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

21–30 of 275 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#21

Post by makeitdouble »

prmph wrote: post #15
defrost wrote: post #4

A surprising number of the people of Hiroshima remained more or less indifferent about the ethics of using the bomb. Unsurprising for the time given the context. While people far from Japan made much of the uniqueness and power of a single bomb destroying a single city for those on the ground it was just another single city destroyed overnight by bombing .. the 73rd such city destroyed in a relatively short duration…

Yes, I understand that Japan gave up, not so much because of the bomb, but mostly because of the Soviet invasion and capture of Manchuria (and the implied threat of an invasion of the mainland), after the war in Europe had been won. But I still struggle to understand the Japanese mentality. Were they OK with the prospect of city after city being atom- or fire-bombed, so long as no ground invasion occurred?

The war was dictated by a religious leader, to some (most?) there was just no stopping it until it tells them to.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#22

Post by InTheArena »

prmph wrote: post #15
defrost wrote: post #4

A surprising number of the people of Hiroshima remained more or less indifferent about the ethics of using the bomb. Unsurprising for the time given the context. While people far from Japan made much of the uniqueness and power of a single bomb destroying a single city for those on the ground it was just another single city destroyed overnight by bombing .. the 73rd such city destroyed in a relatively short duration…

Yes, I understand that Japan gave up, not so much because of the bomb, but mostly because of the Soviet invasion and capture of Manchuria (and the implied threat of an invasion of the mainland), after the war in Europe had been won. But I still struggle to understand the Japanese mentality. Were they OK with the prospect of city after city being atom- or fire-bombed, so long as no ground invasion occurred?

This is mostly untrue. Most of this narrative comes from Soviet propaganda that was later propagated by anti-Western and anti-war groups in the United States. More recently, it's gotten more attention as Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Rudolfovich Solovyov use it as a useful tool to build their narrative that only Russia was responsible for World War II's victory and to justify their constant threats of nuclear warfare.

The historical record is very clear, as is Hirohito's own statement at the time:

"Furthermore, the enemy has begun to employ a new and cruel bomb, causing immense and indiscriminate destruction, the extent of which is beyond all estimation. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but it would also lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

How, then, are We to protect the millions of Our subjects and atone before the spirits of my Imperial ancestors?

This is why We have ordered the Empire to accept the terms of the Joint Declaration. "

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#23

Post by InTheArena »

makeitdouble wrote: post #21
prmph wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I understand that Japan gave up, not so much because of the bomb, but mostly because of the Soviet invasion and capture of Manchuria (and the implied threat of an invasion of the mainland), after the war in Europe had been won. But I still struggle to understand the Japanese mentality. Were they OK with the prospect of city after city being atom- or fire-bombed, so long as no ground invasion occurred?

The war was dictated by a religious leader, to some (most?) there was just no stopping it until it tells them to.

Which religious leader? Hirohito? Hirohito rarely took any direction of the war - at best he enthusiastically endorsed what the ruling militarists wanted. As critical as one could (and should) be about this support, there is plenty of documentation that he tried to tap the brakes on the militarists, but didn't try all that hard. It wasn't until the very end of the war that he directly made a decision, and that was only enabled by a literal tie in the cabinet that allowed him to cast the deciding vote (sorta - more or less, gave him cover to break his role).

He was a war criminal, but not the leader of the war by any means. That was reserved for the militarists - Tojo and Suzuki and others.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#24

Post by makeitdouble »

jalapenos wrote: post #3

Interesting to see the difference in writing style back then. Lots of long sentences. Kind of the opposite to the LinkedIn-style writing we see today, spitting out as many sentences and paragraphs as possible. Like you can see the generations' attention spans in their form of writing.

Long sentences are fine if your value form over communication.

Marking it on attention span makes it sound like convoluted and rambling sentences were universally good in the first place. I'd argue the contrary for a magazine or news outlet.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#25

Post by InTheArena »

ricksunny wrote: post #20
Synaesthesia wrote: post #6

The singular horror of this event really is so difficult to describe, definitely one of the low points of human history which we must vow to never again repeat, under any circumstances.

Any global consensus on avoiding repeating this low point in human history needs to acknowledge the prime movers behind birthing the bomb into existence in the first place. Much ink has been spilt debating morality, but on the raw mechanics the historians are in alignment with each other - doesn't matter if you ask Richard Rhodes, Robert S Norris, or Alex Wellerstein: Vannevar Bush, more than any single individual, s…

In any moral framework that does not include perfect knowledge of the future, the nuclear bomb is morally defensible at worst, and morally required at best. Sheer number of lives saved? The Nuclear Bomb ended the war. Number of Japanese lives saved? Nuclear bomb wins. The "non-violent" option of a blockade? It would have resulted in millions dead. The Japanese farming system completely collapsed in 1944. Many still starved even after the surrender, as the allies rushed to get food and aid to Japan.

