it’s what is because for the country.
27. Bianca G June 8, 2016 at 9:05 pm

    Obama Hiroshima blog
    1. I do think he apologized. In his own words he spoke of avoided suffering in the future. As my mother is so fond of intoning “there are two parts of saying sorry, actually saying it and taking action to make good on your apologies.” Obama is actively going to Japan and making promises about the future. And that’s an apology in my book. It’s also a good diplomatic choice in my mind. In all my years studying Japanese I’ve come to know the culture fairly well. The Japanese are very much part of a culture that hinges on honor. Honor of the family and honor of the Country. People may think that things are all fine and dandy between the United States and Japan but the Japanese won’t forget what happened. Maybe they will forgive us after this apology.
    2. Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor and I don’t think the acts are comparable. Yes, what happened at Pearl Harbor is horrible but it was also a military base. Everyone on the base was a solider. And I don’t think it’s too far a stretch to say they knew what they were signing up for. The attack on Japan was targeting civilians. They didn’t sign up to fight. They were just living their lives. They shouldn’t have died. I can’t think of off the top of my head but I don’t think America has apologized for any of our other recent wars nor do we expect that from our enemies. But the attack on Hiroshima was directly related to taking the lives of innocents. They are still recovering. You see it in their literature and culture. In fact you could probably split Japanese history by two points. Before and after the bombs were dropped. It was so catastrophic for them. Dropping the bombs was a horrible crime.
    3. I agree that Obama was perhaps trying to push the idea on Japan of (not exactly peace but) peace with China and Korea. The Japanese have not been kind to Korea and China. In fact if you are Chinese or Korean in Japan it’s hard to get property or prosper. The racism between the three countries is pretty prevalent. The message of forgiveness and moving forward could be beneficial to these Asian countries, thought it isn’t in their nature.
28. Vanessa H June 8, 2016 at 9:11 pm

    I don’t think Obama actually apologized for dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in World War II. He spoke of the victims, mourning the countless lives taken by the event. He addressed the regret of their deaths, and how we remember them and keep their spirits alive. But yet, he did not apologize on America’s behalf. Never did he suggest that what the US did back then was wrong. He began his speech addressing the travesty, and then soon broke into a connection into present, modern day issues and relations. He spoke of their deaths and then hurriedly and quickly moved on to how the event relates to today and how we can learn from it. One of the comments that I found resonated with me the most was that of the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologizing for his countries past behavior and treatment towards its Native Americans. His saying that an apology does not cost anything, has no effect on policy, and is simply the nice thing to do is what I find really commendable. Even though Justin Trudeau himself may not have treated Canada’s natives in such a manner, and he was not the one in charge during his country’s actions towards them, he still apologized on behalf of the nation. I find that very admirable, whereas it seems that America has a hard time owning up to its past mistakes and decisions. Out of the five opinions of the New York Times article, the one that fit best with my views on the issue was the one that said Obama should fix the damage caused by the atomic bombs dropped without apologizing. Even though I found that Justin Trudeau apologized to the natives to be admirable, the atomic bombs in Japan were part of a complicated war in which any decision would mean the loss of lives. The dropping of the bombs were not created out of malice. However, I agree that Obama should help clean up the mess that we made there in an effort to create better relations and make up for what was lost there.
29. jacob smith June 8, 2016 at 9:17 pm

    1. I do not think that Obama truly apologizes for the bombings because he does not come straight out and say, “I am sorry”. He does however lament the destruction and innocent lives lost in the bombings.
    2. I do not think that an apology, should it be given, would not be an opening for the Japanese people to ask for reparations for the bombings. This is because it was an act of war and while the fact that we killed so many civilians the act of nuclear force was a necessary one in order to avoid total war and the invasion of the Japanese mainland.
    Pearl harbor is definitely not comparable to the nuclear bombings for many reasons. One of these is because the Japanese were not attacking civilians and were attacking a military compound in an act of war. While still treacherous where no war had been declared it certainly does not amount to the devastation that the atomic bombs wreaked on two of japans largest cities.
    I do not believe that America needs to go about apologizing for our previous mistakes. I think that we need to view our history and see the mistakes, recognize them as a culture and pay reparations socially and depending on the case in federal money. I think this because an apology will not help rebuild a broken culture or society however the best think that we can do as one of the most powerful nations in the world is accept and if necessary rebuild what we have destroyed.
    3. I agree that Obama should apologize sincerely for the destruction that we caused but not apologize for their use. I believe that this is because the bombs were unfortunately necessary to avoid a total invasion that would have caused absolute horrors across the Japanese population and to the American soldiers.
30. Matt August June 8, 2016 at 9:26 pm

    1.I believe that while Obama did apologize in his speech, he did it indirectly and in such a way that many could not understand it. When reading the speech, I noticed that throughout the entire address, the word “apologize” or the comment “America is sorry” does not appear once. Some people would automatically assume that he did not apologize due to lack of the words “apology” or “sorry”. But we have to remember that an apology doesn’t have to use the word “sorry”, but instead it can be an expression of regret or sadness. Obama shows an expression of regret as he mentions at the very end of his speech that these lessons will be a “moral awakening” for Americans. A moral awakening implies that America was immoral before and during this act of destruction and that as a result of the horrors of the bombings we changed into people of peace instead of destruction.

