7 ms·

Note: The following is written from the perspective of an individual who accepts that states are necessary, and that war is justifiable. This isn't something

by woodman 12y ago

Note: The following is written from the perspective of an individual who accepts that states are necessary, and that war is justifiable. This isn't something I personally believe, but something that the vast majority of people do - not just Americans. I don't remember any talking points being taught to me as a child, but I guess that would be the case with any good brainwashing. I am familiar with the justifications for targeting Japanese civilians for conventional and nuclear bombing though, something along the lines of Japan being prepared for total war - down to child combatants with sharpened sticks. In war you have two options for ending hostilities, complete annihilation or political resolution (surrender, cease fire, etc). If Japan went into total war mode, and they made it clear that they would if necessary, then they remove the political resolution option. So with that in mind, it is not a stretch to say that firebombing and nuking hundreds of thousands saved millions of Japanese lives. Consider the fact that this firebombing occurred 1945-03-09, and the Japanese were still wanting to fight for another five months, until the second atomic bomb drop on 1945-08-09. The only thing that brought them to the table was the idea that their enemy possessed a weapon where a single bomb could level a city, they had no idea how many atomic bombs existed.

ekianjo 12y ago
> The only thing that brought them to the table was the idea that their enemy possessed a weapon where a single bomb could level a city Utterly wrong. This has been shown many times that the A-bomb was not the decisive part. It was the upcoming involvement of Russians on the Japanese front. Please stop spreading explanations for 5-years olds.
- Crito 12y ago
  It occurs to me that by asserting that the American nuclear bombardment was not justifiable because the Japanese were not sufficiently terrified of it but were sufficiently terrified of a Russian invasion, we are saying something quite extreme about the nature of an invading Russian army. Does anybody know what narrative is taught in Russian schools to Russian children?
  - tanzam75 12y ago
    Japan had been allied to Germany. The Wehrmacht had been one of the most effective fighting forces the world has ever known. The Imperial Japanese Army had been formed on the Prussian model back in the 19th century. The German Wehrmacht had just been defeated by the Soviet Army three months earlier. Also, the Japanese army had already tried and failed to defeat the Soviet army in 1939. In fact, that's how Zhukov got his first Hero of the Soviet Union award. That was in 1939, before the massive Soviet arms buildup, before the dissipation of Japanese strength in the Pacific. A Japanese general would have to be delusional to think that he could hold out against the Soviets in 1945.
- woodman 12y ago
  So Japan's surrender, six days later, was just a coincidence? Maybe if you shared one of the "many" demonstrations that the "A-bomb was not the decisive part", we could weigh that against the strange timing of the whole thing.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    > So Japan's surrender, six days later, was just a coincidence? Japan had been already utterly destroyed by that time, the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from the most deadly bombings at that time. Let me remind that most large cities had been already razed to the ground. You are completely missing out the context of the time and giving way too much importance to the nukes.
    - woodman 12y ago
      > ... the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from the most deadly bombings at that time. That is my point exactly. Those cities were selected for the purpose of a technological demonstration, not body count. I thought I made it clear in mentioning the time span between firebombing and surrender that Japan was not super concerned about body count, it was more about maintaining sovereignty following eventual defeat. The US demonstrated a technology that would allow it to annihilate Japan without having to shoot every child holding a stick. That would make total war, and the hope of war weariness in your enemy, completely pointless.
      - JeremyNT 12y ago
        My understanding has always been that the bombings were a "tech demo," but unlike your claim they were not designed to force Japan to surrender (which was already assumed). Rather, they demonstrated not only this new capability of the United States, but perhaps more importantly they demonstrated the country's willingness to inflict massive civilian casualties in an ostentatious display of the capability. Ultimately, the bombings were intended to frighten the entire world in submission, providing leverage that was used to construct the United States empire following the war.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nolok 12y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted, this is widely accepted that both the bomb and the soviet invasion had equivalent weight in their surrender, with some historians saying the soviet declaration of war was more important. To add on that, at the time of the surrender, the long term effect of the bomb was not known to the japanese and as such the nuclear bombing wasn't the worst city bombing they suffered, neither in terms of infrastructure damage or loss of life. Some more information for those interested http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u6qqo/there_has_been_some_controversy_on_the_true/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u6qqo/there_h... http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2y98yc/did_the_soviet_union_have_a_large_impact_on_the/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2y98yc/did_th...
  - Crito 12y ago
    > "Not sure why you're being downvoted" The "5 year old" comment probably has something to do with it. HN doesn't tend to downvote people into the gray just because they are saying something that other people disagree with, unless the comment is also not particularly civil.
    - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
      Yes, they do. See my comment near the top. Nothing disrespectful about it, just opinionated.
      - Crito 12y ago
