Hiroshima (1946) • Hacker News Board

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#121

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 12:33 AM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #26

overkalix wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how accurate this information is but they way it was completely explained to me, the Japanese government and population were not that affected by the first bomb in terms of morale. They had already suffered horrible large-scale bombings (e.g. Tokyo) and regardless of the initial effect, the US leadership had already decided to drop two bombs to give the impression that these bombs could keep coming 2-3 t…

Emperor Hirohito was nearly overthrown in an (unsuccessful)coup after he announced the desire to capitulate after the second bomb dropped, as his generals wanted the war to continue. So if anything, the two bombs were nearly not enough.

After the second bomb was dropped, and after the Soviet Union declared war and took Manchuria, defeating what on paper was Japan's strongest remaining army. Two bombs, the Soviet Union in, Manchuria defeated, and there was still an attempted coup to keep Japan from surrendering.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#122

Post by mcguire » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 12:44 AM UTC

rbecker wrote: post #81

valuearb wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

See https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm Document 62:

""Hoshina Memorandum" on the Emperor's "Sacred Decision [go-seidan]," 9-10 August, 1945 Source: Zenshiro Hoshina, Daitoa Senso Hishi: Hoshina Zenshiro Kaiso-roku [Secret History of the Greater East Asia War: Memoir of Zenshiro Hoshina] (Tokyo, Japan: Hara-Shobo, 1975), excerpts from Section 5, "The Emperor made go-seidan [= the sacred decision] – the decision to terminate the war," 139-149 [translation by Hikaru Tajima]

"An overview of the destruction of Hiroshima [undated, circa August-September 1945] (Photo from U.S. National Archives, RG 306-NT) Despite the bombing of Hiroshima, the Soviet declaration of war, and growing worry about domestic instability, the Japanese cabinet (whose decisions required unanimity) could not form a consensus to accept the Potsdam Declaration. Members of the Supreme War Council—“the Big Six”[46]—wanted the reply to Potsdam to include at least four conditions (e.g., no occupation, voluntary disarmament); they were willing to fight to the finish. The peace party, however, deftly maneuvered to break the stalemate by persuading a reluctant emperor to intervene. According to Hasegawa, Hirohito had become convinced that the preservation of the monarchy was at stake. Late in the evening of 9 August, the emperor and his advisers met in the bomb shelter of the Imperial Palace.

"Zenshiro Hoshina, a senior naval official, attended the conference and prepared a detailed account. With Prime Minister Suzuki presiding, each of the ministers had a chance to state his view directly to Hirohito. While Army Minister Anami tacitly threatened a coup (“civil war”), the emperor accepted the majority view that the reply to the Potsdam declaration should include only one condition not the four urged by “Big Six.” Nevertheless, the condition that Hirohito accepted was not the one that foreign minister Togo had brought to the conference. What was at stake was the definition of the kokutai (national policy). Togo’s proposal would have been generally consistent with a constitutional monarchy because it defined the kokutai narrowly as the emperor and the imperial household. What Hirohito accepted, however, was a proposal by the extreme nationalist Kiichiro Hiranuma which drew upon prevailing understandings of the kokutai: the “mythical notion” that the emperor was a living god. “This was the affirmation of the emperor’s theocratic powers, unencumbered by any law, based on Shinto gods in antiquity, and totally incompatible with a constitutional monarchy.” Thus, the Japanese response to the Potsdam declaration opposed “any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of his Majesty as a sovereign ruler.” This proved to be unacceptable to the Truman administration."

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#123

Post by magicsmoke » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 12:55 AM UTC

pmoleri wrote: post #118

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…

> Which if it had continued, could have consumed far more lives. Everything along these lines are counterfactual excercises and a nice way of justify the crime of dropping nuclear bombs on cities full of civilians. I don't buy this. And something we all know is that history is told by the victors.

Tokyo was already firebombed and terror bombing of civilian cities was a tactic used by all sides in WW2. If bombing civilians is a war crime, then everyone in WW2 is a war criminal. As for the civilian getting bombed, whether the fire melting their flesh away has a hint of radioactivity is a really minor addition.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#124

Post by mcguire » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 12:57 AM UTC

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…

There were 4 alternatives. Nuclear weapons were one.

2. Invade. The Japanese had 900,000 troops in Kyushu, plus militia forces. Japanese estimates were for 20 million deaths. Look up the battle for Okinawa some time.

3. Let the Soviets invade. Same deaths, just not US soldiers. Plus Stalin didn't like to give up territory the Soviets conquered.

4. Continue the blockade, with or without conventional bombing. Likely, the Japanese government would have surrendered or collapsed by mid-1946. Again, millions of deaths due to starvation. And civil war.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#125

Post by mcguire » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 1:02 AM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #19

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.

It strikes me as odd that practically any victorious military finds all of its actions optimal. If it had not done as it did, then the outcomes would be worse. The regularity of the superiority of the action taken is fascinating. Curiously, this website has a large number of commentators that believe that luck is one of the biggest factors in startup success. Yet, in this other domain of antagonistic participants, wa…

There are many arguments about suboptimal strategies and missed opportunities. They don't usually appear outside of military history discussions, though. Strategic bombing, for example.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#126

Post by mcguire » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 1:07 AM UTC

senand wrote: post #10

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…

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

The first response of the Japanese army to Hiroshima was that it was just a big conventional bomb. The second was to deny that the US had more (the Japanese had an atomic project of their own and knew how hard it was). The third (after Nagasaki) was that they were changing their air defense strategy.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#127

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 1:10 AM UTC

idlewords wrote: post #33

If you ever get a chance to visit the Hiroshima Peace Museum, it is a moving and worthwhile place to go. Give yourself a few hours so you can spend time watching eyewitness interviews. The main tram line through downtown goes right past Ground Zero, which never stops being shocking.

[deleted]

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#128

Post by mcguire » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 1:13 AM 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.

The British had several military units surrender during WWII. As far as I know, the Japanese did not.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#129

Post by pmoleri » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 1:20 AM UTC

magicsmoke wrote: post #123

pmoleri wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which if it had continued, could have consumed far more lives. Everything along these lines are counterfactual excercises and a nice way of justify the crime of dropping nuclear bombs on cities full of civilians. I don't buy this. And something we all know is that history is told by the victors.

Tokyo was already firebombed and terror bombing of civilian cities was a tactic used by all sides in WW2. If bombing civilians is a war crime, then everyone in WW2 is a war criminal. As for the civilian getting bombed, whether the fire melting their flesh away has a hint of radioactivity is a really minor addition.

That kind of reasoning can be used to justify all kind of things that are considered crimes. Wipe out 200K in one action just to show power seems too much. I don't accept that the amount of creativity used to create weapons cannot be applied also to use them more wisely in ways that don't wipe out 200k.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#130

Post by somewhereoutth » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 1:25 AM 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.

Possibly, historically speaking, atomic bombs had to be used - on cities - at least once for humanity to realise the full horror of these weapons. Maybe no-one would have believed the destruction had they not been used at that time, and instead a far more terrible demonstration (with multiple actors?) would have subsequently become inevitable.