[grassclip]

"It might not have seemed very dehumanizing when Walt Disney made Japanese people look silly with buck teeth and big glasses who could not pronounce their 'R's or their 'L's," he said. "But it was dehumanizing, and the purpose was to direct evil intentions against them, which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred in the history of humanity. I don't think Truman would have ever done that if we hadn't so dehumanized the enemy. When you dehumanize someone, that is the first step to inciting people."

Ha. He claims that Disney was the reason the U.S. dropped the nuclear bombs. Interesting analogy.

[riffraff]

read more carefully, he uses disney as an example, but then he says _we_ (americans) have dehumanized the enemy.

While i find this completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, he may have a bit of a point on that.

[bicknergseng]

Every war time country dehumanizes their enemies. If we portrayed the Taliban or Vietcong as freedom fighters saving children from American boots or the Nazis portrayed the Jews as hardworking members of society, the surrounding events would have been much different.

That said, I'm quite certain Disney's cartoons had absolutely nothing... NOTHING... to do with HST's decision to drop the bombs. Furthermore, the poor analogy has an obscure correlation at best with the current lawsuit.

[sageikosa]

Anecdotally, I seem to remember reading that HST loved the movie Dumbo, so he probably was a pretty big Disney fanboy. Regardless, the L/R phonetic collision in CJK languages as portrayed in movies probably wasn't the main reason for building and dropping the bomb.

Probably more to do with the sheer grisly nature of the Solomon Islands and Papau New Guinea campaigns, and a desire not to repeat it.

[suresk]

I've spent a lot of time learning about the decision to dropping atomic bombs on Japan, and it is quite nuanced. I'm still not 100% sure if it was the correct course of action, given the information available at the time.

First, any attempt at an invasion of mainland Japan would have likely resulted in horrendous casualties for both sides - and it is almost certain that civilian casualties would have been substantially higher in the event of an invasion.

To counter that point, it is unlikely that an invasion would have been required to secure a surrender, and American insistence on unconditional surrender was a factor in prolonging the war with Japan.

Third, there is at least some merit to the idea that dropping the bombs wasn't just meant to scare the Japanese - it was also meant to demonstrate their power to the USSR.

Incidentally, it is pretty clear that Truman and other Allied leaders saw the Japanese as being sub-human in some ways[1]. How much of this came from societal factors and how much of it came from experiences of the absolutely brutal Pacific campaign battles is debatable, but it is certainly unfair to lay it all at the feet of Disney.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings...

[CamperBob2]

Third, there is at least some merit to the idea that dropping the bombs wasn't just meant to scare the Japanese - it was also meant to demonstrate their power to the USSR.

Absolutely. It's possible that the invasion of Japan that was prevented by the bombings was not going to be the one that most people think of. I've always felt the atomic bombings had more to do with sending a message to Stalin than with sending one to Hirohito. At the close of WWII, the Russians were making some very ominous moves in Japan's direction.

Was it worth 200,000+ lives to keep Japan from spending the next several decades as a Soviet satellite state? Very possibly... but I wasn't there, and the people who were sacrificed certainly didn't get a chance to make their views known.

[sageikosa]

I found "Touched by Fire: The Land War in the South Pacific" to be a compelling read on the Solomon's Campaign.

War is hell, don't go setting up shop there.

Incidentally, it wasn't just the Americans that had a dehumanized view of the Japanese during WWII, the Koreans, Chinese, Australians, and just about anyone else who ended up under their boot thought so as well; mainly because they treated just about everyone else as inferior.

Glad we can all get along decades later, of course.

[pyre]

  > I've spent a lot of time learning about the decision
  > to dropping atomic bombs on Japan, and it is quite
  > nuanced.

Might I ask what route you took? Books? Internet? I'd be interested if you could point me to what resources you found the most useful/insightful/informative/balanced.

[derleth]

> which ultimately resulted in the only nuclear holocaust that ever occurred in the history of humanity

... which, in turn, prevented us from blockading Japan to starve them out a bit in preparation for a massive beach-head assault on the Home Islands, which would likely have been the most massive loss of life in conventional warfare in the history of the human race, and could well have ended the Japanese as a distinct culture and ethnicity.

If you're going to make a point, by all means make it; don't imply the opposite of what you intend.

[pyre]

After the fact, we know that they were about to surrender anyways. Had we avoided the bomb, there would have been no beach-head assault.