Last man who prevented 500,000 Purple Hearts from having to be awarded - Thank you Sir - go peacefully into the night...


Selene

Recommended Posts

I find these WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki apologists to be meaningless.

Curtis Le May was, according to today's military instructors, literally, running out of substantial industrial/population centers to target.

The last crew member of the Enola Gay — the bomber which infamously* dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan near the end of WWII — has died in Georgia. Theodore Van Kirk, who was also known as "Dutch," died Monday of natural causes at the Park Springs Retirement Community in Stone Mountain, a manager there told NBC Atlanta affiliate WXIA. Van Kirk was 93.

When he was just a young man of 24 years old, Van Kirk was the navigator on the Enola Gay, a B-29 Superfortress, which dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima at 8:15 a.m. August 6, 1945, killing 140,000 people. It was the first time in human history that an atomic bomb had ever been used. The second and last instance came three days later at Nagasaki, where 80,000 perished.

The despicable word choice by this WWII apologist scum is memorable:

"...the bomber which infamously..."

Sorry you prepubescent piece of scum, "infamous?" How so?

The death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki paled in comparison to the fire bombings of Tokyo alone!!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/enola-gays-last-crew-member-theodore-van-kirk-dies-n168121

I am so done with this "media."

Many of us here at OL would potentially not be able to put keyboard strokes to a screen because their potential fathers and mothers would not have been alive without bringing the "Empire" of Japan to the unconditional surrender.

A...

* Really? The Empire of Japan was just sueing for peace when we hit them at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that saved about 5-10 million Japanese?

Really? We should have, wishfully, had that weapon earlier and we would have saved even more Japanese and American lives.

American lives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost no one realizes how humane dropping those bombs actually was....

...because almost no one has ever stopped to consider the consequences of not dropping them.

The Greatest Generation is almost all gone now...

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If find this characterization of the dropping of the A-Bomb extremely annoying. By the rules of war applicable at the time both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were kosher military targets. In addition there were no rules outlawing the use of nuclear weapons in effect at that time. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were well within the rules of war applicable at that time.

It was not only a kosher attack, it also saved hundreds of thousands of lives, primarily American lives but also Japanese lives.

Apparently the nuclear attacks had the effect of shocking the Mikado into a temporary state of sanity and he told the factions in his government that it was time to throw in the towel.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. military was hardly unanimous on the necessity of atomic weapons:

"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." --Dwight D. Eisenhower, Newsweek (11 November 1963)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." --Adm. William D. Leahy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/countdown-to-hiroshima-fo_b_3707531.html

"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds." --Adm, Ellis M. Zacharias

http://ussslcca25.com/zach12.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. military was hardly unanimous on the necessity of atomic weapons:

"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." --Dwight D. Eisenhower, Newsweek (11 November 1963)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." --Adm. William D. Leahy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/countdown-to-hiroshima-fo_b_3707531.html

"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds." --Adm, Ellis M. Zacharias

http://ussslcca25.com/zach12.htm

Nice cherry picking.

I just watched a fine C-Span show this weekend of a classroom lecture at the Air Force Academy which discussed whether the Japanese were indeed ready to surrender.

They were not, or they would have.

Their imports due to the "blockade" were about 35% of what existed in 1943 and yet they were functioning.

Men were dieing every day in the Pacific while the Japanese were not surrendering and not one of those American soldiers lives were worth waiting another day.

The US Air Force was literally running out of targets to hit on the four (4) main islands of Japan. The death toll in the fire bombings of Tokyo dwarfed the deaths in either Hiroshima, or, Nagasaki.

Were they "humane?"

Frankly, we were the only country who should have used Atomic weaponry because we do have the moral clarity to make those decisions.

One thought is that their use was a "shot across the bow" of Stalin's vicious criminal regime which exceeded the numbers of dead of Hitler's criminal regime.

This was an easy decision.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The atomic bombings of Japan ended the war. Thus the decision to drop them was justified. The fire bombings of Japanese cities were just as bad but the Japanese had gotten used to them and the targets were running low. To criticize the atomic but not the fire bombings avoids the whole essential issue for if the latter was justified so was the former. A big all at once bang is easier to animadvert on than hundreds of bombers spreading fire and destruction on Tokyo the previous March. You cannot get even a small fraction of that horror into yours or the public's head. I can't into mine. As for those on the ground? They were burned alive. Men, women and children. 100,000, give or take.

