Live data from Hacker News

The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

foreignpolicy.com

131–140 of 223 posts

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But these things are the province of speculation, not knowledge. Here's the opinion of the leader of the US military at the time. "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."…

Shouldn't we ask some people on the other side of the ocean?

This is a good question. Let's make it more explicit: What do Japanese historians have to say about how and why Japan surrendered in 1945?

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is contentless. It doesn't address a single specific thing the article says. Instead it offers woolly generalities ("Japan was threatened on many fronts and made the best choice it could. That much is clear") and platitudes ("all of the actions, taken together, were the reason for the war to end. Yes, Stalin played a big role. But it's not an either-or situation"). It sounds like it's saying something; i…

>"Think for a minute about what this essay is asking "What if action X did not end the war in the Pacific?" I think it was addressing the overall idea of speculation in historical events.

[deleted]

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#133
post #99
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're seeking serious responses to the claim that the Soviet invasion was paramount and the atomic bombings irrelevant, /r/AskHistorians has had several threads on the subject: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwii#wiki_japan_a... (I think mpyne's reply is "serious", though. It's always preferable to read first, but the argument presented in the article is not new. I did read the article, and I'm not su…

Thanks. But the first thread I ran across there could hardly be more supportive of the OP's argument: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u6qqo/there_h... If you can point me to counterarguments more specifically, I'll look at them.

Well, there was also a short discussion about this very article: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fhhf7/the_bo...

As the top comment by /u/restricteddata points out, the argument about the Soviet role was made by Hasegawa (who the FP article did not cite). There's no refuting that the Soviet side of the story is important and relatively unrecognized (by the public). But it's hard to say exactly how events would have played out without the bomb. And the FP article's subheading, that US policy has been based on this "myth", is just a puzzling conclusion.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#134
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…

[deleted]

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is contentless. It doesn't address a single specific thing the article says. Instead it offers woolly generalities ("Japan was threatened on many fronts and made the best choice it could. That much is clear") and platitudes ("all of the actions, taken together, were the reason for the war to end. Yes, Stalin played a big role. But it's not an either-or situation"). It sounds like it's saying something; i…

>"Think for a minute about what this essay is asking "What if action X did not end the war in the Pacific?" I think it was addressing the overall idea of speculation in historical events.

Which is essentially dismissing the entire subject of history. How can arguing about things that happened seventy years ago not be speculation? History is not hard science. We speculate, we argue, but we never reach perfect certainty.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#137

I love UFO stories, and I love history, and I love pseudo-science. Hell, I even like counter-factuals. What if Lee had won at Gettysburg? What if Patton had actually commanded the Normandy invasion? And so forth. But these things are the province of speculation, not knowledge. Think for a minute about what this essay is asking "What if action X did not end the war in the Pacific?" Well dang, Action X could be just ab…

> Nobody is finding comfort in simplistic stories. In fact, the more details people know, the happier I am. But dropping the bombs on Japan saved millions of both Japanese and allied lives. It served as a quick end to a long war, and it saved thousands of allied prisoners whom the Japanese were ready to execute. It also allowed the great Japanese culture to continue.

Yeah the US played ball by nuking japan. But saying it saved japanese people and their culture because it quickly ended the war, it's a little fast. I mean we're talking about nukes, not some poker games, those are war decision, you're still talking like the winner won because it took the best decision. Nuking is not a good decision, but it was a necessary one at the time. You're saying it like japan also thought "yeah, you nuked us, that really saved us, thanks !". When I read "bombs saved japanese", it sounds a little weird.

At least the article offer the reader some opportunity to think about the japanese perspective.

> Smells of a political agenda and manipulation.

UFO and conspiracy theories at it again ! The internet is never holding the truth, it's mandatory to not believe everything, it applies especially for this article. Consider the alternative like an opportunity to explore perspectives, not just like another one of those "deviant zealot".

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#138
Surprised to see this on HNs front page when there's an Oscar-winning documentary that makes this pretty clear (Errol Morris's "The Fog of War").

Vonnegut also talks about this on Slaughterhouse-V:

"The advocates of nuclear disarmament seem to believe that, if they could achieve their aim, war would become tolerable and decent. They would do well to read this book and ponder the fate of Dresden, where 135,000 people died as the result of an air attack with conventional weapons. On the night of March 9th, 1945, an air attack on Tokyo by American heavy bombers, using incendiary and high explosive bombs, caused the death of 83,793 people. The atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed 71,379 people. So it goes." (Chapter 9)

The nuclear attacks served their purpose, sure, but they were definitely not decisive for the outcome of the war.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#139
post #48
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 evid…

Did you read the entire article? It provides plenty of sound sources for its rather specific (as opposed to vague) speculations.

History is a science only in the sense that "political science" is.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But these things are the province of speculation, not knowledge. Here's the opinion of the leader of the US military at the time. "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."…

When I read these revisionist pieces, I often see the same phrase you quoted: "ready to surrender." If someone is "ready to surrender," what does that mean? Well I'll tell you what it certainly doesn't mean: It doesn't mean that they've _actually_ surrendered. What a lot of revisionist writings gloss over is that yes, certain parts of the Japanese leadership were "ready to surrender." But it is well documented that s…

I have to agree. Remember there were TWO bombs dropped. Japan didn't surrender after the 1st one.

The only thing that matters is that Japan surrendered. That they were "thinking" about it or "close to it" is pretty much irrelevant.

Post reply on HN