Live data from Hacker News

Hiroshima (1946)

newyorker.com

71–80 of 196 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#71
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..."

Thank you for pointing this out. I unreservedly withdraw my citation!

Having withdrawn the citation you should either replace it with a better one or retract your assertion.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#73

There are many views on the bombing. The difference is that Americans do not hide it. It's controversial, but people know about it. Same with Germans. People know about how the Germans behaved in WW2, they're not proud about it, it's learned in schools, and they do not hide it. Japan on the other side, actively hide their actions. Japanese schools present a revisionist version of history in which all their horrible a…

It's not like Japan would be the first country to selectively remember history to make itself look good. I doubt they teach much about Dresden in the UK, or the extermination of Indians in America, or killing literally every Aborigine in Tasmania, or the British forcing the Chinese to buy opium. I went to school in Japan and we didn't learn a sugar-coated version of history. We went to Hiroshima and listened to a tal…

In the UK, children are definitely taught a history to be proud of in general. Which is the opposite of how history is taught in Germany. But there were a few exceptions. I'm certain we studied the Allied bombing of Dresden and also the massacres that occurred during the Indian independence movement.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#74
post #62

There are many views on the bombing. The difference is that Americans do not hide it. It's controversial, but people know about it. Same with Germans. People know about how the Germans behaved in WW2, they're not proud about it, it's learned in schools, and they do not hide it. Japan on the other side, actively hide their actions. Japanese schools present a revisionist version of history in which all their horrible a…

Americans may not hide their actions, but they certainly paint the actions in a light favorable to the American self-image. Germany on the other hand exhibits complete contrition and there is no denial of the wrongness of the actions that happened. There are extreme and fringe holocaust denial beliefs in some sub-groups in Germany, but as a government policy what I've said is true.

It's hard to have contrition for policies and actions which saved, arguably, millions of lives.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#75
post #67

There are many views on the bombing. The difference is that Americans do not hide it. It's controversial, but people know about it. Same with Germans. People know about how the Germans behaved in WW2, they're not proud about it, it's learned in schools, and they do not hide it. Japan on the other side, actively hide their actions. Japanese schools present a revisionist version of history in which all their horrible a…

For the record, this doesn't reflect my personal experience in Japan in any way whatsoever. People here are quite well aware of their history, but they don't understand some people's focus on Japan's most recent expansion into China and Korea any more than Americans would understand someone whose sole concern is the eradication of native Americans. This kind of "they're not sorry enough for me" discussion is fruitles…

Yeah, regarding the not sorry enough position, people of the West generally broadcast toward Japan rather than the other way around. Read a book like "Senso," a compilation of letters to a Japanese newspaper by Japanese people sharing their recollections of the war. The sorrow becomes apparent. The shame is not hidden.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#76

There are many views on the bombing. The difference is that Americans do not hide it. It's controversial, but people know about it. Same with Germans. People know about how the Germans behaved in WW2, they're not proud about it, it's learned in schools, and they do not hide it. Japan on the other side, actively hide their actions. Japanese schools present a revisionist version of history in which all their horrible a…

> probably not

Do you know whereof you're speaking, or are you attacking a school curriculum you've imagined? Japanese education does cover these topics. There was a big controversy around 2000 when the government approved a new textbook that greatly downplayed Japan's military past but it was never used in more than a handful of schools.

Obviously there's a never-ending debate about precisely what gets taught, and right-wing activism to whitewash textbooks is always in the background. But the topics you're talking about do get taught, and discussed widely, and you'd have a hard time finding an educated Japanese person who isn't familiar with them.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#77
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like Japan would be the first country to selectively remember history to make itself look good. I doubt they teach much about Dresden in the UK, or the extermination of Indians in America, or killing literally every Aborigine in Tasmania, or the British forcing the Chinese to buy opium. I went to school in Japan and we didn't learn a sugar-coated version of history. We went to Hiroshima and listened to a tal…

In the UK, children are definitely taught a history to be proud of in general. Which is the opposite of how history is taught in Germany. But there were a few exceptions. I'm certain we studied the Allied bombing of Dresden and also the massacres that occurred during the Indian independence movement.

It seems only right to me that children be taught pride in their country and their history. There's no need to teach people to cringe at the mention of their nation.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#78
post #53
post #40

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 ?

I think would much rather my leaders just sign some sort of an armistice agreement rather than annihilate "enemy" civilians. I mean there are ways to end a war without total destruction. And the logic of killing civilians to save soldiers is just .. no comment.

[deleted]

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#79

There are many views on the bombing. The difference is that Americans do not hide it. It's controversial, but people know about it. Same with Germans. People know about how the Germans behaved in WW2, they're not proud about it, it's learned in schools, and they do not hide it. Japan on the other side, actively hide their actions. Japanese schools present a revisionist version of history in which all their horrible a…

> Japan on the other side, actively hide their actions.

The US, like the rest of the Allied powers, do more than their fair share of actively hiding their crimes during the war years. They also love to gloss over the degree to which, before they saw him as a threat to their existence, the Allied powers actually admired and respected Hitler and even sought to emulate his leadership.

I mean, most Americans sure as heck don't know that FDR literally modeled the genocide in Puerto Rico after 'the methods which Hitler used effectively'[0]. Because very few schools actually bother to mention Operation Bootstrap in the first place, let alone acknowledge that that the US forcibly sterilized 40% of Puerto Rican women (on the grounds that they were 'unfit to reproduce').

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the exception only because the events directly led to the Cold War as we know it[1], and it's kind of hard to understand the next 50 years of world history without understanding that the Cold War was happening.

[0] https://books.google.com/books?id=3llNN7jmQE4C&pg=PA255&lpg=...

[1] Yes, the Cold War would still have happened even if the US had decided not to drop the bomb, but since we did, the bombings became the unforgettable, tangible symbol of the fear that the Cold War was based on.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#80

I read through this, revisited some of the images of the aftermath. I don't think I'll be able to eat meat today, my stomach is turning and I feel like I could vomit. It is so painful figuring that this is one of the "better" possible outcomes of the war.

It's one of the usual outcomes of war in general. Humans have been maiming, burning, torturing, cutting, asphyxiating, and otherwise abusing other humans for all of recorded history.

The only difference is that nuclear weapons are industrialised death machines - much more efficient than the usual manual methods.

Post reply on HN