Is America a racist nation?

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

Thanks. Seemed like a proportional response. I don’t believe the USA dropped those two bombs based on racism. I have wondered if dehumanizing the enemy (may have been deservedly so) made it easier to sell. I am not sure how anyone could dismiss that as crazy talk. It remains a question. Doubt anyone will ever have a clear answer. Building a case based on the historical record is the best we can do. Dehumanizing people has always made it easier to abuse them. Part of human nature that’s why it’s effective.

[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.

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.

https://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2 ... a-nagasaki

Seems like many were of the opinion that the war was over. We make fun of lacrosse teams up 20-5 in lacrosse and then leaving all the starters in to run up the score….but that’s a sport.

Three days later, U.S. leaders ordered “Fat Man,” a plutonium-based bomb with an explosive yield of 21 kilotons, dropped on Nagasaki, home to over 260,000 people.

The attack occurred two days earlier than planned, 10 hours after the Soviets entered the war against Japan, and as Japanese leaders were contemplating surrender.

[jhu72]

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 were none - the generals wanted it to appear like we had a limitless supply. Having the backup (second bomb) was part of the scientists reasoning in performing a demonstration. They were very confident in their technology after the Alamagordo tests.

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.

[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.

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 . . . ."”

Why did the Brits firebomb Dresden also killing untold civilians? The city of Dresden was a purely culture city with no military or strategic value whatsoever. Churchill wanted revenge for the V1 and V2 rockets fired at London. You folks are whining and crying because the Japanese got what they deserved. They started this fight and Truman ended it, it is as simple as that. If you folks think you can rewrite history and blame Truman for the second bomb, that line of bullchit will never fly with me. It does surprise me how dedicated you folks are to making Truman look like the bad guy here. To those of us that have studied the history of WW2... your all pizzing in the wind.

[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 . . . ."”

Why did the Brits firebomb Dresden also killing untold civilians? The city of Dresden was a purely culture city with no military or strategic value whatsoever. Churchill wanted revenge for the V1 and V2 rockets fired at London. You folks are whining and crying because the Japanese got what they deserved. They started this fight and Truman ended it, it is as simple as that. If you folks think you can rewrite history and blame Truman for the second bomb, that line of bullchit will never fly with me. It does surprise me how dedicated you folks are to making Truman look like the bad guy here. To those of us that have studied the history of WW2... your all pizzing in the wind.

I don’t know. It was a proportional response. Were did you study?

[cradleandshoot]

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.

https://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2 ... a-nagasaki

Seems like many were of the opinion that the war was over. We make fun of lacrosse teams up 20-5 in lacrosse and then leaving all the starters in to run up the score….but that’s a sport.

Three days later, U.S. leaders ordered “Fat Man,” a plutonium-based bomb with an explosive yield of 21 kilotons, dropped on Nagasaki, home to over 260,000 people.

The attack occurred two days earlier than planned, 10 hours after the Soviets entered the war against Japan, and as Japanese leaders were contemplating surrender.

The Japanese should have contemplated their situation much quicker. It should have taken about 10 seconds after Hiroshima to understand it was game over. The emperor was the person who made the final decision to surrender. The Japanese military would have fought the war until the last Japanese capable of firing a weapon was dead.

[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.

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.

https://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2 ... a-nagasaki

Seems like many were of the opinion that the war was over. We make fun of lacrosse teams up 20-5 in lacrosse and then leaving all the starters in to run up the score….but that’s a sport.

Three days later, U.S. leaders ordered “Fat Man,” a plutonium-based bomb with an explosive yield of 21 kilotons, dropped on Nagasaki, home to over 260,000 people.

The attack occurred two days earlier than planned, 10 hours after the Soviets entered the war against Japan, and as Japanese leaders were contemplating surrender.

The Japanese should have contemplated their situation much quicker. It should have taken about 10 seconds after Hiroshima to understand it was game over. The emperor was the person who made the final decision to surrender. The Japanese military would have fought the war until the last Japanese capable of firing a weapon was dead.

That’s the conclusion you and the other historians drew?

[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.

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 . . . ."”

Why did the Brits firebomb Dresden also killing untold civilians? The city of Dresden was a purely culture city with no military or strategic value whatsoever. Churchill wanted revenge for the V1 and V2 rockets fired at London. You folks are whining and crying because the Japanese got what they deserved. They started this fight and Truman ended it, it is as simple as that. If you folks think you can rewrite history and blame Truman for the second bomb, that line of bullchit will never fly with me. It does surprise me how dedicated you folks are to making Truman look like the bad guy here. To those of us that have studied the history of WW2... your all pizzing in the wind.

