Are we talking language or library here?
A bloated language is something like PL/I, which had *built-in* types for just about everything and (according to Bill Plauger, I dont' know, I wasn't around then) abandoned imperial units only after the British Empire did. This whole approach to language design was rendered unnecessary with the arrival of object oriented languages about a quarter of a century ago.
A language spec may be bloated, even though the language is fairly simple, if there are a lot of awkward edge cases. Name lookup in C++ is the best current example. Hardly anyone has serious problems with it in practice, but it was a real bugger to specify. (Those two facts may be connected.)
A bloated library surely falls into the category of "what you don't use, you don't pay for". (If that's not true for your preferred language, then I'm afraid there's no hope for it. It is terminally broken by design.)
A library spec may be bloated if one insists that almost every library that has ever been useful must be shipped with any "standards compliant" implementation. Most languages don't do that, although Microsoft's .NET family seem to have committed to the entire Windows API being "part of the bundle". A self-inflicted injury, in my view.
Java strikes me as a relatively small language with a gimungous library. It wouldn't be hard to "lose" parts of the latter from the mainstream, as long as they remained available for legacy code, so why is this even controversial?