Live data from Hacker News

Hiroshima (1946)

newyorker.com

101–110 of 196 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#101

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…

At least in my experience in the US school system, not a lot talks about American behaviour in WW2

Besides the atom bomb, America basically bombed Japan out of existence. So much so that when the atomic bombs were dropped, it was first assumed to be just another part of that night's bombing runs. No major city was less than 90% destroyed.

The issues of Japanese war behaviour comes up very often, and the people have been very outspoken in not wanting to return to a militarised state. I would say that Japan has mostly behaved in a similar manner to Germany on the topic (if with several decades of lateness).

You can open up Japanese textbooks and find the history of the war (and the unrest beforehand that lead to the military getting so much power).

EDIT: another thing. There are movies/TV serials about wartime Japan. Every single one of them highlights the absurdity of the war that people are being sent out to. The lies the government propagated to keep the war going. The punishing of intellectuals for expressing even the smallest doubt. Some even covering how foreigners were mostly thrown out of the country. I have rarely heard doubts about whether we should have bombed Japan as much as we ended up doing.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#102
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It certainly is hard to have contrition if all your lines of thinking start with the conclusion that you are never wrong about anything, and work backwards from there

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#103
post #84

I have no problem with America bombing Japan with nuclear weapons. They (and Germany) deserved what they got, they started a world war and we finished it. All this American angst and apologia is coming from the anti-American intellectuals in the US. They have been spreading their propaganda unopposed for decades. The US is NOT GUILTY and owes no apologies whatsoever, Obama's pathetic mea culpa trip to Japan notwithst…

You're accusing others of propaganda while trotting out the old right-wing hobbyhorses of "anti-American intellectualism" and Obama apologizing for American foreign policy.

Your claim that he's making a "pathetic mea culpa trip to Japan," despite the White House having stated clearly that he doesn't intend to apologize for the bombings when the visits Hiroshoma, is itself propaganda.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, Germany and Japan were both incapable of winning anything when the bombs were dropped (Germany had surrendered, and Japan was wrecked,) so the outcome where they won WWII if the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped simply couldn't exist.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#104
post #69

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…

I came here to say pretty much exactly this. There are a lot of Japanophiles (be it culture, food, anime or whatever). Much of it seems to spring from disaffection for the West. All of that's fine but this revisionist view of history is one thing that's always bothered me about Japan. Now we have China and Japan squaring off over some uninhabited rocks in the South China Sea and I think it's at least in part a byprod…

It's rather xenophobic to think that anti-Westernism is the reason people find Japanese culture interesting.

US Hollywod movies (and McDonalds) are popular worldwide. Do those fans hate their home countries?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#105
post #95

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…

The USA just kicked President Jackson off the front of the $20 bill, and his genocide was part of the reason he was the least respected money face. The "Trail of Tears" is a major unit in several years of K-12 education.

Of course, one might wonder how Jackson has been on the $20 for this long to begin.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#106
I read the book version of this essay shortly before visiting Japan. It is strange to stand next to the one preserved ruined building at ground zero and think that there was once an atomic fire storm in that spot.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#107
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…

As in backchannels of primarily just Shigenori Togo. The Japanese war council was unanimous in rejecting unconditional surrender, and bitterly divided on the terms willing to be offered for conditional surrender. The idea that it was the safety of the emperor they were stuck on is new to me. Perhaps you are referring to Togo's statement that the Potsdam declaration would be accepted provided the position of the Emper…

So, if it's established that the Japanese government was store concerned with its own political positioning that winning the war or defending the people of the country, and an appropriate response is to immediately bomb a quarter million civilians without any ramp up or targeting of military or government targets?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#108

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…

I know very little about this topic, but the last quote is interesting to me because I have heard that something like 1 million people died of starvation in Japan after the end of the war. The blockade was so successful and the Japanese infrastructure for delivering supplies was so disrupted that even when food became available, they couldn't get it to people. As an aside, for those who live in Japan, this is why the JA exists: it was set up by the Americans to ensure good food distribution in the years following the war. I constantly marvel at how good the JA is for ensuring the local produce makes it to a local market.

In any case, even now, virtually every person who was a child during WWII in Japan suffers from severe osteoporosis which is apparently a result of malnutrition as a child. For those who have never been here (especially in the countryside), a huge percentage of the population over the age of 70 is doubled over, unable to stand upright (they are still out in the fields working, though... which blows my mind on a daily basis). The difference between health issues for the elderly in Japan and my home country of Canada is really amazing.

Again, I have no idea about any of this stuff, but my experience here in Japan lends some credence to the idea that a land invasion of Japan would have been completely unnecessary. Just keep mining the seas and in a year the war would have been over, I think.

One of the most ironic things about thinking about this is that without the unconditional surrender of Japan, I think it is unlikely that MacArthur would have had as much success in rebuilding the country. I think I would get no argument from anybody here that some of the best things of modern Japanese culture arose from that period.

To be honest, when I see articles about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I wish people didn't dwell so much about the decisions made at the time. However you slice it, war produces incredible amounts of suffering. The idea that no matter how atrocious one side behaves, we can always pull out an atrocity that will shock them out of their behaviour is crazy. Possibly it is the only way we know how to operate, but I refuse to believe that it is the only way that can be effective.

They used to say that WWI was the war to end all wars because we would remember how awful it was. But it didn't take us long to realize that we didn't have the tools to stop another world war. We need to remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only to avoid these disasters, but all of the disasters that come from the situations that led up to it. To think that we allowed the situation to get so bad that we can justify nuclear weapons -- that is what is scary. To think that we weighed the possible outcomes of hundreds of thousands dying in a land invasions, millions dying in a mass starvation, or tens or hundreds of thousands dying in a nuclear explosion. That's lunacy.

www.defence.gov tells me that the budget for the military is 585 billion this year. I assume that does not include the CIA. Where is the government "department for avoiding war"? I seem to see that the budget for the UN is $5.5 billion. 1% of the military budget. Will history repeat itself, or will we try to remember and learn from it?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#109

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…

Today, Chinese government says that Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking. In reality, Nanking's population had been doubled at that time. Plus, there were only 200,000 people from the beginning. I still think there had been something small massacres though, why can't we find dead bodies for 300,000 people?

Talking about comfort women, the system was not only Japan. USA and South Korea had also introduced exactly same system during Korean war. Look at today's USA. How many Korean prostitutes are out there? They would be called sex slaves 50 years later.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#110
Cool. I hope Americans remember this as we consider electing someone who thinks nuclear war is a bargaining tool.

"If they do, they do" is not something a President should be saying about other nations engaging in nuclear war. Go mess up someone else's planet, Trump.

Post reply on HN