When Germany Bombed Pearl Harbor, And The Ostrich Died For Nothing

[Nobu]

In what was left of occupied China. The goal would have been a scorched earth extermination of Chinese.

[Jeff]

Wow, just...wow.

 

Curiously, I'm currently reading Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 dealing with the likely costs of an invasion and the opinion that Japan simply was not going to surrender.

[R011]

 

 

 

 

The Japanese high command would have likely ordered biochemical warfare against the civilian population under its control, with all the means at its disposal, in response.

In Japan? that was going to work pretty well, I am sure.

Tokyo would have revived the G10N program and used the bombers to drop canisters of infected ticks on US cities.

Couldn't happen. The Japanese transportation grid would be destroyed well vefore they could make progress and such few major manufacturing facilities as still existed would be ashes. This is about as plausible as the Nazis developing superweapons in the spring of 1945.

[R011]

Wow, just...wow.

 

Curiously, I'm currently reading Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 dealing with the likely costs of an invasion and the opinion that Japan simply was not going to surrender.

There seems to have still been a case being made to delay invasion and see how much longer Japan could resist a blockade. As the bombing plan was about to move to destroying transport infrastructure, things would have got very grim as such food as was being produced, barely above starvation levels already, stopped getting to where it was needed. Famine, disease, and social breakdown would have resulted with the occupying authorities not having the resources to help much after Japanese surrender or collapse.

[JasonJ]

Wow, just...wow.

 

 

Well, I'm more depressed about the apparant glass ceiling. That a plain old smiley sad face is too cheap to express it.

 

But I know I'm right in my arguments. And it goes beyond just sentiment to argue in Japan's defense as one of Japan contingent. It's literally gets down to getting history right. Good counters just simply have not been made. It's not to confuse a view that the US is all at fault. I think some people go kneejerking to that. It's 50/50. Well roughly. The US made a stake in this region's affairs and got involved. That makes it a factor to tje start of the Pacific War. And it prolonged the Second Sino-Japanese War. Had CKS lost, then Wang Jingwei would have been top leader for China. The precedent of how Korea or Taiwan had been as a colony do not suggest an end holocaust for China had CKS lost. The SU sent tremendous amount of aid to CKS in the 1938-1941 period, even giving the cold shoulder to the Chinese communists because it it becamemore important to the SU that Japan had not won and so changed backing to CKS as the Chinese communists were not nearly as strong as the Nationalists Chinese at the time. Altvough it seems possible that without that Soviet aid, CKS would not have made it past 1940. I don't see how Wang Jingwei was any worse than CKS.

Edited January 27, 2020 by JasonJ

[Nobu]

 

Wow, just...wow.

 

Curiously, I'm currently reading Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 dealing with the likely costs of an invasion and the opinion that Japan simply was not going to surrender.

There seems to have still been a case being made to delay invasion and see how much longer Japan could resist a blockade. As the bombing plan was about to move to destroying transport infrastructure, things would have got very grim as such food as was being produced, barely above starvation levels already, stopped getting to where it was needed. Famine, disease, and social breakdown would have resulted with the occupying authorities not having the resources to help much after Japanese surrender or collapse.

 

 

Things would have been grim for the Allied civilian population still under Japanese control as this was playing out in the home islands as well.

[Ssnake]

The idea that Japan invaded China to stop communism for the good of the world is preposterous.

[JWB]

 

 

 

The Japanese high command would have likely ordered biochemical warfare against the civilian population under its control, with all the means at its disposal, in response.

In Japan? that was going to work pretty well, I am sure.

Tokyo would have revived the G10N program and used the bombers to drop canisters of infected ticks on US cities.

Couldn't happen. The Japanese transportation grid would be destroyed well vefore they could make progress and such few major manufacturing facilities as still existed would be ashes. This is about as plausible as the Nazis developing superweapons in the spring of 1945.

 

How much infrastructure is required to build a wooden plane powered by six engines that were sitting in a warehouse?

[JasonJ]

The idea that Japan invaded China to stop communism for the good of the world is preposterous.

