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

201–210 of 223 posts

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#201

Post by vidarh »

greedo wrote: post #157
celoyd wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet until a credible leadership figure actually _offered_ unconditional surrender, it was going to be war as usual. But it wasn’t. The A-bombs were quite unusual. They were extraordinary weapons, and would have required extraordinary justifications to use on the military, let alone on civilians. (To the argument that it wasn’t possible to target the military apart from civilians: that’s exactly why nuclear weapons ar…

You have the privilege of tarring the commanders of US forces as war criminals "of the highest gravity" because of the sacrifices US soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines made during WW2. If you haven't already, do some research on how the Japanese fought at Okinawa. At the defensive plans they had in place for defending the Home Islands. The toll of an invasion would have been horrendous for both sides. This is with…

Their actions can be necessary, and still war crimes and/or abhorrent. These are not mutually exclusive.

We can be grateful for the outcome and many sacrifices and still speculate about whether or not specific actions were necessary and justifiable.

And we can actually recognise the atrocities committed by the Japanese military and question actions by the allies at the same time.

It is understandable that a lot of decisions were taken that had horrible outcomes, and that many of them were taken in good faith and probably the only viable decisions despite how atrocious they might seem in retrospect. That does not mean we should just gloss over everything.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#202

Post by hef19898 »

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…

The view point of what I had in history about WW2 and the Cold War in Germany about the use of atomic bombs against Japan was that

1 - Japan was already defeated and it was only a question of time

2 - Atomic bombs didn't drop on Germany because the Third Reich surrendered before

3 - The US needed an actual use case to assert the damage and potential of this as yet unknown weapon

4 - It was as much about threatening the sowjets as it was about ending the war in the Pacific if not more so

What I know about the late days of the second world war is that they were regarded by both the future NATO allies (read the Commonwealth and the US) and the Sowjets as the basically the first days of a future conflict between these parties. Germany and Japan didn't play much of a role in this picture any more.

So what the US got from the use of nuclear weapons was much more than just the japanese surrender. It was a stronger position compared to the Sowjets and the garantee that the war in europe didn't continue on after the German surrender. In order to prevent this, the western allies even slowed their advance to Berlin to allow the Sowjets their successes. Which doesn't mean they didn't have their fair share of it anyway.

But that is just my point of view and I'm no historian.

And finally to the point about saving lives. I've grown tired of nationalistic people stating an unverifiable estimate of probale deaths as the herois reason to kill any number people right know. You don't save people by killing others and it is certainly not heroic. I know that the victors writes the history, but this argument mostly comes up in cases where some really bad things have to reinterpreted.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#203

Post by greedo »

kalms wrote: post #194
greedo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the privilege of tarring the commanders of US forces as war criminals "of the highest gravity" because of the sacrifices US soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines made during WW2. If you haven't already, do some research on how the Japanese fought at Okinawa. At the defensive plans they had in place for defending the Home Islands. The toll of an invasion would have been horrendous for both sides. This is with…

The United States dropped two very big bombs on cities. Cities, not military installations. That's very close to being a war criminal in my opinion, realities of war be damned. Edit: > You have the privilege of tarring the commanders of US forces as war criminals "of the highest gravity" because of the sacrifices US soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines made during WW2. In reality, we Europeans have the privilege bec…

I didn't mean to imply that the US was the sole combatant; I was responding to the parent who was an American.

War is still hell. The Romans razed Carthage, a war crime? The Germans in WW1 bombed London, war crime? The British torched Dresden, war crime? The Nazis bombed Rotterdam, war crime?

It's far too easy to conflate "war" with war crime. Some feel that the two are synonymous. I think each generation has a tendency to feel superior and more advanced than the previous generation; I think this is naive and ill informed. We're all savages of a sort.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#204

Post by greedo »

levosmetalo wrote: post #182
greedo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have the privilege of tarring the commanders of US forces as war criminals "of the highest gravity" because of the sacrifices US soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines made during WW2. If you haven't already, do some research on how the Japanese fought at Okinawa. At the defensive plans they had in place for defending the Home Islands. The toll of an invasion would have been horrendous for both sides. This is with…

> Furthermore, the idea that war should be "proportional" is also a sophomoric argument without merit. War is hell for a reason. If someone engages you in war, you fight them to the death. You don't go back and forth in a tit for tat manner that negates all of your advantages and magnifies theirs. Did you just agree that people, army and paramilitary forces of Afghanistan are right to go to total war "to death" with…

I think it's entirely justifiable for any afghani to be joining the Taliban and fighting to kick out a foreign invader from their soil. Everyone has a right to defend their country's sovereignty.

I personally wouldn't advocate targeting civilians; but if there was no alternative, and my culture, country and way of life was being destroyed, I could see a rational actor choosing to do so.

The US would have been far better served by simply conducting a punitive raid in AFG to knock over the original Taliban and let the assorted tribes learn not to stir the hornets nest. Instead we've decimated the country without creating any real change. And we've also grown accustomed to a sanitized style of warfare where drone operators in Creech, Nevada plink small targets without working up a sweat.

War should be hell, lest we grow to like it too much.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#205

Post by nesu »

The article's 5th paragraph says it all. From today's perspective, Japan's defeat in the war is obvious. But Japan's leaders still needed an eye-opener then. One bomb obliterated an entire city, and they were still deliberating about the possibility of surrender?

About the bomb, it's not a question of necessity, but of economics. That was a time of war. American forces beat the enemy every step of the way in the Pacific. The Allies may have enough power to bring Japan down to its knees during the war in the long run, but how tempting is a weapon that wreaks destruction unseen yet on the planet, but gives zero casualties, instead of sending your fellow soldiers to their deaths on a foreign land? Who wouldn't get sick of a long war and not seek to end it as soon as possible?

Of course, someone may argue that since it's a question of economics, then it is unnecessary, and therefore, the bombings were wrong. But surely, if there is something you wouldn't want to give to your enemy, one of those is time. The author mentioned a Japanese nuclear research program, and that really deserved a red flag.

It took 6 more days after the Soviet invasion and Nagasaki bombing, before Emperor Hirohito publicly announced their unconditional surrender. If the emperor made the public announcement before the Nagasaki bombing, then the second bombing may be wrong.

If there is something I would admire of the Japanese people, it would be their sense of patriotism. Stalin did not beat Japan. What kept the country from surrendering and hold that long was Japanese Pride.

Little Boy and Fat Man are very weak compared to today's nuclear weaponry. Historians and article writers should be discreet when discussing sensitive issues like this, as they can fuel hatred. Focus should be on preventing nuclear war, or there would be no more history left to discuss.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#206

Post by ankjevel »

(This is not about the content of the article, this is about the site.)

Why oh why do they have a sign-up/sign-in? The content is clearly there in the background! So obtrusive!

This is how I was able to read the article:

  (function(){var o,w,h,b,n,s,h,i,j;o=document.getElementById("TB_overlay");w=document.getElementById("TB_window");if(!!o){o.parentNode.removeChild(o);}if(!!w){w.parentNode.removeChild(w);}h=document.getElementById("art-mast");b=document.getElementById("art-body").getElementsByClassName("translateBody")[0];n=document.createElement("div");n.style["max-width"]="625px";n.style.padding="150px 0 0 150px";n.innerHTML=h.innerHTML+b.innerHTML;document.body.innerHTML="";document.body.appendChild(n);s=document.getElementById("share-box");s.parentNode.removeChild(s);h=document.head.getElementsByTagName("script");i=h.length;while(i--){j=h[i];if(!j)return;j.parentNode.removeChild(j);}})();

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#207

Post by greedo »

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.

Despite the best efforts of airpower advocates, there's nothing like planting your boots on the soil of an enemy's capitol to demonstrate that you've defeated them.

"You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life – but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud."

T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War, 1963

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#208

Post by jgalt212 »

Stalin hustled to make war against Japan because he knew the US had the bomb and he did not want WWII to end without any strategic gains in the Pacific.

So either way, the bomb caused Japan to surrender or Stalin caused Japan to surrender. Both precursors were directly or indirectly caused by the bomb. In summation, the bomb caused Japan to surrender.

I want my 20 minutes back for reading this garbage.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#209

Post by twic »

supercanuck wrote: post #149
gruseom wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

To be fair, he's being dismissed as such by people who are not serious hackers.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#210

Post by gbog »

gruseom wrote: post #175
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

Knowing a bit about the Asian way to handle conflict, I think it is possible that the bombs gave a good pretext (not the best word) to end the war. It would mean that many in Japan headquarter knew it was foolish to continue the war but it was not possible to change boat without a special new circumstance that can be used to explain the change.
Post reply on HN