Hitler's Death Car!

No, this post isn't about Hitler's choice in motoring. Instead, it's a quick rumination on two subjects. The first subject is Hitler himself, especially viewed through the eye of the excellent Kraut film Der Untergung. The second involves some thoughts on the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, an event that occurred sixty years ago to-day.
For those who have yet to see it, I can give high marks to Untergung. It can be a hard film to watch, but it accomplishes something important. Ever since Hitler became a notable figure, he has attained a sort of mythical status. In Nazi Germany, he was obviously lionised as humanity's saviour, and by his enemies as a cartoonish lout (portrayed by Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator. Since the discovery of his true legacy after the war, he's been seen as an inhuman monster, even a sort of demon. In fact, when Annaliese Michel, a Bavarian girl, was exorcised in 1976 one of the demons said to be infesting her identified itself as Hitler. The common view of Hitler to-day is as a psychotic, a madman, or a demonic monster.
In truth, Hitler was a human being, and I think that this fact is the most difficult thing for us to face. Hitler, until the very end, was in control of his own actions and emotions. He did what he did not on the compulsion of some dark force, but rather of his own will. He wanted to do it because to him it was a "necessary sacrifice."
The same with his cronies. I've read one account of Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsfuerher-SS and a fanatical Nazi, attending the murder of some three hundred Jews. Despite this being a literal "drop in the bucket" compared to what Himmler had carried out, he couldn't watch it. He fainted during the proceedings.
Hitler, Himmler, and the rest of the criminals of the Third Reich were not somehow born lacking a conscience, but instead supressed it for the sake of the "greater good". There's an important lesson here- one's conscience is one's only guide to the world. Once it's ignored, there's no limit to what can happen.
The second matter, also a matter of conscience, speaks of the nuance of conscience, and the sort of inhuman decisions that must be made in the face of war. As stated previously, sixty years ago to-day a nuclear weapon was used in combat for the first time in history. A fifteen kiloton Uranium-gun weapon was dropped onto the manufacturing city of Hiroshima, Japan. Around seventy thousand died immediately, with many more dying after due to radiation.
In modern times, there's been a great deal of speculation (especially from the anti-nuclear lobby) that dropping the bombs was not necessary, and was done for more base motivations. One group holds that the US is inherently racist, and wanted to kill as many of the "Nips" as possible. Others hold that it was more a way to impress Stalin with America's technological prowess. In any case, they argue that Japan had already been reduced, and all that was needed was time.
I don't think these people have done their research, or perhaps they have let their own biases cloud their judgment. Anti-nuclear feeling is more an irrational hysteria than a reasoned opinion in many cases. It's no different here.
The basis of their theory, that a sustained air campaign could break an enemy's morale and destroy their war-fighting ability was a popular one in the early stages of World War II. In fact, aerial bombing was viewed at that time in the same light nuclear arms are viewed now. Prime Minister of Great Britain Stanley Baldwin thought bombers to be so dangerous as to merit a complete international ban, along with severe restrictions on civil aviation to prevent development of technology that might lead to advances in strategic bombardment.
After the war broke out, it was found out that bombers were not the wonder-weapons that they were thought to be. The veritable bristle of machine-gun turrets were insufficient to defend bombers against fighter attacks, and even with precision bomb-sights bombers had difficulty getting bombs close to their targets. Bomber crews suffered a terrifying loss rate in combat missions.
However, advocates of air power insisted that continuous bombing would reduce the enemy population. This is one reason why invasion was delayed until the summer of 1944, rather than 1943, which was the original date. However, it was apparent that this wasn't working, and an invasion was needed.
The will to fight in Japan had not been broken either. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both producing war materiel when they were bombed. Furthermore, the horrific fire-bombing of Tokyo in 1945 killed more than one hundred thousand people in a single night. The raid was carried out on 9-10 March 1945. Later, from 1 April to 21 June 1945, the United States invaded Okinawa, an outlying island that has historically belonged to Japan. Over the course of the battle, the American forces suffered 72,000 casualties, twice the combined toll of Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal. The Japanese lost 76,000 soldiers (which, coincidentally, was the entire strength of the Defence Force, minus 2,300 who were captured), and about 130,000-150,000 civilians (militia and otherwise), about a quarter of the population (which was estimated at about half a million).
As for the planned invasion of Japan, projected casualties for the American Forces ranged anywhere from 500,000 (a best-case estimate) to just under two million! Keep in mind that the total toll from the Civil War was about 650,000 on both sides. Also note that the total number of Americans killed in the Second World War ran about 300,00. All told, maybe a million Americans have died in all wars we've fought. Imagine increasing the number by two hundred percent in a two or three year period.
If one imagines the Americans had it bad, the Japanese would be manifestly worse. Their army historically took close to one hundred percent casualty rates because they refused to surrender. The Japanese Army designated to defend Japan had a strength of two million men in fifty-five divisions. In addition, there were a further three million men in the Army at the beginning of 1945, for a total of one hundred and forty-five divisions and five million men. Nearly all of the Defence Army would die in the operation, along with whatever divisions the High Command would throw at the advancing allied forces. If one would take Okinawa as an example, a bit more than a fifth of the population died. In the 1940 census, the Japanese population was about seventy-three million. One fifth of that is 14.6 million people. As to whether that many would have died it is hard to say, but it is worth noting that seventeen million civilians died in the USSR during the Second World War. Still, that's an atrocious figure. Millions upon millions would have died, and it seems likely that Japan would have become a vassal state of the US, as Okinawa was until the seventies.
The counter for this argument was that the Japanese were "ready to collapse" and they just needed a few more weeks. Again, not so. Even after the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were still militant elements in the government that would not bend. Eventually the Emperor intervened and ordered surrender. He was apparently shocked to it by the bombings.
Let's hope that the type of decision that Harry Truman made in August 1945 ever has to be repeated. Choosing hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths is not something that one's conscience should ever have to deal with.