Hiroshima (1946) • Hacker News Board

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#51

Post by quietbritishjim » Sun, Aug 09, 2020, 9:45 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #29

supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

A fascinating comparison with British steadfast resolve in the face of overwhelming force. Britons would fight on the beaches, and on the landing grounds and streets. They would never surrender, even against overwhelming odds. Truly inspiring in comparison with the robotic obedience of the Japanese who would dig in to protect their island, whatever the cost may be.

* A rousing public speech is very different from actual policy. A sibiling comment to yours make reference to a plan by the Japanese, made in secret and actually started, that was known to cost millions of Japanese lives and wasn't even meant to secure victory but just better surrender terms. Your quotation doesn't come close to showing that the British would be prepared to do something similar. (In fact I'm sure I read about a plan Churchill had to surrender if Germans did make it onto British soil, but I'm not going to search for it now - the burden is on you to show that the British wouldn't have surrendered.)

* Aside from broad policy, the difference in attitude is clearly shown by actions of individual soldiers. Individual Britons in theatre would usually be prepared to surrender if their situation was hopeless, as shown by the number of actual British PoWs in WW2, whereas this was much rarer for Japanese soldiers.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#52

Post by ChomskyNormal4m » Sun, Aug 09, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

> horrors of the Japanese war machine, and maybe actually more the non-horrific but relentless robotic support for the war (or obedience towards the emperor, government, etc) among the people

When you think of the black ships of the Perry expedition, and then forward to the Japanese attack on England's Hong Kong colony, the French colonies in Indochina, America's colony in the Philippines (and Hawaii!) - then you see the above blurb is a perfect encapsulation of the western bourgeois mind.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#53

Post by manfredo » Sun, Aug 09, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

rbecker wrote: post #47

manfredo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Necessity and justification are two different concepts. Few believe it was necessary - the United States' overwhelming industrial capacity was bound to prevail over Japan. The state of the two countries warmaking capacity was totally lopsided by 1945. Thus it was not necessary to achieve victory. That is brought an end to the war with fewer casualties, both American and Japanese even moreso, is not a difficult claim…

You misunderstand - the belief is not that the US could have won the war even without the bombs, but that "bombs vs. invasion" was a false dichotomy, and that Japan would have unconditionally surrendered around the same time without the bombs, or perhaps even sooner had the conditional surrender they were already seeking been on the table.

Japan had actually repeatedly offered conditional surrenders. Specifically, surrenders on the condition that it keep some of its colonies (Korea and Taiwan), that the Japanese military government remain intact, and that nobody be charged for war crimes. This is as if Germany offered a surrender on the condition that it keep western Poland and Czechoslovakia, that the Nazi party remain in power, and that nobody be tried for war crimes. This is not remotely close to an acceptable surrender.

And the US ultimately did accept a surrender on the condition that the imperial family not be tried for war crimes (a particularly contentious point for China, since a royal family member was the commanding officer in charge of the forces that perpetrated the crimes at Nanking).

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#54

Post by valuearb » Sun, Aug 09, 2020, 9:49 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #29

supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

A fascinating comparison with British steadfast resolve in the face of overwhelming force. Britons would fight on the beaches, and on the landing grounds and streets. They would never surrender, even against overwhelming odds. Truly inspiring in comparison with the robotic obedience of the Japanese who would dig in to protect their island, whatever the cost may be.

To meet the first American invasion of their home islands, the Japanese had 10,000 kamikaze planes prepared. They had millions of civilians prepared to serve as suicide bomb carriers against the allied ground troops.

