Nutjob tries to vandalize the Enola Gay

[Stormbringer]

This is going to sound cold, but if using that bomb saved even one US soldier, then I don't give a rat's ass how many of the enemy died to save that soldier's life.

It's attitudes like yours which caused that war in the first place. Once you decide that a human population can be rendered undeserving of human sympathy by the actions of its leaders, you have made all of the downward progress necessary.

Mike, it's hardly like the Japanese people were simply along for the ride unwillingly. They supported the war and there for do deserve their share of the blame for it.

[Worlds Spanner]

The police should have dragged them outside, beaten to near the point death and then asked very kindly if they'd appreciate that happening every day for several years?

Jesus Christ, they have rights too you know, even if they're jerks. Take a deep breath.

A sub at my hs was going to be part of the second wave to attack Japan (the one that would have went in after the beachhead had been established). He was totally in favor of the bomb, and quotes much higher figurees for invasion casualties.

You have an 80 some year old subby?

That's nothing. Back in my HS we had a sub who flew for the Luftwaffe in WWII. Yes that's right, a German pilot. He made it to the US as one of those guys the Nazi's had pushed around, like the rocket engineers.
___

On a seperate note, does anyone know anyhing about the Enola Gay exhibit? I know that is was canceled years ago because vet groups were "offended" that it accurately portrayed the effects of the bomb. They claimed that it was effectively a smear campaign against the entire US military in WWII.

Then I heard a rumor that the current exhibet had cut all material about the effects of the bomb (skin burned off, etc, etc).

Does anyone know if this is true?

[Darth Wong]

This is going to sound cold, but if using that bomb saved even one US soldier, then I don't give a rat's ass how many of the enemy died to save that soldier's life.

It's attitudes like yours which caused that war in the first place. Once you decide that a human population can be rendered undeserving of human sympathy by the actions of its leaders, you have made all of the downward progress necessary.

Mike, it's hardly like the Japanese people were simply along for the ride unwillingly. They supported the war and there for do deserve their share of the blame for it.

Oh I see, so it's OK to not give a rat's ass how many women and children perish, even if it's only to save a single American. Gotcha

Did you even look at the statement you were defending? Or are you truly that devoid of ethics?

[Stormbringer]

I hope it was in jest, too, because such an attitude is absolutely disgusting and reeks of jingonistic apathy.

Glocksman was simply stating the logic behind the total war waged by both sides. Jingoism has nothing to do with it nor does apathy.

The life of a civilian is ALWAYS more important than the life of a soldier...

Not from an objective veiw point, and World War 2 in the end came down to the cold hard numbers.

[Durandal]

Mike, it's hardly like the Japanese people were simply along for the ride unwillingly. They supported the war and there for do deserve their share of the blame for it.

Be sure to remember that if Osama bin Laden decides to spread a biological plague in the States.

[Stormbringer]

Oh I see, so it's OK to not give a rat's ass how many women and children perish, even if it's only to save a single American. Gotcha

Did I ever say that Mike? I said that the Japanese were not forced to go to war against their will nothing more. They were willing and ready to support their leaders and bear their share of the blame for the war.

As for the A-bomb, yes those were justified by the simply fact that more would have died had we not.

Did you even look at the statement you were defending? Or are you truly that devoid of ethics?

I'm not defending Glocksman's statement. I object to your turning this into a bullshit black and white dilemna that is wasn't.

[Stormbringer]

Mike, it's hardly like the Japanese people were simply along for the ride unwillingly. They supported the war and there for do deserve their share of the blame for it.

Be sure to remember that if Osama bin Laden decides to spread a biological plague in the States.

And simply slaughtering civilians for the hell of during a time of peace equates with a justified attack in time of declared war how?

[Glocksman]

I hope it was in jest, too, because such an attitude is absolutely disgusting and reeks of jingonistic apathy.

Glocksman was simply stating the logic behind the total war waged by both sides. Jingoism has nothing to do with it nor does apathy.

The life of a civilian is ALWAYS more important than the life of a soldier...