Eisenhower was above all a political general. As that he did a great job holding things together in Europe. The one military thing he did that was great was to launch the D-day invasion inside the narrow window his weather report provided. His broad front strategy in Europe was likely the best, but he kept doing it during the Battle of the Bulge when he should have snipped the bulge off forcing the Germans to surrender. His atomic bombing comments were just a washing of his moral hands in public leaving the war dirt on Truman and two bomber crews.

The bombs were used when they were ready, but there were only two. The way they were used was correct--for maximum shock value.

The problem with the war in the Pacific was that there was one. First that the United States provoked Japan to attack it and that Japan could have secured itself economically--especially oil supplies--without doing that. Double stupidity. The stupidest stupidy belonged to Hitler. First attacking Russia (war over!) and then declaring war on the United States.

If my uncle--who died last March--hadn't been wounded he could have been a navigator in the various bombing attacks by B-29s on Japanese cities. The psychological state of being at war means if I was 20 years older I too could have. Imagining a scenario in which I as a crew member of the Enola Gay was told beforehand all about the mission and given an option of bailing out, I would have declined and gone along. First, the others were all my crewmates. More importantly I would recognize that if I didn't go someone else would so I would get the guilt of moral cowardice. Actually fighting in a war means you will be a casualty of some sort depending on your individual bio-psychological makeup and what you particularly do. Those five stars after the fact saying the atomic bombs shouldn't have been dropped, didn't fire a single shot in WWII. Not the bang of one gun and not the boom of one bomb. I'm sure some had previous combat experience in WWI, but two decades later became a two decades' buffer.

Look at how Eisenhower behaved as President--the no war President. The oil on the waters President. He did provide a strong military (then warned about a "complex"). I'm not saying he should have done things differently--though I could at least about Suez--I'm just saying he wanted as little blood on his hands as possible--he wanted to be as clean as possible. That's my claim. And while I spent 13 nights helping to take care of him in 1965--very nice guy--I think he was too much a putz.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of many discussions that never goes anywhere because everyone's minds are all made up, mine included. This is not a new topic. We have all given this a lot of thought and the decisions we reached were based on deep values.

War is about the worst possible way to solve a problem, even if you are attacked. You need to respond. You do not need to respond in kind. It just depends. Another doctrine is "proportional response."

Game theory even suggests that you can reward two betrayals (but not three) in order to bring your adversary to your side.

The argument over whether or not "the Japanese" were ready to surrender hinges on the fallacy of the unnamed collective. Every government is a coalition of forces. Elements in the government of Japan favored an early end and conditional surrender. (The same was true of Germany, hence the Generals' Plot.) Powerful factions in the American government insisted that the emperor had to go; then they changed their minds. So, "the American government" was an unnamed collective, as well.

Selene, if it could be demonstrated that your death right now would benefit millions of people, would you volunteer? Would you let us volunteer you? What if it could be demonstrated that the death of Ba'al would benefit millions of people? Or jts? Whom do you feel is worth the loss for the greater good? You claimed implicitly that deaths of every Japanese would have been preferable to the death of a single American. I think that Hediki Yukawa was worth more than a lot of people I don't like. Fortunately, the choice was not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon, Mike. Your proposal to Adam is the virgin into the volcano argument. How can you know such a thing beforehand? We might as well throw you in instead, dressed in a slightly different mythos, if we have more muscle than you do. Note that the throwers never volunteer to be the throwees.

--Brant

the suicide bombers . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike:

You claimed implicitly that deaths of every Japanese would have been preferable to the death of a single American.

This is what I said.

Men were dieing every day in the Pacific while the Japanese were not surrendering and not one of those American soldiers lives were worth waiting another day.

There is no statement there using the word "every."

I would suggest you correct your false attribution.

Brant already addressed the "what if hell freezes over" "argument" that you made. I would get ice skates, or, as Jackie Roosevelt Robinson answered the question from a newsman in 1947 when asked, "What are you going to do if one of these white pitchers throws at your head?"

