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

Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 124 posts

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#91

Post by chris_mc »

skh wrote: post #75
chris_mc wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't know if the bombings were morally right or wrong and can see the argument both ways. But from at least one drafted soldier's perspective they were a good thing. Soldiers volunteer to fight a war, civilians don't. If the Japanese had bombed LA, we wouldn't be having this conversation, every American would understand why this was morally wrong.

The question isn’t whether Americans would unambiguously view a fire bombing of LA as morally wrong. The question is would the Japanese view it as morally wrong? Of course the victims view it as wrong. Would the offenders?

That's not the question, the question is "was it morally wrong to drop the nukes?"

My position, based on my classes on the rule of law in warfare from a US service academy, is that civilians are an illegal target for the military and using a nuke on several hundred thousand people to take out a handful of industry is definitely outside of acts of legal warfare. It's different to target a manufacturing facility directly, even with civilians inside.

So, this isn't an argument, my position is the correct one. Even a US service academy teaches its officer candidates that the nukes were objectively wrong. The lives of civilians are more sacred than the lives of soldiers during wartime, legally.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#92

Post by fefe23 »

Note how quickly they feel the need to defend themselves, why they couldn't get the bomb done in time. Considering their situation (prisoners of war in the UK), I find that instinct patently absurd.

Over half of the transcript is them coming up with excuses why the Americans succeeded where they did not. Let it be a lesson about the human condition that the excuses all but eclipse the guilt over having attempted to build such a bomb themselves. Both the guild and envy are powerful emotions. Envy wins.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#93

Post by kcorbitt »

krapp wrote: post #70
SiempreViernes wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the notion that morality can be objectively demonstrated by convincing a majority that your viewpoint is correct very interesting notion... In any case, I also think the charge of racism is a bit uncalled for, the complete disregard for human suffering exemplified by the firebombing campaigns are surely enough to qualify as very serious war crimes all on their own. (Though to claim that an America that was int…

The Manhattan Project wasn't focused on developing the atomic bombs just for dropping on the Japanese. The US was afraid of Germany developing a bomb first, and evidence presented here[0], at least, suggests several tactical and strategic reasons for choosing Japan over Germany (such as superior German air support, the perceived greater likelihood of Germany's imminent surrender versus Japan, and fears that Germany m…

> several tactical and strategic reasons for choosing Japan over Germany (such as superior German air support, the perceived greater likelihood of Germany's imminent surrender versus Japan, and fears that Germany might better be able to reverse engineer a dud than the Japanese.)

...well, there was also the fact that Germany had already surrendered by the time the first atom bomb was built.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#94

Post by macintux »

fefe23 wrote: post #92

Note how quickly they feel the need to defend themselves, why they couldn't get the bomb done in time. Considering their situation (prisoners of war in the UK), I find that instinct patently absurd. Over half of the transcript is them coming up with excuses why the Americans succeeded where they did not. Let it be a lesson about the human condition that the excuses all but eclipse the guilt over having attempted to b…

I think the defensiveness only looks absurd in hindsight.

They were wondering whether they’d go back, and how they’d be perceived/treated by their fellow Germans. Would they be perceived as traitors for failing to create the bomb?

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#95

Post by porpoisely »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #60
porpoisely wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say the military didn't see the utility of the atomic bomb, I said the military saw no military utility in hiroshima and nagasaki. There is a difference between using the bomb to kill soldiers and to destroy/irradiate and kill civilians. Just like there is a a military utility of the gun to kill enemy soldiers, but no military utility to shooting children. For example, a concentration camp to keep enemy sold…

> I said the military saw no military utility in hiroshima and nagasaki How do you reconcile that with the commonly held historical view? Or is that merely your own personal opinion? " Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd General Army 第2総軍 (日本軍) with responsibility for most of western Japan including Kyushu as well as a depot and port of embarkat…

Firstly, there is a world of difference because a munitions factory within a city being a viable target and the whole city itself being a target. Are you seriously justifying the destruction of hundreds of elementary schools, hospitals, shops, etc just because a city has a port? Following your logic, every city is a military target. And why limit it to just a city. Why not the state or province. A military factory is in a state. So should everyone in the state be killed? Why not expand it to the entire country. A country has a military factory. Is everyone in the country guilty?

Secondly, by August of 1945, Japan had been starved of food and resources for years. So whatever industry they had was nonexistent. So even if you are able to justify nuking an entire city just to take out a factory, you still can't justify hiroshima or nagasaki because they was no industry to speak of in August of 1945.

