:jesus-christ: .
Tag places you've been to.
I got Sacramento, Tuscan, and New York. That's Kochi, Kuwana, and Tokyo.
The important thing to understand here is the sheer scale of destruction suffered by the peoples of Asia at the blood soaked hands of America.
total area should not have a bearing on homeless people or civilian casualties; most operative being urbanization and general population... which are in fact terribly difficult to research. urbanization stats reliably start in 1960 but for what its worth "germany" (is that both halves? :shrug-outta-hecks:) was more urban than japan at that time: 71% v 63% accordin to the world bank
and only a proportion of german deportees ought to have been included in post-war stats on homelessness, if at all. transfers continued after the peace and ive got no idea the share between that & fleeing with the nazi army
im not going to go further into the reeds on this so i'll just finish with a clarification of what my position has been. i am:
a) uncertain about claims japan got the worse of bombing campaigns. before looking into it today i'd have off-handedly agreed with that assertion but i got curious, and publicly available easy information is not conclusive enough imo for a final word. but thats fairly immaterial because
b) "strategic bombing" as the Wallies called it, (and as has been euphemistically used more recently as well) is just war crimes. in the 40s they didn't have the technology to be able to avoid 'civilian targets' but they also more-or-less didn't care. in europe the british were not shy about the fact they were bombing german civilian targets as revenge for the early war. doctrinal statements both in militaries & propaganda aren't all that secretive about the "morale" effect expected on target populations after very strategically blowing up a town that also happens to have a factory & a rail line.
so my dispute is basically how did or could that have changed in a significant way from germany to japan. without extremely damning evidence (and what you've provided can firmly suggest parity, which was also my initial feel) i don't think its necessary to portray it as genocidal or necessarily as worse than what had been done to germany. Wallies to NATO, civilians dying are just an acceptable consequence of being able to bomb the enemy when they can't do it back.
and im not even saying the US wasn't racist in ww2 they were extremely racist but its important to put that context where its really exists i.e. domestic policy, propaganda, conduct of ground forces instead of trying to do a narrative of genocide when the US was far too lenient on japanese leadership & far too quick to turn them into anticommunist allies for that to have been an overriding or primary motivation
Sorry, what the devil is a "wallies"? Is that commonwealth slang?
Western-allies for times the anglos and cronies did things different from/against the USSR
I thought it was some sort of Australian insult to be honest. It's actually quite a convenient word now that I think of it.
Anyways, in relation to
I wanted to clarify that an influx of, essentially German refugees, into Germany from both their failed settler project of "Lebensraum" and of the partitioning of Eastern Germany to Poland along the Oder–Neisse line and the expulsion of the majority of Germans in the newly reclaimed Polish lands after the war, which is a - chaotic - redistribution of the general population across both Germanies.