Let me know if the British prepared troops and civilians to use suicide as a weapon against a German invasion in any significant quantity.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#55

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Sun, Aug 09, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #46

manfredo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Necessity and justification are two different concepts. Few believe it was necessary - the United States' overwhelming industrial capacity was bound to prevail over Japan. The state of the two countries warmaking capacity was totally lopsided by 1945. Thus it was not necessary to achieve victory. That is brought an end to the war with fewer casualties, both American and Japanese even moreso, is not a difficult claim…

Yes, but maybe the bombs would have had the same effect, if dropped on actual military targets (or even unhabitated land, but close enough to demonstrate the power) instead of an civilian city. (a city with military production, sure sure, but they were choosen not because of military value, but because they were relatively undamaged, so the effect of the bombs could be studied. Concern for loss of japan civilian live…

Given that the Japanese military wanted to continue the war even after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, your conjecture is demonstrably untrue. Remember, the military was the primary power in the Japanese government, second only to the emperor, and were the driving force behind starting the war as well. Also remember that the firebombing campaign across all of the other major cities had already inflicted combined casualties far greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined; immense deaths of their own civilians was seen as an unavoidable necessity to defend their homeland.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#56

Post by manfredo » Sun, Aug 09, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

pmachinery wrote: post #43

missedthecue wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the military is still awarding Purple Hearts that were manufactured for the invasion of Japan tells me that it was more than justified. Japanese intelligence itself estimated 20 million casualties during an invasion.

Regardless of the number, there was no need to invade Japan. It was already defeated, and offering to surrender, before the USSR joined the fight. Totally surrounded/blockaded, no allies left in the world, bombed at will, what else could it do but accept defeat?

Offering to surrender conditionally. Specifically, on the condition that it keep Korea and Taiwan (and maybe Manchuria, too), and that it's military government remain largely unchanged. This is was not a surrender that was acceptable to the Allies.

This thread is being rate limited, reply in edit:

Denying Korea and Taiwan is easier said than done. Remember that Japan essentially won the continental war against China. It's best equipped and most experienced troops are there. Japan is also in an optimal position to control ocean access to Korea. Any boats have to travel through the East China Sea, or sea of Japan to reach Korea. Both of which are in range of the thousands of kamikaze planes built for the purpose of destroying vessels that sail close to Japan.

At this point, you're talking about conducting an invasion of a landmass even larger than the Japanese home islands, against better troops, and with more difficult naval access. It would undoubtedly incur substantially more losses than the 100 to 200 thousand inflicted by the atomic bombings. And to what end? A hostile military government would still be in power back in Japan.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#57

Post by valuearb » Sun, Aug 09, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

kingkawn wrote: post #30

supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

A quote from General Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Japan at the moment was seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” There are more quotes, but basically everything you were taught about the necessity of wiping out hundreds of thousands of people in a flash was after the fact American propaganda to justify a war crime.

Dwight was being disingenuous, as the terms the Japanese were seeking to “save face” including keeping all their conquered possessions, especially in China.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#58

Post by growlix » Sun, Aug 09, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

EarthIsHome wrote: post #13

supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

For those interested in arguments about whether the bombings were necessary, there's a good Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombi... I do believe the bombings were a strategic show-of-force to the Soviet Union since they were coming out of the war as a global power; USSR were instrumental in ending the war.

An interesting perspective summarized here [0] is that the bombings were not just unnecessary to end the war and were conducted as a show of force to the Soviets. They were conducted in an attempt to end the war ASAP, before a planned Soviet ground invasion of Japan so that the US wouldn't have to share control over post-war Japan with the Soviets.

[0] https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-n...

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#59

Post by xenocyon » Sun, Aug 09, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #18

supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

> I realized that it actually did bring an end to the war This may be the mainstream opinion in the US, but do note it's not the mainstream opinion in other countries. Alternative explanations include that the real purpose of the two bombs was to show the Soviets the nuclear might of the US (this view is suggested in the Hiroshima museum in Japan, but just in case you discount it because Japan is obviously not a neut…

As someone who grew up outside of the US, I have found that Americans have a unique view on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. American schoolchildren are raised to believe that it was morally justified because it won - and therefore ended - the war. This attitude is so deeply and fundamentally ingrained into most Americans (including many who would self-identify as liberals) that it is very hard for them to see it as a war crime despite obviously meeting the criteria for such.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#60

Post by valuearb » Sun, Aug 09, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

jacobush wrote: post #4

supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

There’s no consensus it ended the war. Rather the opposite. The Japanese generals had larger problems to consider, such as the fact that most targets were already rubble, and the fact that the Soviets were on their doorstep.

Strange, as the Japanese military mutinied when the Emperor ordered the surrender.