[Bubba]

Fascists care about their own people first, because they are nationalists, is what my point is. There is no contradiction there at all. The whole reason you are having this argument with me, is because I obviously care about people I regard as 'in-group and collaborators' more fervently than I care about out-groups.

The vast majority of people doesn't live in your country (and had absolutely no choice whatsoever in that), so yes, there is a contradiction and you do not care about (the vast majority) of people.

[Godstud]

All these points could have been satisfied if they targteted a harbor or naval base near those cities. Every building and dock being blown to pieces and every ship in the vicinity sunk or its crew incinerated would be enough to scare the Japanese imho. The Americans knew that if the Japanese had nuked New York or LA they'd be convicted for war crimes. They knew they were committing war crimes, they just didn't care enough about "them chink civies" to consider other options.

You did read ALL of it and not just select parts, didn't you? You do realize that the Japanese people were also an integral part of Japans war machine, right?

One of the biggest concerns that the Americans had was having to invade Japan(which still had a standing army of 5 million+) after 250,000 people(on both sides), had died on Okinawa with only 100,000 Japanese soldiers defending it. Not dropping the bombs could have meant more casualties, and there is still not agreement that by not dropping the bombs, that an invasion would not have had to take place.

They had already firebombed Tokyo(which caused more casualties than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki). They did warn the occupants...
On August 1, 1945, five days before the bombing of Hiroshima, the U.S. Army Air Force dropped one million leaflets over Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities warning that those cities were going to be destroyed within a few days and advising the residents to leave to save their lives. One side of the leaflet had a photo of five U.S. bombers unloading bombs and a list of the targeted cities.
http://amnation.com/vfr/archives/008604.html

They knew they were committing war crimes, they just didn't care enough about "them chink civies" to consider other options.

No point in injecting your own derogatory comment into your argument. There was significant racism(on both sides) during the war. A large part of the reason that Allied soldiers were so woefully abused, was Japanese racism(33% of all American POWs died in Japanese hands, compared to 3.5% if captured by Germans.). Also, to correct your obvious mistake(while making your emotional/racist comment), Americans referred to Japanese as "nips", the shortened version of Nipponese, from the Japanese name for Japan, Nippon.

Dropping bombs, of any sort, on civilian targets, in WW2, did not constitute a war crime.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/W/WarCrimes.aspx
War crimes were not even clearly defined until 1949(after the war).

It's also, as previously stated, very easy to look back now and wonder if it was necessary. We're not in the same circumstances and have far more military intelligence now, than they did, and we can see the whole picture, and not just one side.

Note: You do notice that the use of torture is a war crime. USA is, by that definition(and the definition of what torture is), is guilty of war crimes.

[Bubba]

You did read ALL of it and not just select parts, didn't you? You do realize that the Japanese people were also an integral part of Japans war machine, right?

The civilian population alwys is, and in the case of Japan (and in general) they had no choice in the matter. Japan was also obviously losing the war, so the bombs definitely didn't have to destroy much, just scare the Japanese government.

One of the biggest concerns that the Americans had was having to invade Japan(which still had a standing army of 5 million+) after 250,000 people(on both sides), had died on Okinawa with only 100,000 Japanese soldiers defending it. Not dropping the bombs could have meant more casualties, and there is still not agreement that by not dropping the bombs, that an invasion would not have had to take place.

Where did I say they shouldn't have dropped the bombs? All I said was that they should have chosen other targets, with less civilians.

They had already firebombed Tokyo(which caused more casualties than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki).

And I do not condone that either.

They did warn the occupants...
On August 1, 1945, five days before the bombing of Hiroshima, the U.S. Army Air Force dropped one million leaflets over Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities warning that those cities were going to be destroyed within a few days and advising the residents to leave to save their lives. One side of the leaflet had a photo of five U.S. bombers unloading bombs and a list of the targeted cities.
http://amnation.com/vfr/archives/008604.html

I did not know about that, however it doesn't change the fact they could have chosen other targets, many people had nowhere else to go/would be homeless or starving even if they had fled and that the people clearly didn't expect something like an atomic bomb: many did go into shelters and still died.

Dropping bombs, of any sort, on civilian targets, in WW2, did not constitute a war crime.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/W/WarCrimes.aspx
War crimes were not even clearly defined until 1949(after the war).

Didn't stop them from having the Nuhrenberg trials and using brutality against civilians in propaganda.

