Hacker News Reader

Comment by dgllghr | Hacker News Reader

Oppenheimer was a genius, but his superpower was being good at both theoretical and practical physics. He did Nobel-prize level work and also ran the Manhattan Project. I think that’s comparable to getting the gold medal at the Olympics for 2 different sports.

General Leslie Groves thought very highly of Oppenheimer, and if you got the stamp of approval from Groves, you were doing something right.

Oppenheimer was dragged through the mud during the red scare and his name is still tarnished because of that. It is ironic and a little sad that he was awarded the Fermi medal once his name was finally cleared because Fermi worked for him during the Manhattan Project. It probably would have been the Oppenheimer Medal if it weren’t for Senator McCarthy.

Oppenheimer beat Heisenberg (also a pretty smart guy) to the bomb and not by a little either. And thank whatever higher power is out there he did.

(I am reusing most of my comment from a different story)

View on HN

From Feynman`s biography, on trying to separate the isotopes of uranium:

> It was such a shock to me to see that a committee of men (Oppenheimer, Compton, Tolman, Smyth, Urey, and Rabi) could present a whole lot of ideas, each one thinking of a new facet, while remembering what the other fella said, so that, at the end, the decision is made as to which idea was the best - summing it all up - without having to say it three times. These were very great men indeed.

I think this has a lot to do in interest in the topic. It's a lot easier to be engaged when changing the fate of the world than when sitting through another "who is doing what part of the data migration" meeting. Just something to keep in mind.

the power of many ego-less minds functioning as one is fascinating

> Oppenheimer was dragged through the mud during the red scare and his name is still tarnished because of that. It is ironic and a little sad that he was awarded the Fermi medal once his name was finally cleared because Fermi worked for him during the Manhattan Project.

It's ironic to me that this is the first time I'm hearing that he was caught up in the red scare. I mean I'm no historian but apparently didn't tarnish his name all that much! :-)

Generally speaking, I don't believe anybody's name was permanently tarnished by the red scare, because it turned out to be such an utter farce of a witch hunt.

But, at the time, it of course did derail careers and destroy lives.

Joseph McCarthy's name is thoroughly tarnished.

And it remains a stain on Elia Kazan's reputation.

Completely disgraced is too good for him.

That's a simplistic outlook. Oppenheimer was a celebrated leader of the team that invented the bomb that ended the war... and then, very publicly, had his security clearance revoked and was basically dragged through the mud by the government that benefitted from his work and elevated him over others.

I would more equate it with someone being very publicly arrested for a horrible crime, only for the verdict to result in "not guilty" or the case dropped before going to court. You know, like OJ or MJ.

The red scare ruined countless families' lives. It was an absolute atrocity and continues to undermine the interests of working Americans to this day.

It is the reason union busting is "ok" and get such a bad rap.

Some people caught up in the Red Scare were guilty. The true positive rate was much smaller than it should have been, but it wasn't zero.

Also worth noting the impact/risk of leaking nuclear secrets would mean that if you thought there was a 1% chance someone was a spy you can’t ignore that.

Guilty of being socialists?

No, spies for the Soviets.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Hall

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Koval

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Gold

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Glasser

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Dexter_White

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Gregory_Silvermaster

There were many, many people in the US who betrayed their country to the Soviets because they believed in Communism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_espionage_in_the_Unit...

Afaict none of those spies were caught during the first or second Red Scare

Does the China Initiative count as a Red scare? It was recent. Didn't round up any spies either.

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

Even more they believed that the fascists had to be tamed. First the German fascists, but then the root of it all, the US fascists with their Hitler support and their genocidal anti-socialist world-domination program, bringing fascism to the whole world. I wouldn't call that betrayal, you could rather argue that the US fascists betrayed the oldest democracy.

Even Oppenheimer, who was a stance Anti-Stalinist and the liberal under the fascist security clique, had the very same view and motivation. Just from the far right.

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event... names many more.

Went through your list. I didn’t get the sense of deep belief in communism nor antiamericanism. There seemed to be other incentives. Is there a good example?

Not OP, but I would recommend on this subject a podcast I've talked about in a previous comment [1], about the life or Hoover and the red scare in light of declassified knowledge of soviet spies in the US.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36257604

I don't think you studied either Klaus Fuchs or the Rosenbergs in much detail then. Whatever the merits of their actions or the cases against them, they were certainly dedicated Communists who did their best for a cause they believed in fervently.

I should have been clear — those were the 3

Wikipedia isn't the right source for "the sense of deep belief", it's far too dry and factual for that.

The Rosenbergs were known as believers in Communism.

I'm glad communists are in the good books now

Marvel and Lucas Films need to justify their acquisition cost.

Yes, but people accused of being Russian spies now are obviously spies. No evidence needed.

Political Officer: “And the seventh angel poured his bowl into the air, and a voice cried out from heaven, saying: "It is done." A man with your responsibilities reading about the end of the world. And what's this? "I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds."”

Captain Ramius: “It is an ancient Hindu text, quoted by an American.”

Political Officer: “An American?”

Captain Ramius: “Mmm. He invented the atomic bomb. And was later accused of being a communist.”

--The Hunt for Red October (1990 movie, not sure its in the book)

Battling narratives....

Public interest in his politics was relevant. He probably was a fellow traveler so what?

