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

Why did Japan surrender? (2011)

boston.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 76 posts

Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)

#11

Post by mc32 »

sandworm wrote: post #6

Lol. This topic is just about the most sensitive things I can imagine. The concept that America "won" both the pacific and European wars is an integral part of American identity. Shortly after the war, with the rise of the cold war, US students were brought up on the one narrative. Any suggestion that the Soviets were a driving force in ending the war forces them to confront deeply held beliefs regarding the use of f…

They were used on Japan and not Germany because they barely were okayed for use a few weeks prior to their detonation over enemy territory. The Germans had no compunction about dropping them on us had they had a working one so I don't think we would have had any issue deploying one over Germany --just like we had little issue firebombing Dresden. At the time saw both Japan and Germany as mortal enemies and would have used any resource at hand to defeat them militarily.

Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)

#12

Post by sandworm »

chaostheory wrote: post #2

> Hasegawa’s ability to read three languages, Bernstein says, gives him a unique advantage over other scholars. Hasegawa spent years working through primary documents, with a deep understanding of linguistic and cultural nuance. His knowledge was especially valuable because historians of the period face such fragmentary and contradictory evidence, in part because the Japanese destroyed many documents. > But therein l…

Hasegawa also hesitates to suggest that there were forces within the Japanese elite who were working to end the war. That would be to suggest treason. Imho the use of nukes gave them that opportunity.

Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)

#13

Post by sandworm »

Someone wrote: post #10
sandworm wrote: post #6

Lol. This topic is just about the most sensitive things I can imagine. The concept that America "won" both the pacific and European wars is an integral part of American identity. Shortly after the war, with the rise of the cold war, US students were brought up on the one narrative. Any suggestion that the Soviets were a driving force in ending the war forces them to confront deeply held beliefs regarding the use of f…

The trinity test was in july 1945, two months after the surrender of Germany. We don't know whether atomic bombs would have been used on, say, Berlin or the Ruhr area (maybe even tactically, to speed up the allied advance in the west), but I think the USA would have used one, if only to send a message to the soviets.

I have heard discussion that those in control were worried about dropping a nuke over Germany for fear that, should it not explode, it would wind up in the hands of enemy scientists. Japan was not considered capable of repaiting and turning around such a device. Some artillery and anti-aircraft shells during WWII were not permitted to be used over land for similar reasons.

The timelines, the actual dates that the bombs became available, are a little secondary imho as this was a multi-year developmental program. I still doubt they would have dropped a bomb on germany for a variety of reasons both technological and sociological.

Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)

#14

Post by moo »

The imminent Soviet invasion of Manchuria surely played a role in the U.S. decision to use the atomic bomb, end the war quickly to end the prospect of post war Soviet occupation of Japanese held territory.

Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)

#15

Post by [deleted] »

sandworm wrote: post #6

Lol. This topic is just about the most sensitive things I can imagine. The concept that America "won" both the pacific and European wars is an integral part of American identity. Shortly after the war, with the rise of the cold war, US students were brought up on the one narrative. Any suggestion that the Soviets were a driving force in ending the war forces them to confront deeply held beliefs regarding the use of f…

[deleted]

Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)

#16

Post by htns »

Hundreds of Japanese cities were leveled by firebombing. Having a town nuked every few weeks was not such a big consideration against that background. If only they had trucked on for a few more months we wouldn't have to read these articles.

Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)

#17

Post by rdl »

"Why/how did WW1 end" is an interesting question, too.

Aside from cursory school classes and then some reading, I've never really looked into it in great detail.

The elementary school version is "tanks broke the stalemate, and the US/UK rolled through to victory", but it was a lot more nuanced than that, with internal revolutions in multiple countries. WW1 clearly could have kept going for some extended period longer than it did.

Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)

#18

Post by Sophistifunk »

rdl wrote: post #17

"Why/how did WW1 end" is an interesting question, too. Aside from cursory school classes and then some reading, I've never really looked into it in great detail. The elementary school version is "tanks broke the stalemate, and the US/UK rolled through to victory", but it was a lot more nuanced than that, with internal revolutions in multiple countries. WW1 clearly could have kept going for some extended period longer…

World War 1 Ended when Russian troops stormed what was left of the Reichstag in 1945.

Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)

#19

Post by frozenport »

jihokoo wrote: post #7
chaostheory wrote: post #2

> Hasegawa’s ability to read three languages, Bernstein says, gives him a unique advantage over other scholars. Hasegawa spent years working through primary documents, with a deep understanding of linguistic and cultural nuance. His knowledge was especially valuable because historians of the period face such fragmentary and contradictory evidence, in part because the Japanese destroyed many documents. > But therein l…

The article also poses the idea that its unlikely that the U.S. would surrender a war after a city was destroyed. Article also gives the example of UK not giving up after German bombing in WW2.

Don't forget that France surrendered.

Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)

#20

Post by walshemj »

Someone wrote: post #10
sandworm wrote: post #6

Lol. This topic is just about the most sensitive things I can imagine. The concept that America "won" both the pacific and European wars is an integral part of American identity. Shortly after the war, with the rise of the cold war, US students were brought up on the one narrative. Any suggestion that the Soviets were a driving force in ending the war forces them to confront deeply held beliefs regarding the use of f…

The trinity test was in july 1945, two months after the surrender of Germany. We don't know whether atomic bombs would have been used on, say, Berlin or the Ruhr area (maybe even tactically, to speed up the allied advance in the west), but I think the USA would have used one, if only to send a message to the soviets.

That's what they where designed for and if d day had stalled they would have been used in the rhur.

There is also strong evidence that Stalin wanted to get to berlin first to grab some of the German nuclear materiel in Berlin

Post reply on HN