It's also, as previously stated, very easy to look back now and wonder if it was necessary. We're not in the same circumstances and have far more military intelligence now, than they did, and we can see the whole picture, and not just one side.

Necessary? With the Americans, Chinese, Soviets, Australians and British surrounding this lone surviving axis member did they really think Japan had a chance of winning unless the bomb was used? And even if they just wanted to shorten the war, why didn't they choose some military bases as targets?


We can agree to disagree on this, all I can tell you is that if I were president at the time I wouldn't have authorized a nuclear strike against cities.

[Godstud]

All I said was that they should have chosen other targets, with less civilians.

Civilians were a legitimate target, for bombing, in WW2.
While the geography of Japan was known, the US military planners had to estimate the defending forces that they would face. Based on intelligence available early in 1945, their assumptions included the following:

"That operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population."
Downfall: Strategic Plan for Operations in the Japanese Archipelago
http://www.blackvault.com/documents/wwi ... 1/1239.pdf

Didn't stop them from having the Nuhrenberg trials and using brutality against civilians in propaganda.

This had to do with individual cases of torture, and brutality, with witnesses. No one was punishing bomber pilots for bombing raids on London. You should look at how war crimes were defined afterwards(1949). They were more clear on this, since they had experience with them and wanted to prevent future cases of civilian bombings.

We can agree to disagree on this, all I can tell you is that if I were president at the time I wouldn't have authorized a nuclear strike against cities.

I disagree with this line of reasoning. I think that if you had the information that was available at the time, you would have made exactly the same decision.

[Bubba]

Civilians were a legitimate target, for bombing, in WW2.

That doesn't make it right.

While the geography of Japan was known, the US military planners had to estimate the defending forces that they would face. Based on intelligence available early in 1945, their assumptions included the following:

"That operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population."
Downfall: Strategic Plan for Operations in the Japanese Archipelago
http://www.blackvault.com/documents/wwi ... 1/1239.pdf

They didn't actually believe they had to kill the civilians, otherwise they wouldn't have warned them, or attempted the later occupation.

I disagree with this line of reasoning. I think that if you had the information that was available at the time, you would have made exactly the same decision.

And I'm sure I would've stood by my current decision. All the information necessary to conclude Japan was outnumbered, outgunned and crumbling and that atomic bombs were not necessary for victory (just blockading Japan would've done that eventually) was available at the time. The allied leaders dropped the atomic bombs to shorten the war and they didn't care about targets just like they didn't care when they bombed Tokyo and Dresden. If the president had family members in Hiroshima that city would not have been bombed, it's that simple. For god's sake, the American secretary of war removed Kyoto from the list because he liked the city ever since his honeymoon there. That's how much rational consideration went into the decision.

[Repeat to Fade]

It is not a pleasant experience, and I did it, but seriously...........It is much different from some other forms of torture in that I was fine one hour later.

Right let's get a few things straight here. Laryngospasm is intensely painful, more than just unpleasant. People can handle unpleasantness, they submit to the pain of laryngospasm in seconds.

Next up: So because it leaves no physical scars it isn't torture? There are lots of ways to cause you extreme pain with no lasting damage?

Also let's remember there seems to be great confusion as to what water-boarding is and the difference between that and the watercure. Many people here seem to be undergoing the watercure as water actually enters the mouth and nose (this doesn't normally happen in waterboarding.

Actually this is rather okay because the CIA also seem to be confused, their requirement for saline to be used shows they were using the water cure also.

[Godstud]

That doesn't make it right.

I never said it was. WW2 was unlike any previous war. You'll notice that after WW2, in 1949, they took pains to include this in the Geneva Conventions, where it became a war crime to do this sort of thing.

They didn't actually believe they had to kill the civilians, otherwise they wouldn't have warned them, or attempted the later occupation.

There were still strategic and military targets in BOTH cities. An attempted landing and occupation would have resulted in a great many more casualties, as would a lengthy blockade of a country that was mostly self-sufficient. You need only look at Okinawa to know what would have happened, only you'd have to kick the scale up about 50x. Japan had a standing army of over 5,000,000 men on mainland Japan. Okinawa ... 117,000. @300,000 people died on Okinawa.

All the information necessary to conclude Japan was outnumbered, outgunned and crumbling and that atomic bombs were not necessary for victory (just blockading Japan would've done that eventually) was available at the time.

