The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan • Hacker News Board

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#171

Post by contingencies » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 4:12 AM UTC

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…

Foreign Policy is the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group summarized as early as 1986 by Noam Chomsky (who won a 2005 poll as the world's top public intellectual, invented modern linguistics, and is an outspoken critic of US government) as essentially the business input to [United States] foreign policy planning. The question, then, is which business interests are served by a given Foreign Policy story?

Speculation may be made in this case if we ascribe significance to the near simultaneous release of The New Digital Age by Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) and Jared Cohen (Council of Foreign Relations member and head of Google Ideas; somewhat spooky in and of itself), which Julian Assange variously described as a startlingly clear and provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism and an enticement to Western soft power.

One of the advanced praise writers for the book (aside Kissinger, Blair, Clinton, Albright and Bloomberg - who, it must be noted, recently declined presidential candidacy as billionaire and 7th richest American to run New York) was General Keith Alexander, who is the present Director of the NSA (former Deputy Chief of Staff, Army; formerly Commanding General, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command; Director of Intelligence, US Central Command; Deputy Director for Intelligence, Joint Chiefs of Staff). Jacob Applebaum (of The Tor Project, also Wikileaks affiliate) described General Alexander as the most powerful man in the world and a fucking liar for claiming to congress that the NSA does not routinely intercept the communications of US citizens.

Why has this article been published by Foreign Policy in the current climate? The author has been developing these ideas awhile (http://cns.miis.edu/staff/wilson_ward.htm).

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#172

Post by rat87 » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 4:19 AM UTC

fancyketchup wrote: post #146

Scramblejams wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/2...

1945: Japan signs unconditional surrender > Japanese officials have signed the act of unconditional surrender, finally bringing to an end six years of world war.

> Under the terms of the ceasefire, Japan has agreed to end all hostilities, release all prisoners of war, and comply with the terms of the Potsdam declaration, which confines its sovereignty to the four main islands which make up Japan.

> It has also agreed to acknowledge the authority of the US supreme commander. Although Emperor Hirohito will be allowed to remain as a symbolic head of state.

---

I'm pretty sure the surrender was unconditional and later the Allies announced that the Emperor would keep his position(probably mostly to help ease the occupation) ---

> www.history.com/this-day-in-history/japan-accepts-potsdam-terms-agrees-to-unconditional-surrender

At the behest of two Cabinet members, the emperor summoned and presided over a special meeting of the Council and implored them to consider accepting the terms of the Potsdam Conference, which meant unconditional surrender. "It seems obvious that the nation is no longer able to wage war, and its ability to defend its own shores is doubtful." The Council had been split over the surrender terms; half the members wanted assurances that the emperor would maintain his hereditary and traditional role in a postwar Japan before surrender could be considered. But in light of the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, Nagasaki on August 9, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, as well as the emperor's own request that the Council "bear the unbearable," it was agreed: Japan would surrender.

--

> www.history.com/this-day-in-history/japan-accepts-potsdam-terms-agrees-to-unconditional-surrender

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#173

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 6:01 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#174

Post by dxt78 » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 6:06 AM UTC

what on earth does this have to do with technology or computer science?

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#175

Post by gruseom » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 6:06 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #156

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…

Agreed. The cherry-picking on this topic is extreme. One guy claims Lehey was the leader of the U.S. Military during WWII. He was not. He was the senior-serving military official, who worked as chief of staff to Roosevelt . You could call him an early CJCS, or you could just use his title: chief of staff. Marshall was probably the closest we had to a senior person actually running the war, as anybody with a modicum o…

This is seriously misleading. The OP doesn't even mention William Lehey, let alone include a howler about him. And you accuse other people of red herrings!

Surely if you had found even the tiniest flaw in the OP, you'd have shared it with us by now. Instead your comments are positively incontinent with innuendos and slurs: "UFO stories", "pseudo-science", "revisionists", "9-11 guys", "cherry picking", "selectively arranging facts", "pump up", "add authority", "rewriting history to suit current fashion", "emotional reasoning" (since deleted, unless my memory is playing tricks), and my favorite: "From the author's comments, and those on this board"—as if the two were colluding instead of obviously having nothing whatever to do with each other.

I don't have an opinion about why Japan surrendered in WWII, but when an apparently well-reasoned case provokes this kind of thing, it seems likely that there is something to it.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#176

Post by mercurial » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 6:10 AM UTC

kaonashi wrote: post #84

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 dropping the bombs on Japan saved millions of both Japanese and allied lives. This assumes an invasion of the island of Japan would somehow have been a necessary goal.

I don't know what options US high command were favouring in case the bombs failed for some reason, but if their strategic goal was "unconditional surrender", it is reasonable to expect them to plan an invasion of Japan, considering that firebombing was failing to do the trick.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#177

Post by mercurial » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 6:14 AM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #165

gruseom wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One really has to be careful with this kind of reasoning. That Japan minimizes its war crimes (as other countries do) and engages in propaganda (as other countries do) does not render irrelevant what Japanese scholars have to say about how and why Japan surrendered in 1945. Indeed, nearly all the important evidence on this is bound to be of Japanese origin (not to mention language), so it's the obvious place to start…

I absolutely agree; I'm not saying that it's irrelevant, but rather that there are still people alive and in power who have a demonstrated interest in lying on the matter. This is far less true in other countries. What confuses me about this debate is what purpose is serves. Minus patriotism, why does it matter? I've maintained a neutral stance on the matter precisely because I don't understand this. (But I'm also a…

> What confuses me about this debate is what purpose is serves.

To find out what motivated Japan to surrender? Whatever conclusion you draw from their actual motivation is up to you.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#178

Post by SiVal » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 6:24 AM UTC

cema wrote: post #127

SiVal wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I'm willing to give the HN commenter above the benefit of the doubt that he/she might just be parroting something picked up on campus, but I agree with you that this claim has been part of leftist propaganda for decades.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#179

Post by gruseom » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 6:27 AM UTC

dspeyer wrote: post #169

parennoob wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What meaning of speculate do you mean? There are two that are nearly the opposite of each other (making this an almost-Janus word): 1. To meditate on a subject; reflect. 2. To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence. If you mean 2., the article doesn't do anything of the sort. It lays out specific pieces of evidence based on observed historical fact and draws specific conclusions from the…

In talking about causality, the article makes two counterfactual claims: had the Soviets not invaded Manchuria, Japan would not have surrendered and had the bombs not been dropped, Japan would have surrendered. (In my opinion, the first claim is well-defended, the second less so). Since the bombs were dropped and the Soviets did invade, any discussion of these possibilities is a little speculative.

This seems reasonable—thanks. Can you quote where the article actually claims those two things? I'm curious, and I don't disbelieve you, but I really don't want to have to go back and comb through the whole thing again :)

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#180

Post by mercurial » Tue, Jun 04, 2013, 6:38 AM UTC

jernfrost wrote: post #37

Eva_Peron wrote: post #26

Stalin has always been under-rated in the United States. Truth was, he was a hero who helped to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japan. But saying that undermines those who want Churchill and FDR to take all the credit.

USSR crushed Nazi Germany, but that does not make it a force for good. In fact one of the most annoying things about WWII is dividing the world into good guys and bad guys. Some were worse than others, but I don't think e.g. the US was all that nice either given all the civilian suffering they brought on both Germany and Japan through fierce bombing. One evil does not cancel out another. Of course it was still prefer…

This is a problem with studying wars in general: many people need a good-vs-evil narrative, when it's more shades of grey.