Not from an objective veiw point, and World War 2 in the end came down to the cold hard numbers.

The comment reflects the view that Truman at the time had to take.


As C-in-C, his responsiblity was to the US military and ultimately to the American people, not to the Japanese people. If he had to order 100,000 Japanese killed with the bomb in order to save the lives of 1000 or 100,000 Americans, then he had to do so. I don't think he relished the idea, and I don't either, but in the end the object of war is to win and you win by either killing the enemy or forcing them to surrender.

The Japanese Army was by no means ready to surrender. Hell, even with the bomb, elements of the Army tried to stage a coup in order to keep on fighting. Without the bomb, the IJA would never have surrendered without a bloody invasion costing hundreds of thousands of US lives and millions of Japanese lives.

Congress would have rightfully impeached him instantly had he not used the bomb and we lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers during the invasion.

I overstated the point for shock value, but Truman couldn't and shouldn't have concerned himself with lowering Japanese casualties at the expense of increased US casualties.

fucking brilliant. Using this line of reasoning ANYTHING can be done to keep your soldiers alive at the expense of everyone else. We didn't drop the bomb to save just one soldiers life. We dropped the bomb to save more US soldiers lives AND tens of millions of Japanesse citizens lives.

Saving Japanese lives didn't enter into the equation at the time.
The rationale for using the bomb was to avoid an invasion that would be extremely costly in US lives, or if you believe Gar Alperovitz, to impress the Soviets.

As far as the protesters go, far more civilians died after LeMay took over and started using B29's on low level napalm raids than died from both A-Bombs.

Are you any less dead if you burned to death from napalm than from being vaporized at Ground Zero?

[Glocksman]

I overstated the point for shock value, but Truman couldn't and shouldn't have concerned himself with lowering Japanese casualties at the expense of increased US casualties.

Clarification:

I overstated the point for shock value as a reaction to the protesters.

Is one US soldier worth 200,000 Japanese? Today, of course not.
We're not at war with one another and the thought is barbarous.

In 1945 with an invasion of a determined and deadly adversary looming as endgame to one of the bloodiest wars in history, is it worth incenerating several hundred thousand Japanese with A-Bombs in order to save thousands of US lives?

I'm damn glad I didn't have to make the call because once it was over with I probably would have ate my gun, but I would have done exactly what Truman did.


In the words of the Rainmaker's song Downstream


Well, we picked up Harry Truman floating down from Independence
We said "What about the war?", he said "Good riddance"
We said "What about the Bomb, are you sorry that you did it?"
He said "Pass me that bottle, and mind your own business"

[His Divine Shadow]

And simply slaughtering civilians for the hell of during a time of peace equates with a justified attack in time of declared war how?

You are at war, don't forget the war on terror.
You think Bin Laden, no matter how out of his gourd he is, is doing it for the hell of it??? Jesus fucking christ man! You're at war with Osama Bin Laden and he's trying to win.

[His Divine Shadow]

Is one US soldier worth 200,000 Japanese? Today, of course not.

Back then, ofcourse not.

We're not at war with one another and the thought is barbarous.

The same though is barbarous even if you are at war, would you glass Afghanistan and Iraq just to get to Osama and to save a few soldiers lifes?

The bomb was justified in that it saved alot of lifes on both sides, not just because it saved american lives.

[Stark]

Didn't the Japanese accept surrender after the demand shortly before Hiroshima, but wouldn't accept 'unconditional'? They were willing to come to the table, and weren't begging the Americans to keep going.

Although I think people overestimate Hiroshima and Nagasaki compared to daily firebombing of Tokyo. Nothing like that in the European theatre. I'd dispute that a blockade would've been worse; and even if it was, then noone could say the Japanese didn't hold their own destiny in their hands. Wasn't the primary targeting benifit of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the lack of POW camps nearby?

[His Divine Shadow]

Didn't the Japanese accept surrender after the demand shortly before Hiroshima, but wouldn't accept 'unconditional'? They were willing to come to the table, and weren't begging the Americans to keep going.

