View Full Version : U.S. pilot who dropped Hiroshima bomb dies:
Nickdfresh
11-01-2007, 06:52 PM
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the U.S. bomber that dropped the first atomic bomb on Japan on August 6, 1945, died on Thursday at age 92, a newspaper reported.
Tibbets, who died at his home in Columbus, Ohio, had suffered strokes and was ill from heart failure, the Columbus Dispatch said in its online edition.
An experienced pilot who had flown some of the first bombing missions over Germany during World War Two, Tibbets was a 30-year-old colonel commanding the Enola Gay, a B-29 Superfortress bomber named for his mother.
After a six-hour flight to Japan, Tibbets' crew dropped the bomb, code-named "Little Boy," over Hiroshima at 8:15 a.m.
"If Dante had been with us on the plane, he would have been terrified," Tibbets said later. "The city we had seen so clearly in the sunlight a few minutes before was now an ugly smudge. It had completely disappeared under this awful blanket of smoke and fire."
The bomb instantly killed about 78,000 people. By the end of 1945, the number of dead had reached about 140,000 out of an estimated population of 350,000.
Three days later the United States dropped an atomic bomb nicknamed "Fat Man" on Nagasaki. Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945, bringing World War Two to an end.
Tibbets said in interviews he did not regret the decision to drop the bomb.
He became a brigadier general before leaving the military in 1966. Later he was president of Executive Jet Aviation, a Columbus-based international air-taxi service, the newspaper said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0143239820071101
Firefly
11-01-2007, 07:01 PM
As a normal Bomber pilot you can always argue that your bombs may never have killed anyone. As an A Bomb pilot you cant. He lived with this for 60 years and always affirmed that he agreed with it. I would have loved to have met him.
Nickdfresh
11-01-2007, 07:07 PM
I didn't see this in the article. He, in accordance with his wishes, was buried without a headstone and at a secret location in order to avoid his final resting place becoming a protest shrine...
Firefly
11-01-2007, 07:46 PM
Now that is a shame. He should have been buried with military honours in Arlington.
Rising Sun*
11-02-2007, 05:21 AM
Saw part of interview with him on news tonight.
He said nothing's moral in war and he did what had to be done.
I respect a man who knew what had to be done; did it; and didn't let revisionist hectoring by people who didn't face the same problem beat him down into an apology or false regret.
A fine warrior when we needed him.
The Japanese, and the world, should be bloody grateful he and the other A bomb crew avoided the slaughter and devastation that invasion would have brought.
Man of Stoat
11-02-2007, 05:40 AM
Agree wholeheartedly with RS. I saw it on the news this morning and all I could think of was "Jolly good show".
I bet all the assorted anti-war/anti (Western) nuclear weapons lot were gutted that he didn't repent on his deathbed!
Rising Sun*
11-02-2007, 08:50 AM
I bet all the assorted anti-war/anti (Western) nuclear weapons lot were gutted that he didn't repent on his deathbed!
My comments above about General Paul Tibbets notwithstanding, I'm a pacificist at heart and share a lot of the sentiments of anti-war activists.
The difference is, I think I know when the time comes to abandon the world we'd like to have and deal with the world we've got.
I respect anyone like the Quakers or non-religious conscientious objectors who are following principle in the face of much hostility during war, just as much as I respect Tibbets, or millions of anonymous land, sea and air grunts who faced a bloody sight worse, and for a lot, lot longer, than Tibbets and Co did in flying into a relatively defenceless Japan (although that ignores their prior service). It all takes courage. It's not the same thing as thinking that their actions are all of equal value.
The difference in the value of actions is that Tibbets and his men did something to end the horror of war, even if he and his crew had to create more horror, while those who refuse to serve have the satisfaction of observing their high moral code but, due to the unwillingness of most of the rest of the population in warring nations to take the same view, do nothing to stop war or bring it to a quicker conclusion to end the suffering they abhor.
They're a fine example of what we as humans should be, but in the end a glorious and self-sacrificing waste of effort that achieves nothing except whatever sense of satisfaction comes from martyrdom.
If there's going to be self-sacrifice in a total war like WWII, better to aim it at the enemy than one's own nation, because that's the only way it'll do anything to end the war. Taking yourself out of the action only prolongs the war.
If there has to be sacrifice, better that the enemy be sacrificed.
Which is what Tibbets and his crew did.
It's sad that the Yakusuni Shrine is venerated and that Hiroshima has been converted into a totem for supposed inhumanity (unlike, say, the Rape of Nanking or the Burma railway which are just as much totems of inhumanity, if incoveniently by the Japanese as perpetrators rather than their preferred status of nuclear victims), while Tibbets can't get a public grave which could have a headstone which says something like
"One of a handful of men who alone brought vast death and suffering, that much, much more might be avoided.
And the death and suffering he and his crew caused was a drop in the ocean to the death and suffering inflicted by the brutal and evil regime they brought to surrender, which surrender avoided much more death and suffering for the people of many nations, not least Japan which now glories in victimhood rather than acknowledging the circumstances it created which led to the avoidable suffering it brought upon itself at the hands of this man."
Or something along those lines.
No wonder he didn't want a known grave.
The modern politically correct world couldn't handle a proper inscription.
Man of Stoat
11-02-2007, 08:56 AM
Amen to that, brother. Couldn't have put it better.
Digger
11-02-2007, 06:17 PM
So sad to see aother veteran pass on. Of course Tibbets exploits will always be remembered over the bravery and actions of his comrades and others who had to fight this terrible war.
It is a shame and an insult he was unfairly and shamefully targeted by sections of the uneducated, ignorant anti war element in our society. But Tibbets actions gave them the right and freedom to do this. Ironic.
digger
Rising Sun*
11-02-2007, 07:11 PM
Predictable, and ironic or maybe just downright hypocritical, from the nation that still hasn't owned up to and made an unequivocal apology for the whole bloody war, not to mention China beforehand.
I feel sorry for the individual people who suffered at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Tokyo, but not as sorry as I do for, say, the six year old Australian boy shot dead by the Japanese in northern Papua in mid-1942 because he wouldn't stay still to be beheaded after the bastards had beheaded his father and several other people in front of him.
There was no need for that. There was a need for the A bombs.
Hiroshima survivors regret pilot never said sorry
Tokyo
November 3, 2007
JAPANESE survivors of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima voiced regret that the American pilot of the plane that dropped the bomb died without saying sorry.
Paul Warfield Tibbets, whose B-29, Enola Gay, dropped the bomb named "Little Boy" on August 6, 1945, died on Thursday at his home in Columbus, Ohio. He was 92.
Mr Tibbets never expressed regret for the bombing that led to the end of World War II at a cost of 140,000 dead immediately, and 80,000 others succumbing in the aftermath, according to Hiroshima officials.
"He did not apologise, arguing, like the American government, that the bombing saved millions of American and Japanese lives by ending the war," said Nori Tohei, 79, who survived.
"But I wanted him to visit Hiroshima and take a direct look at what he did as a human being. He was following orders as a military man. But I wanted him to recognise it was a mistake, and apologise to those who were killed or were long suffering side-effects."
Mr Tohei turned 17 on August 9, 1945, three days after the Hiroshima blast, and the day a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The United States has never formally apologised for the attacks.
Although Mr Tibbets saw little of the devastation of Hiroshima, he would walk the streets of Nagasaki a few weeks after the second bomb. "A couple of the streets we walked had swelled," he told the Columbus Dispatch in 2003, as he described the buckling of the earth caused by the intensity of the blast. Damnedest thing you've ever seen." http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/hiroshima-survivors-regret-pilot-never-said-sorry/2007/11/02/1193619144992.html
Saw part of interview with him on news tonight.
He said nothing's moral in war and he did what had to be done.
I respect a man who knew what had to be done; did it; and didn't let revisionist hectoring by people who didn't face the same problem beat him down into an apology or false regret.
A fine warrior when we needed him.
The Japanese, and the world, should be bloody grateful he and the other A bomb crew avoided the slaughter and devastation that invasion would have brought.
Paul Tibbets - was one of the main criminals of WW II. He is personally guilty of the slaughter of thousands upon thousands civilians in the most brutal way.
If someone had really wanted to avoid invasion into Japan, new victims and devastation, they would have just signed peace treaty with Japan in 1945.
The only person who can be thanked for the end of the war is the Japanese monarch.
I didn't see this in the article. He, in accordance with his wishes, was buried without a headstone and at a secret location in order to avoid his final resting place becoming a protest shrine...
I wonder whether his location was known when he was alive?