No one saying that they were trying to stop communism for the good of the world. They were anti-communists because they themselves were anti-communists. They were willing to work it out with CKS and for the mid 1930s, for that time being, CKS was willing to keep things calm with the Japanese up north in Manchuria. But Chinese communists appealed to Chinese to nationalistic sentiment more than CKS. But then it was in the Xi'an incident where the communists got a hold of CKS personnaly against his will and forced upon him to make agreement to make the second united front. That was the event that set CKS and Japan against each other for greater conflict. It was the forming of the second front was when the idea of working something out with CKS lost appeal.

[R011]

 

 

 

Wow, just...wow.

 

Curiously, I'm currently reading Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 dealing with the likely costs of an invasion and the opinion that Japan simply was not going to surrender.

There seems to have still been a case being made to delay invasion and see how much longer Japan could resist a blockade. As the bombing plan was about to move to destroying transport infrastructure, things would have got very grim as such food as was being produced, barely above starvation levels already, stopped getting to where it was needed. Famine, disease, and social breakdown would have resulted with the occupying authorities not having the resources to help much after Japanese surrender or collapse.

Things would have been grim for the Allied civilian population still under Japanese control as this was playing out in the home islands as well.

They could try. The Soviet Army would likely be keeping them a bit busy to concentrate on pointless genocide. They also had the Chinese Army to deal with as well as British led Allied forces. I doubt they'd kill more than the 200K per month they were averaging anyway.

[JasonJ]

 

 

 

Wow, just...wow.

 

Curiously, I'm currently reading Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 dealing with the likely costs of an invasion and the opinion that Japan simply was not going to surrender.

There seems to have still been a case being made to delay invasion and see how much longer Japan could resist a blockade. As the bombing plan was about to move to destroying transport infrastructure, things would have got very grim as such food as was being produced, barely above starvation levels already, stopped getting to where it was needed. Famine, disease, and social breakdown would have resulted with the occupying authorities not having the resources to help much after Japanese surrender or collapse.

Things would have been grim for the Allied civilian population still under Japanese control as this was playing out in the home islands as well.

They could try. The Soviet Army would likely be keeping them a bit busy to concentrate on pointless genocide. They also had the Chinese Army to deal with as well as British led Allied forces. I doubt they'd kill more than the 200K per month they were averaging anyway.

Well, as pointed out before, when Japan's defeat came in 1945, Japan was apparantly willing to give CKS command of IJA forces in China to help him in the fight against the coming resumption of the Chinese Civil War. A war CKS was not feeling very confident in winning. However US demand for Japan to completely disarm took away that option. Although some Japanese units maintained their post into 1946 because CKS wasn't even ready to move into the Japanese occupied areas. The defeated Japanese waited for CKS's arrival in order to keep the Chineses communists from moving into the areas first. The Americans naively thought that giving the Nationalists US equipment like M3s and bombers would be sufficient, but to their dismay, was not even close to enough. Even though Japan had to disarm, some individual Japanese fought for the nationalists against the communists such as Hiroshi Nemoto. So no, with the commie threat gaining the upper hand, Japan was not going to go on an out of control murder spree before a final death in China.

Edited January 27, 2020 by JasonJ

[Nobu]

They could try. The Soviet Army would likely be keeping them a bit busy to concentrate on pointless genocide. They also had the Chinese Army to deal with as well as British led Allied forces. I doubt they'd kill more than the 200K per month they were averaging anyway.

 

 

The IJA's experience in Manila in 1945 could be taken as an indicator of what it was capable of against a civilian population under its control when faced with ongoing operations against an opposing army and the frustration of certain defeat. Adding reports of mass suffering of Japanese women and children in the home islands either before or during a land invasion of them would certainly not reduce the motivation for similar expressions of rage against the civilian population remaining under the IJA's control in occupied China.

[RETAC21]

 

They could try. The Soviet Army would likely be keeping them a bit busy to concentrate on pointless genocide. They also had the Chinese Army to deal with as well as British led Allied forces. I doubt they'd kill more than the 200K per month they were averaging anyway.

 

 

The IJA's experience in Manila in 1945 could be taken as an indicator of what it was capable of against a civilian population under its control when faced with ongoing operations against an opposing army and the frustration of certain defeat. Adding reports of mass suffering of Japanese women and children in the home islands either before or during a land invasion of them would certainly not reduce the motivation for similar expressions of rage against the civilian population remaining under the IJA's control in occupied China.

