Is America a racist nation?

[Kismet]

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861 in Maryland. He cited Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution which specifies a suspension of the writ “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

A similar rationale was used in Roosevelt's Executive Order #9066 that detained citizens of Japanese-American descent in 1942.

[Brooklyn]

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861 in Maryland. He cited Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution which specifies a suspension of the writ “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

A similar rationale was used in Roosevelt's Executive Order #9066 that detained citizens of Japanese-American descent in 1942.

Read somewhere a very long time ago that FDR did it because he had been warned by Republican governor Earl Warren that he could not guarantee the safety of Japanese-Americans unless they were under some form of protective detention. To this day I have never found any historical confirmation of this claim. Perhaps someone may want to research this point further.

[cradleandshoot]

I'll bite...exactly who claims Frank "our foremost living military historian on the War in the Pacific."???

His wikipedia entry is certainly unimpressive, so who makes this claim?

I googled "foremost historians of World War II" and expected to at least find him on this very long list, but not there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... rld_War_II

But hey, he's certainly prominent enough to have received this response from Zinn, who certainly doesn't ignore post 1995 info. https://www.howardzinn.org/downfall/

US Naval Institute, the Truman Library, & the USMC are good enough for me.
He specializes in the Asia-Pacific War

Instead of reposting the same thin Zinn nothingburger, over & over, listen to Frank's talk at the Truman Library posted above.

His latest appearance at the National WW II Museum.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?469611-1/tower-skulls

whitewash much?

I didn't see Zinn on your wikilist.

That's right, he didn't claim to be a specialist in WWII.

The idea here that credible and well regarded historical authors like Richard Frank get thrown under the bus here because they express opinions and write about events in their area of specialty or that they didn't make some wiki list is ludicrous on its face. I have read most of Mr. Frank's books about the Pacific War and they have all been insightful, outstanding and well-researched. Fine, if you disagree with his take on this topic but no need to trash him for being uninformed. He likely knows mega more about this topic than anyone here.

Certainly more than me!

But I'm not trashing him. I simply took issue with Salty's proclamation as to his being the "foremost" such on the topic in discussion, which I would suggest simply isn't true. He's one historian among many, who disagree with one another about this very specific matter, having studied the topic closely. He has a particular POV.

I did take issue with the dismissal of Zinn and so many others who reach quite different conclusions.

Sadly many of the historians that served this country and served side by side with the soldiers and Marines that fought this conflict are long gone. The job of modern day historians attempting to re-write history becomes very problematic to me. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan are a prime example. In the early summer of 1945 my dad's unit the 5th infantry division was starting training and awaiting deployment for the invasion of Japan. These battle hardened veterans had suffered and died and won victory in Europe. They were more than happy when the bombs were dropped. Fast forward to today, the bombs dropped were racist anti- Japanese hatred towards Asian Americans. The infantry soldiers of the Marines and the US army see it very differently.

Who said that was the only reason those bombs were dropped. I believe its has been a question as to whether racism made the decision easier. A grunt doesn’t alway know why executive decisions are made. You have said as much many times.

The typical dog face soldier/marine does not know or care. The typical dog face only knows he will survive and come home again. All these years later some historians are saying the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki was racist and not necessary. All these historians were not the dog faces that would die all over Japan fighting an enemy that did not want to surrender to begin with. FTR, my dad was one of those dog face soldiers that likely would have been a part of an invasion of Japan.

Dude 5 minutes ago you just said they are historical experts because they were shot at.

Dude your reading comprehension is very questionable. The observations of the soldiers and marines involved in so many of the battles of WW2 don't compare to modern revisionist history. Many modern day historians refer to D day as a glorious victory for the allied forces. Operation Overlord was in most respects an unmitigated disaster. The airborne drops were a catastrophe, The armored support for the infantry at Omaha beach sunk in the channel. The infantry landings at Utah beach were in the wrong place. The rangers at Pt Du Hoc went chasing after German artillery that was not there. The only reasons that D day succeeded are simple. Erwin Rommel was in Germany celebrating his wifes birthday and the Bavarian corporal slept in and not believing this was the real invasion, never released the German Panzers that could have beaten the invasion back into the Atlantic Ocean. The historical experts were men like Ryan who interviewed the combatants on both sides and documented their stories and transformed those stories into books for all of us to understand the truth.

