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

191–196 of 196 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#191

Post by bagacrap »

animeweedlord wrote: post #94
rangibaby wrote: post #70

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 American schools an overwhelming amount of time is spent teaching about the sins of our country and other white people. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, the genocide of Native Americans. In a unit on WWII, a week would be spent on the entire war, and the other 3 specifically dedicated to the Holocaust. All in all I'd say we spent over half of our history lessons and a third of our English lessons covering subjects like the…

I agree with you but the schools' focus on the Holocaust, in my experience, was heavily centered on the Jewish experience, despite that many millions of non Jews were also exterminated. I guess this is because America has lots of Jews but not so many Poles, handicapped, homosexuals, etc (or they don't have much political power).

Also I remember learning about measles blankets and all that, but it never got to the point of using this historical context to inform a discussion of the current social/economic situation Native Americans face. All in all it was portrayed as a romantic and fair battle between cowboys and Indians.

Tldr the only war crimes we teach our kids are those whose victims have survived and attained some political prominence.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#192

Post by slededit »

sukilot wrote: post #123
hudibras wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the U.S. had instead somehow parachuted in 200,000 troops to Hiroshima, and then lined up and shot to death 100,000 men, women, children, elderly people, hospital patients, etc., and then burned every building down to the ground, would that be okay? What if by doing so it would end the war? Even if there were going to be many U.S. military casualties (which I doubt, although I know this is debatable), that doesn't…

Why do soldiers deserve to die more than civilians? This is not obvious. Soldiers by and large are not enrolled in war by virtue of free choice among competitive options.

Soldiers have the means to defend themselves.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#194

Post by palerdot »

The more searing question for me is the argument that the shock created by the atomic bombings has successfully prevented a WW 111. I cannot come to terms with this argument though I slightly tend to agree with it. On the other hand, the bombings were done just to force a japanese surrender, not with a foresighted view of stopping all the horrible future wars in this planet. Also, I'm not sure whether vietnam, gulf wars will be considered under the "world war" category as a lot of them happened after the japanese bombings.

Now, I just resign myself that for whatever reason it happened, and let us learn whatever we could from it.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#195

Post by sangnoir »

ksou32 wrote: post #169
sangnoir wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Added additional context to your question: > Say as an armed soldier, 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 on civilians to end the war ? I know WWII blurred the lines on what counts a legitimate target (military installations, civilian-manned factories, entire towns like the firebombing of Dresden). As a soldier, would you…

Most of the men in WW 2 were drafted. In that case I see no difference between a solder and a civilian. Truman's duty is to American boys who are dying in a war Japan started. He's wasn't the president of Japan You also have to factor in with any negotiation Japan may of argued they still owned Korea, as they'd had since 1910 In the Battle of the Bulge children were drafted,they magically become disposable war machin…

> In that case I see no difference between a solder and a civilian.

Surely even when you're drafted, being trained and armed sets you apart from civilians? This WWII vet[1] is of the opinion that even unarmed soldiers (AKA ejected pilots who no longer have access to arms) are not legitimate targets, let alone civilians.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8LVlYJ5eJU

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#196

Post by zurn »

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…

> no nation or ethnicity has a moral high ground to stand on

There are quite a few old and small countries and ethnic groups that have reasonably good human rights record in the post-Columbus times. See Iceland or the Sami people for example.

Post reply on HN