It absolutely did, for decades. I would argue that, until the movie, more people knew the name Fermi.

Google trends would disagree with you there [0].

Anecdotally, I've only ever heard the name Fermi in the phrase Fermi Paradox. Oppenheimer I know much more about, and I only know there's a movie about him because it's all over HN this month.

I'm sure that the red scare did tarnish his name for decades, but it looks to me like those decades had ended by 2004 when Google's trends pick up.

[0] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...

Other way around for me "Fermion" "Fermi-Dirac Statistics" "Fermi Energy Level" etc. There are a lot of things in physics named after Fermi not aware of anything named after Oppenheimer.

Born-Oppenheimer approximation.

"Fermi estimation" has leaked out of physics into other areas too.

I lived just close enough to Fermilab that my exposure to both names was fairly even. Probably not true of most people though

Surely not. Oppenhiemer "creating" the Atomic Bomb is pretty widespread general knowledge. Nobody outside physics geeks has heard of Fermi.

My context is from being outside of the US though.

It clearly depends on where do you live. In Italy, Fermi is mostly known, instead of Oppenheimer, as one of the creator of the atomic bomb. It feels like another Marconi/Bell case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Panisperna_boys

I think this is actually evidence of what the poster above is referring to - the long-term effects of Oppenheimer being unfairly discredited. Fermi has streets, schools and subway stations named after him all over Italy. Oppenheimer doesn't (at least not to anywhere near the same extent), even in the US, because during the period when this might most likely have happened, towards the end of his life and shortly after his death, he was still widely regarded as being a traitor.

>Nobody outside physics geeks has heard of Fermi.

Plenty of folks who aren't physics geeks have heard of the Fermi Paradox.

Source: Am not a physics geek.

I'm a Japanese, Oppenhiemer isn't much famous name IMO, though his name may be written in textbook. How Manhattan project succeeded great is a minor topic in general. It's somewhat famous that Einstein encouraged developing of nuke and finally against for bombing. Fermi is somewhat famous for Fermi estimate.

Anyone who has ever pondered the existence of extraterrestrial life has heard of Fermi's paradox, while only history buffs interested in WWII or Japan or the Second Red Scare or alternatively science geeks interested in nuclear explosives have ever heard of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Aren't there more people who are seriously interested in and studying WWII history than there are people who are seriously interested in and studying extraterrestrial life?

google trends seems to agree: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=world%20...

Not necessarily the bit with Oppenheimer in it. He's not hugely relevant outside making things go bang in new and exciting ways.

Whereas Fermi (in the context of the Fermi paradox) is kinda foundational, if you're in the extraterrestrial life field.

Oppenheimer has an Epic Rap Battle of History, Fermi doesn't.

Case closed.

The way I was taught, it was "yes he created the bomb, but as a manager." Which is... not entirely unfair.

For me it was absolutely Fermi. And Feynman and Teller. But Oppenheimer definitely up there.

Oh also Leo fucking Szilard! From wikipedia ...

> He conceived the nuclear chain reaction in 1933, patented the idea in 1936, and in late 1939 wrote the letter for Albert Einstein's signature that resulted in the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb.

(Off topic) I thought Teller was the quiet one? ;-)

How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer's deadly toy?

Russians, Sting, 1985

-- so I would say Oppenheimer being the "inventor" of the atomic bomb was (literally) pop culture

“In the Soviet Union, a scientist is blinded by the resumption of nuclear testing, and he is reminded that Dr. Robert Oppenheimer’s optimism fell at the first hurdle.” ‘Waiting for the Great Leap Forwards’, Billy Bragg 1988

The movie as in this new one? Are you serious?

We are not talking about the red scare farce (which really was political opposition to his "candor" policies and H-bomb program/genocidal opposition), but we they/are talking why he didn't win the Nobel, even when he did brilliant and ground breaking work.

He was considered the most brilliant theoreticist behind Dirac, Schroedinger, Bohr, Pauli and Heisenberg in Goettingen and early Berkeley years. But then he didn't push out that many papers as before, so he didn't win the Nobel as all his other colleagues, below him. He should have won it for the black hole paper at least, but that was too advanced and too theoretical for those folks then. Instead he was an extremely good teacher, manager and later politician, which was more important than advancing physics. E.g. Bethe and many of his students surpassed him in physics, and he was happy with delegation. This article mentions most of it, the book goes far deeper.

> Oppenheimer was dragged through the mud during the red scare and his name is still tarnished because of that.

How would that tarnish his name today?

Public perception doesn't change at the snap of a finger. I'm sure there are plenty of people alive today who grew up thinking "Oppenheimer bad" and would possibly perpetuate that perception down the generational line.

> Public perception doesn't change at the snap of a finger. I'm sure there are plenty of people alive today who grew up thinking "Oppenheimer bad" and would possibly perpetuate that perception down the generational line.

I had a vague understanding that he had a bad reputation, but always assumed it came from more of an "anti-nuclear activist" angle (because he was responsible for making nuclear weapons real).

The knowledge of hindsight can be a curse. Don't forget that Oppenheimer is to a certain extent seen as the guy who is responsible of giving humanity the tools to kill itself a thousand times over.

The fact that we didn't is good luck, but it could have gone different during many points in the cold war and then you and I wouldn't be able to discuss about this on here. But if you knew about Oppenheimer and still were alive you would probably not think highly of the man.

