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

61–70 of 275 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#61

Post by emmelaich »

throw0101d wrote: post #45
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.

> 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. Lower than the Holodomor? Lower than Dresden or Tokyo fire bombings? Lower than the Holocaust? Lower than Unit 731?

Indeed! I can add "lower than the butchery and sadism of the Japanese forces in SE Asia?"

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#62

Post by ekianjo »

defrost wrote: post #60
petermcneeley wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under which conditions is nuking a city not a horrific warcrime?

Under which conditions is nuking a city any more or less a horrific warcrime than the destruction of city via HE and incendiary bombs? Recall that 72 Japanese cities, including Tokyo, were destroyed prior to Hiroshima, which was on a target list to be destroyed whether by atomic or conventional means already. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/09/22/tokyo-hiroshima/ Outside of Japan many other cities received the s…

those are all war crimes but the victors never get prosecuted.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#63

Post by ekianjo »

throw0101d wrote: post #41

If anyone thinks that dropping the bombs was unnecessary, I would recommend reading Barrett's 140 Days to Hiroshima: The Story of Japan's Last Chance to Avert Armageddon : * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51089656-140-days-to-hir... * https://www.nationalww2museum.org/about-us/notes-museum/140-... It documents, using Japanese source material including interviews with the principals involved, the decision making…

The US had no other bomb ready to be dropped actually. preparing the fissile material took a lot of time.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#64

Post by aaron695 »

alexjplant wrote: post #43
karlgkk wrote: post #30

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…

> 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. Some contemporaries of note didn't think it was justified either [1]. Eisenhower, a decorated war hero who later cautioned against the over-expansion of the military industrial complex in his Presidential farewell spee…

[dead]

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#65

Post by ekianjo »

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.…

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

thats just the official word. The coming Soviet invasion was definitely a factor.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#66

Post by sidcool »

karlgkk wrote: post #30

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…

I sometimes feel many Americans are relatively unconcerned about lives of foreign civilians. Still.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#67

Post by ekianjo »

pirate787 wrote: post #32
WillPostForFood wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone — the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our one hundred million people — the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

That may be the greatest understatement ever written!

the English translation is. In Japanese its not surprising to talk in this way.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#68

Post by sidcool »

socalgal2 wrote: post #40
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.

Why is this special? The Japanese killed ~7 million Chinese, 0.5 to 1 million Filipinos, 500k in Korea, you can keep adding them up. Then Japan loses 0.2% of all their atrocities and it's the worst thing ever? No, it's not the worst thing ever, not even close. Sure, we'd all like it to never happen again. But if I had to pick one thing not happening again I'd pick saving all others that died in WW2 over this one inci…

Now do Iraq numbers and self reflect.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#69

Post by ekianjo »

wat10000 wrote: post #58
slibhb wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no nuclear taboo in 1945. Looking back, people forget that.

I think we were very lucky with the timing such that atomic bombs could be used in warfare just twice. Imagine if development had been delayed a little while and the war ended without any atomic bombs. The bomb would still be built and improved. The falling out of the USSR with the other Allies would still happen. The Soviets would still get the bomb and there would still be an arms race. But would the Cold War have…

people seem to forget that LeMay was advocating many times for a decapitating nuke strike against to soviets before they can have their own bomb. thats how hawkish they were.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#70

Post by sidcool »

The European theatre of war has long shadowed the brutality and loss of the Pacific theatre. And even the Eastern front.

From what I have read, relatively speaking, the Western European front was easier than the Eastern one and the Pacific theatre.

Post reply on HN