Publication of Hiroshima in the New Yorker (1997)

http://www.herseyhiroshima.com/hiro.php

by Tomte • 5 years ago

72 68 5 years ago

Hokusai• 5 years ago

I read the Bantam books version of Hiroshima before traveling to Japan and visiting the city. It gives one perspective on what happened there and the reality of the atomic bomb.

addingnumbers2• 5 years ago

I don't think they linked to the article they are analyzing, so here it is:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima

dan-robertson• 5 years ago

(And a follow up about 40 years later: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1985/07/15/hiroshima-the-... )

gxqoz• 5 years ago

And a small update from last week on how they discovered some rare "white band" copies of the original magazine at a high school named for Hersey: https://www.newyorker.com/books/double-take/a-rare-discovery...

"The white band had originally been added as a bit of an afterthought. The editors knew that Hersey’s report was shocking, and they quickly realized that the cover they’d chosen for the issue—a vibrant, bucolic scene of children and families frolicking in a park—might not give readers enough warning about the devastating nature of its contents. (New Yorker covers rarely have a connection with the contents of an issue, but, in this particular case, the dissonance was marked.) “My God, how would a guy feel, buying the magazine intending to sit in a barber’s chair and read it!” one editor was said to have thought, during a meeting at the time. So the white band was hastily added to about forty thousand newsstand copies in New York. (It was not included in the national run.) Very few copies of the edition with the original band exist today, which is why, as Blume noted, it’s considered one of the “white whales” of the antiquarian-magazine world."

kragen8• 5 years ago

To be fair, I don't think that link existed when Steve wrote this 24 years ago; the New Yorker set up a web site in November 01998, and the WABAC machine's first snapshots of that link are from 02014: https://web.archive.org/web/20140723205106/http://www.newyor...

Steve's a good person; I'm sure he would have linked to the article he was citing if he could.

addingnumbers2• 5 years ago

No judgement, I mentioned I didn't spot a link to preemptively excuse myself in case it was redundant

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 5 years ago

Navy Admiral William F. Halsey, Third Fleet commander, was quoted in the press as saying that the Japanese had been on the verge of surrunder before the atom bombs were dropped in the summer of 1945 and that the "atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment..."

I suspect that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were as much to impress Stalin as for any other purpose.

At the time of the bombings, there were literally millions of battle-hardened Soviet troops in Eastern Europe. They were also commanded by very able generals (see Zhukov).

If Stalin wanted them to, they could have easily rolled west, and the American and British armies would have been no match for the Soviet Red Army.

However, the USA had the bomb. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were at least in part about demonstrating the awesome power of the atomic bomb to Stalin and forestalling any temptation he might have to continue west.

mitjak• 5 years ago

why did you get downvoted? it seems a plausible theory that's at least worth discussing / is a reasonable contribution to this thread.

diogenescynic2• 5 years ago

Because anyone who knows the actual history, knows that's bullshit and OP could have just looked up the facts instead of making up something.

Japan was going to fight to the last man/woman/child. They were going to have seniors and children fight with sticks. The Pacific theater was already one of the bloodiest battle fronts in the war and the US was battle weary and didn't want to expend another 500,000 Americans to invade Japan. They dropped nukes to avoid another extended and unbelievably bloody conflict.

Go listen to the Hardcore History podcasts "Supernova in the East" and it'll make it much more clear.

mcguire4• 5 years ago

The problem is that there exist first-hand and second-hand (i.e. MAGIC intercepts) primary sources for decisions from both sides in the summer of 1945 (https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/) and they don't really support the theory. (It's possible you could find some reasoning to support the "impress the Soviets" part, but to make that the primary motive would be to ignore the majority.)

Also, keep in mind that Halsey had a bit of a problem with Nimitz and much of the Navy, particularly over the matter of two typhoons and Leyte Gulf, so he may not be entirely unbiased.

Matticus_Rex4• 5 years ago

There are very few defensible historical positions that seem to rile up unreasonable criticism more than saying the use of atomic weapons on Japan might not have been justified, usually in the form of uneducated meme responses such as "they would never have surrendered" and "it's easy to say that now."

Given that we have evidence that many of those who were there at the time disagreed with the decision and that Japan had already been trying to work towards peace through back-channels, these responses seem to point to a deep need to feel like the United States didn't unjustifiably kill over 100k civilians.