    2.The comment that resonates with me the most out of all the comments is Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s comment about how apologizing isn’t costly or dangerous but is instead respectful and kind. Throughout my life I have believed that kindness is a simple yet vital part of living and one of the easiest ways to show kindness is by considering the feelings of others and apologizing when you believe you have caused someone pain or sadness. Comments like this encourage people to think about others and respect their fellow man.

    3.The opinion from the New York Times that fits with my views is the opinion that Obama should apologize and establish a precedent for other countries to apologize for past actions and show regret. I feel that apologizing is respectful and we should respect the Japanese after the terrible act that we committed on its land that took many of its innocent citizens’ lives. Even though this was during a war, the killing of many innocent people for the purpose of showing America’s power could be seen by the Japanese to be dishonorable and disrespectful. Perhaps America taking this action will lead to the Japanese apologizing for the actions taken by their soldiers in China and other countries. This would help the world be a more respectful and better place.
31. Stephanie Johnson June 8, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    1. I do not think that Obama apologized for the bombings in 1945. He talked about the tragedy of it all and the ways things can be made better now. He showed a sincere response to the bombing, but he did not exactly apologize for the bombings. I do see how the speech he gave could’ve been seen as an apology because of the way he expressed his sincere feelings, though. He acknowledged the fact that it was a tragedy and the way that we use the technology we have isn’t always right.
    2. From the “things to think about” section, the comment that resonates with me the most is the fact that Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor. From what I know, the two are comparable. Japan had intended for the attack on Pearl Harbor to prevent America from getting involved with their military actions against oversea territories (UK, Netherlands, US Territories – Philippines, Guam, Singapore, Hong Kong). Japan had bombed America then in that attack. They haven’t apologized for that because they believed they were doing that to help save themselves. America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki believing they were saving themselves as well. Should America have to apologize and Japan not?
    3. The opinion (out of the five) that fits best with my own views on this issue is the second opinion saying to “lament the damage caused by the atomic bombs without apologizing for their use”. This is because damage had been caused by the bombings in 1945 and it was a tragedy. These should been lamented, but the intent of the bombings at the time were meant to be helpful for Americans. The bombings were also an end to the war. Also, Obama himself was not in charge at that time, but it should still be acknowledged.
32. Dan L. June 8, 2016 at 9:27 pm

    1. I believe that President Obama has indirectly apologized for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In his speech, it can be interpreted as a speech of contrition and of progression. He apologized by saying what responsibilities we had assumed by taking on the new mantle of atomic weapons, and how we abused that responsibility.

    2. The last thought resonates with me the most. It makes a lot of sense that liberals and democrats have differing views on the past actions of our country. For example, the 72nd anniversary of the D-Day invasion was this June 6th (Monday). I follow conservative media that remembered the bravery of the 18-19 year old men that stormed the beaches, knowing they were most likely to die. Its people like that the conservative population wants to be like. I also heard liberal friends talking on memorial day that the best way to honor the fallen is to “stop sending more to be killed,”. As angering as that was for me to hear, I wont go into more detail about that instance.

    3. I probably concur with the fourth opinion the most. Yes, we did screw up by killing thousands of innocent Japanese. I will go ahead and set that on the table right now and that fact won’t change- but Japan also had done a few things worth noting, such as an invasion of china, to quote the source directly- “atrocities in China and Korea” and certainly not to mention the Pearl Harbor attack that also had killed thousands. This doesn’t have to turn into a blame game between the US and Japan. We should just do our best to embrace each other and act like adults and lament to our bad actions. We are both to blame and we need to set the past aside if we want to progress internationally. Same goes for other countries. I hope that someday we can mend our relationships with countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.
33. Camille Rochaix June 8, 2016 at 9:32 pm

    I don’t think that President Obama actually apologized for the bombing of Hiroshima in Japan this past month. Throughout his speech, Obama never truly said an apology for the bombings instead he apologized for the death of Japanese Women who was murdered by an American Marine. With all honesty, Obama could have a better apology for the bombing of Hiroshima, instead of only showing sympathy for those who died and their families, though I also see why he didn’t do so. Japan at the time was on the verge of practicing total war on the United States, and President Harry Truman made the difficult decision of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. President Truman’s decision cost hundreds of lives, although what pushed him to do so was for saving the lives of thousands that could have been lost with the continuation of the war, and the attacks on the United States soil. Unfortunately war cannot be justified with moral codes, since war itself isn’t moral. Although, we must remember why some decisions were made, and the concept that if President Truman had decided not to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki maybe not as many lives would have been lost because the war would have ended more peacefully, or it could have been worst, and thousands of more soldiers would have been lost, and thousands of innocent civilians. By using moral codes, both nations should have never brought innocent civilians lives at risk and taken those lives. Both Pearl Harbor (Who the Japanese haven’t apologized for) and Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings were three events that brought innocent civilian lives into a picture of a disastrous war that should have been fought by army to army. But then again, this war is one of the worst wars in history because many of the people who were part of the army were civilians who were drafted and didn’t want to die or fight. War is a terrible thing, and causes people to do terrible things. I believe we, and other nations around the world have to take the three events in consideration (and others) and learn from the mistakes, to make sure they NEVER happen again. I agree with every opinion of the individuals in the article. Although I feel that each opinion has its faults, and am conflicted on which is the right and which is the wrong. Unfortunately, there isn’t a black and white solution for this problem. I feel that President Truman’s decision did end the war and save us may loses, that would have been terrible to lose, but I also feel, that a life is a life, no matter what nationality, and the people who took their life should apologize or be punished (which in this case won’t happen).
34. Scotti P. June 8, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    1. No I do not think that Obama apologized for the atomic bombing. I believe that he acted sympathetic for the Japanese people, which any person who recognizes that innocent civilians were killed would be, but he didn’t say anything that made it sound like the United States regretted the bombings. He clearly apologized for the murder of the Japanese woman which I got from another source other than just the text from his speech. That apology wasn’t similar to what he said while addressing the atomic bombing. Obama gave his condolences to those who died during the atomic bombings but I believe there is a difference between being empathetic and being apologetic.

