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

61–70 of 223 posts

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#61

Post by sliverstorm »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #21

The challenge I have with this, and pretty much all 'alternate history' foreign policy discussions, is that they try to argue an indefinite (Japan would have surrendered if we hadn't done this) against a definite (We bombed them and they surrendered immediately). There isn't any way to prove that stuff of course, and you can tweak the indefinite to be whatever you want to overcome the definite. So in some ways it is…

The further we get away from the events of those times the easier it is to second guess those decisions and not be challenged by someone with first hand knowledge of the events.

Great observation, summarizes one of my main quarrels with people trying to reimagine history.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#62

Post by sliverstorm »

CleanedStar wrote: post #36
JPKab wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hero who was a megalomaniacal mass murderer who killed any and all who had the audacity to speak their mind. Ask any Jewish person what they think of Stalin.

People can take note of this - Stalin fought the Nazis and liberated Auschwitz and other concentration camps, with over ten million Russian soldiers sacrificing their lives in the process. So who does this person say Jews hate? Stalin. Reflect on this gratitude the next time you hear someone lamenting that the world did not care when the German right began mistreating Jews... In another context, ask any Palestinian w…

over ten million Russian soldiers sacrificing their lives in the process.

Why should we applaud Stalin for the sacrifices of his men?

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#63

Post by gruseom »

piokoch wrote: post #48
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…

"This is why I've started to dislike revisionist history." History is a science. This is as if you said: I don't like Max Planc or Niels Bohr Dirac, since they were questioning classical mechanics in favor of some hard to understand mambo-jambo called quantum mechanics. A true historian is a die hard revisionist, someone who is chasing "conspiracy theories" to reveal the truth using scientific reasoning based on evid…

History is evidence-based, but hardly a science, since it's uncontrollable and unrepeatable.

The article itself is kind of worthless, since it is based on vague speculations

What "vague speculations"? That doesn't sound like the article I read.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#64

Post by joyeuse6701 »

The article does make a convincing argument as to the reasons why the bomb was highlighted as the main reason for the surrender of Japan, very interesting. I suppose fear of invasion from S.U wasn't nearly as serious as the loss of diplomatic ties. In which case an eventual two front war would have done them in. Also, as much as the Japanese high command didn't react to the city bombings, I doubt they ignored them as much as the article comes to say. Loss of production power is absolutely a strategic concern. On the other hand, the cultural preference of Army over Navy in Japan in a war that was largely Naval may mean that other ludicrous claims about the way they strategized and conducted war may have merit. Interesting read!

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#65

Post by mpyne »

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…

I can't edit my text, but the original title read "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan; Stalin Did". I appreciate the editors correcting the title to match the tone of the article itself, but my own reply will make more sense when you know the title that was in play when I responded.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#66

Post by mpyne »

bjhoops1 wrote: post #57
kmm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you get that from? The total number of Stalin's victims is around 1.5 million. EDIT: I misread. It's about double, 3 million. Unreliable figure in any case.

1.5 million is a comically low estimate. Where did you get your figure? Over 3 million died in the Ukrainian collectivization political famine alone.

And suddenly Stalin's quote about statistics becomes apropos again. :-/

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#67

Post by stcredzero »

Defense Analyst James Dunnigan, in his highly influential book How to Make War, argued that late in the war, the blockade and mining of Japanese Shipping had by far the largest effect on the Japanese ability to wage war. Given enough time, the Japanese military machine would just have bled to death. However, it may have been political rough going to continue the war in Japan long past the defeat of Nazi Germany. By other accounts, the Japanese were pretty much ready to surrender without the bomb anyway.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#68

Post by moogleii »

woodchuck64 wrote: post #49

Why revisit the issue? Modern society has evolved morally to be utterly revolted by the killing of civilians of another country intentionally and would never support the use of a nuclear weapon in this fashion. Isn't that all the moral judgement we need?

Studying history is always useful. We should have known from WW1 what happens when we don't help rebuild effectively, and from WW2 what happens when you do, simply speaking. Yet we pretty much ignored all that info for Iraq.

Also, "intentionally" can always be fudged. We "intentionally" bombed the house with the suspected terrorist in a dense neighborhood, but "unintentionally" killed a lot of civilians in the surrounding area. We don't seem to be revolted enough by that to stop doing it.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#69

Post by kmm »

bjhoops1 wrote: post #57
kmm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you get that from? The total number of Stalin's victims is around 1.5 million. EDIT: I misread. It's about double, 3 million. Unreliable figure in any case.

1.5 million is a comically low estimate. Where did you get your figure? Over 3 million died in the Ukrainian collectivization political famine alone.

I want to start by saying that's controversial. Famines were frequent in that area way before the Soviet Union even existed. Can you attribute these to Stalin's policies alone? Nobody would blame Coolidge for the Dust Bowl.

But you're right that 1.5 million is too small. I read again and there's about 3 million officially recorded victims. I cannot trust or distrust the higher figures, as these were reported either by western media or political dissidents, both of whom have very good reasons to demonise the USSR.

Just as the USSR spread a lot of lies about the Western world, I don't trust the Western media about these controversial subjects.

Re: The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan

#70

Post by moogleii »

bradleyland wrote: post #46
lobster_johnson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I closed the page immediately because of the full-page popup ad ... You may want to actually read the article before criticizing it. It's more nuanced than you seem to assume, and does not really contradict your own comment. In particular, it does not imply that the threat of Soviet invasion was the determining factor; but that it was only one of several factors, of which the bomb was another, neither of which were…

It has become the rule that even a good article must have a horrible title. Otherwise, who will click through to see what has been written? It's a real shame, because the title isn't really reflected by the content. The actual title: "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan... Stalin Did" A more accurate title: "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan... There Were Many Confluent Factors" The latter is something you'd expect to read on an aca…

This may be common knowledge to some, but it wasn't to me: I complained about titles to a friend who writes for a pretty big site, and she pretty much admitted that the author's don't really pick/control the titles. The editors do, and it really is pretty geared for link bait.
Post reply on HN