What about a pure Soviet entry into the war? You have to look at what happened to Poland and Eastern Europe when the Soviet army invaded. Once again, by any metric, this was the best possible outcome at the time.

But it was unquestionably a local maximum - the best solution at the time, with horrific consequences afterward.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#26

Post by makeitdouble »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #5
jalapenos wrote: post #3

Interesting to see the difference in writing style back then. Lots of long sentences. Kind of the opposite to the LinkedIn-style writing we see today, spitting out as many sentences and paragraphs as possible. Like you can see the generations' attention spans in their form of writing.

Been watching some old movies lately and its amazing to watch simple scenes stretch on for five minutes or more. Its almost like there was nothing else to do.

> Its almost like there was nothing else to do.

Until now I forgot that people saw theaters as social venues, would eat buckets of popcorn, go the toilet etc.

From that lens, viewers fully focused and digesting every second of the movie was definitely not the average target.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#27

Post by InTheArena »

prmph wrote: post #15
defrost wrote: post #4

A surprising number of the people of Hiroshima remained more or less indifferent about the ethics of using the bomb. Unsurprising for the time given the context. While people far from Japan made much of the uniqueness and power of a single bomb destroying a single city for those on the ground it was just another single city destroyed overnight by bombing .. the 73rd such city destroyed in a relatively short duration…

Yes, I understand that Japan gave up, not so much because of the bomb, but mostly because of the Soviet invasion and capture of Manchuria (and the implied threat of an invasion of the mainland), after the war in Europe had been won. But I still struggle to understand the Japanese mentality. Were they OK with the prospect of city after city being atom- or fire-bombed, so long as no ground invasion occurred?

Additionally, the Japanese leadership was welcoming a land invasion. They believed that a land invasion would result in unacceptable casualties, forcing the United States into a peace that would allow Japan to continue occupying China and many of the sized territories. That's how disconnected from reality the leadership was.

The sad thing is that there is a non-zero chance they where right. There was considerable concern about that from the war leadership at this point. The allies _dramatically_ underestimated the forces that the Japanese had marshalled at the two invasion sites, and it would have been not very good. The alternative that the Navy was pushing was a starvation blockade of Japan. This probably would have been succesful but led to millions more lives lost in Japan, and a almost inevitable civil war in Japan.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#28

Post by prmph »

InTheArena wrote: post #22
prmph wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I understand that Japan gave up, not so much because of the bomb, but mostly because of the Soviet invasion and capture of Manchuria (and the implied threat of an invasion of the mainland), after the war in Europe had been won. But I still struggle to understand the Japanese mentality. Were they OK with the prospect of city after city being atom- or fire-bombed, so long as no ground invasion occurred?

This is mostly untrue. Most of this narrative comes from Soviet propaganda that was later propagated by anti-Western and anti-war groups in the United States. More recently, it's gotten more attention as Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Rudolfovich Solovyov use it as a useful tool to build their narrative that only Russia was responsible for World War II's victory and to justify their constant threats of nuclear warfare.…

What came before the "Furthermore, ..."?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#29

Post by makeitdouble »

InTheArena wrote: post #23
makeitdouble wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The war was dictated by a religious leader, to some (most?) there was just no stopping it until it tells them to.

Which religious leader? Hirohito? Hirohito rarely took any direction of the war - at best he enthusiastically endorsed what the ruling militarists wanted. As critical as one could (and should) be about this support, there is plenty of documentation that he tried to tap the brakes on the militarists, but didn't try all that hard. It wasn't until the very end of the war that he directly made a decision, and that was on…

> he enthusiastically endorsed what the ruling militarists wanted.

That's definitely enough when you are a living god. From the point he gave his approval, he was the only one that could fully stop it.

You're right that he was a puppet for the military, exactly because of that god position he was born into.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#30

Post by karlgkk »

The atrocities that the Japanese military committed, consistently and repeatedly and combined with their attack on pearl harbor, meant that Americans of the time on the front lines had few qualms or issues with dropping the bomb.

Truman famously called Oppenheimer a "cry baby" when Oppenheimer expressed doubt. Truman had spent the past decade dealing with the war in his capacity as senator and vice president - seeing the effects it was having first (or second) hand.

Now, this isn't to say that America was right or not right to drop one or both bombs. It may "feel" like I'm saying "the Japanese deserved it for their behavior" - that's not a belief I hold, either.

I just want to provide color for why American leadership seemed so relatively unconcerned with the lives of Japanese civilians in 1945.

Post reply on HN