Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on August 06, 2000, 04:25:00 PM
-
I wanted to come here and post my thoughts on the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I am troubled when so many of my fellow countrymen seem ignorant of the historical facts surrounding the Second World War.
Case in point:
In Seattle we have this yearly event called *Seafair*. The HydroBoats have a big race today and the Blue Angles will put on their usual magnificent display in front of hundreds of thousands of people over Lake Washington.
Interestingly, the Navy always sends a contingent of Warships to display for the Public. This year we will have an Aircraft Carrier on one of the docks at Elliot Bay for public tours. The Navy also is sending the US Alabama, a nuclear attack submarine
for the public to see.
A group of anti-nuclear people petitioned the Seattle City Councel to ban the Alabama from coming to Seattle. There was a lot of support for this by the people of Seattle because nuclear weapons are so evil and killed so many innocent men, women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I saw the potentiol banning of the Alabama as a joke to say the least. First off, the carrier is nuclear powered but no one said anything about that. They were picking on the submarine unfairly. Neither a sub nor an aircraft carrier were involved in the attacks on either Japanese city.
Now if the CAF B29 was going to do a flyby over Lake Washington I could probably understand the antis a little better but I would still be against banning even a B29 flyby. I like B29s.
Im one of those people that think nuclear weapons are aweful destructive. Im also thankful that a nation of decent people (more or less) who are basically self governed (more or less) invented the first nuclear weapons. Imagine what could have happened if Hitler had invented his own nuclear weapon in the summer of 1941, or the Japanese military rulers in 1941! So Im thinking the world got aweful lucky on that count.
I also believe that the invention of nuclear weapons was inevitable. Sooner or later someone would have figured this thing out and lets just be glad that things have turned out the way they have.
I am troubled however because technology has enabled nuclear weapons to be brought down in size to the point where someone can walk a suitcase into a building and blow up an entire city. Im surprized this hasnt happened yet and I suspect that eventually something like this will occur. I do not know what the result for humanity will be.
The United States, Russia, France, England, Pakistan, India and others have these weapons
and the world could still be denied the company of humans at any moment of any day.
Mass nuclear destruction is just a heartbeat away. As it has been since 1945.
Having said all that, let me say that whats done is done. I would have preferred a different route against Japan, perhaps an atomic demonstration to the military leaders of Japan on a spot largely uninhabited in Japan (if there was such a spot). Still, I do not know whether the rulers would have folded in the face of such a demonstration or what would have happened if the damn bomb turned out to be a dud (surprize was probably considered to be an important factor in the attacks). I do know that upwards of twenty atomic devices were either en-route for Japan or under construction when the military leaders finally shutdown shop, and that previoulsy a massive invasion of the southern part of Japan was planned for December of 1945. The projected loss of life was somewhere around 1 million Allied soldiers and scores of millions of Japanese peoples. With this knowledge I suspect that the people of Hirsoshima and Nagasaki, that lost their lives in the atomic attacks, may have actually helped save millions, even billions of lives by the terrible demonstrations of atomic power unleashed upon them. The use of atomic weapons against Japan was as regrettable as the World War itself. No more, no less.......
Let me conclude by saying I am not proud of the route taken to end the war in the Pacific, but that I understand completely why the attacks were carried out. My father would have turned eighteen in May of 1946 and he was simply not looking forward to going to Japan. When he heard about the atomic attacks and the subsequent unconditional surrender of Japan he, his mother and father cried together with Joy.
I really wish the world had not endured the Second World War but in the summer of 1945, the Allied people of the world were tiring of the death and the brillaint flash attacks were probably the best route to insure a speedy conclusion to a hundred million violent bloody deaths.
In the end who knows....its all second guessing but I will not wonder too much. If my father had died in Japan in the summer of 1946, I would not even be here to second guess, so I wont.
To the peace loving peoples of Japan, I salute you and wish a million years of happiness and prosperity to you <S>
Yeager
ps
The USS Alabama was permitted to attend Seafair.
------------------
(http://www.geocities.com/tas13th/sqsig/yeager.gif)
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 08-06-2000).]
-
Good post Yeager! Yep, there were several reported missing nukes from the former Soviet Union so they could be in any of the former states. I think the Ukraine inherited most of the nukes after Russia. You've heard stories of these being sold off to other countries and it's something to take seriously. I can see a time when the likes of Iraq and Libya will be in a position to have their own nukes and they're the sort of people that would use them! If Iraq used chemical/biological weapons on their own people (Kurds) then anything goes! I remember seeing a MOD video of that and I can tell you that it wasn't pleasant. Men, Women, Children all dead where they were standing.... lifeless bodies littered around what was a thriving village.
Anyway.... terrorism, dictators, hostile neighbouring countries.... when will it happen.....
'Nexx'
-
...snip...
[This message has been edited by Renfield (edited 08-06-2000).]
-
Yeager:
I see where you are coming from. To a very large extent, I also agree with you.
But, I do not think the two bombs dropped on Japanese civilians should ever had been released.
Frow what I've read, the Japanese were ready to surrender and made suggestions in this regard to the Soviets, who elected to keep their mouths a bit shut due to territorial disputes, some of which are still active. Of course, it was not an unconditional surrender; the Japanese desperately wanted to keep their Emperor. Anything but an unconditional surrender might sound bad in American ears, but keeping the Emperor would have only a symbolic value and very little political or economical.
If the Americans were and are a decent, fair people, they wouldn't have cried for blood flowing from Japanese civilians in an act of revenge for Pearl Harbour and the expansionism and cruelty the Japanese were guilty of. I have no idea whether anything less than an unconditional surrender would be enough to please the American people *at that time*, but I seriously doubt it. Or any other people for that matter on the victory run.
