Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on August 19, 2003, 03:01:49 AM
-
http://www.msnbc.com/news/953981.asp?0cv=TB10&cp1=1
-
Exactly the plane I was thinking of when I read the thread title.
Wasn't it already on display, as just a cockpit and front fuselage? Glad to see it whole again.
-
You could make a strong arguement for Bock's Car. It proved the 1st one wasn't a fluke and we could do it at will. Always nice to see a grand old Lady returned to her Glory Days!
-
"...saved so many lives taking others?" would be a correct ending to that question Grun.
I was thinking more the DC-3, the Catalina or the Huey for evacuations
Daniel
-
The C-130 has done a great deal of humanitarian work too.
If you are going to say the B-29 was a life-saver, the Lanc should be right beside it.
-
I belive he ment single aircraft, not model. It's a strong point. The estemated loss of life on both sides of a mainland Japan invasion was in the millions.
-
You are talking about an estimation, while he is talking about a certainty. That's a distinction worth keeping in mind.
There are other planes more fitting for that title.
-
turn the "saved" into "shaved" and it would fit too, dont?
-
Dowding, you don't expect me to belive that if Churchill had the Bomb and a way to deliver it during the Blitz he would not have used it, do you? Or was it part of the Chamberlin "Peace in our time!" treaty?
What if the Russians had developed it first? How would Europe feel about that? Of course Stallin would not have used it against his close Allies .
Belive me the Japanese would have used it against us to win the war. War is ugly buisness and I hope there are no more, BUT, it was the way to stop it at the time.
-
Saved? That word shouldn't go into the statement... it should of said;
"This plane ended an ugly war with an equally ugly weapon, to prevent an even uglier number of unnecessary military and civilian deaths."
-
Agreed Crowwe.
That's nothing to do with the argument rpm. We will never know how many people were ‘saved’ by dropping the bomb(s) – the whole subject is based on conjecture. All we do know is that hundreds of thousands died. Consequently, that set of actions can hardly be included in a quantitative discussion regarding the most ‘humanitarian’ plane. It’s illogical.
More generally, the B29 is about as humanitarian as the Lancaster – i.e. not very.
-
It's always easy to create excuses yourself and look with bad at others excuses.
Hypocrisy.
-
don't be so dramatic, more people died in fire bombings than by the 2 nuks.
OMG...THE BOMB.....AHHHHH
-
The loss of life with a Japanese invasion would have been staggering. Anyone that doesn't believe it would have far exceded the fatalities caused by that bomb is fooling themselves into thinking moral superiority translates to clarity. Anyone that fools themselves into thinking lives lost is more important than how many more could have been lost is playing the "criticize the action cause we didn't have to live with the consequences of not doing it" win-win game.
I've been to Nagasaki... to ground zero. It's all been rebuilt. I wonder if that would have been the case if the U.S. was forced to land on the main Japanese Isles.
Dropping those two bombs was not a shining moment in world history. But it did end the war. Very quickly. I can't think of a single incident in any war that managed to end hostilities so fast.
MiniD
-
How many did the Lanc save in Dresden anyway?
I think the original title of this thread was correct, dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while killing alot of people, probably on balance saved more lives in total by bringing the war in the Pacific to a quick end.
How someone could try and make this into a "national pride in your bomber" pissing match is beyond me.
For what it is worth, I am not embarrassed nor ashamed of the US for dropping the bombs on Japan. The legacy of the Imperial Japanese forces, and the leadership of Japan during the war are responsible for millions of lives lost to pure brutal slaughter.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attrocity killing innocent people who were not at war, the attack and "rape" of Nan King has few parallels in barbarism, the incredible cruelty and slaughter of the Bataan Death March brings shame on the nation of Japan for history to record and remember.
I once watched a documentary about the Bataan Death March, and one of the survivors said "I don't feel bad about them dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, I wish they had dropped 10 more of them on 'em". To hear what they went through, I can understand his feelings.
dago
-
How many did the B29 save over Tokyo?
How someone could try and make this into a "national pride in your bomber" pissing match is beyond me.
That you draw that conclusion says more about you than about me. The lanc is just an example of a similar plane that did similar things to the B29. Interchange it with the Ju-88 if it makes you feel better.
-
According to these guys an invasion of Japan would have meant certain death for POWs there. The atomic bombs were worth it even if they saved only these.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/sfeature/bataan_siege.html
-
I could care less how many Japs it killed. They should have thought of that before they started crap. It would have been nice if we had a few more to drop with it.
-
Dang, the article says it won't be open to viewing until December. I'm going to be in D.C. next month, too. Timing is everything, isn't it?
-
The lanc is just an example of a similar plane that did similar things
Dowding
The article (and the origination of this thread) is about one very specific aircraft, not a type or series of aircraft. It is about the Enola Gay. That one aircraft is the aircraft that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The article that this thread was about was only talking about that very specific aircraft.
Which specific Lancaster, and which specific mission are you comparing against the Enola Gay and the Hiroshima bombing?
Dago
-
The funny thing is that the plane that really ended the war (Bock's Car) sits on display in Dayton with no hoopla or political BS. :)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
The funny thing is that the plane that really ended the war (Bock's Car) sits on display in Dayton with no hoopla or political BS. :)
I wouldn't say that Bocks Car ended the war, but I would say that it just put an exclamation point on "They're Serious, Emperor!"
-
"On June 18, 1945, Admiral Leahy pointed out that, if the "Olympic" invasion force took casualties at the same rate as Okinawa, that could mean 268,000 casualties (about 50,000 dead) on Kyushu. It nonetheless appears likely that post-war estimates of a half million American deaths were too high, but many tens of thousands of dead were a real possibility.
Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 49.
Now for the three different battle plans the U.S. might have used:
"*The most likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by the Tokyo plain (in early 1946)- about 40,000 American dead, 150,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing.
*the least likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu- 25,000 Americans dead, 105,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing;
*an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu and then (in early 1946) the Tokyo plain- 46,000 American dead, 170,000 wounded, and 4,000 missing in action"
Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 180
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
"On June 18, 1945, Admiral Leahy pointed out that, if the "Olympic" invasion force took casualties at the same rate as Okinawa, that could mean 268,000 casualties (about 50,000 dead) on Kyushu. It nonetheless appears likely that post-war estimates of a half million American deaths were too high, but many tens of thousands of dead were a real possibility.
Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 49.
Now for the three different battle plans the U.S. might have used:
"*The most likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by the Tokyo plain (in early 1946)- about 40,000 American dead, 150,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing.
*the least likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu- 25,000 Americans dead, 105,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing;
*an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu and then (in early 1946) the Tokyo plain- 46,000 American dead, 170,000 wounded, and 4,000 missing in action"
Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 180
And then add japanese military and civillian deaths to that.
-
The funny thing is that the plane that really ended the war (Bock's Car)
Sounds like an opinion (not necessarily shared by many) stated as historical fact. I don't think either attack can be said to be the ultimate reason the war ended, but rather the realization of the level of weapon they were now facing and the fact that it might be next used against Tokyo probably had alot to due with the unconditional surrender of Japan.
dago
-
The Japanese had (and to a certain extent, still do have) a sense of honor... Getting killed in battle was, for most fighting Japanese, much more honorable than surviving by surrender. A good example of this attitude: when the emperor was about to declare a Japanese surrender, there were assassins out to KILL THEIR OWN EMPEROR, just so they wouldn't have to live with the dishonor that came from giving up. This was after both bombs had been dropped.
The Japanese army would fight to the death on their own turf, more viciously than anything the Americans had seen up until that point. History tells us that as the American's moved closer to Japan, casualties from battles kept growing. The American invasion force would land on Southern Kyushu, which is full of cliffs and heavy vegetation. They would be forced to fight an uphill battle in unfamiliar terrain, against a Japanese army that would never give up. Chances are that some civilians would be forced to fight as well. Japanese casualties would be much higher than American casualties.
Now, I just need to find the book I read about all this...
But on another note, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rank 2nd and 5th as the attacks of WW2 that cost the most lives. The only reason anyone makes a big deal is that they were both done with a single bomb.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
"On June 18, 1945, Admiral Leahy pointed out that, if the "Olympic" invasion force took casualties at the same rate as Okinawa, that could mean 268,000 casualties (about 50,000 dead) on Kyushu. It nonetheless appears likely that post-war estimates of a half million American deaths were too high, but many tens of thousands of dead were a real possibility.
Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 49.
Now for the three different battle plans the U.S. might have used:
"*The most likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by the Tokyo plain (in early 1946)- about 40,000 American dead, 150,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing.
*the least likely, an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu- 25,000 Americans dead, 105,000 wounded, and 2,500 missing;
*an autumn 1945 attack on southern Kyushu, followed by northwestern Kyushu and then (in early 1946) the Tokyo plain- 46,000 American dead, 170,000 wounded, and 4,000 missing in action"
Judgement at the Smithsonian, page 180
What's your point? That his thread title should read "Has any single plane ever saved so many AMERICAN lives?
-
Yeah I was thinking about the B29 too...saved a lot of AMERICAN and JAPANSES lives, probably in terms of millions. Compare tha with the 100,000 it ended.
-
I would agree to the topic of this thread and the aircraft, the Enola Gay. However, in contrast, that same aircraft (or Bock's Car) probably also holds the title for having extenguished the most lives as well.
Dago, just ignore Dowding. That guy will argue anything, just to hear his own keyboard, I think.
-
So many excuses for dropping couple of abombs.
Geez.. do some of you people even look at yourself what you're posting here.
Elsewhere some of you are going nuts over other similar kind of things that other nations does and then praising how 2 abombs saved lives and makes right for dropping those...
Hypocrisy at it's best.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
So many excuses for dropping couple of abombs.
Geez.. do some of you people even look at yourself what you're posting here.
Elsewhere some of you are going nuts over other similar kind of things that other nations does and then praising how 2 abombs saved lives and makes right for dropping those...
Hypocrisy at it's best.
What are we going "nuts over" that's similar to this?
-
I could care less how many Japs it killed. They should have thought of that before they started crap. It would have been nice if we had a few more to drop with it.
You sir, are insane.
What's your point? That his thread title should read "Has any single plane ever saved so many AMERICAN lives?
Are you offended because I posted some statistics? Continue being ignorant if you like. You act like someone is going to go back in time and stop the atomic bomb, don't worry, they aren't.
The casualties listed above are both combat and accident.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
You sir, are insane.
Are you offended because I posted some statistics? Continue being ignorant if you like. You act like someone is going to go back in time and stop the atomic bomb, don't worry, they aren't.
The casualties listed above are both combat and accident.
Who's offended? My point was who cares? You can speculate statistics all you'd like. That's all it is, speculation. I further added that even assuming your statistics were correct, again, who cares. I'd much rather the Japs die than Americans.
So, while I may be insane, at least I can read.
-
Dropping those two bombs was not a shining moment in world history. But it did end the war.
wrong. what ended the war was that the japs didn't even want to fight anymore. it was just rebels that were pushing the government to keep fighting. was watching show about it on history channel in may. what happened was the rebel leader surroundered the emporer and keep him locked up. he ask for help from another division of them army and his plan backfired and he got arrested and the japs surrenders.(few things i left out like the recording of the radio broadcast the emporer was going to make)
skull12
-
I would recommend you use not only the History channel to prove someone wrong, but some far more reliable and well researched books.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Dropping those two bombs was not a shining moment in world history. But it did end the war. Very quickly. I can't think of a single incident in any war that managed to end hostilities so fast.
Second drop was absolutly point less and first probably as well
jap empire was in deep troubles anyway.... check more books and more military experts all around world
demonstrate sutch power on civil target was stupid
rebuild Nagasaki a Hirosima was stupid as well, coz radioactivity were there many years after
-
Originally posted by threedays
Second drop was absolutly point less
Then why did Japan not surrender after the first one? First one should of been all they needed to surrender. Three days later, they got the second one dropped on them for not surrendering and still fighting.
Originally posted by threedays
and first probably as well
Only in your little world... if either one was pointless, Japan would of already surrendered.
Originally posted by threedays
jap empire was in deep troubles anyway.... check more books and more military experts all around world
They were in deep trouble throughout 1944 and 1945, yet they kept on fighting and taking as many American, British, Australian, and Canadian servicemen with them as possible. Japans resolve to fight to the death was proven 10 fold everytime the allies got closer to the homeland.
