The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan • Hacker News Board

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#221

Post by dpatru » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 2:43 AM UTC

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…

The article argues that as long as Stalin was neutral, the Japanese had some hope of negotiating a better surrender. After Stalin declared war, Japan was out of options and was forced to surrender. Therefore Stalin was the deciding factor in surrender.

The atomic bomb was not the deciding factor for two reasons: 1) the decision to surrender happened before the impact of the atomic bombs was fully assessed, and 2) the effect of the bombs was no worse than the massive conventional bombing that Japan had already experienced. The vast majority of Japan's large cities had already been pretty much destroyed by the time the atomic bomb was used: it was a "raindrop in a hurricane."

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#222

Post by kalms » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 6:34 PM UTC

greedo wrote: post #203

kalms wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tende…

"Now we are all sons of bitches." — Kenneth Bainbridge

Yes, yes, yes and yes.

I'm not even saying that I would act differently if I were a military commander. War is hell, granted. But that doesn't make it right, and we should be honest with ourselves. It's not right. Killing innocents is not okay; using civilians as leverage in an act of terror is never okay.

We should strive to be better than that.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#223

Post by greedo » Wed, Jun 05, 2013, 6:45 PM UTC

kalms wrote: post #222

greedo wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tende…

"Now we are all sons of bitches." — Kenneth Bainbridge Yes, yes, yes and yes. I'm not even saying that I would act differently if I were a military commander. War is hell, granted. But that doesn't make it right, and we should be honest with ourselves. It's not right. Killing innocents is not okay; using civilians as leverage in an act of terror is never okay. We should strive to be better than that.

Striving is fine, but as some sage once said, "your enemy always has a vote." We're limited in how we act by how our opponents behave. And despite what Fukuyama said, I think that we'll see more conflict in this century than anyone expects.