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

41–50 of 196 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#41

Post by to3m »

nkoren wrote: post #29
lotharbot wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like every time this topic comes up, there are people who seem to "know" a lot of things, and on occasion they can point to real documentation -- letters that can be traced to people in the presidential cabinet, for example -- but very often the things people "know" turn out to be speculative, or after-the-fact rationalizations, or connecting dots that were known individually by people in different parts of the…

> So my question is, how well documented was the Japanese back-channel surrender offer? Is it documented that it was made to legitimate decision-makers through those back channels? [Edit: I linked to a terrible source. I apologise.]

On a scale of "zero" to "a lot less than six million", how would you rate the Institute for Historical Review?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#42

Post by nihonde »

ksou32 wrote: post #40

It's very easy to judge past America 60 years from the moment. Say you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon to end the war ?

This article was written immediately after the war, and doesn't really pass any judgment. It's one of the greatest works of non-fiction of all time, in my opinion.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#43

Post by nkoren »

crazydoggers wrote: post #39
nkoren wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So my question is, how well documented was the Japanese back-channel surrender offer? Is it documented that it was made to legitimate decision-makers through those back channels? [Edit: I linked to a terrible source. I apologise.]

IHR is not a trustworthy source... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Rev... "The IHR is not regarded as conducting serious historical research by mainstream historians and academics but rather as conducting pseudo-science..."

Thank you for pointing this out. I unreservedly withdraw my citation!

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#44

Post by nkoren »

to3m wrote: post #41
nkoren wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So my question is, how well documented was the Japanese back-channel surrender offer? Is it documented that it was made to legitimate decision-makers through those back channels? [Edit: I linked to a terrible source. I apologise.]

On a scale of "zero" to "a lot less than six million", how would you rate the Institute for Historical Review?

Oh shit. Withdrawn!

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#45

Post by lotharbot »

nxzero wrote: post #34
kctess5 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is akin to asking why the staging of the moon landing was not more well documented.

The two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people. No idea what your point is, please explain.

I think he's implying that "why it isn't documented" might be "because it didn't happen" ("it" being serious offers of surrender by Japan that reached the ears of US decision makers.) And that asking "why wasn't it documented?" presupposes that it did happen, which makes it a leading question.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#46

Post by hackcasual »

nkoren wrote: post #16
mevile wrote: post #3

> In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed. However I ma…

This counterfactual loses much of its appeal when you learn that Japan was beaten and had been trying, through back channels, to conditionally surrender for months prior to the bombing. Their sole condition was guaranteed safety for the Emperor: the US refused to grant this, and so the fighting continued. As history shows, the US had no intention of harming the emperor -- so why wouldn't it accept this condition? And…

As in backchannels of primarily just Shigenori Togo. The Japanese war council was unanimous in rejecting unconditional surrender, and bitterly divided on the terms willing to be offered for conditional surrender. The idea that it was the safety of the emperor they were stuck on is new to me. Perhaps you are referring to Togo's statement that the Potsdam declaration would be accepted provided the position of the Emperor was maintained? Firstly, this was not an official Japanese government offer, secondly it's not exactly as if it's a reasonable request to allow a defeated belligerent to maintain their existing government.

Edit: Sources From The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration http://www.mconway.net/page1/page15/files/Shock%20of%20Atomi...

  Togo reasoned
  that "the introduction of a new weapon, which had
  drastically altered the whole military situation, offered the military
  ample grounds for ending the war." He proposed that surrender
  be considered at once on the basis of terms presented
  in the Potsdam Declaration. (When those in the peace party
  talked about "accepting the Potsdam terms," they meant acceptance
  with one crucial condition: retention of the emperor
  system.) However, the military authorities refused to concede
  that the United States had used an atomic weapon. Given the
  army's intransigence, it was impossible for the cabinet to take
  up Togo's proposal.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#47

Post by kctess5 »

nxzero wrote: post #34
kctess5 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this is akin to asking why the staging of the moon landing was not more well documented.

The two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people. No idea what your point is, please explain.

The parent comment was in a sense asking if nkoren's assertion was reality, or after the fact speculation. If it was in fact speculation (like "the moon landing was staged") then it would follow that there wouldn't be a large amount of documentation. Admittedly not the best comparison.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#48

Post by nkoren »

lotharbot wrote: post #37
nkoren wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So my question is, how well documented was the Japanese back-channel surrender offer? Is it documented that it was made to legitimate decision-makers through those back channels? [Edit: I linked to a terrible source. I apologise.]

interesting. Based on that, it looks like the sticking point really was whether the Emperor's safety would be guaranteed (thought he was eventually kept as a figurehead, it's not clear the US leadership expected to take that path.) EDIT: that said, do you have a source that isn't a holocaust-denial website?

Ugh, yeah, that's a terrible source. Apologies for the bad Google-fu.

I have heard this claim from decidedly less-terrible sources, but the hour is too late in my current timezone to pursue this thread. So until then I will need to relax the certitude of my claims.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#49

Post by kctess5 »

lotharbot wrote: post #45
nxzero wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two bombs killed hundreds of thousands of people. No idea what your point is, please explain.

I think he's implying that "why it isn't documented" might be "because it didn't happen" ("it" being serious offers of surrender by Japan that reached the ears of US decision makers.) And that asking "why wasn't it documented?" presupposes that it did happen, which makes it a leading question.

Yep.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#50

Post by microcolonel »

I read through this, revisited some of the images of the aftermath.

I don't think I'll be able to eat meat today, my stomach is turning and I feel like I could vomit.

It is so painful figuring that this is one of the "better" possible outcomes of the war.

Post reply on HN