Rising Sun*
11-03-2007, 03:41 AM
Paul Tibbets - was one of the main criminals of WW II. He is personally guilty of the slaughter of thousands upon thousands civilians in the most brutal way.
Being vaporised in an instant would be in my top few ways to go. All war deaths are brutal. Like all forms of death, some are just quicker, with less suffering, than others.
Burns and radiation sickness are a different issue, but so are a lot of other war injuries.
If someone had really wanted to avoid invasion into Japan, new victims and devastation, they would have just signed peace treaty with Japan in 1945.
Very true. So why didn't Japan do it sooner?
That option had been open to Japan since it started losing the war. It's not Tibbets', or the Allies', fault the dominant Japanese leadership was determined to fight on until Japan was destroyed.
One reason surrender wasn't accepted before the A bombs was that elements in the Japanese military wanted a land invasion so they could grind down the Allies and win better terms of peace. As distinct from surrender.
The A bombs, along with the crushing Soviet advances against the Japanese at the same time, tipped Japan into surrender. There was no sign it was about to surrender before that.
The A bombs were more significant as Japan was much more concerned to preserve the home islands than colonies.
The only person who can be thanked for the end of the war is the Japanese monarch.
Should we thank him for permitting the Pacific War to start, and for permitting the invasion of China? If Japan hadn't done that, it wouldn't have needed to surrender.
It's a misconception, and flows from post-war Japanese pro-imperial propaganda, to view the Emperor as having forced Japan to surrender. One view is that he supported surrender to save Japan purely to preserve the imperial line, which was the motivating factor in all his actions. Bear in mind that preservation of the Emperor's position and giving him immunity from war crimes prosecution was the sticking point in negotiating terms of surrender. Once the Allies said the Emperor could remain as ceremonial head of state, the Emperor gave instructions for Japan to surrender. He was out to save himself. He saved Japan only because he needed it, otherwise there'd be nothing for him to be head of.
He wasn't an absolute ruler. Rather, he put his stamp on things others wanted to do, and to ensure the survival of the imperial line he avoided confrontation on serious issues with those who really ran the country.
If the Emperor had used whatever influence he had to prevent Japan's aggression, there'd be millions of people alive in Asia who were truly slaughtered and worked and starved and tortured to death in the most brutal way by the Japanese for twelve incresingly appalling years of Japanese aggression and occupation. The fact is, the Emperor was an enthusiastic supporter of Japan's actions when things were going well. He only changed his mind when his own position was threatened. Not someone with any character qualities I feel like thanking for anything.
The Japanese aren't in any position to complain about being badly treated.
They got off bloody lightly.
If the Allies had run the occupation of Japan the way the Japanese occupied countries, then the Japanese would really have something to complain about.
There is simply no moral comparison between what was perceived as a necessary step to end the war with the A bombs and the widespread Japanese brutality and slaughter, from Nanking to Harbin and every form of monstrous sadism and inhumanity in between.
There is simply no moral comparison between what was perceived as a necessary step to end the war with the A bombs and the widespread Japanese brutality and slaughter, from Nanking to Harbin and every form of monstrous sadism and inhumanity in between.
Why not? Just the way some persons try to justify the mass murder of civilians through A-bombings of Japanese cities, Japaneses may say that their slaughters, from Nanking to Harbin, was to prevent massive insurgency in China and other places and so avoid much more victims
Rising Sun*
11-03-2007, 06:11 AM
Why not? Just the way some persons try to justify the mass murder of civilians through A-bombings of Japanese cities, Japaneses may say that their slaughters, from Nanking to Harbin, was to prevent massive insurgency in China and other places and so avoid much more victims
They didn't say that, so it's irrelevant.
They couldn't say that, because they were the aggressor with no legal or moral justification for being there. Any such argument is transparently ridiculous.
How on earth could slaughtering people to no purpose other than giving vent to race hatred do anything to stop there being more victims? If the Japanese wanted to reduce the number of victims, all they had to was stop killing people. They didn't. They loved it.
More importantly, the Japanese never killed anyone in the interests of peace. They never sought peace, only conquest.
With one exception. They wanted peace after the A bombs were dropped.
It's a pity Doolittle couldn't drop sixteen of them three years earlier.
They didn't say that, so it's irrelevant.
Of course post-war Japanese governments haven't raised this issue on the official level but the public opinion in a country often differs from the official one
They couldn't say that, because they were the aggressor with no legal or moral justification for being there. Any such argument is transparently ridiculous.
And what was legal or moral justification for the US and British precence in that region? They were the same aggressors who had conquered vast colonies there using the same or even more cruel methods for much longer periods of time. For instance the US killed over half a million of civilian Philippines during the Philippine-American War.
U.S. attacks into the countryside included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture and the concentration of civilians into “protected zones” (concentration camps).
More importantly, the Japanese never killed anyone in the interests of peace. They never sought peace, only conquest.
Evidently, the Japanese were inspired by conquets and the killings in the interests of peace that had been conducted by Brits and Americans across the region.
With one exception. They wanted peace after the A bombs were dropped.
They wanted to kill more Japaneses and weaken Japan before the planned invasion.
No one could know whether Japan would surrender after A-bombings or not.
It's a pity Doolittle couldn't drop sixteen of them three years earlier
How nice. Nuclear genocide in the name of peace.
Rising Sun*
11-03-2007, 07:53 AM
Of course post-war Japanese governments haven't raised this issue on the official level but the public opinion in a country often differs from the official one.
Not in Japan. The government's spent the last sixty odd years trying, with great domestic success, to present a version of history that doesn't even have Nanking, Harbin etc in it. Japan's presented almost as the poor victim of America deciding to wreak nuclear havoc on it for no particular reason.
And what was legal or moral justification for the US and British precence in that region?
About the same as Japan colonising Korea and Formosa.
They were the same aggressors who had conquered vast colonies there using the same or even more cruel methods for much longer periods of time.
That's highly debatable, particularly in relation to the British presence in Malaya.
It's also quite irrelevant to the issue of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They wanted to kill more Japaneses and weaken Japan before the planned invasion.
Softening up an enemy before an attack is standard practice.
The A bomb raids were not, however, a direct part of that process as the invasion was not due until November 1945.
On target selection,
Some of the important considerations were:
The range of the aircraft which would carry the bomb.
The desirability of visual bombing in order to insure the most effective use of the bomb.
Probable weather conditions in the target areas.
Importance of having one primary and two secondary targets for each mission, so that if weather conditions prohibited bombing the target there would be at least two alternates.
Selection of targets to produce the greatest military effect on the Japanese people and thereby most effectively shorten the war.
The morale effect upon the enemy.
These led in turn to the following:
Since the atomic bomb was expected to produce its greatest amount of damage by primary blast effect, and next greatest by fires, the targets should contain a large percentage of closely-built frame buildings and other construction that would be most susceptible to damage by blast and fire.
The maximum blast effect of the bomb was calculated to extend over an area of approximately 1 mile in radius; therefore the selected targets should contain a densely built-up area of at least this size.
The selected targets should have a high military strategic value.
The first target should be relatively untouched by previous bombing, in order that the effect of a single atomic bomb could be determined. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp5.shtml
No one could know whether Japan would surrender after A-bombings or not.
There was only one way to find out.
It worked.
Nothing before it had.
How nice. Nuclear genocide in the name of peace.
It wasn't genocide or anything remotely like it.
What does it matter whether it was nuclear or not? It's just another way of being killed by military munitions. Would you rather have been in Tokyo or Hiroshima when they were bombed and you were in the middle of it? It's a lousy choice.
If there's another way of ending a full scale war then bludgeoning an enemy who won't surrender until he decides to surrender, nobody's found it yet.
It's all very well viewing the nuclear attacks from the modern perspective, but the decision was made after six years of previously unimaginable atrocities, death, mayhem, and destruction around the world on an incredible scale, by men who had become used to seeing large numbers of people wiped out in pursuit of the military and national objectives of all participants. Their experience of life and war wasn't ours.
If the Japanese had had the A bomb in 1941, do you think they wouldn't have used it on Pearl Harbor or even Los Angeles to encourage America to let them expand in the Pacific and Asia without American interference? Of course they would.
Japan is just too self-centred to consider anything but the suffering it endured rather than the far greater suffering it inflicted.
Tibbets had nothing to apologise for, nor does the US for nuking Japan.
None of it would have happened if Japan hadn't decided to go to war to get what it wanted. Japan complaining about being nuked is like a mugger who uses a knife to rob someone who shoots the mugger saying it's unfair.
