Are Apologies really neccessary

@britexpat: that is why I am saying the topic should not be raised unless within a historical and educational context. It is very controversial and each side has its version, and if each side will keep pushing its version every now and then and stigmatize the other side, then obviously relations will always be strained between them. Some countries have gone beyond this and established working relationships and left the colonization/war debate for teachers and historians (Egypt and the UK, Qatar and the UK, Tunisia and France, etc.)

Japan lost thousands of its own citizens during the Second World War. It was the dropping of the two atomic bombs that forced it to surrender. Now it was forced to apologies for the atrocities it committed. No war is 'holy" and wars are not fought according to "rules of the book". Everything is fair. Wars result in brutalities from BOTH sides. What difference an apology would mean now for what took place during the Second World War? It means nothing. Most of those who suffered are no longer around. The same holds to true for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where hundreds of thousands perished within seconds of the attack and those who survived, just wished they hadn't. Will a simple "We are sorry" after so many decades of the attack mitigate the pain and sufferings of the victims?

The scars of brutality always remain, and that is what history talks about -- the glorifying, courageous acts of the victor as they become writers of history, and the cruel deeds of the vanquished.

An apology means nothing, it's only words. Give them back their territory and they will believe it.

I think the moment when the Australian PM apologised to the Aboriginals wasn't a moment of division, but was a step towards reconcilliation. I don't think the apology per se is the issue, but it's how different members of the community chose to interpret it. Would Israel apologising to the Palestinians it has displaced upset the Palestinian people?

Yacine: The fact is that my version of history may be different to yours.

For example, Genghis Khan is seen as marauder by some and hero by others.

Britain's role in India is seen differently by both sides

Tony Blair and George W are seen as saviours by many and murderers by others.

In my opinion, apologies serve no purpose , but cause further divisions

I agree I hate this but I think apologies are needed if the invading country's politicians keep honoring the killers of the war. I am more than happy to pardon but you have to be sensitive when dealing with the topic and you cannot come every year and stir the shit and then expect me to be happy with it. Japan should have made it clear that the history of the war is something of the past and that it will only be taught in school. That's it, no commemorations, no celebrations, nothing. It is a page and it has to be turned.

"forgiven"

A similar situation can be seen in the Christian church. The sinner can commit sins as many as he wants. On Sundays he goes to church, confesses to a priest, and, in the name of God, his sins are forgive, He has to pray the Ave Maria ten times and everything is okay. Besides the fact that the church used to take money for the absolution it's also a lame excuse for allowing the sinner to sin.

I would agree that they are propoganda and PR. The danger nowdays is that an apology can open the floodgates to a court case and request for reparations.

Anyway, my thoughts are with WT.

Apologies are not very useful, I guess, they are propaganda, good-will actions for public relations. It's better not to do what requires an apology. Or, in other words: apologies are a lame excuse!