 

 

While that could be, the end result would be Japan would become a memory in history. It was not after 1946-47, when the first newsies made it to Hiroshima, that it was apparent to the US public the devastation that the atomic bomb was capable of. Absent that, and with another holocaust going off, the gloves were going to come off before the invasion, and Japan would be wiped off the map.

[RETAC21]

 

But I know I'm right in my arguments. And it goes beyond just sentiment to argue in Japan's defense as one of Japan contingent. It's literally gets down to getting history right. Good counters just simply have not been made. It's not to confuse a view that the US is all at fault. I think some people go kneejerking to that. It's 50/50. Well roughly. The US made a stake in this region's affairs and got involved. That makes it a factor to tje start of the Pacific War. And it prolonged the Second Sino-Japanese War. Had CKS lost, then Wang Jingwei would have been top leader for China. The precedent of how Korea or Taiwan had been as a colony do not suggest an end holocaust for China had CKS lost. The SU sent tremendous amount of aid to CKS in the 1938-1941 period, even giving the cold shoulder to the Chinese communists because it it becamemore important to the SU that Japan had not won and so changed backing to CKS as the Chinese communists were not nearly as strong as the Nationalists Chinese at the time. Altvough it seems possible that without that Soviet aid, CKS would not have made it past 1940. I don't see how Wang Jingwei was any worse than CKS.

 

 

 

Now, that's funny, becuase you have switched denialist mode on, and gone 100%.

 

Let me be clear from the start, your arguments don't make any sense Jason.

 

Starting from the last, you are justifying Japanese aggression using a rosy what if that didn't happen.

 

Second: in case you missed it. All of the incidents that you are using to justify Japanese agression happened outside of Japan (duh!) none of which had anything to do with Communism and all with imperialist aggression.

 

Third: even if the Japanese were the most anti-communist in the World, there's no justification to their conduct of the war and the treatment of civilians in occupied territories.

 

Fourth: It was the Imperial Japanese government that decided to go to war with the US, it was the IJN that put its sights on the USN as the next likely enemy right after the Russo-Japanese war and from then on, the tail started wagging the dog until Pearl Harbor.

 

Fifth: after the genie was out of the bottle, the Japanese were on the receiving end of a very big stick. Like the Germans, they miscalculated what was going to fall on them, unlike the Germans, they had a way out until the minute before their attack was launched.

 

You whataboutism and unwillingness to listen and learn are letting you down.

[JasonJ]

50/50 is not justification...

Edited January 27, 2020 by JasonJ

[RETAC21]

50/50 is not justification...

 

A one liner is hardly an argument.

 

Even then, It's not even 50/50.

 

When a ship runs aground, the coast bears no blame. Same with the Japan and US. Japan had a very clear idea what the limits were and was pushing them because democracies are weak and had gotten away scot free in previous times, until you push too hard.

 

They weren't unique and there wasn't anything culural about it, Hitler made the same mistake a few years earlier, Saddam Hussein would do the same a few years later. There are plenty of examples.

[JasonJ]

 

50/50 is not justification...

 

A one liner is hardly an argument.

 

Even then, It's not even 50/50.

 

When a ship runs aground, the coast bears no blame. Same with the Japan and US. Japan had a very clear idea what the limits were and was pushing them because democracies are weak and had gotten away scot free in previous times, until you push too hard.

 

They weren't unique and there wasn't anything culural about it, Hitler made the same mistake a few years earlier, Saddam Hussein would do the same a few years later. There are plenty of examples.

Usually, 1 liners are not sufficient. But in that post, it was. I was never argueing to the extent that Japan had full justification. If Japan was to have full justification, then it would have had to be an attack on Japanese territory. Like you side, the numerous incidents happened ouside of Japan proper. That's why I don't go to extent of Japan was justified.

[RETAC21]

 

 

50/50 is not justification...

A one liner is hardly an argument.

 

Even then, It's not even 50/50.

