World War II

Many thanks, Lishia, in your comments. =) I have a very full week ahead of me with company and heading out of town, so I won't be able to respond this week at all to any long comments, but I look forward to reading through/gathering my thoughts in the near future.

And guys, I'm really enjoying reading through all the different thoughts/perspectives. Just so you know.

I quite agree with you on that count. The best nation that ever was was the Theocracy of Israel - and even it was doomed to fail because of very human faults. Twice the privilege, twice the responsibility, twice the judgment. While I don't know a lot about the following conflicts, I have a strong suspicion that World War II was America's last just war (if only because it was the last declared war). Sometimes it's hard to be patriotic. :(

Perfect! Looking forward to hearing from you. :)

I get the feeling that some of you on this thread are very "Pro -America?" :) That was not meant as an insult. It was just an observation from me that could be very wrong. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. I just want to stress that we are *not* better than any other people group! More privileged than many? Yes, but we are not these other countries "saviors" that are coming in to help the "poor natives." We can learn from other countries, just as they can learn from us.

Ok that makes your view much more clear. I'm not usually the pro-American on here. just on this topic where everyone else seems to be anti- America.

I am not trying to be anti American. I think what we did was wrong, but that doesn't make me anti american. I do think our country has backslid in many respects (such as allowing homosexual marriages in some states) but that doesn't mean I'm anti American! I am just against some of the things we allow and some of the actions we committed.

I am not trying to be anti American. I think what we did was wrong, but that doesn't make me anti american. I do think our country has backslid in many respects (such as allowing homosexual marriages in some states) but that doesn't mean I'm anti American! I am just against some of the things we allow and some of the actions we committed.

I agree with all that. Anti America its just a overly generalized box that I frequently fall into (just not on the A bomb issue).
Sorry if I've been Impolite.

I totally agree.

You haven't been impolite (well, insinuating that all countries/cultures cook and eat people was admitted offensive to me).

I admittedly probably do fall into the Anti US box on many issues. During the World Cup I voted for a different team. But I do feel privileged to live in the US where I have freedom of speed, religion, etc.

Nice to hear that someone on here agrees with me. :)

Wow, Bethany, I never knew that. Shows that college doesn't teach you nearly as much as you need to know.

That is really horrible. However, even killing one person is horrible. Actually hating a fellow human being is pretty horrible too (1 John 3:15 ).

not about everything… but i do think that some of the things america did was wrong… but in the long run only God knows, right?

Just finished The Most Controversial Decision by Wilson D. Miscamble. I'd recommend it to anyone here - it's a thorough, (relatively) short analysis of the decision to use the atomic bomb, both of the events leading up to it, and its effects on events that followed. I won't repeat its arguments here - it is in many ways a more factual presentation of the things we have been saying all along.
I only slightly object to the paragraph which discusses the bombs as another case of the end justifying the means - seeking to justify this justification, without noting, as has been done here, that in fact all war seeks to justify itself by the end it obtains. Some things are worthy dying and killing for. (And I of course object to the typically Catholic labeling of "Thou shalt not kill" as the fifth commandment. :P)

I also started Japan's War, originally only planning to read the parts relevant to World War II. I've decided to try to read it all, nineteenth century onwards, because it's so interesting.

And, I started Day of Deceit. Grrr. I'll refrain from posting my objections until I've read the more objectionable parts. (But seriously, how does Stinnett think he can read McCollum's mind? Present the facts and try to find his motivation, fine. But don't present your interpretation as fact itself.)

Plus I have a bunch of other books waiting to be read. It'll take a while. :)

You are absolutely right, only God knows!

@InSoloChristo

The books that you are reading sound interesting. If I had more time I would pick them up. Hopefully I will have a chance to soon, Lord willing. From the comments that you have been making I take it that you are pro A- bomb, correct?

Yes. I believe the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the wisest option available, that they saved more lives, even of civilians, than they took, and that this was an acceptable wartime sacrifice. However, if there are to be other uses of nuclear arms in warfare, their circumstances will have to be evaluated separately, meaning that I don't think it's wise to use atomic bombs in the same way other weapons are used.

