Bharat Rakshak

Check Biden here

Primus wrote:
Why were the German Americans not interned in camps in the US? Was it just that there were too many of them? What about Italian Americans? Weren't we at war with them too?

Internment of German Americans

They were interned in both ww1 and ww2. And were classified as "enemy aliens" just like their japanese brethren.

The number of Americans of German descent is around 15-17% today, I dare say it was perhaps even higher in 1939, so absolute numbers do not matter. The US would never ever drop a nuke on Israel even with the much smaller Jewish population here, there is no way they would have dropped one on Germany. It does not matter that Oppenheimer was German or how many of the men working on Project Manhattan were.

The percentage was not higher in 1939. It was less than 10%. The US would never drop a nuke on Israel because Israel hasn't started a world war. It's a ridiculous argument. I can also say the US would never drop a nuke on brown Indians, it does not pertain to the discussion at all.

There actually is hard evidence of US considering Germany as a nuke target. FDR is on record asking his underlings to be ready to drop it on Germany and the underlings are on record stating they never thought there was any doubt in FDR's expression.

It's kinda like saying India would never drop a nuke on pakis for Balakot. Well yeah, there is not enough reason to. It's not because we think pakis and us share the same ancestry either. The US didn't have enough reason to nuke Germany at that time, it is just as simple as that.

Fun fact: US produced so many purple hearts, around 1.5 million, for their invasion of Japan that they're still using that stock even today. Germans were just too eager to surrender and simply not worth the nuke.

Lisa wrote:^ An April 1945 report projected casualties of 1,202,005—including 314,619 killed and missing—in Operations Olympic and Coronet, and more if either of the campaigns lasted more than 90 days."

Why would the Americans risk these casualties rather than a nuke?

I am not batting for the Japanese at all, not saying they were not capable of horrific things themselves - in fact they did. I've been to Japan and they are the most racist people I've come across, that includes 'red-necks' in the deep south of America. It is also true that Japan was bombed because of the fear of potential loss of life on the American side in a conventional war - after all, that is the very reason a nuke would be employed by any side. That, IMHO in no way takes away the horror of a nuclear bomb dropping out of the clear sky on a civilian population. And I still maintain that there was always an element of race in the war against Japan - possibly on both sides.

^^^The element of race was always there, but the objective was to end the war with least amount of US casualties. Japan was determined to fight to the last man, woman and child. Emperor Hirohito declared surrender on 15 August 1945 some 3 days after the Nagasaki bombing on 12 August 1945. Even then US forces remained skeptical and plans to drop at least 2 more were being drawn.

m_saini wrote:

Primus wrote:
Why were the German Americans not interned in camps in the US? Was it just that there were too many of them? What about Italian Americans? Weren't we at war with them too?

Internment of German Americans

They were interned in both ww1 and ww2. And were classified as "enemy aliens" just like their japanese brethren.

Thank you, I stand corrected, there does seem to be differences in percentages and first vs second gen internees, I've also read that a lot of the German and Italian internment was prompted by business interests and were those who supported the Bunds, but I concede your point. Anecdotally I have Japanese friends whose parents were interned and I have Germans in the family (by marriage) who had no internment in their entire extended family. But that is of course anecdotal. I accept that.

The number of Americans of German descent is around 15-17% today, I dare say it was perhaps even higher in 1939, so absolute numbers do not matter. The US would never ever drop a nuke on Israel even with the much smaller Jewish population here, there is no way they would have dropped one on Germany. It does not matter that Oppenheimer was German or how many of the men working on Project Manhattan were.


The percentage was not higher in 1939. It was less than 10%. The US would never drop a nuke on Israel because Israel hasn't started a world war. It's a ridiculous argument. I can also say the US would never drop a nuke on brown Indians, it does not pertain to the discussion at all.

I was referring to race being a factor and lobbying being another.

In 1940 the whites were 90% of the population, of which 10% were foreign born of which the second highest group was Germans (1.2 million). AFAIK there are no records of ancestry from that period, have not found any. So will accept that their percentage of the total population may not have been as much as it is today but please post data from the US Census which shows it was less than 10%.

There actually is hard evidence of US considering Germany as a nuke target. FDR is on record asking his underlings to be ready to drop it on Germany and the underlings are on record stating they never thought there was any doubt in FDR's expression.

One general's recollection from a conversation with Roosevelt. Would they have really carried it out in the final analysis. I can't find any data to suggest that, if so please post it.

It's kinda like saying India would never drop a nuke on pakis for Balakot. Well yeah, there is not enough reason to. It's not because we think pakis and us share the same ancestry either. The US didn't have enough reason to nuke Germany at that time, it is just as simple as that.

Not arguing with the need when it arises. I can't simply see India dropping a nuke in first use on any country, that too on a city. I just cannot believe that a country that was founded on the basis of racist supremacy as a divine mandate would not consider that fact when using nukes. That's all.

No more from me on the nuke issue. I am however always interested in the racial demographics of the US.

Primus wrote: Anecdotally I have Japanese friends whose parents were interned and I have Germans in the family (by marriage) who had no internment in their entire extended family. But that is of course anecdotal. I accept that.

You would not be wrong. Japanese were far less in number than Germans on the American mainland and hence were placed in internment at a far higher percentage. It was however reversed in places like Hawaii where the Japanese population was much higher and consequently only a few japanese were subjected to internment. Yet again, race was not a factor, only population.

...but please post data from the US Census which shows it was less than 10%.

From the wiki link I posted: "By the time of WWII, the United States had a large population of ethnic Germans. Among residents of the United States in 1940, more than 1.2 million persons had been born in Germany, 5 million had two native-German parents, and 6 million had one native-German parent."

So a total of around 12.2 million out of some 147 million americans.

One general's recollection from a conversation with Roosevelt. Would they have really carried it out in the final analysis. I can't find any data to suggest that, if so please post it.

The General who was the head of the Manhatten project and people tend to not forget any conversations with head of state on where to drop the nukes. Anyway, there were other recollections too. And there is plenty of data available that by the time the nukes were ready, Germany was a spent force and the invasion of japanese islands had not begun. The question of nuking Germany in final ananysis does not come into play. Even with Japan, the idea of nuking Tokyo was floated at first but rejected in favor of some remote target in Micronesia. That didn't mean Tokyo was spared because of presence of Japanese americans.

Not arguing with the need when it arises. I can't simply see India dropping a nuke in first use on any country, that too on a city. I just cannot believe that a country that was founded on the basis of racist supremacy as a divine mandate would not consider that fact when using nukes. That's all.

No more from me on the nuke issue. I am however always interested in the racial demographics of the US.

Japanese were considered "white" at first and it was only later (late 19th century) that they were "downgraded" to yellow just like the Italians and Irish were later "upgraded" to white. Even Hitler considered the Japanese as "fellow Aryans". So the respect for Japanese was always there and white supremacist ideology did not extend to them. I just find it hard to believe there was any racism involved in nuking them.

Deleted.

m_saini wrote:

Primus wrote: Anecdotally I have Japanese friends whose parents were interned and I have Germans in the family (by marriage) who had no internment in their entire extended family. But that is of course anecdotal. I accept that.

You would not be wrong. Japanese were far less in number than Germans on the American mainland and hence were placed in internment at a far higher percentage. It was however reversed in places like Hawaii where the Japanese population was much higher and consequently only a few japanese were subjected to internment. Yet again, race was not a factor, only population.

Not to belabor the point, but at maximum, 11,000 people of German origin were interned, these were mainly those who were 'aliens', many of them with hostile intent as in members of Bunds. In some cases, their wives and children voluntarily accompanied them and were allowed to. In contrast, over 120,000 Japanese were interned, including second generation (born in the US and thus Citizens). Many of the Germans were captured in Latin America and sent to the US. So not only 10 times as many Japanese were interned, but as a percentage of their population in the US at the time it would be much much higher. If that is not racism I don't know what is.

...but please post data from the US Census which shows it was less than 10%.

From the wiki link I posted: "By the time of WWII, the United States had a large population of ethnic Germans. Among residents of the United States in 1940, more than 1.2 million persons had been born in Germany, 5 million had two native-German parents, and 6 million had one native-German parent."

So a total of around 12.2 million out of some 147 million americans.

I too had looked at that same article on Wiki - the section you quote references another article written by a Jewish group - I had read that one too, nowhere does it mention the German population precisely in those numbers. It has a disclaimer at the bottom that their 'research' was done based on 'online keywords', they did not even look at the US census data or other primary sources. It was simply a 'google search' job. Totally unreliable - they even say Germans in the US today number 60 million, which is not supported by the US census data at all. Even if we believe the numbers in the Wiki article (for which no reference is cited), it still does not state how many actually claim German ancestry - no mention of grandparents for example. It only limits to native German parents, i.e. parents born in Germany. Germans have been in the US since the 1600s. In the 1800s alone, 8 million landed here.

The numbers I posted of the white population of the US being 90%, the foreign born Germans being 1.2 million is taken directly from the US census tables of the 1940 census. If the Germans form the majority ethnic group in America today, when the whites are only 60%, do you think when the whites were 90% they would still not have been the majority, i.e. definitely more than 10%?

................./snip

Japanese were considered "white" at first and it was only later (late 19th century) that they were "downgraded" to yellow just like the Italians and Irish were later "upgraded" to white. Even Hitler considered the Japanese as "fellow Aryans". So the respect for Japanese was always there and white supremacist ideology did not extend to them. I just find it hard to believe there was any racism involved in nuking them.

well, Hitler considered many individuals and groups as 'honorary Aryans' because they were allied with him or were otherwise useful, that included the Japanese. For what that is worth, the US census considered Indians as white for a brief period in 1970.

My point is simply this. Having lived in the West for over 35 years, facing racism in ways that are sometimes very subtle, I find it very hard to accept that there was no racial prejudice against the Japanese during WWII. There is also no doubt in my mind that the overall picture has improved significantly, despite what the BLM people would say. But it still remains that in 1940 America was still quite racist in its heart, despite claiming the opposite on paper- there is simply too much historical evidence to support that - not just in the popular literature but news and other media from the time.

Anyway, this is really OT now for this thread, so I will stop here.

Primus wrote: If that is not racism I don't know what is.

Not to belabor the point either, but the Japanese were interned at a higher rate because of regional politics. In places like Hawaii where the japanese population was similar, around 150k, but a higher percentage of population (33%) only a handful , 1200-1800 were interned. Did the racism simply not exist in the kingdom of Hawaii?

Yes, racism most likely did play a role for Japanese in mainland US but the major reason was likely because they had no political representation. Otherwise, I fail to see why Hawaii loved their 33% Japanese so much.

I too had looked at that same article on Wiki - the section you quote references another article written by a Jewish group - I had read that one too, nowhere does it mention the German population precisely in those numbers. It has a disclaimer at the bottom that their 'research' was done based on 'online keywords', they did not even look at the US census data or other primary sources. It was simply a 'google search' job. Totally unreliable - they even say Germans in the US today number 60 million, which is not supported by the US census data at all. Even if we believe the numbers in the Wiki article (for which no reference is cited), it still does not state how many actually claim German ancestry - no mention of grandparents for example. It only limits to native German parents, i.e. parents born in Germany. Germans have been in the US since the 1600s. In the 1800s alone, 8 million landed here.

Sir you must be joking. That article by that Jewish group (don't know why you felt the need to point out their jewishness either) is not the source for the german ancestry data. The section i quoted had the reference *only* to the part where "11,000 ethnic Germans" were detained.

The actual reference is one just a couple paragraphs later. I'll post it here for convenience.

In the 1940 US census, some 1,237,000 persons identified as being of German birth; 5 million persons had both parents born in Germany; and 6 million persons had at least one parent born in Germany. Kashima, Tetsuden, ed. (1997). Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. Part 769: Personal justice denied. University of Washington Press. p. 289. ISBN 0-295-97558-X.

And it's pretty disingenuous to include Germans who migrated in 1600s in the ancestry for determining who gets nuked in 1945. The 6 billion of us probably share the same handful of ancestors, should we also assume that none of the countries would nuke others if they shared the same ancestor thousands of years ago in Africa? At what point does the ancestry boils enough inside to make one lobby their congressmen to not nuke a particular country?

The numbers I posted of the white population of the US being 90%, the foreign born Germans being 1.2 million is taken directly from the US census tables of the 1940 census. If the Germans form the majority ethnic group in America today, when the whites are only 60%, do you think when the whites were 90% they would still not have been the majority, i.e. definitely more than 10%?

No sir, the data is there. And I don't think making this extrapolation would be accurate anyway.

well, Hitler considered many individuals and groups as 'honorary Aryans' because they were allied with him or were otherwise useful, that included the Japanese. For what that is worth, the US census considered Indians as white for a brief period in 1970.

My point is simply this. Having lived in the West for over 35 years, facing racism in ways that are sometimes very subtle, I find it very hard to accept that there was no racial prejudice against the Japanese during WWII. There is also no doubt in my mind that the overall picture has improved significantly, despite what the BLM people would say. But it still remains that in 1940 America was still quite racist in its heart, despite claiming the opposite on paper- there is simply too much historical evidence to support that - not just in the popular literature but news and other media from the time.

Anyway, this is really OT now for this thread, so I will stop here.

I will agree that Hitler considered many to be fellow aryans so that was a bad example on my part.

I guess what I was trying to say was that even though racism exists today and no doubt existed during ww2, it didn't play a part in determining who gets nuked and who doesn't. At least there is no evidence supporting that. The facts remain that Germany had practically surrendered by then while the invasion of Japan was only ever going to pan out a single way due to geography.

Another way of looking at it is this. Trump, being Trump, isn't hammering China with sanctions and duties because China is yellow. He is doing it because China threatens their pole position. And US have that trade war with Germany, Canada and even India but not to the extent of China. Does it mean India, Germany etc are being spared because of their diasporas?

Or does it simply mean there is no reason to sanction brown Indians and white Germans on the level of yellow chinese? Just like there was no reason to nuke ww2 germany.

Everytime I read news like this I chuckle and have "told you so" moment. Just wait till number of islamists go up by another %.
You will have to revert back to your crusaders form.

Fox Valley Technical College announces spokesman has resigned, days after his social media comments on Islam, Black Lives Matter surfaced
https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news ... 340433001/
On Friday, Jossart called the Black Lives Matter movement "a disgrace" in response to an article about two Black, pro-life activists being arrested outside an abortion clinic. The same day, he commented, "Yes, get rid of the anti-American filth causing cancer to our nation," on a post about Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who is a Muslim.

Responding to a LinkedIn post of an opinion article from The Jerusalem Post, Jossart on Thursday commented, "Islam is all over the world infiltrating every nation, and (Joe) Biden wants their beliefs in our already tainted public school curriculum."

YouTube bans videos containing hacked information that could interfere with the election
https://www.cnet.com/news/ahead-of-dnc- ... formation/
YouTube has also tried to secure its platform from foreign actors. Last week, the company said it banned almost 2,600 channels linked to China as part of investigations into "coordinated influence operations" on the site. YouTube also took down dozens of channels linked to Russia and Iran that had apparent ties to influence campaigns.

I believe the US was far more racist in 1940 than it is today, that has to have been of some importance in any decision they made during the War. In Hawaii, there were far less racial differences, i.e. the Japanese population was higher but correspondingly the whites were fewer, physical appearances after all do contribute a lot to racism, it maybe the reason why so few were interned in Hawaii, of course along with the political and social influence that existed. However, I still maintain that if the Japanese were white, they would not have been nuked. There is no way to prove or disprove it, let is leave it as an opinion if you will.

As far as ancestry goes, my German relatives were all born here, including their great-grandparents and beyond, so they are 4th or 5th generation, but they still identify themselves as of German heritage and carry the same last name, which is how we have 45-50 million Americans of German ancestry in the US today. I looked at all the census data from 1940 directly from the US gov site and they do not have ancestry other than of foreign born listed, at least I could not find it.

Years from now when our children have married and remarried, they will still be 'Indian American' in their ancestry, as long as there is at least one Indian in each generation, whether born here or not. You cannot base ancestry calculations on just the parents of a given population, it has to extend to grand parents and beyond, especially if there is continued representation by one ethnic group in each generation.

The US relation with China is not racially motivated, in 2020, this is less of a factor than it was in 1940. Trade practices with China and India are predominantly based on what is good for business. But, if race was not a burning issue in the US today, we would not have BLM and all the rioting that goes in its name (that's another story, don't want to get into it). However, the so called 'special relationship' with UK I believe is definitely influenced by shared racial, ethnic and linguistic heritage, apart from business interests.

More than all the wikipedia and google results, situation on the ground is, IMHO always relevant. Personal experience and anecdotal references are what color our perception and influence our thinking. Thus, people believe Southerners are very racist, but I've encountered more racism right here in New York and the opposite in rural Texas. People react to these 'gut feelings' more often than not. May not influence government policies but sure as hell influences voting and buying patterns.

^Respect your opinions saar and it is like you say, there is no way to prove or disprove, without a shadow of doubt, the racial elements and whether or not they affected the nuke delivery.

Personal experience and anecdotal references are what color our perception and influence our thinking.

Using your quote above and the fact that you have german relatives, I can't help but think that you might be overestimating, a bit, the power of german diaspora in 1940 to influence where the nuke went. From everything I've read and facts I've seen, there seems little to no evidence that "white power" came into play into which way the B-29s headed.

I'm not sure where one would find that explicitly written. None of that decision making would have made it to public domain. Ever. How whites wrapped up the whole genocide business and didn't label things as Germans killed Jewish is the only thing to go by. Everything was blamed on people no longer there Nazis and Hitler. They even got rid of cross and went with swastika. If they were not concerned about other white cousins, then why would not they have written truth in history books that it was Germans killing Jewish while all other white cousins cherished them on?

All sorts of genocides and atrocities were done by whites on non whites. Where does one find explicit paper trail for such orders or discussions?

I don't want to go on about the Germans vs Japanese any more, that horse is beaten to death.

Racism is inherent in any society, including ours, it is the the intensity and form that differs. One of the most poignant examples of how the blacks felt in a dominant, racist society was in South Africa. This was a country that had a majority black population and yet was ruled by a cruel white regime. Even after almost 30 yrs of 'freedom', that country still has wounds that will never heal. In rural South Africa, far removed from the major metros is where the people lived and grew up with the racial divide that dominated their daily lives. Although now liberated, they have not yet learnt how to cope with a different life. I saw the awe, the reverence, the pathetic groveling by old black men first hand. The younger generation grew up differently but the old ones remember and for them, even a dark skinned Indian represents the 'authority'. It is truly incredible and the stories you hear from them about how life was under the yoke of apartheid makes you shiver.

Everything we've read about how the Britshits treated our own people, Churchill's comments on the Bengal Famine are no different from how the Americans treated non-whites. It was in 1943 that Churchill deliberately allowed millions of Indians to die. Why is it then so hard to imagine the Americans (who had been slave owners and where experiments like the Tuskegee syphilis study went on till the 1960s) would not have practiced policies that were racist in 1940, although not overtly written down on paper.

The Britshits were racist in the 1980s, I've experienced it first hand. I find it very difficult to accept that they and their descendants in the US were anything but, forty years earlier.

darshan wrote:I'm not sure where one would find that explicitly written. None of that decision making would have made it to public domain. Ever. How whites wrapped up the whole genocide business and didn't label things as Germans killed Jewish is the only thing to go by. Everything was blamed on people no longer there Nazis and Hitler. They even got rid of cross and went with swastika. If they were not concerned about other white cousins, then why would not they have written truth in history books that it was Germans killing Jewish while all other white cousins cherished them on?

All sorts of genocides and atrocities were done by whites on non whites. Where does one find explicit paper trail for such orders or discussions?

Saar you raised some extremely valid points and tbh I was forced to rethink my stand. But the fact remains that there is not a single evidence even faintly suggesting that racism was a factor in determining who gets nuked. All the points you mentioned; Germans killing jews, hooked cross vs swastika, shifting blame for genocide etc had plenty of facts to convince even a layman that what is taught in history is plain wrong.

For a decision as big as dropping nukes, there should've been something, a recollection from a junior analyst perhaps or even Truman's side piece spilling the beans for some money etc but nothing. It'd be like believing that US knew about nau-gyarah and let it happen anyway or probably even helped. There are plenty of reasons to believe it to be true, hell there was even the interview of that general who said US wanted to get rid of 7 or 8 countries in middle east. And yet, I still don't believe it to be true. Similarly, I find it very hard to believe that US did not nuke Germany because they were fellow whites, or atleast it was never a deciding factor.

Primus wrote:Why is it then so hard to imagine the Americans (who had been slave owners and where experiments like the Tuskegee syphilis study went on till the 1960s) would not have practiced policies that were racist in 1940, although not overtly written down on paper.

Sir, the racist tendencies of Americans was never in question. I have no illusions of white americans being super secular and them considering all skin tones as equals. The contention always was whether on not race was a factor in americans not nuking germany. There was no policy at that time that only non-whites would be nuked, they took that decision as situation arose. The Japanese being non-whites was probably just a cherry on top to them not the entire cake.

The manner of attack on Peral Horbour created a sense of revange in the US. In a way it also lead to use of nuclear weapons on Japan. From militory point of view there are some considerations which favour use of nukes on Japan. Firstly Japanese are not expected to surrender like Germans. Kamakazi attacks created that image of Japanese and it may be true. War is Europe was over at that time. War fatigue already set in. The estimated cost in terms of soldiers killed in case of any invasion of Japan is simply too high at that time in a war wary nation. So what will even we or anyone as military and political leaders of US do if have a nuclear option? Logically use it. Was the second bombing was needed. By all accounts it was not. Could a mere naval blockade of Japan worked. It could have. Were US citizens racists in 1940s. I am sure of it. ( Discloser : I never been to US) But that was the only factor contributed to the use of nukes? I do not think so.

There was one more factor in the Japanese Surrender, while they debated after seeing the effect of Nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the million man Kwuantang Army collapsed and they had no defenses in the home Islands for an Attack from the North West, the Japanese leadership thought it was much better to surrender to Americans than possibly ending up in a Gulag. In fact fighting in Sakalin and Kuril Islands ended on 21 Sep 1945 and Trueman thought Stalin was stealing too much Japanese land enforced that Machuria must be given to China.

Yagnasri wrote:But that was the only factor contributed to the use of nukes? I do not think so.

There were tons of reasons on table to nuke both Japan and Germany as war went on and nuke weapons were being hurried up due to that. However, what one set of posters are saying is that it was lot easier to green light killing Japanese than Germans. There would have been many information leaks as US was heading to bomb German cities. There would have been many attempts from within the US establishment to prevent direct bombing of German cities. I'm sure that US has nukes information would have leaked out to Germans.

There were many US military folks were in subcontinent in those days and they were all ordered by US to look other way about british atrocities. This says that it would have been as clear cut decision to drop bombs on German cities as Japanese ones. If they did use it on her Germany then it would have most likely been on pure military target and not civilian. Though I don't think that they would have done it within European zone. To showcase they would have done it in Africa. I also believe that Allies would have gone with encircling of Germany and stalemate/cold war instead of nuking German citizens. For reasons not any different than how muslims get riled up against pagans even if killing each other day before.

Not everyone in US could relate to Japanese culture or Japan. Not that many people that could relate to would have been in gov't, academia, military, etc. This was not true when it came to Germans. Lot of Germans initially came to US as hired soldiers sent in by British. Then there is another angle of wanting to steal all German information. US had many venues available to deal with Japanese and nuke wasn't the only one. Japan wasn't coming to invade US anytime soon and Allies would have had more resources to throw towards Japan theater as Germans were fading. No one really forced US to resort to clean island by island. Stalemate could have been introduced or Allies could have taken fight to other theaters vs Japan. One can always write all sorts of reasons to justify it afterwards and island fighting is one of that. I also don't buy reason to revenge Pearl Harbor and see it as something being championed afterwards as a reason. Even as Germans were fading, I would have still nuked them to prevent Soviets from gaining any ground by stealing information. Japanese and everyone in the world would have got the message. After that US just had to make it look like that there at least few more ready to use in Japanese theater.

Not knowing exactly what nuke could do would have kept it out of main Europe. However, whites still would have wanted to find out exactly what it does. And they have always resorted to non Anglos to find out what something does.

US immediately embraced Japanese afterwards. What happened to revenge? Soviets had done nothing like Japanese but US could not embrace them and still "hate" Russians till this day but of course not enough to kill in genocidal manner. Korean war and embracing of chinese afterwards without extracting any revenge. We don't have to go too far in history either to see if US does really believe in revenge. One just has to study US decision to kill and keep killing in middle east. Numbers are already more than nukes. For example, actual culprits for 9/11, Saudis and pakistanis, are still intact. And they are all due to the choice of US alone.

Mort Walker wrote:Wow. Rioting in Lincoln Park area near Navy Pier. Having been there I thought this area was much safer than the south side of Chicago. This rioting seems organized by political parties or local netas.

The highest-end shopping area Magnificient Mile of Chicago. My daughter's lab is right there. Thank god she is home. University asked all the people working in the lab not to come to work that day.

Primus wrote:Eisenhower was not the President during WWII. He was a general and Supreme commander of the European forces but not the one who decided where the nukes would go.

Harry Truman was. He authorized nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Wikipedia page on Truman wrote: Truman was elected to the United States Senate from Missouri in 1934 and gained national prominence as chairman of the Truman Committee aimed at reducing waste and inefficiency in wartime contracts. Soon after succeeding to the presidency he authorized the first and only use of nuclear weapons in war.

m_saini wrote:The US would never drop a nuke on Israel because Israel hasn't started a world war. It's a ridiculous argument.

Neither did Japan. They attacked Pearl Harbor only after US warships blockaded their tankers. Blockading is considered a casu belli.

Mort Walker wrote:Japan was determined to fight to the last man, woman and child.

There were stories of Japanese people who actually came out and started waving at the Amrican planes that came into bomb. They were thinking that the war is over and happy to come out and show their solidarity with the victors.

Primus wrote:IHowever, the so called 'special relationship' with UK I believe is definitely influenced by shared racial, ethnic and linguistic heritage, apart from business interests.

This is true with Canada and Australia as well. The same can said about Canadian affinity to Australians. When we were visiting Toronto as tourists, we were on a bus that would take people around the various places of interest in that city. The guide asks people about which country they are from. When we said US (we being brown and all that) there was not much of enthu on the guide's part. She perfunctorily said "Welcome to Canada". The next group were WASPs from Australia. She was gushing almost prancing happily and said exuberent tone "Welcome. We Canadians get along very well with you Australians".

In my experience, US is the least racist of all the WASP countries I had the occasion to visit, even those in the midwest.

Vayutuvan wrote: Neither did Japan. They attacked Pearl Harbor only after US warships blockaded their tankers. Blockading is considered a casu belli.

Not true. Japanese may not have started the world war but they were actively colluding with Nazi Germany years before PH. The oil supplies continued even after the Nanjing massacre and despite Japan signing the Tripartite Pact. The oil only stopped flowing after Japan occupied French Indo-china.

m_saini wrote:Using your quote above and the fact that you have german relatives, I can't help but think that you might be overestimating, a bit, the power of german diaspora in 1940 to influence where the nuke went.

Had US nuke bombed Germany, how many Jewish people would have died? There were a few million Jews in German concentration camps till Germany capitulated. Couple that to the fact that most of the people who worked on the bomb (Manhattan Project) were Jewish from Germany/Hungary/Switzerland/Poland (Dantzig), you can very clearly see why the US wouldn't have bombed Germany.

Primus wrote:I don't want to go on about the Germans vs Japanese any more, that horse is beaten to death.

No, not yet. Saini ji, please do continue.

Primus wrote:The Britshits were racist in the 1980s, I've experienced it first hand. I find it very difficult to accept that they and their descendants in the US were anything but, forty years earlier.

I did too, early 1980s. But today's UK is much different from that UK of 1980s. I was in a cable car with a family of WASPs from South Africa going up Mt. Pilatus (second stage) in 1980s. When they said they are from SA, I had revulsion. But they were a bunch of or'nary tourists - no different from those Italians (who were not liked all that much in Switzerland) or Germans or other Europeans.

Yagnasri wrote:But that was the only factor contributed to the use of nukes? I do not think so.

Then please do explain why the US bombed civilians? They could have dropped one bomb on an important military manufacturing facility, another on a naval harbor, yet another on Japanese troop concentrations, and one more on the Emperor's residence etc?!!!

m_saini wrote:The oil only stopped flowing after Japan occupied French Indo-china.

But US did not join the war at that time. Without declaring war on Japan, they started supporting French, their race brothers.

Info leaking to Germans is not a very valid reason. For example, the Germans were clueless that their enigma code was broken and were surprised when allies landed on Normandy. Information about nukes was a thousand times more protected than the landing sites so it isn't very believable that Germans would've known about the bombers heading to Berlin when they had no idea about Normandy.

It's true US looked the other way about British atrocites in India. But they were also more than happy to look the other way about Japanese atrocities in China. Like you said actual culprits fo 9/11, the Saudis and Pakis are still intact so looking the other way is not limited to white people. It's determined by what's in it for US and there was nothing for US in investigating British atrocities in India.

Yes, noone forced US to island by island with Japanese but it's not because they were waiting for the nukes. The Allies dealt the same way with Germany too. They cleaned out Africa, greece etc before going in for German heartland. Why didn't the Allies just blockaded Germany instead of bombing them day and night? Did they hate the white Germans? This line of reasoning answers nothing imo.

darshan wrote:
Not knowing exactly what nuke could do would have kept it out of main Europe. However, whites still would have wanted to find out exactly what it does. And they have always resorted to non Anglos to find out what something does.

This I can definitely agree with. There were countries like Netherlands, France etc bordering Germany and then there was Vatican too so it's believable they were trying to avoid nuking Germany for fear of harming other Allies countries due to to then unknown nature.

Vayutuvan wrote: Had US nuke bombed Germany, how many Jewish people would have died? There were a few million Jews in German concentration camps till Germany capitulated. Couple that to the fact that most of the people who worked on the bomb (Manhattan Project) were Jewish from Germany/Hungary/Switzerland/Poland (Dantzig), you can very clearly see why the US wouldn't have bombed Germany.

Isn't this a bit contradictory? Why would the Jewish scientists who would've been held in concentration camps in Germany object to nuking the same German people? The nukes would not have landed anywhere close to those concentration camps.

And besides, there was a American POW camp in Hiroshima as late as April 1945 so it wouldn't have mattered anyway in Germany either.

m_saini wrote:Isn't this a bit contradictory? Why would the Jewish scientists who would've been held in concentration camps in Germany object to nuking the same German people? The nukes would not have landed anywhere close (1) to those concentration camps.

And besides, there was a American POW camp in Hiroshima (2) as late as April 1945 so it wouldn't have mattered anyway in Germany either.

(1) Why not?
(2) How many Americans perished?

Sire m_saini ji. Are you Maverick Saini?!!!

Would those arguing about Germans, Japanese and WW2 please step back and explain what this offers in terms of understanding the US *today* ? If not, please stop.

Edit: Sorry just saw the mod note. No more from me on this subject.

Another derailed thread.

now it is back on track.

Vayutuvan wrote:

Yagnasri wrote:But that was the only factor contributed to the use of nukes? I do not think so.

Then please do explain why the US bombed civilians? They could have dropped one bomb on an important military manufacturing facility, another on a naval harbor, yet another on Japanese troop concentrations, and one more on the Emperor's residence etc?!!!

they needed measurable data and hard evidence of the results, its immediate effects and also the long term effects on human beings that could only be obtained after the explosions.

two explosions were needed probably because they needed an apple to apple comparison and confirmation of the results without needless extrapolation of data from just one explosion

the politicians, the scientists and the soldiers often have differing perceptions, motives and end game objectives, with diversified expectations and anticipated resolutions arising from the very same events.

hiroshima and nagasaki were just two typical (but unfortunate) examples of cities that were chosen to prove the concept and provide incontrovertible data that, among many other things, was also used for further refinements of the weapon itself.

japan is a country of multiple islands where the radioactive damage and long term effects could be geographically better limited and therefore relatively more easily contained without the danger of contaminating the huge food producing and resource rich landmasses in europe.

with the twin explosions in japan, the politicians, the scientists and the soldiers all got what they wanted with minimal fuss and almost no public outcry for such a vile and inhuman act.

Had the same been done in europe, all three would not have got away as easily as they did.

Decades later and in hindsight, one is not talking about the practicality of using the nuclear bomb but the morality.

added later:

It looks like no one on the amreriki side including those in the manhattan project had much of a clue on the radiation aspects of the post explosion after effects.

when japanese reports of radiation deaths started to trickle in, the amerikis dissmissed them out of hand suggesting that the japanese were "sore losers" and were trying to defame the amerikis by raking up issues and false numbers trying to undermine the great technological wonder of the bomb.

macarthur, the de facto emperor of postwar japan had clamped down viciously on press reportage from hiroshima and nagasaki to "contain disturbing reportage" both by the ameriki press as well as the international press.

Censorship was rife for quite some time