As it is now, the US and UN go to great lengths to negotiate peace in regions of trouble before intervenining militarly. Maybe it is a legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, maybe it is not.
But, the facts remains; a decent and honorable people (mostly) first developed the nuclear bomb. Luckily for us before the Soviets, Japanese or (gasp) Germans. The very same people (through their leaders) opted to use them not once, but twice, against defenseless civilians. This is in a way hard to reconcile with being decent.
An all out invasion of the Japanese islands would have been very costly indeed in terms of casualities. This, however, was not the only alternative.
To me, there were more sinister considerations that had to be made; what was the post war world going to look like? How could the US, who already knew about the cruelties of one of its allieds, show the very same that there should be no further aggression against other states by the communists? And how could the US secure the surrender of the Japanese before the Russians did? I.e power politics, in which names great atrocities and unjustice has been done.
Would the Japanese have surrendered if the US demonstrated the awesome power of the nuclear bomb? We will never know; because we never bothered to find out.
Were two bombs necessary? Usually, when I make a mistake once, I learn from it. I don't have to put my hand on a hot piece of charcoal twice to learn that it hurts. Or was the second bomb a message from the Americans saying "we are capable and willing of doing it again, and again, and again, if necessary?
The country that invented the atomic bomb is also the only country to have used it. Twice. I also feel that this is a fact worth consideration.
Overall, I understand why the Americans did it, but would have favoured a much more conservative and probing approach. It doesn't take much imagination to me as a Dane to think what would have happened if it was finished a few months later and dropped on a city in northern Germany, for one, bu that is secondary.
To me, (and please excuse the pun) two bombs dropped on civilians seem like a massive overkill.
Others might and will disagree.
But to ban B-29's or whatnot, or argue for this because of the bombs is, in my eyes, laughable and extremist. Banning Enola Gay from airshows is arguably ok (the US does have a large Asian population after all, and it is quite insensitive to show off that bomber in a sense).
<S!>
Oh, and...
Bloody American opportunist mass murdering thieves!
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 08-06-2000).]
-
Here's an interesting page on this, with lots of original documents pertaining to the decision.
It's called: Atomic Bomb: Decision
Here's the intro; want to know what the guys who made the decison were thinking?
"On August 6 and 9, 1945, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by the first atomic bombs used in warfare.
Documents on the decision to use the atomic bomb are reproduced here in full-text form. In most cases, the originals are in the U.S. National Archives. Other aspects of the decision are shown from accounts of the participants. This page was new May 29, 1995, and it was last updated August 6, 2000"
http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html (http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html)
-
I agree, i do not believe the Nuke had to be used ( but i certainly find demonstrations against things like b29s silly to say the least)
I think the bomb was dropped because, not only did we want to end the war with japan, but we wanted to show the russians how poerful we were. Also, we did not want to split japan with russia which might have happened had the war lasted a few more months. I don't think invasion was very likely, tho you do see people in videos training for hand to hand combat on the beaches etcera. Most of the bomb was IMHO polictics and the fact we had spent sooo mcuh money on it that we wanted something to show for it..
but as they say, hindsight is 20/20 and truman was new to the whole A-bomb thing, i dont know if he fully realized its destructive potential.
-
I read this over on AGW first, but I decided to reply to it here.
I have no problem saying that my fellow Americans in charge of their decision probably had racism and competition with the Soviet Union to help them make the decision.
I also find the use of the atom bomb repulsive, and equally so, any weapons of mass destruction. Hell, the whole idea of strategic bombing is offensive to me. You don't "break the morale" of a country by bombing cities and massacring its civilians; you just piss them off. How else do you think you can get people to fly Me163s? War is awful, 20th-century(and 19th for that matter) warfare is inhuman, but this stuff is just...icky.
-
Originally posted by Zigrat:
but as they say, hindsight is 20/20 and truman was new to the whole A-bomb thing, i dont know if he fully realized its destructive potential.
Oh, he knew. He was aware of the New Mexico tests, and fully knew all about its potential.
My personal opinion on the A-bomb released?.
After burning all tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Kyoto...after seeing thousands of Japanese people burning in low level murder night attacks on hopelessy undefended cities, I say that it really doesnt matter. In fact the trade off was good. Had the war endured for 1 month longer than it did, maybe the same people would have died in the burning flaming terror the japanese cities were in 1945.
Ah, BTW, The emperor didnt dare to ask for peace after Hiroshima, he had to wait for Nagasaki...and when it happened too he had to see thousands of people on the doors of his palace calling him not to sign peace.
So, yes, the A-bomb did shorten the war for long. And the lifes lost would had been more had the war endured longer.
(I wish LeMay is burning in hell, along Goering, Hitler, Stalin , Harris and many other monsters who fought in both sides in WWII)
<flame suit on>
-
StSanta,
Nice reply, thanks.
FWIW, I believe that the US military leaders
were commited to using the growing supply of atom bombs up and down the length of Japan until either the Japanese Race ceased to exist or the Japanese military surrendered unconditionally. The point being obvious: Who wants to lose a million soldiers killed and wounded when you can do it with a mere fraction of the cost. Already, hundreds of thousands of Americans had died and twice that wounded. The devilish memories of IwoJima and Okinawa were still on blood stained dungarees and in hospital ships and black sandy graveyards. In my mind this would have been a preferrable course over land invasion and I would easily make the same call if I were Harry Truman in the summer of 1945.
