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

81–90 of 168 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#81

Post by rbecker »

valuearb wrote: post #74
rbecker wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm curious where you found this information, because the best I could find was that negotiations regarding those conditions were never finished:

To this end, Stalin and Molotov strung out the negotiations with the Japanese, giving them false hope of a Soviet-mediated peace. [..] The Japanese would have to surrender unconditionally to all the Allies. To prolong the war, the Soviets opposed any attempt to weaken this requirement.[56] This would give the Soviets time to complete the transfer of their troops from the Western Front to the Far East, and conquer Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, northern Korea, South Sakhalin, the Kuriles, and possibly Hokkaidō - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Soviet_inte...

However, the Japanese presented no formal terms, because details were to be worked out by negotiation. - https://www.quora.com/When-Japan-offered-conditional-surrend...

Edit as reply due to rate limit:

The article you linked doesn't support the claims you made about Japan's conditional surrender. The closest it comes is "Anami wanted retention of the emperor, self-disarmament, no foreign occupation, and trial of any Japanese war criminals by Japan itself". But that is what Anami wanted, not what was written down in some final, take-it-or-leave-it offer. And that's from before the Soviet declaration of war.

In fact the article basically contradicts your claim about the necessity of the bombs:

> The bomb played a part in Japan’s surrender, but it may not have been necessary, he said. Had the U.S. drawn Stalin into publicly supporting the Potsdam Declaration’s unconditional surrender demand, Japan might not have held out hope for a Soviet-brokered deal. Had it guaranteed the emperor’s position, Japan might have surrendered earlier, Hasegawa said, though this is yet another point that draws endless historical debate.

> “Other alternatives were available, but they were not explored,” Hasegawa said.

Choosing the bombs over merely exploring other options is rather damning, don't you think?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#82

Post by stu2b50 »

walleeee wrote: post #37
senand wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even assuming it did bring an end to the war: was it really necessary to drop two bombs for that?

Similarly, can someone explain why the bombs weren't dropped a few miles out to sea? It would still have clearly demonstrated the capability.

After the two bombs, there was an attempted coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.

And you think bombs at sea would scare them?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#83

Post by vinay427 »

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…

Honest question: can it not be both a less fatal end to the war and a war crime? This classification of something as a war crime, even if appropriate, isn't the ending of a discussion.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#84

Post by dboreham »

manfredo wrote: post #49
hutzlibu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Remember, it took not one, but two atomic bombs dropped on cities for Japan to surrender. And even after that, there was an attempted coup to continue fighting the war: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident There only existed two bombs at the time. Had the bombs been dropped as a show of force, it is very likely the US and Japan would have to suffer through a costly invasion anyway.

Hmm. I think the US had at least one more core for a fat man type weapon.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#86

Post by dreamcompiler »

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…

It is hard to overstate how many civilians suffered and died in war crimes perpetrated by Japan before and during the war. The number vastly exceeds the number who died as a result of the American atomic bombs. Breaking Japan's will and ability to make war was the entire world's highest priority in late 1945. Any discussion of "American war crimes against Japan" is meaningless without discussing Japan's crimes against half the world, together with the very real possibility that the nation of Japan continues to exist today solely because those two bombs were dropped.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#87

Post by pasabagi »

iguy wrote: post #67
EarthIsHome wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not mentioned on that list: It made the sort of stories that circulated in post-WWI Germany, about the old men selling out while they could still have kept fighting, much less plausible. If the war aim was the permanent political defeat of Japanese fascism, then this was important. You don't just want the leader's signature on paper, you want defeat to be undeniable to everyone. In both cases, the naval blockade left…

I don't think the war aim was the defeat of japanese fascism - perhaps, japanese militarism. After all, the basic element of japanese fascism (the Zaibatsu) essentially persists today. It's also notable that japan, while technically a democracy, has had the same party in power since 1955.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#88

Post by [deleted] »

trhway wrote: post #28
Entwickler wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard the idea that atomic bombs were the deciding factor in ending the war is in large part American propaganda. The fact is the Soviets had far superior divisions (in both manpower and fire power) lined up against the Japanese in Manchuria, and shattered them within weeks. From wikipedia( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War ), "Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the…

yes, USSR squashing Kwantung army may have naturally led to a scenario where USSR forces could flood down south into China, Korea, may be even invade the North Japan, etc. with US having no troops there to "meet" USSR forces like it happened in Europe. Whether USSR had such plans doesn't matter really. It is very telling that USSR offensive on August 9 was according to the plans made together with US months in advanc…

[deleted]

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#89

Post by valuearb »

Larrikin wrote: post #68
valuearb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second bomb coming so quickly was key to convincing Hirohito’s to surrender. The military had argued that Hiroshima was a one time thing, and the US couldn’t possibly build another bomb any time soon.

The main argument against this, which I personally believe, is that the first bomb should have been dropped on a remote Japanese island or area. I don't believe this would have lead to an end to the war but I believe a second one in a more populated area would have, saving Nagasaki at least

The worry was that a remote nuclear explosion would not carry the same impact and they only had two bombs at the moment. It would have been easy for the Japanese militarists to downplay its effect.

And it turns out the Japanese military was exactly in such a deep denial. After Hiroshima they said it would take a longtime for the US to build another. After Nagasaki they said so what, we will just retreat to bunkers and force the Allies to invade. After Hirohito decided to surrender, the military attempted a coup.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#90

Post by hpcjoe »

dboreham wrote: post #84
manfredo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember, it took not one, but two atomic bombs dropped on cities for Japan to surrender. And even after that, there was an attempted coup to continue fighting the war: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident There only existed two bombs at the time. Had the bombs been dropped as a show of force, it is very likely the US and Japan would have to suffer through a costly invasion anyway.

Hmm. I think the US had at least one more core for a fat man type weapon.

Specifically, the demon core[1]. It was the core-in-waiting for a third bomb if needed, and I believe that the uranium and plutonium production lines were ramping up by that time[2].

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

[2] https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/timeline search for 1945 July 23 entry.

Post reply on HN