    2. The comment that resonates with me the most is the one that says “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?”. I thought about this comment more than the others because I can see both sides of this argument: the one that says they are comparable and the one that says they are not. The side of the argument that says they are comparable is that innocent lives were taken when they hadn’t caused harm to the other country. The other side says that in Japan, they were civilians who had no part in this war and the US used a WMD, when no one else had ever used a nuclear weapon. There are different extremes on both sides. Before Pearl Harbor, the US wasn’t directly fighting in the war and Japan brought us into it. The US attack ended the war, so it is difficult to compare to events that happened at opposite ends of the war.

    3. I agree with the fifth opinion the most. If Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for advocating the the reduction of nuclear weapons, he should stick to that belief and continue to advocate for that cause. The US saw the repercussions of using nuclear weapons during WW2, and many people have recognized that is not the way to handle things. So if the US has no plans of using WMDs, why should we spend a trillion dollars on them when the US is in trillions of dollars of debt to other countries.
35. Kristen Harvey June 8, 2016 at 9:43 pm

    I believe that President Obama did apologized for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though he did not directly say so, I believe that the thought was there. His talk of learning from the past as well as, learning from what had occurred during World War II and the start of a “moral awakening.” I believe that he was genuine, as he was the first president to go to Hiroshima. The fact that he went, speaks volumes to his intentions and the message he wanted to spread. If he did not want to apologies, he would not have gone. Though some may say that because he worked around the issue not directly apologizing, means he did not actually apologize. However, I disagree, this is a very sensitive topic, and I believe that if he had directly apologized he would have made many American very angry.
    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? I believe that America should lead the way to the reduction of nuclear weapons. Since we have used them on a civilian population we have to try to prevent future disasters and loss of life. We have seen firsthand what these weapons have the potential to do and should try to prevent it in the future. Not only do we have the moral obligation, but we must set by example as a powerful country that other will follow if we take initiative to do the right thing.
    “an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.’” I believe that even though President Obama cannot change the tragic events of the past, showing that he cares and wants to prevent this from happening again represents and sets a tone that other nations should try to emulate. A lot of nations have committed horrible acts, in the past. These apologies can open bridges for better relationships between countries that can hopefully help reduce conflict and connect the world.
36. Katie Westerlund June 8, 2016 at 9:51 pm

    1. I do not think Obama apologized directly for dropping bombs on Japan during World War II. Although, he does stress his view that this cannot happen again: ‘Mere words cannot give voice to such suffering. 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’ (Obama). Barack Obama never said, “I am sorry that my country dropped a bomb on yours,” or anything like that and I think he made the right decision by not apologizing. There is no reason that we should apologize to them. The Japanese bombed us first at Pearl Harbor and did not apologize. So really, if we are allies now, why must anyone apologize? It is in the past and both countries have reestablished communities that were lost. Many people we expecting him to apologize: ‘there were small demonstrations near the ceremony…by protesters demanding an apology. But Mr. Obama said before his trip that he would not apologize for the attack’, (Harris). By no apologizing, Obama showed our strength as a country to forgive them and express that what we did was no more right or wrong than what Japan did to the United States.

    2. I think that if Obama or the U.S. had apologized for the bombing it would have opened up the door to Japan asking for reparations for the bombing. We don’t need to pay them because we bombed them just as they bombed us. Also if we were to pay them, shouldn’t they pay us too? Then Japan and us would just be trading money and it would be pointless.