I don’t know. It was a proportional response. Were did you study?

I read about WW2 ravenously as a teenager. If there was a book out there I read it. I'm guessing between Bobby Fischer teaches chess and Cornelius Ryan I spent many many hours reading about the subject. I even had a journal where i wrote down conversations I had with WW2 veterans I came in contact with. It was a passion of mine all through high school.

[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 . . . ."”

Why did the Brits firebomb Dresden also killing untold civilians? The city of Dresden was a purely culture city with no military or strategic value whatsoever. Churchill wanted revenge for the V1 and V2 rockets fired at London. You folks are whining and crying because the Japanese got what they deserved. They started this fight and Truman ended it, it is as simple as that. If you folks think you can rewrite history and blame Truman for the second bomb, that line of bullchit will never fly with me. It does surprise me how dedicated you folks are to making Truman look like the bad guy here. To those of us that have studied the history of WW2... your all pizzing in the wind.

I don’t know. It was a proportional response. Were did you study?

I read about WW2 ravenously as a teenager. If there was a book out there I read it. I'm guessing between Bobby Fischer teaches chess and Cornelius Ryan I spent many many hours reading about the subject. I even had a journal where i wrote down conversations I had with WW2 veterans I came in contact with. It was a passion of mine all through high school.

Who did you interview in Japan?

[Kismet]

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.

https://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2 ... a-nagasaki

Seems like many were of the opinion that the war was over. We make fun of lacrosse teams up 20-5 in lacrosse and then leaving all the starters in to run up the score….but that’s a sport.

Three days later, U.S. leaders ordered “Fat Man,” a plutonium-based bomb with an explosive yield of 21 kilotons, dropped on Nagasaki, home to over 260,000 people.

The attack occurred two days earlier than planned, 10 hours after the Soviets entered the war against Japan, and as Japanese leaders were contemplating surrender.

The Japanese should have contemplated their situation much quicker. It should have taken about 10 seconds after Hiroshima to understand it was game over. The emperor was the person who made the final decision to surrender. The Japanese military would have fought the war until the last Japanese capable of firing a weapon was dead.

That’s the conclusion you and the other historians drew?

No matter how you slice history, the Emperor capitulated almost immediately after the second A-bomb was dropped on Nagasaki (which was not even the primary target as it was obscured by weather). Nagasaki itself was not the center of any significant critical Japanese war production, was a much smaller population center with a nearby suspected Allied POW detention camp.

War often produces many conundrums and weird activity. Take the case of Hidecki Tojo - Prime Minster and Military Chief of Staff. After Japan's unconditional surrender in 1945, U.S. general Douglas MacArthur ordered hiss arrest for suspected war crimes. Five American GIs were sent to serve the arrest warrant. As American soldiers surrounded Tojo's house on September 11, he shot himself in the chest with a pistol, but missed his heart. They actually treated him, saving his life so they could hang him later after trial. After recovering from his injuries, Tojo was moved to Sugamo Prison. While there, he received a new set of dentures, made by an American dentist, into which the phrase "Remember Pearl Harbor" had been secretly drilled in Morse code. The dentist ground away the message three months later.

[jhu72]

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

Thanks. Seemed like a proportional response. I don’t believe the USA dropped those two bombs based on racism. I have wondered if dehumanizing the enemy (may have been deservedly so) made it easier to sell. I am not sure how anyone could dismiss that as crazy talk. It remains a question. Doubt anyone will ever have a clear answer. Building a case based on the historical record is the best we can do. Dehumanizing people has always made it easier to abuse them. Part of human nature that’s why it’s effective.

Pre-bombing there was no selling the action to the populace. The only consideration of the populace I have ever herd of was the 1) the bogus billions of GIs who would die otherwise and 2) Truman and his advisors concerned about showing the American people what they got for their money, preempting potential congressional investigations after the war. No one asked JQP, it was assumed they were all in, which was probably a correct assessment.

Of course the Russian entry into the war was a consideration. Some think the second bomb was a statement made to the Russians.

[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.

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.

https://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2 ... a-nagasaki

Seems like many were of the opinion that the war was over. We make fun of lacrosse teams up 20-5 in lacrosse and then leaving all the starters in to run up the score….but that’s a sport.

Three days later, U.S. leaders ordered “Fat Man,” a plutonium-based bomb with an explosive yield of 21 kilotons, dropped on Nagasaki, home to over 260,000 people.

The attack occurred two days earlier than planned, 10 hours after the Soviets entered the war against Japan, and as Japanese leaders were contemplating surrender.

The Japanese should have contemplated their situation much quicker. It should have taken about 10 seconds after Hiroshima to understand it was game over. The emperor was the person who made the final decision to surrender. The Japanese military would have fought the war until the last Japanese capable of firing a weapon was dead.

That’s the conclusion you and the other historians drew?

No matter how you slice history, the Emperor capitulated almost immediately after the second A-bomb was dropped on Nagasaki (which was not even the primary target as it was obscured by weather). Nagasaki itself was not the center of any significant critical Japanese war production, was a much smaller population center with a nearby suspected Allied POW detention camp.

No disagreement. I had never known that many officials felt Japan was on the verge of surrender. I had alway thought like cradleandshoot thought…..Those nuts were not going to stop no matter what….doesn’t seem so cut and dry with more access to information. Overwhelming force can always end things early. Doesn’t mean the outcome would have been different absent that. Having studied a little PR, Media and the Government and other mass media communication issues including the history of racism in the mass media, I can’t just give the USA a pass. Country hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with those bombs being dropped. I just wonder how softening up the minds of the public may have made it easier.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

Thanks. Seemed like a proportional response. I don’t believe the USA dropped those two bombs based on racism. I have wondered if dehumanizing the enemy (may have been deservedly so) made it easier to sell. I am not sure how anyone could dismiss that as crazy talk. It remains a question. Doubt anyone will ever have a clear answer. Building a case based on the historical record is the best we can do. Dehumanizing people has always made it easier to abuse them. Part of human nature that’s why it’s effective.

Pre-bombing there was no selling the action to the populace. The only consideration of the populace I have ever herd of was the 1) the bogus billions of GIs who would die otherwise and 2) Truman and his advisors concerned about showing the American people what they got for their money, preempting potential congressional investigations after the war. No one asked JQP, it was assumed they were all in, which was probably a correct assessment.

Of course the Russian entry into the war was a consideration. Some think the second bomb was a statement made to the Russians.

Not selling the populace in the bombing, but selling them on the dehumanizing of the Japanese people.

[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

Thanks. Seemed like a proportional response. I don’t believe the USA dropped those two bombs based on racism. I have wondered if dehumanizing the enemy (may have been deservedly so) made it easier to sell. I am not sure how anyone could dismiss that as crazy talk. It remains a question. Doubt anyone will ever have a clear answer. Building a case based on the historical record is the best we can do. Dehumanizing people has always made it easier to abuse them. Part of human nature that’s why it’s effective.

Pre-bombing there was no selling the action to the populace. The only consideration of the populace I have ever herd of was the 1) the bogus billions of GIs who would die otherwise and 2) Truman and his advisors concerned about showing the American people what they got for their money, preempting potential congressional investigations after the war. No one asked JQP, it was assumed they were all in, which was probably a correct assessment.

Of course the Russian entry into the war was a consideration. Some think the second bomb was a statement made to the Russians.

Not selling the populace in the bombing, but selling them on the dehumanizing of the Japanese people.

I'm not sure they considered much in the way of public outcry. Their assumption was likely that most of the population agreed with them on how to best and most quickly end the war with Japan while minimizing US casualties.

[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.

https://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2 ... a-nagasaki

Seems like many were of the opinion that the war was over. We make fun of lacrosse teams up 20-5 in lacrosse and then leaving all the starters in to run up the score….but that’s a sport.

Three days later, U.S. leaders ordered “Fat Man,” a plutonium-based bomb with an explosive yield of 21 kilotons, dropped on Nagasaki, home to over 260,000 people.

The attack occurred two days earlier than planned, 10 hours after the Soviets entered the war against Japan, and as Japanese leaders were contemplating surrender.

The Japanese should have contemplated their situation much quicker. It should have taken about 10 seconds after Hiroshima to understand it was game over. The emperor was the person who made the final decision to surrender. The Japanese military would have fought the war until the last Japanese capable of firing a weapon was dead.

That’s the conclusion you and the other historians drew?

No matter how you slice history, the Emperor capitulated almost immediately after the second A-bomb was dropped on Nagasaki (which was not even the primary target as it was obscured by weather). Nagasaki itself was not the center of any significant critical Japanese war production, was a much smaller population center with a nearby suspected Allied POW detention camp.

No disagreement. I had never known that many officials felt Japan was on the verge of surrender. I had alway thought like cradleandshoot thought…..Those nuts were not going to stop no matter what….doesn’t seem so cut and dry with more access to information. Overwhelming force can always end things early. Doesn’t mean the outcome would have been different absent that. Having studied a little PR, Media and the Government and other mass media communication issues including the history of racism in the mass media, I can’t just give the USA a pass. Country hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt. I have no problem with those bombs being dropped. I just wonder how softening up the minds of the public may have made it easier.