This would be a false assumptions on your part. They were NOT outnumbered, while they had no air force left, they were still prepared for a land war, which they knew America would have to do to win the war. Their entire strategy was based on doing so much damage to American troops that an invasion of mainland Japan would seem impossible. Blockading would have done nothing but allow Japan to prepare itself even further.

The military of Japan had no intention of surrendering, and they were still pretty much in charge of things. You have to remember that Japan had NEVER surrendered in its recorded history.

The allied leaders dropped the atomic bombs to shorten the war and they didn't care about targets just like they didn't care when they bombed Tokyo and Dresden.

Like Japan didn't care about Nanking, or the prisoners in Bataan. Like Germany didn't care about Coventry. It's easy to point fingers, but civilian bombing during WW2, was pretty much the way of things, and bombing accuracy was pretty poor.

For god's sake, the American secretary of war removed Kyoto from the list because he liked the city ever since his honeymoon there. That's how much rational consideration went into the decision.

It's also, if you had read wikipedia right, you'd realize that Kyoto was more of a cultural centre, and not really a military one.

In his quote, Stimson showed his concern for both the Americans and the Japanese by expressing his approval of the bomb as a means of saving both American and Japanese lives. Interestingly, Stimson's visit to Kyoto for his honeymoon caused him to reject a proposition to use the Atomic bomb on that city, knowing first hand of its cultural significance.
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b ... ylewis.htm

Apparently, certain Americans felt an attack on the Japanese culture would be less effective.

[Bubba]

@Godstud

Where do you get the idea that an invasion was the only alternative? Japan had no oil or several important minerals so they could never pose a threat to the allies if blockaded. Also, why do you just reject the idea that a few atomic bombs on major military bases would not have scared the Japanese into surrendering like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did?

And why would it matter that Kyoto was culturally significant? The damage to military installations done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was insignificant compared to the millions of men still up in arms. So we both know destroying the military installations was not the objective, scaring the Japanese shitless (so they would surrender) was and they would have been scared shitless too if the bombs had targeted military bases because that would still have resulted in thousands of casualties and the allies demonstrating beyond a doubt their superior firepower, that one allied plane could destroy an entire base or city, even the emperor's palace, which was the whole point.

P.S. I'm not saying the Japanese and Germans didn't commit their share of war crimes, where did you get that idea? If you wanted to punish anyone you should have dropped an atomic on Tokyo to kill the emperor and his generals because they had a lot more to do with the war crimes than an accountant or teacher in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

[Drlee]

Where do you get the idea that an invasion was the only alternative? Japan had no oil or several important minerals so they could never pose a threat to the allies if blockaded.

Oh give me a break. Do you think for a moment that the world was going to fight to the door of Tokyo and then impose a blockade? That was not possible. It is an idiotic notion.

Japan was to be beaten and occupied and that was certain.

It is absurd to debate the target list. The military planners at the time had their reasons and these have been discussed endlessly. Applying a 21st century thought process to it is pointless. They did not need some arm chair generals looking over their shoulders 65 years later.

[Bubba]

Oh give me a break. Do you think for a moment that the world was going to fight to the door of Tokyo and then impose a blockade? That was not possible. It is an idiotic notion.

Japan was to be beaten and occupied and that was certain.

It was certainly possible to impose a blockade and just wait, they just chose not to and I'm glad they didn't because the emperor would let millions starve before surrendering. I didn't say they should impose a blockade and just wait, I said they should have imposed a blockade and then started nuking military bases until the Japanese were scared enough to surrender. Which is exactly what they did, except that they nuked cities instead of bases and no one here has given me a good reason for that (no one even attempted the argument that killing lots of civilians would scare the Japanese more than nuking military bases).

It is absurd to debate the target list. The military planners at the time had their reasons and these have been discussed endlessly. Applying a 21st century thought process to it is pointless. They did not need some arm chair generals looking over their shoulders 65 years later.

What they needed was some sense of morality. You see, I've been accounting for them not having 21st century knowledge (such as nukes causing radiation poisoning), I only used information available at the time to construct my arguments.

[Drlee]

Which is exactly what they did, except that they nuked cities instead of bases and no one here has given me a good reason for that (no one even attempted the argument that killing lots of civilians would scare the Japanese more than nuking military bases).

And in all probability nobody will get into this with you. It has been done to death. Read a history book and argue with that.

[Bubba]

And in all probability nobody will get into this with you. It has been done to death. Read a history book and argue with that.