"Duck."

Which is all you can do with the "what if" "argument.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of many discussions that never goes anywhere because everyone's minds are all made up, mine included.

That's true, Mike... and the two views boil down to right and left.

Selene, if it could be demonstrated that your death right now would benefit millions of people, would you volunteer? Would you let us volunteer you? What if it could be demonstrated that the death of Ba'al would benefit millions of people? Or jts? Whom do you feel is worth the loss for the greater good?

There is a missing ingredient in your scenario... morality. Good people bless the lives of others, whereas evil people damage the lives of others. By damaging the lives of others evil people forfeit their right to life.

People who live in nations given over to doing evil partake of the consequences of those evil actions.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the context of WWII Yukawa's life was not worth the life of any American. After the war you can start weighing people that way if you want, but like Einstein said: I talk the same way to everybody--the garbageman or the head of the university--or, there is essential moral equivalency in times of peace amongst individuals and then it's up to each individual how much weight he puts on each side of the scale. Moral equivalecy has nothing to do with brain power or accomplishment but how moral you are. War shoves the individual aside in a bloody, collective convulsion of insanity. In the case of Israel-Hamas the moral opprobrium is all on Hamas including everyone who has been killed so far who is not Hamas. If Yukawa had been killed in WWII, that would have all been on Japan.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The atomic bombings of Japan ended the war. Thus the decision to drop them was justified. The fire bombings of Japanese cities were just as bad but the Japanese had gotten used to them and the targets were running low. To criticize the atomic but not the fire bombings avoids the whole essential issue for if the latter was justified so was the former. A big all at once bang is easier to animadvert on than hundreds of bombers spreading fire and destruction on Tokyo the previous March. You cannot get even a small fraction of that horror into yours or the public's head. I can't into mine. As for those on the ground? They were burned alive. Men, women and children. 100,000, give or take.

Eisenhower was above all a political general. As that he did a great job holding things together in Europe. The one military thing (or any thing) he did that was great was to launch the D-day invasion inside the narrow window his weather report provided. His broad front strategy in Europe was likely the best, but he kept doing it during the Battle of the Bulge when he should have snipped the bulge off forcing the Germans to surrender. His atomic bombing comments were just a washing of his moral hands in public leaving the war dirt on Truman and two bomber crews.

The bombs were used when they were ready, but there were only two. The way they were used was correct--for maximum shock value.

The problem with the war in the Pacific was that there was one. First that the United States provoked Japan to attack it and that Japan could have secured itself economically--especially oil supplies--without doing that. Double stupidity. The stupidest stupidy belonged to Hitler. First attacking Russia (war over!) and then declaring war on the United States.

If my uncle--who died last March--hadn't been wounded he could have been a navigator in the various bombing attacks by B-29s on Japanese cities. The psychological state of being at war means if I was 20 years older I too could have. Imagining a scenario in which I as a crew member of the Enola Gay was told beforehand all about the mission and given an option of bailing out, I would have declined and gone along. First, the others were all my crewmates. More importantly I would recognize that if I didn't go someone else would so I would get the guilt of moral cowardice. Actually fighting in a war means you will be a casualty of some sort depending on your individual bio-psychological makeup and what you particularly do. Those five stars after the fact saying the atomic bombs shouldn't have been dropped, didn't fire a single shot in WWII. Not the bang of one gun and not the boom of one bomb. I'm sure some had previous combat experience in WWI, but two decades later became a two decades' buffer.

Look at how Eisenhower behaved as President--the no war President. The oil on the waters President. He did provide a strong military (then warned about a "complex"). I'm not saying he should have done things differently--though I could at least about Suez--I'm just saying he wanted as little blood on his hands as possible--he wanted to be as clean as possible. That's my claim. And while I spent 13 nights helping to take care of him in 1965--very nice guy--I think he was too much a putz.

--Brant

It was the use of the nuclear weapons plus the entry of the Soviets into the war against Japan that finally moved the Emperor.

The Soviets had a non-aggression pact with Japan which the Soviets abrogated on Aug 8, 1945 when they attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria. The U.S. was very determined to get the war over before the Soviets attempted to grab pieces of Japan. That last thing the U.S. needed was a North (communist) Japan and a South (Allied occupied and controlled) Japan.