Sherman's actions may have resulted in the death of innocent people forced to support the Confederacy. Not so the Bomb.

Are you saying that the atomic bomb _didn't_ kill any innocent people? Because if you are, I disagree (I would add a smiley, except that this is a very serious subject). Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

yep, that's what I meant. but I guess it depends on how you categorize someone as innocent.

Normally, I would classify someone as innocent if they are perfect, blameless, and have never sinned. Thus, Christ would be the only innocent one. However, on this thread when I use the word innocent or something that means innocent, I mean innocent regarding the war. Or I may even mean people that didn't _want_ to be involved in the war. You see, Japan had a more dictator-type leadership than we do, so some of the Japanese would have been forced to go along with the war, even if they didn't like what was going on. Of course, they could have resisted, but then they probably would have been killed or punished harshly. And even if all the adults agreed with Japan's decisions, think of all the children and babies killed who didn't even understand what was going on, and wouldn't have cared (at least at the time) if the Axis lost the war just as long as they had their family and all their wishes met. There are always going to be _some_ innocent people killed in war, but the atomic bomb seemed to kill far more than what is understandable.

Well there will always be *some* Civilian casualties. But as I said in an earlier post I disagree. Yes it was an empire, but thats what they all lived for. It was what they're ancestors had had and they _wanted_ it. Had we been forced to take Japan on foot we would have had to annihilate the entire Island as *Everyone* and *everything* would have been weaponized and thrown at us (in including Infants). Fortunately Doolittle's Raid and The Atomic Bombs broke the Emperors resolve and he surrendered. Also they agreed not to bomb the capitals because of civilians and Hiroshima was a strategic military target. (Nagasaki was a secondary alternative target) Wikipedia has this: Truman noted in his diary that: _This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital [Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo]. He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one._

Alright, I am going to admit that I don't know what the best option was, that maybe the atomic bomb was the best option. Still, I don't agree with you completely. Yes, many of the Japanese lived for their empire, but probably not all. Under that kind of leadership, you can't speak up for what you believe (or at least, not without severe penalties). You don't have "freedom of speech" like we do in America. Honestly, I don't think any of us really understand Japanese culture (and this definitely includes myself), so we can't say that the average Japanese civilian thought this or that, because we really don't know.

I am glad to see that Truman claimed that he wished this to only be used against the Japanese military, but of course he knew his diary would be read at some point, so it's not like what he was saying was necessarily what he really thought. I hope that he really meant it. However, I do not like the way he described the Japanese, "savages, ruthless, merciless, and fanatic". They were made in the image of God, just like us, and if Truman really didn't want to massacre them, I think he should have used fairer language about them.

I still am very undecided in my opinion regarding the atomic bomb. Overall, I still do not like the thought of systematically going about killing so many people. However, it might have been the best option. I definitely need to study this some more.

Alright, I am going to admit that I don't know what the best option was, that _maybe_ the atomic bomb _was_ the best option. Still, I don't agree with you completely. Yes, _many_ of the Japanese lived for their empire, but probably not _all_. Under that kind of leadership, you can't speak up for what you believe (or at least, not without severe penalties). You don't have "freedom of speech" like we do in America. Honestly, I don't think any of us _really_ understand Japanese culture (and this definitely includes myself), so we can't say that the average Japanese civilian thought this or that, because we really don't know. I am glad to see that Truman _claimed_ that he wished this to only be used against the Japanese military, but of course he knew his diary would be read at some point, so it's not like what he was saying was necessarily what he _really_ thought. I hope that he really meant it. However, I do not like the way he described the Japanese, "savages, ruthless, merciless, and fanatic". They were made in the image of God, just like us, and if Truman really didn't want to massacre them, I think he should have used fairer language about them. I still am very undecided in my opinion regarding the atomic bomb. Overall, I still do not like the thought of systematically going about killing so many people. However, it _might_ have been the best option. I definitely need to study this some more.

I'm going to argue that we can. Just because we don't live in that culture doesn't mean we cant understand it, and just because we understand something doesn't mean we have to agree with it. There were people who understood their culture back then, and although it has adapted to operate in modern-times it has survived. if you met a Japanese person or do research you can understand it. Sure, there would be a few odd balls who thought outside the box but I must emphasis the word Few. as in virtually non existent.