 

When a ship runs aground, the coast bears no blame. Same with the Japan and US. Japan had a very clear idea what the limits were and was pushing them because democracies are weak and had gotten away scot free in previous times, until you push too hard.

 

They weren't unique and there wasn't anything culural about it, Hitler made the same mistake a few years earlier, Saddam Hussein would do the same a few years later. There are plenty of examples.

Usually, 1 liners are not sufficient. But in that post, it was. I was never argueing to the extent that Japan had full justification. If Japan was to have full justification, then it would have had to be an attack on Japanese territory. Like you side, the numerous incidents happened ouside of Japan proper. That's why I don't go to extent of Japan was justified.

 

 

Beg your pardon?!?. Your insistence that Japan was only 50% to blame because the Chinese won't roll over is clearly a justification.

 

It's the equivalent of saying the Nazis are to blame for the Holocaust, but then it wouldn't have happened if there had been no jews.

[JasonJ]

 

 

 

50/50 is not justification...

 

A one liner is hardly an argument.

 

Even then, It's not even 50/50.

 

When a ship runs aground, the coast bears no blame. Same with the Japan and US. Japan had a very clear idea what the limits were and was pushing them because democracies are weak and had gotten away scot free in previous times, until you push too hard.

 

They weren't unique and there wasn't anything culural about it, Hitler made the same mistake a few years earlier, Saddam Hussein would do the same a few years later. There are plenty of examples.

Usually, 1 liners are not sufficient. But in that post, it was. I was never argueing to the extent that Japan had full justification. If Japan was to have full justification, then it would have had to be an attack on Japanese territory. Like you side, the numerous incidents happened ouside of Japan proper. That's why I don't go to extent of Japan was justified.

Beg your pardon?!?. Your insistence that Japan was only 50% to blame because the Chinese won't roll over is clearly a justification.

 

It's the equivalent of saying the Nazis are to blame for the Holocaust, but then it wouldn't have happened if there had been no jews.

Again, the China situation was complex.

 

Comparisons to other instances, while popular, is really rather weak. Just use the facts in the situation instead of making comparisons. Such comparisons are too simplistic.

[Ssnake]

I know I'm right in my arguments.

 

Irrelevant if you can't present your case in a convincing manner. You want us to change our view on the Pacific part of WW2, the onus is on you to present your case. It doesn't help you at all if you counter the argument of Japanese atrocities and war crimes with whataboutism, that the Chinese were also bad. It doesn't help you if you try to assign 50% of the war responsibility to the US by starting the argument with the oli embargo, leaving out the context of it. You want to argue with historical facts? Then you don't get to cherry pick your starting date.

 

Japan signed the Geneva convention. The nature of the Geneva convention is a unilateral declaration of every signatory to abide by it. Japanese leadership failed to convey the message and fostered a warrior cult, with predictable results. That the individual soldier "didn't get it" may be somewhat excusable due to a vastly different cultural background, but the Japanese leadership failed, like they failed so often during the whole period after Tsushima. Also, as a historian you don't get to justify acts of Imperial Japan by bringing up alternate histories - or at least it doesn't help to build credibility for your case.

 

Imperial Japan was the aggressor in all of East Asia - Korea, Manchuria, China, Philippines, Burma, Australia. None of these countries declared war on Japan first, or performed agressions that justified a Japanese invasion. In all these cases Japan decided to do it. And like Nazi Germany, Japan got away with much of it.

Unlike Germany, Japan is still incapable of an adult reaction of assuming historical responsibility for all of it. This is the part that pisses people off, and creates a negative bias towards your argument (yes, it exists, but pouting about it will only reinforce it). Japan is dwelling on its role as a victim of two nuclear weapons. It suppressed for a long time, and nowadays downplays the conduct of Japanese troops in school books. Rather than accepting its responsibility for the war, it tries to shift blame to others - like this attempt with a plain ridiculous attempt to put equal responsibility for what happened on the US (you brought up the 50/50 ratio and did not once attempt to dial it back).

