# Why did US planners think Japan had to be invaded? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 18, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786 "2014-09-18T01:27:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/21 "2014-09-18T12:40:28Z")
[QUOTE=Velocity] Why couldn’t a “roll back Japan’s conquests but let their homeland be” approach suffice, like Operation Desert Storm which defeated Saddam’s forces but left Iraq still largely up to its own devices after the war? [/QUOTE] Yeah, that worked great, didn’t it? And Saddam didn’t have a largely intact overseas empire to fall back on. I suppose we could have tried a long-term air and sea blockade to slowly starve millions of Japanese to death, which would’ve been more humane that using the A-bomb. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/22 "2014-09-18T12:43:27Z")
Racism and the Soviet threat seem to be obvious factors, but this thread and elsewhere I’ve never seen that backed up by evidence. Not that I’ve looked that hard either, and those things may not appear in documents, but if someone has some evidence that these things played a part in the military/government decisions it would be useful to see it. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/23 "2014-09-18T14:48:07Z")
Deleted per request of poster. Duplicate below. -JC ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/24 "2014-09-18T14:55:28Z")
Damn, I screwed up the editing on my previous post. It should have been: > [@Potsdam Declaration](#): > > There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world… The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful productive lives. In August of 1945, there were 3,450,000 Japanese servicemen occupying a considerable amount of territories in many countries, including China, DEA, Singapore, Indochina and many Pacific islands. How does the OP propose freeing those? It was much easier to fight on Japanese homeland than beat them in each and every territory they occupied. Some comments on various posts. > [@etv78](#): > > You also wanted to destroy the enemy war machine. The bomb was the most efficient method to achieve this. The problem was the ultra-nationalists who controlled the IJA and many other institutes. It was necessary to defeat them for good. > [@etv78](#): > > It also would have driven a tyrant from power, so there’s that. Who was that? > [@TriPolar](#): > > The Japanese atrocities didn’t have the shock value of the Nazi concentration camps, but they Pearl Harbored us at Pearl Harbor, and even the Nazis didn’t slaughter and torture POWs the way they did. It may have been racism, or just vengence, but it feels like there was a mood that they had to be punished somehow. Racism fails to account for the similar conditions imposed on Germany. Vengeance was not a particularly large factor. The Allies simply decided they could not allow the militants to remain in power in Japan, any more than they would have allowed Hitler to remain once the German army was back in its own country. > [@](#): > > Politicians knew they needed to end the war altogether, and that was a large part of the decision to use nuclear weapons in the end. The US public would not have allowed the war to end in a position where we would have had to fight again, either. > [@hansel](#): > > Actually, the Japanese did surrender unconditionally. Afterwards, the emperor presented himself to McArthur, expected to be executed, and even offering to accept it willingly if it allowed Japan to escape some of the American wrath they were expecting. McArthur instead retained a figurehead emperor because it would make occupation and rebuilding easier, but that was never part of the surrender deal. Nope. It was not an unconditional surrender and allowing the Emperor to remain in a limited role was actually the key part of the deal which led to Japan accepting the deal. One August 9, following the two bombs and the Soviet declaration of war, Japanese had [a counteroffer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan) > [@](#): > > Once the Emperor had left, Suzuki pushed the cabinet to accept the Emperor’s will, which it did. Early that morning (August 10), the Foreign Ministry sent telegrams to the Allies (by way of the Swiss Federal Political Department and Max Grässli in particular) announcing that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration, but would not accept any peace conditions that would “prejudice the prerogatives” of the Emperor. That effectively meant no change in Japan’s form of government—that the Emperor of Japan would remain a position of real power.[94] > > August 12 > > The Allied response was written by James F. Byrnes and approved by the British, Chinese, and Soviet governments, although the Soviets agreed only reluctantly. The Allies sent their response (via the Swiss Political Affairs Department) to Japan’s qualified acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 12. On the status of the Emperor it said: > > ``` > From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. ...The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.