    3. I agree with the opinions of the third person because it is true that bombing them stopped total warfare. Of course, bombing anyone and anywhere is awful, but considering that it saved the rest of the world from even more crazy war, it was a plausible action on out part. Obama also did express the advancements Japan and us have been making, stating it clearly that what happened is in the past and won’t happen again.
37. Christian Zeitvogel (4th Hour) June 8, 2016 at 9:53 pm

    1.) I don’t think that Obama apologized about the use of nuclear armaments against Japan. The basic premise of Obama’s speech was to link how throughout history we have resulted back to primal traditions: we learn and discover technology that can advance our civilization, yet at the same time we can turn this technology on ourselves to eliminate our species. Obama uses the example the stone age of learning how to make tools from sticks and stones, but how those can also be transformed into methods of annihilation. Obama reflects that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are no different, and that we must learn from that. That instead of learning how to kill off one another unlike what was seen in the WWI with the production of mechanized warfare and the rudiments of chemical warfare up into the second world war and the Cold War with the race to the Super, we should be focusing our time and resources to building up our great societies; making medical science more effective and potent, communication more efficient, production and use of resources so that we don’t have materialistic wars. Nowhere in Obama’s speech does he say anything along the lines of, “We’re sorry” or “We were wrong” or anything else of the sort. He shares his condolences for the lives lost, but he doesn’t actually apologize or claim fault.
    2.) To respond to the fifth comment in that section, I think the bombing of Hiroshima should stay off of the list of things to apologize for. In fact, in some ways, the bombs were necessary. Before we had even dropped Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we had already burned Tokyo to ashes in a daring bombing raid lead by General Doolittle in his infamous attack “Doolittle’s Raid” where we unloaded mass amounts of firebombs upon Tokyo, reducing it to cinders. Even after destroying their major cities, crippling their navy with our Iowa-class battleships, and defeating their allies in the Axis-powers, Japan didn’t seem phased by their unfavorable position in the war. The allied forces offered an honorable surrender to Japan, but they refused. The Japanese maintained a strict code of honor to protect the rising sun nation even if it meant a bitter battle of tooth and nail. In fact, when we dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima, Japan thought we were bluffing, and that we only had one nuclear weapon. It wasn’t until we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki that they realized our potential, and they soon surrendered. If we were to have put boots on the grounds, we would have lost even more soldiers. Approximately 200,00 people lost their lives during those bombings, plus many other people who suffered from radiation poisoning. However, who knows how much longer the war would’ve lasted, how much of a toll on the global economies would take to keep funding and promoting bloodshed, how many lives may have been lost in the chaos.
    In another screwed up aspect, the other thing the bombing of these two cities did was show exactly what modern science could do, and show what shouldn’t be done to someone else. The U.S. set a poor example that should be learned from. Yet, at the time, the world didn’t grip the concept of nuclear weapons. Only the select group of scientists from the Manhattan Project and the witnesses of the Trinity testing could grasp the power of such a weapon. As Oppenheimer said when he quoted the Hindu god, Vishnu, and said, “I have become death; the destroyer of worlds.” The atom bombs weren’t well known since they were a massive secret until their deployment. Besides, in terms of a legal view, the atom bomb didn’t technically violate any international laws regarding war. The Geneva Convention didn’t cover WMD’s like this because they hadn’t yet existed in 1925.
    Let this be clear, though, I do not believe that the use of nuclear weapons should be used in modern warfare. The U.S. set an example of what not to do in war, and we cannot justify their use in modern combat. The use of the atom bombs in 1945 was a tragic event that acted as the debut and hopefully the finale of nuclear weapons in war. Don’t let this be a misinterpreted argument for people like Ted Cruz who supports the use of nuclear armaments in our conflict with the Middle East (“I don’t know if sand can glow, but we’re going to find out,” Sen. Ted Cruz). This is a whole different argument that I won’t get into.
    3.) After my previous statement, I completely agree with the third opinion of the matter. The atom bomb effectively ended the war, and yes, while it did result in the death of over 200,00 people, the war had already left about 60 million people dead, and about another 25 million wounded. The death toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made up about 1/300 of the dead from the war. Had total war resulted, the same effects still would’ve resulted throughout the country, but with only more deaths from every side. We had already decimated Tokyo, if we deployed groups, Sherman-like tactics would’ve been seen in Japan. Even more cities left in rubble. Even more people left dead. The bombs put an almost immediate end to the war as the Japanese realized they couldn’t compete with such a weapon; a weapon whose shock-wave alone could crumble buildings. The war had already dragged on long enough in Europe, and it didn’t need to continue in Asia. By dropping the bombs, we ended up re-shaping the world, and ultimately bring the war to a close.
38. Victoria Auten June 8, 2016 at 10:02 pm

    Based off of Obama’s speech I do not believe he apologized for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His speech respectfully referred to those who lost their lives and how to prevent further situations with the advancements in technology. He never directly took blame for dropping the bombs and tried to avoid going near the topic of blame by focusing on the victims. Obama at one point dodges the topic enough to talk about the creation of the atomic bomb. He speaks to the people more in the perspective of trying to relate to their blame instead of apologizing on behalf of America for dropping the bomb.
    The question that sticks with me the most is “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?” Dropping an atomic bomb or dropping a regular bomb the weapon doesn’t matter but more the intent behind the action. Any act that causes the death of innocent people should deserve some form of a meaningful apology. Even though the number of casualties between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima does vary, Obama should have led by example and apologized for taking the lives of the innocent.
    I would have to agree with the first comment in NY times about how we should apologize because we can set the tone for other countries. We dropped an atomic bomb, it happened and we must move on but not without first trying to fix tensions. As we discussed in a previous blog America can be seen as the police force that is always involved in other countries problems. We should lead by example and apologize directly to Hiroshima and Nagasaki without all of the unnecessary comments. Obama should still include his topic on looking into the future to avoid other problems and the segment about the victims, but he should add a direct apology.
39. Chance Stephenson June 8, 2016 at 10:11 pm