So it doesn't have to do with anti-nuclear (as in: against civil nuclear use) — Oppenheimer was just the prototypical smart guy that failed to predict the consequences of his own actions and by that nearly ended humanity. This makes him an ethically ambivalent figure, and that ambivalence has become a defining trait of the public image of Oppenheimer.

> So it doesn't have to do with anti-nuclear (as in: against civil nuclear use)

That's not my understanding. I don't think you have anti-nuclear activists that are totes fine nuclear weapons and just don't like powerplants. The activists who oppose civil nuclear use are a strict subset of a broader anti-nuclear activist set that includes nuclear disarmament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement:

> The anti-nuclear movement is a social movement that opposes various nuclear technologies....Major anti-nuclear groups include Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Peace Action, Seneca Women's Encampment for a Future of Peace and Justice and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. The initial objective of the movement was nuclear disarmament, though since the late 1960s opposition has included the use of nuclear power. Many anti-nuclear groups oppose both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

So how does that refute my point about Oppenheimer's infamy being a result of the actual risk he produced and not the technology behind that risk?

>"anti-nuclear activist" angle

Which is also a bit funny seeing as Oppenheimer was opposed to the H-bomb and the whole nuclear arms race.

If you ‘show dead’ here, you’ll find how right you are.

Some people think being a democrat is bad even when they agree with the policies, and democrats are by and large a "right wing" party.

Being labelled a commie is on a whole other scale of bad.

Thank god we are done with accusing people of being communists

It's more common these days (on the Internet) to accuse everyone you disagree with as being fascists.

However, even during the red scare, communism/socialism was (and still is) fashionable with the elites. Compare https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-new-su... and see how McCarthyism might have been a reaction.

fascist, racist, bigot, all pejoratives you can attach to someone to shut them up or tear them down.

Interesting that this is getting downvoted!

This has been especially common in my home country Sweden,

where these labels were used by the political and media elite to put down the grass roots movement trying to stop mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.

Calling out a xenophobic movement for what it is is not a bad thing per se. Don't want to be called a racist or fascist? Easy, don't be one.

At the very least, if you are one, don't be offended by being called one...

You can be opposed to mass migration from under developed countries without being a xenophobe(fascist or otherwise) , with vastly different cultural norms.

The last 2-3 decades of migration to Sweden has been disastrous and was done against the majority’s will, with gang violence extreme segregation and a diminished social cohesion.

Sweden will never be the same

Funny, I remember the days when swedish biker gangs pillaged the cold war era reservist weapon depots to wage their gang wars, using weapons of war. No immigartion was needed back then.

But thanks for confirming that most right wing ideology is simply rooted in peoples incapability to cope with change.

The biker wars had few victims, with 11 total deaths, all Nordic countries combined over multiple years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Biker_War

Last year alone, Sweden had 60 shot dead.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-hits-record-with...

“Strommer said Sweden's sixty shooting deaths this year compared to four in Norway, four in Denmark and two in Finland. The deaths are the tip of an iceberg of violence and organised crime that have put down deep roots in parts of society, Strommer said.

Last year, 45 people were shot dead in Sweden. In 2012, the total was 17, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.”

I cope well with change. I no longer live in Sweden but I still mourn what happened to my country and what could have been. So much wasted opportunity

Were those shootings by immigrants?

Qualified 'yes' - it's more due to recent changes in culture, Sweden has had immigrants for a long time.

Mostly by younger (18 and under) swedes with no prospects thanks to increased economic kettling (segregation) being used by more established swedish criminal gangs as young hitters serve reduced time and are seen as disposable people.

Driven by an increase in black market weapon availability and a criminal culture change away from shooting others in the leg and now shooting to kill.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyDZfYzVGJg

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/segregation-behind-gang-rela...

Yes, 2nd and 3rd generation.

So, a problem of integration, and not necessarily one of, how did you put it, "mass migration from arab countries and africa".

And those social problems, integration of new citizens and migrants, are much more complex than "stop migration". Because even if you did, what's next? Throwing all those people out that are already there? Also those born there (not just Sweden, in Germany it is the same, not to start with France), or just those without proper passports? Everyone, regardless of passport?

Or, radical idea, just find a way to successfully integrate everyone in society, even if it means the existing society will have to change.

Another radical idea: don’t try to fit a square peg in a round hole.

In which country has importing millions of uneducated people with a diametrically different culture actually worked out?

I have lived in two highly functional multi cultural societies:

Dubai(UAE) for two years, although predominantly muslim people from all over the planet seem to get more or less along. The Emiratis rule with an iron fist, and that seems to do the trick. You even think about joining a violent gang, you’re sent to some prison dungeon for years before being kicked out.

Although I’m sure the same deal would work out well in Sweden which is in general also an authoritarian nation(although they prentend otherwise), I doubt this is what most proponents of multi culturalism envision.

Now I live in Switzerland, a nation that has three distinct cultures for hundreds of years and seem to integrate foreigners from all over the world very well(though not without problems). The difference between Switzerland and Sweden/Germany/France is the system of direct democracy (where every poor decision can be quickly reverted), in general a bottom up decentralized approach and just as important, you have to QUALIFY YOURSELF to gain residence, and to gain citizenship is difficult(and can be revoked).

