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

141–150 of 223 posts

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#141

Post by lobster_johnson »

brunorsini wrote: post #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…

Vonnegut was very probably wrong about the Dresden numbers. One of the people to popularize a disproportionally high death toll from the firebombing of Dresden was David Irving — later discredited and now largely known for his fascist leanings and his denial of the Holocaust — in his first book [1]. The modern estimate, from a report done by the city of Dresden in 2010 [2], is is that around 25.000 people died.

He's more right about the Tokyo bombing. Richard Rhodes, in his fantastic "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", cites 100,000 dead and 1 million injured.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War...

[2] http://www.dresden.de/media/pdf/infoblaetter/Historikerkommi...

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#142

Post by akiselev »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #123
scott_s wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wors…

Other than the headline, I read the article as second guessing Americans' general perception that the atomic bomb was the end all be all of the Allied victory in the Pacific.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#143

Post by ekianjo »

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…

I agree with your feeling. Reading through this thread of answers and seeing so many poorly written comments, all supporting the "official patriotic version of American History of the World" is pretty sad.

For those who disagree with the article, why don't you ask Japanese what they think, instead of speculating about these two bombs ending the war? It was clearly obvious that these two bombs were, just like the article said, just another two drops in a long history of bombing on Japan that has destroyed most of the largest cities. Come to Japan and see from yourself how little is left of Old Japan. All cities are built of concrete here, because there was nothing left of what they were before. And check Japanese litterature of the time - there was ample suffering and hardship without even talking about the atomic bombs.

There's nothing "revisionist" about these claims.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#144

Post by emmelaich »

mcantelon wrote: post #78
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…

>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."…

It certainly eased the introduction of peace.

If the Emperor had not accepted defeat we might well have a guerrilla war still going today.

Or the equivalent of North and South Korea.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#145

Post by [deleted] »

mpyne wrote: post #65
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…

I can't edit my text, but the original title read "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan; Stalin Did". I appreciate the editors correcting the title to match the tone of the article itself, but my own reply will make more sense when you know the title that was in play when I responded.

[deleted]

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#146

Post by fancyketchup »

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.

> All were showstoppers to the US.

But that isn't true. The seat of the emperor was maintained, at least nominally, so it clearly wasn't a showstopper. The US may have demanded unconditional surrender before the atomic bombings, but it accepted a conditional surrender after.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#147

Post by scott_s »

akiselev wrote: post #142
ChuckMcM wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wors…

Other than the headline, I read the article as second guessing Americans' general perception that the atomic bomb was the end all be all of the Allied victory in the Pacific.

The phrase "second guessing" is typically associated with questioning a decision or action. It's not typically associated with questioning a conclusion. So, I would not use the phrase "second guessing" in your sentence. One that, I think, is semantically more clear is "calling into question".

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#148

Post by gruseom »

refurb wrote: post #140
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…

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.

Remember there were two bombs dropped. Japan didn't surrender after the 1st one.

But they convened the council to discuss surrender before the second one. The timeline given by the article is:

  Hiroshima bombed
  Soviet declaration of war
  Surrender council convened
  Nagasaki bombed
  Surrender

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#149

Post by supercanuck »

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…

I find it frustrating that someone so prominent in their field to merit an audience at the UN and British Parliament and to be published in Foreign Policy is able to be so easily dismissed on Hacker News as not "a serious historian."

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#150

Post by saraid216 »

gruseom wrote: post #131
hkmurakami wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> What do Japanese historians have to say about how and why Japan surrendered in 1945?

Given Japan's current record on how they engage with World War 2 history, I honestly wouldn't trust any of their claims. Wikipedia has an overview of the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Debate_in_J...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_contr...

I'm not saying that they would lie, but at this point I think the propaganda war is going to eclipse any useful qualitative data that could be gained.

Post reply on HN