Sorry, I should have been clear. The citation I was looking for was about people outside of East Asia not being aware of this. Where I live (in Canada), among e

Sorry, I should have been clear. The citation I was looking for was about people outside of East Asia not being aware of this. Where I live (in Canada), among everyone I know who knows anything about the second world war, Imperial Japan's massacres of civilians are common knowledge, as are their other war crimes like treatment of POWs, medical experiments on civilians, "comfort women" and so on. However, outside of the fringe neo-nazi / holocaust denier / Japanese ultranationalist crowd, which is a very small group, you won't find anyone who thinks this was anything other than Very Obviously Bad, to the point that there's not really much discussion worth having about it. If there's a controversy to be argued, it might revolve around whether Japan has done enough to apologize or pay reparations; whether Japanese civilians deserve blame for the actions of a military dictatorship; whether ethnically Japanese young people today should feel ashamed of their country or their heritage; whether it's unfair to single them out for something their grandparents did; whether these injustices are being used today to foster hatred and resentment instead of good-will and understanding; or something like that. But I don't see any insight that can be gained from a discussion of "was the USA's atomic bombing a less super-villainous action on the scale of other, universally condemned super-villainous actions like the holocaust or the rape of Nanjing?" Because on any objective scale the answer is obviously that it's not as bad. But since everyone will instantly agree about that, we can then move to a more interesting conversation of did the nuclear bombing of civilian populations fall below the moral standard we should hold ourselves to?