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

Hiroshima (1946)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 196 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#141

Post by rangibaby »

kristopolous wrote: post #57
Hondor wrote: post #36

It's funny how war is always glorious from the point of view of the aggressor and always sad from the point of view of the aggressed (sp?), even when they're the same person! How we feel depends on who's story we're reading at the time. "She had not had an easy time. Her husband, Isawa, had gone into the Army just after Myeko was born, and she had heard nothing from or of him for a long time, until, on March 5, 1942,…

This reminds me of Amy Goodman and Allan Nairn's story when they were doing journalism in East Timor: "Allan suggested we walk to the front of the crowd between the soldiers and the Timorese, because although we knew that the army had committed many massacres, we hoped that we, as foreign journalists, could serve as a shield for the Timorese. Standing with headphones on and microphone and camera out in full view, we…

It wouldn't have been the first time the Indonesians killed journalists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balibo_Five

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#142

Post by adventured »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #105
sukilot wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA just kicked President Jackson off the front of the $20 bill, and his genocide was part of the reason he was the least respected money face. The "Trail of Tears" is a major unit in several years of K-12 education.

Of course, one might wonder how Jackson has been on the $20 for this long to begin.

That's pretty straight-forward. Until the last ~30-50 years the vast majority of the US population held a high or at worst neutral opinion of Jackson.

From, say, 1928-1960 there was practically no wide-spread criticism of Jackson's personal history regarding Native Americans (or any of his other terrible beliefs).

Consider that FDR is still very highly regarded by the left in the US, despite the fact that he was a blatant racist and interned a hundred-thousand Japanese-Americans.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#143

Post by nihonde »

krapp wrote: post #132
travmatt wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea the snideness of that last sentence is a bit much, seeing as its current pacifism was bought with American blood and is secured by the Pax Americana.

Fair enough, I removed the last sentence, but I stand by the snideness nonetheless. If nihonde wants to contrast Japan's pacifism with America's violence, they would do well to remember how much easier it is to remain pacifist when someone else has to take the bullets for you.

Please elaborate. I'd like to know which of America's wars or conflicts since WWII were fought on Japan's behalf?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#144

Post by chillacy »

bluejekyll wrote: post #66
mevile wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans may not hide their actions, but they certainly paint the actions in a light favorable to the American self-image. Germany on the other hand exhibits complete contrition and there is no denial of the wrongness of the actions that happened. There are extreme and fringe holocaust denial beliefs in some sub-groups in Germany, but as a government policy what I've said is true.

As an American, this is a question I struggle with. The the atomic bombs did what they were meant to, a swift end to the war with a full capitulation by the Japanese, before the Russians were able to mount an invasion of their own. This is generally forgiven because it in theory saved the lives of American soldiers who would have had a hard fight to take Japan. But all of this was done, and with an understanding that…

Also, we're still killing civilians as collateral damage in the middle east through drone strikes. And the civilian death toll is officially underreported because of how they've chosen to define an enemy combatant. A quick googling shows counts in the 100k+ range.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#145

Post by adventured »

hudibras wrote: post #88
mevile wrote: post #3

> In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed. However I ma…

If the U.S. had instead somehow parachuted in 200,000 troops to Hiroshima, and then lined up and shot to death 100,000 men, women, children, elderly people, hospital patients, etc., and then burned every building down to the ground, would that be okay? What if by doing so it would end the war? Even if there were going to be many U.S. military casualties (which I doubt, although I know this is debatable), that doesn't…

> that doesn't in any way justify killing civilians

WW2 wasn't just a war, it was absolute war: the survival of nations and perhaps hundreds of millions of people were on the line. In absolute war, most of the resources of the nation, including most of its labor pool, is put into war supply mode. That is a critical distinction. Killing civilians was inherently necessary, as they worked the manufacturing plants that supplied the weapons. If you intend to destroy the factories to stop the flow of weapons and supplies, you are going to kill very large numbers of civilians. And before the reflexive comment: simultaneously I'm not condoning intentionally targeting civilians as an appropriate means of instilling terror or capitulation.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#146

Post by chillacy »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #74
mevile wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans may not hide their actions, but they certainly paint the actions in a light favorable to the American self-image. Germany on the other hand exhibits complete contrition and there is no denial of the wrongness of the actions that happened. There are extreme and fringe holocaust denial beliefs in some sub-groups in Germany, but as a government policy what I've said is true.

It's hard to have contrition for policies and actions which saved, arguably, millions of lives.

Saving 10 people at the cost of killing one person is still a tragedy, unless you're UtilitarianMan or a psychopath.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#147

Post by krapp »

nihonde wrote: post #143
krapp wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, I removed the last sentence, but I stand by the snideness nonetheless. If nihonde wants to contrast Japan's pacifism with America's violence, they would do well to remember how much easier it is to remain pacifist when someone else has to take the bullets for you.

Please elaborate. I'd like to know which of America's wars or conflicts since WWII were fought on Japan's behalf?

None. But AFAIK the US is obligated by treaty to defend Japan against any external military threats, meaning any potential conflicts Japan might have with its neighbors would be fought on Japan's behalf by the US. Japan is ostensibly pacifist because it's "military" isn't Japanese, it's American.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#148

Post by [deleted] »

e12e wrote: post #54
JshWright wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few days later than what?

August 6th, 1945: bombing of Hiroshima August 9th, bombing of Nagasaki August 15th, Japan surrenders. One could note that the two bombs were of different design, that both were tested on real cities and real human beings. As for whether or not Soviet or the bombs won the war - or if the bombs made much difference that waiting would not have; it's hard to judge. Here's one take on it: http://archive.boston.com/bostong…

[deleted]

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#149

Post by adventured »

ck2 wrote: post #20
tim333 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well not really. Estimates for the cost of invading Japan were approx 1m US casualties, 5m Japanese. None of the above issues produce anything like that.

Now explain why we decided to vaporize tens of thousands more civilians a few days later.

Japan's refusal to surrender - so as to bring an end to the vast war Japan started in Asia, and the separate war Japan joined with the Axis on when they declared war on the US and Britain - was the justification for the second bomb. The fact that they refused to surrender after being nuked once, very strongly makes the case that it was unlikely they were going to surrender without an invasion or more nuclear bombings.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#150

Post by ksou32 »

hasenj wrote: post #53
ksou32 wrote: post #40

It's very easy to judge past America 60 years from the moment. Say you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon to end the war ?

I think would much rather my leaders just sign some sort of an armistice agreement rather than annihilate "enemy" civilians. I mean there are ways to end a war without total destruction. And the logic of killing civilians to save soldiers is just .. no comment.

>And the logic of killing civilians to save soldiers is just .. no comment.

Since their was totally a way to invade Japan and not harm any civilians. Since Japan totally didn't kill millions of innocent Chinese , Vietnamese, and Philippinos. It's not a bad guy good guy comic When exactly was the last no civilian casualties war ?

We firebombed Dresden too, but you don't see Germany getting a peace day.

And remember Truman's first duty is to save the lives of the drafted men on the front lines.

Post reply on HN