Originally posted by threedays
demonstrate sutch power on civil target was stupid
So it should of instead been dropped into the ocean right off Japan's shores. Aside from the radiated sea food and destroyed shoreline, Japan would of kept on fighting - they had every intention to do so. Or used it on a military target? Yeah, that would of been the ticket. Too bad the military targets were scattered throughout civilian areas.
-SW
-
AKSwulfe,
Second one came only 3 days after the first one and it still took more than 3 days after the second one.
Perhaps 2 more abombs would been needed?
It's not like you surrender a nation in a day or two like that, definately not back then.
Besides that, US was going for unconditional surrender, but the japanese did not want to surrender unconditionally.
Would you?
If US would have agreed to conditional surrender, it could have saved more people.
More to think about.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
AKSwulfe,
Second one came only 3 days after the first one and it still took more than 3 days after the second one.
Perhaps 2 more abombs would been needed?
It's not like you surrender a nation in a day or two like that, definately not back then.
Besides that, US was going for unconditional surrender, but the japanese did not want to surrender unconditionally.
Would you?
If US would have agreed to conditional surrender, it could have saved more people.
More to think about.
Again, you make a claim and then fail to answer questions about it. This is getting to be a habit with you.
Japan attacked the U.S. Why should we accept a conditional surrender? If Japan had stayed home, they wouldn't have been in that position.
More to think about.
-
Perhaps your math is poor, but lets break this down:
First bomb: August 6th. 3 Days later, August 9th, second bomb. 3 Days later, surrender. If anything, only 1 more bomb would of been used, but it never came down to that due to the surrender. You don't think that in those 3 days there wasn't any leaks of surrender talks? Amazing - because for the entire war the allies were pulling intel from Japanese communiques... guess the allies in their haste to drop a-bombs forget to decode Japanese communiques at the end.
It's not like you surrender a nation in a day or two like that, definately not back then.
You certainly begin talks, unless of course you have no intention of surrendering. Hint, hint.
Besides that, US was going for unconditional surrender, but the japanese did not want to surrender unconditionally.
Would you?
First part can be explained: They started the war with the intents of forcing us to unconditionally surrender, it was war... you don't deliver demands to surrender with a pretty bouquet.
Second part, would I start a war with a much larger nation? Well, lets step it down a size - would I start a fist fight with Mike Tyson?
If US would have agreed to conditional surrender, it could have saved more people.
More to think about.
If Japan hadn't started the war, there wouldn't of been a war. Don't start nothing, there won't be nothing. Pretty clear cut, Japan started the whole mess - they were going to go away with two black eyes and broken ribs, not a shake of the hand and a pat on the ass.
-SW
-
Oh, and lets not forget the death labor camps or the Bataan death march.
The US government and people of the time heard some extremely horrifying stories of what was happening to their husbands and sons.
There was plenty of reason to end the war quickly with as few allies' lives lost as possible, and the A-Bomb option was it.
This wasn't about saving as many Japanese lives as possible, it was all about saving the allies' lives. Japanese were a side effect people like to throw in there as a "well it also saved them". It was about allies' lives and thats all there is to it.
After all, I seem to remember it was Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini that started WWII... not the other way around.
-SW
-
There is no way allied/US forces would have landed on mainland Japan without a very large and extensive air campaign to level just about everything important. It may have ben another year or more who knows as the ongoing campaign continued. Still its sad because hundreds of thousands of civilians were zapped in a few seconds twice. I would hate to be the one that would have to do that, I mean drop da bomb (on anybody).
Germany got its bombs throughout the war...
-
I am getting so sick of these damn Fxxking European Liberals. Sit on a mighty high horse making judgements and condemnations without having done anything themselves.
Shoulda just let Hitler have Europe, make them all good little goose stepping sausage eating Nazis.
England is one of the only countries worth saving, mainly because they at least put up a good fight themselves.
-
The Enola Gay? Sorry that rethoric does not work. Its like still trying to justify a a very nasty attack. Do not try to put heroism and life saving with an act that was the apocalypse for so many. Nobody knows for sure what would have happened if they had not dropped the bombs. An invasion would have obviously caused endless death and destruction, but even that was not really necessary; an indefinite naval and aerial blockade would have more probably had Japan on a surrender sooner or later with less lost lives. A nation like Japan would not have been able to mantain structure for more than two years without outside resources. Then it would have been a matter of waiting how long the Emperor could withstand without his lavish luxuries and pressure; the government would have simply collapsed. And anyways one bomb would have been more than enough. Even dropping one bomb in a non-populated area just to show its power would have had Hirohito on his knees. You think they surrenderd AFTER the second one, but you think comunication back then was the same as it was now. The Japanese lines were all either destroyed or jammed. It took almost a week for official comunications in the chain of command to settle. And since they had no good comunication, it obviously took more than three days for their government to organize a surrender. 3 days between bombings back then was like waiting only an hour in today's time. They dropped two on cities just because they were itching to use their new super toy, and they wanted to know how effective it was against a real target. Remember that the Japanese back then were thought as sub-human by many, so they had no qualms about testing it on them.
Originally posted by Crowwe
Saved? That word shouldn't go into the statement... it should of said;
"This plane ended an ugly war with an equally ugly weapon, to prevent an even uglier number of unnecessary military and civilian deaths."
I am much more at ease with this definition. I even agree with it sometimes. But the truth is no one can predict what would have happened. You can argue it forever. But what is done is done, and in the end, it may have been worth it because the damage was so horrific that it may have prevented a real nuclear war between you-know-who.
Back on subject, two aircraft that have truly saved many lives are the DC-3/C-47 and the UH1 Huey, both in different roles.
-
Hey animal... didn't you find a nuke cruise missile washed up on the beach in PR?
The A-Bomb did not have to be dropped. But it did bring the war to an end. What an obvious conflict this must be for liberal wheenies such as yourself.
A blockade would have starved hundreds of thousands of people. An invasion would have caused untold damage to the country. Civilians on outlying islands had already committed mass suicides to avoid U.S. soldiers/occupation. 2 bombs hit 2 cities and the war was ended.
The ironic thing... the Hiroshima and Nagasaki stories are much greater than the Tokyo firebombing stories. I'd even wager that if we'd just leveled the two towns using B-26s nobody would really even care and the war would have raged on.