-if I were Harry Truman in the summer of 1945-
It is my understanding that the plan (Operation Olympic), was to overtake the southernmost tip of Japan, clear it of all vegatation and existing Japanese structures, build a large retaining wall seperating Japan northward and build dozens of airfields to begin the systematic annihalation of Japanese civilization. Sentiments in the US, and to a lessor extent, allied governments at that time were such that the total destruction of Japan was a deeply pursued goal. Thank God Hirohito stepped in and saved his people from utter destruction.
Also, were you aware of the fact that several high ranking Japanese officers tried to intercept the Emperors recorded surrender message to prevent its broadcast over Japanese radio! Such was the mentality of the Japanese military that they preferred the total destruction of Japan and its people
over surrender. Fortunately, the broadcast ocurred and Japan surrendered.
I can only speculate on this but I think the outcome was probably better the way it happened. I do not believe that the Japanese military wanted terribly to surrender and in fact sought the honorable death, taking all of Japanese civilization with them. The cultural mentality in Japan was such that you simply didnt go agaisnt the wishes of your Emperor.
In the final analysis, Hirohito, in spite of his record supporting the military and associated nightmarish conquests in Asia, really deserves some credit for saving Japan from total destruction.
Thnx for the link Toad, I look forward to getting smarter on the subject, perhaps it will modify my obserations.
RAM, you seem to be largely correct in my estimation but how is Lemay and Harris to be figured into the same crowd as Hitler?
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 08-06-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Yeager:
RAM, you seem to be largely correct in my estimation but how is Lemay and Harris to be figured into the same crowd as Hitler?
For the same reasons I include Goering Stalin, Mussolini...
Crimes against the humanity. all of them.
To bomb a city full of civilians by night until you level it because you cant hit it with precision during the day because a lack of design of my planes (Harris' explanation on night zone bombing, and not to mention his attack on Dresden).
To bomb a city full of civilians by night until you level it because you cant hit it with precision due for JetStream. (Lemay did that in Japan, no precision bombing at the altitudes he wanted B29s to operate so instead of attacking legitim targets with more risk he chosed to burn alive thousands and thousands of civilians)
both were examples of 2 men who didnt knew to do their work well and they bombed civilians to make the effect that they were doing something for the war effort.
It stinks. and it is a crime. And I hope they now are crying in the flames for it.
-
Hehe...ok, fair enough with applied logic.
Just remember that without Hitler and Tojo giving a damn good reason to fight, neither of these two guys would be remembered for anything, let alone their bloody, criminal response.
In the end Im just thankful that the side I inherited at birth (20+ years later) won the bloody damned war.
Yeager
[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 08-06-2000).]
-
Once again we of the "perfect 20/20 vision hindsight" are viewing history through the prism of our "politically correct" new social consciousness.
55 years ago, the United States was involved in a total war against Japan, one which the Japanese started unannounced.
Ram, ask yourself this: in a society committed to "total war"...say Japan in 1945 for example...where does the logistical trail that supports the front line combat soldier end?
The soldier is a target. The supply train is a target. The factory is a target. The factory workers are in support of the war effort. The train conductors that bring the workers to the factory are supporting the war effort. The farmers that feed the workers... well, I guess you get the idea.
You know, folks made the same kind of arguments against the machine gun when it was introduced. It was simply "too terrible" a weapon. But designers kept on designing and war making got even more destructive.
Total War is Total War. It isn't pretty and it never has been. Civilians die. Read up on what happened to the civilian populations of cities under siege in the Dark Ages. The scale is much greater now, of course. But nothing has really changed.
There were so many places that this terrible chain of events could have been broken.
You ask for a "demonstration" of the A-bomb? They were extensively warned of what was about to happen.
Either they didn't believe it or chose to ignore it.
Hiroshima was an incredibly terrifying demonstration. Did they surrender? No. It took Nagasaki to convince them.
Terrible. Awful. Disgusting. All of those.
But better or worse than 1 Million invasion casualties on the US side alone? Who knows how many on the Japanese side?
Any politician of any country would have made the same choice. You don't sacrifice your own people if you don't have to.
That was the "bottom" line for Truman.
All our hindsight won't change what happened 55 years ago.
I wonder if that terrible incident will be enough to save us in the future.
Iraq uses chemical weapons of mass destruction against its own Kurdish population. Man's inhumanity to man maybe the one constant in the world's history.
At least Hiroshima and Nagasaki had clear war aims: to end it immediately without the need for invasion.
Will the world be able to say that when the next nuke goes off?
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-06-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
You ask for a "demonstration" of the A-bomb? They were extensively warned of what was about to happen.
I agree. Even after Hiroshima Hirohito couldnt sue for peace. Nagasaki made him take the decision but still he had to counter the will to fight of many people.
but I disagree in the Civil matters. Civil population IS NOT a legitim target. Period. The mother who tries to feed her kids in a country at war is NOT a legitim war target. NO WAY in it, I find it undefendible and repugnant. If you want to kill an economy you have better means to do it...kill the factories, kill the commerce navy, kill the railway and road network.
But dont kill their civilians. I have the feel, Toad, that the city bombing from Allied bombers is seen as a "legitim target" because Allied side won. But, tell me, if Osaka and Nagoya and Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, etc were legitim targets...
Was rotterdam a legitim target in 1940? and London? and Coventry? and Belgrade in 1941?
They were ordered by a monster , a criminal, a sick morphine-addict fat son of a squeak.
But that criminal, sick son of a squeak's orders pale in comparison with those given by Harris and LeMay. They killed millions of civilians in their own houses. kids. Ladies. Mothers with little kids. Old mans. People who NEVER is a legitim target.
And Yeager, somehow I knew that here there would be an answer from somebody like the one that "hitler and mussolini started".
