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

51–60 of 223 posts

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#51

Post by hga »

mpyne wrote: post #29
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…

It's also easier to second-guess when it is not you or your children that would be in the invasion force. The U.S. is still using Purple Hearts that were produced during WWII for the expected casualties of the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands.

And from a batch of them that was only 1/4 of what was predicted to be needed.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#52

Post by mpyne »

CleanedStar wrote: post #36
JPKab wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hero who was a megalomaniacal mass murderer who killed any and all who had the audacity to speak their mind. Ask any Jewish person what they think of Stalin.

People can take note of this - Stalin fought the Nazis and liberated Auschwitz and other concentration camps, with over ten million Russian soldiers sacrificing their lives in the process. So who does this person say Jews hate? Stalin. Reflect on this gratitude the next time you hear someone lamenting that the world did not care when the German right began mistreating Jews... In another context, ask any Palestinian w…

Don't think for a second that the U.S.S.R. (which was more than Russia) fought the Nazis to free the Jews. Before Hitler stabbed Stalin right in the back Stalin's regime had zero qualms about turning Jews over to the tender care of the Nazis.

The fact that the Soviets freed concentration camp victims as they came across the camps afterwards is admirable, but that wasn't why the Soviets were fighting, just as the U.S. wasn't fighting just to save the Jews.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#53

Post by gruseom »

jlgreco wrote: post #32
gruseom wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) No, the article is not arguing against a factual claim like that, but against a causal one: that Japan surrendered because of the atomic bombs. The latter may be the mainstream view but it's just as "indefinite" by your standard. And causal claims can be weakened b…

> Also, one of the article's major claims (its first, in fact) is that Japan didn't surrender immediately. I find it hard to reconcile this idea with the relatively persuasive reasoning that the second bomb was unjustifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings... I am not entirely convinced that it was so, but I do think it is reasonable that a few days is not sufficient time to understand t…

Different people read these things differently, of course, but it seems to me that the article's factual claims—for example, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't of such dramatic magnitude as we think, in context; or that there weren't many city targets left to destroy—answer your objection. If the article is wrong it must be either because its facts are wrong or because it leaves out more important facts.

It's true that the Wikipedia article paints a completely different picture. I'd like to know what the OP would say about that.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#54

Post by kmm »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #31
Eva_Peron wrote: post #26

Stalin has always been under-rated in the United States. Truth was, he was a hero who helped to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan. But saying that undermines those who want Churchill and FDR to take all the credit.

Maybe the fact he sent >12 million of his own citizens to slave and die in the Gulag in Siberia could have made it difficult to cast him as a hero. For a depressing account of the Gulag and other aspects of life under Stalin's rule, read a few of Solzhenitsyn's books.

Where did you get that from? The total number of Stalin's victims is around 1.5 million.

EDIT: I misread. It's about double, 3 million. Unreliable figure in any case.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#55

Post by mpyne »

gruseom wrote: post #35
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…

It's uncool to post a long comment on an article you didn't bother to read, let alone dismiss it with a slur about "revisionist history", whatever that is. The article is clearly a serious one, and since it challenges the #1 belief by far that nearly everyone (in North America if not elsewhere) has about the end of the Pacific War, it deserves attention. Unsurprisingly, you haven't addressed most of the article's arg…

The article may not have been so bad (though I will not patronize that site with any further page views). The title is clearly revisionist on the other hand, and it's what I had to go on.

But merely "challenging a #1 belief" isn't inherent justification for the legitimacy of an argument either; that's the same tack the creationists take when trying to blow up evolution.

By all means people can and should learn about the Pacific War. But learn the actual lessons of that conflict, don't just use it to reinforce your own previously-held beliefs.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#56

Post by bjhoops1 »

Eva_Peron wrote: post #26

Stalin has always been under-rated in the United States. Truth was, he was a hero who helped to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan. But saying that undermines those who want Churchill and FDR to take all the credit.

>Stalin has always been under-rated in the United States. Truth was, he was a hero who helped to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan.

That anyone in the 21st century would ever attribute heroism to a man who murdered 20 million people (that's a low estimate btw) is beyond comprehensible.

Was Stalin the "lesser of two evils" in the fight with ole Adolf? Perhaps. But anyone who holds Stalin in anything but contempt is either utterly ignorant of a huge swath of 20th century history or has a profoundly twisted sense of morality.

I suggest you take a brief spin on Uncle Joe's wikipedia page or read Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin to get a feel for just what sort of hero Stalin was.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#57

Post by bjhoops1 »

kmm wrote: post #54
WiseWeasel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the fact he sent >12 million of his own citizens to slave and die in the Gulag in Siberia could have made it difficult to cast him as a hero. For a depressing account of the Gulag and other aspects of life under Stalin's rule, read a few of Solzhenitsyn's books.

Where did you get that from? The total number of Stalin's victims is around 1.5 million. EDIT: I misread. It's about double, 3 million. Unreliable figure in any case.

1.5 million is a comically low estimate. Where did you get your figure? Over 3 million died in the Ukrainian collectivization political famine alone.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#58

Post by mpyne »

jlgreco wrote: post #32
gruseom wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) No, the article is not arguing against a factual claim like that, but against a causal one: that Japan surrendered because of the atomic bombs. The latter may be the mainstream view but it's just as "indefinite" by your standard. And causal claims can be weakened b…

> Also, one of the article's major claims (its first, in fact) is that Japan didn't surrender immediately. I find it hard to reconcile this idea with the relatively persuasive reasoning that the second bomb was unjustifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings... I am not entirely convinced that it was so, but I do think it is reasonable that a few days is not sufficient time to understand t…

I believe the logic of the U.S. military planners was that they were worried the Japanese would assume the bomb was truly unique and novel. They didn't want the Japanese to assume they could simply hunker down and expect a bomb every 2-3 months or so; the Japanese were already surviving equivalent damage from mere conventional bombing raids.

That doesn't mean the U.S. couldn't have waited more (the Nagasaki bombing occurred while Hirohito's Supreme Council were discussing Hiroshima and the Soviet invasion), but I don't think they would have waited much longer either.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#59

Post by smokinjoe »

Helpful_Bunny wrote: post #44
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 wh…

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

You can do that by just not visiting the website. I find it to be a lot more worthwhile because you actually find legitimate alternatives instead of [in my personal opinion] cheating the system.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#60

Post by mpyne »

dkarl wrote: post #50
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…

The news of Nagasaki reacted the leadership before they voted on their final decision.

They split evenly on the question of whether to surrender or to keep fighting in favor of conditional surrender terms (and this after 2 atomic bombings and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria).

Hirohito had to break the tie and decide for peace; he did mention the atomic bomb as one of his reasons, but we can't know where that ranked vs. the Soviet invasion, American preparations, etc.

Post reply on HN