4 ms·

A surprising number of the people of Hiroshima remained more or less indifferent about the ethics of using the bomb. Unsurprising for the time given the conte

A surprising number of the people of Hiroshima remained more or less indifferent about the ethics of using the bomb. Unsurprising for the time given the context. While people far from Japan made much of the uniqueness and power of a single bomb destroying a single city for those on the ground it was just another single city destroyed overnight by bombing .. the 73rd such city destroyed in a relatively short duration of time. The destruction and death in Hiroshima was on par with the destruction and death in Tokyo when that was firebombed.

eschulz 1y ago
This piece made a big impact on me when I read it like five years ago, and if I recall correctly there was a young doctor there who was one of the few interviewed who stated that the bomb's use was possibly a war crime. He did like 48 hours in the hospital as thousands upon thousands of burned and dying walked from afar to the completely overrun clinic.
- throw0101d 1y ago
  > […] and if I recall correctly there was a young doctor there who was one of the few interviewed who stated that the bomb's use was possibly a war crime. Was the dropping of the bombs any worse than the fire bombings that had been taking places for months? LeMay didn't seem to think so.
slibhb 1y ago
There was no nuclear taboo in 1945. Looking back, people forget that.
- wat10000 1y ago
  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 stayed cold without an object lesson in what nuclear warfare actually looks like? I suspect not. Even with those object lessons, it took a while for the consensus to emerge that nuclear war must be averted no matter what. That bit in Dr. Strangelove where the general said we’d only “get our hair mussed” in a war with just 10-20 million dead was pretty much the real attitude of the Air Force leadership at the time.
  - ekianjo 1y ago
    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.
prmph 1y ago
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?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  The war was dictated by a religious leader, to some (most?) there was just no stopping it until it tells them to.
  - InTheArena 1y ago
    Which religious leader? Hirohito? Hirohito rarely took any direction of the war - at best he enthusiastically endorsed what the ruling militarists wanted. As critical as one could (and should) be about this support, there is plenty of documentation that he tried to tap the brakes on the militarists, but didn't try all that hard. It wasn't until the very end of the war that he directly made a decision, and that was only enabled by a literal tie in the cabinet that allowed him to cast the deciding vote (sorta - more or less, gave him cover to break his role). He was a war criminal, but not the leader of the war by any means. That was reserved for the militarists - Tojo and Suzuki and others.
    - makeitdouble 1y ago
      > he enthusiastically endorsed what the ruling militarists wanted. That's definitely enough when you are a living god. From the point he gave his approval, he was the only one that could fully stop it. You're right that he was a puppet for the military, exactly because of that god position he was born into.
  - decimalenough 1y ago
refurb 1y ago
I think the other thing to keep in mind is the cultural differences in how the West vs East think about government and the individual. After living in Asia for a while, having political discussions with the people who live there, and exploring the differences in governance there, it’s not surprising there was indifference. You see this spectrum of though across many Asian countries from the authoritarian ones like China to the more democratic like Singapore. Unlike the West which has a history of the relationship of the individual with the government and its leadership, Asia is much more influenced by Confucianism. While people like to describe it as “what is good for the group versus what is good for the individual” I think that’s not an accurate description. It’s much more of a belief that governance happens “up there” and isn’t relevant to a commoners life. The Eastern view of government is much more hierarchical and detached from the individual than in the West. There is strong sense that any one individual is not that important overall and that governance is a realm of the upper class, with the lower class on the receiving end rather than where power originates. So for someone in Japan, the decisions during the war and the consequences thereafter are not theirs to judge or influence, only theirs to endure. There is a sense of fate and inability to change what happens, so it’s not really worth spending time thinking about.

eschulz 1y ago

This piece made a big impact on me when I read it like five years ago, and if I recall correctly there was a young doctor there who was one of the few interviewed who stated that the bomb's use was possibly a war crime. He did like 48 hours in the hospital as thousands upon thousands of burned and dying walked from afar to the completely overrun clinic.

throw0101d 1y ago
> […] and if I recall correctly there was a young doctor there who was one of the few interviewed who stated that the bomb's use was possibly a war crime. Was the dropping of the bombs any worse than the fire bombings that had been taking places for months? LeMay didn't seem to think so.

slibhb 1y ago

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

wat10000 1y ago
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 stayed cold without an object lesson in what nuclear warfare actually looks like? I suspect not. Even with those object lessons, it took a while for the consensus to emerge that nuclear war must be averted no matter what. That bit in Dr. Strangelove where the general said we’d only “get our hair mussed” in a war with just 10-20 million dead was pretty much the real attitude of the Air Force leadership at the time.
- ekianjo 1y ago
  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.

prmph 1y ago

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?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
makeitdouble 1y ago
The war was dictated by a religious leader, to some (most?) there was just no stopping it until it tells them to.
- InTheArena 1y ago
  Which religious leader? Hirohito? Hirohito rarely took any direction of the war - at best he enthusiastically endorsed what the ruling militarists wanted. As critical as one could (and should) be about this support, there is plenty of documentation that he tried to tap the brakes on the militarists, but didn't try all that hard. It wasn't until the very end of the war that he directly made a decision, and that was only enabled by a literal tie in the cabinet that allowed him to cast the deciding vote (sorta - more or less, gave him cover to break his role). He was a war criminal, but not the leader of the war by any means. That was reserved for the militarists - Tojo and Suzuki and others.
  - makeitdouble 1y ago
    > he enthusiastically endorsed what the ruling militarists wanted. That's definitely enough when you are a living god. From the point he gave his approval, he was the only one that could fully stop it. You're right that he was a puppet for the military, exactly because of that god position he was born into.
- decimalenough 1y ago

refurb 1y ago

I think the other thing to keep in mind is the cultural differences in how the West vs East think about government and the individual. After living in Asia for a while, having political discussions with the people who live there, and exploring the differences in governance there, it’s not surprising there was indifference. You see this spectrum of though across many Asian countries from the authoritarian ones like China to the more democratic like Singapore. Unlike the West which has a history of the relationship of the individual with the government and its leadership, Asia is much more influenced by Confucianism. While people like to describe it as “what is good for the group versus what is good for the individual” I think that’s not an accurate description. It’s much more of a belief that governance happens “up there” and isn’t relevant to a commoners life. The Eastern view of government is much more hierarchical and detached from the individual than in the West. There is strong sense that any one individual is not that important overall and that governance is a realm of the upper class, with the lower class on the receiving end rather than where power originates. So for someone in Japan, the decisions during the war and the consequences thereafter are not theirs to judge or influence, only theirs to endure. There is a sense of fate and inability to change what happens, so it’s not really worth spending time thinking about.