There is little question that the bombings were a better strategic choice than Operation Downfall, which would likely have killed more on both sides, but to paint this as the only alternative is a false dilemma. There is even debate among (prominent, non-revisionist) historians and political scientists as to whether the bombings were the primary reason for the surrender -- contemporary letters from within Japan indicate that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria may have actually been the primary factor (though the bombings certainly played some part, and were a larger factor in arguments made by some particular officials).

ThrowawayR2• 5 years ago

Because it's been debunked over and over and over. It's just not supported by historical evidence, even by Japanese historians interviewing surviving Japanese officials. Somebody else has recommended in this thread but I will as well: "Japan's Longest Day" makes for fascinating reading.

The reality is that there was a peace faction in the Japanese government who did want to surrender but the ultranationalistic Japanese military was quite firmly in control and was very much _not_ interested in surrendering, even at the cost of millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties involved in continuing the war. (It's worth remembering that the Allied aerial firebombing campaigns had already devastated every other major city in Japan and caused far more civilian casualties than both atomic bombs did; both the Japanese and Allied militaries accepted this as part of the toll of war.) The aim (and preference of all factions) would have been a peace treaty that let Japan keep its ill-gotten gains in Asia. It took an unprecedented direct order from the Emperor to initiate the surrender, over the objections of the military. Even the high level overview provided by the Wikipedia article has excerpts like "[On August 9,] The cabinet meeting adjourned at 17:30 with no consensus. A second meeting lasting from 18:00 to 22:00 also ended with no consensus. ... The cabinet debated, but again no consensus emerged." and "As August 14 dawned, Suzuki, Kido, and the Emperor realized the day would end with either an acceptance of the American terms or a military coup." that directly contradict the idea that Japan was eager to surrender.

And beyond that, at the last minute, a coup attempt was made by fanatics willing to defy even the Emperor in an attempt to prevent the surrender proclamation from being broadcast (the Kyuujou incident).

Does any of this sound like a Japan that was eager to surrender? No, and that's why war historians generally deride this theory, quotes from Halsey, Eisenhower, etc. notwithstanding. Even just reading the Wikipedia article would make this clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan

trzy• 5 years ago

More importantly than their presence in Eastern Europe, said battle-hardened troops had advanced into Manchuria and Korea. History would have looked quite different indeed if they had proceeded to invade Japan.

drocer886• 5 years ago

Reds did invade northern Japanese islands and still occupy them today.

Yalta agreement carved out areas south of this for the U.S.

thrwway34• 5 years ago

They had no experience in successful landing assault operations.

And besides, all big cities in Manchuria and Korea were captured only after Japanese surrender.

jbay8082• 5 years ago

When I went to high school in Canada, this analysis was more or less the standard treatment of the subject. I'm surprised you're getting downvoted.

mezentius6• 5 years ago

The history does not credibly support this analysis. For Halsey to say that the Japanese were on "the verge of surrender" is somewhat misleading; while the Japanese may have been willing to seek a negotiated end to the conflict, they were certainly not willing to surrender unconditionally, and in fact were throwing away an appalling number of lives in India, New Guinea, and islands all across the Pacific to prove this. An unconditional surrender was seen as necessary because the Western Allies believed that they needed a free hand in the postwar period to drastically restructure the political systems of the Axis countries and prevent future militarism. If you look at the example of the interwar period (in which negotiated truces had repeatedly failed in the face of determined militarism) and then note the result of the postwar period for both the Japanese and German economies, it would be very hard to argue that the Allies were wrong.

mcguire4• 5 years ago

The conditions the Japanese Supreme War Council (made up of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Minister of War, the Minister of the Navy, and the Chiefs of the Army and Navy General Staffs; the only higher authority was the Emperor) were willing to accept were:

1. The Emperor continued unmolested as the head of state,

2. Japan was responsible for its own disarmament,

3. There would be no occupation, and

4. Japan would conduct its own war crime trials.

drocer886• 5 years ago

"the American and British armies would have been no match for the Soviet Red Army".

U.S. , Britain, Canada and France had millions of battle hardened troops, too ... and air and sea supremacy.

kragen8• 5 years ago

I see people touting the amazing prowess of the American and British armies in WWII a lot, and I have to wonder if those people are mystified about how Stalin ended up with half of Europe. How do they fit it into their worldview?

