Live data from Hacker News

Hiroshima (1946)

newyorker.com

271–275 of 275 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#271
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't know why you seem to believe that the only path to surrender was the exact events that transpired. Maybe dropping the bombs in Tokyo Bay would have changed things. Maybe writing the emperor a love song would have changed things. We don't know. There are two aspects that get mixed together with this. >Given the situation and knowledge at the time, was this or that military action reasonable and necessary? >Kn…

>I think you are getting so much pushback because you are mixing both questions, using after the fact "what ifs" to say what people should have done at the time What have I mentioned here that couldn't have been considered before the bombings? If anything, that other person's insistence on focusing on the exact votes of Japanese leadership is more reliant on hindsight than anything I have said.

> What have I mentioned here that couldn't have been considered before the bombings?

Of course they could, and they did consider many options. But they only had a couple of bombs and any additional ones were weeks away. We know now that the bombs helped to end the war but they didn’t know then that they would. Detonating the bombs with no result could be looked at similar to firring your limited ammunition over your enemy’s head to hope it makes them surrender, but if it doesn’t, you have less ammo to fight them.

Firebombing leveled over 60 Japanese cities and killed between 330,000 and 900,000 people (though we will never know for sure because the very records needed were obliterated in the conflagrations). Yet leading up to the atomic bombings, Japan was well underway preparing Operation Ketsu-Go, the Japanese defense of the home islands, meant to inflict immense casualties on the American troops and undermine the American publics’ will to continue fighting [1]. Japan planned to lose a million men in this operation, and enlisted every male age 15 to 60 and every female age 17 to 40 in and around Kyushu [2]. There is no reason to believe this wouldn’t happen, given what we saw in Okinawa, where children were mobilized, civilians died by the tens of thousands in the crossfire (since Japan would not evacuate them intentionally to increase casualties), and civilians killed themselves by the hundreds rather than be captured [3].

Americans and Japanese were dying every second the war went on. Wasting your most powerful weapon, that you have almost none of, with your fingers crossed that this will make the country, where not one military unit has surrendered during the entire course of the war, just give up. This is naiveté and hindsight bias at its finest.

[1] “We will prepare 10,000 planes to meet the landing of the enemy. We will mobilize every aircraft possible, both training and "special attack" planes. We will smash one third of the enemy's war potential with this air force at sea. Another third will also be smashed at sea by our warships, human torpedoes and other special weapons. Furthermore, when the enemy actually lands, if we are ready to sacrifice a million men we will be able to inflict an equal number of casualties upon them. If the enemy loses a million men, then the public opinion in America will become inclined towards peace, and Japan will be able to gain peace with comparatively advantageous conditions”- IGHQ army staff officer in July 1945, from “The Last Great Victory: The End of World War II, July/August 1945” by Stanley Weintraub

[2] https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/there-are-no-...

[3] https://www.tamucc.edu/library/exhibits/s/hist4350/page/okin...

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#272
post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think you are getting so much pushback because you are mixing both questions, using after the fact "what ifs" to say what people should have done at the time What have I mentioned here that couldn't have been considered before the bombings? If anything, that other person's insistence on focusing on the exact votes of Japanese leadership is more reliant on hindsight than anything I have said.

> What have I mentioned here that couldn't have been considered before the bombings? Of course they could, and they did consider many options. But they only had a couple of bombs and any additional ones were weeks away. We know now that the bombs helped to end the war but they didn’t know then that they would. Detonating the bombs with no result could be looked at similar to firring your limited ammunition over your…

What happened to those two distinct questions? What point were you trying to make in your previous comment? I specifically asked for clarification on your comment and instead of answering that direct question, you went right back to debating the original issue, even merging the two questions in the exact way that you complained about me doing it.

It is also bizarre how much of this discussion is had purely from a US-Japanese perspective as if the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan wasn't even worthy of a footnote.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#273
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never. They could have blockaded Japan. They could have negotiated with the Russians, as at the time they were “sharing” Germany and were more or less on the same side. They could even just go home, Japan was already no military threat after the horrific fire bombing. The fact that they chose to do the unthinkable, and that Americans defend that decision to this day, goes to show what kind of people they really are.…

America also could've just ditched Europe and let the Nazis rebuild their empire if that's what you want.

The Soviets would almost certainly have taken Berlin either way, given they were fighting 80% of the Nazi Army, while all of the Western Front was concerned only with the "minor" side. Thinking America saved Europe in WWII is one of the many misconceptions perpetuated to this day about the War.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#274
post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What have I mentioned here that couldn't have been considered before the bombings? Of course they could, and they did consider many options. But they only had a couple of bombs and any additional ones were weeks away. We know now that the bombs helped to end the war but they didn’t know then that they would. Detonating the bombs with no result could be looked at similar to firring your limited ammunition over your…

What happened to those two distinct questions? What point were you trying to make in your previous comment? I specifically asked for clarification on your comment and instead of answering that direct question, you went right back to debating the original issue, even merging the two questions in the exact way that you complained about me doing it. It is also bizarre how much of this discussion is had purely from a US-…

>What have I mentioned here that couldn't have been considered before the bombings?

That is what you asked and I answered that those things you mentioned were considered and address multiple things you mentioned in your other comments.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#275
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America also could've just ditched Europe and let the Nazis rebuild their empire if that's what you want.

The Soviets would almost certainly have taken Berlin either way, given they were fighting 80% of the Nazi Army, while all of the Western Front was concerned only with the "minor" side. Thinking America saved Europe in WWII is one of the many misconceptions perpetuated to this day about the War.

Well if all that counts is who's fighting >= 51% of the Axis, then you have to take into consideration that the USSR didn't even join the Asian theater until the day after Hiroshima happened despite sharing a border with Imperial Japan and having struggled through a brutal war of attrition with the Japanese just a couple decades earlier.

This idea you and many other armchair historians have that the USSR can solo 1v1 the axis powers and win isn't any less naive than saying America saved Europe, because it ignores the significant amounts of foreign aid that the US donated to other allied nations. This includes the USSR, who would not have been able to carry out a successful war of attrition against the Germans without a consistent pipeline of supplies and weapons. It certainly would not have been able to win a war on two fronts if the Japanese felt free to invade the soviet far east. I will concede that the Chinese deserve way more credit than they generally get for waging their own war of attrition against the Japanese which prevented them from going to war in the soviet far east, but that was also made possible with significant American logistical support.

But more importantly, you seem to have an oddly eurocentric view of history in which the european theater is the only one of any import. Japan's eventual defeat was never a foregone conclusion, and they were just as cruel to their conquered foes as the Germans were. They were also the only Axis that posed a credible threat to the United States, having successfully established a foothold in the Aleutian Islands with an aim towards invading Canada and the United States. Realistically I don't think it ever would have worked (again, they were pre-occupied with China) but they certainly have a better track record of attacking the North American continent than the krauts ever did.

Post reply on HN