Wow, you bring up the UAE as good example? You are aware that they basically enslaving their non-domestic, unskilled workforce? If that is your understanding, or view, on human rights and diversity, well, we can stop here.

Also, all rigjt wing people always bring up Switzerland and direct democracy up. Until, that is, the majority opposses whatever those right wingers want. Good luck in Switzerland so.

Please try not to misinterpret what my views are - I’m not your enemy.

Yes, _Dubai_(not UAE) is a good example of a functioning multi cultural society - bear in mind UAE consists of 7 different Emirates, all very different places, independently governed. Hardly perfect, but it’s one of the best examples of multi cultural societies I’ve witnessed.

And you hardly have to be a right winger to like Switzerland - and I find it interesting you think direct democracy is a right wing virtue - wasn’t power to the people what the left used to fight for?

And what’s your best example of a multi cultural country?

Well, not one that has actuap slave labour, like Dubai. Among a ton of other human rights violations. Switzerland gets close enough, and my point was the fact in Germany swiss direct democracy is constantly brought up by, e.g., the AfD. Until, that is, a majority actually supports stuff like gay marriage, then all.of a sudden democracy is a lot less interesting.

That you did not see how low skilled labour in Dubai is treated, housed in ghettos, passports withheld and labor contracts sold, is a pitty. And advocating for Dubai style enforcement against "violant gangs", your point, is hardly something that is compatible with western democracy and freedom as written (in spirit it is getting erroded on a daily basis lately).

Germany is another example, e.g. Berlin, despute what media would make you believe.

Switzerland is, like most European countries, a nice place for qualified folks, preferably white. Poor non-whites, well, all.of a sudden things are less rosey. Still better then elsewhere, but place for improvement.

Mass migration from the middle east and africa so is not necessarily an unsolvable problem, Germany took loads of refugees, up to the point it anbaled the AfD and extreme right, but there were hardly any problems with it. Integration is lacking, but that is, as I said, a point for both, newcomers and those already there. If newcomers are basically marginalized, one doesn't have to wonder crime is a result. Or frustration (France shows this with their problems integrating 2-4 th generation people in their banlieues).

And power to the people, I am all for it. One has to be vigilant so that the means of handing power to the people are not abused by populists and extremists, and ultimately abolished. History has examples of how that happens, we should avoid allowing it again.

I believe I understand Dubai a lot better than you do. Have you been there?

I worked closely with the laborers from Bangladesh, Pakistan and India for two years, installing heavy machinery.

In general, they are not badly treated at all. Their living conditions are closer to being in the army. Dubai has done a lot to stamp out bad actors. Taking the passport is now illegal (though it still sometimes happens). One foreman had saved up 250,000 Dirhams and intended to start and electrical contractor company back home in Pakistan.

People from Western Europe seem to think 99% of these guys are slaves - they are not. They go to Dubai to get some of that sweet oil money.

It if mass migration from the Middle East and Africa is not an unsolvable problem(just really really hard), why bother? What is the advantage?

Further, I don’t agree that there should be any limits what power the people has. I want 100% direct democracy(naturally with a guiding constitution, that can be changed)

>Easy, don't be one.

So it's "either you agree with me or you're a bigot".

Calling Swedes hateful is a joke, they are the nicest and most tolerant people you will find. Leaving 0 middle ground and creating a dichotomy of either "on our side or a nazi" is precisely what is causing so much division in western societies.

These words mean nothing anymore, all "racist" means now is just someone who you don't agree with.

What if the people in favor of the immigration are actually the racists and fascists?

Same is happening here in Finland now in full force. It’s scary and fascinating to watch, I hope it gets studied a bit deeper so we know what makes people act like that.

How about "people don't like foreigners and strangers"? Most societies in human history have been that way. Even chimpanzees kill members of other groups by default when they find them alone.

1. Chimps also kill to dominate, is that now an acceptable behavior for people?

We aren't animals.

2. If you don't like foreigners you're a bigot and terrible person.

Hating someone because of where they are from is illogical because not all people from a specific location act and think the same. Therefore your hatred has no specific valid target.

You misunderstood my comment.

I'm not saying anything about what behavior is "acceptable" or endorsing anything. I'm saying that people and animals have been acting that way for a very long time. Tolerance for strangers is more in need of sociological explanation than the opposite. Certainly, the trend towards tolerance exists and is rising over the course of history, which I very much like. It's about asking what the default state is from which society makes "progress".

Or are you disputing the historical claim that humans on average have never been more tolerant towards strangers than today?

I'm saying that people and animals have been acting that way for a very long time

So? Just because people have done something for a long time doesn't mean it's right.

Or are you disputing the historical claim that humans on average have never been more tolerant towards strangers than today?

This seems like it is true but what's the evidence for this claim and why are you asking if I dispute it? Where did I say anything about changes in tolerance over time?

Tolerance for strangers is more in need of sociological explanation than the opposite

Why? What if humanity over time grows and learns thanks to our ability to store information, like in books.

More importantly why do we need an explanation and why does it matter?

If you are trying to use the fact that something happened for most of human history then changed recently and that makes it abnormal. Think slavery, rape, woman's right, etc

> So? Just because people have done something for a long time doesn't mean it's right.

Like I very explicitly said, I do not think it's right. That's not what I'm talking about.

> What if humanity over time grows and learns thanks to our ability to store information, like in books.

That's going for an explanation.

> why do we need an explanation and why does it matter?

The original post I responded to asked for an explanation.

I'm saying that people and animals have been acting that way for a very long time. Tolerance for strangers is more in need of sociological explanation than the opposite. Certainly, the trend towards tolerance exists and is rising over the course of history, which I very much like. It's about asking what the default state is from which society makes "progress".

You're asking what the default state is? I assume you mean instincts right?

Why does it matter, what's the relevance?

Because it can also be true but the comment implies it's only used as an attack.

Oh yes... Sweden. Political party initiated by a literal SS soldier, keeps having to kick out members for nazi salutes and similar stuff, but calling them fascists makes you offended...

The same government that wants to revoke citizenships and permanent residence permits. Yup, calling them fascists is an abuse of the word. Hahahaha.

I intentionally didn’t mention the Sweden Democrats. You were branded a fascist, racist, etc. if you spoke up, no matter your political allegiance. You’re just making my point for me.

A majority of Swedes have been opposed to this insanity, not just the Sweden Democrats.

Sadly voting for them is the only option for anyone who understands what a disaster this is(unless you do like me, decide to move out).

You seem out of touch with what the government in sweden has been doing so far.

I agree that there are big social problems in Sweden. But I don't see how sending Kurds to die in Turkey; and generally blaming every problem that exist on immigrants while doing nothing to address said problems, will solve anything.

No need for ad hominem attacks - I’ve followed Swedish politics all my life.

I’ve never argued for sending Kurds to turkey, and I’m not blaming Swedens problems on any immigrants - they are completely self made by self centered so called leaders and a gullible populace who has had little exposure to the outside world.

Have a nice day

Claiming words with detailed and well documented meanings don't have meanings is specifically a key component of fascism.

The definition of racism is a hotly debated topic actually, it can mean many different things.

"Merriam-Webster has a new definition of “racism”"

https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/10/21286656/merriam-we...

There are people who believe it's impossible to be racist against white people, others believe it's simply discriminating based on race.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/us/anti-defamation-league-rac...

>Since 2020, the ADL had described racism as “the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges White people.”

It's a powerful word that can be used to shut people down, so it is liberally used to do so, and its definition is changing to suit the policies and objectives of politicians and organizations.

One example: during the pandemic it was considered "racist" to suggest that the virus might have come from a lab, if you don't believe me I can find you a million reddit threads, Twitter threads, and articles saying as much. NOW it is openly talked about by government institutions and those same institutions that were writing articles decrying it as racist.

I fail to see how talking about the definitions of words and their power makes me a fascist. If anything you are the fascist for misusing the power of certain words to stifle discussion and the free exchange of ideas.

They don't claim that the words don't have a meaning. They just changed the meaning so that now they are "offending". And offence is a crime for which you can go to jail. So calling someone a nazi can land you in jail.

So calling someone a nazi can land you in jail.

Example

They are also pejoratives that, on occasion, can accurately describe a person's political position and social opinions.

You seem to have accidentally omitted “socialist cuck,” and all of the other terms used by the other side of these lovely exchanges.

This is very out of touch with the current zeitgeist. You have real politicians (not Randoms on the internet) in the US who are hinting that fascism is not bad or may even be the answer.

Additionally, you have elected federal politicians in the US calling people communists.

Doesn't matter if it was true or not.

lol, you're joking? The right-wing loves to call liberals "communists" as well as "socialists", as if it's the worst possible thing in the world.

Can you still use that as saber rattling when your favorite guy is a Putin bootlicker?

God. If my grandparents saw what being a republican would become in thirty short years I don’t know if they’d be able to take it. Reagan republicans would probably shoot the lot of them.

There seems to be no level of hypocrisy to which they will not rise and claim excuses and conspiratorial reasons for. I have heard from those sorts, among other things that "Putin is a great capitalist".

I heard the term 'commie pinko sympathizers' a number of times (not at home, in media and public) as a child and only a couple of them were being ironic.

It’s not the worst thing in the world, it’s just a way to dismiss someone as being naive and not understanding how the world works.

It does rather make the person weilding such a dismissal look like an utter fool though.

At least to international eyes.

You're aware that by American standards, Finland is a fully socialist state, right?

Both Sweden and Finland joined NATO with the goal of increasing army spending and reducing it on the social programs.

Better to give money to USA to buy one F22 and to complain about darkies being criminals, than to put money to education so that criminality isn't the only route out of poverty right? /s

And of course in Sweden the schools where the residents are poor get less money, aren't as good, and it's much more difficult for their students to be accepted into a university.

The goal was to prevent the streets of Visby from looking like the streets of Bucha.

By allowing private schools to have no oversight from the government, pocket money and teach (or not teach) whatever they feel like? Did that work?

What? There's generally an adjustment to the funding for schools in Sweden depending on socio-economic factors, so if anything schools where more residents are poor get more money.

Try to work as a substitute teacher and see how it's not nearly true.

A substitute teacher isn't an effective way of judging the education system

a comment on ycombinator is better than having been in the schools?

Finland is a fully socialist state by my standards as well, and all objective standards, frankly. What are you getting at?

>And thank whatever higher power is out there he did.

This. I am so glad Americans killed ~200k mostly Japanese civilians when Japan was already militarily crippled and Germany capitulated three months prior.

“Militarily crippled” makes it sound like the US campaign was getting easier. It was not. Military casualties were getting higher every single fight. Civilian casualties were jaw dropping. Japanese civilians were committing mass suicide or making suicidal charges against marines while carrying sticks. Saipan and Okinawa invasions were humanitarian disasters, despite US forces best efforts.

The ethics of strategic bombing in general and nuclear bombing in particular are rightly debated, but you should bring better facts and understanding when touching such an incandescent topic.

What do you mean ethics? Of murdering people? I am to this day baffled by American people justifying the use of nuclear bomb and try to make it sound like it saved people. Stop! Just frigging say we did it and we won the war simple as that.

Maybe a simplistic black and white reductionist view is not the best way to understand and contextualize a historic event. I am to this day baffled by people that refuse to engage in any kind of nuance for something as complex as a war involving the majority of the globe.

"Oh you do not understand it was complicated"? I think what you are saying is just creating another excuse to justify the bombing. As complex as it is at the end of the day you are making a decision to nuke a nation. Do you think Russia should have used it on Ukraine by now?

I think it is a fact of life that atrocities happen during war. Just admit it and say that this was one of them. Do not give me the "This was for the betterment of the world" BS.

>I think it is a fact of life that atrocities happen during war

No need to debate ethics. Shooting someone with a gun, killing them in a concentration camp, using an atomic bomb on them, bayoneting them. Just admit they are all bad. All sides are the same and it is BS for the US or Nazis or Imperial Japan or anyone to say anything was "for the betterment of the world".

  - Option 1: Drop nuclear bombs on Japan, kill 200 000 people, end the war right there.
  - Option 2: Continue as is and let 400 000 people die every month.

Which option do you prefer?

There's an argument that Japan was ready to surrender. When? In a month? Two? Three?

Wow were you able to see the future? There is a name for what you are saying but I do not remember what it is called false dichotomy? - Option 1: Kill 200k. - Option 2: Do not kill 200k

Which one do you choose?

That's where you go wrong - you see the nuclear bombing of Japan as an isolated event. Place it into the context of several hundred thousand people dying every month as it was at the time, and it will look different.

It feels very strange to read the level of willful ignorance displayed by objektif on hackernews. To ignore the context that the Pacific theater was 4.5 years of the most brutal fighting of the war, a mountain of experience demonstrating the Japanese resolve to never surrender, and the looming land invasion of Japan that at the time was predicted to likely kill 1,000,000+ US soldiers and many times more Japanese civilians is so disconnected from reality.

I would also argue that the use of those bombs saved many more lives by teaching the world a lesson about the horror of nuclear weapons. Its very possible that nuclear weapons would have been used in future conflicts when they would have been much more prevalent had it not been for the example set in WWII.

Another prediction from a genius forecaster. This post reads like illogic 101. How do you teach someone horrors of Nuclear weapon by nuking a city?

If no one ever even dies from a weapon, how would you expect them to even believe it was real? Let alone horrible?

Japan didn’t even surrender after the first one! It took two to convince them it wasn’t a one-time fluke and that it was real and could be repeated.

May be blow it up on the Ocean next to them?

> Saipan and Okinawa invasions were humanitarian disasters, despite US forces best efforts.

How is that the Japanese's fault? The US invaded.

Americans always justify the genocide by saying "we had to bomb them otherwise we would have killed more of them by conventional means"... Well maybe don't kill them?

Japan knew it was beaten, but Roosevelt insisted on unconditional surrender. A negotiated peace would have been better for everyone especially since the Americans kept the emperor, which was the principal condition the Japanese wanted.

Bwaha. Japan attacked the US first. Japan refused to actually surrender until the second nuke. Japan was planning mass wave civilian attacks if there was any landings. Japan was refusing to surrender despite mass firebombings on the Japanese capital that were killing more than the nukes did.

Hell, even when the Japanese emperor finally tried to surrender, his own military cabinet tried to stop him.

It’s like hitler in his bunker. He only finally gave up when essentially everyone else was dead and/or the fight was completely, literally, impossible.

Sarcasm is cheap, even when a point is indisputable. But when a point is heavily under dispute it comes across as a lack of understanding. While Japan was losing the war they were far from crippled, and had shown that they were willing to continue fighting despite the "partial" destruction of many cities by that point.

If you have not watched https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War then it provides an interesting point of view to counter the simplistic "the war was already over we only did it to scare the russians" viewpoint.

Japan was crippled, on every front. By then, it was just a question of when they surrender and not if. By the way, the USSR declaring war on Japan played an equally large role in Japans surrender to the Western Allies as the atomic bombs did.

It is funny so, how many people still fail to see the targeted and indiscriminate bombing of civilians done during WW2 by the allies as the war crime it was. Heck, even the RAF bomber command addmitted that in internal memos.

