Do the the japanese tired to hide the war crimes they committed?

Kaiserpingvin said:
Of course Japan "hides" many of the atrocious things they did back in the World War. If with "hides" one understands it as, "whenever it can be helped, don't mention it in official circumstances, like schools, speeches or what have you." It's sort of a self-enforcing mechanism. They don't actively go out and bury the evidence of their crimes, or anything like that, of course.

But then, I hear that French schools emit a lot of, or even everything, of their imperialistic period from their books, and I think I have heard the same about British schools and the British empire. I do not know the veracity of these claims, but would not be too shocked if true. I am certain American schools emit at least half of all the shitty things they have done, and rephrase the other half to sound as if they weren't.

I do know that Swedish schools do not even come close to mentioning the systematised sterilisation of the 30s -70s.

So there is nothing extraordinary in Japanese schools omitting Unit 731, the Rape of Nanking, comfort women or what have you. It is, however, certainly stupid, tactless and dickish. Japan might be extraordinary in that first, the things done were in many cases so extremely hideous one'd think they were duly and repeatedly noted, and second, they lost, and therefore had not much say until the occupation was lifted.



Augh, no.

First things first: Japan already was suing for peace. The cabinet was all about surrendering; they weren't debating whether they'd surrender or not, but by which terms. The war hawks wanted to keep Korea, Japan and Formosa, they wanted Japan to handle the dissolution of their own armed forced and they wanted Japan to judge and punish eventual war criminals (of course, since many of those guys knew or were war criminals themselves). The other side of the cabinet just wanted national independence secured.

But for reasons entirely grounded in self-righteous power-mongering, the Allies wanted unconditional surrender. They wanted it so bad they were ready to burn the whole island down (hallo Potsdam Ultimatum) if they couldn't get it. Who is the war criminal in this instance?

Second things second; no, it's not all that likely the nukes were a heavy argument. See, America already firebombed cities to pretty much the same destructive effect as the nukes had. The firebombing of Tôkyô killed more people and destroyed more property than either Little or Big Boy did, it just took six hours instead of a second and two thousand B52s rather than one; but what does that matter to those living in the cities, as they wound up equally destroyed anyway? And the firebombings, just to make sure, did not make the Japanese elite budge to the possibility of unconditional surrender (but again, did make them sue for peace). So why should nukes have such an effect?

No one really knows why Japan surrendered, but I think the Soviets declaring war on them was decisive, together with the Emperor seeing the results of firebombing.

Third things third: They could have demonstrated without killing anyone/all that many. Send message, "we're going to demonstrate our new weapon on this city here, Hirosima. [or better yet, Random Patch of Land No One Lives On.] It'll be terrible for anyone in the vicinity. Please evacuate it, whoever does not leave stays at their own peril." America already had air superiority; even a forewarned air raid would progress without too much difficulty, and they had routinely warned civilians of air raids in the past. (Though not all or even most; the criteria they went by are me obscure.)

Fourth things fourth: The nukes were deployed not to make Japan surrender as much as to scare the Soviet Union.

Fifth things fifth: As one of my heroes on this matter, Leo Szilard noted, if it had been the Germans who developed the nuke first, and destroyed two cities, and then was defeated, would not the men responsible for this weapon be put to trial for war crimes - or even crimes against humanity?

I am rather sure they would have.

"POTUS 33" said:
The result of the futile and senseless German resistance to the might of the aroused free peoples of the world stands forth in awful clarity as an example to the people of Japan. The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people. The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, All mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland.