I wasn't trying to apologizes for the Japanese war crimes either; Both the US and Japan targeted civilians to gain advantages. If you look back, the majority of Japanese soldiers were a rather ferocious enemy. a Lots of hate was involved, but I suggest that the atrocities made by the war crimes criminal was to instigates fear on the occupied. On Chichi Jima island, it was reported that soldiers cannibalized americans pilots who fell. The reasons for this appears to have been that their foods supply were cut by the US. ( this show a rather gruesome determination to survive ) ------ Christie- true this, health care is funded with our taxes.

i think you are right

Never understimate the depths to which some good Americans will fall in defense of imperial atrocity.  The Japanese military state and society was guilty of horrible imperial crimes --- there's no argument about that.  But anyone who suggests that such crimes justify the planned incineration of tens/hundreds of thousands of that state's civilian subjects --- without military "necessity" and in pursuit of broad imperial Cold War objectives --- has become a moral monster in their own right.  And one does not advance a simplistic "US bad, rest of the world good" model (a childish thing to accuse me or other leftists of holding) when one observes that we have a good number of moral monsters in the U.S., where the leftmost of the two dominant corporate-imperial parties is just as eager as the Republicans to engage in denial of the ongoing Holocaust the U.S. is imposing on Iraq.

What a bad coughing, you know, it could be contagious. It may be related to your head combined with your swallowing motion, whilst on your knees. .. I don't get your point on Hiroshima, are you saying that Hiroshima deserved to be A-Bombed because it was filled with Korean Comfort Women ?

** cough, cough ** NANKING ** cough*** KOREAN COMFORT WOMEN ** cough cough

kelvin is a youngster for sure..

 

Below, is a picture of Hiroshima today, I have a friend who use to teach graphics with me who is back to her home in Hiroshima.

Paul's topic about about the A-Bomb falling there on civilians 60 years ago.
The structures may have changed but the geography remained the same. It is hard to believe that US psychopaths desintegrated this town, killing countless innocent women, children and babies.

 

If you'd show pictures of destroyed Hiroshima to kids, their eyes open
to this horror, it frightens them to realizes that pure evil exist. I think seeing old pictures of Hiroshima creates holes in their souls.

The US committed this horror against CIVILIANS to gain economical, political, military advantage over other nations. Hate must have been a factor. A thing remains amazing , it takes a courageous people to rebuild which was destroyed.

Really 22-23? I was thinking early 30's – it takes awhile to read all those books!

Jd I think you are very much sane and concise, I watched your debates with K Yearwood, F Christie, D Peterson in "Language and Politics" -- by Kelvin Yearwood, ( didn't know Kelvin could go that deep; he is a smarty) i almost got lost a bit but reading Herman helped me touch base.. How old do you think this Yearwood is ? 22 -23 ?

… but you know I'm taking my “free” US Medicare meds, Cyrano! So at least I'm trying to be sane :^)

I got the TKO here, anonymous may have self punched to TKO! Right on his own nose; can anyone believe this? please could someone call free medics? ( Je suis desolé, you can't have free medicare unless you go to Canada, France, Norway, Cuba, err Iran.

Yo… Brave “Anonymous”: And if killing babies with a surprise sucker punch does the trick, go for that, right? Do you love war? A “realist” doesn't care about justice, do they?—it's all about might makes right, right? What do you prefer, a flag or a poem? Hell, why be a humane human being at all, when you can be a deadly bomb, instead? Right? 1… 2… 3… (Really—are you serious?; or did I fail to see the punch-line?)

Frederic – great link: Stephen R. Shalom – The Obliteration of Hiroshima

There was no existing surrender because Japan had not raised the white flag. It is verbal masterbation to imply "if the US only waited, there would have been a surrender." You don't know that and that is not how wars are fought. I'm sorry that you don't like war. It is unpleasent but there are certain realities that go with it - death being foremost. The goal in war is to kill enough of the enemy so that the surviving enemies no longer have the will to fight. That alone should be the end of the discussion and shut your trap. In a fight, when someone's knees are buckling, you don't back off, you go for the KO. The a-bomb provided that KO. The distruction of Hiroshima and the failure of Japan to surrender immediately was not the knockout punch, hence one more blow to the head with Nagaski. If Japan was so close to surrendering as you claim, they would have surrender after the first bomb.

Correct me if I am wrong but Okinawa was bombed 2 days after The Japanese surrendered.

Your verbal gymnastics are not needed. It is quite simple. Two choices, each one will lead to high death counts. Choose which option you think will lead to lower casualties. The fact that there is a debate does not lead one to choose one option over the other. Read the last sentence again. Truman chose one option over the other. Now you can monday morning quaterback the choice and write 10 books about every nuance of the decision. You present your case as if the answer is so 100% obvious its like answering 2+2. Sorry, it's not so simple. This has been debated long before we were born (I assume) and there is still no one truth about this topic. Sorry it's not so black and white. I agree with Street's point that the documentary should not have presented using the bomb as black and white justified either. Presenting the fact that there is a moral dilemma regarding the bomb would have made more sense.

An invasion of Japan would have with 100% certainty resulted in many civilian deaths PLUS American military deaths. Perhaps more American military deaths than civilian deaths in the bomb attack. So they knew for sure, no matter what, that there would be civilian deaths. So what was left to decide was which was worse. Once again, no scientifically correct answer. Don't ignore the fact that only after the SECOND bomb did Japan surrender. This speaks volumes (at least to me) that Japan did have intentions of sacrificing many of its people (like they did in Okinawa and Iwo Jima) to avoid the "shame" of surrender. Although I believe the bomb was justified, I can at least admit that the choice was/is highly debatable, and by no means at allcertain to be the correct decision.

No, the argument is not ONLY "that it was a chaotic and difficult time." The basic argument for using the bomb, as I understand it, is that other alternatives would have led to much larger losses of life. Based on losses of life at Okinawa and Iwo Jima, and the suicidal/fight until we die behavior of (Kamikaze attacks as well) the Japanese in these battles, I think this thought pattern is reasonable. This of course can be debated ad nauseum and there really is no RIGHT ANSWER like 2+2=4. Now we mix in the fact that it was chaotic, 400,000 US troops were killed, the country had endured 4-5 years of non-stop war -- so sitting in the President's chair there was much to consider. For you though, it seems, given what you believe about the US today (criminal terrorist murderous state), you can apply this to 1945 to come up with this RIGHT ANSWER: The bomb was a murderous war crime like Bush in Iraq.

Your point (or Street's) about not discussing that there is a question over justification over using the bomb makes sense. I did not see the show, but going over the debate on the bomb (even if they come out on one side of it) makes sense. I personally like to hear all sides (which is why I spend time on this board). To truly assess the decision, one would need to engage in an enormous amount of primary research to draw conclusions (and opinions). The fact that Byrnes blocked petitions effectively shows that Byrnes was concerned that Truman would not drop the bomb.  (I have not closely studied this admittedly) He was clearly an advocate for it. In all major decisions there are advocates and detractors who will spin the data flow to support their position. No way around this human nature. It doesn't prove much. In effect, this actually supports the fact that Truman was not some cold blooded murderer who knew this was not the best choice, otherwise, no one would have needed to hide negative support for the bomb.

Part of my point is that no one on this board is truly a scholar of the bomb issue and has examined every piece of evidence regarding the use of the bomb.  Certainly not the all the bloggers that are sure this is part of one continuous US war crime.  The issues are quite complex, but the US haters basically dismiss all the "pro" (for lack of a better term) bomb arguments, concluding only that cold blooded criminal murder was the real choice here. The people who think the bomb was a crime are simply the people who think Bush, and the US throughout history, is a criminal state. This is the only connection they are making, and it is lame in my opinion. I suppose they will view all US military action in history as a war crime, and thus this conclusion, means that every action within the war is also a war crime of part of a larger war crime.

Last point, of course I don't think "Unjust war actions are good." What is an "unjust" war is so exceedingly hard to define though. On this I think we can agree.

Frankm—I don't think History is completely ambiguous. I think Paul Street's major point in his blog entry, was that Ken Burns' documentary didn't address the “it was a mistake to drop the nuclear bomb” side of the controversy—thus misinforming the public, (and I would ad, in remote extension, possibly making the use of excessive military force a little more probable for those educated only by such perspectives [like your daughter?] who consequently make decisions based on that education). We may not know exactly how scared and desperate the folks in WWII were at the time, but stuff like “Just War Theory” has been around in one form or another since at least the time of Cicero. You probably know the phrase, “those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it”—well knowing history can be enhanced by examining it too, and by making judgments. It's not so much about “Monday morning quarterbacking” as about watching the tapes of the game, and learning from them (especially when it's not a “game”). Are you not at all curious as to why then Secretary James F. Byrnes, Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, Colonel Leslie Groves, et al. blocked the petitions by various Manhattan Project scientists against using the bomb directly, so that they were never seen by President Truman? The “quarterback” wasn't even fully informed! Do you think such Machiavellian tactics are irrelevant today? At a general level, there are deep connections between past and present, if not 100% in the specifics. I personally don't equate the “US” with “horrible”—but do you think Unjust war actions are good?

The causes of each war, the armies, the leaders, etc. have NOTHING to do with each other. NOTHING. Tell me how Hiroshima and Iraq are connected in any way, specifically (not things like they are both wars or they are both examples of how I think the US is a crimanal terrorist state). Saying that the US has committed atrocities in the 1800s, 1940s and 2000s and thus they are all connected does not make sense.   Fine, then Ghenhis Khan and Truman are connected.  You can say that the US leadership since 1776 have all been murderous and genocidal, but is does not mean that the events are connected. You can make comparisons (people in favor of the Iraq war, me not being one of them, compared Saddam to Hitler... but these two people are not connected in any way). We get that you hate everything the US has ever done.  If the US is so horrible, going back unabated back to the 19th century, may I ask why you choose to live here?

Please, frankm. If you think there is no connection between (a) past U.S. atrocities (they start long before Hiroshima...look up the Sand Creek Massacre for just one of countless many earlier examples) and their absurd, Orwellian justification and (b) the execution of subsequent U.S. atrocities (google up My Lai and "Operation Tiger Force" and "Highway of Death" and Abu Ghraib [sp] and "Fallujah 2004" and....[the list goes on]), then you really should just hang it up. Leave your daughter (who deserves a morally and intellectually courageous father) out of it. Go to the library and check out Alperovitz's detailed, richly researched and heavily annotated monograph and try to learn something that might help you and your fellow Americans stop reactively justifying mass murderous imperial criminality (why they hate us if you care).

As George Orwell put in in Nineteen Eighty Four: "who controls the past controls the future.  Who controls the present controls the past." 

As usual the vicious red-baiting professor Walt K is intellectually decimated without meaningful response and will live on to obsessively and reactively red-bait at the next opportunity.

Thank you for the contributions from Shyela, Mariam and others.  

 

Some people say my daughter looks like me and some say she looks like my wife. I see a little bit of both. The conclusion is that people decide which way they want to see my daughter's face and then say what they want as fact.

So too with the long standing question. Was nuking Japan justified? My main conclusion is that it is too easy for us to sit here and preach, 60 years later, completely out of context, what the President should have done. Monday morning quaterbacks. The fact is that WWII changed all the rules. 6 to 7 years of the most brutal war in history. Millions of civilians dead including the holocaust, war machines exceeding anything the world had seen. 400,000 US deaths. Kamikaze airplanes. Frankly, NONE of us under 80 have any CLUE what this was like and how anyone felt at the time.   Such a different world in so many ways.  How would you have acted? Do you really know what you would have done (without knowing what we know 60 years later about Nukes)?

So what it comes down to, like my daughter's face, is that you spin it based on what you believe about the USA NOW. If you basically have the world view today that the US is a criminal terrorist state, which most of the bloggers here believe, then this world view will say that Nuking Japan was also a criminal act. And pretty much everything the US has done since, and probably before. This discussion is really not about yesterday's events, it is about today's agenda. The article above clearly brings Iraq into the mix, as if there is even the slightest relationship between the two events. The US haters will bring in all the facts to support that the US was wrong. The other side can do the same just as easily. Frankly, the discussion is pointless.

 

Frederic – that was precisely part of my point. How can you “do the math” to figure out if your action is “proportional” and thus part of a “just war,” if you don't know how extensive the damage of your weapon will be? Although I understand the scientists “did the math” to make sure the bomb would not “ignite the atmosphere,” Truman's “rain of ruin” remarks, if he wasn't just talking sh*t like some pro-wrestler, may have indicated the US government had a clue as to the extent of the atomic bombs' destructive power. “In the days before the bomb was dropped, an overwhelming majority of the scientists of the Manhattan Project wrote and signed a petition against the use of the bomb. They sent this to the President who never received it. Many of them also argued that the power of the bomb could be conveyed without killing civilians.” Rain of Ruin “Grave violations during World War II included the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These were not attacks designed to destroy targets of military value while sparing civilian populations. They were deliberate attempts to put pressure on enemy governments by attacking non-combatants. As a result, they were grave violations of God's law, according to which, ‘the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral' (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 57).” A Catholic take on Just War Theory

I was not aware of Alperovitz's book before reading this post. There is a summary of his theme at this site: http://www.doug-long.com/debate.htm I agree with Paul's premise, the bombs were entirely unnecessary and they should be considered war crimes rather than heroism. It is unfortunate (but not at all surprising) that PBS is continuing to tell the official myth. Several years ago I read similar essays on The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists site. Archived articles are now only available through Amazon with a fee. One article I wanted to review in light of Paul's topic was one written by Arjun Makhijani, titiled "Always the Target", following a discussion with people who believed Germany was the original target. It's easy to see how people got that idea since the scientists working on the Manhattan Project were working in that assumption too. Makhijani show that Germany was never targeted because there was real concern that if the bomb didn't work, Germans could recover it an analyze the technology. Japan had no such capabilities and when intelligence sources confirmed Japan's lack of technological abilities, the target was changed from the sea (if it didn't work it sould sink and not be easily recoverable) to a city. FWIW, here's a clip from a site that summarizes Makhijani's article. http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/435/4302.html published by WISE News Communique on June 30, 1995 A-bombings: Japan always the target? On August 9 1945, US President Harry Truman justified the use of the first atomic bomb, saying that it would shorten the war and save lives of young Americans serving in the army. (435.4302) WISE-Amsterdam - Enough material is now declassified to debunk this lie. Winston Churchill in his `The Second World War' wrote: "It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell, and was brought about by overwhelming maritime power."1 Until mid-April 1945, the US felt that it needed the entry of the Soviet Union in the Pacific War to break the Japanese military. At the time of the Yalta Conference in February 1945, Soviet leader Stalin agreed to declare the war against Japan after the surrender of Germany. At the conference in Potsdam -- just after the first atomic test of the US on July 16 -- President Truman, with his atomic card concealed, got the Soviets to amend the agreement reached at Yalta. The Soviets would declare war on Japan on August 8, 1945 instead ... In recent years, many historians have argued that the use of the bombs had little do to with World War II. Rather it was part of a campaign to intimidate the Soviets and make them more tractable in the postwar world. In an article ""Always" the target?" by Arjun Makhijani, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists2 , other arguments are put forward to explain the use of atomic bombs on Japan. Makhijani contrasts the role of the high-level military planners on one side and the role of the scientists on the other side. He contends that while US bomb scientists were still racing against Germany, military planners were already looking toward the Pacific. There is evidence that as early as May 1943, high-level planners assumed that Japanese rather than German military forces would be the likely target for first-use of the new weapon. General Groves, director of the Manhattan Project, writes in a memo dated April 23, 19453: "The Target is and was always expected to be Japan". According to Gen. Groves's summary3 of the meeting of the High-level Military Policy Committee on May 5 1943: "The point of use of the first bomb was discussed and the general view appeared to be that its best point of use would be on a Japanese fleet concentration in the Harbour of Truk (in the Pacific north of New Guinea). General Styer suggested Tokyo but it was pointed out that the bomb should be used where, if it failed to go off, it would land in water of sufficient depth to prevent easy salvage. The Japanese were selected as they would not be so apt to secure knowledge from it as would the Germans."4 The discussion on May 1943 was the beginning of a line of thought that would have astonished the Manhattan Project scientists. The line goes on with the choice of the B-29 bomber in the latter half of 1943, the only suitable bomber for use in the Pacific (a great range of 3-4,000 miles). In September 1944, President Roosevelt and the British Prime Minister Churchill met. The summary of the meeting makes no mention of the possible use of atomic bombs against Germany, but it says that when the bomb was ready "it might perhaps, after mature consideration be used against Japan, who should be warned that this bombardment will be repeated until they surrender." In summer 1945, high-level decision makers had already crossed the moral threshold regarding the deliberate bombing of civilians when the United States joined the British in the "terror bombing" of Dresden (Churchill's phrase). In February 1945, about 150,000 people were killed in Dresden. In March, the United States began its terror raids against Japan. The use of atom bombs merely increased the terror in that a single bomber, rather than hundreds or thousands could now destroy a whole city. The article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist emphasizes another aspect of the history. By late 1944 and 1945 the Manhattan Project had gained such momentum that it was unstoppable, despite the collapse of Germany. Rothblad, in his August 1985 Bulletin5 article, called it "simple curiosity - the strong urge to find out whether the theoretical calculations and predictions would come true." Through his policy of strict compartmentalization of information, Gen. Groves kept bomb scientists isolated from any discussion of how their work would be used. A question to be posed: How many scientists - if any - would have left the project had they known in 1943 that Japan might have been the target of first use? This point regarding secrecy and the responsibility of scientists is as relevant today as it was 50 years ago. Sources: 1. W.S. Churchill: "The Second World War", Cassell Company, London 1964 (volume 12, p. 280) 2. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 1995: ""Always" the Target?" by Arjun Makhijani (president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research - IEER - in Takoma Park, Maryland, USA) 3. J. Leslie R. Groves: Memorandum to the Secretary of War, April 23 1945. Records of the Manhattan Engineer District 1942-1948, Record Group 77. National Archives Washington D.C - US 4. J.L.Groves, Memorandum. "Military Policy Committee, Records of the Manhattan Engineer District, 1942-1948 Record Group 77", National Archives. Washington D.C.- US 5. Joseph Rotblad: "Leaving the Bomb Project", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, August 1985.

My admiration for Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, and so many others who have been telling us about this for so many years grows by the day.

I have been learning about the extent of the mis-information I grew up with for about 20 years now, and have trouble keeping even a reasonable outlook.

To write every day about one more chapter of the sorry story requires strength and determination I am not sure I have.

So, Paul, thanks. 

• If you have not been hiding under a rock for the last 20 or so years, you know these things....
• We, the interlopers, planned the extermination of the people living here in this country when we got here.
• We planned, and failed to own everything on this side of the world, hence the wars over Canada, Mexico, Cuba, etc, etc, etc.
• Since we could not own it, we decided to control it so we(we, meaning the "we" who were to own and control) could have access to all raw materials.
• In order to move forward with plans to control not just this side of the world, but all of it (our "eyes got bigger than our stomachs" after WW2) we needed to be sure of a  main adversaryand the control of our population by fear, and demonstrate to the rest of the world that we were not only capable of control, but willing to use hither-to-unknown horrors to meet our objectives, hence the un-necessary use of the new bombs (like Madwoman Albright said later, why have that super military and not use it)......that's no fun, if people do not know what a big bang you can do. 
• All of the wars since WW2 have been "Resource Wars".
• We, the citizens of the USA, were never the reason for these wars. Our "security" has never been the reason for the actions of our government, since it was designed to be protection for the few who have actually owned and ruled this country since it's beginning.
• Horrors like the use of Atomic weapons are simply the "cost of doing business" and the only people who spend time on it are we who can do absolutely nothing about it. 
• I could be wrong, have been much of the time for much of my life, but, I think I might have a handle on a few things now. 
•      

Frederic, you are acting like a true leftist. Read the entire paragraph that you quoted. Funny how you deleted one essential word and the entire paragraph takes on new meaning. The bottom line, as leftists you don't believe in individual liberty because the group is more important than the person, and you don't believe people may do whatever they wish with their property because the notion of personal property is abhorrent to leftist thought. Call yourself what you are, a socialist. There is no individual liberty involved in your thoughts.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty. Libertarians maintain that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty. In continental Europe, and to a lesser extent Ireland and Britain, the older political meaning of libertarianism prevails, as a synonym for anarchism, adapted in late 19th century France as a term that would be more acceptable to the authorities (see libertarian socialism). This article is concerned with libertarianism in its more recent sense.

Left-libertarian? You abhor markets so I understand why you're leftist. How are you a libertarian again?

Funny that the last poster mentioned authoritarianism. Two names come to mind: Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Viva la revolution!

Although I haven't seen Ken Burns' “The War,” and so can't adequately judge that, two questions I have concerning the US use of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are: 1) Why was there no “warning salvo” bombing of a less populated area to inform the Japanese government that the US had this powerful weapon, and had better surrender? 2) Why was the Japanese government only given three days to surrender before a second bomb was dropped? (They were still considering surrender after Truman made his “rain of ruin” threat after the first bomb was dropped). I think the only positive answer would be that the US government did not know the extent of devastation that would be created by the nuclear bomb. It was an “experiment.” Paul also notes that: “'THE WAR' also quotes a WWII veteran from Waterbury, Connecticut, who thinks that the nuclear annihilation of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians was a price worth paying to spare perhaps half a million U.S. troops.” Who did the math to determine if the use of nuclear bombs was a proportional use of force prior to their use? And if the consequences were unknown (at maximum the whole population of Hiroshima would be annihilated?)—again, why not wait to access the damage of the first bomb before dropping the second? Indeed the effect on “Hibakusha” and even strange cultural trauma replays such as 1954's radioactive “Godzilla” have continued to impact Japan to this day. I would differ with Paul if his quoting the WWII veteran was implying that the relative value of a “troops” life is that much less than a “civilian”—especially when troops are drafted (a half-million being equivalent to hundreds of thousands). Whereas the total US WWII death toll was about 418,500; the death toll in Japan was ~2,621,000 and even larger in the greater Asian region—if the bomb was expected to kill less than it ultimately did, possibly the US government could believe that use of the bomb would cause a surrender that would save not just American lives, but Asian lives as well. But the population of Hiroshima could have been as high as 400,000 as far US estimates at the time were concerned, or about the same number as all deaths suffered by the US, on all fronts, for the entire extent of the war. Again, why did the US not access the damage before bombing again; or again—why didn't the US “experiment” with a “warning salvo” first?

There's a certain substratum in current society whose minds are 'proof and bulwark against sense'. The more nightmarish the act, the greater the vehemence with which they will defend it.

Here's an interesting recent audio interview in which personality types that might be given to such behaviors are discussed. Here is the online book on which it's based.

"The same one trick pony as before: America bad, everyone else good."