        I see only two of your comments in recent history are downvoted into the gray: This one is not civil, as it personally attacks another commenter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169613 "That says a lot about you." This one is in defense of the less-than-civil comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169781 I say things that many people disagree with all the time on HN, but pretty much the only times that I am downvoted into the gray are when I am not civil. For instance, the only comment of mine that has been grayed in this discussion is this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169426 That comment is little more than a personal attack, and was therefore downvoted.
- ryanhuff 12y ago
  Perhaps you can provide the authoritative reference that substantiates your view. From what I have read, some historians believe that the soviet invasion was partly responsible for the timing of the surrender, but it's contribution is difficult to know. These events happened in short order. Unless you have a source from the Imperial Army or government that documents the decision making, it's all speculation. Also, I find it interesting that the soviet military waited for the second bomb before invading. Were they being opportunistic?
- InTheArena 12y ago
  Also incorrect. The Atomic bomb and the Soviet invasion of Japan held China where both devestating. But as D.M Giangreco documents in "Hell to Pay", at the time, the "Peace Party" in the cabinet, most notably Kido, felt that the Atomic bomb was exactly what they needed to end the war. Kido and others in the peace party literally described it as "a gift from heaven".
FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
Except that Japan repeatedly tried to make peace before the atomic bombings, and if the US hadn't been so determined that it be an unconditional surrender and been willing to negotiate, they could have ended the war before that, without any need to even think about invasion. So it was an evil slaughter.
- woodman 12y ago
  > ... they could have ended the war before that, without any need to even think about invasion. There is no way to know that without knowing the conditions of surrender that Japan had in mind. I have a feeling that the conditions would have been as well reasoned as an island nation attacking an industrial powerhouse with the natural resources of an entire continent :)
  - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
    Such as the US guaranteeing that the Emperor stays in power, which they allowed after the war anyway? http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html And what is that smile for, anyway? Do you think this is funny?
    - woodman 12y ago
      > Such as the US guaranteeing that the Emperor stays in power, which they allowed after the war anyway? "the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers" > And what is that smile for, anyway? Do you think this is funny? Yup, because you just demonstrated the irrationality that I was hinting at: what is an emperor who is subservient to a foreign power? Not an emperor.
      - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
        So the US killed 500,000 civilians because they didn't weren't willing to negotiate, and you think that that's funny. That says a lot about you.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
wdr1 12y ago
> The only thing that brought them to the table was the idea that their enemy possessed a weapon where a single bomb could level a city, they had no idea how many atomic bombs existed. I agree with most of your post, but not this one. The other major factor was that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Until that point, the Soviets had led Japan to believe it would be possible to negotiate a peace through them.
- woodman 12y ago
  I admit that I don't know a great deal about the Soviet angle, but it doesn't seem to logically fit. By that I mean: why would the Japanese be more afraid of a Soviet invasion than an American invasion? I know that Japanese soldiers had been trained to believe that Americans would retreat in the face of Japanese force, and that the Japanese had a pretty negative experience in dealing with the Soviet military. But I'd think that by the end of the Pacific war the Japanese would have been keenly aware of the fact that the Americans were not running away - they preparing to invade the homeland. The only way I can logically fit the Soviet angle in is if Japan thought that they might be able to divide the Allies with a Soviet peace treaty. It would have been a real long shot, but not uncharacteristic of them at that time.
biomene 12y ago
The notion that Japan refused peace until it was nuked is incorrect. Japan had tried to begin peace talks in January, but they were ignored by the Allies[1] [1]: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1945/08/19/page/1/article/bare-peace-bid-u-s-rebuffed-7-months-ago http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1945/08/19/page/1/article...
- InTheArena 12y ago
  Incorrect. Wikipedia has a decent overview of what really occurred with the Japanese overtures: Satō advised Tōgō that in reality, "unconditional surrender or terms closely equivalent thereto" was all that Japan could expect. Moreover, in response to Molotov's requests for specific proposals, Satō suggested that Tōgō's messages were not "clear about the views of the Government and the Military with regard to the termination of the war," thus questioning whether Tōgō's initiative was supported by the key elements of Japan's power structure.[47] On July 17, Tōgō responded: Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.[48] In reply, Satō clarified: It goes without saying that in my earlier message calling for unconditional surrender or closely equivalent terms, I made an exception of the question of preserving [the imperial family].[49] On July 21, speaking in the name of the cabinet, Tōgō repeated: With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. The Allies read this in realtime. Japan was not ready to accept any sort of unconditional surrender. More the point, America and Europe had just finished a brutal war in Europe. The point of view then was that the war occurred because Germany had no truly been defeated in World War I. All where concerned with not seeing another world war.
  - getsat 12y ago
    Very few people will see it since the OP was flagkilled, but this post you wrote in the other thread was very nice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9172061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9172061
  - 12y ago

by woodman 12y ago

ekianjo 12y ago

> The only thing that brought them to the table was the idea that their enemy possessed a weapon where a single bomb could level a city Utterly wrong. This has been shown many times that the A-bomb was not the decisive part. It was the upcoming involvement of Russians on the Japanese front. Please stop spreading explanations for 5-years olds.

Crito 12y ago
It occurs to me that by asserting that the American nuclear bombardment was not justifiable because the Japanese were not sufficiently terrified of it but were sufficiently terrified of a Russian invasion, we are saying something quite extreme about the nature of an invading Russian army. Does anybody know what narrative is taught in Russian schools to Russian children?
- tanzam75 12y ago
  Japan had been allied to Germany. The Wehrmacht had been one of the most effective fighting forces the world has ever known. The Imperial Japanese Army had been formed on the Prussian model back in the 19th century. The German Wehrmacht had just been defeated by the Soviet Army three months earlier. Also, the Japanese army had already tried and failed to defeat the Soviet army in 1939. In fact, that's how Zhukov got his first Hero of the Soviet Union award. That was in 1939, before the massive Soviet arms buildup, before the dissipation of Japanese strength in the Pacific. A Japanese general would have to be delusional to think that he could hold out against the Soviets in 1945.
woodman 12y ago
So Japan's surrender, six days later, was just a coincidence? Maybe if you shared one of the "many" demonstrations that the "A-bomb was not the decisive part", we could weigh that against the strange timing of the whole thing.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > So Japan's surrender, six days later, was just a coincidence? Japan had been already utterly destroyed by that time, the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from the most deadly bombings at that time. Let me remind that most large cities had been already razed to the ground. You are completely missing out the context of the time and giving way too much importance to the nukes.
  - woodman 12y ago
    > ... the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were far from the most deadly bombings at that time. That is my point exactly. Those cities were selected for the purpose of a technological demonstration, not body count. I thought I made it clear in mentioning the time span between firebombing and surrender that Japan was not super concerned about body count, it was more about maintaining sovereignty following eventual defeat. The US demonstrated a technology that would allow it to annihilate Japan without having to shoot every child holding a stick. That would make total war, and the hope of war weariness in your enemy, completely pointless.
    - JeremyNT 12y ago
      My understanding has always been that the bombings were a "tech demo," but unlike your claim they were not designed to force Japan to surrender (which was already assumed). Rather, they demonstrated not only this new capability of the United States, but perhaps more importantly they demonstrated the country's willingness to inflict massive civilian casualties in an ostentatious display of the capability. Ultimately, the bombings were intended to frighten the entire world in submission, providing leverage that was used to construct the United States empire following the war.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nolok 12y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted, this is widely accepted that both the bomb and the soviet invasion had equivalent weight in their surrender, with some historians saying the soviet declaration of war was more important. To add on that, at the time of the surrender, the long term effect of the bomb was not known to the japanese and as such the nuclear bombing wasn't the worst city bombing they suffered, neither in terms of infrastructure damage or loss of life. Some more information for those interested http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u6qqo/there_has_been_some_controversy_on_the_true/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u6qqo/there_h... http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2y98yc/did_the_soviet_union_have_a_large_impact_on_the/ http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2y98yc/did_th...
- Crito 12y ago
  > "Not sure why you're being downvoted" The "5 year old" comment probably has something to do with it. HN doesn't tend to downvote people into the gray just because they are saying something that other people disagree with, unless the comment is also not particularly civil.
  - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
    Yes, they do. See my comment near the top. Nothing disrespectful about it, just opinionated.
    - Crito 12y ago
      I see only two of your comments in recent history are downvoted into the gray: This one is not civil, as it personally attacks another commenter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169613 "That says a lot about you." This one is in defense of the less-than-civil comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169781 I say things that many people disagree with all the time on HN, but pretty much the only times that I am downvoted into the gray are when I am not civil. For instance, the only comment of mine that has been grayed in this discussion is this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9169426 That comment is little more than a personal attack, and was therefore downvoted.
ryanhuff 12y ago
Perhaps you can provide the authoritative reference that substantiates your view. From what I have read, some historians believe that the soviet invasion was partly responsible for the timing of the surrender, but it's contribution is difficult to know. These events happened in short order. Unless you have a source from the Imperial Army or government that documents the decision making, it's all speculation. Also, I find it interesting that the soviet military waited for the second bomb before invading. Were they being opportunistic?
InTheArena 12y ago
Also incorrect. The Atomic bomb and the Soviet invasion of Japan held China where both devestating. But as D.M Giangreco documents in "Hell to Pay", at the time, the "Peace Party" in the cabinet, most notably Kido, felt that the Atomic bomb was exactly what they needed to end the war. Kido and others in the peace party literally described it as "a gift from heaven".

