for his statement, Abe still defends him, but Ozawa, the leader of the opposing party,demands Abe that Abe should have a meeting with the U.S., asking her to apologize for the indiscriminate bombings on Japan. Abe refuted it in anger.
I hope no skirmishes with the U.S. will happen.
UPDATE It seems the opposing parties will be exploiting his statement to the full. And Abe is defending him-----That make it highly likely that LDP will lose the election and that will be the end of Abe. Abe should have fired him earlier.
TOKYO - Japan's defense minister said the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan during World War II "couldn't be helped," a news report said Saturday.
"The bombing ended the war, and I think that couldn't be helped," Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma was quoted as saying in a speech by Kyodo News agency.
Japan is the only nation to have suffered a nuclear attack, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of World War II.AP
As I wrote elsewhere I don't like this guy, but I don't think the article conveys what he is saying.
中日新聞
久間章生防衛相は３０日、千葉県柏市の麗沢大で講演し、先の大戦での米国の原爆投下について「長崎に落とされ悲惨な目に遭ったが、あれで戦争が終わったんだという頭の整理で、しょうがないなと思っている。それに対して米国を恨むつもりはない」と述べた。
米国が旧ソ連の日本への参戦を食い止めるため原爆を投下した側面があるとの見方を示し「日本が負けると分かっているのにあえて原爆を広島と長崎に落とし、終戦になった。幸い北海道が占領されずに済んだが、間違うと北海道がソ連に取られてしまった」と指摘。
また「勝ち戦と分かっている時に原爆まで使う必要があったのかどうかという思いは今でもしているが、国際情勢、戦後の占領状態などからすると、そういうことも選択としてはあり得るということも頭に入れながら考えなければいけない」と述べた。
（共同）
"Atomic bombing on Nagasaki was tragic but the war ended with it---that is the perception one must hold in my opinion. I have no grudge against the U.S.
Pointing out the fact there is an aspect that the atomic bombs were used to stop Soviet invasion, " The U.S. dropped the bombs, knowing that Japan would be surely defeated (without them), and the war ended. Fortunately Hokkaido was not occupied; In the worst case Soviet would haven stolen Hokkaido.
I still have a doubt if it was necessary to drop the bombs when the victory (for the allies) was obvious, but we need to take into account the fact that it was one of the plausible optoins, considering then international reality and the state of the post-war occupation.
In my reading, he is not saying his histroical view on whether atomic bombs ended the war, but he is expressing his veiw on how to think about it, how the attitude toward it should be in order not to hold grudge against the U.S.
His thought is confused. You don't need to hold grudge against the U.S. granted that the atomic bombs were strategecally unnecessary and morally wrong.
Rather my guess is that some of his generation has a complex sentiments against the U.S.and so he had to reason confusedly when it comes to the topic that is still hurting him.
No comments:
Post a Comment