 Vile distortion and name-calling that diverts from key content of post: the essay is about a specific policy decision and two monumetnal war crimes in August of 1945. No assertions about "everyone else" being "good" (or "bad" for that matter). I suppose Eisenhower was "an anti-American."

"So let's go with your premise, that America nuked the Japs (can I say that? We are talking about WWII afterall) as a deterent to Soviet entry into the War that most likely would have resulted in a Soviet occupation of Japan."

No, ..."Japs" is no longer appropriate, really - its 2007 after all. If I had posted about something relating to Jim Crow segregation and lynchings, than would the commenter argue that it was okay to say: "so they went and hung the niggers (it's okay to say that right? We're talking about the late 19th century after all)"?

Commenter ought to read some history (but won't): the A-Bomb's perceived/intended Cold War uses were hardly restricted to Japan...they related to the whole spetcrum of global/imperial/great power concerns. See Alperovitz (better to hit the stacks and read key books than to make a knee-jerk jump to instantly mouth off on a blog): the point is that Japanese ruling class had a greater fear of Soviet occupation than U.S. occupation (they figured Russians would level class system and that Americans wouldn't) and would have quit and submitted to an American occupation at indication that Russians were coming.

"You're against empires, right? Or is it, you're only against the U.S. empire? Life under an occupying Soviet force would have been preferable because...why?"

Commenter doesn't know the history and should read relevant literature. See my previous comment. There was not going to be a Soviet occupation...but the imminent perceived threat of one would have hastened already well known (from intercepted cables and diplomatic communications) Japanese desire to surrender to U.S. The main hang up (noted I think by Frederic) was U.S. insistence on getting rid of the role of the Emperor, which was cover for the real U.S. desire to facilitiate their desire to dictate broad post-WWII world terms by demonstrating their capacity kill hundreds of thousands of "Japs" in two instantaneous "Shock and Awe" atrocities (Emperor role was actually permitted after the lovely demonstrations were made, interestingly enough).

"They were communist and you like that wonderful form of government? Because it would have been better for the Soviets to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese via convential weapons along with the U.S. doing the same on the main island?"

See above comments and literature: no Soviets. Threat of Soviet invasion would have facilitated rapid surrender to U.S. invasion/occupation without nuking. Soviets would have had no legitmate claim to occupy Japan (unlike Germany): the U.S. and to a much lesser extent the British fought the Pacific war.

It's a revolting but typical (for the commenter in question) smear to identify me with the Stalinist form of government; this is a left-libertarian website and I am in the longstanding anti-Stalinist mode; USSR was "communist" and "socialist" in name but not fact.

"You have inferred in past 'articles' that you don't have a problem with violent acts to bring about change. "

 The quote marks are insulting; there are no specific references as usual. I "admit" to not being a pacifist. Not being a pacifist hardly disqualifies one from opposing war crimes against innocent civilians.

The commenter ("Walt K"...if its him; trolls have been doing odd things with names) has been such an abusive, obsessive, and insistent racist and right-wing troll that his interesting identity was exposed and he was given his own very own ZNet troll board some time ago. See  http://blogs.zmag.org/node/2937.

Paul, good to see you blogging again. I was worried because it has been a few weeks. I also see you are the same one trick pony as before: America bad, everyone else good. So let's go with your premise, that America nuked the Japs (can I say that? We are talking about WWII afterall) as a deterent to Soviet entry into the War that most likely would have resulted in a Soviet occupation of Japan. You're against empires, right? Or is it, you're only against the U.S. empire? Life under an occupying Soviet force would have been preferable because...why? They were communist and you like that wonderful form of government? Because it would have been better for the Soviets to kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese via convential weapons along with the U.S. doing the same on the main island? You have inferred in past "articles" that you don't have a problem with violent acts to bring about change. Why are against acts that were good for your country? Before you go looking out for someone elses best interest, you have to look out for your own. Sorry, but that's just the way the world works.