We shouldn’t sell anything as a government. We do and we explain the thought process based on information available as well as any other considerations or analysis performed and call it a day. The people will evaluate it after the fact.

[MDlaxfan76]

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

Thanks. Seemed like a proportional response. I don’t believe the USA dropped those two bombs based on racism. I have wondered if dehumanizing the enemy (may have been deservedly so) made it easier to sell. I am not sure how anyone could dismiss that as crazy talk. It remains a question. Doubt anyone will ever have a clear answer. Building a case based on the historical record is the best we can do. Dehumanizing people has always made it easier to abuse them. Part of human nature that’s why it’s effective.

Pre-bombing there was no selling the action to the populace. The only consideration of the populace I have ever herd of was the 1) the bogus billions of GIs who would die otherwise and 2) Truman and his advisors concerned about showing the American people what they got for their money, preempting potential congressional investigations after the war. No one asked JQP, it was assumed they were all in, which was probably a correct assessment.

Of course the Russian entry into the war was a consideration. Some think the second bomb was a statement made to the Russians.

Not selling the populace in the bombing, but selling them on the dehumanizing of the Japanese people.

I'm not sure they considered much in the way of public outcry. Their assumption was likely that most of the population agreed with them on how to best and most quickly end the war with Japan while minimizing US casualties.

I think cradle's arguments are accurately reflective of most Americans' point of view at the time. Simply stated most Americans believed that the Japanese deserved anything and everything we could conceivably do to them. There was no limit.

The "dehumanizing" had long happened, the racism that played into it was easy at the time, and there was certainly plenty of justification for anger and desire for revenge.

The notion that this didn't play a role seems rather silly to me. If we hadn't had the nuclear weapons, we'd have rained down as much damage as we could possibly do with conventional bombing until we'd achieved total capitulation. It would have taken longer, but we'd have not restrained any aspect at that point.

It's the requirement for total capitulation, and the second bomb drop, that seem to me to be determined by the racism and desire for revenge. There was an option to allow the Emperor to stay on, thus saving some small face, that we would not consider. Likewise, the quick drop of the second weapon was definitely not necessary to be so swift. Not if it was simply about saving American lives.

[jhu72]

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.

... Patton was also pretty unhappy about the bomb. Neither Halsey nor Patton were in the loop, above their pay grade. LeMay was in the room as I recall.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

Thanks. Seemed like a proportional response. I don’t believe the USA dropped those two bombs based on racism. I have wondered if dehumanizing the enemy (may have been deservedly so) made it easier to sell. I am not sure how anyone could dismiss that as crazy talk. It remains a question. Doubt anyone will ever have a clear answer. Building a case based on the historical record is the best we can do. Dehumanizing people has always made it easier to abuse them. Part of human nature that’s why it’s effective.

Pre-bombing there was no selling the action to the populace. The only consideration of the populace I have ever herd of was the 1) the bogus billions of GIs who would die otherwise and 2) Truman and his advisors concerned about showing the American people what they got for their money, preempting potential congressional investigations after the war. No one asked JQP, it was assumed they were all in, which was probably a correct assessment.

Of course the Russian entry into the war was a consideration. Some think the second bomb was a statement made to the Russians.

Not selling the populace in the bombing, but selling them on the dehumanizing of the Japanese people.

I'm not sure they considered much in the way of public outcry. Their assumption was likely that most of the population agreed with them on how to best and most quickly end the war with Japan while minimizing US casualties.

I think cradle's arguments are accurately reflective of most Americans' point of view at the time. Simply stated most Americans believed that the Japanese deserved anything and everything we could conceivably do to them. There was no limit.

The "dehumanizing" had long happened, the racism that played into it was easy at the time, and there was certainly plenty of justification for anger and desire for revenge.

The notion that this didn't play a role seems rather silly to me. If we hadn't had the nuclear weapons, we'd have rained down as much damage as we could possibly do with conventional bombing until we'd achieved total capitulation. It would have taken longer, but we'd have not restrained any aspect at that point.

It's the requirement for total capitulation, and the second bomb drop, that seem to me to be determined by the racism and desire for revenge. There was an option to allow the Emperor to stay on, thus saving some small face, that we would not consider. Likewise, the quick drop of the second weapon was definitely not necessary to be so swift. Not if it was simply about saving American lives.

I read the deployment of the second bomb was sooner than planned. May have had some back channel communication that they were in the verge of surrender so we upped the timetable.

[jhu72]

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

Thanks. Seemed like a proportional response. I don’t believe the USA dropped those two bombs based on racism. I have wondered if dehumanizing the enemy (may have been deservedly so) made it easier to sell. I am not sure how anyone could dismiss that as crazy talk. It remains a question. Doubt anyone will ever have a clear answer. Building a case based on the historical record is the best we can do. Dehumanizing people has always made it easier to abuse them. Part of human nature that’s why it’s effective.

Pre-bombing there was no selling the action to the populace. The only consideration of the populace I have ever herd of was the 1) the bogus billions of GIs who would die otherwise and 2) Truman and his advisors concerned about showing the American people what they got for their money, preempting potential congressional investigations after the war. No one asked JQP, it was assumed they were all in, which was probably a correct assessment.

Of course the Russian entry into the war was a consideration. Some think the second bomb was a statement made to the Russians.

Not selling the populace in the bombing, but selling them on the dehumanizing of the Japanese people.

I'm not sure they considered much in the way of public outcry. Their assumption was likely that most of the population agreed with them on how to best and most quickly end the war with Japan while minimizing US casualties.

I think cradle's arguments are accurately reflective of most Americans' point of view at the time. Simply stated most Americans believed that the Japanese deserved anything and everything we could conceivably do to them. There was no limit.

The "dehumanizing" had long happened, the racism that played into it was easy at the time, and there was certainly plenty of justification for anger and desire for revenge.

The notion that this didn't play a role seems rather silly to me. If we hadn't had the nuclear weapons, we'd have rained down as much damage as we could possibly do with conventional bombing until we'd achieved total capitulation. It would have taken longer, but we'd have not restrained any aspect at that point.

It's the requirement for total capitulation, and the second bomb drop, that seem to me to be determined by the racism and desire for revenge. There was an option to allow the Emperor to stay on, thus saving some small face, that we would not consider. Likewise, the quick drop of the second weapon was definitely not necessary to be so swift. Not if it was simply about saving American lives.

I read the deployment of the second bomb was sooner than planned. May have had some back channel communication that they were in the verge of surrender so we upped the timetable.

... there was definitely concern that the Russians were trying to weasel in on the post victory settlement.

[jhu72]

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

Thanks. Seemed like a proportional response. I don’t believe the USA dropped those two bombs based on racism. I have wondered if dehumanizing the enemy (may have been deservedly so) made it easier to sell. I am not sure how anyone could dismiss that as crazy talk. It remains a question. Doubt anyone will ever have a clear answer. Building a case based on the historical record is the best we can do. Dehumanizing people has always made it easier to abuse them. Part of human nature that’s why it’s effective.

Pre-bombing there was no selling the action to the populace. The only consideration of the populace I have ever herd of was the 1) the bogus billions of GIs who would die otherwise and 2) Truman and his advisors concerned about showing the American people what they got for their money, preempting potential congressional investigations after the war. No one asked JQP, it was assumed they were all in, which was probably a correct assessment.

Of course the Russian entry into the war was a consideration. Some think the second bomb was a statement made to the Russians.

Not selling the populace in the bombing, but selling them on the dehumanizing of the Japanese people.

I'm not sure they considered much in the way of public outcry. Their assumption was likely that most of the population agreed with them on how to best and most quickly end the war with Japan while minimizing US casualties.

I think cradle's arguments are accurately reflective of most Americans' point of view at the time. Simply stated most Americans believed that the Japanese deserved anything and everything we could conceivably do to them. There was no limit.

The "dehumanizing" had long happened, the racism that played into it was easy at the time, and there was certainly plenty of justification for anger and desire for revenge.

The notion that this didn't play a role seems rather silly to me. If we hadn't had the nuclear weapons, we'd have rained down as much damage as we could possibly do with conventional bombing until we'd achieved total capitulation. It would have taken longer, but we'd have not restrained any aspect at that point.

It's the requirement for total capitulation, and the second bomb drop, that seem to me to be determined by the racism and desire for revenge. There was an option to allow the Emperor to stay on, thus saving some small face, that we would not consider. Likewise, the quick drop of the second weapon was definitely not necessary to be so swift. Not if it was simply about saving American lives.

I read the deployment of the second bomb was sooner than planned. May have had some back channel communication that they were in the verge of surrender so we upped the timetable.

... there was definitely concern that the Russians were trying to weasel in on the post victory settlement. They were talking to the Japanese trying to convince them to surrender at the time.