Whether you like it or not, hiroshima and nagasaki are no different than auschwitz and dachau. Indefensible war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It's amazing the lengths we'll go to justify genocide. Also, it is not a commonly held historical view. It's a commonly held propaganda that we've been forcefed since childhood. And it's not my opinion. It's the opinion of General MacArthur, the commander of the entire pacific theater. It is also the opinion of Eisenhower, Marshall, Nimitz and every major military leader.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#96

Post by porpoisely »

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #57
porpoisely wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't debatable because we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. If the nukes were the cause of japan's surrender, hiroshima would have been enough and nagasaki wouldn't have happened. Also, there is no ambiguity to the morality of hiroshima or nagasaki. No more than there is any ambiguity to the morality of nazi death camps. They were both racially driven war crimes and…

"we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender." That may well be the case but it is not remotely clear that the people making that decision knew it for a fact which is what actually has bearing on the morality. Also - why focus so much on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg, London, Coventry, etc. were all attacks on civilians. We tend to judge atomic…

Just because I focused on hiroshima and nagasaki doesn't mean I don't think the firebombings were any better. They were war crimes and crimes against humanity also.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#97

Post by int_19h »

dsq wrote: post #85
porpoisely wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't debatable because we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. If the nukes were the cause of japan's surrender, hiroshima would have been enough and nagasaki wouldn't have happened. Also, there is no ambiguity to the morality of hiroshima or nagasaki. No more than there is any ambiguity to the morality of nazi death camps. They were both racially driven war crimes and…

"..the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb...should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization...This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Power". - Imperial Rescript on Surrender, by the Showa Emperor (H…

A superweapon is a convenient thing to blame one's surrender on. But if you look at the discussions the Japanese war cabinet had behind the scenes these days, it's clear that they were worried about an imminent Soviet invasion just as much as the bombs.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#98

Post by int_19h »

ufmace wrote: post #41
porpoisely wrote: post #7

What an interesting read. Also, is it just me or are there a surprising number of german related topics on the frontpage right now? "We only had one man working on it and they may have had ten thousand" This is why I always chuckle at the ww2 "documentaries" positing the possibility of german or japanese bomb. Nevermind that both parties were preoccupied fighting far stronger and larger opponents ( US, British Empire…

> We had a much larger economy and resource potential than germany and japan. Yes, I once thought that it should have been surprising that Germany didn't get the bomb first. Upon more reading, the effort that the US threw at the project was simply staggering - nobody knew which was the best technique for how to do a bunch of different things, so the Americans tried all of them at the same time. No other participant i…

> No other participant in the war could have duplicated that level of effort.

Effort aside, there's also luck. Americans couldn't assume that Germans haven't tried despite the lack of resources, and scored on first attempt by sheer chance.

This is one of those races where even if you're very confident that you're faster than everybody else, you still give it everything you have, because the consequences of not winning are too grave for anything else.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#99

Post by boomboomsubban »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #79
porpoisely wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't debatable because we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. If the nukes were the cause of japan's surrender, hiroshima would have been enough and nagasaki wouldn't have happened. Also, there is no ambiguity to the morality of hiroshima or nagasaki. No more than there is any ambiguity to the morality of nazi death camps. They were both racially driven war crimes and…

After Hiroshima and the Russian invasion of Manchuria, but before Nagasaki, the Japanese army was preparing to impose martial law on Japan to prevent anyone from surrendering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#August_9:_S... After Hiroshima, the Russian invasion of Manchuria, and Nagasaki, Japan still went through an attempted coup to try to prevent the surrender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrende…

You're treating acts committed by a handful of officers as done by the entire army or nation. Neither act means that the bombs had a bearing on the decision.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#100

Post by skh »

chris_mc wrote: post #91
skh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn’t whether Americans would unambiguously view a fire bombing of LA as morally wrong. The question is would the Japanese view it as morally wrong? Of course the victims view it as wrong. Would the offenders?

That's not the question, the question is "was it morally wrong to drop the nukes?" My position, based on my classes on the rule of law in warfare from a US service academy, is that civilians are an illegal target for the military and using a nuke on several hundred thousand people to take out a handful of industry is definitely outside of acts of legal warfare. It's different to target a manufacturing facility direct…

The answer to the question of the morality of the bombing at least in part depends on whether one is a victim or perpetrator. You correctly stated that Americans would consider a fire bombing of Los Angeles to be morally wrong. From the viewpoint of the victim it's not hard to view such an act as morally wrong. From the perspective of the perpetrator it's not so clear cut.

So, this isn't an argument, my position is the correct one.

I did not know your view of the morality of this bombing was the only one that matters. Apparently far too many people are wrong on this issue then.

Even a US service academy teaches its officer candidates that the nukes were objectively wrong. The lives of civilians are more sacred than the lives of soldiers during wartime, legally.

Apparently our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan did not get the message. Of course, the perspective taught in West Point today was not the one taught in West Point in 1945. It was not the viewpoint of Army Air Force commanders either during WWII. What is deemed moral is culture and time dependent. Hence some people - myself included - think it only proper to at least consider the views and knowledge of the people at the time the decisions are made.

Since you have deemed yourself correct on this issue there isn't a point in discussion I suppose. Nothing I say can cause you to question anything on this matter. I will read any response you wish to give since I'm not so certain about my position.

Post reply on HN