>it was just a question of when they surrender and not if

You are glossing over this as if it means nothing. The "when" is incredibly important during an active war. Would the "when" be after an American invasion? Taking Okinawa killed 12,500 Americans, 77,000 Japanese military, and at least 100,000 Japanese civilians. That was less than 2 months before the dropping of the atomic bombs. If didn't Japan surrender then, how many more of those battles would it have taken to produce the "when" of a Japanese surrender? How many battles on the Russian side in Manchuria would it have taken? Not only had Japan never surrendered in it's entire 2,000 year plus history, no military unit had surrendered during the entire war. There was organized coup attempted literally the night before the surrender was broadcast and Prime Minister Suzuki, who had survived a different assassination attempt 9 years earlier, only escaped by minutes. Prime Ministers that were not ultranationalist enough had been assassinated in 1921 and 1930, with two former Prime Ministers dying during another coup attempt in 1936.

The casual confidence in the outcome of the war is so disconnected from reality that it is laughable. Japanese political surrender, and that surrender being followed by the military was not in any way, some sort of forgone conclusion.

So? We talk WW2, military casualties were to be expected, weren't they? Just look at Soviet and Russian casualties on the Eastern front. Also, as an alternative to an invasion mainland Japan, cut them of by sea, bomb their cities to dust (still a war crime, but Tokyo was already fire bombed anyway), so basically what happened, atomic bombs or not.

And yes, tze end of WW2 was predictable in mid 1944, no doubt about that in any shape or form. The details were up for grabs, sure, the overall outcome was not.

>military casualties were to be expected, weren't they?

First, convenient to ignore the 100,000 civilian deaths. Second, what you are saying is the war was basically won*

*After hundreds of thousands of additional military deaths fighting to completely dismantle Japan.

>The details were up for grabs

Again, these "details" are hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths. You are acting like death from atomic bombs are the only deaths that matter, so people that die during battle or millions of deaths from starvation from a blockade[1] are fine. This is just so divorced from reality I don't even understand what you are trying to say. Yeah, we could have just killed millions Japanese people with a blockade or kill 100,000 Americans and a million Japanese during an invasion. Atomic weapons were totally unneeded.

[1]https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/victory-in-ja...

We're closing in on the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the end of World War II.

To put that in perspective, the Civil War ended 80 years prior to that. We are almost as far removed from WWII as WWII is from the Civil War. While there are still people alive today who were alive during WWII, we're talking about people like Joe Biden, who is 80, who was 3 when it ended.

It if very likely that no one who served is still alive. Our fathers and grandfathers are the ones who had fathers and grandfathers serve.

All of our information about World War II and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is from stuff written about it. Something told to someone who then told it to us. So of course there's a disconnect.

Hirohito himself calls this a lie:

But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our one hundred million people – the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

I don't see the contradiction:

Japan lost the war in the Pacific by then (the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage).

The USSR entered war, but had yet to actively fight imperial Japan (while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest). Also, Germany had lost, and most of the troops and resources bound in Europe could be redeployed now.

Re atomic bombs: The enemy so was only the US (in practical terms, the other allies did not play a major role, except the fighting in India that Japan had already lost a year prior), and yes, the atomic bombs were devastating.

But Hihoroto himself said, it was much more than just the two atomic bombs being dropped.

Go check out Sean McMeekin's Stalin's War for a pithy rebuttal to this point of view - but the idea that Soviet entry was a equal reason to the atomic bomb is a minority view (at best saying it nicely) in the historical community, but rather a very successful propaganda effort that Stalin launched shortly after the war to justify his taking of larger portions of asia.

Ah, the guy who claimed WW2 was a Stalin and not an Axis thing? Well, that is a minority view at best. At worst, it is repeating a bunch Nazi appologist views about the whole affaire. Heck, he even claims a seperate UK-Germany peace after the Battle of France was a potential thing, talking fringe theories ignoring historical facts here...

But hey, if ypu need to justify the use of WMDs against civilians, every excuse is a good one I guess.

Both Hitler and Stalin believed a separate peace was possible - and if Halifax or Chamberlain led the government, rather then Churchill, and if Churchill had actually been open to the communication with the Nazis that met his famous quote that if he thought he could get out of it by only giving up Gibraltar he would, the story might be different. Hitler was gobstocked.

Your claim Sean as a Nazi apologist to discredit him literally are repeat soviet propaganda lines. In fact Putin recently made all of these arguments again to justify his invasion of Ukraine - I trust you see the irony.

War is hell - and atomic war is hell. War isn’t justifiable, and yet war is part of human nature. This is something that Historians have studied since there were historians. Ignore that research at your peril. The WW2 and modern conflict historians have done just that.

Oh, Hitler believed a lot things... Bad for both, that Churchill was prime minister, right?

Also, I didn't say Stalin's War is Nazi apologist BS, just that it seems borderline to some BS that was spread right after the war. Which makes sense, since it was the early days of the Cold War.

Churchil was never in favor of a seperate peace, nor someone else in the Allied camp. Every declaration made that extremely clear. Claiming otherwise is delusional.

It takes heaps of irrefutable facts and very strong moral national character (for the lack of better words) to admit fucking up big time, apologizing for it and making yourself a better version thanx to such experience.

I'd claim in modern history, on large enough scale only Germany went properly through this, and is still source of a lot of guilt in their population. Allied fire bombings of whole cities, turks doing Armenian genocide, Japanese atrocities in China, russians with whatever they did anywhere in past 50 years etc... I see rather ignorance and lies and desperate attempts to look the other way rather than anything else.

