Is America a racist nation?

[DMac]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
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.

JMHO but I think it has everything to do with revenge and little to do with racism. This was an enemy of vicious fighters who had killed a lot of Americans, I think that is the main reason most Americans were fine with dropping a couple of mega bombs on their country, just as it would have been had they been Caucasian Germans. These decisions were also made by people in a war state of mind, no doubt many knew a bunch of folks who had been killed by these people so the decision is easily justifiable in their minds, unlike those who question the decision today from their comfy couches.

[jhu72]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
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.

JMHO but I think it has everything to do with revenge and little to do with racism. This was an enemy of vicious fighters who had killed a lot of Americans, I think that is the main reason most Americans were fine with dropping a couple of mega bombs on their country, just as it would have been had they been Caucasian Germans. These decisions were also made by people in a war state of mind, no doubt many knew a bunch of folks who had been killed by these people so the decision is easily justifiable in their minds, unlike those who question the decision today from their comfy couches.

It is hard to deconvolve the causes, there were many facts / motivations when the decisions were made. Race was certainly in the room, but not clear it was determinative. Fortunately (or un) we know the answer to the question of racism directed at Asians and it has nothing to do with the war. Asians in the US had been subject to racism since mid 19th century, at least.

It took two decades after the war for there to be serious / widespread questioning of the necessity of the bombs. What I know for certain is it would not have taken nearly as long if those had been German cities. There was no one of Japanese ancestry in the room when the decisions were made. Pretty certain that was and would have been the case in regards to German descendants.

Being Japan, made it easier to make the decisions we did.

[Typical Lax Dad]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
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.

JMHO but I think it has everything to do with revenge and little to do with racism. This was an enemy of vicious fighters who had killed a lot of Americans, I think that is the main reason most Americans were fine with dropping a couple of mega bombs on their country, just as it would have been had they been Caucasian Germans. These decisions were also made by people in a war state of mind, no doubt many knew a bunch of folks who had been killed by these people so the decision is easily justifiable in their minds, unlike those who question the decision today from their comfy couches.

It is hard to deconvolve the causes, there were many facts / motivations when the decisions were made. Race was certainly in the room, but not clear it was determinative. Fortunately (or un) we know the answer to the question of racism directed at Asians and it has nothing to do with the war. Asians in the US had been subject to racism since mid 19th century, at least.

It took two decades after the war for there to be serious / widespread questioning of the necessity of the bombs. What I know for certain is it would not have taken nearly as long if those had been German cities. There was no one of Japanese ancestry in the room when the decisions were made. Pretty certain that was and would have been the case in regards to German descendants.

Being Japan, made it easier to make the decisions we did.

That is sort of my take. We wipe people off this continent and justified it by dehumanizing them. Not sure why anyone would be it’s beyond questioning in the case of Japan. The war was against Germany, not Germans. We were fighting the Japanese, not Japan. Our actions here at home point to that.

[jhu72]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
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.

JMHO but I think it has everything to do with revenge and little to do with racism. This was an enemy of vicious fighters who had killed a lot of Americans, I think that is the main reason most Americans were fine with dropping a couple of mega bombs on their country, just as it would have been had they been Caucasian Germans. These decisions were also made by people in a war state of mind, no doubt many knew a bunch of folks who had been killed by these people so the decision is easily justifiable in their minds, unlike those who question the decision today from their comfy couches.

It is hard to deconvolve the causes, there were many facts / motivations when the decisions were made. Race was certainly in the room, but not clear it was determinative. Fortunately (or un) we know the answer to the question of racism directed at Asians and it has nothing to do with the war. Asians in the US had been subject to racism since mid 19th century, at least.

It took two decades after the war for there to be serious / widespread questioning of the necessity of the bombs. What I know for certain is it would not have taken nearly as long if those had been German cities. There was no one of Japanese ancestry in the room when the decisions were made. Pretty certain that was and would have been the case in regards to German descendants.

Being Japan, made it easier to make the decisions we did.

That is sort of my take. We wipe people off this continent and justified it by dehumanizing them. Not sure why anyone would be it’s beyond questioning in the case of Japan. The war was against Germany, not Germans. We were fighting the Japanese, not Japan. Our actions here at home point to that.

My dad fought against the Germans on the Italian front. Never had the hatred for the Germans he had for the Japanese, not even close. I don't think in his entire life he ever met someone from Japan or even of Japanese descent. Knew lots of Americans of German descent and after the war met a few German immigrants. He railed against the Japanese his entire life.

[tech37]

There was Pearl Harbor of course but then early in war was the Bataan Death March which included 10k Americans. If those two incidents don't arouse hated directed at a warring country, I'm not sure what does.

[Typical Lax Dad]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
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.

JMHO but I think it has everything to do with revenge and little to do with racism. This was an enemy of vicious fighters who had killed a lot of Americans, I think that is the main reason most Americans were fine with dropping a couple of mega bombs on their country, just as it would have been had they been Caucasian Germans. These decisions were also made by people in a war state of mind, no doubt many knew a bunch of folks who had been killed by these people so the decision is easily justifiable in their minds, unlike those who question the decision today from their comfy couches.

It is hard to deconvolve the causes, there were many facts / motivations when the decisions were made. Race was certainly in the room, but not clear it was determinative. Fortunately (or un) we know the answer to the question of racism directed at Asians and it has nothing to do with the war. Asians in the US had been subject to racism since mid 19th century, at least.

It took two decades after the war for there to be serious / widespread questioning of the necessity of the bombs. What I know for certain is it would not have taken nearly as long if those had been German cities. There was no one of Japanese ancestry in the room when the decisions were made. Pretty certain that was and would have been the case in regards to German descendants.

Being Japan, made it easier to make the decisions we did.

That is sort of my take. We wipe people off this continent and justified it by dehumanizing them. Not sure why anyone would be it’s beyond questioning in the case of Japan. The war was against Germany, not Germans. We were fighting the Japanese, not Japan. Our actions here at home point to that.

My dad fought against the Germans on the Italian front. Never had the hatred for the Germans he had for the Japanese, not even close. I don't think in his entire life he ever met someone from Japan or even of Japanese descent. Knew lots of Americans of German descent and after the war met a few German immigrants. He railed against the Japanese his entire life.

I hadn’t thought of it during my posts but I spent part of my career working for a Japanese bank.

[Typical Lax Dad]

There was Pearl Harbor of course but then early in war was the Bataan Death March which included 10k Americans. If those two incidents don't arouse hated directed at a warring country, I'm not sure what does.

Americans often direct their ire at the people as well as the government, thus is the depth of our ignorance. How many people did “Germany” kill?

[Kismet]

There was Pearl Harbor of course but then early in war was the Bataan Death March which included 10k Americans. If those two incidents don't arouse hated directed at a warring country, I'm not sure what does.

The highest ranking officer in US Army in the Philippines- Gen. Jonathan Wainwright (who surrendered the US garrison at Corregidor) was part of that march. He survived and was liberated at a POW camp in Manchuria by the Red Army in 1945. He sat at the table taking the Japanese unconditional surrender on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945 as well as at the earlier surrender of the Japanese forces in The Philippines. He was subsequently awarded the MoH and it was presented to him at an impromptu ceremony when he visited the White House on September 10, 1945 – he was not aware that he was there to be decorated by President Truman. An earlier attempt was blocked by Gen. MacArthur who thought he should not have surrendered Corregidor (after MacArthur was evacuated). Wainwright should be an example to all Americans on how to deal with the aftereffects of warfare and captivity.

In addition, during WWI he served as Asst. Chief of Staff for 82nd Airborne Division in France in 1918 where he took part in the Saint Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne offensives.

[tech37]

There was Pearl Harbor of course but then early in war was the Bataan Death March which included 10k Americans. If those two incidents don't arouse hated directed at a warring country, I'm not sure what does.

The highest ranking officer in US Army in the Philippines- Gen. Jonathan Wainwright (who surrendered the US garrison at Corregidor) was part of that march. He survived and was liberated at a POW camp in Manchuria by the Red Army in 1945. He sat at the table taking the Japanese unconditional surrender on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945 as well as at the earlier surrender of the Japanese forces in The Philippines. He was subsequently awarded the MoH and it was presented to him at an impromptu ceremony when he visited the White House on September 10, 1945 – he was not aware that he was there to be decorated by President Truman. An earlier attempt was blocked by Gen. MacArthur who thought he should not have surrendered Corregidor (after MacArthur was evacuated).

Thanks kismet... great stuff!

[Typical Lax Dad]

There was Pearl Harbor of course but then early in war was the Bataan Death March which included 10k Americans. If those two incidents don't arouse hated directed at a warring country, I'm not sure what does.

The highest ranking officer in US Army in the Philippines- Gen. Jonathan Wainwright (who surrendered the US garrison at Corregidor) was part of that march. He survived and was liberated at a POW camp in Manchuria by the Red Army in 1945. He sat at the table taking the Japanese unconditional surrender on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945 as well as at the earlier surrender of the Japanese forces in The Philippines. He was subsequently awarded the MoH and it was presented to him at an impromptu ceremony when he visited the White House on September 10, 1945 – he was not aware that he was there to be decorated by President Truman. An earlier attempt was blocked by Gen. MacArthur who thought he should not have surrendered Corregidor (after MacArthur was evacuated).

Thanks kismet... great stuff!

+1

[Farfromgeneva]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
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.

JMHO but I think it has everything to do with revenge and little to do with racism. This was an enemy of vicious fighters who had killed a lot of Americans, I think that is the main reason most Americans were fine with dropping a couple of mega bombs on their country, just as it would have been had they been Caucasian Germans. These decisions were also made by people in a war state of mind, no doubt many knew a bunch of folks who had been killed by these people so the decision is easily justifiable in their minds, unlike those who question the decision today from their comfy couches.

It is hard to deconvolve the causes, there were many facts / motivations when the decisions were made. Race was certainly in the room, but not clear it was determinative. Fortunately (or un) we know the answer to the question of racism directed at Asians and it has nothing to do with the war. Asians in the US had been subject to racism since mid 19th century, at least.

It took two decades after the war for there to be serious / widespread questioning of the necessity of the bombs. What I know for certain is it would not have taken nearly as long if those had been German cities. There was no one of Japanese ancestry in the room when the decisions were made. Pretty certain that was and would have been the case in regards to German descendants.

Being Japan, made it easier to make the decisions we did.

That is sort of my take. We wipe people off this continent and justified it by dehumanizing them. Not sure why anyone would be it’s beyond questioning in the case of Japan. The war was against Germany, not Germans. We were fighting the Japanese, not Japan. Our actions here at home point to that.

My dad fought against the Germans on the Italian front. Never had the hatred for the Germans he had for the Japanese, not even close. I don't think in his entire life he ever met someone from Japan or even of Japanese descent. Knew lots of Americans of German descent and after the war met a few German immigrants. He railed against the Japanese his entire life.

I hadn’t thought of it during my posts but I spent part of my career working for a Japanese bank.

I got a Frankfurt based one on my CV

[old salt]

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.

The threat of a Soviet invasion of the Japanese mainland was more influential in getting the Japanese to surrender to the US than it was in influencing the US decision to drop the 1st or 2nd bomb.

At Potsdam, it was agreed that the Soviets could occupy Japanese held territory in NE Asia & disputed islands, so long as the 4 large "mainland" Japanese islands were not invaded by the Soviets & left for the US to occupy. The Soviets were not capable of invading the Japanese mainland by themselves. The occupation of the NE Asian territories stretched their capabilities. They had great difficulty retaking the disputed islands.

The Japanese cabinet & Imperial family preferred occupation by the US rather than the Russians.

[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.

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.

The threat of a Soviet invasion of the Japanese mainland was more influential in getting the Japanese to surrender to the US than it was in influencing the US decision to drop the 1st or 2nd bomb.

At Potsdam, it was agreed that the Soviets could occupy Japanese held territory in NE Asia & disputed islands, so long as the 4 large "mainland" Japanese islands were not invaded by the Soviets & left for the US to occupy. The Soviets were not capable of invading the Japanese mainland by themselves. The occupation of the NE Asian territories stretched their capabilities. They had great difficulty retaking the disputed islands.

The Japanese cabinet & Imperial family preferred occupation by the US rather than the Russians.

It may well have been important to the Japanese, but they refused unconditional surrender prior to the bombs. And I'm not sure you can say with certainty that we weren't motivated to force surrender before the Soviets got more involved. Seems likely it was part of the discussion for bomb one.

May also have been part of the impatience with letting Japan surrender after one, and thus two was dropped so quickly...were the Soviets really in a position to get into it more had we waited a couple of weeks?

[MDlaxfan76]

There was Pearl Harbor of course but then early in war was the Bataan Death March which included 10k Americans. If those two incidents don't arouse hated directed at a warring country, I'm not sure what does.

Certainly true that the Japanese were incredibly brutal. Horrifically so.
And yes, "hatred" would certainly be an understandable emotional response.

But we actually knew that the Germans were incredibly horrific as well.
We actually did know about the death camps, we just didn't publicize it the same way.
Likewise, we knew about how the Germans murdered at least 10 civilians for every German soldier killed by resistance forces.
We knew.

I'm no scholar on this topic, but I don't recall reading of a pre-war movement of Japanese sympathizers. On the other hand, a whole lot of Nazi sympathizers, quite prominently so.

And yet, we interned the Japanese Americans...yes, we moved some Germans and a few Italians back from east coast, but no internment.

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

+1 on this comment.

[old salt]

It may well have been important to the Japanese, but they refused unconditional surrender prior to the bombs. And I'm not sure you can say with certainty that we weren't motivated to force surrender before the Soviets got more involved. Seems likely it was part of the discussion for bomb one.

May also have been part of the impatience with letting Japan surrender after one, and thus two was dropped so quickly...were the Soviets really in a position to get into it more had we waited a couple of weeks?

That's based on Frank's research of the declassified/unnredacted military intell that you & your mentor Zinn refuse to acknowledge.

It impacted the Japanese decision making in the days between the 1st bomb/Soviet declaration of war & the decision to surrender.
That's when the surrender decision was made & the Emperor + diplomats overcame the hardline military leaders in the cabinet.
Before that, they thought that Stalin was negotiating an armistice with the other allies on their behalf.

The threat of a Soviet invasion on the US decision is a red herring. If the Soviets did invade the Japanese "mainland" they would have violated the Potsdam agreement which already gave them the territory they wanted & was already a challenge for them. They were already challenged with occupying all of E Europe without the assistance of the other allies.

[ardilla secreta]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
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.

JMHO but I think it has everything to do with revenge and little to do with racism. This was an enemy of vicious fighters who had killed a lot of Americans, I think that is the main reason most Americans were fine with dropping a couple of mega bombs on their country, just as it would have been had they been Caucasian Germans. These decisions were also made by people in a war state of mind, no doubt many knew a bunch of folks who had been killed by these people so the decision is easily justifiable in their minds, unlike those who question the decision today from their comfy couches.

It is hard to deconvolve the causes, there were many facts / motivations when the decisions were made. Race was certainly in the room, but not clear it was determinative. Fortunately (or un) we know the answer to the question of racism directed at Asians and it has nothing to do with the war. Asians in the US had been subject to racism since mid 19th century, at least.

It took two decades after the war for there to be serious / widespread questioning of the necessity of the bombs. What I know for certain is it would not have taken nearly as long if those had been German cities. There was no one of Japanese ancestry in the room when the decisions were made. Pretty certain that was and would have been the case in regards to German descendants.

Being Japan, made it easier to make the decisions we did.

That is sort of my take. We wipe people off this continent and justified it by dehumanizing them. Not sure why anyone would be it’s beyond questioning in the case of Japan. The war was against Germany, not Germans. We were fighting the Japanese, not Japan. Our actions here at home point to that.

My dad fought against the Germans on the Italian front. Never had the hatred for the Germans he had for the Japanese, not even close. I don't think in his entire life he ever met someone from Japan or even of Japanese descent. Knew lots of Americans of German descent and after the war met a few German immigrants. He railed against the Japanese his entire life.