You know Japan, Japanese history, Japanese culture, and the Japanese mentality probably better than anyone on this forum (save for native Japanese), and I value that you're bringing the modern Japanese perspective to many discussions. But at the same time it seems to have clouded your judgment, especially this self-righteous assertiveness that you express with statements like the one quoted. If you want to be successful in your arguments you need to demonstrate that you're capable of walking in the shoes of your audience. But maybe it isn't about changing anyone's mind here.

[JasonJ]

Ssnake, you made a big post. A response will have to wait when I can sit and go at length. So please wait. Just letting you know so as to not leave you hanging.

[RETAC21]

 

I know I'm right in my arguments.

 

Irrelevant if you can't present your case in a convincing manner. You want us to change our view on the Pacific part of WW2, the onus is on you to present your case. It doesn't help you at all if you counter the argument of Japanese atrocities and war crimes with whataboutism, that the Chinese were also bad. It doesn't help you if you try to assign 50% of the war responsibility to the US by starting the argument with the oli embargo, leaving out the context of it. You want to argue with historical facts? Then you don't get to cherry pick your starting date.

 

Japan signed the Geneva convention. The nature of the Geneva convention is a unilateral declaration of every signatory to abide by it. Japanese leadership failed to convey the message and fostered a warrior cult, with predictable results. That the individual soldier "didn't get it" may be somewhat excusable due to a vastly different cultural background, but the Japanese leadership failed, like they failed so often during the whole period after Tsushima. Also, as a historian you don't get to justify acts of Imperial Japan by bringing up alternate histories - or at least it doesn't help to build credibility for your case.

 

Imperial Japan was the aggressor in all of East Asia - Korea, Manchuria, China, Philippines, Burma, Australia. None of these countries declared war on Japan first, or performed agressions that justified a Japanese invasion. In all these cases Japan decided to do it. And like Nazi Germany, Japan got away with much of it.

Unlike Germany, Japan is still incapable of an adult reaction of assuming historical responsibility for all of it. This is the part that pisses people off, and creates a negative bias towards your argument (yes, it exists, but pouting about it will only reinforce it). Japan is dwelling on its role as a victim of two nuclear weapons. It suppressed for a long time, and nowadays downplays the conduct of Japanese troops in school books. Rather than accepting its responsibility for the war, it tries to shift blame to others - like this attempt with a plain ridiculous attempt to put equal responsibility for what happened on the US (you brought up the 50/50 ratio and did not once attempt to dial it back).

You know Japan, Japanese history, Japanese culture, and the Japanese mentality probably better than anyone on this forum (save for native Japanese), and I value that you're bringing the modern Japanese perspective to many discussions. But at the same time it seems to have clouded your judgment, especially this self-righteous assertiveness that you express with statements like the one quoted. If you want to be successful in your arguments you need to demonstrate that you're capable of walking in the shoes of your audience. But maybe it isn't about changing anyone's mind here.

 

 

Very well put

[Rick]

 

 

I know I'm right in my arguments.

 

Irrelevant if you can't present your case in a convincing manner. You want us to change our view on the Pacific part of WW2, the onus is on you to present your case. It doesn't help you at all if you counter the argument of Japanese atrocities and war crimes with whataboutism, that the Chinese were also bad. It doesn't help you if you try to assign 50% of the war responsibility to the US by starting the argument with the oli embargo, leaving out the context of it. You want to argue with historical facts? Then you don't get to cherry pick your starting date.

 

Japan signed the Geneva convention. The nature of the Geneva convention is a unilateral declaration of every signatory to abide by it. Japanese leadership failed to convey the message and fostered a warrior cult, with predictable results. That the individual soldier "didn't get it" may be somewhat excusable due to a vastly different cultural background, but the Japanese leadership failed, like they failed so often during the whole period after Tsushima. Also, as a historian you don't get to justify acts of Imperial Japan by bringing up alternate histories - or at least it doesn't help to build credibility for your case.

 

Imperial Japan was the aggressor in all of East Asia - Korea, Manchuria, China, Philippines, Burma, Australia. None of these countries declared war on Japan first, or performed agressions that justified a Japanese invasion. In all these cases Japan decided to do it. And like Nazi Germany, Japan got away with much of it.