If the Soviets had not joined in when they did, it is not clear that the Japanese would have thrown in the towel. As it was there was an aborted coup carried out by young officers to prevent the Emperor's surrender speech from being aired.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Soviets had not joined in when they did, it is not clear that the Japanese would have thrown in the towel. As it was there was an aborted coup carried out by young officers to prevent the Emperor's surrender speech from being aired.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Any reference on that Bob?

Not doubting you, just want to have it in my evidence for my position.

I have also spent a lot of time in the last 14 months with the mother of my lady who was on the Northern Island during the war and it's end.

Therefore, I have solid testimonial oral history to support the "sense" of folks living in Japan at that time.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Soviets had not joined in when they did, it is not clear that the Japanese would have thrown in the towel. As it was there was an aborted coup carried out by young officers to prevent the Emperor's surrender speech from being aired.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Any reference on that Bob?

..

Have a look here http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii?page=0,5

However, even if the Soviet Union did not enter the war we would have wrecked Japan anyway.

Harry Truman authorized the U.S. of gas on Japanese populations and we the means of producing one bomb a month for the next year. Eventually we would have wrecked Japan even without an invasion whic, no doubt, would have been a bloody thing. If the U.S. had invade there would have been any where between a half million and a million additional casualties.

As it worked two two nukes and the Soviet Invasion of Manchuko was sufficient to bring the Emperor to his senses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Soviets had not joined in when they did, it is not clear that the Japanese would have thrown in the towel. As it was there was an aborted coup carried out by young officers to prevent the Emperor's surrender speech from being aired.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Any reference on that Bob?

..

Have a look here http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii?page=0,5

However, even if the Soviet Union did not enter the war we would have wrecked Japan anyway.

Harry Truman authorized the U.S. of gas on Japanese populations and we the means of producing one bomb a month for the next year. Eventually we would have wrecked Japan even without an invasion whic, no doubt, would have been a bloody thing. If the U.S. had invade there would have been any where between a half million and a million additional casualties.

As it worked two two nukes and the Soviet Invasion of Manchuko was sufficient to bring the Emperor to his senses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

We could not have won the war with atomic bombs, even dropping one a month. It was all shock value. The radius of destruction is too limited and most Japanese city targets were already destroyed. The only other alternative to invasion was blockade and massive starvation of the population. Essentially the emperor told the government that was that--throw in the towel. You can't do that with Muslim crazies. Their "emperor" died over a thousand years ago. The only way to control these crazies is through strong man rule, but we've been getting rid of the strong man rulers leaving more and more crazies free to roam.

--Brant

doesn't mean there's no anti-crazies hope--there is the far future possibility of representative republic separation of state and religion, but the first order of business needs to be civilizing them with a Craig; it seems the Arabs--I don't begin to know about the Persians--respect those who beat them up or can and have the known will to and will therefore mind their manners, at least if they aren't Jews doing the ass kicking(enter the Americans, stage right)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Soviets had not joined in when they did, it is not clear that the Japanese would have thrown in the towel. As it was there was an aborted coup carried out by young officers to prevent the Emperor's surrender speech from being aired.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Any reference on that Bob?

..

Have a look here http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii?page=0,5

However, even if the Soviet Union did not enter the war we would have wrecked Japan anyway.

Harry Truman authorized the U.S. of gas on Japanese populations and we the means of producing one bomb a month for the next year. Eventually we would have wrecked Japan even without an invasion whic, no doubt, would have been a bloody thing. If the U.S. had invade there would have been any where between a half million and a million additional casualties.

As it worked two two nukes and the Soviet Invasion of Manchuko was sufficient to bring the Emperor to his senses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

We could not have won the war with atomic bombs, even dropping one a month. It was all shock value. The radius of destruction is too limited and most Japanese city targets were already destroyed. The only other alternative to invasion was blockade and massive starvation of the population. Essentially the emperor told the government that was that--throw in the towel. You can't do that with Muslim crazies. Their "emperor" died over a thousand years ago. The only way to control these crazies is through strong man rule, but we've been getting rid of the strong man rulers leaving more and more crazies free to roam.

