I know there's not much love for Duckroll but he dunks it here:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=181540035&postcount=89
I think they both need to get acquainted with the basis of post-Clausewitzian thinking about what constitues a victory or a defeat. I also don't think the opinion held on the Nanking rape or the atomic bombs has a lot to do with the question whether the perpretator was an the "overall agressor" or "achieved victory". Atomic and strategic bombing are still debated to this day (with much reason as there was an element of inducing terror and fear that is morally wrong and proved to be inefficient) but you can argue that they served a military purpose towards the defense and logistic infrastructure. To the best of my knowledge, the rape of Nanking is just a mass crime that could only be loosely considered military if we were living in the age of the Golden Horde when you had to placate your troops with letting them have their looting. That the Soviets won didn't make the Katyn massacre or looting of Berlin anyless vile, it just gave them the luxury of not having to really adress them.
He's right that Japan can get stuffed on the matter though.
It's a loaded topic for me, as my kids are both American and Japanese, but have only been educated in Japan. It is guaranteed that they will never hear anything about Nanking or Pearl Harbor in their history class, but there are giant swathes of Both Bombs running through their education, from history to songs to field trips to Hiroshima's Peace Park. I'm all for having no more atomic/nuclear weaponry, but it is a constant thorn that Japan claims a victim role while espousing the virtue of peace.
Thankfully, the lack of public retrospection doesn't seem to have dulled the enthusiasm for not getting involved in war. Despite Abe's constitutional change to allow overseas military intervention, some figures quote as high as 90% of the population as objecting to the change.
