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

131–140 of 196 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#131

Post by studentrob »

kristopolous wrote: post #57
Hondor wrote: post #36

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,…

This reminds me of Amy Goodman and Allan Nairn's story when they were doing journalism in East Timor: "Allan suggested we walk to the front of the crowd between the soldiers and the Timorese, because although we knew that the army had committed many massacres, we hoped that we, as foreign journalists, could serve as a shield for the Timorese. Standing with headphones on and microphone and camera out in full view, we…

That's terrible, for sure.

The parent comment is talking about one person who could be viewed as a hero and a victim, depending on the story teller.

I don't see why the East Timor story serves as a reminder, except that it's another example of an atrocity in war.

No war is nicer than any other and you can find many, many examples of atrocities like this throughout history across the world.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#132

Post by krapp »

travmatt wrote: post #126
krapp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Meanwhile, to my point above, America does nothing but wage wars since WW2. Make of that what you will. America is the reason Japan is pacifist. America forced Japan to become pacifist at the point of (quite a few) guns. While it's wonderful that the Japanese people have embraced pacifism culturally, their country's pacifist stance is nonetheless paid for with the obligation of American military violence.

Yea the snideness of that last sentence is a bit much, seeing as its current pacifism was bought with American blood and is secured by the Pax Americana.

Fair enough, I removed the last sentence, but I stand by the snideness nonetheless.

If nihonde wants to contrast Japan's pacifism with America's violence, they would do well to remember how much easier it is to remain pacifist when someone else has to take the bullets for you.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#133

Post by dmfdmf »

krapp wrote: post #128
dmfdmf wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if the Right says the sun rises in the East should I repudiate that because they say it too? The American intellectuals hate America and blame America regardless of the context. That is a fact and if you are honest you can discover that fact for your self. At least we can agree to agree, the Left and Right are a false alternative offered to the American people.

I tend to disagree with people who insist on political absolutes. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

> Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Isn't this an absolute? So you tend to disagree with yourself or do you make exceptions for self-contradiction?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#134

Post by dang »

hkjgkjy wrote: post #11

> However I may feel about the bomb having been used, I don't doubt it saved more lives than it took. I won't apologize for being rude: fuck you. What judgmental and self-centered view. Views like that are reason for americans being hated worldwide. Would it be the same if a nuke dropped in Chicago, or Las Vegas?

Personal attacks and name-calling are not allowed on Hacker News, regardless of how wrong someone is.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11750599 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#135

Post by studentrob »

Hondor wrote: post #36

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,…

Yes Japan was awful during WW II. That's why the US dropped the bomb.

The thing to remember is,

(1) how devastating nuclear weapons can be

(2) how close the world came to a much larger nuclear holocaust during the cold war period

(3) that it's possible for us to forget the past and re-enter such a period

(4) that today's nuclear weapons are 1,000x more powerful than the ones that leveled two Japanese cities [1]

(5) only nine countries have these weapons, and

(6) that it only takes one bad actor to start a worldwide nuclear war

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield#Examples_...

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#136

Post by krapp »

dmfdmf wrote: post #133
krapp wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to disagree with people who insist on political absolutes. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

> Only a Sith deals in absolutes. Isn't this an absolute? So you tend to disagree with yourself or do you make exceptions for self-contradiction?

It was a joke, but to be honest, I always make exceptions for self-contradiction and the possibility that I am unaware of my own ignorance. I believe humans are by nature contradictory, we're wired for bias confirmation, not truth. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#137

Post by Aeolun »

travmatt wrote: post #126
krapp wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Meanwhile, to my point above, America does nothing but wage wars since WW2. Make of that what you will. America is the reason Japan is pacifist. America forced Japan to become pacifist at the point of (quite a few) guns. While it's wonderful that the Japanese people have embraced pacifism culturally, their country's pacifist stance is nonetheless paid for with the obligation of American military violence.

Yea the snideness of that last sentence is a bit much, seeing as its current pacifism was bought with American blood and is secured by the Pax Americana.

You are saying that the Japanese didn't pay for their current pacifism with the blood of all _their_ soldiers that died in that war?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#138

Post by avallet »

nihonde wrote: post #67
badminton1 wrote: post #59

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…

I've been living in Japan for a couple years, and this reflects my experience too with regards to most people I've met. However, it's not just the government, but also a powerful and ageing elite which shares these views. Admittedly not people you'll meet everyday, yet they wield obvious political influence.

Anecdotally, I hadn't met any such people until yesterday, where I had to attend a rotary international conference for a scholarship I receive from them. The audience was composed of around 700 people, most of them CEOs of local corporations, politicians or otherwise wealthy and connected people. The average age must have been somewhere in the late fifties/early sixties. The invited speaker was Masahiko Fujiwara [1], a mathematician turned essayist, who probably should have stuck to number theory. It was basically an hour and a half of chauvinist propaganda, hailing the past greatness of Japan, the superiority of the Japanese people, and mocking (I quote and translate) "Americans, Europeans and white people" at every turn with racial stereotypes. And the entire audience was laughing and clapping their hands! It's scary to think that these people might well be a representative sample of the ruling Japanese elite.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masahiko_Fujiwara

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#139

Post by mkoryak »

Hondor wrote: post #36

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,…

on a side note, that article has been vandalized.

"Allied commando unit known as Z Force led by Major Pidar McBlyat"

His name is made up of 2 common russian swear words

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#140

Post by hackcasual »

sukilot wrote: post #107
hackcasual wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The morality of the action of dropping 2 nuclear bombs on Japan is separate from the question of whether the Japanese government was making a bona fide attempt to surrender.
Post reply on HN