Would the United Stated have used the bomb on white, West-European Germans?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kamrat X

Noone really knows what the long term effects of such exposure to radiation will be, but cancer cases are more common in Hiroshima and Nagasaki areas than in Japan as a whole.

There are many worse places to live for your health than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The most salient point which you almost make is that no one knew at the time what the short / medium / or long term effects would be. We were definitely experimenting on the job there.

I feel much sorrier for the Okinawans who were killed in larger numbers than the A-bomb casualties. The vast majority were Japanese in name only, many didn't even speak Japanese, yet they were used as cannon-fodder, human shields and forced laborers by the Japanese, had to give up significant tracts of land for Japanese air bases, and then took a million boxcars of ordinance from the Americans on their island of 450 square miles. They never clamored for war, they were a peaceful people who were not culturally Japanese but were being absorbed politically by Japan's aggressive colonial policy.

I lived there 20 years after the fact, and very few people who were there during the war would even talk about it. Everyone had lost family members, and some their entire immediate families. My uncle was severely wounded there, and so haunted by the civilian casualties during the battle that he and his wife adopted 4 Korean children who were orphaned in the Korean war a few years later.

[Zoid]

Firstly it´s still unclear which effects such a massive radiation dose has on the gene pool. They have created an entire research facility in Hiroshima just for this.

Secondly I refuse to choose one atrocity over another. The japanese´s extremly crappy treatment of the okinawans doesn´t in any way make it ok to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Q Classic]

it's not choosing one atrocity over another.

the japanese cruelly butchered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of chinese, koreans, taiwanese, okinawans, and other asians, in their imperial rampage through out asia.

they pain in civilian blood at hiroshima and nagasaki the cost of the murders they committed on civilians in those other countries.

[Hydey]

yes they would have as they did not realise the full destructive power of the A bomb until well after the war was ended, the radiation poisoning and birth defects are horendous.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
it's not choosing one atrocity over another.

the japanese cruelly butchered hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of chinese, koreans, taiwanese, okinawans, and other asians, in their imperial rampage through out asia.

they pain in civilian blood at hiroshima and nagasaki the cost of the murders they committed on civilians in those other countries.

Tell men how slaughtering 150 000 (mostly) innocent civilians serves justice. It´s not the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that killed the people of Okinawa and Manchuria and other places after all...

[Verto]

I thought this part of history was clear...

The Japanese were not going to surrender any part of the Japanese home land to the Allies. They were arming civilians and training them to fight - I think they considered Japan holy/sacred? In addition, the Japanese had learned where the Americans would have been landing if the invasion had gone through, and were prepared for it.

The estimated number of American/Allied deaths was significantly lower than the number after Hiroshim/Nagasaki. Would you prefer American soldiers dying, rather than the Japanese?

[Zoid]

I prefer noone dying. Besides, Japan would´ve surrendered anyway. It was a broken nation in the summer of 1945.

[DanS]

Yes, but they still had a lot of fight left.

Re how the U.S. population felt about Japan versus Germany in WWII, this is really a much more complicated matter than some here make it sound.

For one, the U.S. had already fought against Germany in World War I. Much of the cultural/racial playbook had already been scripted and was in the bookshelf. In short, there were huge pressures on German immigrants during World War I. It just makes sense that the view of the Japanese in WWII would be less settled than the view of the Germans in WWII.

Also consider that most Americans would have remembered the gas attacks in World War I, which were in most respects despicable weapons surpassing the "dirtiness" of nukes, even if the targets were normally military. Americans had no problems using gas against the Germans and Americans of German heritage had no qualms using gas against Germans. My great uncle (from a German family in the U.S. about 75 years) was gassed and died in a manner of equal agony to that of somebody who had radiation poisoning.

When you consider that we were fully prepared to blow the Germans to bits in Dresden, et al., I think it obvious that we would have dropped the bomb on Germany and would have been equally unapologetic about it.

[DanS]

A couple of things that would argue against my view, however...

(1) One of the main reasons we got into a scrape with Japan was because of our sanctions against them. Why did we have sanctions? Mostly because of their treatment of civilians in China, which had enflamed anti-Japanese feeling for much of the 30s.

I don't know how much Americans would remember of these times--perhaps not much--but this could have been part of the psychological justification for attacking civilian targets in Japan which wouldn't have existed for Germany (perhaps--I wonder how much had been made of Germany's treatment of civilians? I forget my history).

(2) Japanese "civilian" targets were often only civilian in name. Even the little kids were involved in war material production. Perhaps they were considered fair game because of this.

This wasn't nearly as pronounced in Germany, although admittedly it was becoming moreso toward the end of the war. We were fighting little kids by the time of the Bulge.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
Mostly because of their treatment of civilians in China, which had enflamed anti-Japanese feeling for much of the 30s

American sentiment towards Japan before 1940 was one of barely-suppressed neutrality.

In 1938, IIRC, when asked about their feelings about the Japan-China conflict only a bare plurality of Americans favoured China. Something like 80% did not favour either side.

[DanS]

Neutrality? Well, we were neutral until 1941 on all of the conflicts. Lots of divisions within American society.

Anyway, realize that your argument would then favor more equally poor treatment of the Japanese and German enemies.

I share this view, btw. The amount of ordinance we threw Germany's way was in no way inferior to what we threw at the Japanese. Nukes were only another type of ordinance.

[KrazyHorse]

I feel that the US hated Germany as much as Japan, but hated Japs more than Krauts...

[DanS]

But how does that then translate into the issue at hand?

[KrazyHorse]

Not at all. I've already stated that I'm of the opinion that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany readily enough.

I've also got a bad habit of diverting arguments from the original topic...

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, my opinion regarding the US and Japan in WWII is paralleled by my opinion regarding Canada and Japan. This isn't meant to be an American-baiting troll.