No history book I ever read went into this. They either just say it happened without explaining why or that dropping nukes on something Japanese was meant to prevent even more deaths resulting from an invasion. None of them actually answered the question why the targets had to be cities and neither did you. I've read your posts hear on pofo and you seem like a likable person who agrees with most things I believe in, but in this case it really seems like you're avoiding my specific question and that's unfortunate.

[Godstud]

Did you even bother to read what was posted?? I will post it AGAIN for your benefit.

"That operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population."
Downfall: Strategic Plan for Operations in the Japanese Archipelago
http://www.blackvault.com/documents/wwi ... 1/1239.pdf

If they had to invade Japan(seen as an inevitability at the time) they would be facing not only the military, but all of the people of Japan. In this context, and in the context of how bombing was conducted throughout WW2, this was acceptable. At the time, it did not seem like it would be a mistake. In fact, even today many people do not think dropping the atomic bombs was a mistake, but something that ended what could have been a much longer and far more bloody war.

Incidentally, yes, how Japan treated its prisoners, and its conduct throughout the war, was a significant factor in deciding if the atomic bombs would be used. Japanese had been loathe to surrender(let alone unconditionally) at any time, and had generally fought to the last man. Facing this sort of military culture was what they expected upon reaching mainland Japan. Expecting anything else is hindsight on your part, Bubba.

Japan's last source of natural resources, the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded:
"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."
Daikichi Irokawa, The Age of Hirohito: In Search of Modern Japan (New York: Free Press, 1995)

Japan was preparing for an invasion and to repel such an invasion. This would have been devastating to the American soldiers, Japanese soldiers and Japanese civilians, while causing far more suffering and loss of live. See Okinawa.(40,000 - 150,000 civilians died there during the fighting! Japan had a population of 72 million, at the time, with a standing army of 5 million+. What part of that can't you seem to grasp?)

Only something as devastating and monstrous as atomic bombs could hope to make the Japanese broach the topic of surrender. Just because you can't understand that, is not because what they did was unnecessary, but your own lack of knowledge about the Japanese military, military culture, and warfare.

[Bubba]

Only something as devastating and monstrous as atomic bombs could hope to make the Japanese broach the topic of surrender. Just because you can't understand that, is not because what they did was unnecessary, but your own lack of knowledge about the Japanese military, and warfare.

The question is have you been reading what I wrote? I didn't write that I would have invaded the mainland or starved the population to death, I wrote that I would have used the atomic bomb to scare the Japanese shitless, just like what ended up happening, but I would have used it against military bases, not cities. That is the crucial, and only difference between what happened and what I would have done, nothing else would change, and none of you have explained to me why that minor change would have been a bad idea.

[Godstud]

That is the crucial, and only difference between what happened and what I would have done, nothing else would change, and none of you have explained to me why that minor change would have been a bad idea.

I explained that, but you fail to understand that the populace itself was being trained to repulse an invasion, which was expected to cost around a million American lives and many more Japanese lives.

Schoolgirls were being trained to use sharpened bamboo sticks, citizens were being trained to strap bombs to themselves to attack tanks, etc.

Fact: Hiroshima was a military target. It was known as a 'military city', even to its inhabitants, and home to a huge army.
The Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were stationed IN Hiroshima.
Japanese Second Army, alone, was composed of:
5th Infantry Division(20,000 men),
32nd Infantry Division(20,000 men),
35th Infantry Division(20,000 men),
36th Infantry Division(20,000 men),
IJA 57th Independent Mixed Brigade(12,000-20,000 men),
IJA 128th Independent Mixed Brigade(12,000-20,000 men),
IJN 2nd Marine Landing Brigade(12,000-20,000 men).
Do the math...

“It was one of the most important military command stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots, and the foremost military shipping point for both troops and supplies.”
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 19 June, 1946
http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/report1.html

Fact: Japanese were NOT 'scared shitless' after Hiroshima. Were British people "scared shitless" during The Blitz?

Fact: If they had dropped the bomb as 'a warning', it would have been seen as an act of weakness, in the eyes of the Japanese. The Potsdam Declaration, issued some months before, had been altered to remove the "unconditional surrender" clause(demanding only surrender of Japan's Armed Forces), and it was interpreted as America looking for a quick end to the war(weakness). Japan was prepared to fight in a final battle on its shores and still had an army that was all but untouched.