When I was a little kid (6 years or so) I was playing with my cousin (5 years) we got angry and he hit me...well you know how things end between kids (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I answered and he got the worse part,as I was the bigger of the two. Nothing serious, both crying, you know...but for sure it was clear that I had hit him more hard than he to me.
I got some hot-butt after my mom's claps when we arrived home after the "fight" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Did my mom understand he had started,not me?. She understood the right thing, in life you have to play with some rules. If someone breaks them YOU ARENT ALLOWED TO BREAK THEM TOO!
Damnit if I evade taxes I cant defend myself saying that a guy I know evades them too!!! cuz we'd both end in the jail.
After WWII Harris and LeMay were treated as heros. Those F***ng son of a squeak had a good and bright life after WWII as war heros.
I hope that after the death they got what they deserved, because in life there was no justice for them.
(BTW the first big terror bombing in all times, Guernika, happened only 30 miles from Bilbao ,where I live. SO I know who started. But I dont care that the rest were only followers. THEY DID the same so they are in the same league as the first one.)
( and that league is criminal against the humanity)
-
And the soldiers in the Dark Ages were pretty damn civilized about it too. Sure the crusaders would gloat about having seized Jerusalem, and spread Muslim, Jewish and Christian blood through the streets such that in the Temple they were up to their ankles in it. But, you know, when you have to face your victim, you automatically limit the numbers. On the other hand, if all it takes to kill a whole city is to throw a crank, you can be as brutal as you want to be.
This is what is scary and obscene about modern warfare: by depersonalizing slaughter, we can make the butchers much more efficient. It's ugly. The only thing worse is that we can use such tactics to slaughter people for the pure joy of killing them, without any significant benefit to the war effort.
RAM: the worst delusion to suffer is to find people who allow you your opinion, but don't think it important because you're a young college kid and are allowed to believe those things.
Oh, and back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The most obnoxious viewpoint around is best characterized by a former housemate (and local politician) of mine: "Well, if it's nuclear it's got to be bad". Sure, nukes are bad, but rallying against something because you don't understand what it is, and are afraid of it, is a position based on weakness and ignorance, and I fail to be impressed.
The same could be said for those afraid of genetically-modified crops. Geezus, look at what's being done, and what effects it can have. And take a glance at the Third World for a second.
Don't give me this BS about "Secrets Man was Not Meant to Know".
[/rant]
-
And in case you're all wondering what happened: I'm at my childhood home in California. Tomorrow I drive to Iowa. That last post is proof that the finest wines in the world come from out here. And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong in my chauvinism.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Whether any of us agrees or disagrees about civilians as targets is a moot point.
The fact is that civilians ARE targets. The entire "mutual assured destruction" concept of the Cold War was based on that fact. Right or wrong, it got us this far without another release.
When the terrorists do finally sneak a nuke into the US and set it off, it won't be at some small military base in the middle of the Nevada desert. It will be in a major, well known city.
I believe it will eventually happen, too. The collapse of the Soviet Union let too many weapons and fissionable materials get out into the world arms market. If you can sneak in a boat load of marijuana, a small nuke should be no problemo.
If ever a "World War" breaks out again, civilians will die in the millions. Won't be nice, won't be fun and I don't support the concept. But it won't make any difference what I think.
If there's one constant in human history besides "man's inhumanity to man," it's the ever evolving and improving weapons we build to destroy each other.
Cheerful thought, eh? After all this evolution, the one thing we REALLY got "good" at is killing each other. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by RAM:
but I disagree in the Civil matters. Civil population IS NOT a legitim target. Period. The mother who tries to feed her kids in a country at war is NOT a legitim war target. NO WAY in it, I find it undefendible and repugnant. If you want to kill an economy you have better means to do it...kill the factories, kill the commerce navy, kill the railway and road network.
But dont kill their civilians. I have the feel, Toad, that the city bombing from Allied bombers is seen as a "legitim target" because Allied side won. But, tell me, if Osaka and Nagoya and Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, etc were legitim targets...
All the more reason to vote, know who you vote for, and do it democratically. Don't be mislead.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
When the terrorists do finally sneak a nuke into the US and set it off, it won't be at some small military base in the middle of the Nevada desert. It will be in a major, well known city.
I did read that book of Tom Clancy. Frightening book, BTW.
But you said it. He who attacks a city with Cilivians as target is a TERRORIST. And we all know what do the terrorists deserve. Enuf said.
Rispnort, it was a democratic country who ordered massive city bomb attacks of Japan. It was a democratic country the one who ordered Dresden ,Hamburg, and countless other cities. I am quite sure that if in 1934 the US congress was asked to aprove an action consisting on bombing a city until is levelled, the stupid who asked for it would be imprisoned for criminal.
In 1945 the ones who did just that were treated as heros. It stinks.
The point is-you never really know what you are voting for until the one you vote is in the power...and many times you find that he is not what you are voting for. You may excuse what happened in the grounds of "hey, in the meantime they DID attack us!!! they were first"
Talion law...eye for eye?...that was the very same law used by the Neardenthals and Cromagnons 40000 years ago.
Who said we evolutioned? lol
BOmbing cities stinks. Period. Dont tell me that a mother with his little kids is a legal target, damnit. It is a crime, a monstrosity,something that deserves justice. And there was no justice for Allied Goerings.
As I said, bomb factories, destroy the commerce navy, put a blockade, cut his communication lines, destroy his oil sources, whatever...
But dont kill innocent people in the grounds of "war is hell so I bomb everyone"
Stinks.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 08-07-2000).]
-
I see the "don't bomb civilians" arguments against the use of the atomic bomb in Japan as being uneducated.