That was going on for months I believe, however only unconditional surrender would do.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both port cities, and as such were ideal targets for atomic bomb drops.

IIRC, at least six total atom bomb drops were planned. Anyone remember what the other four tenative targets were?

[Sea Skimmer]

Didn't the Japanese accept surrender after the demand shortly before Hiroshima, but wouldn't accept 'unconditional'? They were willing to come to the table, and weren't begging the Americans to keep going.

They never accepted anything. Instead they tried to talk to the Soviets to get them to tell America that thy might agree to a conditional surrender. The Soviets, who absolutely hated the Japanese didn’t pass the word on.

Although I think people overestimate Hiroshima and Nagasaki compared to daily firebombing of Tokyo. Nothing like that in the European theatre.

Wrong. You've clearly never heard of Hamburg or Dresden.

I'd dispute that a blockade would've been worse;

If the US had blockaded Japan through the winter of 1945 the death tool would have been 17 to 40 million. The country could produce only a small fraction of the food it needed, and wouldn’t have been able to disturbed what it did have. On top of that only military personal would have been given food, leaving the civilian population to eat weeds at best.

and even if it was, then noone could say the Japanese didn't hold their own destiny in their hands.

They decided there own destiny on December 7th 1941. The fuckers chose to go to war and chose to fight a fanatical campaign which demonstrated that they would not surrender, at least not without the threat of being obliterated without a chance to inflict a blood bath on American forces. The atomic bombings provided that, though it still took them several more days for the government to make up its mind. Long enough in fact that US commanders became convinced that attacks had failed and restarted B-29 and carrier raids (both had been ceased during the period of the atomic attacks)

Wasn't the primary targeting benifit of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the lack of POW camps nearby?

No, that had nothing to do with it and in fact some POW’s where killed inside Hiroshima though the US had no way of knowing they where there. Both cities where chosen because they where significant sized, yet not so important that the US couldn’t afford to not firebomb them. Though in fact both where also secondary targets, the primary target cities couldn’t be hit because of poor weather.

[Durandal]

Mike, it's hardly like the Japanese people were simply along for the ride unwillingly. They supported the war and there for do deserve their share of the blame for it.

Be sure to remember that if Osama bin Laden decides to spread a biological plague in the States.

And simply slaughtering civilians for the hell of during a time of peace equates with a justified attack in time of declared war how?

This isn't peace time. Haven't you heard of the whole "War on Terror" thing?

[Worlds Spanner]

The bomb was justified in that it saved alot of lifes on both sides, not just because it saved american lives.

Exactly.

Didn't the Japanese accept surrender after the demand shortly before Hiroshima, but wouldn't accept 'unconditional'? They were willing to come to the table, and weren't begging the Americans to keep going.

Hard to say. There was a power struggle going on in Tokyo. The foriegn minister repeatedly ordered his envoy in Moscow to negotiate a surrender, and every time the full ruling council countermanded his orders. While it seems like the Japanese gov. was seeking peace, in fact the government was under the control of the military which was utterly uninterested in peace ]until the Bomb.

If the US had blockaded Japan through the winter of 1945 the death tool would have been 17 to 40 million. The country could produce only a small fraction of the food it needed, and wouldn’t have been able to disturbed what it did have. On top of that only military personal would have been given food, leaving the civilian population to eat weeds at best.

It gets even better. On August 4 the USAAF recieved new orders to destroy the Japanese rail system. That would have made food distribution even harder.


Has anyone ever read Downfall by Richard B. Frank? That's the book that convinced me that Truman was right.

[Frank Hipper]

Don't get too hung up on the term "Unconditional Surrender", because Japan was given the concession that Hirohito could stay on the throne. They were given their condition.

If you think that is insignificant, it was his absence in the war crimes trials postwar that played a large role in them being trivialised compared to the European trials.
It was his absence that allowed the defense to mount such a strong case, with his testimony, they would never have gotten such an easy time.
Had he been tried, modern Japanese denials of their role in the buildup to war would be impossible without ignoring that trial.

German schools may not focus much on German actions in WWII, but they don't paint the Allies as the aggressors. The intense scrutiny of Nuremberg has a long reach.
Modern Japan could have benefitted from something like that.

[Glocksman]

Is one US soldier worth 200,000 Japanese? Today, of course not.

Back then, ofcourse not.

We're not at war with one another and the thought is barbarous.

The same though is barbarous even if you are at war, would you glass Afghanistan and Iraq just to get to Osama and to save a few soldiers lifes?

The bomb was justified in that it saved alot of lifes on both sides, not just because it saved american lives.

You're missing the point.

My point was that consideration for Japanese lives didn't enter into the decision when it was made.

In hindsight we can say that it did save a lot of lives both Japanese and American, but at the time Truman's only consideration would have (and should have) been whether or not it would save Allied lives.

Iraq and Afghanistan don't compare to World War II for several reasons, not the least of which is that WW2 was total war and the objectives were different.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

You're not helping yourself by stating the same thing over and over again.

[Glocksman]

Didn't the Japanese accept surrender after the demand shortly before Hiroshima, but wouldn't accept 'unconditional'? They were willing to come to the table, and weren't begging the Americans to keep going.

That was going on for months I believe, however only unconditional surrender would do.

It wasn't really even that.

The Japanese government was factionalized, with one faction favoring a peace settlement and other factions (including the all important military) favoring a literal fight to the death.


The 'war' faction controlled the government until the A-Bombings and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

The peace feelers put out by the foreign ministry were worse than useless because the military wouldn't have honored any agreement to surrender without a direct order from the Emperor and it took the A-Bombs to motivate him to take action.

It's my opinion that without the A-Bombs, Hirohito would have kept playing his traditional role and kept silent.

And Operations Olympic and Coronet would have been necessary with their attendant horrific cost.

[Glocksman]

You're not helping yourself by stating the same thing over and over again.

Sometimes you have to when people just don't get it.

By attributing 'saving Japanese lives' as a reason for the A-Bombing, you're falsifying the record and portraying the decision as somehow easier to make than it was.

It makes a good postwar justification (and it's true), but it wasn't a factor in the decision.

[Stormbringer]

And simply slaughtering civilians for the hell of during a time of peace equates with a justified attack in time of declared war how?

You are at war, don't forget the war on terror.
You think Bin Laden, no matter how out of his gourd he is, is doing it for the hell of it??? Jesus fucking christ man! You're at war with Osama Bin Laden and he's trying to win.

I'm saying the attack on the World Trade Center (not to mention the civilians on the planes) served no purpose beyond simply killing civilians; unlike the Pentagon or the White House which had legitimate military value. The same thing would apply to a hypothetical biological attack, it's simply the indiscriminate killing of civilians to no purpose.

If by your standards if simply being at war justifies any act no matter how vicious and indiscriminate then why the hell don't we just nuke the Middle East and all those -stan countries while we're at it. By your definition they're fair game after all.

[Stormbringer]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both port cities, and as such were ideal targets for atomic bomb drops.

IIRC, at least six total atom bomb drops were planned. Anyone remember what the other four tenative targets were?

Actually, there were only plans for the two bombing that went off. There were a total of six targets picked that had so far been relatively untouched by the incindeary bombs that had reduced so many cities to rubble. Nagasaki, IIRC, was actually the alternate target on that particular mission.

[Durandal]

I'm saying the attack on the World Trade Center (not to mention the civilians on the planes) served no purpose beyond simply killing civilians; unlike the Pentagon or the White House which had legitimate military value. The same thing would apply to a hypothetical biological attack, it's simply the indiscriminate killing of civilians to no purpose.

If by your standards if simply being at war justifies any act no matter how vicious and indiscriminate then why the hell don't we just nuke the Middle East and all those -stan countries while we're at it. By your definition they're fair game after all.

No, those are your standards. According to you, anyone who supports the war, be he a combatant or not, is fair game for the enemy. The purpose of the 9/11 attacks destroy our morale. What do you think the purpose of the atomic bomb droppings were?