Unlike Germany, Japan is still incapable of an adult reaction of assuming historical responsibility for all of it. This is the part that pisses people off, and creates a negative bias towards your argument (yes, it exists, but pouting about it will only reinforce it). Japan is dwelling on its role as a victim of two nuclear weapons. It suppressed for a long time, and nowadays downplays the conduct of Japanese troops in school books. Rather than accepting its responsibility for the war, it tries to shift blame to others - like this attempt with a plain ridiculous attempt to put equal responsibility for what happened on the US (you brought up the 50/50 ratio and did not once attempt to dial it back).

You know Japan, Japanese history, Japanese culture, and the Japanese mentality probably better than anyone on this forum (save for native Japanese), and I value that you're bringing the modern Japanese perspective to many discussions. But at the same time it seems to have clouded your judgment, especially this self-righteous assertiveness that you express with statements like the one quoted. If you want to be successful in your arguments you need to demonstrate that you're capable of walking in the shoes of your audience. But maybe it isn't about changing anyone's mind here.

 

 

Very well put

 

Agree!

[JasonJ]

Its a well meaning post but again, many things to address.

[JasonJ]

 

I know I'm right in my arguments.

 

...

 

Unlike Germany, Japan is still incapable of an adult reaction of assuming historical responsibility for all of it. This is the part that pisses people off, and creates a negative bias towards your argument (yes, it exists, but pouting about it will only reinforce it). Japan is dwelling on its role as a victim of two nuclear weapons. It suppressed for a long time, and nowadays downplays the conduct of Japanese troops in school books. Rather than accepting its responsibility for the war, it tries to shift blame to others - like this attempt with a plain ridiculous attempt to put equal responsibility for what happened on the US (you brought up the 50/50 ratio and did not once attempt to dial it back).

 

...

I'm going to approach you're post peace meal. If we clear parts one at a time, then I'll get to the rest of the other parts. Its too cumbersome to go with it all at once.

 

The part I isolated in the quote is the part that draws my most immediate attention so I want to address this first. I'll get to the other parts if we clear this first.

 

It is incorrect to say that Japan dwells on the atomic bombs. I have 3 surveys to show. All were taken around the time Obama visited Hiroshima in 2016.

 

The first one was conducted by Asahi (Left-wing).

"How do you feel about the dropping of the Atomic Bomb"

31% Inhumane and cannot be forgiven

33% Inhumane but not deeply rooted in it

22% For the US, it was necessary course of action

8% It was war so was natural

 

Out of the 31% that said "Inhumane and cannot be forgiven", 89% appreciated Obama's visit.

 

 

 

朝日新聞社による２１、２２日の全国世論調査（電話）によると、オバマ米大統領が被爆地の広島訪問を決めたことを「評価する」は８９％に達し、「評価しない」は４％だった。オバマ氏の被爆地訪問で、核なき世界に向かうことが「期待できる」は３６％で、「期待できない」の５０％が上回った。

 

米国の原爆投下についてどう思うか尋ねると、「非人道的で許せない」３１％、「非人道的だが、いまではそう深く根にもっていない」３３％、「アメリカとしてはやむを得ない手段であった」２２％、「戦争であるから当然」は８％だった。調査方法は異なるが、１９７０～９０年代に実施した計３回の調査（面接）では、「非人道的で許せない」が４割を超えていた。今回は「深く根にもっていない」が増え、とくに５０代以下で「深く根にもっていない」が最多だった。今回の調査で「非人道的で許せない」と答えた人でも、８９％がオバマ氏の広島訪問を「評価する」と答えた。

 

　来年４月に予定している消費税の１０％への引き上げについては、「延期すべきだ」が５９％（前回の４月調査は５９％）で、「延期すべきではない」の２９％（同３２％）を大きく上回った。

 

　消費税引き上げで景気に悪い影響が出る不安については、「大いに」２７％と「ある程度」５２％を合わせて７９％が「感じる」と答え、「あまり」１５％と「まったく」３％を合わせた「感じない」の１８％を突き放した。一方、消費税の引き上げ延期で社会保障に悪い影響が出る不安については、「大いに」１８％と「ある程度」４７％を合わせた「感じる」が６５％に上り、「あまり」２５％と「まったく」５％を合わせた「感じない」の３０％を上回った。

 