The museum at Nagasaki is rather interesting. Mention is made of the ship yard, the ammo factory and the steel yard... but 90% of the pictures are of the grade school.
Just what do you do when a school building is right next to an ammo factory? Or how about when some sadistic leader decides to put 500 people in a building also being used as a command post? You attack the target and sort out the rest.
Civilians were targets of all sides in the war. Civilians will always be targets. Leaders of countries realize when they go to war that they are not simply sending their military into battle, they are sending their entire country. Any attempt to place blame for the deaths of that leader's citizens is simply a way for him to absolve himself of responisibility.
BTW.. if you want to see a few more examples of atrocity.. check out the Japanese treatment of the Chinese and Koreans. I wonder if the Japanese would have dropped a atomic bomb on Pearl Harbor if they had the technology?
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
BTW.. if you want to see a few more examples of atrocity.. check out the Japanese treatment of the Chinese and Koreans. I wonder if the Japanese would have dropped a atomic bomb on Pearl Harbor if they had the technology?
AKDejaVu
So the reason to drop a A-bomb is "if they had one they'd drop it on us so we do it"?
Stinks still more than everything I had heard before.
I stated clearly before that A-bomb was for me a fairly good way to end a conflict that, had it continued, it would had been much costier. I'm not against A-bombs themselves, I am against ANY Terror bombing...and as terror bombings were going to be kept until the end, an A-bomb was faster way to end that slaughter.
"what to do if a school is besides a Army depot"---------->to aim at the army depot and if you fail, bad luck...you WERE TRYING TO HIT the army depot, not the school kids.
I'll never say a word agaisnt 8th AF on Europe, because their goal was to bomb WAR TARGETS (I'll forget about Dresden and Hamburg as they were very rare incidents in 8th AF existence). oh, sure, the sometimes missed the target and a lot of bombs fell on civil zones killing innocent people...but that is "colateral damage", damage not intended to be done.
US night bombings of japan AIMED AT NOTHING but the civil houses. OF course sometimes they hit a legitim war target on those terror bombings, but that wasnt the objactive. The true goal was to level the cities until noone could survive in them.
SO HERE THE COLATERAL DAMAGE IS THE FACTORY WHILE THE MAIN OBJECTIVE IS THE CIVILIAN.
STINKS.Its repugnant. Makes me want to puke.
And I still have to hear someone defending that because "hey if he had one he'd drop it on me".
So, if your neighbour wanted a shotgun to kill you and was refused to have an arms licence and you have one you'd kill him? what would you say in the trial? "oh,no I killed him because if he had a shotgun he'd had shot at me, I'm sure"
1st degree murder. Wtg man. You are a hero
Just as LeMay. And Harris.
Stinks
-
So the reason to drop a A-bomb is "if they had one they'd drop it on us so we do it"?
It wasn't meant as a reason for dropping it. Please read all the posts in this thread. The implication is that the evil USA is responsible for all of the worlds woes. Only the USA is evil enough to use the atomic bomb.
This simply isn't the case. Many contries have their share of atrocities. There would be even more if they had nuclear capabilities.
STINKS.Its repugnant. Makes me want to puke.
That's good. It should. Maybe more people should think like this before choosing war as an option. What do you think?
A common mistake is to try to give some kind of glamor to war. To make it seem as if it can be wonderful if you play by the rules. I'm sorry, but you are simply dillusional. War is one country fighting another. It isn't just military vs military... its country vs country. I'm sorry you have such a difficult time with that... but once again... it is better to have a difficult time with it than to accept it is going to happen and procede with the war anyways.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by RAM:
Rispnort, it was a democratic country who ordered massive city bomb attacks of Japan. It was a democratic country the one who ordered Dresden ,Hamburg, and countless other cities. I am quite sure that if in 1934 the US congress was asked to aprove an action consisting on bombing a city until is levelled, the stupid who asked for it would be imprisoned for criminal.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 08-07-2000).]
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
-
Hmmm interesting that of all the arguements and counter claims made here that everyone has forgotten the one important reason of WHY the bomb was dropped.
Japanese high command had issued everthing from bayonets to rifles to the population and trained them in their use. They would have defended their island to the last man, woman and child!
Casuallty estimates for an invasion of the Japanese home islands were in the millions not only for the allied troops. But also for the Japanese population. In the end it was decided that more Japanese would suvive if the bomb was used. That coupled with saveing
hundreds of thousands of American lives made dropping the bomb the only reasonable choice.
Yes it was terrible, but in the end the alternatives would have been much much worse.
Japanese high commands were split, many elements had no intention of surrendering. The loss of life in a house to house battle from one end of japan to the other would have truly been staggering.
I and hundred's of thousands of other Americans and Japanese are alive today as a direct result of the Bomb.
No one who was not alive at the time & had lived through the war has the right IMHO to judge those who made that decision. Pray we never face such a choice again.
-
There were three atomic bombs made. It would have been six to eight months before any more were available. (Not enough uranium)
One was used at the trinity test site in Alamagordo New Mexico.
The other two were dropped from B-29s on the Main Island of Japan.
The Japanese began to talk of surrender only after the first bomb had been dropped.
The Japanese people were training on the Mainland to help fight off the invasion.
The Emperor wasn't really an Issue, the U.S. knew Tojo was the real power and wanted him. That Emperor died like three or four years ago.
Some Japanese Journalist interviewed the Colonel who was working on the invasion plans for Japan. When they saw that the Allies were planning on landing Russian Troops on the Japanese mainland they were thankfull that the U.S. had dropped the bombs. They felt that the Russians would still be occupying large sections of Japan (Ala Germany.)
(I will try and find this info and post it here.)