    I do not think he apologized for the bombings. He remarked about the sadness of it all, but he did not imply that he would do anything different if had that opportunity. He expressed remorse, but not an apology.
    America does have an obligation to lead the anti-nuclear movement. We are the first, and as of my typing, the only nation to drop nuclear weapons on living peoples. Our nation has caused the deaths of thousands of people, and even if we don’t apologize, we need to make sure that kind of tragedy never happens again in the future. An apology would open the door to Japan’s demands because it gives Japan power over us. An apology is a regret and implies that mistakes were made, and that we were in the wrong. If we were wrong, we lose all moral high ground and a level of respect. If we admit to wrongdoing with an apology, Japan will push our confession until we admit to other poor choices. America, despite all its flaws, pushes to keep its “strong man” image. An apology would destroy that image. Canada’s prime minister did the right thing in apologizing with regards to Native Canadians, but that does not shift over to the US. Trudeau is incorrect in saying an apology “doesn’t cost anything” because it certainly does. First, it costs a bit of self-confidence, as our nation needs to admit wrongdoing. Next, as I mentioned earlier, it puts us at the mercy of those who we have wronged. Finally, other groups will demand an apology, which will lead to reparations to them. This is not to say that we should not apologize, for I believe we should for various actions. We should apologize to native Americans about our treatment of them. We should apologize for the role we played in causing the great recession. I’m really glad we apologized for the internment camps. But there is one key difference. Domestic versus abroad. In all the situations I mentioned, there were better solutions. We could have paid native americans, or at very least not commit borderline genocide with the Dawes act and others like it. We could have trusted the Japanese Americans, and we could have regulated our banks. Overseas, we were fighting a war. There were no good options, and even the best course of action will claim fatalities. Japan’s non-apology for Pearl Harbor is difficult to classify by my standards. On one hand, it was overseas, and war has no good results. But on the other hand, Japan attacked a pacified nation. We were neutral at the time, and the pearl harbor attacks can be seen as unprovoked. If Japan does apologize, America will push that advantage, which would be a valid reason not to apologize. This talk of apologies has me discouraged. I do not like the idea of apologizing for something people generations ago did. I want to be held accountable for my actions, and mine alone. I don’t think Senator Obama has any reason to apologize for anything. Yet I feel that President Obama should. Obama has done nothing wrong. He has nothing to apologize for. America should apologize, but that apology has to mean something. There are three parts to any good apology: I’m sorry, It was my fault, what can I do to make it better. Unless America speaks with one unified voice and addresses all three parts of the apology, our speeches will seem hollow and partisan.
    I don’t agree fully with any of the opinions. They are all from a different generation from me. Their parents were probably alive during the Pearl Harbor attacks. I know nothing about the nuclear bombs other than what we know from hindsight. The worst part about politics is that nobody is ever completely wrong. There are valid arguments for each opinion, and I certainly agree with some more than others, but that is what they are: an opinion. Regardless of what I think, thousands have died. Regardless of what Obama says, they are still dead. The dead do not care what we say now, it is only to help the living. So with that in mind, I agree most with the first opinion. The living need to learn the lesson, and that needs to start with an acknowledgement that something bad happened. I believe we need to surpass all identities, be it racial, partisan, or national, and stand together as humanity to save the lives of future generations. “The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step”, and we need to take that step and apologize, we we can start our moral trek.
40. Nathan B. June 8, 2016 at 10:16 pm

    1. While reading over Obama’s speech, I believe he did apologize for the bombings at Hiroshima. He said that humans should think about our technological advances and the damage they can cause. This includes nuclear weapons, which can destroy a whole lot. He would bring up advancements we have made but would then counter them with something bad. He did say that the bombings were bad and wasted many lives. Him pointing out the bad things in the situation and bringing up the lives lost being a waste can be seen as an apology.

    2. The comment that stood out to me most in the things to think about section was “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?” When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, it was an act of violence. Many American lives were lost to do this act. We came back fighting with the right decision. I believe the two events are comparable because if they wanted to start a war, they sure as hell got one. It would not have been right to sit back after the bombings at Pearl Harbor, we needed to come back and show our dominance and the willingness to fight.

    3. In the New York Times article, the article I agree with most is the one about lamenting the damage caused by the bombings without apologizing for them. I feel this way because it is a very sad topic, there were many lives lost but why apologize when they fist bombed us and have not sent an apology. We fought back to not show weakness and fought back for the lives lost at Pearl Harbor. It is a very tragic event for both sides of the bombing, many lives were lost and it is a very sensitive topic. All I am saying is it seems like they wanted to start a war, but we finished it.
41. Connor Bradbury June 8, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    1.
    I don’t think Obama apologized at all for the bombing. In his speech, he never once said that he regretted the bombing, or that he thinks the U.S. shouldn’t have done it. The focus of his speech was on the future, and that we have to look at the bombing as a lesson. In fact, he basically says the bombing was necessary to avoid military occupation of Japan. Obama says that we should look at the bombing as a lesson to promote friendship and peace. Now, we have a close relationship with Japan, and most of the major nations in the world are bonded peacefully through democratic and commercial relations. His whole view was one of peace, and morality. He speaks of the dangers that come with technology, and says that as technological advancements are made, moral ones need to be made as well so man doesn’t resort to violence and evil with its newfound knowledge.