I just left Berlin this afternoon after spending a week here. I knew this aspect would be present, but I was surprised how present it is. My impression is the culture here prides itself on being extremely socially and ecologically progressive as a way of atonement.

Grafitti/street art seems to be encouraged as an emotional and creative outlet. Plenty of world class free museums, and most others are rather cheap (8-10 euros) compared to other locations in Europe.

Berlin is special. Germany as a whole is much more conservative.

"Never again" is still a big part of the culture. The rise of the Nazis is a common theme at school, not only in history lessons, but also others ("analyze this speech's rhetoric").

I suppose as a German it feels natural to be able to criticize what the people in your country have done before yourself and some patterns are fairly easy to spot. It's sometimes hard to understand why it can be so difficult for others.

It’s very worrying that in the US criticism of the government is now being actively censored and suppressed.

Is it true that US whistleblowers should consider getting to Berlin before leaking their information as German laws on speech would help protect them? For example wouldn’t Assange and Snowden have been much better off if they had?

Hate speech isn't protected, in case you mean that.

Governemt criticism and whistleblowing is generally regarded more highly. As far as I can tell Snowden is well respected and the idea of granting him asylum is fairly popular (it almost happened, but the US's pressure is strong).

The laws in place aren't as good as you'd hope, though. The powers that be are, for some reason, not very happy with the idea of it becoming easier to expose their misbehavior, so protections for whistleblowers are not all that great. There was a recent attempt to pass a law that improves these protections, but it got watered down quite far.

Being in Germany wouldn’t have saved them, and it’s fantasy to think they would have. They’d have to have been in Venezuela, Iran, NK, China, or as worked for Snowden, Russia.

Anti-whistleblower/leaker sentiment has always been a strong force in every gov’t - only being physically in the jurisdiction of the ‘enemy’ is decent protection, and even then assassinations happen.

And yet... fascism is on the rise again all over Europe. Amazing really, when you think of it, it's 100% known what it leads to and yet there are people that refuse to learn these lessons.

Yeah, it's amazing what people will buy when they feel their circumstances are poor. I feel like Berlin putting it very in front of your face means the youth will never forget or misinterpret what happened.

My partner on this trip is a Brazilian (from Sao Paolo) who has been living in Paris for the past decade. She touched on the fairly complex history of that country and how someone like Bolsonaro could be popular. The country is large with very different regions, each with their own capital, etc, which leads to a sort of isolation in ways. Yet their supreme court was still able to see fit to punish claims of election fraud that the US is incapable of doing.

I am affraid it is worse: those people actually want all those things, the bad effects are not part of the risks coming with fascism, they are part of the promise. Sad indeed...

> Japanese atrocities in China

Don't forget Chinese atrocities in China.

No it is not funny at all. Terrible things were done in world war 2. I don't see any humor in that. It would be great to think that the world has seen the end of totalitarian regimes determined to expand at any cost, but world politics suggests otherwise.

You are sticking to the term "militarily crippled" but is it justified? Yes, Japan had lost the war by that point. But crippled implies that they could not fight back, or inflict losses on an invading force. There is no evidence to suggest that.

If the two bombs had not been used, when would the war have ended and how many lives would it have cost on both sides before it was over? More or less than 200 000? Would that have been better or worse morally?

Those are difficult questions. I don't claim to have good answers to them, but I would not glibly dismiss them with sarcasm.

From the Wikipedia article you linked:

> Lesson #5: Proportionality should be a guideline in war.

> McNamara talks about the proportions of cities destroyed in Japan by the US before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, comparing the destroyed Japanese cities to similarly-sized cities in the US: Tokyo, roughly the size of New York City, was 51% destroyed; Toyama, the size of Chattanooga, was 99% destroyed; Nagoya, the size of Los Angeles, was 40% destroyed; Osaka, the size of Chicago, was 35% destroyed; Kobe, the size of Baltimore, was 55% destroyed; etc. He says LeMay once said that, had the United States lost the war, they would have been tried for war crimes, and agrees with this assessment.

The firebombings were really, really terrible. No question. They would have continued to near total obliteration of the country if it hadn’t been for the nukes forcing the surrender, that much was quite clear.

Your evidence is a movie whose raison d'etre is to elucidate the viewpoints of an American citizen and military leader who is heavily implicated in this decision and in other American war crimes, and even that document does not support your point (McNamara openly admits that US bombing of Japanese population centers was a war crime.)

I'm not sure I would class that as 'heavily under dispute'.

It's not clear what point you are trying to respond to. I am aware that McNamara discusses the firebombing of Japanese cities cities as a warcrime. The main point of the movie is asking the question if nuking two cities was a lesser evil than continuing to try to force Japan into submission by continuing the campaign. The movie is not presented as evidence of anything: it was presented explicitly to provide the alternative viewpoint to the post I replied to.

Certainly the death toll would have been higher without the two bombs. By what measure would you claim that there is no dispute that Japan was "militarily crippled"? There is difference between losing a war and being unable to mount a punishing defense.

If you are a GI waiting in a tropical hell-hole (their words, not mine) for an invasion, the nuclear bomb did in fact seem like divine intercession.

(Japan was not militarily crippled, they actually had far more forces then the United States anticipated in the home islands. Japan was also pretty much completely disconnected from Germany even before Germany fell)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com