[Jim727]

The very question presupposes that it was about race, and I think that should be reconsidered.

At any rate, the answer is: it depends. One of the primary differences between the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific is that in Germany there was a recognition of the fact that Germany was going to be defeated and that continuing would be bad for the people. Even much of the officer corps were opposed to continuing the war and some (ref: von Stauffenberg, etc.) took radical steps to end it.

In Japan, however, the closer the war came to the Japanese mainland the more ferocious the defense became. Read up on Saipan and Okinawa. The propaganda employed by the Japanese leadership to scare the population was rather extreme. It was quite clear that measures even beyond those being employed would be necessary to get the Japanese military to capitulate. Absent that, an invasion of the home islands would be necessary at a huge cost in casualties. For those in denial that think those casualty estimates were exaggerated, it's worth noting that we are still issuing Purple Hearts that were minted during WWII in anticipation of that invasion.

One additional fact that had to enter into the decision was that the Japanese military had begun systematically murdering POWs rather than allowing them to be repatriated. Read up on the Japanese activities in the Philippines - pretty gruesome stuff.

Had the Germans behaved in the same manner as the Japanese, I don't think there would have been any hesitation to use the Bomb to end the war in Europe; had the Japanese behaved in a manner that made its use unnecessary I doubt it would have been employed.

Tonight I'm having dinner with a gentleman who was fighting in the jungles of New Guinea during WWII. His views on racism in the Pacific are quite the reverse of what you suggested.