You used to hear more of these stories. My dad and two other high school buddies from Wayne County WV joined the Marines after Pearl Harbor and after high school graduation. He ended up in Okinawa. I never knew of his experiences, but it definitely wasn’t as a typist. After the surrender he spent time in China processing Japanese prisoners. I did learn from him that they basically had the Japanese guard themselves as the Chinese, given arms, would have certainly killed the Japanese prisoners. I never heard my dad speak poorly of the Japanese.

Several years later in 1979 while my folks were living in Los Angeles, their local school district were hosting Japanese students and teachers from Tokyo. My parents volunteered to host teachers Mr Kicuchi and Mr Kadama for a week. They also hosted a big pool party at their house. I had just moved out to LA myself a few months earlier and got to experience it all. It was a great time and they were exemplary guests. My dad had great respect for the Japanese people and their culture. They stayed in contact with Mr Kicuchi until they expired and me and my mom had the opportunity to dine with him again in Philadelphia in 2002.

[old salt]

I'm no scholar on this topic, but I don't recall reading of a pre-war movement of Japanese sympathizers. On the other hand, a whole lot of Nazi sympathizers, quite prominently so.

And yet, we interned the Japanese Americans...yes, we moved some Germans and a few Italians back from east coast, but no internment.

The decisions on if & how to do the internment was based on the relative potential threats posed & the number of potential internees.

In the wake of Pearl Harbor, there was a real fear of an attack on the US W coast by the Japanese. They did attack in the Aleutians, where they occupied Attu & Kiska islands which were potential air bases from which to attack our W coast.

There was no realistic threat of such an attack on the US E coast by the Germans &/or Italians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood

[MDlaxfan76]

It may well have been important to the Japanese, but they refused unconditional surrender prior to the bombs. And I'm not sure you can say with certainty that we weren't motivated to force surrender before the Soviets got more involved. Seems likely it was part of the discussion for bomb one.

May also have been part of the impatience with letting Japan surrender after one, and thus two was dropped so quickly...were the Soviets really in a position to get into it more had we waited a couple of weeks?

That's based on Frank's research of the declassified/unnredacted military intell that you & your mentor Zinn refuse to acknowledge.

It impacted the Japanese decision making in the days between the 1st bomb/Soviet declaration of war & the decision to surrender.
That's when the surrender decision was made & the Emperor + diplomats overcame the hardline military leaders in the cabinet.
Before that, they thought that Stalin was negotiating an armistice with the other allies on their behalf.

The threat of a Soviet invasion on the US decision is a red herring. If the Soviets did invade the Japanese "mainland" they would have violated the Potsdam agreement which already gave them the territory they wanted & was already a challenge for them. They were already challenged with occupying all of E Europe without the assistance of the other allies.

So, by this reasoning, the second bomb was unnecessary?

Heck, by that reasoning, we didn't really need to drop the first one...

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm no scholar on this topic, but I don't recall reading of a pre-war movement of Japanese sympathizers. On the other hand, a whole lot of Nazi sympathizers, quite prominently so.

And yet, we interned the Japanese Americans...yes, we moved some Germans and a few Italians back from east coast, but no internment.

The decisions on if & how to do the internment was based on the relative potential threats posed & the number of potential internees.

In the wake of Pearl Harbor, there was a real fear of an attack on the US W coast by the Japanese. They did attack in the Aleutians, where they occupied Attu & Kiska islands which were potential air bases from which to attack our W coast.

There was no realistic threat of such an attack on the US E coast by the Germans &/or Italians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood

ok, obviously, I mean obviously, the Germans couldn't hit us...they only had u-boats off our shores multiple times.
Off Delaware, off North Carolina, Caribbean etc.

What a bunch of baloney.

The explanation that is usually given is that the German and Italian populations were 'too large' to round up and that it would be 'too disruptive' economically.

Again, a bunch of baloney.

The fact is that there were lots of Nazi sympathizers, beyond German or Italian descent, and there was simply not the same racial identity available to discern who was who.