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

131–140 of 168 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#131

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M »

pasabagi wrote: post #87
iguy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not so: the DPJ was in power from 2009 to 2012, although admittedly they accomplished little and the LDP took over again in 2012.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#132

Post by gen220 »

dan-robertson wrote: post #77
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.

It also arguably made The New Yorker magazine. It’s identity is still strongly influenced by this piece. Each article they have published since has had to “follow” this one.

Prior to WWII, its tone was more playful and humorous. The somewhat-detached, illustrative and poetic exposition originated in the war period, and resonates today.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#133

Post by the_af »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #114
dreamcompiler wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agains…

> " It is hard to overstate how many civilians suffered and died in war crimes perpetrated by Japan before and during the war " I'll take a stab at it. If one sums together the estimated deaths in Asia caused by Japan ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties ), both military and civilian, one gets totals in excess of 15-22 million. This compares to about 5 million dead in the Holocaust. So basically, J…

I don't subscribe to the moral calculus that has war crimes cancel each other. When one starts justifying a war crime against civilians because the enemy committed war crimes themselves, one is on very shaky ground.

For example, rape and murder against German civilians is not morally justifiable just because the Nazis were horrendous monsters.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#134

Post by garmaine »

umvi wrote: post #106
Chathamization wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This always seemed like an odd conspiracy theory to me. It supposes that the U.S. is one the one hand so cavalier about dropping atom bombs that they're willing to destroy Japanese cities merely as a show of force to a potential rival, but on the other hand that they're so reserved about using it that they wouldn't use it to gain victory against the country they're engaged in a destructive war with.

> willing to destroy Japanese cities merely as a show of force We had already destroyed most Japanese cities with fire bombs. Hiroshima was one of the few cities specifically spared from fire bombs

For example, the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more in a single day than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki (though radiation sickness would eventually bring the Hiroshima total to slightly larger).

The only real difference with the atomic bombings was it was one bomb from one plane.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#135

Post by gen220 »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #16

The allies had already started to resort to obliterating whole cities and their inhabitants before Hiroshima (see Dresden, Tokyo). IMHO, this was not the result of how "evil" the German and Japanese regimes were (which seems to me to be a rationalization) but the result of 5 years of total war. I think that at some point people came to accept doing whatever it took to win and end the war. In the context of what was g…

FWIW, the goal of the allied bombing campaign was always to cripple the adversary nation by bombing industrial infrastructure; the doctrine pre-dated the outbreak of WW II.

The invention of radar-assisted targeting thwarted this mission in the early phases of the war in Europe, and it took a tech arms race to get past it.

In the Pacific, the US’s primary objective was to secure an air base within strategic bombing range of Japan. It pursued this by capturing islands and investing in aeronautics (extending the range and carrying capacity of bombers).

Once within range of Japan, the Air Force tried strategic bombing at first, but found themselves unable to hit their targets. They had to fly above flak, and aim through the previously-undiscovered jet stream. They eventually gave up and turned from strategic bombing to recently-invented (demonstrated in 1942/3, mass produced in 1944) napalm. They knew it was awful, but considered it a trade of X lives now for 10x lives later.

All this to say, I don’t believe that war weariness significantly influenced the decision to use napalm and atomic weapons, in Europe or Japan. If the allied powers had encountered the opportunity to use them within the first year of the war, their military doctrine would have dictated their use.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#136

Post by garmaine »

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.

The production line was already delivering about 1 bomb per 10 days at that point. The military wanted to keep bombing until surrender was achieved.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#137

Post by [deleted] »

missedthecue wrote: post #17
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.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#138

Post by kingkawn »

gen220 wrote: post #102
kingkawn wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know more than Eisenhower?

The Eisenhower quote is from 1963. He was not a general in the pacific theater, and was not involved in postwar Japan. IMO, his quote should be read as that of a politician (which he was, at that point, having served two terms as president), rather than that of a military general. It was not so cut and dry, as his words imply.

So you do think you know more than Eisenhower. Fascinating belief.

The strategic bombing survey of 1946, subject to no objections about Eisenhower’s relative objectivity compared to your own, concludes that the Japanese government was well into the process of determining how to surrender, with predictable resistance from the military but endorsement by the Emperor as they were in the process of determining how to stand down. It also points out that the majority of the populace had already lost hope for the war effort, which is now the bomb’s justification.

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/research-files/united-...

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#139

Post by KMag »

refurb wrote: post #112
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?

what else could it do but accept defeat? The counter argument for that is it took two atomic bombs for Japan to concede. And after the 2nd one it was 3 days before they gave up. Could a blockade have worked? Maybe. But how long would it have taken? Would we all just sat and watched while hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians starved to death over a few years?

Not only did it take two atomic bombs, but there was still an attempted coup to continue the war after the second bomb was drooped. [0] On top of that, the tendency for Japanese troops to feign surrender as cover for suicide attacks, and the particulars of the attack on Pearl Harbour, plus some racism all added to a combination of justified and unjustified mistrust of the Japanese military and the chances they would adhere to terms of surrender without having an occupation force in the home islands.

I hope I wouldn't have dropped the bomb on a populated city if I were in Truman's shoes, but without the benefit of hindsight, I'm not positive I would have decided differently.

On a side note, Japan is a wonderful country, particularly the countryside. My wife lived there for 13 months while we were dating, and I have many fond memories of trips around Japan with her. Lost wallets more common than not are returned to the police with money still inside. One of my colleagues once saw a man in a business suit sleeping on a park bench one morning, obviously drunk, and someone had placed the man's dropped phone and wallet on his chest.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#140

Post by mulmen »

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…

> [...] how do we get people to help themselves get out of the path to war?

Philosophically I find this revolting. Who are you, or me, or we to say what some other society should do? That should never be the goal and I don’t think anything good comes from starting with “other people are wrong, we should fix them.”

I realize I’m putting hyperbolic words in your mouth here but the point is nobody should be trusted with that kind of power.

> Surely, we have the tools and desire, don't we? I hope.

No, I don’t think we do. And if we did they would be more devastating than nuclear weapons. The closest thing is social media.

Post reply on HN