　夏の参院選で「野党が議席を増やした方がよい」は３６％、「今とあまり変わらないままがよい」は３２％、「与党が議席を増やした方がよい」は１７％。与党の自公で３分の２を超す議席を得た一昨年の衆院選直前に実施した１１月の調査でも、「野党が議席を増やす」３６％、「今とあまり変わらない」３１％、「与党が議席を増やす」１８％で、ほぼ同じ傾向だった。

 

　熊本地震の政府の対応を「評価する」は５４％、「評価しない」は２９％だった。

 

　安倍内閣の支持率は４３％（４月調査は４５％）、不支持率は３３％（同３４％）で、いずれも横ばいだった。

https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASJ5R5FDPJ5RUZPS003.html

 

Second survey was conducted by Sankei (right-wing) and FNN.

"Do you appraise Obama's visit to Hiroshima"

97.5% yes

 

Should Obama have made an apology during the visit?

68.2% No, I don't think so

 

 

 

産経新聞社とＦＮＮ（フジニュースネットワーク）は２８、２９両日に合同世論調査を実施した。安倍晋三内閣の支持率は５５・４％で前回調査（４月２３、２４両日）から６・０ポイント上昇した。内閣支持率が５０％を超えるのは昨年５月以来１年ぶり。主要国首脳会議（伊勢志摩サミット）での首相のリーダーシップや熊本地震への対応が評価された形だ。不支持率は４・１ポイント減の３４・０％だった。

 

　政党支持率は自民党が４１・１％で前回より２・１ポイント上昇。民進党は０・６ポイント増の７・９％、公明党は０・２ポイント増の４・０％だった。共産党は１・４ポイント減の３・８％、おおさか維新の会は１・０ポイント減の３・１％でそれぞれ支持率を落とした。

 

　来年４月に予定する消費税率１０％への引き上げを再延期した場合、首相が衆院を解散して国民の信を問うべきかについて「必要だと思わない」と答えた人が６２・０％に達し、「必要だと思う」の３３・６％を上回った。再延期を「公約違反だと思わない」は７２・２％で、「公約違反」とする人は２４・２％にとどまった。首相の「消費税増税再延期・衆院解散なし」路線にとって追い風となりそうだ。

 

　消費税率については「８％から引き上げるべきでない」が４０・７％、「引き上げは必要だが時期は遅らせるべきだ」が３５・９％だったのに対し、「予定通り来年４月に１０％」が１８・６％だった。民進党の岡田克也代表が消費税増税を２年間先送りし、赤字国債で社会保障充実の財源を確保するよう提案したことについては「反対」が６６・０％で、「賛成」の２２・６％を大きく上回った。

 

２６、２７両日に開かれた伊勢志摩サミットについて「成功だった」が７１・９％、議長を務めた首相のリーダーシップを「評価する」が６６・７％。首相の熊本地震での対応を「評価する」が６６・１％に上り、こうした結果が内閣支持率の上昇につながったもようだ。政権の経済政策「アベノミクス」に対する評価は「道半ば」とする人は６５・４％で、野党の主張する「失敗」とみる人は２７・９％にとどまった。

 

　オバマ米大統領の広島訪問は「評価する」が９７・５％と圧倒的な支持を得た。オバマ氏が原爆投下について謝罪すべきだったかとの問いでは「思わない」が６８・２％だった。一方、沖縄県うるま市の女性の遺体を遺棄したとして米軍属の男が逮捕された事件に関しては「日米地位協定を見直すべきだ」が８３・７％だった。

 

　野党が進める参院選での統一候補擁立の動きについては「評価する」が４８・２％、「評価しない」が４１・６％だった。民進党や共産党の支持率は伸び悩んでいるものの、参院選対策には一定の理解が広がっていることがうかがえる。

https://www.sankei.com/politics/news/160530/plt1605300015-n1.html

 

The third one is Nikkei (right wing)

 

 

 

TOKYO -- Support for U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Hiroshima is overwhelming, but expectations for the historic event are mixed, according to a recent Nikkei survey of online readers.

