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

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#71

Post by claudiawerner »

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.

>Truly inspiring in comparison with the robotic obedience of the Japanese who would dig in to protect their island, whatever the cost may be.

That's not quite the case. The conditions of surrender proposed, which the Japanese government rebuffed (or, 'mokusatsu'[0]) particularly included that Japan surrender its control over Korea and the island known now as Taiwan. It's more accurate to say that the Japanese empire would dig in to protect the areas they'd acquired, not just their island. In Korea, they'd put a lot of effort into trying to integrate the peninsula into Japan proper, for example linguistically.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#72

Post by valuearb »

rbecker wrote: post #31
eska wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My school education about this was also essentially "bombs are bad, kids". The Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... ) is actually quite enlightening in this matter. A lot of people seem to think that the Americans didn't try anything else before. Likewise most people don't realize how much more death there would've been on both sides if the US invaded Japan by sea.

> Likewise most people don't realize how much more death there would've been on both sides if the US invaded Japan by sea. That's begging the question - was a US invasion the only alternative? https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/05/nuclear-war-or... argues that Japan would have surrendered without the bombings. And that's for unconditional surrender - a conditional one would be even more easily achievable.

There was no conditional surrender possible. The Japanese were still demanding to keep their “colonies” in China and elsewhere. Agreeing to that would be agreeing to continue the Japanese holocaust against the Chinese and the peoples in their other captured territories.

And from the Allied perspective, after the Bataan death march, the massacre of surrendered US troops and civilians in Wake, and the hundreds of similar massacres of surrendered allied troops, and rape and murder of nurses and civilians, across the Pacific, no one was going to allow the Japanese leadership or military off the hook.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#73

Post by valuearb »

xenocyon wrote: post #59
the_af wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cri…

The nuclear bombings saved at least a million Japanese lives. It can easily be argued it would be a war crime not to drop them.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#74

Post by valuearb »

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.

The Japanese offered to surrender if they could continue to control their captured territories, essentially continuing to rape China. That’s a hell of a condition to allow them.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#75

Post by antisthenes »

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…

You've recreated the Ultimate Ideal from movie Hero (2002)

1. Mastery of a weapon and combat (the nuclear weapon)

2. Weapon not in hand, but in the hearts and minds (loyalty and devotion to the cause)

3. The ultimate ideal - the weapon disappears altogether, and the warrior is at peace with the world.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#76

Post by valuearb »

manfredo wrote: post #56
pmachinery wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not invading or dropping nukes would mean the deaths of millions. The Japanese would still fight, Japanese and Allied planes would still get shot down and warships sunk. Japanese Civilians would still be dying at a high rate, from bombings, starvation, lack of medical supplies, etc.

Before these bombs were dropped, tens of thousands were dying on days with no large military operations.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#77

Post by dan-robertson »

overkalix wrote: post #22

This is such a remarcable piece of writing. I'm sure among americans this is already somewhat of a classic but if you haven't read yet it do yourself a favor and take half an hour to read it.

If you look up the author, one of the first things a you will read is that this was judged to be the finest example of 20th century American journalism by a large group at New York university.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#78

Post by MrsPeaches »

If you have never read it, I high recommend "The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki" by the Manhatten Project [1].

There are some facinating technical details (in particluar the way heat reflected in the hills of Nagasaki) but in general it makes for grim reading.

I was always struck by the contrast between the dispassionate analysis in the report and the final eye witness account in the appendix.

I always had the feeling that they knew what they had done and knew that it was wrong.

[1] https://www.abomb1.org/hiroshim/hiro_med.pdf

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#79

Post by Hokusai »

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…

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

That is a lot of words to say "civilians trying to survive during a war".

To make it even worse, the war criminals, that ones that were part of the "horrors of the Japanese war machine" were spared by the USA after the war. Fearing an increase influence of Communism in Asia, the USA let the war criminals go unpunished.

Targeting civilians while sparing war criminals is hardly a moral stand point.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#80

Post by dreamcompiler »

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…

Minor elaboration: Nagasaki was not an undamaged city. It had been bombed multiple times by conventional American bombs. But then Nagasaki was just a backup target anyway. Kokura was the primary target for the second bomb but it was obscured by clouds and smoke during the bombing run on August 9 so the plane went to Nagasaki instead. By the time they got there it too was socked in by clouds which is why the Nagasaki bomb fell so far off target.
Post reply on HN