That's true, Kaleea.

It is humans who tell other humans what to do, the other humans make the mistake of believing them, and the past repeats itself.

When Stalin became aware of the Bomb (which he did following Hiroshima, I believe...), he devoted every resource possible to catching up with the USA. That was a tremendous social setback for the people of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In fact, the massive military spending by Russia, trying to keep up technologically with the West, was precisely what doomed their system to failure in the end. Ironical, isn't it? Fear results in actions which eventually destroy the fearful...one way or another...quickly or slowly.

troll - Here's my take on the war with Japan. All the involved powers were guilty of various forms of self-interest which led inevitably to that war. The Japanese undoubtedly bear the largest burden of guilt, and their behaviour was the worst by far, but they were not alone in that.

To make a carte blanche statement that American servicemen "died in vain" if the dropping of the A-bomb was not necessary is simplistic. You can't just divide things like that into black and white and say...it's ALL white or it's ALL black.

I find it odd that no one ever questions why it was necessary to demand UNCONDITIONAL surrender of the Japanese??? Why "unconditional"? The whole concept of unconditional surrender seems to have really started with Ulysses S. Grant back in the Civil War...yet before Grant conditional surrender was the normal thing...one fought until it was clear one side couldn't win, then one negotiated a settlement. This was done for the benefit of both victor and vanquished, and usually saved a LOT of lives.

It was the subsequent American fixation on unconditional surrender which stretched the war with Japan out far beyond any sensible point. This was also somewhat true of the war with Germany, although Hitler was the particular problem there, so that is a bit different situation (he was unwilling to negotiate, and no one would negotiate with him either...this was a key reason for assassination attempts by various Germans on Hitler, by the way).

The Japanese knew very well after the Battle of the Phillipine Sea that defeat was inevitable (their Navy had been rendered virtually helpless, and without their Navy they were doomed). It became even more clear after Leyte Gulf. There were strong factions in the Japanese armed forces and the government who were quietly seeking a negotiated way out of the war...BUT...the USA gave them absolutely NO room for maneuver by constantly and continuously demanding unconditional surrender. In this manner the USA ensured the dominance of the most extreme hawks in the Japanese Army who were determined to fight to the last man, woman, and child in Japan, if necessary! Pretty dumb move, if you seriously wish to end a war.

Not only was the concept of unconditional surrender almost psychologically inconceivable to the Japanese, and unprecedented in their history, it also appeared to endanger the life of their Emperor, who was actually a "god" in the eyes of most of his people.

Had there been one iota of perception of the human realities in that situation on the part of the Allies, they would have negotiated with Japan, secured a conditional surrender sometime in 1944, sparing the Japanese total humiliation and psychological death, and would have saved a great many lives on BOTH sides, not just the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That no one in the USA ever asks why it was unjustified to seek unconditional surrender in the first place is quite amazing. It's a form of wilful blindness. The truth hurts, so let's just not ever even mention it, and hopefully no one will notice after awhile.

Most wars in history have been ended by conditional negotiations. When Japan fought Russia over Port Arthur, it ended with conditional negotiations. They did not feel it necessary to go all the way to Moscow, and make every Russian get down on his knees, did they? When they destroyed the Russian fleet at Tsushima some of the Russian ships surrendered. It was not felt necessary to sink them ALL. For some reason, as we have proceeded into what are termed "modern" times the precedent has gone more and more towards total destruction of ALL enemy forces, however. This does not speak well for our civilization.

In 1945 the USA bombed and sank numerous Japanese Navy vessels that were sitting helplessly in port with no fuel in their tanks, and nowhere to get that fuel. They did their best to sink every last one of them. So why sink them? What for? What good would it do anyone and whose life would it save? Those ships were no longer capable of threatening American lives (unless directly attacked, in which case they might shoot down a few American pilots with their AA guns). Yet these actions have never been even questioned. They should have been. And the A-bombs should never have been dropped.

People who demand unconditional surrender of others in wartime are people who are caught up in massive hubris and tremendous hatred, people who don't respect their enemy or consider him to be truly human, and people who simply lack wisdom.

In other words...people pretty much like the Japanese commanders who perpetrated the Rape of Nanking. Those Japanese commanders were a gloriously self-righteous bunch of chaps too, by the way...so certain of their moral superiority. Ah, yes...it's a common conceit of the victors.

And that's why the A-bombs need never have been dropped on those 2 cities. (In any case, I very much doubt the bombs were dropped to "shorten" the war, I think they were dropped primarily for certain other reasons...but we've debated about that before at great length.)

- LH