Jeremy re this comment you made at sepia mutiny:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/
sepia...ml#comment38044
Im rather surprised at such a comment. The day Pearl Harbour was attacked signaled the beginning of war in the Pacific which meant attacks on British, Australian, Dutch and of course US targets. So Pearl Harbour was a US affair but that day the meant the start of a war by Japan on Australia and Britain as well.
So in a sense Australia was attacked on that day.
Most importantly for Brits and Aussies was the fall of Singapore in early '42 which resulted in tens of 1000s of them being taken prisoner. The biggest single capture of Brits & Aussies by the Japanese in the war. Surely youve heard something about how badly they were treated? Bridge over the River Kwai ring any bells? Many of them didnt last the 3+ years til the end of the war.
That's what Australian anti-Japanese sentiment was/is based on. Not the technicality of which particular miltary target was hit first.
Its a funny world we live in, muslims are allowed to attack Christian people because of the crusades 600+ years ago. Irish republicans can attack Brits because of what Cromwell did 350 years ago but God forbid a westerner notice some Japanese unpleasantness within living memory.
Dear Lurker,
Thanks for your contribution. I'm answering here on the chance you'll revisit. (I have no other address for you). You make some valid points, and I was not trying to downplay Japanese culpability for their cruel behavior during the war, which very is great.
But Americans suffered as greatly at the hands of the Japanese military, and yet today Japanese can walk US streets in safety on Pearl Harbor day, while in Australia they cannot. Visiting the sins of the fathers on their descendants is best left to G-d, (if even Him). Certainly not to those Australians who attacked defenseless civilians.
Enjoying our dialogue,
Jeremy
Commenting by HaloScan