Who interviewed the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What did they think of the bombing?

And does it matter what they thought the reasons were that the Americans had done it?

I'm guessing if these residents heard of Pearl Harbor they might have a comprehension why they were victims of the war their leaders started. War is hell as Gen. Sherman said. The citizens of Atlanta learned that lesson as well. You know how to fight a kinder and gentler kind of war, I'm all ears.

How many civilians killed at Pearl Harbor?

News flash bumpkin... we were not at war before the attack at Pearl Harbor. You sound really stupid bumpkin. We were at war with Japan bumkin in case your history happens to evade you. War is hell to quote Gen William T Sherman. The folks in Atlanta Georgia back when the city was burned to the ground will verify that fact for you. There are many southerners still to this day think that Sherman was guilty of war crimes. What say you bumpkin? You do understand you sound really stupid trying to make your point...

"bumpkin"???

cradle, you're the one going off half cocked.

The question was never whether "war is hell", no debate on that here. The question was whether it was actually necessary to use the nuclear weapon once, and to my mind, even more of a question as to twice, 9 days later.

The argument had been made that the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base, justified the dropping of those two bombs on civilian populations. So, the logical question was how many civilians died at Pearl Harbor...did that attack really justify those two bombs? Both?

(Hint: no. The more compelling argument is the potential loss of life, on both sides, of a long, drawn out battle island to island).

Now, as to the "sneak attack", is it relevant to recognize that the US was enforcing a blockade on Japan prior to that attack? Is it relevant to understand that a blockade is typically considered an act of war? Is it relevant to understand that our military was not actually surprised by a strike from Japan, rather their surprise was that it was at Pearl Harbor rather than the Philippines. Our commanders didn't adequately imagine the reach the Japanese had, nor the audacity, of that strike.

But it sure unleashed the rage of the American public, didn't it?

Without doing a google search do you know what the phrase half cocked means? The Empire of Japan declared war on the USA on December 7 1941. You do know that prior to the attack the US and FDR were negotiating the oil blockades you speak of? You are doing a marvelous job of Monday morning quarterbacking... woulda, shoulda, coulda blaaaah blaaaah yada yada. Your primary gripe is with Harry Truman bumpkin. You do know that FDR never even told Truman about the existence of the Manhattan Project? Truman made the call, unless your chain of logic here insinuates that Truman was also involved in being an anti Jap racist SOB. Out of curiosity MD, how many former veterans of the pacific theatre have you ever regaled with your brilliant observations? You know them, the many thousands of combat marines and combat army men that would have died invading the Island of Japan. FTR, my dad was one of those combat veterans humbly informed after a year of front line combat in europe that they had been chosen to train for the invasion of Japan. The Japanese decided they did not know when to quit. I have no problem with the decision Harry Truman made. If you have a problem with it.. then deal with it. Why don't you take your venom out where it belongs, that person would be the sitting POTUS when the order was given.

Yes, I meant "half-cocked"...you're throwing poop at someone whose argument you hadn't bothered to understand first. Half-cocked.

Re your dad, as you've told us maybe 100 times, cradle.

And no disrespect in the slightest to your dad, as I've also made clear maybe 100 times.

Yes, there were efforts to negotiate, but the sides could not come to terms. Meanwhile the freeze of Japan's assets and the blockade continued. That's considered an act of war.

https://adst.org/2013/11/the-failed-att ... apan-1941/

I simply don't see a military strike against the US, horrendously damaging as that was, to be justification for the two nuclear bomb drops on civilians. As I said, there's a much more compelling case about preventing the necessity for guys like your dad to have to invade, but that wasn't the argument being made re Pearl Harbor.

And sure, Truman indeed made this decision. I'm sure it was a really, really hard one. And it's clear that he was receiving advice to do so. But yes, like many others, he'd spoken of the Japanese in ways that certainly could be considered 'racist'. But whether racist or not, he made the call to drop the second bomb as well.

Again, have a good Thanksgiving.

