.... This was a vignette about an event and should be looked at objectively. But it wasn't. Its as if life was wonderful and suddenly big bad meanies ruined it. Theres a backstory to this event and it was totally skipped - just to draw out sympathy. ...
I probably shouldn't, but here goes anyway.
Whether or not a post in this thread is on- or off-topic depends to me on whether or not the topic is the anime and its historical accuracy or the event itself. I don't know that that really got clearly defined but it was almost preordained that there would be a swerve into the event itself.
To look objectively at the anime itself, other than the technical quality of the graphics and sound and whether it accurately portrayed the visual horror of being nuked the only other areas to consider are its context and historical accuracy since it deals with a historical event. Since the technical aspects haven't received much comment that leaves only context and accuracy.
Any discussion of the bombings that portrays them as stand-alone events is at best slanted and totally removes the context. The bombings were the end of the road Japan chose to go down in 1941 and to ignore that is to expose the underlying agenda to portray the U.S. as the aggressors and for that reason it does in fact slam the U.S.. No big surprise that Americans would take offense. To point out what was omitted speaks directly to context and historical accuracy which is appropriate to a discussion of the anime. Had the anime at least in general terms acknowledged that there was a long, brutal war preceding the bombing it would have at least provided a minimally accurate context.
That Americans on the forum get their backs up after seeing the U.S. portrayed as maniacal demons who nuked a peace loving Japan just because it could shouldn't be that difficult for anyone to understand. It's got nothing to do with hating Japan or most of the other reasons posited here. It's got everything to do with selective memory or agenda ignoring the history leading up to the bombings and the patently anti-American slant.
It's maybe a bit of a stretch but think in terms of the Brits being portrayed as hateful, bloodthirsty, vicious sods who gleefully pounded Bismarck to the bottom of the Atlantic with massive loss of life in retribution for Hood instead of steaming alongside and capturing him (taking huge losses in ships and men), waiting for him to surrender (since he was clearly going to lose the battle anyway) or just make a big circle of ships around him to contain him and eventually starve him into surrendering. I suspect you'd get much the same reaction from the Brits to being portrayed this way in the face of the military necessity and impracticality of the other options as you have from Americans in this case.
Well, that's enough (and probably too much). I'll quit before I get into any more trouble.
Gary