--Brant

doesn't mean there's no anti-crazies hope--there is the far future possibility of representative republic separation of state and religion, but the first order of business needs to be civilizing them with a Craig; it seems the Arabs--I don't begin to know about the Persians--respect those who beat them up or can and have the known will to and will mind their manners, at least if they aren't Jews (enter the Americans, stage right)

Truman authorized poison gas. The Japanese used poison gas, so it was assumed that we could too.

Gas would have done the job.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what "Truman authorized poison gas" means here. And why gas them when starving them would do the same thing with a modest decrease in general moral opprobrium too boot? In fact the effectiveness of gas--what gas?--over a large and general area--are we theorectically trying to kill everybody here?--is UP IN THE AIR!

Next, let Godzilla do the job!

--Brant

first put the gas mask on yourself and then on your children

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Japanese Intended to Fight

American fears about casualty levels were sent soaring in July by intercepts of Japanese military cables. The new intelligence revealed a massive build-up of Japanese forces in southern Kyushu. Historian Edward Drea describes the situation: "It was as if the very invasion beaches were magnets, drawing the Japanese forces to those places where the Americans would have to land and fight their way ashore. It was also very clear in those messages that the Japanese intended to fight to the bitter end."

No clue as to the site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what "Truman authorized poison gas" means here.

Bob does not always return to where he has shat. In this case, I think he means that the USA had developed chemical weapons and a chemical warfare strategy. In 1945, however, the USA did not have the capacity in chemical weapons to 'end the war in Japan,' unless by ending the war we mean extending the war. The only chemical agents perfected by the USA by that time were variations on mustard, phosgene and lewisite. Each was not a mass-casualty weapon of the same magnitude as incendiaries or nuclear bombs. The USA had not yet amassed the specialized troops necessary for safe and effective deployment of war-sized chemical weapons.

Roosevelt had earlier established the war doctrine that chemical weapons were 'one step beyond' humanity, that the USA would only use them if provoked by first use on the enemy side. In any case, none of the Axis powers were stupid enough to unleash what confections they had at the time. According to the references I consulted, there is no evidence that Harry Truman favoured the use of chemical weapons (or that he ever propounded any other than retaliatory use). See, especially, Chemical Warfare: A Study in Restraints, by Frederic J Brown,

-- I imagine Bob has read that the Americans developed chemical warfare agents and delivery systems in WWII (as did the Italians, Hungarians, Japanese, French, English, Russians, and the Germans). The more deadly and persistent V-class agents came only after the war upon seizure of the German tabun, soman and sarin plants ...

There is one other reference to "Truman authorized poison gas" on the internet, at the FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans, the nearly dead forum:

In order to win WW2 we burned babies alive (as collateral damage). Harry Truman authorized poison gas as a weapon which we would have used if the A-bomb failed. Such are the infelicities of war. Victory or death.

I excuse Bob/Ba'al/Mr ben Yosef because he is functionally autistic, and can probably barely empathize with 'collateral' deaths, let alone the particular horrors of chemical weapons.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very nice William.

This is a stretch of history that I know from research, testimony of trusted friends of my early childhood and personal testimony of folks that lived through the war in Japan.

The latest honor that I have humbly been part of, is, making breakfast for my lady's mother, who was a young business woman on one of Japan's northern islands, and I was aware enough to shut up and listen.

On another morning, I was privileged to assist her making rice balls for later in the day.

Working in tandem with three plus generations of creating rice, wrapped in seaweed, with a dripping cherry pit in the middle, was cathartic.

Well, if you are dumb enough to miss that...so be it...

Later in the week, the Kimche was out of this world.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. military was hardly unanimous on the necessity of atomic weapons:

"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." --Dwight D. Eisenhower, Newsweek (11 November 1963)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." --Adm. William D. Leahy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/countdown-to-hiroshima-fo_b_3707531.html

"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds." --Adm, Ellis M. Zacharias

http://ussslcca25.com/zach12.htm

Nice cherry picking.

I just watched a fine C-Span show this weekend of a classroom lecture at the Air Force Academy which discussed whether the Japanese were indeed ready to surrender.