I have brought up my dad 100 times. i will bring up my dad 1000 times more. My dad had skin in the game MD all you have is an opinion structured 75 plus years after the fact. It wasn't your ass that after surviving almost a year of front line combat in France, Belgium, Germany and ending up the war riding tanks in Czeckoslavakia was going to be put on the line again. i suggest you read Flags of our Fathers sometime. The end of the book has an interesting conversation between the author and his father. His old man explains very clearly his contempt for the Japanese and why it was still so strong after all these decades. i am on board with OS in trying to decipher your logic here. IMO good grief sums it up perfectly. I hope you and your family have a great Thanksgiving.

ok, cradle. If you refuse to read and comprehend, including when I've been very specific about your dad, and extended that to all who didn't have to invade Japan, I can't help you further.

BTW, I have had those discussions with family members who were of age, including at sea in the Pacific...unfortunately, they've all passed at this point. I do understand the "contempt" they felt. And yeah, it went across the line to "racist". I listened to them 'justify' the concentration camps of American's of Japanese descent. I get it. And that's actually the point...it played a role in the dropping of those two bombs. It wasn't only the saving of American lives, important as that definitely was.

Have a good Thanksgiving.

In your world all of mans inhumanity to his fellow man is easily defined as racist. I guess the human race has known racism since the modern man/woman evolved. What played a role in the second bombing of Japan was the simple fact that the first bomb did not drive home the point. If the second bombing has your boxers in a knot then blame Harry Truman. What you are implicitly saying is Truman was a racist as well. You have the audacity to call me half cocked.. pot meet kettle. I do know the second bomb did drive home the point to the emperor. If it were up to the military leaders of Japan they would have fought until the very last Japanese citizen was dead. If it makes you happy and assuages some sort of guilt you have deep inside yourself that is all fine by me. The fact that the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans soldiers, marines, navy and air force personnel were spared trumps any anguish you have about what Trumans intent may or may not have been. To quote the queen of evil... "at this point in time, what differance does it make" ? The only thing that matters is the Japanese empire surrendered... game, set and match.

I hope your family has a wonderful Thanksgiving as well. Our turkey just went in the oven.

Truman and race relations are complicated. He was known to use racial slurs and jokes, typical of the time. On the other hand, he desegregated the military.

Likewise, he was known to have used racial slurs about the Japanese, again very much in line with the zeitgeist of the time.

I'm not making some big moral judgment about Truman.

Rather, I'm simply saying that the racism of the time played a substantial role in all sorts of decisions of the era, including this one. I'm also not saying it was necessarily the decisive aspect that made the dropping of the nuclear bomb on the civilian population possible, but it certainly would have reinforced it. Again, I take more issue with the dropping of the second one just 9 days later, instead of allowing the Japanese military more time to fully comprehend the magnitude of what had happened. To me, that's particularly open to question as to whether racism played an important role in the decision to go ahead.

Where racism becomes very, very clear as decisive was the internment of Japanese Americans but not German Americans or Italian Americans. That one, to me, is rather straightforward. Of course, lots of people deny that as well, coming up with all sorts of excuses.

So using your logic the British firebombing raids on Dresden and other German cities were because Churchill was a racist that hated the German people? There was no strategic reason for doing so. Unless it was just racism??

[jhu72]

... no, MD is clearly not saying that.

[cradleandshoot]

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861 in Maryland. He cited Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution which specifies a suspension of the writ “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

A similar rationale was used in Roosevelt's Executive Order #9066 that detained citizens of Japanese-American descent in 1942.

The fact that millions of Americans, not necessarily racist, had an enormous amount of contempt and anger towards the Empire of Japan. It was a different case for Germany. They didn't attack us and had the Bavarian Corporal not declared war against the US our entry into the war in Europe may have never happened. How many of you folks remember the Bataan Death March? That is when Americans were introduced to the brutality of the Japanese. Was it racism on our part or was it the reality that the Japanese fought by a different set of rules we could not understand? That may explain why so many of our service members that served in the South Pacific died with a hatred that was instilled in them by the enemy they fought. That does not make them or the people that led them racist. That is the exact reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" because it is. Good people will do bad things in the name of God and love of country.

[DocBarrister]

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861 in Maryland. He cited Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution which specifies a suspension of the writ “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

A similar rationale was used in Roosevelt's Executive Order #9066 that detained citizens of Japanese-American descent in 1942.

