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

121–130 of 223 posts

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#121

Post by scott_s »

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…

I think it's worth noting that article is not second guessing the decision. There's really no discussion of if dropping the bomb was right. It's arguing for what caused the surrender.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#122

Post by jleyank »

andyl wrote: post #102
scarmig wrote: post #92

I find the article rather convincing: I want to play a related alterna-history game that takes the article as a given. Did the Soviet Union make a serious strategic error in declaring war against Japan when it did? Remember, we're taking it as a given that Japan surrendered to the Allies because of the Soviet Union. Moreover, it surrendered to the USA because it for very good reason preferred USA reconstruction to US…

"Did the Soviet Union make a serious strategic error in declaring war against Japan when it did?" I've always wondered why American troops stopped at the Elbe and left Berlin to be captured by the Soviets. Was there a deal? Soviets get Berlin in exchange for attacking Japan?

The Western Powers had already determined the occupation zones for defeated Germany. Ike didn't see the point in spending lives taking something he'd have to turn over to the Russians... Russia did agree to enter the war against Japan, and it did so. One might argue that it accelerated its entry as it learned of the Bombs so as to have a seat at the table.

And having seen the damage from the Tokyo firebombing all the Bomb provided was efficiency. The US had already come up with the proper means of erasing cities.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#123

Post by ChuckMcM »

scott_s wrote: post #121
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…

I think it's worth noting that article is not second guessing the decision. There's really no discussion of if dropping the bomb was right . It's arguing for what caused the surrender.

When I read that article, I certainly came away with the opinion that they were second guessing the decision. They get there by arguing about another point which is what caused the surrender.

The reason I get that impression is because its a natural consequence that if the reason for the surrender was not the dropping of the Atomic bomb, then the decision to drop the bomb was unnecessary at best and erroneous at worst.

Perhaps I've read too many foreign policy debates but that is exactly the way someone says something without actually saying it. Which makes for face saving diplomacy and protracted if ineffective debate. Had they not been second guessing the decision the dropping, they would have included that the war declaration by Stalin was insufficient in its own right to cause the surrender. Similarly they might posit that it was the combination of those things. Reading such debates is a combination of reading what they don't say, what they do say, and how they say it.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#124

Post by iterative »

There are numerous problems with this article, but the one that jumps out at me the most is that it doesn't seem to have occurred to the author that maybe the Soviet Union got off the fence and declared war on Japan because of the atomic bomb. If it looked like victory was going to be achieved without an invasion, why wouldn't Stalin have jumped onto the bandwagon and declared a war he knew he'd never have to fight?

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#125

Post by scott_s »

mpyne wrote: post #55
gruseom wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're really just riffing on arguments no one made. Which is the danger if you respond to an article you didn't read.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#126

Post by soperj »

Scramblejams wrote: post #114
soperj wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they are actively trying to surrender, then they're probably "Ready to surrender". The US wouldn't negotiate because the bombs were on the way. What were the conditions? Because if they were "you help us rebuild" or "and we get a grill-cheese sandwich" then really they're not much. Plenty of peace treaties have taken place with conditions.

"Negotiate?" The US had no appetite for negotiation at that point -- only unconditional surrender was acceptable. I won't do your research for you, but various factions within the Japanese leadership wanted to put lots of significant things on the table, like maintaining the seat of the emperor, the existing political structure, etc. All were showstoppers to the US.

Yes, that's what I wrote. They wouldn't negotiate because the bombs were on the way. It wasn't unconditional anyway, there were plenty of conditions in the potsdam declaration.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#127

Post by cema »

SiVal wrote: post #113
Scramblejams wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here's the opinion of the leader of the US military at the time Yes, later Leahy apparently said, "It is my opinion," not, "At the time we all believed" ["that the Japanese were defeated and ready to surrender...."] I'm willing to believe that some, maybe including Leahy, thought the US had only to stand back and wait for the inevitable surrender, with no ratcheting up of force necessary. But, at the same time, someb…

  In that context, with no benefit of hindsight, 
  to say that the bomb was not dropped to win the war 
  but just to intimidate the USSR is nonsense.
Not just nonsense, but also part of a propaganda war. I cannot read it otherwise (unless the comment had offered a more profound historical analysis, which it has not).

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#128

Post by cema »

hkmurakami wrote: post #100
mcantelon wrote: post #78

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?

Japanese or Russians? The answer might differ.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#129

Post by asperous »

gruseom wrote: post #118
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #71

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…

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.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#130

Post by Dylan16807 »

Aqueous wrote: post #115

"Why did it take them 3 days to sit down and discuss it?" His argument seems to come down to this 3 day delay between Hiroshima and the Supreme Council meeting. He is not looking at this through the lens of the Supreme Council, or even any Japanese citizen. Remember: this is the first use of the atomic weapon in front of the entire world in human history. As far as the Japanese were concerned, on August 6, 1945 the s…

Come on, the only way you could tell it wasn't a traditional bomb was it being smaller. Magic? Ridiculous.
Post reply on HN