It wasn't genocide or anything remotely like it. .
I believe the Americans were ready to drop much more bombs than just two.
What does it matter whether it was nuclear or not? It's just another way of being killed by military munitions. Would you rather have been in Tokyo or Hiroshima when they were bombed and you were in the middle of it? It's a lousy choice.
A-bombing did not leave any chances for survival unlike traditional warfare. Using A-bombing against civilians was an act of American cowardice. American "heroes" wanted to save their bacons from open combat at the expense of Japanese women and children.
It's all very well viewing the nuclear attacks from the modern perspective, but the decision was made after six years of previously unimaginable atrocities, death, mayhem, and destruction around the world on an incredible scale, by men who had become used to seeing large numbers of people wiped out in pursuit of the military and national objectives of all participants. Their experience of life and war wasn't ours.
If the Japanese had had the A bomb in 1941, do you think they wouldn't have used it on Pearl Harbor or even Los Angeles to encourage America to let them expand in the Pacific and Asia without American interference? Of course they would.
Quite correct. Americans weren't more humane than Japaneses.
Tibbets had nothing to apologise for, nor does the US for nuking Japan.
Neither does Japan, especially after A-bombing.
None of it would have happened if Japan hadn't decided to go to war to get what it wanted. Japan complaining about being nuked is like a mugger who uses a knife to rob someone who shoots the mugger saying it's unfair.
The Japanese just state the fact that Americans deliberately killed hundreds of thousands civilians and it was a war crime on behalf of America from every point of view.
Firefly
11-03-2007, 08:57 AM
A-bombing did not leave any chances for survival unlike traditional warfare. Using A-bombing against civilians was an act of American cowardice. American "heroes" wanted to save their bacons from open combat at the expense of Japanese women and children.
Sorry mate, but it was war and war isnt fair or chivalrous in the main. I would rather see 20 milion of my enemy dead in a war if it saves just one of my men.
The Japanese would have lost the war without A Bombs. You seem to think that to have the killing and sufferring and Japanese civilians starving in their masses would have been a better option. For what, some foolish Emperor worshiping idiots that didnt want to loose face at the expense of their whole population? Anyone who doesnt see the facts is a tad niaive in my eyes.
Sorry mate, but it was war and war isnt fair or chivalrous in the main. I would rather see 20 milion of my enemy dead in a war if it saves just one of my men.
The Japanese would have lost the war without A Bombs. You seem to think that to have the killing and sufferring and Japanese civilians starving in their masses would have been a better option. For what, some foolish Emperor worshiping idiots that didnt want to loose face at the expense of their whole population? Anyone who doesnt see the facts is a tad niaive in my eyes.
Emperor worshiping idiots made up nearly all the Japanese nation. Mass starvation would have been possible if Americans had won the war and worked hard to organise it artificially.
Wolfurus
11-03-2007, 09:11 AM
I think that both opponents have made abominable mistakes. The Japanese High Command must realized that war was lost and then it had to surrender; the Allies had to choose dropping the Bomb on the military site first and not striking direct a great city. However the war stands out the worst look of the human nature close to mere heroism and unselfishness acts.
Rising Sun*
11-03-2007, 09:43 AM
I believe the Americans were ready to drop much more bombs than just two.
How many do you think they had avaiable to the end of August 1945?
A-bombing did not leave any chances for survival unlike traditional warfare.
That would be a comfort for a lot of people, if they'd survived conventional bombing, burns and blast injuries in places like Tokyo and Dresden.
There wasn't any tradition of mass bombing before WWII. Even Guernica was minor compared with that. So were Rotterdam and Coventry compared with what came later.
Using A-bombing against civilians was an act of American cowardice.
Measured against which standards of Japanese bravery?
A sneak attack on Pearl while their diplomats pretended to be negotiating to avoid the war they knew had already been ordered from Tokyo?
The Bataan Death March?
The Burma Railway?
The Queen Alexandra Hospital?
Massacring Chinese in Singapore and everywhere else they went?
Keeping Red Cross packages meant for starving prisoners, then releasing them and sucking up to prisoners after they’d lost the war?
Live vivisections on American POW's?
Killing the six year old kid I mentioned earlier?
The Toll Plantation massacre?
Murdering the nurses at Banka Island?
Colonel Tsujii eating the livers of his enemy to enhance his warrior powers?
Cannibalism of Allied prisoners?
And a few hundred thousand other incidents of such outstanding bravery?
Oh, yes, the knights of bushido at their brave best. What an impressive bunch of heroes they were.
Can’t imagine why anyone would want to wipe them at out at their source.
The fact that the Americans didn't is testament to their superior conduct.
American "heroes" wanted to save their bacons from open combat at the expense of Japanese women and children.
Find me one instance of Japanese troops doing anything like Pelileu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan and many other assaults by American forces on Japanese strongholds. The only time the Japanese tried anything remotely similar was Guadalcanal, where the Americans wiped out a Japanese assault regiment at the Tenaru River and eventually repelled the Japanese. Which is more than the Japanese in strongly fortified positions ever managed when assaulted by the Americans.
As for things done at the expense of women and children, how about the Japanese propaganda at Saipan about the supposed torture the Americans would wreak on its inhabitants that resulted in women jumping off Suicide Cliff with their children, all to die below?
While the Americans were doing all they could to stop it, horrified by the event?
Don't try to tell me that the Americans were the bad guys.
Quite correct. Americans weren't more humane than Japaneses.
Bullshit!
Where are the American equivalents to the Rape of Nanking, the Burma Railway, the Bataan Death March, the treatment of POW’s, the Korean Comfort Women, and other such atrocities and inhumane exercises by the Japanese?
Neither does Japan, especially after A-bombing.
So Dresden wipes out Auschwitz?
FFS!
The Japanese just state the fact that Americans deliberately killed hundreds of thousands civilians and it was a war crime on behalf of America from every point of view.
Not from my point of view, nor from that of many people who think Japan reaped as she sowed, and still can’t handle it.
Rising Sun*
11-03-2007, 09:52 AM
Mass starvation would have been possible if Americans had won the war and worked hard to organise it artificially.
Here's a newsflash, 62 years after the event.
America, with some help from its allies, did win the Pacific war.
America didn't starve the Japanese people. Which is a bloody sight better than the Japanese did in many of the territories they occupied.
America worked hard to rebuild the Japan that its militarist leaders had led to destruction.
Modern Japan exists because of Allied, primarily American, post-war reconstruction, in spite of the destruction brought upon Japan by its own leaders to 1945.
Rising Sun*
11-03-2007, 11:05 AM
Emperor worshiping idiots made up nearly all the Japanese nation.
That's not quite true.
Japan had vigorous public debates on all sorts of issues, including the status of the Emperor, in the 19th century and well into the 1920's, but as the militarist / fascist elements gained control from the 1920's people learned to curb their tongues. It's not the same thing as revering the Emperor.
It's also not the case that the militarists truly revered the Emperor. They used him but, like their predecessors over a couple of thousand years, they probably would have deposed and even killed him if it became necessary, and the Emperor knew it. When it suited the IJA, it did what it wanted regardless of imperial wishes or desires. Naturally this reality was concealed from the people, who were presented with an entirely different picture of their Emperor and encouraged to serve him unquestioningly. Because the militarists spoke to the nation through him.
The vicious militarist police state which descended on Japan in the 1930's ensured that public dissent was rarely expressed.
This produced apparent conformity of opinion, because of the absence of dissenting public opinion, but there were still elements of underground free thought.
The masses, however, were manipulated into Orwellian group think by the education system and other social devices.
Oddly enough, the Japanese educational bureaucracy which survived reasonably intact after the war utilised the same system to produce the new group think that Japan was the victim of war crimes in being nuked, while carefully concealing the realities of Japan's conduct during the war.
How many do you think they had avaiable to the end of August 1945?
There were all the capacities to produce new ones.
Measured against which standards of Japanese bravery?
A sneak attack on Pearl while their diplomats pretended to be negotiating to avoid the war they knew had already been ordered from Tokyo?
Pearl was the base of the American Navy and Japanese pilots targetted ships and the port.
The Bataan Death March?
The Burma Railway?
The Queen Alexandra Hospital?
Americans often didn't take any prisoners at all.
Massacring Chinese in Singapore and everywhere else they went?
And how does it concern Americans? The US troops killed half a million civilians in the Philippines. I doubt that their treatment of Chinese would have been better if they had controlled China.
Killing the six year old kid I mentioned earlier?
None of American soldiers have harmed Japanese kids. What will you say else?
Can’t imagine why anyone would want to wipe them at out at their source.
The fact that the Americans didn't is testament to their superior conduct.
Why should Americans have done it? The Japanese had never invaded the mainland USA.
As for things done at the expense of women and children, how about the Japanese propaganda at Saipan about the supposed torture the Americans would wreak on its inhabitants that resulted in women jumping off Suicide Cliff with their children, all to die below?
I doubt that the destiny of these women would have much differed from the claims of the Japanese propaganda.
Don't try to tell me that the Americans were the bad guys.
All right they would have been as kind as the Japanese if they had not used A-bombs
Where are the American equivalents to the Rape of Nanking, the Burma Railway, the Bataan Death March, the treatment of POW’s, the Korean Comfort Women, and other such atrocities and inhumane exercises by the Japanese?
The most well-known - Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
America didn't starve the Japanese people. Which is a bloody sight better than the Japanese did in many of the territories they occupied.
America worked hard to rebuild the Japan that its militarist leaders had led to destruction.
Modern Japan exists because of Allied, primarily American, post-war reconstruction, in spite of the destruction brought upon Japan by its own leaders to 1945.
The Japaneses worked hard on their own to rebuild Japan. The American administration just conduced it. If the Americans had prevented this process, the Japanese resistance would have been formed, evidently got support from the communist states and outperformed their Vietnamese comarades in defeating Americans.
tankgeezer
11-03-2007, 02:07 PM
Kato, you need a new crystal ball....
Nickdfresh
11-03-2007, 02:49 PM
...
A-bombing did not leave any chances for survival unlike traditional warfare. Using A-bombing against civilians was an act of American cowardice. American "heroes" wanted to save their bacons from open combat at the expense of Japanese women and children.
The Japanese Imperial Army was very prepared to sacrifice women and children, and thousands of Japanese civilians committed suicide after the American victory on Okinawa precisely because they had been told that US Marines and soldiers were cannibal barbarian rapists...
Maybe you should do a little historical research before making such general statements...
Quite correct. Americans weren't more humane than Japaneses.
You're quite simply out of your mind or completely ignorant with statements such as this. Ask the Chinese residents of Nanjing how "humane" the IJ's policies were...
And feel free to compare the Japanese occupation of Manchuria with that of the US occupation of Honshu...
Neither does Japan, especially after A-bombing.
The Japanese just state the fact that Americans deliberately killed hundreds of thousands civilians and it was a war crime on behalf of America from every point of view.
As opposed to the Japanese deliberately murdering and raping millions? Facts that the Japanese gov't goes out of its way to prevent from being stated...
Nickdfresh
11-03-2007, 03:05 PM
There were all the capacities to produce new ones.
Only after several months. And I believe there was one bomb kept in reserve. In which case, the US would have commenced the invasion, which would have been bloody for all sides...
Pearl was the base of the American Navy and Japanese pilots targetted ships and the port.
Yes, in a surprise attack prior to a declaration of war, and in response to the US' policy of isolating them in response to the Japanese rape of China...
Americans often didn't take any prisoners at all.
True. But after seeing the Japanese POWs continually throw grenades after capture, the brutal treatment of US POWs, and incidents of discover dead, captured Allied soldiers and marines devoid of their flesh, I think you might understand where the bitterness came from...
And how does it concern Americans? The US troops killed half a million civilians in the Philippines. I doubt that their treatment of Chinese would have been better if they had controlled China.
When? Really? Uh, no, the US never killed half a million Filipinos. And does that make Japanese atrocities towards Filipinos okay in occupation period of 1942-45?
None of American soldiers have harmed Japanese kids. What will you say else?
Well, they didn't kidnap their daughters and place them into sexual slavery...
And feel free to point out the "horrific" post-War occupation of Japan by US forces... Good luck!
Why should Americans have done it? The Japanese had never invaded the mainland USA.
They didn't have the ability too...However, judging by their treatment of civilian contract workers captured on Wake Island (who almost all died in captivity), of the Western civilians interned in the Philippines, I doubt they would have treated occupied American very well..
I doubt that the destiny of these women would have much differed from the claims of the Japanese propaganda.
[quote]All right they would have been as kind as the Japanese if they had not used A-bombs
The most well-known - Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You know, you're getting suspiciously close to trolling here...
Really? six-million Chinese murdered by the Japanese Army, often for sport, really compares?
Nickdfresh
11-03-2007, 03:11 PM
The Japaneses worked hard on their own to rebuild Japan.
With American money and resources - without which they'd be an agrarian society today...
The American administration just conduced it.
"Conducted" what? Reconstruction?
If the Americans had prevented this process, the Japanese resistance would have been formed, evidently got support from the communist states and outperformed their Vietnamese comarades in defeating Americans.
Again, you're perilously close to trolling here with such statements...
Help from Russia? Really? I doubt they would have cared that much. In any case, there was no occupied Soviet sector, making any aid largely ineffective, unless you count the Kuril Islands, which are economic basket cases...
And "Vietnamese comrades?" Is there a shortage of history books in the Ukraine these days?
Rising Sun*
11-03-2007, 08:00 PM
If the Americans had prevented this process, the Japanese resistance would have been formed, evidently got support from the communist states and outperformed their Vietnamese comarades in defeating Americans.
That demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of all relevant factors.
The dominant elements in Japanese society were rabidly anti-communist. Any attempt at a Soviet backed communist resistance by the Japanese communists who survived the anti-communist repression before and during the war would have been opposed by those elements, and by all Japanese military and former military elements, as strongly as by the American and other Allied occupiers. It was never going to get off the ground.
There's also the problem that the Soviets were still at war with Japan and reluctant to come into direct conflict with America. This made it most unlikely that the Soviets would support an insurgency in Japan.
As for China, it wasn't in a position to do anything as a communist state before 1950 at the earliest, by which time Japan was well on the way to reconstruction and falling into America's arms in an anti-communist crusade, taking up again what the militarists and dominant elements in Japan had been doing to August 1945.
Vietnam is an irrelevant comparator. America never occupied North Vietnam. It occupied all of Japan, giving it considerably more control and military flexibility than it ever had in Vietnam.
What exactly do you have against Americans? You're not prepared to give them any credit for anything and are quite irrational in many of the assertions you make against them.
Rising Sun*
11-03-2007, 09:59 PM
Americans often didn't take any prisoners at all.
That was primarily a consequence of Japan imbuing its troops with the 'never surrender' mentality that shamed them and their family if captured.
It's just another aspect of the little value that the Japanese leadership placed on the lives of their own men, as reflected in other things like poor military medical services and inadequate rations.
The 'never surrender' mentality is also attributable to the glory attached to dying for the Emperor. It seems it was a great thing to die for the Emperor all over Asia until mid-August 1945, then all of a sudden a couple of A bombs which conferred instant glory on a lot of people somehow changed the rules of the game. Even now Japan glorifies those who died for the Emperor, except those who died for the Emperor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki who are somehow victims of the evil Americans.
They can't have it both ways. Either all Japanese dead died in a great and glorious cause for Japan, or they didn't.
The Japanese also often didn't take prisoners. Those they took they often tortured, used for bayonet practice, hacked limbs off, disembowelled, and inflicted other miseries on while still alive. Or ate. Or, big heroes they were, hacked their heads off to demonstrate their Samurai spirit and skill. You won't find the Allies doing that, because they didn't adhere to the same primitive, savage, inhumane culture that Japan's militarists created. If they did, the streets of Japan would have been running with blood during the early stages of the occupation, as happened in many places occupied by Japan.
The simple fact is that many Japanese are too ignorant of, or refuse to admit, what Japan did to see how well they were treated by the Allies, and how badly they were let down by their own leadership in its willingness to sacrifice its own people.
The only reason Tibbets and co are historical figures is because Japan started a war and wouldn't surrender long after it knew it was beaten. That is entirely Japan's fault and responsibility. It's a measure of Japan's immaturity as a modern nation in certain respects that it still can't, or won't see it.
When? Really? Uh, no, the US never killed half a million Filipinos. And does that make Japanese atrocities towards Filipinos okay in occupation period of 1942-45?
Check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War
Americans had and have no right to assume the role of moralist in that region.
So stop tell us that Americans cared for the Chinese or Koreans suffering under the Japanese yoke. It is rediculous.
They didn't have the ability too...However, judging by their treatment of civilian contract workers captured on Wake Island (who almost all died in captivity), of the Western civilians interned in the Philippines, I doubt they would have treated occupied American very well..