The fact that millions of Americans, not necessarily racist, had an enormous amount of contempt and anger towards the Empire of Japan. It was a different case for Germany. They didn't attack us and had the Bavarian Corporal not declared war against the US our entry into the war in Europe may have never happened. How many of you folks remember the Bataan Death March? That is when Americans were introduced to the brutality of the Japanese. Was it racism on our part or was it the reality that the Japanese fought by a different set of rules we could not understand? That may explain why so many of our service members that served in the South Pacific died with a hatred that was instilled in them by the enemy they fought. That does not make them or the people that led them racist. That is the exact reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" because it is. Good people will do bad things in the name of God and love of country.

I think it’s very safe to acknowledge that most Americans were racist against the Japanese and Asians in general because … well, it was the 1940s.

That was the baseline even before Pearl Harbor.

DocBarrister

[Typical Lax Dad]

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861 in Maryland. He cited Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution which specifies a suspension of the writ “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

A similar rationale was used in Roosevelt's Executive Order #9066 that detained citizens of Japanese-American descent in 1942.

The fact that millions of Americans, not necessarily racist, had an enormous amount of contempt and anger towards the Empire of Japan. It was a different case for Germany. They didn't attack us and had the Bavarian Corporal not declared war against the US our entry into the war in Europe may have never happened. How many of you folks remember the Bataan Death March? That is when Americans were introduced to the brutality of the Japanese. Was it racism on our part or was it the reality that the Japanese fought by a different set of rules we could not understand? That may explain why so many of our service members that served in the South Pacific died with a hatred that was instilled in them by the enemy they fought. That does not make them or the people that led them racist. That is the exact reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" because it is. Good people will do bad things in the name of God and love of country.

“Not necessarily” but probably. ….. I remember Batan…. but not as vividly as the two atomic bombs. Eye for an eye. America operated by a different set of rules.

[Kismet]

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861 in Maryland. He cited Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution which specifies a suspension of the writ “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

A similar rationale was used in Roosevelt's Executive Order #9066 that detained citizens of Japanese-American descent in 1942.

The fact that millions of Americans, not necessarily racist, had an enormous amount of contempt and anger towards the Empire of Japan. It was a different case for Germany. They didn't attack us and had the Bavarian Corporal not declared war against the US our entry into the war in Europe may have never happened. How many of you folks remember the Bataan Death March? That is when Americans were introduced to the brutality of the Japanese. Was it racism on our part or was it the reality that the Japanese fought by a different set of rules we could not understand? That may explain why so many of our service members that served in the South Pacific died with a hatred that was instilled in them by the enemy they fought. That does not make them or the people that led them racist. That is the exact reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" because it is. Good people will do bad things in the name of God and love of country.

“Not necessarily” but probably. ….. I remember Batan…. but not as vividly as the two atomic bombs. Eye for an eye. America operated by a different set of rules.

For the record, Japanese Commander of Bataan/Corregidor, Gen. Masaharu Homma was tried and convicted for war crimes and executed by firing squad in 1946. His two chief deputies were tried at a military tribunal in Japan in 1948 and executed by hanging.

As has been said here numerous times, the Japanese military's conduct of the war was reprehensible on many, many levels. This factor may have contributed to the decision to use atomic weapons but it remains one of many variegated factors that went into the decision.

It should also be noted that, only hours after Hiroshima, President Truman called again for Japan's surrender, warning them to "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.".

Sounds pretty clear to me. Truman delivered on what he said he would do if the Japanese didn't surrender unconditionally.

[cradleandshoot]

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861 in Maryland. He cited Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution which specifies a suspension of the writ “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

A similar rationale was used in Roosevelt's Executive Order #9066 that detained citizens of Japanese-American descent in 1942.

The fact that millions of Americans, not necessarily racist, had an enormous amount of contempt and anger towards the Empire of Japan. It was a different case for Germany. They didn't attack us and had the Bavarian Corporal not declared war against the US our entry into the war in Europe may have never happened. How many of you folks remember the Bataan Death March? That is when Americans were introduced to the brutality of the Japanese. Was it racism on our part or was it the reality that the Japanese fought by a different set of rules we could not understand? That may explain why so many of our service members that served in the South Pacific died with a hatred that was instilled in them by the enemy they fought. That does not make them or the people that led them racist. That is the exact reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" because it is. Good people will do bad things in the name of God and love of country.

“Not necessarily” but probably. ….. I remember Batan…. but not as vividly as the two atomic bombs. Eye for an eye. America operated by a different set of rules.

Nope, war is hell, always has been and always will be. That has been true for thousands of years. The Japanese fought in a manner the US had to adapt to. Marines having to torch caves with flame throwers to force out soldiers that refused to surrender. Japanese forces torturing and murdering US and British soldiers because they surrendered. That was the ultimate humiliation to the Japanese soldier. To surrender was the ultimate act of cowardice. The Japanese treated those people that did surrender accordingly.

[jhu72]

All of this rings pretty hollow when you consider that only 3 days elapsed between the two bomb drops. The military and their supporters wanted the first and second bomb drops. The second was of a different design and physics, and the drop was of absolutely zero utility as some kind of operational proof of concept which was argued by the pro-bomb drop advocates. The politicians, were politicians, including Truman. The only people with a seat at the table, more a seat in the same building, around the corner and down the hall, were the physicists and chemists who developed the bombs and with few exceptions opposed the plans for dropping the the first bomb without demonstration and the second at all. In fact the scientists who developed the bomb developed it because of the Germans, they never envisioned it being used against Japan as the development in their mind was only ever justified as counter to what most considered a German lead in the knowledge necessary to build their own.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861 in Maryland. He cited Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution which specifies a suspension of the writ “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

A similar rationale was used in Roosevelt's Executive Order #9066 that detained citizens of Japanese-American descent in 1942.

The fact that millions of Americans, not necessarily racist, had an enormous amount of contempt and anger towards the Empire of Japan. It was a different case for Germany. They didn't attack us and had the Bavarian Corporal not declared war against the US our entry into the war in Europe may have never happened. How many of you folks remember the Bataan Death March? That is when Americans were introduced to the brutality of the Japanese. Was it racism on our part or was it the reality that the Japanese fought by a different set of rules we could not understand? That may explain why so many of our service members that served in the South Pacific died with a hatred that was instilled in them by the enemy they fought. That does not make them or the people that led them racist. That is the exact reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" because it is. Good people will do bad things in the name of God and love of country.

“Not necessarily” but probably. ….. I remember Batan…. but not as vividly as the two atomic bombs. Eye for an eye. America operated by a different set of rules.

For the record, Japanese Commander of Bataan/Corregidor, Gen. Masaharu Homma was tried and convicted for war crimes and executed by firing squad in 1946. His two chief deputies were tried at a military tribunal in Japan in 1948 and executed by hanging.

As has been said here numerous times, the Japanese military's conduct of the war was reprehensible on many, many levels. This factor may have contributed to the decision to use atomic weapons but it remains one of many variegated factors that went into the decision.

It should also be noted that, only hours after Hiroshima, President Truman called again for Japan's surrender, warning them to "expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.".

Sounds pretty clear to me. Truman delivered on what he said he would do if the Japanese didn't surrender unconditionally.

The Japanese were terrible. No argument from me. I have always wondered if racism made it easier to drop those bombs over civilians. It is an unknowable. I “believe” it made it easier to sell. I don’t “believe” it was the main reason. Probably pretty far down the list, in my opinion. Had we interned Germans and Italians in the same manner, the picture would be clearer. Plus the country’s track record makes it hard to give it a blanker benefit of the doubt. Japanese activities were atrocious. No argument from me.

[Typical Lax Dad]

All of this rings pretty hollow when you consider that only 3 days elapsed between the two bomb drops. The military and their supporters wanted the first and second bomb drops. The second was of a different design and physics, and the drop was of absolutely zero utility as some kind of operational proof of concept which was argued by the pro-bomb drop advocates. The only people with a seat at the table, more a seat in the same building, around the corner and down the hall, were the physicists and chemists who developed the bombs and with few exceptions opposed the plans for dropping the the first bomb without demonstration and the second at all. In fact the scientists who developed the bomb developed it because of the Germans, they never envisioned it being used against Japan as the development in their mind was only ever justified as counter to what most considered a German lead in the knowledge necessary to build their own.

I read that from the outset, the military plan was to bomb Japan and US military training started well in advance of Germany’s surrender. Japan was plan A. There was no plan B. I never knew that.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861 in Maryland. He cited Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution which specifies a suspension of the writ “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

A similar rationale was used in Roosevelt's Executive Order #9066 that detained citizens of Japanese-American descent in 1942.

