Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hiroshima (1946)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#31

Post by Retric »

Scirra_Tom wrote: post #15
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what to think, but here's an interesting argument. What would the counterargument look like? "When Okinawa was finally declared secure, the cost had been horrific. Some 150,000 Okinawans died, approximately one-third the island's population. An additional 10,000 Koreans, used by the Japanese military as slave labor, died as well. Of the 119,000 or so Japanese soldiers, as many as 112,000 were killed in t…

I don't think many people doubt that a land invasion to the bitter end would kill more people than dropping the bombs, but the argument is was the bomb necessary? Some higher ups in the military at the time thought Japan was on the brink of total surrender. "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - DWIGHT EISENHOWER (in 1963) "It is my opinion that the use…

Remember, on an average week in WWII more civilians died than from either of the bomb blasts. Together they might have equaled an average week, but probably not. That's the scale we are talking about.

The month was likely below average for the war. So, it's not just a question of would we have invaded, but just how many days it shortens the war.

Further, it is likely more people died in Tokyo than either of those city's.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#32

Post by kctess5 »

nxzero wrote: post #26
lotharbot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like every time this topic comes up, there are people who seem to "know" a lot of things, and on occasion they can point to real documentation -- letters that can be traced to people in the presidential cabinet, for example -- but very often the things people "know" turn out to be speculative, or after-the-fact rationalizations, or connecting dots that were known individually by people in different parts of the…

Question should not be how well it is documented, but why it is not well documented.

I feel like this is akin to asking why the staging of the moon landing was not more well documented.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#34

Post by nxzero »

kctess5 wrote: post #32
nxzero wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question should not be how well it is documented, but why it is not well documented.

I feel like this is akin to asking why the staging of the moon landing was not more well documented.

The two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people. No idea what your point is, please explain.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#35

Post by Retric »

nkoren wrote: post #18
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what to think, but here's an interesting argument. What would the counterargument look like? "When Okinawa was finally declared secure, the cost had been horrific. Some 150,000 Okinawans died, approximately one-third the island's population. An additional 10,000 Koreans, used by the Japanese military as slave labor, died as well. Of the 119,000 or so Japanese soldiers, as many as 112,000 were killed in t…

That's a straw man. There were many alternatives apart from an invasion, such as a submarine blockade (as the navy was proposing), or simply accepting the conditional surrender which Japan had been offering through back-channels for weeks.

Even a blockade would have likely killed vastly more people unless it was really short term.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#36

Post by Hondor »

It's funny how war is always glorious from the point of view of the aggressor and always sad from the point of view of the aggressed (sp?), even when they're the same person! How we feel depends on who's story we're reading at the time.

"She had not had an easy time. Her husband, Isawa, had gone into the Army just after Myeko was born, and she had heard nothing from or of him for a long time, until, on March 5, 1942, she received a seven-word telegram: “Isawa died an honorable death at Singapore.” "

In case you don't know what her husband would have contributed to in Singapore - "between 25,000 and 50,000 ethnic Chinese in Singapore and Malaya ... were rounded up and taken to deserted spots around the island and killed systematically." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_occupation_of_Singapo...

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#37

Post by lotharbot »

nkoren wrote: post #29
lotharbot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like every time this topic comes up, there are people who seem to "know" a lot of things, and on occasion they can point to real documentation -- letters that can be traced to people in the presidential cabinet, for example -- but very often the things people "know" turn out to be speculative, or after-the-fact rationalizations, or connecting dots that were known individually by people in different parts of the…

> So my question is, how well documented was the Japanese back-channel surrender offer? Is it documented that it was made to legitimate decision-makers through those back channels? [Edit: I linked to a terrible source. I apologise.]

interesting. Based on that, it looks like the sticking point really was whether the Emperor's safety would be guaranteed (thought he was eventually kept as a figurehead, it's not clear the US leadership expected to take that path.)

EDIT: that said, do you have a source that isn't a holocaust-denial website?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#38

Post by [deleted] »

lotharbot wrote: post #22
nkoren wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This counterfactual loses much of its appeal when you learn that Japan was beaten and had been trying, through back channels, to conditionally surrender for months prior to the bombing. Their sole condition was guaranteed safety for the Emperor: the US refused to grant this, and so the fighting continued. As history shows, the US had no intention of harming the emperor -- so why wouldn't it accept this condition? And…

Seems like every time this topic comes up, there are people who seem to "know" a lot of things, and on occasion they can point to real documentation -- letters that can be traced to people in the presidential cabinet, for example -- but very often the things people "know" turn out to be speculative, or after-the-fact rationalizations, or connecting dots that were known individually by people in different parts of the…

[deleted]

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#39

Post by crazydoggers »

nkoren wrote: post #29
lotharbot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like every time this topic comes up, there are people who seem to "know" a lot of things, and on occasion they can point to real documentation -- letters that can be traced to people in the presidential cabinet, for example -- but very often the things people "know" turn out to be speculative, or after-the-fact rationalizations, or connecting dots that were known individually by people in different parts of the…

> So my question is, how well documented was the Japanese back-channel surrender offer? Is it documented that it was made to legitimate decision-makers through those back channels? [Edit: I linked to a terrible source. I apologise.]

IHR is not a trustworthy source...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Rev...

"The IHR is not regarded as conducting serious historical research by mainstream historians and academics but rather as conducting pseudo-science..."

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#40

Post by ksou32 »

It's very easy to judge past America 60 years from the moment.

Say you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns.

Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon to end the war ?

Post reply on HN