They were not, or they would have.

Their imports due to the "blockade" were about 35% of what existed in 1943 and yet they were functioning.

Men were dieing every day in the Pacific while the Japanese were not surrendering and not one of those American soldiers lives were worth waiting another day.

The US Air Force was literally running out of targets to hit on the four (4) main islands of Japan. The death toll in the fire bombings of Tokyo dwarfed the deaths in either Hiroshima, or, Nagasaki.

Were they "humane?"

Frankly, we were the only country who should have used Atomic weaponry because we do have the moral clarity to make those decisions.

One thought is that their use was a "shot across the bow" of Stalin's vicious criminal regime which exceeded the numbers of dead of Hitler's criminal regime.

This was an easy decision.

A...

Cherry picking it is not. I didn't argue that all generals opposed the use of A-bombs. My contention, clearly stated, is that the American military leadership was not of one mind on their necessity.

The idea that those weapons saved months of fighting and more war casualties is an article of faith recycled every year on the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's worth pointing out that some high ranking generals and admirals strongly disagreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cherry picking it is not. I didn't argue that all generals opposed the use of A-bombs. My contention, clearly stated, is that the American military leadership was not of one mind on their necessity.

The idea that those weapons saved months of fighting and more war casualties is an article of faith recycled every year on the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's worth pointing out that some high ranking generals and admirals strongly disagreed.

What you say--strictly read--is true. But it's the overlaying truth. The underlaying truth is the war stopped right after the bombs were dropped and we'll never know--reality revealed--what would have happened sans that. One might posit--how strongly might be found in the historical research and literature--that just knowing it was soon going to have this fearsome weapon affected the American deportment respecting actual demands to the Japanese in 1945. But we had to develop the damn thing out of fear Germany was going to too.

Those high-rankers stating after the fact we shouldn't have done it is about the weakest attempt to put lipstick on the pig of war I've ever heard of. They are only trying to de-pigafy themselves and maintain the visual purity of their five-star uniforms as far as I'm concerned. Never mind all the men who actually had to pull the triggers and drop the bombs. As for Truman, he was too tough to be bothered by any of this folderol and never lost any sleep over his decision.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we had said to the Japanese: you can keep the Mikado but he must take orders from an American governor and Japan must be occupied, the Japanese might have thrown in the towel then and there.

But our people said: Unconditional surrender. We dropped the bombs. Russia invaded Manchuko and savaged the Japanese army. The Japanese surrendered. Then we said you can keep the Mikado, but he must take orders from an American governor and Japan will be occupied without resistance. And this is how it turned out. So why where the A bombs necessary?

The surrender was NOT unconditional. The Japanese kept the Mikado.

Ba'a; Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, the war ended right after the bombs were dropped. You cannot rationally speculate into a perfect war ex post facto, for war is simply a pile of various calamities. If you want to be rational--more rational--then state, for starters, that the fire bombings shouldn't have been done. WTF is the real difference between hundreds of B-29s incinerating 100,000 civilians on one bombing raid and one B-29 killing 80,000 with one bomb? In the context of city and people destruction the atomic bombing was the perfect cherry on the cake justifying the horror of the whole thing by spiking it and stopping it. I'll repeat that a truly rational discussion means we talk about the whole enchilada. Those fire bombings were to be transitional to ground invasion from essentially a naval war. The ground war was going to be much more horrible than the horrible ground wars in Europe. That the United States refused to pussyfoot about anything stopped a horror that was going to be much worse than the bombings.

--Brant

the unnecessary war that was far and away Japan's fault, but might not have happened without U.S. economic provocation--that is, attacking Pearl Harbor was the unnecessary option (Roosevelt wanted war and he got it)--which is not to say we'd now have a better world if Japan hadn't done what it did (who knows?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I am fully aware of the "after this, therefore because of this" fallacy, this one is clearly not a fallacy.

Additionally, there is clear testimony from inside Nippon that the two A-bombs were definitive in ending this disaster.

Taking those four islands would have cost at least 100,000 casualties.

The naval blockade would have presented countless naval vessels to Kamikaze attacks.

Can allegedly rational folks here possibly argue this?

I think not.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now