Obviously. and some how discredits it more then a speech? You may not like the way that he described them but its true. the Kamikazes would manipulate our desire to save enemy lives by screaming for help and mercy when wounded just to get as many of our men to expose themselves to the blast of that last grenade they had saved to take their own lives. Not to mention what they did to our troops in the Philippines. Now that its over we have have forgiven them, and I'm not saying that all people with slanted eyes are out to kill you (there was the 442nd Regimental Combat Team). Battle is "savages, ruthless, merciless" and if you cant mach your opponent… you lose.

The people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki where people. So were the people in Jericho, and all the other cites that have been wiped out over the years. You should never get used to the thought of mass of people dying, just put your empathy to good use and fight things like the abortion industry. (after you finish researching ww2 :))

Alright, I am going to admit that I don't know what the best option was, that _maybe_ the atomic bomb _was_ the best option. Still, I don't agree with you completely. Yes, _many_ of the Japanese lived for their empire, but probably not _all_. Under that kind of leadership, you can't speak up for what you believe (or at least, not without severe penalties). You don't have "freedom of speech" like we do in America. Honestly, I don't think any of us _really_ understand Japanese culture (and this definitely includes myself), so we can't say that the average Japanese civilian thought this or that, because we really don't know. I am glad to see that Truman _claimed_ that he wished this to only be used against the Japanese military, but of course he knew his diary would be read at some point, so it's not like what he was saying was necessarily what he _really_ thought. I hope that he really meant it. However, I do not like the way he described the Japanese, "savages, ruthless, merciless, and fanatic". They were made in the image of God, just like us, and if Truman really didn't want to massacre them, I think he should have used fairer language about them. I still am very undecided in my opinion regarding the atomic bomb. Overall, I still do not like the thought of systematically going about killing so many people. However, it _might_ have been the best option. I definitely need to study this some more.

I'm going to argue that we can. Just because we don't live in that culture doesn't mean we cant understand it, and just because we understand something doesn't mean we have to agree with it. There were people who understood their culture back then, and although it has adapted to operate in modern-times it has survived. if you met a Japanese person or do research you _can_ understand it. Sure, there would be a few odd balls who thought outside the box but I must emphasis the word Few. as in virtually non existent. Obviously. and some how discredits it more then a speech? You may not like the way that he described them but its true. the Kamikazes would manipulate our desire to save enemy lives by screaming for help and mercy when wounded just to get as many of our men to expose themselves to the blast of that last grenade they had saved to take their own lives. Not to mention what they did to our troops in the Philippines. Now that its over we have have forgiven them, and I'm not saying that all people with slanted eyes are out to kill you. Battle is "savages, ruthless, merciless" and if you cant mach your opponent... you lose. The people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki where people. So were the people in Jericho, and all the other cites that have been wiped out over the years. You should never get used to the thought of mass of people dying, just put your empathy to good use and fight things like the abortion industry. (after you finish researching ww2 :))

I'm a little confused by your punctuation in a few places, but I think I understand what you're saying for the most part. And I still don't completely (or really much at all) agree with you (except for in the last sentence when you implied that abortion is bad). We may just have to agree to disagree (or at least until I have time to study this more). This question might sound a little bit odd, but it will help me to understand your position better: Are you very hard to convince? In other words, could you ever be convinced to think differently than you do now? Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :).

I'm a little confused by your punctuation in a few places, but I think I understand what you're saying for the most part. And I still don't completely (or really much at all) agree with you (except for in the last sentence when you implied that abortion is bad). We may just have to agree to disagree (or at least until I have time to study this more). This question might sound a little bit odd, but it will help me to understand your position better: Are you very hard to convince? In other words, could you ever be convinced to think differently than you do now? Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :).
</blockquote>

Because that's exactly the kind of question you ask someone in the middle of a debate.

I'm a little confused by your punctuation in a few places, but I think I understand what you're saying for the most part. And I still don't completely (or really much at all) agree with you (except for in the last sentence when you implied that abortion is bad). We may just have to agree to disagree (or at least until I have time to study this more). This question might sound a little bit odd, but it will help me to understand your position better: Are you very hard to convince? In other words, could you _ever_ be convinced to think differently than you do now? Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :).

Because that's exactly the kind of question you ask someone in the middle of a debate. </blockquote>

Dude… You just plagiarized her entire comment! Rule of citations: If you are going to use someone else's work put quotation marks - or leave block quotes intact… :D

Well, I felt like whatever I said, he wouldn't change his mind (or admit that he had done so), so I thought I would just ask :). I'm very easily convinced (which is probably not something you want to tell someone during a debate :)), so I'm really having to work hard to disagree with everyone :).

I'm a little confused by your punctuation in a few places, but I think I understand what you're saying for the most part. And I still don't completely (or really much at all) agree with you (except for in the last sentence when you implied that abortion is bad). We may just have to agree to disagree (or at least until I have time to study this more). This question might sound a little bit odd, but it will help me to understand your position better: Are you very hard to convince? In other words, could you _ever_ be convinced to think differently than you do now? Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :).

Because that's *exactly* the kind of question you ask someone in the middle of a debate.

Dude… You just plagiarized her entire comment! Rule of citations: If you are going to use someone else's work put quotation marks - or leave block quotes intact… :D</blockquote>

Copyright. Anna M___. All rights reserved. Used without permission.

"I'm a little confused by your punctuation in a few places, but I think I understand what you're saying for the most part. And I still don't completely (or really much at all) agree with you (except for in the last sentence when you implied that abortion is bad). We may just have to agree to disagree (or at least until I have time to study this more). This question might sound a little bit odd, but it will help me to understand your position better: Are you very hard to convince? In other words, could you ever be convinced to think differently than you do now? Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :)."

No point in discussing it with him unless there's also a possibility that you are in the wrong, and instead of his view, your view would be changed. No point in discussing it with him, unless it might help you learn to articulate your views more smoothly. :)

"I'm a little confused by your punctuation in a few places, but I think I understand what you're saying for the most part. And I still don't completely (or really much at all) agree with you (except for in the last sentence when you implied that abortion is bad). We may just have to agree to disagree (or at least until I have time to study this more). This question might sound a little bit odd, but it will help me to understand your position better: Are you very hard to convince? In other words, could you _ever_ be convinced to think differently than you do now? Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :)." No point in discussing it with him unless there's also a possibility that you are in the wrong, and instead of his view, your view would be changed. No point in discussing it with him, unless it might help you learn to articulate your views more smoothly. :)

True (oh, no, here I go agreeing again!), but I must endeavor to be disagreeable :). And I have had way too many disagreements with people, where I was the convinced, rather than the convincer. So please don't convince me that I need to be convinced :). Anyway, I have to study a lot more before I can be confident about my opinion.

Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :).
</blockquote>

Actually, I probably should have worded that a little differently. "Because if you never change your mind about anything, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :)."

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
It seems I'm the only one here who can take a solid stand on the issue.
I intend to maintain my position until I'm convinced otherwise.

Has anyone ever been convinced of anything on these forums? Or the Internet for that matter?
I don't plan on convincing anyone dropping the bomb was right (I couldn't convince anyone the Apocalypse will be real either :P ). The Point in discussing anything, as I see it, is to compare notes and see why the other person (who is a thinking rational being) came to the conclusions they did. And, maybe,attempt set them straight if they are miss-informed. So again I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :).

Actually, I probably should have worded that a little differently. "Because if you never change your mind about anything, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :)."</blockquote>

making your statement more broad? well Ok. Yes, I can be convinced by a good argument. (but all I've heard so fare on this subject are emotional please for humanity)

OK. The problem I see with me continuing to discuss this, is that I'm not self-confident enough and would probably end up agreeing with the wrong person. I'm hoping to read the books that Bethany recommended, so that I can understand her views, but it will probably be December before I can do that.

^And I may continue to discuss this anyway…we'll see…^

Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :).

Actually, I probably should have worded that a little differently. "Because if you never change your mind about _anything_, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :)."

Making your statement more broad? Well, OK. Yes, I can be convinced by a good argument (but all I've heard so far on this subject are emotional pleas for humanity). </blockquote>

Have you read everything that Bethany said? Emotional??? LOL! I wouldn't consider my arguments to be "emotional", I just think we need to be fair with the Japanese and consider their side of the story, too. All of my history curriculum (and probably most of what any of us use for school) is written by Americans, so we need to look at both sides of the story.

Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :).

Actually, I probably should have worded that a little differently. "Because if you never change your mind about _anything_, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :)."

Making your statement more broad? Well, OK. Yes, I can be convinced by a good argument (but all I've heard so far on this subject are emotional pleas for humanity).

Have you read everything that Bethany said? Emotional??? LOL! I wouldn't consider my arguments to be "emotional", I just think we need to be fair with the Japanese and consider their side of the story, too. All of my history curriculum (and probably most of what any of us use for school) is written by Americans, so we need to look at both sides of the story.</blockquote>

Absolutely, I agree with Anna. Most of what we study for history is written by Americans. Many of the history textbooks I read glorify the Americans and put down other countries. Even the books that I was assigned at a Christian college were subtly racist.

OK. The problem I see with _me_ continuing to discuss this, is that I'm not self-confident enough and would probably end up agreeing with the wrong person. I'm hoping to read the books that Bethany recommended, so that I can understand her views, but it will probably be December before I can do that. ^And I may continue to discuss this anyway...we'll see...^

Sounds good.

Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :).

Actually, I probably should have worded that a little differently. "Because if you never change your mind about _anything_, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :)."

Making your statement more broad? Well, OK. Yes, I can be convinced by a good argument (but all I've heard so far on this subject are emotional pleas for humanity).

Have you read everything that Bethany said? Emotional??? LOL! I wouldn't consider my arguments to be "emotional", I just think we need to be fair with the Japanese and consider their side of the story, too. All of my history curriculum (and probably most of what any of us use for school) is written by Americans, so we need to look at both sides of the story.</blockquote>

Pretty much, yeah. but by all means, look at both sides.

Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :).

Actually, I probably should have worded that a little differently. "Because if you never change your mind about _anything_, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :)."

Making your statement more broad? Well, OK. Yes, I can be convinced by a good argument (but all I've heard so far on this subject are emotional pleas for humanity).

Have you read everything that Bethany said? Emotional??? LOL! I wouldn't consider my arguments to be "emotional", I just think we need to be fair with the Japanese and consider _their_ side of the story, too. All of my history curriculum (and probably most of what any of us use for school) is written by Americans, so we need to look at both sides of the story.

Absolutely, I agree with Anna. Most of what we study for history is written by Americans. Many of the history textbooks I read glorify the Americans and put down other countries. Even the books that I was assigned at a Christian college were subtly racist.
</blockquote>

My high school American history textbooks are written by a Christian, and I agree with him on many things, but I feel like the Japanese aren't really given a fair hearing.

Because if you can never change your mind, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :).

Actually, I probably should have worded that a little differently. "Because if you never change your mind about anything, then there's no point in me discussing this with you :)."</blockquote>

Making your statement more broad? Well, OK. Yes, I can be convinced by a good argument (but all I've heard so far on this subject are emotional pleas for humanity). </blockquote>

Have you read everything that Bethany said? Emotional??? LOL! I wouldn't consider my arguments to be "emotional", I just think we need to be fair with the Japanese and consider their side of the story, too. All of my history curriculum (and probably most of what any of us use for school) is written by Americans, so we need to look at both sides of the story.</blockquote>

Absolutely, I agree with Anna. Most of what we study for history is written by Americans. Many of the history textbooks I read glorify the Americans and put down other countries. Even the books that I was assigned at a Christian college were subtly racist.
</blockquote>

Racist? Wow. maybe them Killing us isn't so bad if we're racist afterwards… #sarcasm

For some reason, nothing is in block quotes on both sides anymore. It's rather annoying :).

I am pretty sure that my college textbooks were not written by Christians. I did agree with my History teacher on many things, but not always the things in the textbook. I agree with you statement on the Japanese. Thousands of Japanese Americans were prejudiced against and sent into concentration camps during WW2.

I am pretty sure that my college textbooks were not written by Christians. I did agree with my History teacher on many things, but not always the things in the textbook. I agree with you statement on the Japanese. Thousands of Japanese Americans were prejudiced against and sent into concentration camps during WW2.

I got that In my text book too. interrupting the normal flow and giving into fear was a vary bad decision.

I should probably go for awhile now so I can focus on Algebra :).

Alright. :) I must go too now.

Sorry you don't like the book, Caleb. I haven't it read it recently enough to remember the writing style. I would still strongly believe what facts he is presenting though, because I've been doing a lot of other reading, and it seems to line up with history. Have you had a chance to look at the book The New Dealer's War?

@All - At some point I shall try to get back on here… I've been doing tons of reading, taking/compiling notes, I just don't have them together in any format to write something long that makes sense. Please forgive the delay.

I haven't looked at it much yet. I'm too busy reading Japan's War and living the rest of my life… :P
By the way, I actually wouldn't argue with most/any of the historical facts I found in the first two chapters of Day of Deceit. But he connects them all trying to make the case that we were inciting Japan to war. I'm sure some of the things we did provoked Japan. They'd thought of us as one of their national enemies for a while - for many reasons, some of which were valid, others not. The things on McCollum's list can be interpreted as either defensive (looking out for our national interests), or as provocative. But Stinnett tries to recreate McCollum's train of thought to a degree that is simply ridiculous. At least in the first two chapters.

Finally finished Japan's War. It hasn't quite been my highest priority.
But it was extremely interesting! As I've said, it starts in the mid-1800's, with Japan's first introduction to the modern world, and ends after World War II. I really can't come up with a summary that does it all justice.
Perhaps most interesting, in my opinion, was its detailing of the internal events that led up to World War II - Japanese colonialism, bushidō, hakkō ichiu, the Second Sino-Japanese War, the military taking control of the government, propaganda, and so forth. And not just internal, but also external. American actions certainly did provoke the Japanese - but that wasn't their intent. They were all logical reactions to Japan's (often aggressive) actions. It wasn't some diabolical conspiracy of the Western leadership.

We all know that the Japanese committed many atrocities throughout the war, the "Rape of Nanking", for example. But obviously, the Americans didn't prove themselves entirely guiltless either. Most of these things, both Japanese and American, weren't directly the high command's fault. The Japanese army was out of control in many ways, due to the spirit of bushido (this can especially be seen in Manchuria). Individual American misdeeds were more rare, but they certainly did exist.
One of the main things we've talked about in this forum is the atomic bomb. Japan's War really doesn't give it a whole lot of time - but thoroughly explains why not. Incendiary bombing killed many more Japanese civilians than the atomic bombs. And it is this incendiary bombing that certainly seems to have been primarily directed at civilians. Was it right, was it wrong? It would be a "war crime" if anyone but the winner had done it, but does that make it wrong? There's just no nice way of killing people.
The atomic bomb, as viewed by the "militarists" was merely an efficient way of firebombing. Perhaps they expected lots of such bombs, and perhaps not, but they would have kept fighting regardless. But remember, the Emperor was the one who brought about the surrender of Japan. He had seen the effects of napalm, and wanted to end the people's suffering. Whether the atomic bomb played into his decision is in many ways unimportant. They did surrender, and this can be largely traced back to the killing of civilians, whatever the weapon. Again, was it right or wrong? Personally, I think some of the firebombing may have been too extreme (that military targets should have been the main goal), but overall, this strategy, horrible as it is, seems legitimate. Nobody likes war, but the best way to stop war is to make more war. It rarely gets better without first getting worse.
What's odd is that everyone is mad about the atomic bomb, but they forget the incendiaries, which, right or wrong, killed more civilian lives.

The book also covers the trials of Japanese war "criminals" - if the book is right in its presentation, this is the Allies' (both western and eastern) worst misdeed, and it wasn't the fault of some petty officer. That revenge can be called justice is one of the many tragedies of our sinful world.

'Twas quite the book. :)