More civilians were killed by the Fire Bombing of all the Cities listed above (Including Hiroshima and Nagasaki) than were killed by the Two Atom Bombs, and they didn't clamor for the Japanese Military to surrender then. These cities were not wholly undefended, why do you think there were so many bombing missions at night. The Japanese Anti-Aircraft on the Mainland was more effective that that over Berlin (Minor Damage to a Bomber had more effect because they had farther to travel in case of say a fuel Leak as opposed to Europe.) Also the Japanese Fighters were quite good when they caught U.S. Bombers (That is why the B-29s flew so high.)
Now, having said all that above.
The Japanese were pretty much isolated onto the main Island with extremely limited offensive capabilities to that point. The Allies had Air Supremacy, Naval Supremacy. Had denied the Japanese fuel and food and shelter and metal and oil and on and on. We could have isolate the island and continued to shell from our ships and bomb with our bombers without landing indefinately with minor losses. I believe due to the continuous pounding that could have been delivered (Add the Russian Air Force and Navy into the Frey) and the Japanese would have eventually surrendered (so what if it had taken another year.)
I belive that the U.S. Chose to use the Atom Bombs because they had a new toy. The wanted to demonstrate who was the biggest baddest kid on the block. The had developed the A-Bombs to use in case the Germans tried to develop and use their own, so that we could retaliate. They never suspected the Japanes of trying to build A-Bombs.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
"War is Hell"
General William Tecumseh Sherman
------------------
JG 2's current cannon magnet
Milo
-
Originally posted by ygsmilo:
General William Tecumseh Sherman
Another criminal. His quotes are worth his actions, that fer sure.
-
William Tecumseh Sherman was one of the best Generals of the Civil War. After my P-40 Piece for the techPubs site I am gonna do a thing comparing Sherman and Longstreet do determine who was a better general. Tough Call in my opinion. Sherman would happily have not fought the war, but once he got in, he was in. He was sent home because they thought he was insane when he started mentioning what it would take for the Union to win the civil war. Of the Union commanders he lost fewer troops than many while carrying on offensive actions. As for his scorched earth policy he didn't think it up (he borrowed it from the Russians who had used it against Napoleon) he wasn't very thurough, they had to burn Jackson Missisippi three times to put it out. Sherman often left plenty of shelter for folks (Just not the pretty white pillard Plantation Houses.) He also left families enough food to subsist comfortably on. Just not enough to feed the Confederate Army.
I will argue for Sherman, he was a pretty good general and decent humanitarian. (His bite was rarely worse than his bark.)
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Can we take into account the U.S. Bombing of Cities and put in it in context with the Japanese Bombing of Cities (Shainghai, Hangkow, Peking, Beijing, NanChing,) and the German Terror bombing of London?
Well the U.S. Bombed Dresden and Hamburg, and the Germans bombed London and the Japanese bombed a lot of China. And the Germans bombed Warsaw, and so on and so forth.
Oh, the U.S. were killing Civilians. The JAPANESE AND THE GERMANS WERE DOING IT TOO!
I have great new reel footage taken by the Japanese from inside the Japanese planes as they bomb CITIES in CHINA and KILL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS!
BTW Nagasagki had a Air Base and Naval Dry Dock Facility. They had bombed the Naval Facility at Nagasaki before.
They warned the Japanese that they had a weapon of immense destruction and said that if they didn't surrender they would bomb one city at a time out of existance. They bombed Hiroshima and said do you beleive us now, if you don't surrender we will do it again. The Japanese said you can't. We said one city every three days until you surrender. They didn't surrender and Nagasaki was bombed.
When is VJ day?
August 6
The U.S B-29 Superfortress, Enola Gay, drops an atomic bomb on the Japanese industrial city of Hiroshima. The city is leveled, and an estimated 100,000 people are killed immediately (another 100,000 will die later from radiation sickness and burns). On August 9, a second bomb will be dropped on the Japanese city of Nagasaki.
(Read Eyewitness accounts of exposure to the A-bomb -- translated from the Japanese Documentary: Hiroshima Witness, produced by Hiroshima Peace Cultural Center and NHK, and located at: (http://129.171.129.67/mf/hibakusha/).
August 10
The Japanese sue for peace after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and U.S. President Truman declares that August 14th will be V-J (Victory over Japan) Day. To date, nearly 55 million people have died in the Second World War, including 25 million in the Soviet Union, nearly 8 million in China, and more than 6 million in Poland.
We couldn't have dropped a third.
As I said, from my reading I don't think that it was necessary, the Japanese couldn't mount an offensive, and we could have denied them the resources to re-arm indefinetly. Without food and fuel they would have been forced to surrender. I don't believe the losses to the Allies would have been that great if we had waited them out.
But the Japanese were not ready to surrender until after the 2nd Bomb (Read Saburo Sakai's "Samurai," he still had fight in him.) Also there is a book about what the Japanese military was doing to prepare to defend the Islands. I believe it was written by the General who was in charge of coordinating the resistance. He wasn't ready to surrender either.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
I almost regret to post this because all the Vets I contact consider Dan Ford a terrible revisionist, but generally I find his book research to be fairly good.
http://www.danford.net/end.htm (http://www.danford.net/end.htm)
Man, I worry about the poor Japanese people who follow people like this.
I worry about the U.S. People too, we got our share of loonies, and our governement is working hard to create beauracicies like they used to have in Russia. Make the Red Tape too think and nothing will be accomplished because it is just to squealing hard to do!
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Originally posted by Downtown:
William Tecumseh Sherman was one of the best Generals of the Civil War.
Agreed
I will argue for Sherman, he was a pretty good general and decent humanitarian.
Decent humanitarian? you arent of indian heritage are you?
oh, man...decent humanitarian...my god.
The JAPANESE AND THE GERMANS WERE DOING IT TOO!
I have great new reel footage taken by the Japanese from inside the Japanese planes as they bomb CITIES in CHINA and KILL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS!
So? you are going to shot your wife because O.J. Simpson did it and escaped the justice? hum? or if your neighbour gets a shotgun and kills a man on the street you get your Colt 45 and you put a shot in the middle of his head?
You know what is the penalty for such thing? 1st degree murder?
In some of your states, means death penalty. In others you'd be in prison for all your life.
For sure you wont be treated as a hero. Harris was. LeMay was.
So that argument is worth nothing. That was valid for prehistoric monkeys or uncivilized 1300 wars.
Not for a XX century democracy.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 08-07-2000).]
-
Ram, you simply need to shut up. Read what you wrote.. think about it... and try a different aproach.
Or.. maybe think about this. What if you walked up and O.J. was murdering your wife?... and his wife was just there chearing him on? Wow... I'd say you'd be pretty damn pissed at OJ and not too thrilled with his wife either.
As for the rest of your analogies.. well... they don't really emphasize your intelligent side.
AKDejaVu
-
One of the more amuseing things about the American people, is that they will spare no expence to get the meanest guard dog thay can. And then they are always embarrassed to find that the thing likes to bite.
They suggested to Harry Truman that he apolygise for dropping the bomb. He replied that he was still waiting for an apology for Pearl Harbor. That pretty much sums it up for me.
-
Last night my 80 year old father was here and read this thread. He's the one that flew B-25's in the New Guinea campaign.
He read up through Yeager's 10:38PM post.
I asked him if he had any comment.
He asked me if all of "these guys were born after the war".
I said "probably".
He said "then there's no point in discussing it with them. Things have changed so much as a result of that war that they have no idea what it was like."
Then he went to bed with a wry, sad smile on his face.
So, I talked to my wife's uncle. A young Marine Lt. at Guadalcanal and a Captain at Tarawa, I asked him how he felt when he heard we dropped the A-Bomb on Hiroshima.
He said: "I cried. Tears of JOY. I finally knew I was going to live to see my mother and father again."
I asked him if he had any regrets over dropping it. He said: "I regretted that we hadn't had one to drop before Tarawa. A whole lot more of my friends and troops would be alive today."
Guys, we can't judge this decision by our standards.
They did what they thought they had to do with the information they had at the time. That's how wars are fought.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Or.. maybe think about this. What if you walked up and O.J. was murdering your wife?... and his wife was just there chearing him on? Wow... I'd say you'd be pretty damn pissed at OJ and not too thrilled with his wife either.
For sure I wont be happy, for sure I could do crazy things. But for sure I'D PAY FOR IT AFTER PASSING BY A JURY AND GOING TO JAIL!.
My "loved" "Bombermeisters" didnt pay for their guilts. And THAT is my point. In this world you can act well or bad. When you do it bad and against the law there are penalties to pay. There are a LOT of monsters in history that never paid for their crimes because they simply were on the winner's side. AND THAT is my point.
As for the rest of your analogies.. well... they don't really emphasize your intelligent side.
Why? they only show a truth in this world: you CANT act against the bassic morals of the Human being and hope to walk away untouched by some kinds of law. Human justice has a lot of defects but I am sure that divine justice doesnt (uh ,yeah I believe in god, not exactly the one painted in the bible but you could call me christian).
That is why I say that I hope they are burning forever in hell. Because if they are, they got what they deserved.
Toad,
I agree. Always the fighter's view is a completely different one. But I am NOT against the A-bomb, at least not because it was the lesser of 2 bads.
But I AM against massive terror bombings on civilian targets-and that is a different thing. Allied terror bombing thid nothing or very few things to bring the end of war,at the cost of millions of lifes.
A-bombs effectively ended the war at a comparable "low" cost (damned "low" anyway).
The A-bomb can be excussable. THe massive terror bombings aren't by any means. Its not legitimate by a war, by previous actions by the enemy, by impossibility to attack with precision at 40K, by impossibility to attack with precission at night, Its not legitimate by death march, by concentration camps , by jew genocide, by ANYTHING.
it is simply and plainly UNEXCUSABLE.
IMO, of course, but I feel that this is a bassic thing in human morals.
-
I'D PAY FOR IT AFTER PASSING BY A JURY AND GOING TO JAIL!
Erm.. You sure about that?
Also.. this is a domestic situation... not a war-time international one. You sure the same rules apply?
You seem awfully smug. You also seem young and naive. Don't know how old you are.. and don't really care. Its just the impression I get when I read your posts.
You seem to think you are making a point. You may very well be... just on the wrong page. Its obvious that you are missing on this one.
AKDejaVu
[This message has been edited by AKDejaVu (edited 08-07-2000).]
-
Actually the Uss Alabama is a Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) Submarine, not a Fast Attack Submarine!
That is all I have to say about that!
-
RAM, you saying that it isn't acceptable to respond in kind?
Then the Luftwaffe/Condor Legion bombed the city of Guernica to ashes the Spanish Republics did not have the ability to respond in kind.
When the Japanese bombed the cities in Mainland China, the Chinese did not have the ability to respond in Kind.
The U.S. and England did not set the standard for bombing Civilian Targets. That was set by the Germans and Japanese and Italians. They did it long before the U.S. and England.
I don't agree that bombing civilian targets (Population Centers/Cities) is a viable tactic. The Analysis of the bomber campaigns of WWII bear this out, all it did was stiffen civilian resolve to resist.