Americans interned the Japanese citizens of the US.
With American money and resources - without which they'd be an agrarian society today...
It was a super-power that kept pace with the West in technologies and science for decades prior to the WWII without American money and resources.
So the Japanese would be an agrarian society today only if Americans did their best to turn it into the one.
"Conducted" what? Reconstruction?
Did not hinder the reconstruction conducted by the Japanese.
Again, you're perilously close to trolling here with such statements...
Help from Russia? Really? I doubt they would have cared that much. In any case, there was no occupied Soviet sector, making any aid largely ineffective, unless you count the Kuril Islands, which are economic basket cases...
And "Vietnamese comrades?" Is there a shortage of history books in the Ukraine these days?
I just pointed out that if Americans had oppressed the Japanese after the end of WWII, then there would have been armed resistance to the Americans and this resistance would have been pro-communist according to the general tendencies in the region at that time and naturally it could count on receiving extensive support from communist states just the way Northern Korea and Vietnam.
That was the main reason for more or less good conduct of Americans in Japan.
The dominant elements in Japanese society were rabidly anti-communist. Any attempt at a Soviet backed communist resistance by the Japanese communists who survived the anti-communist repression before and during the war would have been opposed by those elements, and by all Japanese military and former military elements, as strongly as by the American and other Allied occupiers. It was never going to get off the ground.
The dominant elements in Chinese society were rabidly anti-communist as well.
There's also the problem that the Soviets were still at war with Japan and reluctant to come into direct conflict with America. This made it most unlikely that the Soviets would support an insurgency in Japan.
The situation changed in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time the anti-American insurgency in Japan would have been a great chance for the USSR to oust Americans from the South-Eastern Asia
Rising Sun*
11-04-2007, 03:02 AM
The situation changed in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time the anti-American insurgency in Japan would have been a great chance for the USSR to oust Americans from the South-Eastern Asia
Jesus wept!
If the Yanks were going to lay waste to Japan, do you think they were going to wait ten to twenty years to do it?
If they were such bastards and had such a great nuclear production capacity, why didn't they just stay offshore and keep nuking Japan for the fun of seeing the Nips, especially their children, burn?
Or occupy and clean it up by mid-1946 when nobody could oppose them.
As for North Korea and Vietnam supporting Japanese insurgencies, look at the histories of both places under the Japanese and work out whether they'd be for or against anyone giving the Japanese some grief.
As for North Korea and Vietnam being communist states that would support an insurgency, work out who controlled them and the historical and political factors which dictated that they couldn't and wouldn't do anything before about 1950 and 1955 respectively, even if they were minded to, which they weren't.
If you're going to engage in historical debate, it'd help if you had even a vague grasp of the relevant history.
As for North Korea and Vietnam supporting Japanese insurgencies, look at the histories of both places under the Japanese and work out whether they'd be for or against anyone giving the Japanese some grief.
Don't perverse my posts. North Korea and Vietnam were only the comsumers of military aid from the USSR and China. So the sponsors of anti-American movements could be only the USSR and China.
Considering the fact that Chinese Communists tried to keep out of the war with Japaneses in China, gathering resources for their revolution, one may see that ideological reasons for them were more important. Besides, Taiwan is the closest ally of Japan today. So as you see past is not that crucial in the local politics.
Rising Sun*
11-04-2007, 03:54 AM
Don't perverse my posts.
I don't need to.
They're already stunningly perverse by themselves, and magnificent perversions of history, and become more so with each of your posts.
This is a pointless discussion as you lack the knowledge and objectivity to participate in it constructively.
I'm inclined to agree with Nickdfresh's suspicion that you're trolling, so I'll bow out of responding to you until you make some rational and informed contribution.
Firefly
11-04-2007, 05:45 AM
Kato.
If you cant back up any of your sweeping statements with any sources whatever then as guys have said, it seems like a simple Troll to me.
Please provide some information to back up your theories.
Thanks
I don't need to.
They're already stunningly perverse by themselves, and magnificent perversions of history, and become more so with each of your posts.
This is a pointless discussion as you lack the knowledge and objectivity to participate in it constructively.
I'm inclined to agree with Nickdfresh's suspicion that you're trolling, so I'll bow out of responding to you until you make some rational and informed contribution.
You, guys, had plenty of knowledge and objectivity to refer to A-bombing as to something other than a war crime. After it you just don't need any other information and theories.
Rising Sun*
11-04-2007, 07:55 AM
Kato.
If you cant back up any of your sweeping statements with any sources whatever then as guys have said, it seems like a simple Troll to me.
Please provide some information to back up your theories.
Thanks.....
.....
What information do you need? That hundreds of thousands of the victims of American A-bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were women and children?
That the deliberate mass murder of civilians is a war crime?
The information that nearly all the countries of the region had been controlled and exploited by Brits and Americans for decades prior to the short Japanese occupation?
Or that Japan was a super-power that had kept pace with the West in technological and scientific development for decades prior to the end of WWII without Americans?
Nickdfresh
11-04-2007, 11:50 AM
Check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War
Americans had and have no right to assume the role of moralist in that region.
So stop tell us that Americans cared for the Chinese or Koreans suffering under the Japanese yoke. It is rediculous.
Thanks for the Wiki page citing NO sources and long discredited, exaggerated death tolls...
Yes the US committed atrocities against the Filipinos, or more specifically the Moro Tribesmen (as did other Filipinos against the various differing ethnic groups of their countrymen, as many fought with the US forces...)
But, I fail to see how an American counterinsurgency campaign in 1901 justifies wholesale murder of the Chinese by the Japanese in the 30s and 40s. Not to mention that the Filipinos didn't exactly welcome their "liberation" by their "Asian brothers," either...
BTW, if the US had no right to be "moralists." Then what gives the Japanese the right to be moralists? If they could kill wholesale from 1931 to 1945 based on what the US did 30 years previously, what gives them the right to complain about being nuked? Or you for that matter...
Americans interned the Japanese citizens of the US.
And this compares with what the Japanese did how? Nobody here has ever said that is right, but I might add that the Japanese interned all Westerners, and even murdered numbers of them.
The Japanese-Americans, or Nisei, have also had reparations paid. Too little, too late. But what has Japan ever done as far as acknowledging their brutal, vicious campaigns featuring a complete lack of regard for human life...
Nickdfresh
11-04-2007, 12:04 PM
I just pointed out that if Americans had oppressed the Japanese after the end of WWII, then there would have been armed resistance to the Americans and this resistance would have been pro-communist according to the general tendencies in the region at that time and naturally it could count on receiving extensive support from communist states just the way Northern Korea and Vietnam.
There were few communists left in Japan, as RS* had pointed out. They were persecuted by the totalitarian Japanese police state...
In any case, the supplies would have had to been landed via shipping. Something not bloody likely too be allowed. In any case, it was never American policy to "oppress peoples." We certainly can argue over how much it was in the American self-interest to rebuild countries in order to establish rich and successful trading partners - It certainly WAS! But at least you can credit the US for being far more visionary than the totalitarian occupiers were. At least say the humanitarian principles of the enlightenment drove US policy. Certainly unlike the political order that preceded it...
That was the main reason for more or less good conduct of Americans in Japan.
So. Why didn't the US just begin mass executions? Sending What would have stopped them? Communist aid?
Why didn't the US just do the same to Germany? Furthermore, both Japan and Germany acted in their self-interests when they occupied countries by enslaving and the use of forced labor, using terror, and intimidation to control whole populations. Can you please provide an example of how "communist aid" or even Allied operations such as the SOE or OSS "Jedburgh teams" really provided much impact on making things difficult for an occupying force. These would be examples far more appropriate and analogous to the US occupation of Japan, since you fail to understand even the basic histories of the Korean War or the Indochina/Vietnam War of 1946-1975...
Again, your posts are just silly argument fodder rife with internal contradictions...
Nickdfresh
11-04-2007, 12:19 PM
What information do you need? That hundreds of thousands of the victims of American A-bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were women and children?
"Hundreds of thousands?" You mean 150,000 actually...
That the deliberate mass murder of civilians is a war crime?
Oh, but they WEREN'T all civilians. Most had been conscripted into the Japanese Civilian Defense Militia:
Our troops face not only the roughly three million regular and garrison troops of Japan's armed forces but a civilian militia that sometimes seems to include the entire Japanese nation. American intelligence reports confirm that in preparation for "Ketsu Go," as the Japanese have termed their preparations for the American invasion, nearly 32 million Japanese were drafted into the civilian militia. That includes all males aged 15 to 60 and all women from 17 to 45. Their weapons include ancient bronze cannon, muzzle-loading muskets, and even spears and bows and arrows. More than ten thousand Kamikaze planes were readied, many of which have already been used. The harakiri cult has been extended even to little children, who have been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-3904017.html
Yes! Those wonderful minions of the Japanese Emperor who loved their children so much, they were prepared to send them to their deaths in suicide attacks!