    2.
    I chose the first 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?”. This comment resonates with me because I think it’s the most true. America was the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons on another nation, and for that, we need to practice what we preach, and be the first nation to rid itself of nuclear weapons while we advocate for others to do the same. The reason countries throughout the world are reluctant to get rid of nuclear weapons is because of the fear of other nations’ weapons. If America, as a powerhouse nation, sets an example by destroying their nuclear weapons, other countries will soon feel comfortable enough to do the same. It is our duty to be at the front of the line to getting rid of these weapons of mass destruction, as we are the only country to use them, so we should be the first to get rid of them.

    3.
    I agree most with the fifth opinion, which states that Obama should veto a plan to spend $1 trillion on improving our nuclear arsenal when he won the Nobel Peace Prize for advocating for the reduction of those same weapons. If Obama had enough influence that he won the Nobel Peace Prize, he could do great things when it comes to reducing the amount of nuclear weapons we have in America. Like I said earlier, I think the U.S. has to lead the way in reducing the amount of nuclear weapons in the world, not just because we were the only nation to use them, but also because we are a military and economic powerhouse. Being arguably the most powerful country in the world, we must take the first step in drastically reducing our weapons of mass destruction, and vetoing the trillion dollar nuke bill would be Obama’s perfect chance, especially when he won an award so prestigious and respected as the Nobel Peace Prize.
42. Matthew B. June 8, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    1. After reading the transcript of President Obama’s speech in Hiroshima, I do not think that he apologized for the bombing. He did, however, express how poorly he felt about all of the lives that were lost, and how all of them should be remembered. Personally, I appreciate the fact that President Obama did not directly apologize, due to the fact that apologies should only be made if they are truly sincere. Obama’s words would have reflected the thoughts of our nation as a whole, and at this time, I believe that we are split on whether or not we should apologize. I actually think that the President handled the situation very smartly, and I could see how thought out his word choice was throughout.
    2. The statement that resonates the most with me is the thought that since Japan has not apologized for Pearl Harbor, we should not apologize for the dropping of atomic bombs. I believe that the logic behind this argument is flawed for a few reasons. First, the attack on Pearl Harbor was an attack primarily focused on taking out our naval and military resources, not our civilians. Also, a total of approximately 65 civilians were killed during the attack on the harbor. This is a large number, but when compared to the 150,000 civilians that lost their lives in Hiroshima alone, it does not seem very significant. We killed many more people, and many more civilians, and because of this, I find the logic behind this statement to be very flawed.
    3. In my opinion, I believe that the second opinion from the New York Times is the thought that I feel is most true. I believe that we should recognize the thousands of innocent lives we took in the process in the bombing, and do what we can to help the families recover, as well as the nation as a whole. I find it possible to mourn the lives of the people who lost their lives, while not apologizing directly. In my opinion, President Obama did this successfully, and handled the situation very well.
43. Erinn Costello June 8, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    Blog #87
    1. In the speech Obama gives in Hiroshima he never directly said ‘I’m sorry’ but he did not ignore the event either. Since the United States has not yet apologized for the bombing in 1945 there could be no chance of apology ever. When Obama spoke he took time to remember all the lives lost not just in the bombing but in the entire war. When he mentioned this i thought maybe is wasn’t sorry for the bombings at all. But he did continue to circle back to remembrance of the dead in Hiroshima throughout the speech and how he wants to change the ways of weapons.
    2. When I read the things to think about section of this blog the main point that I thought about and lingered in my mind was the fact that Japan did not apologize for their attack on Pearl Harbor. I am not familiar with how often other countries apologize for their brutal acts, but if Japan was looking for an apology from the United States they could start by apologizing for themselves. Another of these points was about Canada and how the Prime Minister apologized saying, “ An apology doesn’t cost anything… Has no effect on policy. It was just the nice thing to do.” Personally i think this only presses the cliche of Canadians being extremely kind.
    3. Since many reporters have their opinions on if Obama and the United States should apologizes or not i mostly agree with the quote stating that “an apology by the president ‘would set the tone of reconciliation that all nations can respond to.’” I agree with this because apologies can not hurt in any way and if the world’s nations would apologize instead of hold grudges, the Earth could start to live in harmony again.
44. Alanna Rosenthal June 8, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    1.Even though Obama did not verbally apologize to Japan, he got the point across that apologies and forgiveness is the only way to move forward. I think he felt great regret from what had happened 71 years ago before his speech was made. I feel that Obama was obligate to make this speech because it was about making a point to the world that we are all equal. President Obama the first African American president ever, not only does this bring huge success to America, but it also leads to the ignorance and bigotry of others. In his speech, Obama made a point that we are all humans, we should make technological advances to build everyone up together, not ones that kill or hurt others. I think Obama not only apologized but took it a step further.
    2. The thing that I had to think about was “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.” this stood out to me because America is not the only “misbehaved” country in the world. The importance of America and Obama doing this was to show how easily things can be moved forward just with a simple apology. For example, after the Holocaust, one of the most detonating genocides in the world, Germany had to basically start over. The country wanted to rebuild their country around a new image of dressing what was done was wrong. After this happened huge strides were made to make Germany the way it is today.
    3. I agree with the first person. After reading the speech that Obama spoke to the people of Japan and the world, you can tell that Obama’s number one goal was to show that people can move forward. He addressed the strides that Japan and the USA has made together during this time. He called Japan not only an ally, but a friend. The point of the speech was to build others up and work together as humans.
45. Sean Bonner June 8, 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Even though Obama stated that he did not come to Japan to apologize for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki seven decades ago, I feel that part of his intentions on making this trip were to give a subtle apology through actions. If Obama was truly just trying to address to America and Japan that there needs to be further action taken to get rid of nuclear weapons, I feel that the trip to Japan wouldn’t have been necessary. If he wants to send a message to Japan and the rest of this world, I feel an equally powerful way of sending this message would be to continue to work with foreign nations to get rid of nuclear weapons. Taking part in this ceremony with the Japanese Prime minister just gives vibes of an apology, whether he verbally communicates that apology or not.
    The idea brought up in the blog that sticks out the most to me is the first one. I can see how we could be expected to lead this moral obligation since we were the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon against another country in war. On the contrary, I do believe the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are completely justifiable, and that any country who has pointed nuclear weapons at nations and threatened to fire (cough, cough, Russia) are obligated to pitch in to this “moral revolution.”
    Lastly, I agree with the third person’s opinion. As much damage that these bombs created, Imperial Japan was a nation that had its sights in a goal of true evil, and they had to be stopped before more bloodshed from American and Japanese troops was to be spilled. Japan also gave unimaginable grief to neighboring Asian countries, and they needed to be freed from the Empire. I disagree with an apology for the bombs dropped on these cities. Truman’s decision saved countless lives.
46. Ruby Kolender June 8, 2016 at 10:54 pm