[Bubba]

Fact: Hiroshima was a military target. It was known as a 'military city', even to its inhabitants, and home to a huge army.
The Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were stationed IN Hiroshima.
Japanese Second Army, alone, was composed of:
5th Infantry Division(20,000 men),
32nd Infantry Division(20,000 men),
35th Infantry Division(20,000 men),
36th Infantry Division(20,000 men),
IJA 57th Independent Mixed Brigade(12,000-20,000 men),
IJA 128th Independent Mixed Brigade(12,000-20,000 men),
IJN 2nd Marine Landing Brigade(12,000-20,000 men).
Do the math...

There were 350.000 people in Hiroshima, you say between 116.000 and 14.000 (between 32% and 40%) were soldiers, I've read there were only 43.000 soldiers (12%), the difference could come from units being understaffed due to casualties or being engaged elsewhere, I honestly don't know, but the point is the majority of the population were civilians, including tens of thousands of children and elderly people.

“It was one of the most important military command stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots, and the foremost military shipping point for both troops and supplies.”

They could've dumped the bomb in the harbor, not the city center to avoid achieve a higher soldier to civilian casualty ratio and still cripple shipping.

Fact: Japanese were NOT 'scared shitless' after Hiroshima. Were British people "scared shitless" during The Blitz?

The Blitz didn't vaporize tens of thousands of British civilians in the blink of an eye, and the objective of the atomic bombs was to scare the Japanese into surrendering, as you are basically saying in your own words below, which is also supported by your own numbers, above: nuking the entire Japanese army into oblivion would have taken dozens of nukes, that the allies didn't have and so it was never the objective to do it like that (another reason being this would also kill millions of civilians and it being easier to just let a blockade do that if it was the objective).

Fact: If they had dropped the bomb as 'a warning', it would have been seen as an act of weakness, in the eyes of the Japanese. The Potsdam Declaration, issued some months before, had been altered to remove the "unconditional surrender" clause(demanding only surrender of Japan's Armed Forces), and it was interpreted as America looking for a quick end to the war(weakness). Japan was prepared to fight in a final battle on its shores and still had an army that was all but untouched.

It would have been more than a "warning" if they had vaporized thousands of soldiers, or a battlefleet, but at least you're finally getting to the point. If you truly believe nuking military bases and battlefleets only would not have made the Japanese surrender even after multiple bombs than we can agree to disagree and I will accept your explanation, it's just that I am of the opinion it would have made enough of an impression, maybe it would have taken 3, 4 or 5 nukes instead of 2, but I believe it would have worked. And with that I conclude my part in this discussion.

[Pants-of-dog]

They should have waterboarded the Japanese.

[Drlee]

None of them actually answered the question why the targets had to be cities and neither did you. I've read your posts hear on pofo and you seem like a likable person who agrees with most things I believe in, but in this case it really seems like you're avoiding my specific question and that's unfortunate.

I'm not avoiding your question, I am unwilling to enter into a discussion as to whether there might have been some slightly better (whcih is to say humane) targets. Here is my answer. Maybe. Having said that. I am often condemned because I am in my 6th decade and this colors my responses. Here is what I experienced. I think it may shed some light on why this kind of discussion is problematic.

I was raised in the 50's. I was born 5 years after Heroshima and Nagasaki. Virtually all of the adults I knew, teachers, friends etc were WWII vets. Many if not most of the televison programs I watched were about the war. As a child my cartoons looked like this:



As a small child my heros (popeye, superman, SGT Rock and even Bugs Bunny killed krauts and japs everyday after school. How many times did I hear "the only good jap is a dead jap"....... The adults in my life absolutely HATED Japanese people and I know MANY world war two veterans who still do. Why? Because the fucking killed tens of thousands of Americans. Because they exectuted a sneak attack on our people killing 2,473 on the first day. Because on the Battan death march they bayonetted anyone who fell out. Because the liked to use soldiers for target practice and tortured and starved prisoners of war. Because of the Rape of Nanking. Can we both agree not to argue these things? Can the children PLEASE refrain from whining about how nasty the US is too and that we killed Indians?) None of that would be relevant to my point. And my point is that the American people fucking hated the Japanese. Almost to a person. Still did when I was a few years later. We were fire bombing their cities. They were trying to firebomb ours but couldn't get close enough. London had been destroyed. Europe was in ruins. 250,000 Americans were dead. Get your head around 60 million dead around the world. Try to fathom that 2.5% of the worlds population died in the war. It is a staggering number. It is the equivalent of today losing 170 million people. And who was blamed for it? Japan and Germany. STOP. Don't even go there. In the minds of virtually ALL Americans and its allies the blame for every single death was the German people and the Japanese people. Not the military. Not some abstract concept of soldiers and civilians. When our women went to work in war industries they became combatants. Why do you think that we would not think the same of enemy civilians. If they planted beans they fed soldiers. If they collected scrap metal they built airplanes. Britain evacuated the children of London and so could the Japanese. Not our problem. The line which seems so clear today was simply not there then.

