Rain of Ruin: Tokyo, Hiroshima, and the Surrender of Japan

Rain of Ruin: Tokyo, Hiroshima, and the Surrender of Japan by Richard Overy

The United States is unapologetic in the use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II. It is believed that the bomb saved half a million American lives - more than the Japanese lives lost in the explosions. We often second guess the use today. However, the important question to ask is why did America of the time choose to drop the bomb? Americans were tired of the war. Germany had surrendered and Americans wanted to go home. However, Japanese kept fighting what seemed to be a losing cause. The American public now saw Japanese as less than human and wanted to do whatever it took to end the war as soon as possible. The atomic bomb seemed like a great solution. 

The firebombing of Tokyo was the most destructive conventional bombing in history. More people were immediately killed in this bombing than immediately by either of the atomic bombs. The Japanese initially dismissed the atomic bombs as just another big bomb. It is uncertain whether this bombing changed the timeline of the Japanese surrender. However, they did finally surrender not long after the bombing, leading to a cause and effect alignment in the minds of Americans.

This book is an interesting exploration of the bombing that looks at it from the lens of 1945 America while tying in modern knowledge of the Japanese mentality. It does a good job of exploring how people felt and why things were done as they were.

The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931

Deluge describes how the events of World War I ushered in a massive change in the world order and a dominance of the United States. Some of the early sections offer a strong condemnation of US policy towards "minor" players in the war effort. Some small policy shifts in American policy may have led to massively different outcomes in Russia and China which would have impacted events in World War 2 and the cold war.
The book is fairly harsh on president Wilson. He seemed to be too idealistic, yet patronizing. It seems a lot of the issues of the time rose from people thinking they new what was best for other people. Many of the various revolutions revolved around charismatic elite claiming they spoke for the peasants. It seems to be a similar problem we have today. Leaders get the "masses" to side with them, but their solutions are just crafted to "look good" to the masses. Often they benefit the "elite" who know their way around the restrictions.
The interwar period was also significantly impacted by debt payment. It seemed that even back then, the bankers were able to extract the needed concessions from the countries involved. Reparations were only a small part of the system of transfer of payments, with payments to allies often being more significant. There was also little attention given to those outside of western Europe. How would things be different today if a few small changes were made in the late 1910s?