FeeTinesAMady 12y ago

Except that Japan repeatedly tried to make peace before the atomic bombings, and if the US hadn't been so determined that it be an unconditional surrender and been willing to negotiate, they could have ended the war before that, without any need to even think about invasion. So it was an evil slaughter.

woodman 12y ago
> ... they could have ended the war before that, without any need to even think about invasion. There is no way to know that without knowing the conditions of surrender that Japan had in mind. I have a feeling that the conditions would have been as well reasoned as an island nation attacking an industrial powerhouse with the natural resources of an entire continent :)
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  Such as the US guaranteeing that the Emperor stays in power, which they allowed after the war anyway? http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html http://www.spectacle.org/696/long.html And what is that smile for, anyway? Do you think this is funny?
  - woodman 12y ago
    > Such as the US guaranteeing that the Emperor stays in power, which they allowed after the war anyway? "the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers" > And what is that smile for, anyway? Do you think this is funny? Yup, because you just demonstrated the irrationality that I was hinting at: what is an emperor who is subservient to a foreign power? Not an emperor.
    - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
      So the US killed 500,000 civilians because they didn't weren't willing to negotiate, and you think that that's funny. That says a lot about you.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

wdr1 12y ago

> The only thing that brought them to the table was the idea that their enemy possessed a weapon where a single bomb could level a city, they had no idea how many atomic bombs existed. I agree with most of your post, but not this one. The other major factor was that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. Until that point, the Soviets had led Japan to believe it would be possible to negotiate a peace through them.

woodman 12y ago
I admit that I don't know a great deal about the Soviet angle, but it doesn't seem to logically fit. By that I mean: why would the Japanese be more afraid of a Soviet invasion than an American invasion? I know that Japanese soldiers had been trained to believe that Americans would retreat in the face of Japanese force, and that the Japanese had a pretty negative experience in dealing with the Soviet military. But I'd think that by the end of the Pacific war the Japanese would have been keenly aware of the fact that the Americans were not running away - they preparing to invade the homeland. The only way I can logically fit the Soviet angle in is if Japan thought that they might be able to divide the Allies with a Soviet peace treaty. It would have been a real long shot, but not uncharacteristic of them at that time.

biomene 12y ago

The notion that Japan refused peace until it was nuked is incorrect. Japan had tried to begin peace talks in January, but they were ignored by the Allies[1] [1]: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1945/08/19/page/1/article/bare-peace-bid-u-s-rebuffed-7-months-ago http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1945/08/19/page/1/article...

InTheArena 12y ago
Incorrect. Wikipedia has a decent overview of what really occurred with the Japanese overtures: Satō advised Tōgō that in reality, "unconditional surrender or terms closely equivalent thereto" was all that Japan could expect. Moreover, in response to Molotov's requests for specific proposals, Satō suggested that Tōgō's messages were not "clear about the views of the Government and the Military with regard to the termination of the war," thus questioning whether Tōgō's initiative was supported by the key elements of Japan's power structure.[47] On July 17, Tōgō responded: Although the directing powers, and the government as well, are convinced that our war strength still can deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel absolutely secure peace of mind ... Please bear particularly in mind, however, that we are not seeking the Russians' mediation for anything like an unconditional surrender.[48] In reply, Satō clarified: It goes without saying that in my earlier message calling for unconditional surrender or closely equivalent terms, I made an exception of the question of preserving [the imperial family].[49] On July 21, speaking in the name of the cabinet, Tōgō repeated: With regard to unconditional surrender we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever. The Allies read this in realtime. Japan was not ready to accept any sort of unconditional surrender. More the point, America and Europe had just finished a brutal war in Europe. The point of view then was that the war occurred because Germany had no truly been defeated in World War I. All where concerned with not seeing another world war.
- getsat 12y ago
  Very few people will see it since the OP was flagkilled, but this post you wrote in the other thread was very nice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9172061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9172061
- 12y ago