IMHO the U.S. and England were returning in kind policies that the Japanese and German had taken unto themselves long before U.S. and English involvement. They should have been prepared to reap what they have sown.
Ergo, what I am saying is. IF the Germans and Japanese established the policy of bombing defenseless civilian targets, then they also accepted the concequences of their actions. That a Like or similiar action may some day be taken upon them.
No it doesn't make it right, no it doesn't make the people who partook of such actions heros. It does make them realist.
I would be nice if wars were fought with the high standards of chivalry and morality that you call for and espouce. Think about it, under those circumstances there would be no reason for a war to be fought.
I try to look at things a bit more relistically.
In regards to Sherman I was reffering to his conduct during the Civil War.
In regards to the Conduct of the Military during the Suppression of the Indian Wars I feel that Sheridan was more responsible for the neo-genicide than Sherman.
Quite frankly the U.S. is lucky that people make more of an issue of Slavery than the Native American Policy.
------------------
(http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1/dtahcard.gif)
"Downtown" Lincoln Brown.
lkbrown1@tir.com
http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1 (http://www.tir.com/~lkbrown1)
Wrecking Crews "Drag and Die Guy"
Hals und beinbruch!
-
Gonna jump back into this discussion (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Then the Luftwaffe/Condor Legion bombed the city of Guernica to ashes the Spanish Republics did not have the ability to respond in kind.
Good thing, I hate seeing *civilians* on either side of a war die.
When the Japanese bombed the cities in Mainland China, the Chinese did not have the ability to respond in Kind.
Same as above.
The U.S. and England did not set the standard for bombing Civilian Targets. That was set by the Germans and Japanese and Italians. They did it long before the U.S. and England.
True, and the Germans also started killing intellectuals, gays, Jews and deviants. It does not justify for any other side to do so.
[quote9
I don't agree that bombing civilian targets (Population Centers/Cities) is a viable tactic. The Analysis of the bomber campaigns of WWII bear this out, all it did was stiffen civilian resolve to resist.
[/quote]
Yes, and this war known prior to the dropping of the atomic bomb and the massive bombings of German cities. Which sort of begs the question: why did the allies to it then? Strategig values? Well, some factories and railyards were located in cities, but these were located in rather small areas. Revenge? Certainly a possibility, and given the severety and brutality of the war, understandanble *to a certain extent*.
IMHO the U.S. and England were returning in kind policies that the Japanese and German had taken unto themselves long before U.S. and English involvement. They should have been prepared to reap what they have sown.
They were indeed. The question is; should they have done so? Or should they have taken the moral high ground?
A sadistic murderer tortures his victims before killing them. Should society respond in kind, or should society represent something more civilized; aim for a more abstract ideal? Opinions differ, but at least in my country, the former has a big majority.
Ergo, what I am saying is. IF the Germans and Japanese established the policy of bombing defenseless civilian targets, then they also accepted the concequences of their actions. That a Like or similiar action may some day be taken upon them.
I agree, but it is really a tangent and not relevant to the acts of the allieds.
No it doesn't make it right, no it doesn't make the people who partook of such actions heros. It does make them realist.
We agree it doesn't make them right. It also sounds as if you are ready to accept those reasons as excuses, apologetics, if you will.
The Vikings were big on an eye for an eye. The feuds between families are legendary; read an Icelandic sagae and you'll find the gore almsot floating from the pages. It is not, however,a viable solution to a very complicated and advanced morally upright society. At least I do not think so. One cannot stoop down to the lowest level of humanity and still remain dignity, integrity and moral strength.
I would be nice if wars were fought with the high standards of chivalry and morality that you call for and espouce. Think about it, under those circumstances there would be no reason for a war to be fought.
It would be very nice indeed. And the allieds had, in the case of the bombings of civilians, and opportunity not to respond in kin. They did, and I believe that is what RAM finds unacceptable.
Still, even if war were chivalorus affairs, they'd still be there. "Dear Sir, I believe that land is ours; history shows it." "Oh, but my dear man, you are incorrect; perhaps your historians are revisionists and in error. We have evidence that quite clearly shows it is ours". "Nay, they are not in error, and I fear we must take it back by force if you do not agree to settle this peacefully" "It appears to me there is no acceptable peaceful solution, Sir. Let the war begin"
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I try to look at things a bit more relistically.
Me too, but I fight off my own cynicism with a sense or realistic idealism. As I believe you too do; sounds like it from the posts you've made.
Quite frankly the U.S. is lucky that people make more of an issue of Slavery than the Native American Policy.
Couldn't agree more. The white US is lucky, that is (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
<S!>
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Have any of your read "Victory Through Air Power" by Alexander De Seversky, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1942?
I suggest it as a review of contemporary thought on the use of air power during WW2.
Here's a quick clip from Chapter VI, Airpower Lessons For America:
9. Destruction of enemy morale from the air can be accomplished only by precision bombing.
"Another vital lesson, one that has taken even air specialists by surprise, relates to the behaviour of civilian populations under air punishment. It had been generally assumed that aerial bombardment would quickly shatter popular morale, causing deep civilian reactions, possibly even nervous derangements on a disastrous scale. The progress of this war has tended to indicate that this expactation was unfounded.
On the contrary, it now seems clear that despoite large casualties and impressive physical destruction, civilians can "take it"....
These facts are significant beyond their psychological interest. They mean that haphazard destruction of cities-sheer blows at morale-are costly and wasteful in relation to the tactical results obtained...
Unquestionably, the indiscriminate bombing of defense-less open cities will be used, but for tactical and not merely morale reasons."
Remember, this was written in 1942.
-
Thanks Toad, very informative (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime