It "happened to be a Democrat". I have no doubt that a Republican would have done the same thing. And it brings to thought, the Republicans often say Democrats are too "weak" in big deals, such as wars....
Anyway, I see the links above, - they should bring some things to focus.
Perhaps Hiroshima was the biggest urban casualty over a couple of days, but Nagasaki was not. Tokyo was bigger. Dresden may have been bigger. The Manila massacre was bigger. Nanking?
Then you move on to the fronts to see the manslaughter, as well as the occupied zones of the Japanese and German. Hiroshima is a big bad number, so is Nagasaki. These are dwarfed by the butchery that went on in China. Some say 15 millions total.
Dresden is likewise dwarfed by the camp butchery, as well as the butchery on the eastern front.
However, Hiroshima + Nagasaki ENDED the deal, who was belived to take millions of lives (including 1-1.5 millions of the allied).
Dresden did not, and neither did Hamburg (45K dead?). Pity.
Conclusion? Mine is (with a cold mind) that the Nuking did 2 good things vs one bad.
1. End WW2 swiftly, sparing countless lives in the time to come.
2. Show the full force and horror of this weapon, which put some weight on why it has never been used again.
the bad one:
- well, it surely killed a lot of civilians in a most horrible way.