    1) After reading the speech, I have come to a conclusion that Obama did apologize for the bombing at Hiroshima. I do not think that that was his main goal of the speech, however I do feel he was apologizing. He did so by explaining how we must think of the innocent lives lost in the bombings and ask ourselves what the future might be if nuclear warfare and this kind of destructiveness were to continue on. I feel like Obama wouldn’t have gone there if at least one of his intentions wasn’t to apologize, because otherwise it would just sound like he was making excuses for the bombing which he definitely was not. I think what Obama was doing was essentially apologizing for the fact that all the countries in conflict got to that point in the first place. He addresses that war has been something that has been passed on from generation to generation, and he knows that because of the guilt America has from dropping the bomb at Hiroshima, he hopes that war should never have to go that far again in any extent.
    2) The comment that resonates the most with me is the last one. I disagree with the conservative view. If we look at the bombings of innocent lives as an act that should make Americans feel proud, how long is it going to take before someone else decides we should get a taste of our own medicine? As much as I am grateful for the perseverance of American leaders who decided not to give up until democracy was accepted by Germany and Japan, I still can’t stand to think that they felt the only solution were nuclear weapons. I agree that we can be proud of achieving democracy in countries with unstable governments, but not by the way we did it. If Obama went to Hiroshima explaining that Hiroshima was bombed for the good of the world, I think America would receive an interesting wakeup call by having this take on it.
    3) I agree with the first opinion in the article. I agree that this is what Obama did in his speech, and did it right. He was definitely trying to express how he feels the world should do it’s best to never reach this point of being that destructive. I also agree with this opinion because while this opinion is saying that America should apologize, it’s exemplifying a different kind of pride, pride that the country is going to express to help the world from not reliving this kind of terror.
47. Olivia S. June 8, 2016 at 11:00 pm

    1. Personally, I do not think Obama truly apologized for Hiroshima and Nagasaki in his speech. He came very close, but sort of skirted around the topic. He acknowledged the grief and trauma that followed the attacks, and seemingly tried to make it known that the results of the attacks may have outweighed the motives. To me, an apology needs to be something that is very clear and sincere, and Obama clearly did not do that. If he had came out and said sorry, then it would have been more of an apology. Instead, he acknowledged the fact that the attacks were bad, but he did not express regret for the actions of President Truman.

    2. The statement that appeals to me the most from the “things to think about” section is the one comparing Pearl Harbor and the bombings. In my opinion, the two can be seen as very similar, but also drastically different. Both were horrible in the end, and many lives were lost. They both were also provoked in one way or another, and were not seen as acts of terrorism but rather as acts of war. The difference is mostly due to who was attacked. In Pearl Harbor, a military base was a attacked but in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, innocent civilians were targeted. In general, Pearl Harbor is what got us into the war but the bombings were more severe than the Pearl Harbor attack. It is certainly tough to say if they are comparable, but I think they are. They both were intentional acts clearly done to prove something important.