 

Asked whether they welcomed the first-ever visit of a sitting U.S. president to the nuclear-bombed city, 95.9% of 932 respondents said yes. Comments, however, show that while some readers welcome the visit wholeheartedly, others have reservations about what they see as the president's attempt to cement his legacy as an anti-nuclear crusader.

 

Obama's visit is planned to take place on Friday, following the Group of Seven summit in Ise-Shima, Mie Prefecture.

 

 

Strong support

 

Among readers welcoming the visit, one 55-year-old woman said, "I appreciate President Obama's decision, which could not have been made by other presidents."

 

A 59-year-old man described the upcoming visit as "the first step toward a world free of nuclear weapons."

 

No sitting U.S. president has yet to visit the cities where atomic bombs were dropped in the closing days of World War II, partly because the U.S. government is extremely sensitive to the possibility of the move being interpreted as an apology.

 

The prevailing feeling among the American public is that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought a quick end to the war, and Washington is taking great care to ensure that Obama's visit will not be criticized as "apology diplomacy" at home.

 

But respondents to the Nikkei survey were not necessarily insistent on an apology from the U.S.

 

"It is more important (that Obama) sees an atomic-bombed city and feels something than whether he apologizes or not," a male reader, 52, said.

 

Some readers called on Japan to clarify its stance on the war in return for the U.S. making Obama's visit to Hiroshima a reality.

 

"Now that 70 years have passed since the end of the war, the two countries need to get rid of all ill feelings between them," a 64-year-old man said. "Prime Minister (Shinzo) Abe should visit Pearl Harbor this summer."

 

The Japanese government is already considering an Abe visit to Pearl Harbor, as mutual visits by the two countries' leaders to sites of such symbolic importance would demonstrate to the world the strength of the Japan-U.S. alliance. Japanese government officials are studying the feasibility of having the prime minister visit Pearl Harbor around the time he attends the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Peru in November.

 

There were also comments from readers who, although they welcome Obama's visit, expressed mixed feelings about it.

 

"The president is only concerned about leaving a legacy, but the visit itself is meaningful," a 40-year-old man said. "I think it will be a topic that draws a line under the postwar era."

 

No need for "sorry"

 

Asked what they expect most from the visit, 65.1% of respondents said a "visit to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum."

 

Among respondents born in Hiroshima, a 48-year-old man said: "I welcome the decision on the president's visit during my life. I expect him to issue a message that will pave the way for the future."

 

Respondents' comments for this question show even more clearly than those for the first question -- Do you welcome Obama's visit to Hiroshima?.

 

"No apology is needed. I expect a message for the future," a 59-year-old man said.

 

"An apology is unnecessary," another man, 41, said. "It will be meaningful if (Obama) says even indirectly that the U.S. intends to pursue the reduction of nuclear weapons."

 

A 36-year-old man went as far as to say, "It's wrong to demand an apology from the U.S. because Japan is primarily responsible for the atomic bombings (of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), which could have been avoided if Japan had surrendered along with Germany."

 

Readers who lived through the war expressed hope that leaders of nuclear powers will visit the atomic-bombed cities.

 

"Japan and the U.S. are both responsible for the Pacific War," a 74-year-old man said. "One person alone cannot stage a war. People in a position to press the nuclear button should fully recognize the horror of using atomic weapons."

 

Among other responses for expectations of Obama's visit, 8.0 percent of respondents said "nothing in particular," 6.9 % said "an apology for the atomic bombing," 6.8% chose "a meeting with surviving victims of atomic bombing," and 6.3% said "a visit to Nagasaki."

 

Among the 6.9% of respondents who chose "others," a large number, including a 66-year-old man, said they hoped for "an appeal to the world for the elimination of all nuclear weapons."

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Nikkei-online-poll-95.9-welcome-Obama-s-Hiroshima-visit

 

These surveys show a very low level of sentiment feeling a necessity for apology. I think that means that if to characterize all of Japan, the conclusion would be that you are wrong because Japan is not dwelling on the atomic bombs. Also, I am American and have been here for almost 10 years now. Nobody, not once, has come to me and giving me a lecture about the a-bombs. It has never happened.

 

I will move on to other parts of the paragraph I isolated once this part is cleared.

 

So, whats your response to this point?