But... nukes are bad and no good can come from their use. Mmmmkay.
MiniD
-
Enola Gay! You christians consider that plane a sinner?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
The A-Bomb did not have to be dropped. But it did bring the war to an end. What an obvious conflict this must be for liberal wheenies such as yourself.
[/b]
Yeah it did bring the war to an end. I just think humanity would have done better instead of settling for a C+ effort. Truth is using the bombs was cheaper than a blockade, and America was tired of the war. They were willing to kill tens of thousands of dehumanized enemies rather than withstand another year of war rations and far away relatives.
A blockade would have starved hundreds of thousands of people. An invasion would have caused untold damage to the country. Civilians on outlying islands had already committed mass suicides to avoid U.S. soldiers/occupation. 2 bombs hit 2 cities and the war was ended.
The starvation of hundreds of thousands would have fallen on the shoulders of their government and of the people themselves. They would not have lasted long before dissent seeded. Even some of their more honored soldiers were tired of the war and wanted it to end. Sakai himself was against kamikaze attacks and in his writing he mentioned that most of his group was in agreement. Not all Japanese were mindless fanatics as it is comonly believed. The emperor himself was anxious and emotionally defeated and was only holding on because of pressure from his generals.
The ironic thing... the Hiroshima and Nagasaki stories are much greater than the Tokyo firebombing stories. I'd even wager that if we'd just leveled the two towns using B-26s nobody would really even care and the war would have raged on.
I agree 100%, and I never argued against that. That does not make the a-bomb attacks more human or justifiable.
But... nukes are bad and no good can come from their use. Mmmmkay.
MiniD [/B]
Do you honestly believe that good came from the atomic bomb attacks?
Look, I'll give you something; I know the foolishness in my arguement is that it has 20/20 hindsight as a backbone. I do *NOT* believe the a-bombs where thrown for the sake of evil, and that Americans where bad and the Japanese where poor lost souls who lost their way. I simply believe, from what I have studied coming from both sides that it should not have been so bad. Hell, one bomb would have been enough. Waiting three days back then in that moment was like throwing a nuke and waiting an hour for another one in the modern world. There was no way Japan could internally negotiate a surrender in less than a week back then. One day for news to reach the top level (how can you inmediately report that you just have been nuked into ashes?), two more day for the chain of comand to decide what to do with what just happened. They didnt even know that weapon existed; for all they knew it was fantastic bull****, they could not even describe what happened without refering to religious terms).
Anyways I'm gonna stop now because no one who does not want to agree will read this entirely. You can now attack me as an individual in order to save your Baby McRib calories in pondering what I just said and using a counter arguement.
-
Let me state for the record that I support the decision to use the atom bombs against Japan.
With that being said, I feel that all should read this document in its entirety. When you reach the conclusion you can sooooo tell that the US Gov't does everything only for the advancement of the US and tries to come up with any excuse to rationalize its actions against other nations. Animal, you were soooooo right about us, we come up with an excuse for everything, especially our new little toy.
UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY, Summary Report (Pacific War) July 1, 1946 (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#taaatjhi)
-
Originally posted by Animal
Yeah it did bring the war to an end. I just think humanity would have done better instead of settling for a C+ effort. Truth is using the bombs was cheaper than a blockade, and America was tired of the war. They were willing to kill tens of thousands of dehumanized enemies rather than withstand another year of war rations and far away relatives.
The starvation of hundreds of thousands would have fallen on the shoulders of their government and of the people themselves. [/B]
The responsibility for the dropping of the bombs falls on the Japs too. They started that war. It's a little late to say "Wait, we wouldn't have started it if we had known you were going to play with the big toys, that's not fair!"
-
A man is attacked by a burglar in his own house. After a fierce fight, he comes ahead and the burglar is on the floor incapacitated; he is still struggling, but cant realise he lost the fight and is pinned down.
The man decides that smashing the burglar's knees with a sledgehammer will in the end save more effort and damage than tying him down until the burglar can struggle no more.
After all, the burglar brought it upon himself.
-
Do you honestly believe that good came from the atomic bomb attacks?
Simple question (that you've already answered): Did the bombs bring about an end to the war?
How is it that no good came from their use again?
You seem to be arguing that people view them as glorious and magical devices. They were weopons. They were used. They ended the war with less loss of life than virtually any other scenario you can come up with. "who's shoulders" is not relevant... dead is dead.
The numbers that some dip**** posted above in regards to forcasted U.S. losses if we were to land on Japan were conservative. Take that number, then subtract that number and that's how many U.S. losses actually occured before ending the war. Now take that number and multiply it by a great deal and that's how many losses would have occured on the Japanese side.
A blockade would have starved hundreds of thousands. You seem to prefer this for some reason because it shifts responsibility. Of course, the U.S. would still be seen as villainous for using these tactics. And, somehow, the loss of life seems to be less relevant here.
It really comes down to the fact that a nuke was used and people need to do whatever they can to find fault with the decision because it eases their worries in regards to one being used again.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Animal
A man is attacked by a burglar in his own house. After a fierce fight, he comes ahead and the burglar is on the floor incapacitated; he is still struggling, but cant realise he lost the fight and is pinned down.
The man decides that smashing the burglar's knees with a sledgehammer will in the end save more effort and damage than tying him down until the burglar can struggle no more.
After all, the burglar brought it upon himself.
You forgot the part where the burglar raped and murdered the man's wife and daughter while he was sleeping. That would be a bit more accurate.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You seem to be arguing that people view them as glorious and magical devices.
MiniD
Oh, I am sorry. I must have misread the part when some people where claiming the Enola Gay was the plane that saved most lives in history; even above the DC3/UH1/U2/etc.
The Enola Gay was just like the Millenium Falcon when they destroyed the Death Star.
Originally posted by DiabloTX
You forgot the part where the burglar raped and murdered the man's wife and daughter while he was sleeping. That would be a bit more accurate.
Oh, then I also forgot the part when the man burns alive the burglar's family with gasoline as retaliation.
-
Originally posted by Animal
A man is attacked by a burglar in his own house. After a fierce fight, he comes ahead and the burglar is on the floor incapacitated; he is still struggling, but cant realise he lost the fight and is pinned down.
