No he didn't. The empire of Japan was busily taking over the world when THEY STARTED THE WAR with the US. They were warned about the new weapon, and asked to surrender before each bomb was dropped. They refused until after the 2nd one fell. The destruction of 2 of their cities was nowhere near the loss of life caused by them in their quest to expand their empire

Japan refused the opportunity to surrender. It was either use the bomb, or sacrifice thousands of American soldiers to an invasion of Japan.

Genocide - "The deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." [] There was no need to drop the bombs on heavily populated cities. Dropping one over a remote area would have demonstrated its destructive power - that is IF bringing the war to a peaceful close was the intention of the US. Considering how they also committed genocide in Hamburg and Dresden with their terror bombing, it's safe to say that "peaceful" wasn't even on the table. When you win wars, your crimes get swept under the rug and called "justified".

Bringing the war to a "peaceful close"? That was secondary. Those cities were seaports and manufacturing hubs for the Japanese war effort. If Japan had surredered before the first 1 fell, there would also have been no need for the bomb. We were at war with these people, and we had been for years. The wisdom of the era was that after all the atrocities of the Japanese empire against us, and the peoples they had conquered, total unconditional surrender was the only thing acceptable. Bombing 2 cities is far from "genocide" you seem to be a fan of hyperbole.As far as Germany, their manufacturing and rail hubs were also in major population centers, that is why their cities were targeted. Better idea is when you start wars and lose them, their war crimes will be exposed.

"Genocide" refers to the wiping out or the attempt to wipe out an entire group of people. There was no effort to wipe out the Japanese. Had it not been for the bombs, the loss of life in Japan could easily have been much greater, as a result of a necessary invasion and widespread -- country-wide -- conventional bombing. The word "genocide" also does not apply to the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden. Again, there was no systematic attempt to wipe out the German people or German culture. Go back to school, 1465. You are woefully undereducated. As a historian and professor of history, I am in a position to say.

@ Victorine - My definition left out a crucial part that has a bearing on this discussion. Yours added a part that takes away from the facts. Genocide refers to "in whole or in part". It doesn't have to target an entire group of people. However you want to sugarcoat it, it's still crimes against humanity. [] "Had it not been for the bombs, the loss of life in Japan could easily have been much greater..." - this too, is false. Adm. William Leahy, Truman’s chief of staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir "I Was There" that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… In being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

Japan didn't start the war against the United States - FDR did. He wanted in the European war but couldn't get Congressional support because the US had no dog in that fight. To get around Congress, FDR provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor - thereby making FDR guilty of treason. Just think about one thing: what could have possibly made the tiny island-nation of Japan think they could challenge America in a war and live to tell about it? That would have been the stupidest idea in the history of the world. Taking on the United States could have only been in retaliation after being pushed too far - and this is how FDR committed treason. He provoked an enemy attack on his own country.

What many do not know in the USA is the delay for Japan to surrender was because they were about to test their atomic bomb. Their test failed so they reluctantly surrendered. I did not know of this until I lived in Canada and saw the documentary on the Canadian History Channel. Also the reason there were so many US warships just outside Tokiyo Bay was because the War Dept. was afraid it was a trap to attack the American Surrender Group.

The Japanese are still around today. Also after the first bomb hit Japan had the opportunity to surrender and refused so clearly dropping a bomb in a remote area would have been pointless. It isn't like there was a big stockpile of them.

It wasn't the bombs that convinced Japan to surrender. They weren't as "bad" as history wants us to believe - and they sure as hell didn't "save" all those lives they are reputed to have saved. The reason Japan surrendered was that they had the Soviets knocking on their back door. They figured that they'd get better treatment surrendering to the United States than the Soviets.

@Thinker - Japan completely gave up on their nuclear weapons project about two years before the US dropped the first atomic bomb. It had nothing to do with the delay in their surrender.

@ bostjan64 ~ I only know what I saw on the Canadian History channel while I was living in Canada. In fact I saw the same program twice. Hitler was also working on a bomb as well but the Brits were able to stop their efforts. I don't remember the dropping of the bombs on Japan but I do remember VJ day and all the cheering going on in the streets.

When Harry S. Truman took office, he made clear that his sympathies were with the Jewish people and accepted the Balfour Declaration, explaining that it was in keeping with former President Woodrow Wilson's principle of "self-determination." Truman initiated several studies of the Palestine situation that supported his belief that, as a result of the Holocaust, Jewish people were oppressed and also in need of a homeland. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/press-release-announcing-us-recognition-of-israel

Just so you know that things aren't always as we're expected to believe. "The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs, or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial, or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the underdog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes." - Harry Truman ### "Jesus Christ couldn't please them (Jews) when he was here on earth, so how can anyone expect that I would have any luck?" - Harry S Truman ### The Balfour Declaration was no petition to establish a homeland for the Jews although it did advocate such an idea to justify the deal it actually represented - and the claim was intended to attract support from the rest of the world. The Balfour Declaration was a secret agreement made between Zionism and Britain as payment for bringing the United States into the war. The "homeland for the Jews" bit was actually an "establish a political state" concept. It was nothing but a facade that gave the Zionists an appearance of legitimacy.

The assertion that Truman hated Jewish people is false. Eddie Jacobson, a Lithuanian Jew, was Truman's long-time business partner and purported best friend for many years. It was Jacobson who convinced Truman to open formal talks with Israeli diplomats. Truman was wishy-washy on Zionism for a long time, but ultimately embraced the ideology.