[95] > > ``` There was considerable debate within the Supreme Council on what exactly was meant by “the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers.” The hardcore militants chose a stronger Japanese word in the translation than the Foreign Ministry, and argued that the Emperor would have less power, hence they should continue fighting. The Foreign Ministry put on the best spin and eventually the Emperor decided to push for surrendering. > [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > Here are some facts you might like to consider and ponder. > > 1. Japan was already discussing surrender terms. Their one condition was to allow Emperor Hirohito to remain on the throne. US rejected this. (Ironically, MacArthur allowed him to remain on the throne anyway after the unconditional surrender). No, as noted above, this was their position on August 9th and the decision was made by the Allied governments. MacArthur wasn’t consulted. Others have noted the lack of facts in your post, so I won’t bother saying that again. > [@](#): > > 1. The Soviet army invaded Manchuria on August 9th. Up until that point, the Soviets had not been a problem for the Japanese as they were occupied with fighting the Germans in the West. After the defeat of Germany, the Soviets brought their attention to the East and were looking to do some land grabbing. Indeed they succeeded in taking Sakhalin and other smaller islands off Hokkaido. Arguably, this is what really triggered Japan’s unconditional surrender to the US. They feared what would happen if the Soviets continued to advance. So much misinformation, so little time to correct. (OK, I lied about not commenting about the made-up facts. It’s just so ironic that this is called "facts.) The Soviet Union would have loved to have sat this out, but the US offered enough concussions to obtain the promise in intervention within three months of Germany’s defeat. Japan and the USSR had a neutrality pact which was to have expired in April of 1946. The Soviets informed Japan that they would not renew the pact, but the pact was still in effect at the time the Soviets attacked Japan. The Japanese were hoping that the Soviets would intervene on their behalf, and Stalin basically stalled them until the end. The two bombs and the Soviet entrance to the war forced the hand of the Emperor. The militants had refused to look at surrender until the discussions with the Soviets had progressed and once that was known, the decision came down to the question of surrendering or fight to the bitter end. The IJA was making plans to impose martial law, which would have placed them in a position to control the Emperor. He really had no other choice. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/25 "2014-09-18T15:03:11Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > Mind you, part of the reason that cancers deaths were low is because post-war both cities pretty much stripped the top layers of soil and dumped them elsewhere so that the background radiation from the bomb was reduced. No. It didn’t happen. Please give a cite for this. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/26 "2014-09-18T15:07:44Z")
On the subject of a Russian “land grab” did not the Soviets accept the surrender of the Japanese troops in North Korea? ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/27 "2014-09-18T15:42:00Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > As far as radiation exposure is concerned, the bombings showed that radiation isn’t nearly as dangerous as most people today believe. It’s still extremely dangerous in exactly the ways people think, but the thing is that most people don’t quite understand dosages and radioactive decay. High radiation tends to decay relatively quickly, and low radiation tends to cause things like cancers. Handy chart comparing the intensities of various sorts of radiation exposures. [https://xkcd.com/radiation/](https://xkcd.com/radiation/) ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/28 "2014-09-18T15:51:04Z")
The events ending WWI lead to the events beginning WWII. The U.S. didn’t want to fight in another bloody European war and an unconditional surrender would insure that Germany would not be able to wage another war. The difference would be that the U.S. would help rebuild Germany with capitalism, not conquest, as it’s primary motivator. Germany has become a pretty good friend and trading partner to the world. Most people in the U.S. had no idea where or what Japan was. It was a mysterious, far-away land. Until Pearl Harbor. Imperial Japan could not be left intact. Why risk the 2nd rise of an Imperial military. Unconditional surrender was the only way to eradicate the conquest mindset. An invasion of Germany was necessary because Hitler and his Nazis would not surrender. An invasion of Japan was necessary until Imperial Japan unconditionally surrendered. I feel the claims that an invasion of Japan was racism is redickuless. Hatred? Yes. Racist? No. The Allies were supporting China’s defense. Japanese-Americans were fighting in Europe with other Allied troops. Imperial Japan was hated because Imperial Japan had invaded it’s neighbors, had attacked British warships, and had bombed Pearl. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/29 "2014-09-18T15:55:42Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > In August of 1945, there were 3,450,000 Japanese servicemen occupying a considerable amount of territories in many countries, including China, DEA, Singapore, Indochina and many Pacific islands. How does the OP propose freeing those? It was much easier to fight on Japanese homeland than beat them in each and every territory they occupied. This is well worth repeating. All the time we were bombing the Japanese homeland, they (the nation of Japan) still controlled vast amounts of territory. We could have methodically fought our way through all that territory until only the island of Japan was under their control. That would have taken millions of lives and destroyed thousands of cities and towns in countries other than Japan. Or we could bomb the piss out of the island until they were willing to give up those vast territories, which is what we did. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/30 "2014-09-18T16:05:38Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I feel the claims that an invasion of Japan was racism is redickuless. Hatred? Yes. Racist? No. The Allies were supporting China’s defense. Japanese-Americans were fighting in Europe with other Allied troops. I did ask if there was evidence of racism, but ‘redickuless’? There wasn’t as much support for China as there was for England before we entered the war, and it seemed to be mostly strategic. We let a handful of Japanese Amercians to fight in Europe while putting a lot of them in internment camps at the same time. Maybe there’s no written evidence, but there was plenty of racism at the time. Still, the general racist attitude of the time may not have had anything to do with our decisions at the end of the war. But it’s reasonable to ask about it. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/31 "2014-09-18T16:18:21Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I did ask if there was evidence of racism, but ‘redickuless’? There wasn’t as much support for China as there was for England before we entered the war, and it seemed to be mostly strategic. We let a handful of Japanese Amercians to fight in Europe while putting a lot of them in internment camps at the same time. Maybe there’s no written evidence, but there was plenty of racism at the time. > > Still, the general racist attitude of the time may not have had anything to do with our decisions at the end of the war. But it’s reasonable to ask about it. Ask away. No one said you couldn’t ask questions. I provided my opinion of the situation. Racism was well established in the 1930s. However, Imperial Japan didn’t invade Manchuria or China because of racism. Imperial Japan didn’t start a war with the West by sinking British and American warships because they were racist. The U.S., Australians, New Zealanders, and British didn’t attack Japanese because they were racist. The world was at war and the Imperial Japanese chose to fight and would not surrender. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/32 "2014-09-18T16:31:30Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > And if the argument is that, “Japan might attack other countries and continue to pose a future threat if we left it alone,” well then, does that mean the coalition forces should have tried to conquer all of Saddam’s Iraq in 1991? There was a very good reason not to invade Iraq after liberating Kuwait. Iraq serves as a buffer between the mostly-Shi’a Iran and the mostly-Sunni Saudi Arabia. With Saddam Hussein in power, Saudi Arabia had a Sunni state on its border. (Note that Sunnis are in the minority in Iraq, but Saddam filled government positions with Sunnis.) Removing Saddam from power in Iraq would have destabilised the region, resulting in an explosion of well-armed terrorist groups with a profound hatred of the West, which is why it would have been unwise to remove him from power. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/33 "2014-09-18T16:57:12Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > On the subject of a Russian “land grab” did not the Soviets accept the surrender of the Japanese troops in North Korea? Yes, as per prior agreement they stopped at the 38th parallel leaving southern Korea under the administration of Japan until American forces arrived at Inchon on [September 8th](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria#Campaign): > [@](#): > > On August 18, several Soviet amphibious landings had been conducted ahead of the land advance: three in northern Korea, one in Sakhalin, and one in the Kuril Islands. This meant that, in Korea at least, there were already Soviet soldiers waiting for the troops coming overland. In Sakhalin and the Kurils, it meant a sudden establishment of Soviet sovereignty. > > The land advance was stopped a good distance short of the Yalu River, the start of the Korean peninsula, when even the aerial supply lines became unavailable. The forces already in Korea were able to establish control in the peninsula’s northern area. In accordance with arrangements made earlier with the American government to divide the Korean peninsula, Soviet forces stopped at the 38th parallel, leaving the Japanese still in control of the southern part of the peninsula. Later, on 8 September 1945 American forces landed at Incheon. To comment further on the subject of the subject of the Soviets looking ‘to do some land grabbing’ the southern half of Sakhalin and the Kurils had been agreed upon to be given (returned, actually, in the case of Sakhalin which Japan had taken the southern part of in the 1905 Russo-Japanese War; the Kurils gets a bit more complicated but it too was originally Russian territory for the most part) to the Soviets at Yalta. None of the other territory taken from Japanese forces by the Soviets was incorporated into the Soviet Union. [Per wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference): > [@](#): > > Roosevelt wanted the USSR to enter the Pacific War with the Allies. One Soviet precondition for a declaration of war against Japan was an American official recognition of Mongolian independence from China (Mongolian People’s Republic had already been the Soviet satellite state in World War One and World War Two), and a recognition of Soviet interests in the Manchurian railways and Port Arthur (but not asking the Chinese to lease), as well as deprivation of Japanese soil (such as Sakhalin and Kuril islands) to return to Russian custody since Treaty of Portsmouth; these were agreed without Chinese representation, consultation or consent, with the American desire to end war early by reducing American casualties. Stalin agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the Pacific War three months after the defeat of Germany. Stalin agreed to Roosevelt to keep the nationality of the Korean peninsula intact as Soviet Union entered the war against Japan. Japan officially renounced its rights to Sakhalin and the Kurils (along with Korea, Taiwan, and other parts of the Empire) in the [1951 Treaty of San Francisco](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco#The_fate_of_Japanese_overseas_territories_and_Taiwan). Only 4 of the 56 islands of the Kurils are [disputed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute), and in part the Japanese claim is that the islands in question aren’t part of the Kuril Islands. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/34 "2014-09-18T17:07:16Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > This is well worth repeating. All the time we were bombing the Japanese homeland, they (the nation of Japan) still controlled vast amounts of territory. We could have methodically fought our way through all that territory until only the island of Japan was under their control. That would have taken millions of lives and destroyed thousands of cities and towns in countries other than Japan. Or we could bomb the piss out of the island until they were willing to give up those vast territories, which is what we did. yes, they simply would not have given up these territories, including Korea and Taiwan, the former they claimed as part of Japan. The whole point of the US strategy of island hopping was to avoid all of those bloody fights with the enemy dug in and willing to fight to the death. While the original plans for the invasion of the homeland included both attacks on Kyushu and then onto the Kanto plain, some were pushing to change or forgo the invasion of Kyushu because of the recognition of the large number of _tokko_ (kamikaze) planes and the size of the army there. Mac wanted to attack, for his personal glory, I’m sure, but Admiral King and others wanted to rethink the plans. Then the bombs and the USSR made the point moot. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/35 "2014-09-18T17:10:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Why did US planners assume that “Our only two options are a full-scale invasion costing hundreds of thousands of lives…or nukes?” Also, as a nitpicky point, US planners thought a full scale invasion would cost millions of lives. They actually ordered (from memory) over 500k purple hearts for US troops alone in the expectation that we would sustain at least that many causalities in a forced entry invasion. The Japanese causalities were expected be be several times that, at least (and doesn’t count British, Russian, Canadian, etc causalities, which would be equally heavy). The atomic bombs, nasty as they were, were an order of magnitude less costly all around to what would have happened had we tried an invasion. And, as noted by several posters up thread, it was a hell of a lot less costly to the Japanese in terms of lives than attempts to starve them out while also continuing conventional bombing, which we certainly would have been doing. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/36 "2014-09-18T17:18:49Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > 1. The Soviet army invaded Manchuria on August 9th. Up until that point, the Soviets had not been a problem for the Japanese as they were occupied with fighting the Germans in the West. Just adding that a major reason the Soviets were “not…a problem for the Japanese” was that the Japanese scrupulously avoided antagonizing them after having encountered the pre-_Barbarossa_ Soviet military machine at [Khalkhin-Gol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol). I stressed pre-_Barbarossa_ because by 1945 the Soviet army was vastly better-equipped, better trained, and immeasurably better-led than it had been when it had crushed the best part of the Japanese army in 1939. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/37 "2014-09-18T17:28:44Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > We let a handful of Japanese Amercians to fight in Europe while putting a lot of them in internment camps at the same time. Maybe there’s no written evidence, but there was plenty of racism at the time. Americans were scared shitless over the [Nihau Incident.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niihau_Incident) ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2014, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/38 "2014-09-18T23:14:54Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Still, the general racist attitude of the time may not have had anything to do with our decisions at the end of the war. But it’s reasonable to ask about it. And is there any evidence of differences between how Germany and Japan were treated in the Allied approaches to the end of the respective, which could possible be due to racism? ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/39 "2014-09-19T00:51:38Z")
Sorry it’s not clear. The Iraq war (1991) was mentioned. So I was referring to Saddam. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786/40 "2014-09-19T00:59:09Z")
> [@TokyoBayer](#): > > And is there any evidence of differences between how Germany and Japan were treated in the Allied approaches to the end of the respective, which could possible be due to racism? Not that I know of. The situations were different, but all I’ve seen about this indicates ending the war was the overriding concern. Racism as a factor in using Abombs is often speculated, but there is no real evidence of racism in those decisions that I know of either. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-us-planners-think-japan-had-to-be-invaded/698786.md?page=3)