Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Japanese nationalism
Isn't it worth mentioning that (1) the conventional firebombing of Tokyo was more destructive than either atomic bombing but is rarely given the same focus, because (2) the whole thing was hijacked by the Japanese far-right and focused on as a unique crime against them as part of the exceptionalism they use to ignore their involvement in staggering acts of genocide in China and the rest of the far east? I still recall that one Japanese textbook that described the Rape of Nanking as "a few deaths." King Skeleton (talk) 09:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are overstated by the resonance of stupid American liberals with white guilt and Japanese ultranationalists, which should be addressed as a nationalist issue in Japan. The Japanese are culturally close to white, and they enjoy racial privileges. Umaru16 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Pape's Interpretation
Letting the Emperor continue as a living god and other concessions instead of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been worse in the long run. Consider, for instance, that the Chinese are still miffed that MacArthur let the entire Imperial family off the hook for war crimes (Prince Asaka, Hirohito's uncle, was the commander of the Japanese forces at Nanking). Furthermore, we let many of the Japanese war criminals off (see Unit 731) off in order to provide a counterbalance to Communist China and North Korea, and Japan is now experiencing a rise in ultra-nationalism. Ultimately, the Japan we see now is what would happen if the US had acted like Pape suggested, possibly better. From a purely ethical standpoint, letting the Imperial family (hell, maybe even letting Hirohito) go free from trial was a mistake.

A good view on Japan's wartime conduct and postwar victimhood comes from Knowing Better, see below:

Just needed to get this off my chest. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Topic
This video has a pretty well researched perspective against dropping the bombs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go It would be best to consider not touting the invasion narrative so harshly as much of it was constructed after the bombings took placd
 * Ah, it's a Shaun video. It's unfortunately 2 hours long, so not something a person can sit through quick. I generally do watch Shaun content, but are there good resources we can glean from the video? 06:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Without two atomic bombs, more Japanese would have died in Curtis LeMay's firebomb bombing. Truman's rational decision was to save many lives due to Japan's rapid surrender. All Americans remember the war crimes committed by the Japanese Empire in Asia and the "Pearl Harbor".--Umaru16 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are we disallowing the 'Crimes against humanity' and 'Racism' categories here?
Why are we disallowing the 'Crimes against humanity' and 'Racism' categories here? 212.219.59.241 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With Germany and Italy surrendering at the time, Japan did not surrender until the end. Many Japanese, and American leftists, may think this is a war crime, but it is a self-taught view of history. Almost all Koreans and Chinese, as well as the right wing of the United States, do not think this is a war crime. As a Korean, too, Harry S. Truman is convinced that this decision has reduced many human sacrifices many lives. There is no academic consensus that this was a war crime in the first place and it is still a subject of intense debate.
 * Let's think rationally. Can it be considered a normal "nationality" to defeat the United States even if all 100 million Japanese die with bamboo spears, even when Japan is it a normal "nationality"? How many alternative options were there for the United States? As you say, the war would have been about five years longer.
 * Without Truman's decision, more deaths would have occurred between Japan and the United States. In the meantime, Japan would have continued to conduct horrific massacres, sex crimes, and biological experiments among many Koreans and Chinese. Umaru16 (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In particular, I can't agree at all that this is "racism". If Germany hadn't surrendered, Berlin would have been hit by a nuclear bomb. This case should focus on 'civilian overkill', not much to do with 'racism'. A similar case is Bombing of Dresden. Like the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many civilians were killed in the bombing. But was Bombing of Dresden a war crime? It would be very controversial. Umaru16 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Japanese have no proper reflection on the past, and the American leftists are trying to apply excessive political correctness to the issue. '''Even if Japan were a white country, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been bombed by atomic bombs. It is NOT racism.''' Umaru16 (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you know what racism is? Among the victims of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Koreans. During the Japanese Empire, the Japanese brought Koreans to the city for labor exploitation. And now the Japanese government provides little support for Korean victims. Of course, the same Japanese atomic bomb victim can receive a lot of proper support under the leadership of the government. And Japan dismisses numerous war crimes committed in Korea as none. The Japanese government should give a lot of support to Korean victims before blaming the United States for the problems in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japanese government officials are very anti-Korean racists. Umaru16 (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Before considering the positions of the Japanese and Germans responsible for the war, it is much more politically correct to consider the positions of the unilateral victims, Koreans and Jews. Truman's decision was absolutely correct. This is at least the case for Koreans who were victims of war crimes in the Japanese Empire. Not only me, but most Koreans think Truman's decision was right. Umaru16 (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We must remember two things. The first is Pearl Harbor. Second, how much more terrible did the Japanese do to Koreans and Chinese when the war was prolonged because Japan did not surrender? Umaru16 (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then let me ask you a question. Do you think Bombing of Dresden is a racist war crime? I do not support the use of the category of racism or war crimes in the Bombing of Dresden article, but I believe that if the category of racism or war crimes should be used in the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, the same should apply to the Bombing of Dresden article. Umaru16 (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's skip all the whataboutisms here and just discuss the fact that Japan was planning on surrendering before the bomb was dropped, and the U.S.'s motivations for dropping the bomb were more on making a scene on the international stage than about ending the war. Plus, they were planning on dropping the bomb on Japan well before Germany surrendered. Plutocow (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but I know that part is controversial in academia. In fact, even if Japan intended to surrender before it was hit by a nuclear bomb, some scholars believe that the war would have been prolonged if Truman hadn't dropped it, because the feeling of fighting without surrendering was given more priority, and they are not similar historians. In fact, the Japanese government insisted on mobilizing 100 million troops (一億玉砕). Umaru16 (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Before the atomic bombing, there was a conflict between the views of surrender and not surrender within the Japanese government. I think the latter was much more powerful.Umaru16 (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The "100 million" figure seems fake, I can't find any reliable sources to support it and that was higher than Japan's population at the time. The point mainly stands in that the bomb wasn't necessary to end the war, especially when the Soviets had just invaded Manchuria. Plutocow (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really mean 100 million. At that time, the Japanese government made an extreme claim that all Japanese should sacrifice their lives for the emperor. If you don't believe it, look for materials such as papers related to '一億玉砕' in Japanese. The Japanese never mention this in front of Westerners. The Japanese want themselves to be victims. Umaru16 (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Japanese right-wingers instigate that they were the victims of the war and that World War II was a war to save Asia. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also just such distortion of history, and the American leftists are being used for this. This is the view of the South Korean leftist. Umaru16 (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

All the talk about how the Japanese weren't victims or whatever misses the point. The atomic bombs didn't target a major military or governmental target; those killed by the bombs were almost entirely civilians, which is something important to keep in mind. Plutocow (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a warning because Japan does not surrender even if it dies. But without the bomb, Japan would never have surrendered. Many civilians were also killed in Bombing of Dresden, and in South Korea, this incident is compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At that time, as Curtis Lemay said, many Japanese civilians were producing military supplies at the order of the government.Umaru16 (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost all South Koreans think Truman's decision on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was right. Those who criticize Truman's decision are limited to less than a handful of anti-American far-left in South Korea, and the center-left are more active in defending Truman than the very very very very right. Umaru16 (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * More whataboutism and argumentum ad populum and again Japan would have likely surrendered anyway, the forces that led to their surrender were already in motion before the bomb was dropped. I'll stop responding for now unless you can provide something substantive. Plutocow (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it a fully recognized view in academia that Japan is likely to have surrendered before the nuclear bomb fell? It is only one argument. There is no consensus in academia as to whether Truman's decisions on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were right or wrong. So it's biased to regard this as war crime or racism.Umaru16 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In South Korea, the far right, center-right, center-left, and some far-left (who are not anti-American) ALL defend the decision Truman made in Hiroshima. Is it simply because of nationalistic feelings that South Koreans have? Or is it because the decision really saved the lives of many Koreans? Umaru16 (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because no consensus exists within academia does not mean that there is no valid basis to hold a given view. If academic consensus was required to regard anything as true then everyone would be required to be neutral on all subjects of philosophy including ethics and truth. Given that it is not required that everyone needs to be neutral on such subjects, academic consensus is not a requirement to regard something as true. Also appealing to the popular viewpoint of South Koreans as previously mentioned is just an appeal to popularity fallacy. We don't for example poll the majority white population in the United States to determine whether or not systemic racism exists.  The classification of war crime is of course standardized by the United Nations, either something meets that criteria or it doesn't; but in the case of something being a crime against humanity that is much broader and can include any systematic policy by a state that violates the human rights of civilians. I think given that there is a case that bombing of any kind against civilian populations are in fact a crime against humanity - now you can extent that debate further and argue whether or not crimes against humanity are always necessarily impermissible - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC).
 * Well, then let me ask you a question. Do you think Bombing of Dresden is a war crime and racism? I do not support the use of the category of racism or war crimes in the Bombing of Dresden article, but I believe that if the category of racism or war crimes should be used in the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article, the same should apply to the Bombing of Dresden article. Umaru16 (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We must clearly realize that the attitudes of Germans and Japanese toward history are different here. If the Japanese were like Germans, few would have said that the current work of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was racist. It's just the stupid whining of the right-wing Japanese. What is it different from Neo-Nazi? Umaru16 (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From a Korean perspective, I felt quite different when I saw the contents of the two articles. If the word "Bombing of Dresden" is Holocaust Denial, it is the Asian Holocaust Denial that the Japanese refer to the "Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombing." Indeed, the damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is used by Japanese right-wingers to deny that they were a brutal war crime country no different from the Nazis. Is it politically correct to defend the Japanese and politically incorrect to defend the Germans? Umaru16 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's racist but as a crime against humanity I think it's debatable. There are debates that the bombing of Dresden went a bit overkill, and like are we also going to extend the moral classification that it was permissible to the war rapes and what not that were committed in Dresden? I am in full agreement that Nazi's deserve death and I am happy they lost the war -- but I don't think that means that the bombing of Dresden is above approach nor is how the allies treated civilians during the attack. Even if it were a "crime against humanity" I would be inclined to argue that it's not entirely relevant in certain contexts (especially for those trying to frame the Nazi's as victims). The only non-victim deaths in the bombings were the Nazi's who technically are not civilians so there deaths literally do not matter to that classification. I see the bombing of Dresden used to justify civilian causalities as rhetoric often; most infamously by the likes of Sam Harris to justify civilian deaths in bombings committed in the middle east.  I don't think the categorization of the bombing is cut and dry, and you can probably discern the difference between bad faith actors trying to frame the Nazi's as victims and those who felt the civilians lost in the crossfire were underserving of their fate and were victims of state violence.   - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC).
 * Also it probably should be said; are we even certain that the bombing of Hiroshima and the bombing of Dresden are even analogous in this regard? With the points Plutocow brought up there are seemingly relevant distinctions that make the two bombings disanalogous ... you know...beside the use of an atomic bomb. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC).

Thanks to Umaru's 18(!) comments on this discussion, it is now very hard to read. It is also at ATIM. ~--Andrew5 (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While I don't think the bombing was (mostly) fueled by racism I believe the category should stay since the article covers racism too. GeeJayK (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I found this lovely academic paper. I only skimmed through it, but it seems to say it was at least partially caused by racism, hence a racist category should exist. --Andrew5 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering that Japan was an Axis, the case should also be heard from the victims of Japanese war crimes. Koreans argue that the incident is not racist. South Korea sympathizes with far-right conservative politicians such as, who are diplomatically "far-right" (극우) + socially anti-feminist conservatives, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. South Korean moderate conservatives and mainstream SK liberals do not sympathize with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is because Hiroshima and Nagasaki are businesses that erase the fact that Japan was a "criminal" during World War II and distort it as a "victim." Umaru16 (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Will you stop with the whataboutism and appeals to authority? You've been told over and over again that these are not valid arguments. Plutocow (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should the reasonable part of mainstream scholars that this is not a war crime at all be ignored in the first place? This cannot be simply called "whataboutism" because the Hiroshima issue is really an issue related to the nationalist movement and historical revisionism that is intensifying in Japanese society. The claim that Hiroshima is a war crime and racism is not irrelevant to Japan's nationalist-based historical revisionism. This is because they try to erase their perpetrator's identity and emphasize the victim's identity. But Japan was clearly an Axis like the Nazis, and the United States was on the side of freedom. Umaru16 (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First, point out these "mainstream scholars", secondly, just because Japan committed other war crimes does not mean that Hiroshima wasn't a war crime and is entirely irrelevant to that point. Yes, it may be relevant to Japanese nationalism, but the crimes of the Ustaše are relevant to Serbian nationalism and that doesn't mean they should be excused. Remember, Japan sought to surrender months earlier, and the bombs were dropped on civilian targets rather than military ones. The bombings were wholly unnecessary and would be a war crime under any reasonable definition. I don't care what the views of Japanese or Korean liberals or conservatives are on this issue, it has no bearing on whether or not the bombings were justified. If you want to continue this discussion, please engage with the facts behind the bombings instead of pointing out Japanese war crimes or what this vague group of people from South Korea think. Plutocow (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Japan did not officially talk of surrender, so the atomic bombing is justified. You're not considering a downfall operation. If the U.S. had really expected Japan to surrender, there would have been no consideration of the downfall operation itself. From a utilitarian point of view, Truman's decision was reasonable. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to add racist categories, they should also add Japanese nationalist categories. Umaru16 (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Downfall" was never really a possibility, and was only used to justify the bombing after the fact. Japan had no real navy at that point and the U.S. was actively looking into getting Japan to surrender, with which they determined that Japan would surrender without needing the atomic bombs (and that was before the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, which gave Japan another reason to surrender. From a "utilitarian" point of view, the bombings still make no sense, as they could have achieved the same result with no bombs at all and even if they had to use them there is no excuse for targeting a civilian center. Please leave aside your bias for a second and look at the case. If Japan dropped the bomb on Chengdu using the excuse of avoiding a costly invasion of China, how would that not be a war crime? "Japan is bad and U.S. is good" isn't enough to justify it. Plutocow (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Was the nuclear bombing really that motivated by racism? Like the american people really did hate the japanese during WW2, but the nuclear bombings were not motivated by racism, they were definitely a crime against humanity however 2601:281:D880:DED0:3116:3D82:65A5:7BAA (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Axis powers must be absolute evil and the Allies must be apostles of justice and absolute victims. And I believe that is the historical truth. Umaru16 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that Stalin was an apostle of justice? Honest question. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Soviet Union is a dictatorship, but the United States cannot be compared because it is a country of freedom and liberal democracy. Umaru16 (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Soviet Union during World War II, not the current Russia, is relatively more moral than Nazi Germany. After all, the Allies are good and the Axis is evil. Totalitarian communism is terrible, but moral rather than fascism. Umaru16 (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The US was up to Jim Crow shit at the time, hardly a country of freedom. There's also the large amount of dictatorships that the U.S. propped up. Obviously, the Nazis were much worse, but there's a reason we shouldn't see things in black and white. There are still crimes like the atomic bombs that the Allies committed, and while saying this means they are as bad as the Axis is fallacious saying they should be excused is also fallacious. Plutocow (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Koreans' anger is justified. The South Korean government does not invite foreign leaders to the memorial for Korean victims of Japanese war crimes to avoid conflict with Japan. However, the Japanese government invites the leaders of other countries to the Peace Museum in Hiroshima without considering Korea at all. This is why South Korean liberals insult the victims of Hiroshima. The Japanese have no conscience. Umaru16 (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Koreans feel insulting that the Japanese refer to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do they look at their war crimes by the same standards? The Axis and Allied war crimes should not be viewed by the same standards. The Allied war crimes stemmed from the Axis's vengeance for war crimes rather than raceism. Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not war crimes in the first place. Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not war crimes in the first place. Umaru16 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (EC) I personally disagree with this form of idealized world view. Segregation was still strong in US during that time, and the UK still had colonies. Yeah, they were two of the freest nations in the world when it comes to political freedom and saying that they weren't free is a bit anachronistic, but they're still far from free for modern standards. Regarding the topic, I think the bomb was necessary, but there's still a huge debate on whether it was a war crime and a crime against humanity or not. As for the topic, the article should IMO be neutral, showing arguments for both sides (like every good history book on the war does, and indeed, the article does that relatively well). None of us are experts and we're not going to decide who's right on this subject. I do think, however, that the categories should stay since they are related to the subject. That's at least how I view categories on Wikis. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For exactly the same reason, the 'Nationalism in Japan' category is needed for the article. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki are related to anti-Asian racism, they are also related to historical revisionism based on the wrong nationalism of the Japanese. I rather think the latter is far more pernicious. The traditional view of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that it was America's best choice, and that it is racism is a hideous historical revisionism led by Japanese nationalists. Umaru16 (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to dispute the idea that racism had nothing to do with the bombings. Japan was always the planned target, rather than Germany, even at the beginning of the Manhattan Project. The decision to drop the bomb was an American decision, not a Korean or Japanese decision. "The traditional view of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that it was America's best choice" Number one, that idea largely came up after the war, with internal government documents showing the decision had more to do with showing off on the international stage than saving American lives, secondly, it's the "traditional" view that Columbus was a hero, racism ended in the 60s, etc. Hell, in Japan the "traditional" view of the Nanjing massacre was that it didn't happen or wasn't that bad. We shouldn't always trust a nation's established narrative, especially when the government has a good motive for changing the facts. If you want to continue this discussion, please link to scholarly sources or historical documents, rather than appeals to authority, tradition, whataboutism, black and white thinking, etc. Plutocow (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. If you insist that the Nanjing Massacre is not a war crime, it is historical revisionism. But it is not historical revisionism to argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not war crimes. Rather, it is historical revisionism to claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are war crimes. The Nanjing Massacre is an issue that has already been concluded to be a war crime, and the traditional view that Hirosama and Nagasaki are not war crimes and the historical revisionist view that they are war crimes are conflicting. Umaru16 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

What is this "traditional view" you're referring to? You cite no sources and someone from Japan might claim the opposite are "traditional views". Besides, historical revisionism refers to historiography being updated to account for new facts and perspectives, so it's not even a bad thing (though the Nanjing massacre is so well-established that to say it didn't happen would fall under denialism). Plutocow (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you have addressed none of my other points, lol. Plutocow (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Section on modern South Koreans
I'm just inclined to remove the whole section. Plutocow (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Koreans, the main victims of Japanese war crimes during World War II" — I would say that distinction goes more to the Chinese, being the main victims of the Nanjing Massacre and Unit 731 as well as suffering the second highest number of casualties in the entire war
 * "often support Truman's decision on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki decisions" — "Often" is a weasel word here, also requires source
 * "Many Koreans also argue that BTS' T-shirts are not racist because the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legal." — More weasel words ("many Koreans also argue"), unclear definition of "legal", bad argument on the surface because Jim Crow was "legal" and clearly racist
 * "BTS are clearly anti-racists, as seen in support of BLM." — Professing support for a civil rights group does not necessarily make you anti-racist (otherwise most corporations in America during Black History Month are "anti-racist") and being pro-black civil rights doesn't mean you can't be racist against other groups (e.g. Louis Farrakhan).
 * "the ethnic/race hierarchy between the Japanese and South Koreans. (In South Korea, Korean-Japanese relations are considered similar to black-white relations.)" — I think that's a misuse of CRT. Also, the comparison to black/white relations seems questionable, do Japanese-South Koreans have systemic advantages over ethnic Koreans in South Korea?
 * "In 2023, South Korea's standard 'far-right' conservative visited Hiroshima for the first time in South Korean history and met with the victims." — Does this have any purpose beyond guilt by association?
 * "(In South Korea, pro-American is supported by everyone from liberals to conservatives, but pro-Japanese is often criticized as far right and pro-North Korean as far left.)" — Source?
 * The death toll by Germany would have been higher for Russians than for Jews, but the main core of Nazism is anti-Semitism. Change Jews to Koreans and Russians to Chinese.
 * https://www.joongang.co.kr/article/25161309 - Some Korean nationalists openly went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to justify the atomic bombings and make pro-American speeches. Japan's right-wing and Japanese nationalists posed a violent threat to them.
 * https://v.daum.net/v/20230519201314679 - Interpret the Korean comments in this news article with a Google translator. Daum is a portal site used by South Korean liberals, and indeed, South Korean liberals believe that comforting atomic bomb victims is a historical revisionism that erases Japan's "perpetrator identity" and highlights "victim identity." Therefore, South Korean liberals glorify Hiroshima and Nagasaki as absolutely legitimate attacks.
 * "BTS are clearly anti-racists, as seen in support of BLM." — I'll remove it.
 * "the ethnic/race hierarchy between the Japanese and South Koreans. (In South Korea, Korean-Japanese relations are considered similar to black-white relations.)" — I won't remove the content, but I will remove the link.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tochak_Waegu#Political_position Umaru16 (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not citing yourself with regards to the Wikipedia article, still, it was written by a topic ban evading user so I don't think it's a reliable source. As for the others, "main victims" is unnecessary and loaded and should just be removed and the actions of a handful of extreme nationalists and internet comments can not be considered representative of South Koreans as a whole. Also, this doesn't address the weasel words present throughout the section. Plutocow (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is true that the South Koreans' perception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is "big difference" from the Japanese' perception of Hiromisa and Nagasaki. Umaru16 (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * https://v.daum.net/v/20230519201314679 - Almost all South Korean media outlets argue that it is wrong in itself for the Japanese government and politicians to demand an apology from the United States. Because it distorts the clear composition that Japan was the perpetrator and the U.S. was the victim, and it is maliciously intended to cover up the Japanese war crimes Japan committed against Koreans. Umaru16 (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're still giving me one article and I'm not sure how that's supposed to be representative of anything. Can you provide any scholarly sources please? Plutocow (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It may not be easy to find related data because there is not much research on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in South Korea. I wrote down the public opinion of the people in South Korea. Umaru16 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're not going to quote things like research or surveys, then all you're left with is anecdotal evidence. I'll remove the section if you can't find anything better to defend it with. Plutocow (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If so, please do not oppose the addition of at least the 'Nationalism in Japan' category. This can bring academic data. American liberals' excessive sympathy for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, rather, stems from the Japanese nationalist business. There is no need to feel excessive sympathy for the Japanese on this issue, and the U.S. should never apologize. We need to make it clear who is the evil Axis and who is the Allies. The international controversy over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is absolutely inseparable from the Japanese nationalist business. Umaru16 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No, Western leftists oppose the bombings because they were a war crime, not because of any sympathy to Japanese nationalism (there's no significant issue with denialism of the Nanjing massacre, Unit 731, comfort women, etc. among the Western left). Axis war crimes were much more numerous and larger in scale, but that does not mean that Allied war crimes should be excused. Plutocow (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it is not agreed in academia that it is a war crime. Support and opposition sessions are also divided in English Wikipedia. Western scholars believe that Japanese war crimes are obvious war crimes, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still in dispute. Umaru16 (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't mean Western leftists support Japanese nationalism. The problem is that "pure" sympathy for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, paradoxically, benefits Japanese nationalists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#World_War_II Of course, there are also obvious war crimes committed by the United States during World War II; U.S. military committed several rape crimes in Okinawa. However, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not included in war crimes because they have many complex problems. Umaru16 (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is irrelevant that opposing the bombings "benefits" Japanese nationalists; opposing the Ustaše "benefits" Serbian nationalism but that doesn't detract from the evils of the Ustaše. Plutocow (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ustaše is a clear far-right fascist organization, but it was the liberal who made reasonable decisions about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Umaru16 (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Genocide of soldiers in Pearl Harbor who are not prepared for war, it is practically a civilian massacre. In addition, Japanese soldiers committed cruel and terrible crimes against American prisoners of war. The Japanese promote a bad atmosphere as if they were victims of World War II. Americans sympathize with Hiroshima, but Japanese do not sympathize with Pearl Harbor. This is obviously abnormal. Rather, it is normal for Americans to sympathize with Hiroshima and for Japanese to sympathize with Pearl Harbor. We need to clarify who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. It was the Nazis and the Japanese who started the war. If Japan had not invaded the United States, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have existed. Umaru16 (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is regarding Pearl Harbor, no one is denying that it is a war crime but I'm not sure why you're okay with an atomic bomb killing tens of thousands of civilians but not with an attack killing soldiers. Also, Japan didn't really invade