The fact that millions of Americans, not necessarily racist, had an enormous amount of contempt and anger towards the Empire of Japan. It was a different case for Germany. They didn't attack us and had the Bavarian Corporal not declared war against the US our entry into the war in Europe may have never happened. How many of you folks remember the Bataan Death March? That is when Americans were introduced to the brutality of the Japanese. Was it racism on our part or was it the reality that the Japanese fought by a different set of rules we could not understand? That may explain why so many of our service members that served in the South Pacific died with a hatred that was instilled in them by the enemy they fought. That does not make them or the people that led them racist. That is the exact reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" because it is. Good people will do bad things in the name of God and love of country.

“Not necessarily” but probably. ….. I remember Batan…. but not as vividly as the two atomic bombs. Eye for an eye. America operated by a different set of rules.

Nope, war is hell, always has been and always will be. That has been true for thousands of years. The Japanese fought in a manner the US had to adapt to. Marines having to torch caves with flame throwers to force out soldiers that refused to surrender. Japanese forces torturing and murdering US and British soldiers because they surrendered. That was the ultimate humiliation to the Japanese soldier. To surrender was the ultimate act of cowardice. The Japanese treated those people that did surrender accordingly.

Japan dropped two atomic bombs over a mostly US civilian population center? Who said war wasn’t terrible?

“Donovan reported the same judgment as that contained in the intercepted cables -- a slight change in the surrender formula seemed the only remaining issue: "One of the few provisions . . . would be the retention of the emperor . . . ."”

[youthathletics]

Seems winning a war, now has to have an argumenta asterisks and it can not merely be winning for the sake of winning.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Seems winning a war, now has to have an argumenta asterisks and it can not merely be winning for the sake of winning.

That’s a nice link. Thanks.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Seems winning a war, now has to have an argumenta asterisks and it can not merely be winning for the sake of winning.

Not sure if “winning” was the only objective. I am glad this topic came up. I hadn’t looked into it much. I am late to the party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... b6cb6530d/

[DMac]

I'm not sure it was racism that put people's minds at ease about dropping bombs on Japanese civilians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_o ... rld_War_II

[Farfromgeneva]

Seems winning a war, now has to have an argumenta asterisks and it can not merely be winning for the sake of winning.

This is interesting, echoing TLD, thanks.

I still think like in a fight, if you have to do it you do it to win definitively and if that means biting nuts then so be it. The point if you get into it is to end it as fast as possible.

[jhu72]

Seems winning a war, now has to have an argumenta asterisks and it can not merely be winning for the sake of winning.

The war was already won. The billions of American's who would have died without the bomb has always been red herring. Curtis LeMay could have and was more than willing to turn every thing on the island into a crispy critter before one American soldier would have set foot on the island. Some have tried to make the argument that dropping the bomb was the humane thing to do. I might buy that if they hadn't dropped the second bomb. The three days gap between the two drops, no where near enough time for the Japanese to process and make the rational decision to surrender, argues against our alleged humanity. We were and are the same kind of animals the Japanese were and are.

Note: those who find the Japanese behavior during the war to be beyond the pale, might want to consider the effects of hyper nationalism, the concept of racial supremacy and relentless nationalist propaganda on the citizenry. Same for Germany.

We certainly looked better, the "good guys", but you are kidding yourself if you think we are somehow naturally better, immune. It was and is our liberal democratic form of government (the western tradition) that made the difference.

[Kismet]

I'm not sure it was racism that put people's minds at ease about dropping bombs on Japanese civilians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_o ... rld_War_II

Truman knew he had a second bomb when he warned the Japanese 16 hours after Hiroshima to surrender unconditionally and he referenced his next step as clearly as he could at that time. They unconditionally surrendered within 48 hours after the Nagasaki bombing. Hard as it might seem, this appears to validate Truman's thinking. I don't think he had any more operational A-bombs at that time, so by deploying it, he had to be fairly confident that it would produce the intended effect on the Japanese government.

There was quite a bit of divergence with in the military over the use of atomic weapons. Admiral William “Bull” Halsey, commander of the U.S. Navy’s Third Fleet, claimed in 1946 that the first atomic bomb was “an unnecessary experiment…[the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.”. He obviously didn't know any of them.

Absolutely correct, Gen. Curtis Lemay was prepared to incinerate the entire country before any kind of invasion. He is on the record of being quite ambivalent about atomic weapons at the time of their use.