So that is why we hit cities. We were just killing more enemies. Fucking Japs. And the only good Jap is a dead Jap, right?

Don't think that we did not think about civilian casualties. We did. It was a consideration. But it was NOTHING like the way we think of it now. So these two targets were little more than that. Targets. Not significantly different from Tokyo where we deliberately started firestorms which killed far more people. Fucking Japs.

I keep saying that because that was the real attitude at the time. It is not your attitude and it is certainly not mine. I acually like Japan and its people and look forward to visiting occasionally. But in fairness, the Japan of today bears little resemblence to the Japan under Togo and the people of Japan today have turned their back on the utter brutality of their prosecution of WWII.

So the answer to your question does not lie in the line of reasoning that you are following. We did not blockade and wait it out because we wanted to kill those fuckers. The people demanded it. A stalemate would have brought down the government. If it was discovered that we could have ended the war sooner and didn't it would have been little short of the gallows for anyone responsible. I think the Japanese got away lucky in a way. It could have very easily been decided to hit even more dense population areas.

This is a brutal post. Many may be shocked and offended by what I wrote. I do not mean to be racist but make no mistake. I am discribing a generation who very much meant to be racist. I know they were. They were the VAST MAJORITY of the people who raised me. In time they came to understand their feelings and recover some sense of balance. But there are people living within a block of me who would not allow a Japanese person into their house but grudgingly. Germans too for that matter.

Thank you for your kind words about my posts. This one is a bit of an outlier. I think it is far to easy to put a modern face on an old war. This is the truth of the times:











Here is something to read on the subject.. It is not bad and pretty short.
http://www.hiroshima-spirit.jp/en/museum/morgue_e12.html

[Rei Murasame]

Bubba, I would also agree with Dr. Lee's post, the general thrust off it, at least. It would be pretty counter-productive for the Americans, if they were not able to actually dislike the Axis powers that they were at war against.

Also, it is actually true that in the Second World War/Greater East Asian War, there was effectively no such thing as a 'civilian' in the sense that we would think of it now in 2011. Everyone in the whole country was part of the war effort, it was not just that the Japanese Army was trying to carve out an imperial hinterland in East Asia, it was that the entire Japanese population was radically asserting itself in the region.

By that logic, it can't actually be surprising that the same population would be targeted by the Americans. The fault if anything really lies with the Japanese Army for not being able to prevent the nuclear attack, and not with the Americans for trying to use that weapon.

On another level, I don't really like the narrative that people have of "there was no need to do XYZ to Axis", as though Axis people were not aware of the risks before entering the war, or that they didn't understand what was happening. Everyone knew what it was about, it's not like if no one was told why they were at war. Fascism had/has a whole narrative about the history of global capitalism and the tensions between ethnic groups, which framed the war. No one actually lied.

A soldier doesn't get to choose where she or he is sent to fight. I'm sure that both sides had some narratives of how it would be nice not to have to fight against certain people, but once the war is happening, then there's no way to avoid it.

[Bubba]

@Dr. Lee

I'm glad you gave me an honest answer. Though it is a shocking answer it is what I expected the reason to be when I said "They knew they were committing war crimes, they just didn't care enough about "them chink civies" to consider other options" (just replace "chink" with Jap). I accept that what you describe was the reality of the day. I just lament the fact that a world leader like Truman who was brave enough to desegregate the military, didn't have what it took to go against the emotions of his people (which he helped cultivate himself btw, through propaganda) and do the right thing, even if it brought the government down. I hope that had I been in his position I would have done anything in my power to save those tens of thousands of civilians (knowing fully well, just like Truman did, that no Japanese civilian ever voted for Hirohito, or the war), simply because I would know that if I didn't at least try, I wouldn't be able to live with myself. Doing the right thing, even if it costs you is not a 21st century invention.