    3. I mostly agree with opinions 2 and 3. I do not think we owe Japan an apology because the bombings were an immediate end to the war that prevented the U.S. from having to invade Japan and lose even more lives. Yes, the bombings had horrifying results, but the circumstances would have been so much worse had the bombings not occurred. I think, as the second opinion states, we can grief over the attacks without having an apology. As long as we can fully acknowledge the fact that the attacks traumatized the Japanese people, I do not believe that we need to make a formal apology.
48. Lindsay H June 8, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    1. I think that Obama sort of indirectly apologized for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not for the actual bombings, more for what happened after and for all the after effects of them. I think that Obama didn’t apologize for the bombings because if you really dig deep and can understand the other options of ending the war, you can see that dropping the bombs were the only logical way to end it. If Obama wanted to apologize, he would have come and said it straight and clear so it could not have been missed of misinterpreted. However, I really do believe that Obama regrets many of the things that came out of the bombings and is sorry for those, but dropping the bombs was horrible but it was necessary.
    2. The comment that resonates with me most is the one about Pearl Harbor and the Japanese, who haven’t apologized for Pearl Harbor. I don’t really think that these two acts are comparable because Pearl Harbor was an attack meant to start a war and a direct attack to harm America while the atom bombs were meant to save as many lives as possible, as ironic as that seems, and to end a war. Pearl Harbor was an attempt by the Japanese intended to cause harm for the loss of a people. I doubt that anyone involved in the planning of Pearl Harbor was thinking of the greater good or humanitarian concerns (however, there are two sides to every story so I could by all means be wrong). From what I know about the atom bombs, there were more concerns and lots of consideration that went into the planning on how to end the war with Japan, and the atom bomb was sort of seen as a last resort to save as many people as possible.
    3. Of the five opinions quoted in the New York Times, I would have to agree with the second one the most. The careful consideration that went into the final decision to drop the bombs was done with care and with the intentions/belief of saving as many people as possible. It was tragic that it came down to atom bombs to end the war, but it was necessary at the time and everything that came after was something that no one should have to even worry about. But it happened, and we should be sorry and remorseful for that pain and suffering. We should also be sorry that it came to the atom bomb but not that more lives were saved than would have been with an invasion of Japan.
49. Isaac Thompson June 8, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    In my opinion, nothing in Obama’s speech reflects a desire to apologize for the instances of Hiroshima. I also believe that it is beyond Obama’s power to take the blame for it, simply because it was not through his actions. In addition, I simply believe that instead of apologizing, Obama is trying to reflect on the war. Not only World War 2, but War as a whole; war that destroys friendships, people, bonds, and families. He is trying to make others understand that mankind has possessed capabilities in which war can be as simple as the push of a button, and that through our development of modern day technology, strategical revolutions have been created, and that could devastate the lives of millions. I think the topic that resonates the most with me is that “Japan hasn’t apologized for Pearl Harbor, but are the two acts comparable?” Of course, everyone would agree that clearly these two attacks are no way near comparable, for Hiroshima had a much greater magnitude. In addition, I feel like this topic is crucial because some of the other topics reflect it. When the Canadian Prime minister apologized to the Native Canadians because “it was the right thing to do”, I feel like it would have settled some tensions, just because the Native Canadians would have the mindset that they are still crucial to Canadian civilization and they are deemed essential to the Canadian country as a whole. Similarly, I do feel that although we both should apologize for the attacks, because they both can directly categorized into the definition of an “attack”, because it simply would be the right thing to do. It wouldn’t relieve tensions, because Obama did state in his speech that Japan and America in modern day possess and unbreakable bond. I feel like the third person saying that the bombs “saved lives by avoiding a [total war] military invasion of Japan” somewhat reflects my opinion on the situation, because obviously this situation was bad, and I believe that America defied all morals by dropping this bomb on innocent civilians. I also understand that total war would have been dramatically more severe, and the causality numbers through total war relative to the casualties during Hiroshima would have skyrocketed.
50. Lizzie Kompus June 8, 2016 at 11:05 pm

    After reading Obama’s speech I think he attempted to make an apology but never fully go to one. Towards the end of his speech he says words can’t discuss a voice to such suffering, but then he starts talking about how we have already taken responsibility for these actions. If he finished talking about how words can’t describe how tragic this situation was or any means of a sorry, but he almost switched topics and discussed moving on and learning from our past actions. I understand how many could think this was an apology, again all based on interpretation, but in my opinion it could have been a more straightforward sincerer apology. The one topic that stuck out the most to me was the words that the Canadian Prime Minister said about the Native Canadians. I think that Obama probably should have considered saying a direct apology about the bombs and how sorry we are to the people. I do understand that many may think that with that sort of apology, it could make us in charge of paying back to the Japanese. However all cost and measures aside I think that a heartfelt apology is needed to repair unrested wounds and like he said it doesn’t take much. It would have not only made us a better country to apologize for our mistakes but it would show a step of action. It shows that we care to fix them. Obama was the first president since that incident, so he was being the role model of the situation, and he didn’t even say sorry. It was never his fault but he was in charge of speaking for a country and it was matters of history. The point of history is to learn from our mistakes and apply that knowledge to the future, I don’t think he executed that speech correctly when not doing a harmless apology. Out of the five NYC Times articles, I agree most with the first. I think that an apology would help mend the relationship between us. I don’t think that we could make any progress without addressing the elephant in the room. Now I don’t think that is that big of a deal to apologize, as stated before, but it would show that we are taking responsibility and show that we want to try to amend our relationship and past actions.