Hacker News

points by TomJansen 6 hours ago | 0 comments

So that WW2 had to go on for an extra 2/3 years?

Germans had already surrendered and the Japanese were going to surrender as Russians now were able to move their force against Japan before the nuclear bombs were used. They were used to test the bombs and make sure no such war happens again specially the 2nd Bomb on Nagasaki that was used a few days after they bombed Hiroshima.

[–] defrost 2 hours ago

> They were used to test the bombs and make sure no such war happens again

The two cities were already on a "to be bombed" list and were the 73rd and 74th Japanese cities to be utterly destroyed by bombing.

So, Yes - they were literally used to test the bombs.

The "and make sure no such war happens again" is more of a post WWII retcon of the Cold War era.

[–] rightnutwingjob 2 hours ago

In all likelihood, the two nuclear bombs killed fewer people than the bombing that otherwise would have occurred.

[–] defrost 2 hours ago

Really?

They certainly killed less people than the bombing that had already occurred - the destruction of Tokyo alone likely killed more people than either atomic bomb.

There's no real consensus in the alternative history conjecture space, and no way to resolve the theories floated, Gar Alperovitz (for one example) made the argument that

  * that Japan was already defeated at the time the decision to use the bomb was made, and that US intelligence already knew this;
  * that Japan had been suing for peace and was ready to surrender without an invasion;
  * that the real reason the bomb was used was so to demonstrate its power to the Soviet Union, in an attempt to exert more influence on them in the postwar;
  * and that Japanese Emperor’s surrender statement invoked the bomb only as a politically-acceptable “excuse” for his people, when actually he surrendered primarily because of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

( in https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004FGMR3S )

[–] hunterpayne 1 hour ago

This is alternative history, not real history. Remember, there was an attempted coup even after the first bomb to prolong the war. The Japanese leadership at the time were very zealous verging on religious zeal. One of the things that got them to eventually give up was a captured US fighter pilot that (under threat of death) told the Japanese that the US had 100s of atomic bombs. This was a lie but he didn't know that and just was trying to get the insane intelligence agent to not cut his head off (literally). There were other factors too. The USSR invading Manchuria for example. Also the US was in the process of ringing the home islands with 50 fleet carriers (the big ones, 50kt displacement) which would have been able to bomb Japan at will. Even with all of this, there was a significant faction of Japanese leadership who wanted to fight on.

These claims are more about politics than anything. Its an attempt to retcon history to vilify the US. The Japanese had never been invaded and that was a huge point of pride. They were training the civilians for a guerrilla war. Just because you can find a person in the Japanese government who wanted to surrender at that point (and there were) doesn't mean that's the decision that would have been taken.

PS That 3rd point is especially specious...if it were true, no 2nd bomb would have been used. PPS Stuff like this is why historians don't like nor will engage with hypotheticals or the alternative history folks. Its clearly politically motivated, not a good faith attempt to understand history.

[–] wombatpm 29 minutes ago

The second bomb is the one whose use is questionable. If Truman were to be tried for war crimes it would be for that. A surrender was in play. Truman wanted no conditions. I think another week of people dying from radiation poisoning would have brought people around anyway.

[–] fc417fc802 1 hour ago

> Its an attempt to retcon history to vilify the US.

An attempt to vilify ... the side that eagerly deployed nuclear weapons on civilian targets? I'm from the US and I'm not someone who is blind to pragmatism but your argument here just seems completely absurd to me. We clearly committed an atrocity with somewhere between minimal to no legitimate justification.

Then again, after seeing the adjacent comment about avoiding soviet involvement it occurs to me that perhaps we inadvertently did them a favor in a roundabout way. Japan probably would have lost a lot more than the kuril islands otherwise.

[–] nickff 1 hour ago

Where did you get the idea that the USA was “eager” to deploy the atomic bomb?

>Stimson wrote in his diary afterwards that after his briefing, Truman felt “the terrible responsibility that such destruction placed upon us here and himself.” [1]

[1] “Memorandum of Conference with the President, August 8, 1945 at 10:45am,” in Stimson diary (8 August 1945), Henry Lewis Stimson Papers (MS 465), Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library.

[–] kstenerud 35 minutes ago

Such a convenient narrative. "Yeah, a shit ton of civilians who weren't vaporized died slow, agonizing deaths from radiation exposure, but believe you me, it's more humane than the alternative! They should be thankful!"

[–] CamperBob2 16 minutes ago

It was more humane, whether you like it or not. What if we had waited to learn our lesson until the Korean war, when the yield of the first atomic bomb dropped on people would have been measured in hundreds of kilotons instead of tens, and with a few hundred more bombs where that one came from?

Also, people who are ready to surrender don't need to be nuked twice.

[–] defrost 4 minutes ago

> people who are ready to surrender don't need to be nuked twice.

The question remains whether in fact Japan "needed" to be nuked even once - it's unknown whether the ongoing city by city destruction would have resolved WWII.

Further, did they "need" to be nuked a second time so quickly (within three days)? That second nuke was not to force a surrender (just as the first wasn't) - the two bombings were two live tests of two separate weapon designs untested in the field of war.

[–] somenameforme 2 hours ago

The USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th, as part of a secret agreement with the West. The US knowing this, first nuked Japan on the 6th and then again on the 9th. It's hard not to see 'us' as trying to force a surrender before the USSR could get significantly involved. Why? Because territories in WW2 were split up in significant part based on who conquered which part. Hence East Germany going to the USSR and West Germany going the the West. Thanks to the US getting a quick surrender from Japan, the USSR was able to be completely excluded from the following occupation of Japan.

If any documents were ever created about this debate, they've probably been destroyed, and those involved have taken it to the grave with themselves. So I suppose technically we can never know for sure. But I think the cynical view is far more well supported. Or at least I think the cynical aspects were the majority of the logic behind it. And it was not only about control of Japan but also about sending a message to the USSR as the US undoubtedly saw the outlines of a new West-East world order emerging after WW2. And all the way up until the 80s [1] our dominant political philosophy was that we could win by intimidation and demonstrations of force, nuclear in particular.

------------

Wow, loving LLMs when digging into topics now a days. GPT was able to direct me to Truman's diary entries which are public record. [2] I take back the weasel wording above. Truman himself was quite clear on his intention and desires:

"Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor [actually from the Foreign Secretary] asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan [A-bomb] appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time."

- President Harry S. Truman, July 18th 1945

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet#Impact

[2] - https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/28466-document-47-trumans...

[–] rdtsc 2 hours ago

> Why? Because territories in WW2 were split up in significant part based on who conquered which part. Hence East Germany going to the USSR and West Germany going the the West.

That was particularly painful for Churchill to accept at the end when he had to hand over Poland to Stalin. Poland was the reason Britain officially entered WW2 in 1939

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal

> We and France are to-day, in fulfillment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack upon her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace, but a situation in which no word given by Germany's ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel themselves safe had become intolerable. And now that we have resolved to finish it, I know that you will all play your part with calmness and courage

(Chamberlain, Sep 3, 1939)