Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

foreignpolicy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 223 posts

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#41

Post by gruseom »

gaoshan wrote: post #40

The article seems determined to assign a single cause as the reason for the timing of the surrender when I think it is quite more likely that it was an accumulation (and a rapid one at that) of serious developments that precipitated that end. Claiming "Stalin did it" when there had also just been an atomic attack and an entire summer of horrendously devastating attacks, that the Japanese were almost powerless to defe…

Article writers don't come up with the headlines. In this case the headline does the author a bad disservice by making his piece seem simple-minded. It isn't. Its strongest parts come before he even gets to discussing the Soviet invasion. Those are (a) his dissection of the timeline by which surrender unfolded, and (b) his case that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not outliers in the destruction of Japanese cities and thus not game-changers in the minds of Japanese leaders. When he does turn to the Soviet invasion, his argument isn't that the Japanese surrendered because they were overwhelmed by it, but rather because it closed off their remaining strategic options.

Agree or disagree, these are serious arguments that deserve to be met with more than platitudes and belief-repetition.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#42

Post by gwright »

In the first couple pages there is an argument made that the Japanese supreme council didn't seem to react to news of the first bomb and the associated casualties.

I don't think it is easy for us today to understand how slow information was to travel during the time of the war nor is it easy for us to understand how incomprehensible it would be to accept reports about a single bomb creating as much destruction as was reported at the time.

While the slow reaction of Japan might be incomprehensible if the same events happened today I think it is dangerously misleading to apply todays standards regarding communication loops and the destructive force of atom bombs to the events of the late 1940s.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#43

Post by filbertkm »

unoti wrote: post #4

Wow, what an annoying travesty that sign on page is, and whatever all that other stuff was. I understand they have to make a buck and can do whatever they like with their content, but that was powerfully annoying. I imagine content providers have spent a lot of time anguishing over how they can extract money from users, but I wonder if this is the best way. No way am I going to figure out how to get through the multi…

or disable javascript

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#44

Post by Helpful_Bunny »

unoti wrote: post #4

Wow, what an annoying travesty that sign on page is, and whatever all that other stuff was. I understand they have to make a buck and can do whatever they like with their content, but that was powerfully annoying. I imagine content providers have spent a lot of time anguishing over how they can extract money from users, but I wonder if this is the best way. No way am I going to figure out how to get through the multi…

I was able to view the entire contents (annoyingly spread across many pages) without pop-ups, a sign in page or any issues at all. I'd politely suggest that on HN, designed for those technically minded in the sphere, you should be able to cure your own browsing problems.

Whitelists, AdBlock, Ghostery, NoScript, HTTPS everywhere and so on and so forth should fix any issues you have.

You are perfectly able to choose when / where ad revenues are paid, rather than being tied to someone elses business model.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#45

Post by bjhoops1 »

gwright wrote: post #42

In the first couple pages there is an argument made that the Japanese supreme council didn't seem to react to news of the first bomb and the associated casualties. I don't think it is easy for us today to understand how slow information was to travel during the time of the war nor is it easy for us to understand how incomprehensible it would be to accept reports about a single bomb creating as much destruction as was…

That's why the author lists a number of examples from roughly the same time period (or earlier e.g. Lincoln/McClellan) as a means of comparison. It's anecdotal, to be sure, but then again this is history, not science.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#46

Post by bradleyland »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #14
mpyne wrote: post #10

This is why I've started to dislike revisionist history. The premise that the threat of Stalin alone forced Japanese surrender is at least as ludicrous as saying that the nuclear bombs alone forced Japan to surrender. I closed the page immediately because of the full-page popup ad, but I've encountered the premise elsewhere so it warrants examination. The first thing to realize is that for Japan, whatever else happen…

> I closed the page immediately because of the full-page popup ad ... You may want to actually read the article before criticizing it. It's more nuanced than you seem to assume, and does not really contradict your own comment. In particular, it does not imply that the threat of Soviet invasion was the determining factor; but that it was only one of several factors, of which the bomb was another, neither of which were…

It has become the rule that even a good article must have a horrible title. Otherwise, who will click through to see what has been written? It's a real shame, because the title isn't really reflected by the content.

The actual title: "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan... Stalin Did"

A more accurate title: "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan... There Were Many Confluent Factors"

The latter is something you'd expect to read on an academic paper, where the former is about par for the course when it comes to journalism.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#47

Post by lobster_johnson »

bradleyland wrote: post #46
lobster_johnson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I closed the page immediately because of the full-page popup ad ... You may want to actually read the article before criticizing it. It's more nuanced than you seem to assume, and does not really contradict your own comment. In particular, it does not imply that the threat of Soviet invasion was the determining factor; but that it was only one of several factors, of which the bomb was another, neither of which were…

It has become the rule that even a good article must have a horrible title. Otherwise, who will click through to see what has been written? It's a real shame, because the title isn't really reflected by the content. The actual title: "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan... Stalin Did" A more accurate title: "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan... There Were Many Confluent Factors" The latter is something you'd expect to read on an aca…

Absolutely. I thought it was a very well-written article despite the hyperbolic, misleading title.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#48

Post by piokoch »

mpyne wrote: post #10

This is why I've started to dislike revisionist history. The premise that the threat of Stalin alone forced Japanese surrender is at least as ludicrous as saying that the nuclear bombs alone forced Japan to surrender. I closed the page immediately because of the full-page popup ad, but I've encountered the premise elsewhere so it warrants examination. The first thing to realize is that for Japan, whatever else happen…

"This is why I've started to dislike revisionist history." History is a science. This is as if you said: I don't like Max Planc or Niels Bohr Dirac, since they were questioning classical mechanics in favor of some hard to understand mambo-jambo called quantum mechanics.

A true historian is a die hard revisionist, someone who is chasing "conspiracy theories" to reveal the truth using scientific reasoning based on evidences, documents.

The article itself is kind of worthless, since it is based on vague speculations, without critical look on the presented hypothesis (the most important, IMHO, part of honest scientific approch is to try to find weakneses in our own theories).

The fact that something sounds probably is not a proove that it is true. If I see blond haired woman, I may put hipothesis, that she's dying her hair - they are blond, after all, but we all understand, that it does not have to be the case.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#49

Post by woodchuck64 »

Why revisit the issue? Modern society has evolved morally to be utterly revolted by the killing of civilians of another country intentionally and would never support the use of a nuclear weapon in this fashion. Isn't that all the moral judgement we need?

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#50

Post by dkarl »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #21

The challenge I have with this, and pretty much all 'alternate history' foreign policy discussions, is that they try to argue an indefinite (Japan would have surrendered if we hadn't done this) against a definite (We bombed them and they surrendered immediately). There isn't any way to prove that stuff of course, and you can tweak the indefinite to be whatever you want to overcome the definite. So in some ways it is…

Actually, it's offering alternative formulations of the definite. For instance, "The USSR declared war, and they surrendered immediately," and, "Even after we destroyed large proportions of the population and infrastructure of dozens of major cities, they still kept fighting." Also, "After hearing the news from Hiroshima (that a third of the population had been killed and two-thirds of the city destroyed) the Supreme Council considered meeting to discuss it but decided not to. The very next day, after learning that the Soviet Union had invaded Manchuria, the Supreme Council met and began discussing unconditional surrender."

Any formulation that takes a few isolated facts and makes a narrative out of them is an oversimplification, of course. For example, the Japanese leadership was initially deadlocked on accepting unconditional surrender, and by the time the final decision was made, news of Nagasaki had reached them and could have been the deciding factor. They were considering the totality of their situation, so every factor came into play.

Post reply on HN