About a third of the total casualties of World War II were in Operation Barbarossa, 25 million out of 75 million, about 14% of the Soviet population, mostly within a few months in 01941. The battle hardened troops of the US and even France could mostly go back home to their families, barring Jody; the Soviet troops had, in many cases, had their families killed or starved to death by the Germans. And, when it came to land combat, the Soviets were enormously outproducing not only Germany, though not the US; in 01944, the last full year of war, they produced some 17000 tanks, and nearly 20000 in 01943. (The US numbers were 37000 in 01944 and 27000 in 01943.)

However, Russian tanks had a significant advantage over US tanks for combat in Europe: they were in Europe. And so were the farms that fed their crews.

So, I'm not sure if they "would have been no match for the Soviet Red Army", but I'm sure glad they didn't have to find out.

Someone• 5 years ago

Not having sea supremacy would mean the overseas countries wouldn’t stand a chance preventing the USSR from taking over Western Europe, but I don’t see how having it counts for much as a defense against a soviet occupation of Europe.

I also think, but can’t find hard numbers, that the USSR had more soldiers than the other allies combined (some strategists thought the allies would need the remains of the German army to help fight the Russians, if it were to come to that)

What they may not have had enough was technology. The USA provide them with lots of material (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease)

I think there is some truth in saying World War Two in Europe was won with American materiel and Russian blood.

That could have been their weak point. The western powers might have been able to hold of the larger USSR army by gaining air superiority. I’m not sure of that, though, as the time the USSR really needed US tech to survive was gone in 1945.

FridayoLeary• 5 years ago

I'm not sure why you getting downvoted. The first one was little short of a war crime from what i can see. Blow up a mountain maybe, to demonstrate the unlimited power of the a-bomb, but why drop it on a populated city? But even if the first one can be justified (we only had 2 bombs and they were fanatical etc.) why the second bomb? At least give them a bit more time to think.

I think maybe this subject gets taught differently in America to the rest of the world.

refurb• 5 years ago

How does one conclude the Japanese were "on the verge of surrender" when it took not one, but two atomic bombs before they capitulated? And it took six days after the second bomb before they officially surrendered. That doesn't sound like "on the verge of surrender" to me.

Animats• 5 years ago

This is an old argument. Read "Japan's Longest Day", from 1965, which is a detailed reconstruction of what went on before the Japanese surrender, from interviews with some of the people involved. Nobody was in overall charge. The Army barely spoke to the Navy. Planning meetings consisted of the heads of the Army and Navy making statements. The emperor's role was primarily ceremonial. The civilian government had little or no control over the military. (For why, see [1]). The surrender was a near thing, with one faction almost succeeding in prevent the Emperor from broadcasting a surrender message.

The US side of that story is presented in "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb", by Paul Fussell. (1981) Fussell is a well-known essayist. He was in the Army during WWII, and he was in a unit scheduled for the invasion of Japan if the atomic bomb didn't work.

Look up "Operation Olympic". The first phase, the invasion of Kyushu, was scheduled for November 1, 1945, less than three months after the atomic bombing. This wasn't just planned; the equipment and soldiers were already in Okinawa and Saipan, the staging areas, and that invasion was going to happen if the atomic bomb didn't force a surrender. The operation was at least 3x the size of D-day and over a 500km sea approach. A million dead were expected on the Allied side. Far more on the Japanese side, because the defense was mostly infantry without enough heavy weapons, armor, or ammo.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_15_Incident

[2] https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/HIS1300MET/v12/unde...

logshipper• 5 years ago

More recently, the New Yorker published "The Plague Year" [1] in Jan 2021. IIRC, this was the first time since the Hiroshima issue that they dedicated almost the entire magazine to a single article. I quite liked it, and it was even on the HN front page [2].

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/04/the-plague-yea... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25616014

misiti37803• 5 years ago

he turned that into a book also:

https://www.amazon.com/Plague-Year-America-Time-Covid-ebook/...

grillvogel• 5 years ago

There's a guy named Joseph Grew, a former US ambassador to japan before WW2 who tried to stop the bombings. Basically he put forth the argument that Japan would be willing to surrender as long as the emperor could keep his title/powers/etc. Truman removed this provision at the last minute, and surprise the surrender was not accepted. In the end we proceeded to use the nukes, and then let the emperor keep his title anyway.

It's interesting that I never heard of him until watching a documentary about this while in Japan.

ChrisArchitect2• 5 years ago

Anything new on this from 7 months ago?

ChrisArchitect2• 5 years ago

Oh in fact there is, a new followup article on it rather than this relic

(From elsewhere in thread)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28360294

Publication of Hiroshima in the New Yorker (1997)

Related Stories