any part of the U.S. proper, they just invaded overseas territories (which Hawai‘i and the Aleutians were at the time), although I'll admit it's pedantry, framing America in this sort of way is a bit odd as it was in nowhere near the level of danger as China or even Australia, and the primary places where "U.S." civilians were sufferring due to the war were the colonial holdings in the Philippines, Marianas, and Guam, and plus, by the time the bombs were dropped these places were liberated and the Japanese navy had been neutralized as a threat. That's another problem — Japan had long stopped being an expansionist threat by the end of the war, with them having to retreat from everywhere, and the Soviets dealt another death blow by invading Manchuria. All of the major U.S. generals at the time, including Douglas MacArthur and Chester Nimitz, thought that a simple naval blockade would be enough to get the Japanese to surrender, and given what we know of what happened in the inner Japanese circles, they were already planning on surrendering! There's a difference between acting in self-defense and annihilating an already weakened enemy. Furthermore, even if all of what you said is true, it still doesn't excuse targeting a civilian center rather than a military or government one! Saying "but the Japanese targeted civilians too" doesn't make it okay for the U.S. to also target civilians. Plutocow (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Korea was still a Japanese colony when the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bomb will soon bring about Japan's defeat. Umaru16 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Japan was already planning on surrendering before the bombs were dropped. Also, thanks for continuing to ignore that it was deliberately targeted at civilians. Plutocow (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Japan never intended to surrender. There was talk of surrender inside Japan, but it was eventually rejected inside. Therefore, some scholars' view that Japan would have surrendered soon even if the U.S. had not dropped the atomic bomb is nothing but cherry picking. If the atomic bombs were not dropped on Hiromisa and Nagasaki, they would not really surrender and would have fought to the end. So the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Truman's inevitable choice to end the war.
 * I certainly brought the source, and I hope there's no more saying that I didn't bring the source. Each scholar has a different view of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is a pity that 200,000 civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki have died. But the fact remains that Japan never tried to surrender, and denying this is unjust historical revisionism. Japan refused to surrender every time and continued its crazy behavior. Americans were tired of long wars and wanted to end them quickly, even in inhumane ways. The massacre of civilians is unethical, but it may be different from a utilitarian point of view. Umaru16 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't have time to make a huge rebuttal, but the main sticking point was that Japan wanted to keep their emperor but the U.S. wanted unconditional surrender, and since the U.S. left Hirohito around anyway, they easily could have negotiated a surrender, and most of the top U.S. generals were well aware of this. This is very much historically established, and if you want to dispute that you'll need very strong evidence.
 * Well, I've read quite a few books on the War, and I don't remember any of them saying that Japan wanted to surrender, though this could just be my memory, but I think this is completely news to me. According to Wikipedia:


 * I don't think it is correct to say that is "very much historically established". Again, I believe that the article should be overall neutral on this point. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 16:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source, especially on controversial topics like this one. Please cite historical references like I have. Plutocow (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm currently looking at my bookshelf. I can see "History of the Second World War", by Basil Liddell Hart; "The Second World War", by Anthony Beevor; "Second World War" by Martin Gilbert; "A World at Arms" by Gerhard Weinberg (my personal favorite); "The Storm of War", by Andrew Roberts; "The Second World War"; by Gordon Corrigan; "The Second World War" by John Keegan and "Delivered from Evil", by Robert Leckie. Did I read all of them? No, I didn't. But I did spend almost an hour checking the summaries and read some pages in every single one of them, and I couldn't find anything that suggests that Japan was about to surrender (though, again, I might have missed something). Some of them, like Roberts (who is a neoconservative) actually support the bomb. A few others, like Weinberg, say that Japan didn't want to surrender. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, maybe could help us on this one. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 20:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ll get to this later, but long story short I take the position that the bombings were reasonable considering what US intelligence knew at the time. Truman didn’t know there were pro-surrender factions within the Japanese government, and he targeted cities that had both large civilian populations and significant industrial capacity without knowing how much misery the radiation fallout would cause. 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Japan clearly did not intend to surrender, and American liberals should not fall for the instigation of Japanese nationalists. At that time, the atomic bombing was inevitable to induce Japan to surrender.  I strongly agree. Umaru16 (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)