The man decides that smashing the burglar's knees with a sledgehammer will in the end save more effort and damage than tying him down until the burglar can struggle no more.
After all, the burglar brought it upon himself.
See, you're catching on. There's hope for you yet.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Oh, I am sorry. I must have misread the part when some people where claiming the Enola Gay was the plane that saved most lives in history; even above the DC3/UH1/U2/etc.
The Enola Gay was just like the Millenium Falcon when they destroyed the Death Star.
Oh, then I also forgot the part when the man burns alive the burglar's family with gasoline as retaliation.
I thought you said he had broken knees?
-
Originally posted by Animal
Oh, I am sorry. I must have misread the part when some people where claiming the Enola Gay was the plane that saved most lives in history; even above the DC3/UH1/U2/etc.
The Enola Gay was just like the Millenium Falcon when they destroyed the Death Star.
You forgot to list the SR-71. I'd also throw the C-130 into that list as well as the cargo planes used for the Berlin Airlift.
But then, you also ignored a very good point made by someone else. No single plane, hellicoptor nor spacecraft has ever had an impact (ended a war) like the Enola Gay and Bock's Car (OK.. 2 planes). Not any one single plane.
MiniD
-
I'll just leave this discussion with this thought.
Had I been the President back then, I would have ordered planes do drop leaflets all over japan saying "HEY studmuffin LOOK AT THE WEST SKY TONIGHT DURING MIDNIGHT WE HAVE A SURPRISE FOR YOU"
And then order the detonation of an atom bomb several miles off the west coast in mid air. All of Japan would have **** their pants when they see this huge impressive explosion and flash, and millions of dead fish next morning washing ashore.
Next day, more leaflets. "SURRENDER NOW OR WE'LL DROP TWO MORE IN SOME RANDOM CITIES, AND MAYBE A THIRD ONE IN THE IMPERIAL PALACE."
-
Originally posted by Animal
I'll just leave this discussion with this thought.
Had I been the President back then, I would have ordered planes do drop leaflets all over japan saying "HEY studmuffin LOOK AT THE WEST SKY TONIGHT DURING MIDNIGHT WE HAVE A SURPRISE FOR YOU"
And then order the detonation of an atom bomb several miles off the west coast in mid air. All of Japan would have **** their pants when they see this huge impressive explosion and flash, and millions of dead fish next morning washing ashore.
Next day, more leaflets. "SURRENDER NOW OR WE'LL DROP TWO MORE IN SOME RANDOM CITIES, AND MAYBE A THIRD ONE IN THE IMPERIAL PALACE."
What a waste of paper, and think of the FISH!
It's all speculation, and I'll speculate that it wouldn't have done a thing.
-
Animal tell us all how many young American lives had to be sacrificed in an invasion of Japan to satisfy your moral vanity some 60 years removed
But since you obviously dont care, let me just point out that over 100,000 thousand Japanese civilans alone died in the Okinawa invasion.
May I suggest you pull out a map and an encyclopedia to compare the size of Okinawa and her population to that of the main Japanese islands...
-
No, the only part Animal forgot in his little analogy was the fact that the poor "incapicitated" burglar was still wildly thrashing the man's body with a machette.
If you seriously believe Japan's military wasn't prepared to fight to the death, do you seriously believe Hitler wasn't hell bent on genocide? You must.
-SW
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Animal tell us all how many young American lives had to be sacrificed in an invasion of Japan to satisfy your moral vanity some 60 years removed
But since you obviously dont care, let me just point out that over 100,000 thousand Japanese civilans alone died in the Okinawa invasion.
May I suggest you pull out a map and an encyclopedia to compare the size of Okinawa and her population to that of the main Japanese islands...
I know its icky, but can you read? some?
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
No, the only part Animal forgot in his little analogy was the fact that the poor "incapicitated" burglar was still wildly thrashing the man's body with a machette.
If you seriously believe Japan's military wasn't prepared to fight to the death, do you seriously believe Hitler wasn't hell bent on genocide? You must.
-SW
No, his machete was removed, and he was too tired, starved, and thirsty to keep fighting.
Just like Japan's navy and air force was decimated and they had no resources to create any more of that. All they could have left was what they were saving for the final ground war. Rifles that could not reach B-29's and a blockade miles off shore.
The machete was Midway and Okinawa, and now it was used against him.
An invasion would have been unnecessary. But then again, Japanese are bloodthirsty zealots who would have rather die off waiting for an attack than surrender. All of them. Sure.
Humans are all the same.
-
Originally posted by Animal
An invasion would have been unnecessary.
I like that! Starve a nation of a hundred million to death!!! Devious! :)
Or maybe they should just have parked off shore and sang kumbaya to the japanese fanatic army..
Animal you're a smart guy but hell the hell are you so naive?
And Humans are not all the same. The nazis were very very human, but they were not the same as you, are they?
-
Hey Grun... Eddie just got a dual control Yak. He has two now and he's going to give rides in the dual control. Very pretty airplane in the gray camo scheme. :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I like that! Starve a nation of a hundred million to death!!! Devious! :)
Have you studied history? Do not underestimate the Japanese land and its people.
The Japanese sustained themselves in total isolation for centuries. With primitive technology. In a few months they can adapt and produce enough food. What they cant produce is weapons.
-
Uhmm, may I interject that you folks are arguing about something that has already taken place and nothing you can say will change that, so why argue about it?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but let's try not to abuse it.
-
Originally posted by Animal
No, because did not have enough fuel for ships or planes. All they could have left was what they were saving for the final ground war. Rifles that could not reach B-29's and a blockade miles off shore.
What were all those aircraft doing in the air intercepting the B-29s? Why were there Kamikazee attacks using aircraft stripped of their armaments loaded with explosives on allied battle fleets? Why were they building Bakas designed as a one way flight straight into a ship? Bakas used rocket fuel, not aviation fuel too.
There was plenty fuel left, aircraft, and ignorant young pilots prepared to launch one last hurrah at what would of probably been the bloodiest battle in history.
Originally posted by Animal
An invasion would have been unnecessary.
Interesting, why were no peace talks formed then? Japan would of not surrendered, they were prepared to fight to the end. Unless of course you want one of those blockades, which is far worse than any amount of munitions. Now you have people starving to death, ask someone who was in a labor death camp or a concentration camp how fun that is.
Originally posted by Animal
But then again, Japanese are bloodthirsty zealots who would have rather die off waiting for an attack than surrender. All of them. Sure.
I was waiting for this. That is perhaps the worst form of an argument to ever flow from a person's mouth or from someone's keyboard.
Originally posted by Animal
Humans are all the same.
They all get brainwashed differently.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
They all get brainwashed differently.
-SW
Exactly what I was thinking.
-
I love it when a guy sinks his own argument... If the Japanese could sustain themselves despite a blocade then why would they bother to officialy surrender and end the war with a US fleet offshore and no invasion, remember you said none was neccesary?
Why not just sit back safe and welll fed developingfor example biological weapons and fitting them their little baloons for a nice ride across the ocean?
How and why exactly would the war end in your scenario?
-
Great counter argument, unfortunately I have actually educated myself on the final months of the war in the Pacific. Apparently you have not.
Bye indeed.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hey Grun... Eddie just got a dual control Yak. He has two now and he's going to give rides in the dual control. Very pretty airplane in the gray camo scheme. :D
Kewl... :) The jump seat in the red one looked awul cramped, hopefully trhis is a bit more roomy.. :)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I love it when a guy sinks his own argument... If the Japanese could sustain themselves despite a blocade then why would they bother to officialy surrender and end the war with a US fleet offshore and no invasion, remember you said none was neccesary?
Why not just sit back safe and welll fed developingfor example biological weapons and fitting them their little baloons for a nice ride across the ocean?
How and why exactly would the war end in your scenario?
I was going to pounce on that myself.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Just like Japan's navy and air force was decimated and they had no resources to create any more of that.
Will give you the nod to the IJN being decimated. The rest is incorrect. Estimates are the IJA still had 2,000,000 men in uniform on the mainland as well as 9,000 aircraft to defend it. You do the math.
-
My Uncle was 17 years old, just out of training, and three days on the Pacific when the Bomb saved his life.
He was Underwater Demolition, and was slated for the invasion of the home islands.
Talk to him and you realize that the only reason you can talk to him is because of men like Oppenheimer and Tibbets.
-
Why is it that people like Animal only seem to care about
non-American losses? If I have a weapon that is going to
save my friends and family, damn skippy I'm gonna use it.
Nice to have the option of second guessing sixty years
after the fact, especially when you throw in a particularly vile
political slant. Bah!
Rino
-
The Japanese sustained themselves in total isolation for centuries. With primitive technology. In a few months they can adapt and produce enough food. -Animal
I saw that too and my head just about spun off my shoulders. LOL
Do not underestimate the Japanese land and its people. - Animal
Truman didn't, so he dropped the big one on them.
-
Dago, just ignore Dowding. That guy will argue anything, just to hear his own keyboard, I think.
I think I'm going to cry into my beer.
-
In my opinion a Nagasaki = a Dresden.
It's the willfull targeting of noncombatants. And that is immoral. I imagine just about everyone would agree with that in this day and age.
Look at how war is perpetrated now. Every procaution is taken to minimize civilian causalities. And they certainly aren't targeted. At least not usual. And if some group decides to target civilians. We call them terrorists.
I noticed that most people, who defend the atomic bombings of Japan, like to think that there were only two options. Of course, this is necessary in order for thier arguements to be valid. The see the US as having only the option of bombing Japan, or invading Japan.
However, Animal did bring up a third option. Demostrating the power of atomic weapons without targeting Japan itself.
Martlet speculated that this won't have had the desired effect. To Martlets speculation, I ask, wouldn't it have been better for the US government to try it out instead just speculating, especially with tens of thousands of civilian lives on the line?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
In my opinion a Nagasaki = a Dresden.
It's the willfull targeting of noncombatants. And that is immoral. I imagine just about everyone would agree with that in this day and age.
Look at how war is perpetrated now. Every procaution is taken to minimize civilian causalities. And they certainly aren't targeted. At least not usual. And if some group decides to target civilians. We call them terrorists.
I noticed that most people, who defend the atomic bombings of Japan, like to think that there were only two options. Of course, this is necessary in order for thier arguements to be valid. The see the US as having only the option of bombing Japan, or invading Japan.
However, Animal did bring up a third option. Demostrating the power of atomic weapons without targeting Japan itself.
Martlet speculated that this won't have had the desired effect. To Martlets speculation, I ask, wouldn't it have been better for the US government to try it out instead just speculating, especially with tens of thousands of civilian lives on the line?
It is unfortunate that civilians had to perish as a result of these bombings. However, understand that what preceded the bombings;
Japan, via Russia, was trying to obtain a CONDITIONAL surrender and not an UNCONDITIONAL surrender as demanded (and TOTALLY justified) by the US. Truman takes over after FDR passes away in April, 1945. He is then told about a weapon that can end the war sooner with the potential (read that word again, POTENTIAL) to save hundred's of thousands of lives on BOTH sides. The only drawback is he only has 3 of them at his disposal. You have just spent the largest amount of money and resources on this weapon over the last 3 years than on any other weapons program and until testing is done it still may not work.
Demonstrating the weapon to a group of Japanese representatives may or may not have any positive results. Using the weapon on a hard target has a much better chance of getting the desired results but no guarantees. The result? He decides to shorten the war and use them. 2 cities lay in ruins and even after that the Japanese military still wants to continue the fight. Only in the Emperor's intervening actually starts the peace movement within Japan.
Yes, the casualties of Olympic are guesstimates at best, but with 2,000,000 troops and 9,000 aircraft ready I don't feel the losses would have justified NOT dropping the bomb. You can't compare what is being done to today with 60 years ago. All I know is that Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, the rape of Nanking, and the invasion of Korea and the Phililppines by the Japanese were more than enough to justify using nukes. It seems most of the anti-nuke people are non-US citizens. Well, thank Oppenheimer, Leslie Groves, Paul Tibbets and the rest that you aren't speaking Japanese.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Interchange it with the Ju-88 if it makes you feel better.
Ju-88Gs did save lives :p
-
From what I know a "demonstration" atomic blast was considered during the war and that option was rejected as they felt the Japanese authorities would percieve it as a trick and so not beleive the impact of the new weapon, end of story. :)
-
Favor to ask some of you. Please stop referring to "Japs" when you're talking about the Japanese. It is not neccessary. For some it is offensive. That War's over ;) ( I am half-Japanese from my mother's side ) Thanks in advance.
I don't think warning the Japanese to watch out for "something special" is neccessarily the most prudent move. No telling what interceptors they might have for the waiting reception.
The first one dropped on Japan I don't object to at all. That war was a total war. I'd bet any of the major combatants would have used it on the other side to get a surrender (had they had the capability to deliver it also).
The second one was totally unneccessary IMHO at least for the reasoning of having the other side surrender unconditionally.
The second one was to demonstrate our capabilty to the Soviets, my guess.
Speaking to my Japanese relatives and friends, I got the impression of not a fanatical, suicidal populace willing to go do battle with the invaders, but of total fear of their lives. They believed the American soldiers to be devils that would rape and kill them. Some of them would commit suicide rather than face that "evil." Swords, knives, and spears are no match against an army bearing modern firearms.
Atomic bombings, fire bombings, conventional bombings all that level whole cities and towns are tragic. Sad what humans would do to each other out of hate. That's war for you.
These 20/20 arguments are kind of silly. What's happened we can't change. We can only hope we learn from our mistakes and successes to improve our lot.
Regards.
-
BTW, both B29s can have the claim for individually destroying the most lives and potentially saving the most in their single bombing.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Favor to ask some of you. Please stop referring to "Japs" when you're talking about the Japanese. It is not neccessary. For some it is offensive. That War's over ;) ( I am half-Japanese from my mother's side ) Thanks in advance.
I wasn't aware "Japs" was offensive. It wasn't my intent. My apologies. I can't keep up with what is PC and what isn't anymore.
-
I don't think there is any mystery in why we dropped the bomb. We did so because we could.
I would imagine that if you asked the average American that had lived through the horror of WWII, you would have found that he or she would have been willing to trade hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives to save even a few Americans. I don't think you can underestimate the allure of vengeance. The fact that we can look at the events of over half a century ago calmly and analytically and through the lens of modern sensibilities will never change the fact that, in 1945, we hated the Japanese and did not weep at the devastation the A-bombs inflicted on the Japanese populace.
I would sum up my feelings on the matter like this: Dropping the bombs unquestionably saved American lives. The loss of innocent Japanese lives was a tragedy. Ultimate responsibility for that tragedy lies with the Japanese government.
-
A question for you all. You are the leader of one of the countries
involved in WWII.You're scientists invented a new super weapon and delivery system that in a single drop will destroy an entire city. It will most likely force an unconditional surrender of the other side as they don't have anything like that yet. I don't care if you speak for Japan, England, Germany, USA, etc. The year is sometime in 1943. You'll be able to hit a target in late '43.
Do you use it?
I would and in a heartbeat.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I wasn't aware "Japs" was offensive. It wasn't my intent. My apologies. I can't keep up with what is PC and what isn't anymore.
Thank you, sir.
-
I stopped using the word "Jap" along time ago out of respect. Lately, I have found the word "Yank" or "Yanks" offensive, so if you guys would...please refrain from it. I'm serious too, no joking around.
-
Animal,
Your idea regarding the dropping of the leaflets and then exploding a bomb offshore is a good one, and it was actually considered by the planners.
Problem was....they only had two bombs.....and they had no certain way of knowing whether it would actually go off the way it should.
The US would have looked very silly advertising the dropping of a bomb if it didn't blow.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Animal,
Your idea regarding the dropping of the leaflets and then exploding a bomb offshore is a good one, and it was actually considered by the planners.
Problem was....they only had two bombs.....and they had no certain way of knowing whether it would actually go off the way it should.
The US would have looked very silly advertising the dropping of a bomb if it didn't blow.
Hehe, yeah...like, I love young guys that think that they've thought of something that the US Brass hadn't thought of during this time (Waves to Animal) ;) (Sigh, guess I too had "all the answers" when I was young, too ;) ...)
Can you imagine..."Hey Japan, watch THIS! {Fizzzzzzzle}..."Er, wait 6 months, we'll be RIGHT BACK!"
-
Haven't read all posts, but what i have read im suprised no one has mentioned Russia's involvement in the manchuria campaign. This was also one of the reason's that japan surrendered apparently.
Personally i agree that the atomic bombs were justified - if only to get payback for the POW's - let alone to save 100,000's of lives of not only the allies, but also japanese themselves.
Also the demonstration of power may have stopped future nuclear war because all countries were scared of it. So who knows how many lives it really saved?
War is hell.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Haven't read all posts, but what i have read im suprised no one has mentioned Russia's involvement in the manchuria campaign. This was also one of the reason's that japan surrendered apparently.
I believe the Soviets began that campaign after the first bomb was dropped, no? And, it wasn't mainland Japan, so I highly doubt that would have been a deciding factor. The U.S. was a much bigger threat parked offshore at Okinawa!:eek:
-
The man decides that smashing the burglar's knees with a sledgehammer will in the end save more effort and damage than tying him down until
Lets continue the scenario to the realistic ending:
Several weeks later, the man is served a summons whereupon he is stunned to discover the burglar is now suing him for infliction of grevious injuries and violation of his civil rights. In discussing the case with his newly hired lawyer (at great cost), his lawyer tells the man that if he had killed the burglar, he would not have been prosecuted as he was acting in self-defense protecting his life, family and property, and there would be no lawsuit. BUT, because he left the burglar alive, he must now defend himself from this lawsuit that quite probably will cost him a tremendous amount of money and possibly cause the loss of his home.
So, if we want to apply Animals stupid methaphor to Japan and the end of the war, maybe we should have nuked them into oblivion leaving not one soul alive on the Japanese mainland?
Good point Animal, but a little to drastic.
Another point Animal:
Oh, I am sorry. I must have misread the part when some people where claiming the Enola Gay was the plane that saved most lives in history;even above the DC3/UH1/U2/etc.
Like another person responding to this thread, you seem to suffer a comprehension issue, this thread was about one single particular aircraft, the Enola Gay, not about a series or model of aircraft. It is not about B29s, it is about the Enola Gay. Which particular DC3, UH1, etc were you thinking about?
Now go watch your Susan Sarandon and Alex Baldwin movies.
dago
-
didnt read all theses posts..but..
i got a signed book from a guy who was a b-24 pilot...got shot down over japan doing a extremly wasteful bom run--horrible targte to hit--
he became a pow in nagasaki...one day he was being interegated in a near by city...his crew died in pow camp in nagaskai...
he said the only thing he was really pissed about was that the us gov did not aknowledge they knew there was american pows in the camp at that time..
but he defntly agreed that it saved hundreds of thousand s of men women and childrens lives...
one of his crew men was still alive after the bom...the japs tied him to a bridge w/ a sign that said"i kill your family- please throw stones at me"
he was stoned to death as ech jap walked by.....
you know what..America and her Allies...except russia..were not even half as brutal and outrigth savage as japan-germany was....i hate them for tht sht..i will never forget...
makes me want to bom them.... especailly the way germany has been acting now..
Please read the book if you can..its pretty short....
He lives near my sister in Moab, Utah..
"A Date With Lonesome Lady - A Hiroshima POW returns" ...title of his book..and name of his b-24..
Lt. T.C. Cartwright Us Army Air Force
BiGB
xoxo
-
Originally posted by Dago
Now go watch your Susan Sarandon and Alex Baldwin movies.
OUCH!!!!!!!!! ;)
-
Please stop referring to "Japs" when you're talking about the Japanese. It is not neccessary.
-
Well thank the lord we have Puke here to tell us all what is offensive and what isn't.
:rolleyes: <--------------- Animal LOOOOK!!
-
Please stop referring to "Japs" when you're talking about the Japanese. It is not neccessary.
-
Well thank the lord we have Puke here to tell us all what is offensive and what isn't.
Nanking, China. Over 200,000 Chinese men used for bayonet practice, machine gunned, or set on fire. Thousands more were murdered. 20,000 women and girls were raped, killed or mutilated. The
massacre of a quarter million people was an intentional policy to force China to make peace. It did not happen. World opinion, which until this time had accepted modern Japan's desire to oversee backward China, was repelled in horror.
New officers indoctrinated to the expectations of war by beheading Chinese captives. The last stage of the training of combat troops was to bayonet a living human and a trial of courage for the officers. Prisoners were blindfolded and tied to poles. Soldiers dashed forward to bayonet their target at the shout of "Charge!"
Combat medical units moved to China where live bodies were plentiful. If the class was in sutures, a chinaman was shot in the belly for doctors to practice; amputations, then arms were removed.
Bacterial warfare experiments conducted by an infamous medical unit moved to Manchuria. Bombs of anthrax and plague tested on Chinese cities until the results were so good that too many Japanese
soldiers also died. This unit also practiced vivisection. More details of unit 731 unit, along with Web citations for those with the stomach.
Malaya. Japanese troops decapitated 200 wounded Australians and Indians left behind when Australian troops withdrew through the jungle from Muar.
Singapore. Japanese soldiers bayonet 300 patients and staff of Alexandra military hospital 9 Feb 1942. British women had their hands behind their backs and repeatedly raped. All Chinese residents were interviewed and 5,000 selected for execution.
Wake Island. A construction crew of 1,200 mostly Idaho youths, captured when Wake Island fell, were shipped to Japanese prison camps. Five were beheaded to encourage good behavior. The Japanese
decided to keep 100 of the civilian contractors on the island to complete the airbase, which became functional by 1943 . When US Navy planes attacked the island, the Japanese commander executed the
civilians.
Dutch East Indies. Those Dutch accused of resisting Japan or participating in the destruction of the oil refineries had arms or legs chopped off. 20,000 men were forced into the ocean and machine gunned.
20,000 women and children were repeatedly raped, then many were killed.
Dutch Borneo. The entire white population of Balikpapan was executed.
Java. The entire white male population of Tjepu was executed. Women were raped. Survivors of USS Edsall (DD-219) are beheaded.
Philippines. Any soldier captured before the surrender was executed. The Bataan Death March -- 7,000 surrendered men died. Those that could not keep up the pace were clubbed, stabbed, shot, beheaded or buried alive.
Once the prison camp had been reached, disease, malnutrition and brutality claimed up to 400 American and Filipinos -- each day.
Thailand. 15,000 military prisoners and 75,000 native laborers died building a railroad between Bangkok and Rangoon. Bridge Over the River Kwai.
Doolittle Raid, Japan. Three of eight US airmen captured were executed. Doolittle Raid, China. Twenty five thousand Chinese in villages through which the US flyers escaped were slaughtered in a three month reign of terror.
Midway. Japanese destroyers rescued three U.S. naval aviators; after interrogation, all three were murdered.
Attu. Japanese troops overran the medical aid station; after killing the doctors, they bayoneted the wounded.
Makin Atoll. Nine of Carlson's Marine raiders were left behind, hid for two weeks and surrendered. They were beheaded a few weeks later when a ship was not available to take them to a prisoner of war camp.
Indian Ocean. Capt Ariizumi, ComSubRon One, commanded submarine I-8 in the Indian Ocean. On March 26th, 1944, he collected from the water and massacred 98 unarmed survivors of the Dutch
merchantman Tjisalak he'd sunk south of Colombo. He repeated this performance with 96 prisoners from the American Jean Nicolet in the Maldives on July 2nd. He destroyed the lifeboats and dived, leaving 35 bound survivors on deck. 23 managed to untie their bonds and swim all night to be rescued by the Royal Indian Navy. Capt Ariizumi committed hara-kiri while his squadron was being escorted to Yokosuka by the U.S. Navy. I-26 is also known to have rammed merchant lifeboats from Richard Hovey and machine-gunned those in the water.
3Aug45. Japanese hospital ship Tachibana searched by Charrette (DD-581) when observed throwing weighted bags overboard. Found thirty (30) tons of ammunition, mortors, and machine guns in Red Cross
boxes along with 1,500 soldiers released from hospital on Kai bound for Soerabaja.
Japan. Eight US airmen were used for medical dissection at Kyushu Imperial University with organs removed while the prisoners were still alive.
Source :http://www.marshallnet.com/~manor/ww2/atrocity.html
Many other sources are easily available to read, numerous books and websites documenting the brutal history of Japans actions in WWII.
-
This one went down the tubes.