Hiroshima and Nagasaki

While most may not remember the details, they do know about that famous B-29 bomber which dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan, for all practical purposes ending World War Two. The Smithsonian has completed a cosmetic restoration of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the bombs, and is now on display. As expected, a large sized hullabaloo has arisen over the way Harry Truman decided to end the war. Various old saws are paraded about, such as the hackneyed and untrue one that, "The Japanese had already sued for peace," "Atomic weapons shouldn't have been used," and "Unnecessary lives were lost." After 60 years, a lot of facts have been lost, buried, or conveniently forgotten. Allow me to refresh your memory.

The Japanese hadn't sued for peace at all, but were continuing the war, as if nothing had happened, vowing to kill all the POW's if they lost. As each island was captured, it was discovered that Allied prisoners had been shot, beheaded, drowned, burned, or in some other way killed in the most unmentionable atrocities. The professional hand wringers remember two dates: August 6th, 1945, when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and August 9th, when a larger one was dropped on Nagasaki. Here are a few more pertinent dates, which will explain August 6th and 9th, 1945.

Even though the Jap navy had been largely sunk, air force decimated, and factories destroyed, they fought on, as if all was going well. They considered themselves to be a superior race, which could not be beaten by inferior 'white devils.' Then came the B-29 "Super Fortress." On the nights of March 9 and 10, the largest air raid in history took place over Tokyo, with 279 B-29's unloading fire bombs, totally destroying 16 square miles of that city with five million inhabitants. 63% of the commercial district, and 18% of the remaining industrial capacity was destroyed in these raids. 250,000 buildings were destroyed, and possibly as many as 100,000 killed. The flames could be seen a hundred miles at sea by the crews, as they returned to their home bases or carriers. Next month, the B-29's came back again, further destroying Tokyo. Still, the Japanese acted as if nothing had happened, continued to kill POW's, and believing Tojo's words, that all was going well. The 'white devils' were being smashed.

On May 24th and 25th, the Super Fortresses came back again, this time another record being set, with 558 planes over Tokyo, this time destroying half the city, with 56.3 miles being reduced to ashes. Still no surrender. By the end of June, 13 million Japanese were homeless, and 58 smaller cities were being hit. On July 10th, 2,000 planes were in the air over Japan. B-29's, as well as fighters were bombing everything in sight, and even dropping leaflets, giving the schedules as to what cities were next in line.

Surrender was not in the Jap lexicon. Rather than being taken prisoner or surrendering, hundreds of thousands of them committed hari-kari. On Iwo Jima, 21,000 Jap soldiers died, and on Okinawa, 70,000. The Emperor expected them to resist to the death, and they followed instructions. On July 26th, Japan was told to give up or face prompt and utter destruction. On August 1st, 836 B-29's again broke records for the largest bomb drop, and number of planes in air raid history. No reply.

Truman had enough. He knew the Japs had promised no POW would be spared, and an invasion of the mainland would cost a million lives of both the Japs and Allies. There was absolutely no reasoning with them. On August 6th, the Enola Gay (maiden name of the pilot's mother) came over Hiroshima at 31,600 feet, and dropped "Little Boy," killing perhaps 100,000. After the drop, Truman said that Japan must give up or, "Face a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which had never been seen on this earth." No reply. Three days later, on August 9th, "Fat Man" was dropped over Nagasaki, killing perhaps another 50,000. Still no surrender. Finally, on August 15th, almost a week after Nagasaki had been destroyed, and over a week after Hiroshima, the Japanese surrendered.

The Americans had warned, pleaded, begged, threatened, and done everything in their power to end the war with a civilized surrender. The Japs wouldn't give up, in spite of the Allies virtually destroying their major cities, minor cities, navy, air force, manufacturing capability, capturing their outposts, and making every possible conventional war move. It was necessary to do what was done. The Japanese would have fought to their last man, killing every prisoner they held along the way, and obliterating their nation from the face of the earth, probably thinking that in the after-life, they would receive just rewards for fighting the 'white devils.' Truman did what he had to do, and saved the most lives in the process.

The dropping of those two nuclear bombs on Japan, save at least a million lives, and shortened the war by many months. Those that choose not to recognize that America tried over and over again to get them to surrender, without success, ignore the figures as borne out by history. The death rate in the Jap POW camps was 27%, and in German ones, 4%, The Holocaust did not take place in POW camps. The Germans obeyed the Geneva Convention as best they could, and the Japs didn't even try. The Jap POW camps were so lethal, that few returning veterans would even speak of them, and most of the WW II stories and film, ignore the Jap camps, they were so brutal and death dealing. I can see no wrong in remembering and approving the final act which ended that hideous war. The true crime, was FDR getting us into it in the first place. I still will not own anything Japanese, and am glad to admit it.

Your assertion that "this was a racist war" implies that the war was fought purely on the mutual dislike or hatred between the U.S. and the Japanese.

You may infer anything you like. I doubt there was an American anywhere, including Roosevelt, whose reasoning was, "I hate these people. Let's fight them." Yet, I can tell you from many discussions with people that were right on the point of the fighting that Americans with guns were happy to kill Japanese by the bushel (as G. C. Scott would have said).

I believe American fighters respected the Japanese without any love lost for them. In fact, I think so many Americans hated the Japanese like the devil hates holy water.

I don't think the Japanese had much respect for anything that wasn't Japanese.

First you said it wasn't in the context, and then you said it was. Which is it? Most likely anyone using the phrase "Jap" means it in a derogatory way. But even you stated that certain people can use what are considered derogatory words if it is in the right context.

Context is key. Some terms are more derogatory than others, and have narrower contexts in which they're not offensive. I can imagine situations where "Jap" wouldn't be offensive to someone of Japanese ancestry, but it would have to be from someone who shares that ancestry or from a close friend.

The context in which we use words depends on whether we're inside or outside the group described. Someone in a wheelchair who calls himself a "gimp" is making a different statement from someone standing on two healthy legs using the same word. It's a question of a label that is chosen, often for mocking and ironic reasons, as opposed to one that is imposed.

I don't hate Japanese people, so I don't see how calling someone a Jap is any worse than calling someone a Brit as long as you don't hate that person or group.

I don't hate black people, but they don't automatically know that, so they are unlikely to take "n---er" in a friendly spirit unless I'm a close friend, and they already know how I feel about them.

To me, racial slurs are a form of obscenity. Even in the Jim Crow South, when blacks were clearly second-class citizens, my grandmother would never use the word n---er, because she knew her mom would swat her for it. Racial politics aside, it's a rude, ugly word not befitting use by decent people.

I'm comfortable talking trash with my friends, but would never call a stranger a M'F---er unless I wanted to offend him and wanted him to know that I wanted to offend him.

I call Germans "Krauts" even though I have German ancestry. A "Kraut" was (and maybe still is) considered very derogatory fifty years ago.

"Kraut" is archaic enough that the listener is likely to assume it's mocking and ironic, like Frog or Limey. Like the "Fenian" usage I mentioned in my earlier post.

Remember the race merchants feel perfectly fine calling certain groups "people of color". But if you called someone a "colored" person, you'd be accused of being a racist by those same people.

The two aren't comparable. "Colored" is a term foisted on people of African ancestry by Caucasians. "People of color" is a term chosen by many non-Caucasians (inclusive of African, Asian, American Indian, etc.) to describe themselves.

And whether calling someone "colored" will brand you a racist depends largely on your age. If you're "of a certain age," it will be assumed to be habitual -- after all, Thurgood Marshall referred to himself as a "Negro" well after that term fell out of favor, and possibly to the end of his life. I can't, as the Brits like to say, be arsed to look it up just now.

To come back to my example, being called a "Fenian bastard" by a fellow inebriate in high-spirited joshing is very different from the same phrase spoken by an RUC magistrate with a plexiglass shield and a truncheon during marching season.

Context matters, because it matters not just what you say, but what the listener hears and how he reads your intent. I'm not talking about excessive political correctness or hypersensitivity, just the kind of reading people out that works in 99.9% of face-to-face human interactions (the Internet is different, lacking body language, and "emoticons" are a piss-poor substitute).

Are you saying the racist feelings of both sides were the cause of hostilities ? yes or no ?

Of course not. The war in the Pacific was caused when the Japanese put imperialist notions into practice starting in China together with the fact that they hated just about everything that walked or crawled that wasn't Japanese. Then the United States started applying pressure on trade commodities to try to rein in some Japanee aggression. Then the Japanese retaliated by attacking the United States.

There is so much nostalgia regarding the D-Day invasion on the Normandy beaches and the heroism of the miracle of the infantry as Stephen Ambrose liked to call it. When you compare the casualty rates of D-Day to invasion after invasion in the Pacific, it says right here that Normandy was, by comparison, a walk in the sun.

I simply feel that the ferocity of the campaigns in the Pacific was the result of the Japanese first treating all non Japanese worse than they would treat a bacterium. Then they would rather die to the last man than lose to such subhuman creatures.

I never noticed most white folk I have known dwelling on natural white superiority. The fact is, I can't imagine most white folk even thinking such a thing. Yet I have talked to white folk that were in as front of the front lines in the Pacific as you could go without joining the Japanese Army. The ones that I talked to felt you could never kill enough Japanese to satisfy worldly necessity. These people hated the Japanese in kind. Those in Europe that felt that way about the Germans were the exceptions. I believe those in the Pacific that felt that way about the Japanese were the rule.

Yes, I do believe that the war in the Pacific was a racist war or one that race was a factor in how the sides behaved.

Do I think the Americans were as vile as the Japanese? I think the facts speak for themselves unless there was some secret site in Wyoming for using Japanese for guinea pigs for medical experiments (or a litany of other items) that I am oblivious to. However, I think most Americans shared Halsey's thoughts on a "good Jap."

I also think when the hostilities ended the Americans generally set aside their behavior. Americans have generally had difficulty maintaining the intensity of hatred for the long haul. My Dad who was at the front of the front at Iwo Jima and the back of the front at Okinawa even has a friend who is Nisei. Yet I know he is still uncomfortable with the "concept" of Japanese. I bet he isn't alone.

Well, I can concede the point that you are making that there were racist feelngs on both sides once hostilities WERE UNDER WAY, but it was not that way prior to the war at least on the American side.

When you call it a "racist war" your characterization/desrciption by default, means a war caused by, driven by, or fought for reasons of racism. It can only mean one thing. It's a description that distorts and paints the entire struggle on both sides, as one where the participants were driven to war by racist feelings as their primary reason. It's simply not true.

In fact I'd say it was just the opposite for the USA. We sent the AVG over to China to protect, fight and die for their cause. We defended ourselves and took the fight to them, to put a stop to Japanese aggression. Whatever feelings towards the Japanese that came out of that on our side, were a byproduct of the war and not the cause.

You wrote "The war in the Pacific was caused when the Japanese put imperialist notions into practice starting in China together with the fact that they hated just about everything that walked or crawled that wasn't Japanese. Then the United States started applying pressure on trade commodities to try to rein in some Japanee aggression. Then the Japanese retaliated by attacking the United States."

Instead of calling it a racist war I would describe it as a war that was caused when the "Japanese put imperialist notions into practice", while the USA was just trying to defend itself and "rein in" and defeat "Japanese aggression"

I guess you agree with me, thanks.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.