Soviet attack trumped A-bomb role

[noyhauser]

Of course Pavel!!
But I said " The thought that the A-bombs saved my life is a horrible thought"
...
I wanted to make clear that it is better that a war is ended by an army than by A-bombs, at least in my eyes.

So ten million people dead, millions more wounded starving and pillaged, (almost all civilians) is a better way to die? The Japanese government basically made its civilian populace a massive fighting force. Everybody was armed and expected to die for the emperor. Twenty times more would have died in an invasion.

Its insupportable by fact that the Soviet Union ended the war with Japan as I noted above.

 

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

Hello Noyhauser,

I have a Japanese lady friend who lives in Tokyo. She told me that fire-bombs had burned her parents house completely, they lost everything, thank goodness the family stayed alive. She said that those fire-bombs should have been dropped on the palais of the emperor instead of the houses from Tokyo citizens. My friend told me that also those bombs were also a hell on earth.

Talking with people from all over this earth is really wonderful. We can learn so much from each other.

 

[caster51]

Talking with people from all over this earth is really wonderful. We can learn so much from each other.

Still a lot of countries continue fighting, and they keepsmany atomic bomb.
What did they learn?

 

[let`s talk]

I think the use of Nuclear weapons were justified.

The Soviet Union was the last hope of Japan to sign a peace treaty with the US&Co. After Japan lost the Soviet Union's neutrality, it was clear that the war over. A-bombs were unnecessary if we speak about the end of war with Japan. If we speak about the beginning of the cold war with the USSR, A-bombs were necessary for the US. They wanted to demonstrate the nuclear weapon that the Soviets didn't have at that moment. Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the victims of the Pacific war. They were victims of the cold war. There is nothing "justifed" in A-bomb attacks. It was a sadistic and cynical crime against humanity committed by the US in order to gain some geopolitical proftis.

The Soviet killed hundreds of thousands of German civillians; they raped, pillaged, tortured, starved and murdered.

Are you saying Nazi were polite in Belorussia and they didn't rape, kill, torture, starve, murder the civilians? Japanese did the same things in Asia. Americans raped half of Vietnam. I wonder why you feel angrier with the Soviet acts than with the same acts done by Americans, Japanese or Nazi? Is it because Chinese, Soviet and Vietnamese victims are lesser people? Sounds like a new Hitler to me.

 

[Ewok85]

More Japanese were killed in conventional fire-bombing (~500,000 in Tokyo alone) than from the A-bombs.

Less than 600,000 civilians are estimated to have been killed in WWII in Japan by Allied forces - but you are right that a majority (2/3) of civilian deaths were as a result of conventional and fire-bombing attacks.

She said that those fire-bombs should have been dropped on the palais of the emperor instead of the houses from Tokyo citizens.

Apparently they had orders not to attack the place or place grounds directly. At the time Japan had a fairly functional government that was not directly controlled by a single individual (ie. Germany would have surrendered if Hitler was assasinated earlier in the war, but Japan had too many people who would continue to give orders and keep fighting).

 

[noyhauser]

The Soviet Union was the last hope of Japan to sign a peace treaty with the US&Co. After Japan lost the Soviet Union's neutrality, it was clear that the war over. A-bombs were unnecessary if we speak about the end of war with Japan. If we speak about the beginning of the cold war with the USSR, A-bombs were necessary for the US. They wanted to demonstrate the nuclear weapon that the Soviets didn't have at that moment. Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the victims of the Pacific war. They were victims of the cold war. There is nothing "justifed" in A-bomb attacks. It was a sadistic and cynical crime against humanity committed by the US in order to gain some geopolitical proftis

You haven't addressed any of the points I've made about why the Manchurian invasion alone would not have capitulated Japan.

The motivation that the bomb was only used as a piece of Cold War thinking doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Atomic bombs were always considered a weapon to end the war without involving massive Allied casualties. It was a far greater concern that these casualties could reach a point where they might force them to withdrawal. Leaving Japan intact was unacceptable to all sides; it went against the lessons of the German Surrender in 1918 and the Potsdam Declaration signed by the allies in July 1945. Everything up until the final Japanese surrender pointed to the fact that Japan would fight on.

Was the use of the Bomb considered for its geostrategic effects with the Soviets after the war? Absolutely, but to a far lesser extent than you or others made it out to be. US-Soviet relations under Truman really didn't deteriorate until the fall of 1945, when Stalin started to make clear moves to usurp the agreements already made. It was a equivocal time, the idea that a "cold war" was coming was by not in the public or political psyche. 54 % of the American Populace was willing to trust the Russians at the Japanese Surrender; that had dropped to 35% by February 1946 (See Gaddis Pg. 156 The United States, the Soviet Union and the Origins of the Cold War). Even after Potsdam, Truman was optimistic that he could implement the agreement made by Roosevelt. He wasn't completely trusting of the Soviets, and there were thoughts that the Atomic Bomb would help with negotiations, but it was by no means the only reason why they dropped the bomb. Truman was always more concerned about his own soldiers well being, after being one himself during the First World War.

Are you saying Nazi were polite in Belorussia and they didn't rape, kill, torture, starve, murder the civilians? Japanese did the same things in Asia. Americans raped half of Vietnam. I wonder why you feel angrier with the Soviet acts than with the same acts done by Americans, Japanese or Nazi? Is it because Chinese, Soviet and Vietnamese victims are lesser people? Sounds like a new Hitler to me.

Where in what I've wrote did you ever get that idea? You're ridiculous, insipid and just plain wrong about my views. My comments were aimed at how the Soviet Army operates because they were the ones who might have participated in an invasion of Japan. Its not germane how depraved the Nazis were because they weren't going to invade Japan in 1945. The Soviets might.

Any invasion of Japan would cause far more casualties than the Atomic bombs because the civilian populace was trained to be used in human wave attacks in this final struggle. One look at how Japanese civilians on Saipan killed themselves on masse indicates the climactic struggle that would have taken place had the United States invaded.

 

[Anatoli]

In Russia, the common view is that America dropped the bombs on Japan not just to stop the war but to scare Russians and the whole world, to show the new master. Although I don't completely agree with this but this opinion has a merit. The US certainly didn't like with the post war arrangement in Germany (the division) and German, Vietnamese and Korean type of a split country could not be excluded, possibly there could be a long war between US and Russia on the Japanese territory like it was in Korea. Can you imagine North Japan and South Japan as a result? Well, I am speculating too much. Anyway, these researches may not help anything now. Who can say what would happen if...

I'm only hoping that Russia and Japan can be reconciled and sign a peace treaty. The war is long over and we must move on (not meaning that we should forget the innocent victims of the war).

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

In America, the perception is that the Soviets stalled and dragged their feet for the whole war about engaging with Japan. And they only did so after we dropped the A-bomb, because then they saw we were going to beat Japan, and they wanted to grab whatever Japanese territory they could before the war ended.

 

[caster51]

In America, the perception is that the Soviets stalled and dragged their feet for the whole war about engaging with Japan. And they only did so after we dropped the A-bomb, because then they saw we were going to beat Japan, and they wanted to grab whatever Japanese territory they could before the war ended.

they did not care at all even after war
Japan was still fighing against Russia in northeran hokkaido after 15th Aug.
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/22336.html

On Sakhalin, Soviet forces moving southwards from August 10 encountered the Japanese 88th Division along the line of fortifications near the border with the Soviet sector of the island. The defenders objective was to buy time for civilians to flee by ship to Hokkaido. Six thousand residents of Maoka (now Kholmsk) on the western coast had already been evacuated when the Soviet attack commenced before dawn on August 20. Soviet warships entered the harbor, firing on the town and the 18,000 refugees waiting to be evacuated. Civilians were machine-gunned as they ran towards the hills in an attempt to escape the Soviet troops pouring off the warships. Japanese records suggest that approximately 1,000 people were killed that morning. After reporting the happenings of the previous few hours, the final message from the last of nine young telephonists at the exchange at Maoka, 22 year-old Itoh Chie, ended with these poignant words.[11]

To everyone back in Naichi [Japanese mainland]. To our friends at the Wakkanai Exchange... Soviet soldiers have just entered the building here in the Maoka Exchange. This will probably be the last message from Karafuto [Sakhalin]. The nine of us have stayed at our posts right through to the end, and it wont be long before all nine of us will have departed for the next world.

The Soviet troops are coming closer. I can hear their footsteps getting nearer. Everyone in Wakkanai, sayonara, this is the end. To everyone in Naichi, sayonara, sayonara.

Invasion of the Kuril Islands
(Kuril Islands Landing Operation)
Invasion of the Kuril Islands - Wikipedia
This fight prevented Russia from landing in Hokkaido .
Stalin said 23rd Aug. is the saddest day for Russia

 

[Anatoli]

In America, the perception is that the Soviets stalled and dragged their feet for the whole war about engaging with Japan. And they only did so after we dropped the A-bomb, because then they saw we were going to beat Japan, and they wanted to grab whatever Japanese territory they could before the war ended.

Interesting that America talks about the Soviet Union stalling at all, after joining the war only in 1944 when seeing that the end was close. Russians didn't fear Hitler Germany, why do you think they would fear Japan?

 

[Chidoriashi]

Interesting that America talks about the Soviet Union stalling at all, after joining the war only in 1944 when seeing that the end was close. Russians didn't fear Hitler Germany, why do you think they would fear Japan?

Joining the war in 1944? Umm the US started actively fighting on both the Pacific and European fronts immediately after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the US on December 7, 1941. The US declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941.

Germany and Italy then declared war on the US on December 11, 1941, and the US immediately responded in kind. BBC ON THIS DAY | 11 | 1941: Germany and Italy declare war on US

I never said the Soviets were afraid of Germany, though I happen to believe that anyone with any sense at all is afraid of war.

 

[Nuala]

Interesting that America talks about the Soviet Union stalling at all, after joining the war only in 1944 when seeing that the end was close. Russians didn't fear Hitler Germany, why do you think they would fear Japan?

We live in a world where information is a few taps of a keyboard and a click away. This sort of nonsense shouldn't be acceptable from a high school student, let alone a goddamn 43 year old. I'm sorry, but what's up with this? I am so frustrated right now.

 

[Chidoriashi]

We live in a world where information is a few taps of a keyboard and a click away. This sort of nonsense shouldn't be acceptable from a high school student, let alone a goddamn 43 year old. I'm sorry, but what's up with this? I am so frustrated right now.

haha, amen to that.

 

[Anatoli]

Sorry if I confused or upset anyone! I meant the war in Europe, I should have been clearer on that, which happened to be very bloody on the Soviet side - 27.5 million were lost in the war unknown to the West. The 2nd front was only open in 1944 when millions were dead. I am not ignorant and I know very well about Pearl Harbor but for many Europeans it looked that failure of the US to join the war (in Europe) looked as if Americans waited who wins who.

I feel sorry for everyone who died but the number of casualties in Russia and Eastern Europe who fought on the ground or was destroyed by bombs and executions are simply incomparable with Americans.

The World War II history for the world is not written by Russians and more and more facts are forgotten or changed so that the crimes against Russians or deeds are presented in a twisted way.

 

[let`s talk]

In America, the perception is that the Soviets stalled and dragged their feet for the whole war about engaging with Japan. And they only did so after we dropped the A-bomb, because then they saw we were going to beat Japan, and they wanted to grab whatever Japanese territory they could before the war ended.

The same thing that the US did in Europe. They jumped into the onland war in Europe the very last minute when all the hard bloody work was done. Then they took all plaudits on victory and held the western world to ransom. I see you have no problems with that. Why do you have problems with Soviets when they did the same thing in the Pacific as the US did in Europe? Double standards policy is a very common thing the US politics, now and then. I do wish one day the school education in the US will be better than now. Maybe they will stop being the most monolingual nation in the world and will be able to read things written not in English only. No doubt by this they will widen their intellectual horizon.
Or you are saying Roosevelt shouldn't have requested the Soviets to enter the Pacific war? In this case the war would have ended around a year later, in 1946, about 1.5mil of the US soldiers would have died, probably the same number or more of Japanese casualties. The A-bombing would have taken place not in two but maybe in five cities, Tokyo included. Thanks to the USSR it didn't happen. The South Kuril Islands is a rather fair price for the Soviet partnership in the US-Japan war.

I'm only hoping that Russia and Japan can be reconciled and sign a peace treaty. The war is long over and we must move on (not meaning that we should forget the innocent victims of the war).

I doubt that it happens any time soon. Neither Japan nor the US, that played the key role in bringing the Soviet/Russian-Japanese relationships to the current stage, are not ready to move on. Kuril Islands themselves at that time was not a very important thing for the USSR. The main target was to repay back for the Japanese violation of the Treaty of St-Petersburg. Japan broke its obligations and explained it that Japan won the Russo-Japanese war and therefore was within its rights of the winner to forget about the previous obligations and dictate new rules. When the Soviets got a chance to pay back, they did it. Still almost right after the end of WWII the Soviets were ready to return two islands (Shikotan and Habomai) and negotiate about the rest of two (Kunashir and Iturup). The US couldn't accept the loss of Iturup, the island from where the Japanese went to bomb Pearl Habour. It was an American dream to open the US military base there. The US gave an ultimatum to Japan: if you give up Iturup, the US will not return Okinawa to Japan. Okay. After Japan got Okinawa back, they didn't need to listen to the US anymore about the territorial dispute with Soviets. They should have negotiated with the USSR directly. They were not smart enought to do so. The Japanese idea of diplomacy is anti-diplomacy, means no negotiations and no compromises. The same style brought them to nowhere about the Nothern Korean abductees. And there is no sign that they are going to change this policy any time soon. Japan was a closed country for centuries. It couldn't not affect their mentality. When I ask Japanese about Kuril Islands, I always get only one answer: "Those islands were always Japanese." I ask them: "If you think nobody can get Japanese territories, why did Japanese take the territories that were not Japanese in Asia during the WWII?" And I also got one answer: "Because we needed new territories." Lovely. Everything that is in favor for Japan is always a right thing to do. In fact Soviets, when they took something Japanese, were the only ones who gave Japan a lesson on history: you are the same as all others and you are equal in front of the the law of war. Japan, after centuries of isolations, was surpised with a new thing- international laws and is still in mild shock. If they keep the same policy as they have now, and I think they will, the situation will not change. Nowdays the treaty is not actual for Russia anymore. The J-companies work in Russia without peace treaty and are not going anywhere.

Japan was still fighing against Russia in notheran hokkaido after 15th Aug.

It does not matter. If Stalin seriously wanted to invade Hokkaido , he would have done that. Luckily for Japan he was too busy with building communism in the Eastern Europe.

 

[Chidoriashi]

The same thing that the US did in Europe. They jumped into the onland war in Europe the very last minute when all the hard bloody work was done. Then they took all plaudits on victory and held the western world to ransom. I see you have no problems with that. Why do you have problems with Soviets when they did the same thing in the Pacific as the US did in Europe? Double standards policy is a very common thing the US politics, now and then. I do wish one day the school education in the US will be better than now. Maybe they will stop being the most monolingual nation in the world and will be able to read things written not in English only. No doubt by this they will widen their intellectual horizon.

It may not be Europe, but I think you knooow... some strategic planning and preparation was maybe needed before we marched right into France

Fighting side by side with the British in North Africa in 1942
Operation Torch - Wikipedia

You should really read this one too, and then maybe think about revising your statement, simple research just works wonders doesn't it?
Operation Sledgehammer - Wikipedia

Languages of the United States - Wikipedia
The USA has 28 million Spanish speakers.. does that sound pretty monolingual to you?

I do not know what country you are from but let's hope we will see some improvements on its education system as well.

 

[let`s talk]

You haven't addressed any of the points I've made about why the Manchurian invasion alone would not have capitulated Japan.

Are you the same poster "noyhouser" who posted this (see post #22 in this thread)?:

The Manchurian invasion could have ended the war on its own.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The motivation that the bomb was only used as a piece of Cold War thinking doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The Atomic bombs were always considered a weapon to end the war without involving massive Allied casualties.

Many prominent Americans thought it was wrong to drop the bombs on a beaten enemy, just about every top commander in the Pacific. MacArthur said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Leahy, Spaatz, Clarke, LeMay, King and Nimitz. General Eisenhower in his memoirs called Truman's decision to use the atom bombs political and not military: "Japan was already defeated. Dropping the bombs was completely unnecessary and no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Are you saying all those guys were wrong? Moreover, Martin Sherwin said the war probably have ended in July if the Americans agreed to the retention of the Emperor. If the guarantee of the Emperor had been given (it was given later any way), the war would have been over without A-bombs and the Soviet help. The American choice was between diplomacy and the warfare. The US chose the latest. The US had ulterior motives in dropping the bombs, including exacting revenge for Pearl Habour and demonstaring a new weapon to the USSR before the Soviets had much say in the Pacific. Until then the US were eager to have Soviet help, which Stalin promised as soon as the Nazis were beaten. Truman, one of the less bright US President, entered the world history as the only human who used nuclear weapon against humans. He felt justifed in dropping the atom bombs in order to prevent the spread of communism in Europe by intimidating the USSR. Instead of the desired effect that the US had wished for, the Soviets responded more hostilely and thus the Cold War began.

My comments were aimed at how the Soviet Army operates

And mine were that they operate the same way as Nazi in Belorussia, Japanese in Asia or Americans in Vietnam. You obvioulsy have no problems with their operations but you have problems with Soviets when they did the same. I wonder why.

 

[let`s talk]

It may not be Europe, but I think you knooow...

With all my respect to the US soldiers who had to die in North Africa, my post was irrelevant to the African things. It was about the second front in Europe that the US opened when the end of the war was clear. The US act saved some thousands of lives that could probably have been lost if the war in Europe lasted a few months longer (let's assume without the US help) and nobody never argues this fact, at least not in my alma mater. That is why the behavior of the US seems strange when they feel bad about the value of the Soviet help in the Pacific.

The USA has 28 million Spanish speakers.. does that sound pretty monolingual to you?

It is about 9% of the US population. Yes, it does sound monolingual to me.

 

[Chidoriashi]

With all my respect to the US soldiers who had to die in North Africa, my post was irrelevant to the African things. It was about the second front in Europe that the US opened when the end of the war was clear. The US act saved some thousands of lives that could probably have been lost if the war in Europe lasted a few months longer (let's assume without the US help) and nobody never argues this fact, at least not in my alma mater. That is why the behavior of the US seems strange when they feel bad about the value of the Soviet help in the Pacific.
It is about 9% of the US population. Yes, it does sound monolingual to me.

You did not even read the article did you? There were strategic reasons the US did not go charging into Europe. You talk like we were just sitting on our a$$es waiting for all the grunt work to be done. So no, your post was not irrelevant to the African things, because that is the place where the Allies (British and American) decided to start the push against Nazi Germany. Understand?, still fighting against the Nazis.. just not in Europe (at the instance of the British in fact). So talking like the US should have just parachuted into Berlin in January 1942, sounds really ridiculous.

And 28 million, plus millions who learn Spanish throughout there school years as well as French and German.. is monolingual.. your ignorance is just blissful isn't?

Sorry the US is not a European nation with an easy proximity to a variety of languages and countries.
Have you ever even been to the US? if your answers no, I suggest you just stop talking right now.

 

[Elizabeth van Kampen]

"The article says: The Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had already secretely promised Washington and London that he would attack Japan within three months of Germany's defeat. He thus ignored Tokyo's plea and mobilized more than 1 million troops along Manchuria's border"
===============
So I understood that indeed Russia ended the Pacific War.
But no film was ever made about that part of the War. One hardly ever reads about this matter.
Since I spent my whole youth in the Far East, the above article matters to me too, it touched me when I read it. That is why I shared it with you.
I am not blaming any country at all of course! It is history and we can't change history.

 

[noyhauser]

Mods: if you want to split this thread into another one, please do. I'm not too sure whether I should continue to reply here.

Are you the same poster "noyhouser" who posted this (see post #22 in this thread)?:

If you look closely its spelled noyhauser, so I guess it is me.

Many prominent Americans thought it was wrong to drop the bombs on a beaten enemy, just about every top commander in the Pacific. MacArthur said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Leahy, Spaatz, Clarke, LeMay, King and Nimitz. General Eisenhower in his memoirs called Truman's decision to use the atom bombs political and not military: "Japan was already defeated. Dropping the bombs was completely unnecessary and no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

This statement is riddled with inaccuracies and misinterpretations. There were individuals who claimed several years after the fact that they were "against it." None of them were actually part of the decision to use the bomb or had any responsibilities for the invasion of Japan or the overall political situation. How Eisenhower would come to the judgement about what Japan's political motives were, when he was the European commander is somewhat beyond me.

In 1945 MacArthur was generally disdainful of strategic bombing, whether it be conducted by firebombing or atomic weaponry. According to the US Army History of MacArthur, he pushed the general staff to discontinue strategic bombing, because he thought it wouldn't force a surrender. Rather he thought that a massive invasion was preferable. However MacArthur did not oversee the tougher landings at Saipan, Iwo Jima or Okinawa. These operations were far more bloody and gave pause to other commanders.

Nimitz actually pressed for its use earlier, as did not want to send his soldiers to die in Operation Coronet or Olympic. Him, Spaatz and Curtis LeMay wanted a third bomb to be used on Tokyo. So none of those three were against it.

Moreover, Martin Sherwin said the war probably have ended in July if the Americans agreed to the retention of the Emperor. If the guarantee of the Emperor had been given (it was given later any way), the war would have been over without A-bombs and the Soviet help. The American choice was between diplomacy and the warfare. The US chose the latest.

I'll repeat what I wrote before. The Allies and the United States would not accept unconditional surrender for two reasons;

#1- The experience leaving Imperial Germany unoccupied in 1918 after the Armistice (and the rise of the Nazi party) led all allies to reject anything but unconditional surrender. Leaving a leader who they knew was a proponent for the war in the first place was completely unacceptable to all allies, including the Soviet Union which chose to invade despite receiving diplomatic feelers from the Japanese government. Unconditional surrender was agreed to as early as 1942 with the Declaration of the United Nations, reaffirmed in the 1943 Moscow Declaration and finally with Potsdam.

#2 As with Germany from 1943 to 1945, there was concern that the USSR thought the United States would repudiate the Tehran agreement and make a "side deal" with Japan to turn it into a anti-communist ally. The US could not break on the Potsdam declaration, otherwise Russia would repudiate its agreement on other issues dealing with Europe.

The US had ulterior motives in dropping the bombs, including exacting revenge for Pearl Habour and demonstaring a new weapon to the USSR before the Soviets had much say in the Pacific. Until then the US were eager to have Soviet help, which Stalin promised as soon as the Nazis were beaten.

And yet Truman pushed Stalin at Potsdam to uphold his agreement to invade Manchuria.

He felt justifed in dropping the atom bombs in order to prevent the spread of communism in Europe by intimidating the USSR. Instead of the desired effect that the US had wished for, the Soviets responded more hostilely and thus the Cold War began.

I have already provided evidence to that directly contradicts what you've stated here, with citations. Please repudiate it with evidence beyond "your opinion."

And mine were that they operate the same way as Nazi in Belorussia, Japanese in Asia or Americans in Vietnam. You obvioulsy have no problems with their operations but you have problems with Soviets when they did the same. I wonder why.

For **** sake, read. I stated it was depraved. Lets see where I said that;

Its not germane how depraved the Nazis were because they weren't going to invade Japan in 1945.

Got it this time? Stop putting ridiculous statements into my mouth. You're already doing a good job of it with yours.

 

[Nuala]

noyhauser, it may be just as well that you don't respond further to this thread. Members like astroboy, caster51, let's talk, and Anatoli have a way of making the argument so filled with misinformation and bullshit that it's really not worth contributing to the tireless and worthless discussions they turn almost every thread they reply to into.

Great job everyone, another thread about how the USA allegedly sucks.

 

[Grandpa Frank]

An older perspective.

I grew up listening to WWII generation men talk about fighting the Japanese. They were still running a lot of the old black & white Japanese war movies then. I felt the Japanese were sub-human animals who should all be killed at the age of 6 or 7; that was how the propaganda type movies made me feel , even as a child. War stories from the old timers went into great detail about Japanese cruelty and unbelievable evil things they did. Just the attack on Pearl Harbor made many feel Japan should be wiped off the map.The fact that Japanese citizens here in the US were put into camps shows the hatred for them back then.
I'm sure there were plenty of men in the military and government back then that wanted to get some big time payback on the Japanese and saw the A-bomb as a way to do it. Back then, I'm sure there were many who felt the Japanese would make good "lab rats" to test the effects of the bomb .
It seems to me you have to take into consideration the hatred, desire for revenge, and prejudice, in mens minds back then when considering why we used the bomb, if you are going to be honest about it.

Uncle Frank

:?

 

[Nuala]

Back then, I'm sure there were many who felt the Japanese would make good "lab rats" to test the effects of the bomb.

Considering the very people who created the atomic bomb were horrified at what it's long term effects were. I believe Oppenheimer was devastated over the aftermath of the bomb. I think the anger towards Japan is much alike the anger towards Muslims today in regards to September 11th, 2001. In fact, it's very much the same if you think about it.

Here we are, trying to avoid being dragged into another global conflict, and Japan goes ahead and attacks Pearl Harbor. It obviously hit citizens of the United States very hard when it occurred. And despite the fact that we put Japanese into isolated camp communities, it's not as though they lived in squalor or were tortured. I think that was more of a response to the inability to determine whether or not the Japanese community in the USA would also attack or otherwise impede the war effort. It wasn't because we hated them, although considering the mood and paranoia at the time, I can't say I wouldn't have thought the same way.

I'm taking this from my great aunt, who actually stayed in one of those camps, my grandmother, and my mother, who all lived through WW2.