The information that nearly all the countries of the region had been controlled and exploited by Brits and Americans for decades prior to the short Japanese occupation?
Which countries? The Philippines? Singapore?
So it was now okay for the Japanese to run things even far more savagely?
I guess the US and Great Britain also had no right to object to the gassing of the Jews since both had had anti-semitic elements in their cultures too?
Or that Japan was a super-power that had kept pace with the West in technological and scientific development for decades prior to the end of WWII without Americans?
Japan would have been a backward, shangri la Samurai feudal state that had either already been conquered by European powers, or existed centuries behind the modern era, as it was the US that forced Japan to open its society, largely trained it's modern army in the 1800s, and served as a model for industrialization and sea commerce and naval power. Americans had very much to do with it..
1000ydstare
11-04-2007, 12:46 PM
Or that Japan was a super-power that had kept pace with the West in technological and scientific development for decades prior to the end of WWII without Americans?
How do you figure that Kato?
Japan wasn't a super-power, she relied on other countries for all manner of things. I would say a super-power is a country that can go it alone if neccesary. Japan couldn't do this.
Japan had not kept pace in technological or scientific development. She had bought it from other countries. Particulary Great Britain. The Japanese Navy owed much the to the Royal Navy. Other countries provided know how also. Including the Americans.
If anything it could be said that Japan had achieved what they had inspite of being Japanese rather than because of it. Many of the traditions and customs of the Japanese clashed with the modern inventions and science.
A car presented to the Emperor by the British was never used.... the Emperor could not be seen driving himself, and none of his lackeys could be seen in front of the emperor!!!!!
I suppose they could have reversed everywhere!!!!!!! :p
Most of the wartime technology improvements came from Nazi Germany. U-boats provided the templates for most of the Japanese Subs, and the planes were practically all Luftwaffe rip offs. Some were identical!!!!!
More here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-German_pre-WWII_industrial_co-operation
vad_tfk
11-04-2007, 03:05 PM
Paul Tibbets - was one of the main criminals of WW II. He is personally guilty of the slaughter of thousands upon thousands civilians in the most brutal way.
If someone had really wanted to avoid invasion into Japan, new victims and devastation, they would have just signed peace treaty with Japan in 1945.
The only person who can be thanked for the end of the war is the Japanese monarch.
In my opinion, main criminals are politics but not soldiers
Firefly
11-04-2007, 03:29 PM
Is anyone else thinking ironman?????
Iron-San?
Nickdfresh
11-04-2007, 04:31 PM
It's definitely a troll. No question...
tankgeezer
11-04-2007, 06:52 PM
Report him.
Japan would have been a backward, shangri la Samurai feudal state that had either already been conquered by European powers, or existed centuries behind the modern era, as it was the US that forced Japan to open its society, largely trained it's modern army in the 1800s
Japan was conquered by European powers? And you called me a troll?
Commodore Perry negotiated a treaty allowing American trade with Japan, ending a 200-year period in which trading with Japan was only allowed to the Portuguese, Dutch, Chinese and a few other small groups. Within five years, Japan had signed similar treaties with other western countries. Americans just secured a part of Japanese pie for themselves.
Japan had not kept pace in technological or scientific development. She had bought it from other countries. Particulary Great Britain. The Japanese Navy owed much the to the Royal Navy. Other countries provided know how also. Including the Americans.
Yes, Japan bought know hows and technologies from the West and learnt a lot from the West. The ability to study, use, implement and maintaine these know hows and technologies successfully at the first stage of Japanese modernisations is very laudable. Japan managed to bridge the gap between feudal state and a key world power mainly within three decades after 23 October 1868. It means a lot.
Nickdfresh
11-04-2007, 09:16 PM
Japan was conquered by European powers? And you called me a troll?
I said WOULD HAVE been. It's a hypothetical inevitability. Indeed, how did closed societies with anachronistic military technology usually fare in the "age of imperialism?"
Commodore Perry negotiated a treaty allowing American trade with Japan, ending a 200-year period in which trading with Japan was only allowed to the Portuguese, Dutch, Chinese and a few other small groups. Within five years, Japan had signed similar treaties with other western countries. Americans just secured a part of Japanese pie for themselves.
CMDR Perry also forced the Japanese to sign the document, under threat of military/naval action...
Yes, Japan bought know hows and technologies from the West and learnt a lot from the West. The ability to study, use, implement and maintaine these know hows and technologies successfully at the first stage of Japanese modernisations is very laudable. Japan managed to bridge the gap between feudal state and a key world power mainly within three decades after 23 October 1868. It means a lot.
Of course they did, and did so well. But openly with the assistance of the Western Powers. Even during the occupation, it was felt by senior US military and civilian gov't officers that the Japanese had merely transferred the ideals of their nationalism from a discipline of that that was blatant militarism to one that was far more subtle. One that focused on industrial production and not conquest - with little apparent reflection on morality or historical context...
Nickdfresh
11-04-2007, 09:18 PM
Report him.
Who wants a martyr?
tankgeezer
11-05-2007, 08:19 PM
as may be,,,
Chevan
11-11-2007, 03:32 PM
Oh what a brilliant discuss i've missed in here guyes.
Kato you definitelly have shocked me;)
I/m quite womdering on your posts.
Guyes did you think i am bad anti-american ?:D No....
Get to know with Kato:D
He is definitelly developed of my previous point;)
Paul Tibbets - was one of the main criminals of WW II. He is personally guilty of the slaughter of thousands upon thousands civilians in the most brutal way.
Firstly Kato leave the Paul Tibbets aside. He was just a solgier. Good soldier btw.
He carefully had realised its order - and drop the bomb. This is not his quilt.
The main guilt of this is on the AMERICAN POLITICANS, who prefered the inhuman demonstration of American power via the nuclear bombing of civils in pure political aims..
BTW do you know that the most of american hight military command did not support the idea to drope the bomb?
Nickdfresh
11-11-2007, 03:48 PM
Oh what a brilliant discuss i've missed in here guyes.
Kato you definitelly have shocked me;)
I/m quite womdering on your posts.
Guyes did you think i am bad anti-american ?:D No....
At least you're somewhat consistant...
Kato's a bit 'out there' shall we say...
Get to know with Kato:D
He is definitelly developed of my previous point;)
Paul Tibbets - was one of the main criminals of WW II. He is personally guilty of the slaughter of thousands upon thousands civilians in the most brutal way.
Firstly Kato leave the Paul Tibbets aside. He was just a solgier. Good soldier btw.
He carefully had realised its order - and drop the bomb. This is not his quilt.
The main guilt of this is on the AMERICAN POLITICANS, who prefered the inhuman demonstration of American power via the nuclear bombing of civils in pure political aims..
BTW do you know that the most of american hight military command did not support the idea to drope the bomb?
I agree that if you're going to blame anybody, then one must blame the politicians. Mainly the Japanese ones. I do think the target selection left something to be desired though...
But distilling the bomb drop down to "purely political aims" is just silly for reasons that have been stated numerous times.
Most in the US command did not like the bomb. But then, they (with the exception of Macarthur who had no qualms about using it in Korea, yet seemed upset at the bomb robbing him of his final coup de grâce) weren't fully appraised of the situation. The US wanted the War over as quickly as possible, for various reasons.
Cojimar 1945
03-06-2008, 04:04 PM
The Japanese behavior in China certainly does seem odd given the question over why they would want to invade in the first place?
One thing I would be curious about is whether Japanese people can tell themselves apart from Chinese based just on physical appearance? The Chinese seem far more similar to the Japanese in appearance than many other people and I'm wondering how the Japanese would depict people who greatly resembled themselves as inferiors
Ashes
03-16-2008, 01:29 AM
Could someone help me out on this?
The reason I always see for dropping the bombs is almost entirely built around the scenario of the U.S. not having to invade and suffer huge casualties, [up to 1 million]
But what ''if'' the bombs didn't work, or force the Japanese to surrender, why would it be imperative to invade?
More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the country was on the verge of starvation, plus the Soviet Union entered the war and quickly destroyed 600,000 Japanese in Manchuria.
The blockade and fire bombing would soon bring them to their knees for minimal U.S. casualties, [think the last series of bombing raids had casualties of 0.03%] so why invade and suffer horrendous casualties?
Kampfgruppe Cottrell
03-17-2008, 01:21 AM
A great man.
Brian
Rising Sun*
03-17-2008, 07:08 AM
Could someone help me out on this?
The reason I always see for dropping the bombs is almost entirely built around the scenario of the U.S. not having to invade and suffer huge casualties, [up to 1 million]
But what ''if'' the bombs didn't work, or force the Japanese to surrender, why would it be imperative to invade?
More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the country was on the verge of starvation, plus the Soviet Union entered the war and quickly destroyed 600,000 Japanese in Manchuria.
The blockade and fire bombing would soon bring them to their knees for minimal U.S. casualties, [think the last series of bombing raids had casualties of 0.03%] so why invade and suffer horrendous casualties?
Because Japan wouldn't surrender unconditionally, as required by America but less so by a wavering Churchill who had less interest in the war against Japan than against Germany which he'd already won and as a consequence was facing domestic problems about pursuing a distant war against Japan while Britain was still short of food and basic civilian supplies.
Invasion was the only way of ending the war against an enemy that showed every sign of fighting until it was ground into the dust.
Japanese preparations for the defence were suicidal at various military and civilian levels, not that the Allies (essentially the Americans) knew that at the time, but things like the kamikaze plane attacks and defence of Okinawa made it clear to any reasonable observer that Japan was a nation that wouldn't surrender until it was defeated by force of arms.
American military doctrine, then and now, in conventional warfare favours applying overwhelming firepower to reduce the enemy before risking flesh, which was almost the opposite of Japanese military doctrine in WWII which recognised its industrial and materiel limitations and put more emphasis on flesh than firepower.
If you trawl through this site you'll find discussions about other aspects influencing the decision to nuke Japan such as America trying to intimidate the Soviets and Japan dragging out peace feelers to get the best deal for Japan to preserve the Emperor.
Major Walter Schmidt
03-17-2008, 05:54 PM
A great man.
In my opinion, he was just a pilot caught up in the evil of WWII
Cojimar 1945
03-17-2008, 09:30 PM
Why would the United States be set on unconditional surrender? In the Korean war the US did not demand unconditional surrender. If the US was willing to take the chance of ridicule and loss of prestige for not being assertive in Korea why would it have a different attitude towards Japan?
Ashes
03-18-2008, 12:19 AM
Because Japan wouldn't surrender unconditionally, as required by America but less so by a wavering Churchill who had less interest in the war against Japan than against Germany which he'd already won and as a consequence was facing domestic problems about pursuing a distant war against Japan while Britain was still short of food and basic civilian supplies.
Invasion was the only way of ending the war against an enemy that showed every sign of fighting until it was ground into the dust.
Japanese preparations for the defence were suicidal at various military and civilian levels, not that the Allies (essentially the Americans) knew that at the time, but things like the kamikaze plane attacks and defence of Okinawa made it clear to any reasonable observer that Japan was a nation that wouldn't surrender until it was defeated by force of arms.
American military doctrine, then and now, in conventional warfare favours applying overwhelming firepower to reduce the enemy before risking flesh, which was almost the opposite of Japanese military doctrine in WWII which recognised its industrial and materiel limitations and put more emphasis on flesh than firepower.
If you trawl through this site you'll find discussions about other aspects influencing the decision to nuke Japan such as America trying to intimidate the Soviets and Japan dragging out peace feelers to get the best deal for Japan to preserve the Emperor.
Hi Rising Sun,
I see your points, they would definitely need some grinding into the dust, but why not use the blockade and around the clock bombing to do the grinding for minimal casualties vs a ground war and up to a million casualties.
And as you say American military doctrine, then and now, in conventional warfare favours applying overwhelming firepower to reduce the enemy before risking flesh, well, this was good chance of using that overwhelming firepower [bombing offensive] vs flesh [ground campaign]
Some argue that bombing would take too long and that the U.S. wanted it over as quickly as possible, although the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey done after the war reported that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering and probably would have done so before Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, set to begin in November 1945, [even if the A bombs weren't used] although the Americans didn't know this at the time.
Afraid I'd make a lousy C in C, much too soft, I'd always be looking for ways to save my men so I'd probably take the bombing route, however long it took.
As for the dropping of the A bombs, it's certainly a great read on the ''Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? thread''
Rising Sun*
03-18-2008, 05:49 AM
Hi Rising Sun,
I see your points, they would definitely need some grinding into the dust, but why not use the blockade and around the clock bombing to do the grinding for minimal casualties vs a ground war and up to a million casualties.
Time.
America was war weary and financially strapped by the war. Everyone on the Allied side wanted it finished ASAP, and Japan didn't.
Trying to starve Japan into submission would have taken years, maybe decades, assuming it ever worked against a leadership that was quite happy to use all its people in a suicidal effort against an invader. Meanwhile isolated Japanese outposts in the SWPA were still resisting, which showed Japan's unwillingness to surrender even when cut off and starving.
An invasion seemed like the only way to bring it to a relatively quick end, militarily, with total defeat of Japan. That's what the Allies had been working towards since 1941. The strategy was all designed to that end, and it acquired its own momentum which made that end inevitable, if Japan didn't surrender sooner.
There was also the American political reality that Truman would face an election in 1948. He wouldn't want to be chipping away at Japan's coast several years after Japan had been defeated everywhere but in the home islands. That wasn't a motivating factor as such, but the need to end the war quickly to avoid dragging it on with adverse political consequences for a war weary nation was a political consideration that encouraged a decisive end, which seemed to be achievable only by an invasion and was the intended end of America's whole grand strategy. Politically, it didn't make sense to do anything but administer the coup de grace represented by the invasion.
Also, it comes back to the basic military reality that, certainly before Gulf War 1, no nation had been bombed into surrender and victory required either vanquishing the enemy or attacking him with such force and success that he realised he had no option but to surrender.
It's not an aspect I know anything about, but I wouldn't be surprised if part of the American motivation was a desire to get into the home islands to exclude the Soviets, although America was also keen for the Soviets to attack Japan long before the end of the war. Conversely, Olympic was planned long before the stunning Russian advances in the last weeks of the war, so the invasion wasn't a response to any fear that Soviet success might get them into the home islands because of those successes.
A related aspect I'd like to know more about is the significance of the contest for China, which in many ways is what the war with Japan was really about if one goes back to 1931 and Japan's threat to Western interests there which go back to the 19th century. That gets tied up with Allied support for Chiang and the wild card of Mao threatening to displace Western interests. The whole China aspect permeates Japan's war, but I have yet to begin to understand it and how it affected Western thinking and actions.
Nickdfresh
03-18-2008, 10:16 AM
Hi Rising Sun,
...
Some argue that bombing would take too long and that the U.S. wanted it over as quickly as possible, although the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey done after the war reported that the Japanese were on the verge of surrendering and probably would have done so before Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, set to begin in November 1945, [even if the A bombs weren't used] although the Americans didn't know this at the time....
I wouldn't tend to take what AAR bombing surveys say at face value. They'll probably also tell you that bomber generals were the greatest geniuses in the history of warfare and that their ground war counterparts were dum dums...:D
In any case, the US strategic bombing would have been better off not even hitting Japanese cities since there was little real concentration of industry to be targeted. I've seen arguments that the US would have been better off just targeting Japanese ports and their their campaign against Japanese shipping using strategic air power both laying mines and battering harbours and defensive troop concentrations waiting at the correctly guessed likely landing areas would have had better success without firebombing civilians...
Afraid I'd make a lousy C in C, much too soft, I'd always be looking for ways to save my men so I'd probably take the bombing route, however long it took.
As for the dropping of the A bombs, it's certainly a great read on the ''Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? thread''
One thing needs to be said however regarding the use of ground troops. I don't often agree nor think highly of Gen. MacArthur, but he may have been right in thinking that if America armor were to break through the Tokyo Plane, that the Japanese defense would crumble much as it had in Manchuria during "August Storm." The Japanese simply had no widely available defense against tanks in a battle of maneuver. The US was also prepositioning its new Pershing tanks on Okinawa should the invasion have been necessary. Predictions vary, and there is little question that the initial assaults would have suffered horrendous casualties, especially if troop ships fell victim to Kamikaze attacks. But I do believe that once the Japanese defense were reduced around the landing areas, the end would come quick...
Ashes
03-19-2008, 02:06 AM
Time.
America was war weary and financially strapped by the war. Everyone on the Allied side wanted it finished ASAP, and Japan didn't.
Trying to starve Japan into submission would have taken years, maybe decades, assuming it ever worked against a leadership that was quite happy to use all its people in a suicidal effort against an invader. Meanwhile isolated Japanese outposts in the SWPA were still resisting, which showed Japan's unwillingness to surrender even when cut off and starving.
An invasion seemed like the only way to bring it to a relatively quick end, militarily, with total defeat of Japan. That's what the Allies had been working towards since 1941. The strategy was all designed to that end, and it acquired its own momentum which made that end inevitable, if Japan didn't surrender sooner.
There was also the American political reality that Truman would face an election in 1948. He wouldn't want to be chipping away at Japan's coast several years after Japan had been defeated everywhere but in the home islands. That wasn't a motivating factor as such, but the need to end the war quickly to avoid dragging it on with adverse political consequences for a war weary nation was a political consideration that encouraged a decisive end, which seemed to be achievable only by an invasion and was the intended end of America's whole grand strategy. Politically, it didn't make sense to do anything but administer the coup de grace represented by the invasion.
Also, it comes back to the basic military reality that, certainly before Gulf War 1, no nation had been bombed into surrender and victory required either vanquishing the enemy or attacking him with such force and success that he realised he had no option but to surrender.
It's not an aspect I know anything about, but I wouldn't be surprised if part of the American motivation was a desire to get into the home islands to exclude the Soviets, although America was also keen for the Soviets to attack Japan long before the end of the war. Conversely, Olympic was planned long before the stunning Russian advances in the last weeks of the war, so the invasion wasn't a response to any fear that Soviet success might get them into the home islands because of those successes.
A related aspect I'd like to know more about is the significance of the contest for China, which in many ways is what the war with Japan was really about if one goes back to 1931 and Japan's threat to Western interests there which go back to the 19th century. That gets tied up with Allied support for Chiang and the wild card of Mao threatening to displace Western interests. The whole China aspect permeates Japan's war, but I have yet to begin to understand it and how it affected Western thinking and actions.
According to the Strategic Bombing survey sixty-four percent of the population stated that they had reached a point prior to surrender where they felt personally unable to go on with the war. Of these, less than one-tenth attributed the cause to military defeats, one-quarter attributed the cause to shortages of food and civilian supplies, the largest part to air attack.
The survey goes on to explain the plight of the starving population, their conclusion is that the Japanese couldn't last much longer and that they would have surrendered before the invasion date.
The main man Hirohito [the man with the final say] and the doves in the cabinet wanted to call it quits, the sticking point was the guarantee of the throne.
Naturally the military wanted to fight to the last man but as soon as the Emperor said quit, they quit.
As you say the Americans urged the Soviets for help against the Japanese so I guess that if the bombs didn't work and it came to a bloodbath the U.S. would have been glad of Soviet help.
I wouldn't tend to take what AAR bombing surveys say at face value. They'll probably also tell you that bomber generals were the greatest geniuses in the history of warfare and that their ground war counterparts were dum dums...:D
In any case, the US strategic bombing would have been better off not even hitting Japanese cities since there was little real concentration of industry to be targeted. I've seen arguments that the US would have been better off just targeting Japanese ports and their their campaign against Japanese shipping using strategic air power both laying mines and battering harbours and defensive troop concentrations waiting at the correctly guessed likely landing areas would have had better success without firebombing civilians...
One thing needs to be said however regarding the use of ground troops. I don't often agree nor think highly of Gen. MacArthur, but he may have been right in thinking that if America armor were to break through the Tokyo Plane, that the Japanese defense would crumble much as it had in Manchuria during "August Storm." The Japanese simply had no widely available defense against tanks in a battle of maneuver. The US was also prepositioning its new Pershing tanks on Okinawa should the invasion have been necessary. Predictions vary, and there is little question that the initial assaults would have suffered horrendous casualties, especially if troop ships fell victim to Kamikaze attacks. But I do believe that once the Japanese defense were reduced around the landing areas, the end would come quick...
''Predictions vary, and there is little question that the initial assaults would have suffered horrendous casualties, especially if troop ships fell victim to Kamikaze attacks.''
Hi Nick
That's the part that would scare the pants off me, think I'd go with 0.03% casualties and stick to blockade and bombing.
On the Strategic Bombing Survey..... it says it was was established by the Secretary of War on 3 November 1944, pursuant to a directive from the late President Roosevelt and as far as I know none of the members had any connection with the USAAF, have you seen it on........
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm
Nickdfresh
03-19-2008, 07:56 AM
...
Naturally the military wanted to fight to the last man but as soon as the Emperor said quit, they quit.
...
Well, not exactly. Some IJA officers did launch a coup de'tat against the emperor,and were largely foiled because of a bombing raid which killed the power. They may have failed anyways, but there were still factions that needed to me neutralized even after the atomic bombings...
Hi Nick
That's the part that would scare the pants off me, think I'd go with 0.03% casualties and stick to blockade and bombing.
On the Strategic Bombing Survey..... it says it was was established by the Secretary of War on 3 November 1944, pursuant to a directive from the late President Roosevelt and as far as I know none of the members had any connection with the USAAF, have you seen it on........
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm
Yes, but there was fear that the Soviets were coming. I'm not sure the Red Army and Navy could have carried out or sustained such a large scale amphibious assault. But they were taking some islands nevertheless...
And much of the Strategic Bombing Survey has been questioned by historians as merely rationalization...
Rising Sun*
03-19-2008, 08:39 AM
Some IJA officers did launch a coup de'tat against the emperor,and were largely foiled because of a bombing raid which killed the power. They may have failed anyways, but there were still factions that needed to me neutralized even after the atomic bombings...
What's interesting about that last minute coup attempt is that, like many of their colleagues, some of the relatively junior officers who carried it out actually believed that they were going to rescue the Emperor, because it was inconceivable that he could surrender. They thought he was being manipulated by others or that the surrender broadcast was a fraud.
What the IJA and IJN never grasped was that the Emperor always acted to preserve the Imperial line, despite it being kept from true Imperial power by the IJA, the IJN, the government, the Japanese constitution, and the Shoguns before that.
In the end, the Emperor with very little real power against the IJA and IJN and government came out as the only intact survivor of the war, and paradoxically because of the elevation of the Emperor in the post-Shogun constitution and the later exploitation of that office for nationalistic purposes by various elements in Japan, notably the IJA.
It's one of those cases where clever dicks outsmarted themselves and created something they couldn't control, like the Israelis with Hamas in another context.
Ashes
03-20-2008, 02:02 AM
Yes, but there was fear that the Soviets were coming. I'm not sure the Red Army and Navy could have carried out or sustained such a large scale amphibious assault. But they were taking some islands nevertheless...
You mention the Soviet chance of invading Japan.
The Soviets made amphibious landings in the Kurils, Sakhalin island and North Korea, but they were very small compared to the enormous task force the U.S. was planning for Operation Olympic.
By all accounts the Soviets were confident they could invade and Glantz seems to think that they had some chance of invading Hokkaido before the Americans got a foothold on Kyushu, but others have argued that it was beyond the Soviets amphibious capabilities.
By all accounts there was about 6 understrength Japanese divisions on Hokkaido, and about 170 suicide aircraft.
If the bombs didn't work, do you the Americans would have still welcomed the Soviet help they asked for at Yalta, or had the change in administration soured relations to much.
It would mean a heck of a lot more American casualties if they went at it alone, that's why Roosevelt urged Stalin for help.
What's interesting about that last minute coup attempt is that, like many of their colleagues, some of the relatively junior officers who carried it out actually believed that they were going to rescue the Emperor, because it was inconceivable that he could surrender. They thought he was being manipulated by others or that the surrender broadcast was a fraud.
What the IJA and IJN never grasped was that the Emperor always acted to preserve the Imperial line, despite it being kept from true Imperial power by the IJA, the IJN, the government, the Japanese constitution, and the Shoguns before that.
In the end, the Emperor with very little real power against the IJA and IJN and government came out as the only intact survivor of the war, and paradoxically because of the elevation of the Emperor in the post-Shogun constitution and the later exploitation of that office for nationalistic purposes by various elements in Japan, notably the IJA.
It's one of those cases where clever dicks outsmarted themselves and created something they couldn't control, like the Israelis with Hamas in another context.
Yep, it's remarkable that many millions of Japanese, men and officers imbued with the credo of fighting to the last man and would rather die then surrender, would meekly lay down their arms almost to a man on command of the Emperor.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.