# Smithsonian Article plagued by revisionism comments



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2014)

A few days ago, Smithsonian posted an article on facebook about the passing of "Dutch" Van Kirk, the last surviving crewmember of the Enola Gay.

While there were a great outpouring of support and well wished for Van Kirk, the nutjobs started creeping in with their "war crime" rhetoric.

I actually got into it with some clown who was going along replying to most of the commenters with his "Truman's war crimes" and "Truman's genocide" and pretty much has the idea that WWII was started by Truman.

As you guys know, I like to stir it up occasionally and get these dimwits all frustrated. I can just envision them yelling at their laptop in some Starbucks somewhere, on the verge of spilling their double-shot latte, with several Google-Chrome windows open to various blogs and chemtrail discussion groups.

I'll post a copy of my discussion so ya'll can point and laugh:

*David* To Zachary Bradford and the others, who are so entrenched in their views of revisionist history and misinformation: the combined atomic bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing compared to the conventional bombings of Tokyo, where over 120,000 people perished and another 1.2 million were displaced. Why aren't you beating your chests and ranting over this event?
And while you're at it, why aren't you ranting and raving about the fact that well over 30,000,000 Chinese perished at the hands of Imperial Japanese occupation?
Why aren't you ranting and raving about the nearly 800,000 Koreans that perished under Imperial Japanese control?
Why aren't you ranting and raving about the nearly 1,000,000 Indonesian deaths at the hands of the Japanese?
Why aren't you ranting and raving about the nearly 200,000 Manchurians that died at the hands of the Japanese?
Why aren't you ranting and raving about the forced laborers, the brutal treatment of POWs, the confinement of dissidents who had a very short life expectancy under those conditions?
Why aren't you ranting and raving about the atrocities in other Occupied countries, like Singapore, the Phillipines, Malaya, Polynesian Islands, Saipan, Hong Kong, Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and on and on and on?
What gives YOU the right to beat your chest and scream war crimes if you have such a little grasp of actual historical events?
All you're doing, is selectively taking an event that was the culmination of a totalitarian regime's actions and twisting it into some senseless banner to follow while stepping over the corpses of those who were truly sacrificed.
You should be remembering the suffering and misery of those millions upon millions and honoring their sacrifices so no one EVER has to suffer like that again.
Shame on you.

*Zachary Bradford* Revisionist history? That is exactly what Truman and his administration did after the fact. They knew what they did and worked for the rest of their lives to construct a narrative to help erase the taint. The story of how many American lives saved kept growing. It finally reached a million lives... imagine that.

*Zachary Bradford* I do rant and rave about those. However, the Japanese administrations of those times are gone. America however is eerily the same, thus deserving focus.

*David* Not hardly, Zachary Bradford...the Japanese military was far from defeated and were prepared to put up a defense even stronger than Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese public were training and had been training for defense of home soil.
An invasion of mainland Japan would see every man, woman and child putting their lives on the line and fight to the death.
It was estimated that a conventional invasion of Japan would have meant the war lasting into spring on 1946...so how many more deaths by Allied and Japanese would that account for?
The Japanese were not ready to surrender and it wasn't until the Emperor's voice was heard on the radio (for the first time), telling the people that the war was over, did they accept defeat.
Don't fall for the conspiracy/revisionist BS, stick to the hard facts and preserve history so that we may learn from it...to do otherwise opens Pandora's box and we doom ourselves to repeat these horrors over and over again.

*Zachary Bradford* You are echoing the exact propaganda narrative Truman's administration pushed for twenty years after trying absolve itself of taint and genocide. The revisionist stuff is the account you are stating. We had no reason to invade Japan and we were negotiating with japan at the time. Russia was starting its invasion and Japan was under siege and done. It was a simple waiting game. Truman can say whatever but there is no way to remove the stain of genocide. The world knows it but I guess good old patriotic Americans will never see outside of the box constructed for them.

*David* No, Zachary Bradford, you are drivelling the revisionist slop that spills out of every other blog and coffeehouse, spearheaded by disenchanted internet activists and tin-foil hat dimwits. You cannot blame the U.S. for ever ill the world has ever suffered, no matter how much you wish it were true.
The U.S. did not kill all the dinosaurs, the U.S. did not topple the Roman Empire, the U.S. did not kill Ghandi and the U.S. did not start WWII.
WWII Europe was a result of the despair and ruin that Europe was left in following WWI...WWII in the Pacific had been building for several generations, also as a result of WWI. With brutal Japanese expansion in Southeast Asia, the U.S. started a limitation of oil and iron exports to Japan, who was a major consumer of those U.S. exports. They took that as an affront and an insult and ultimately this led to Pearl Harbor.
Zachary Bradfor, true history is a hell of a thing and can be far more fascinating that watching for UFOs and following blogs, try picking up a real history book sometime and read it, you may be surprised. At the very least you may learn something...well, perhaps I am being too optimistic in your case...

And there ya' have it (so far) but this clown is pretty persistent and I am expecting a reply sometime soon. A couple of my favorites from him would be:
*We had no reason to invade Japan and we were negotiating with japan at the time* - did anyone bother to inform the Japanese about this? 
*The story of how many American lives saved kept growing. It finally reached a million lives... imagine that* - I suppose it's a little late to tell him there were other countries that fought against the Japanese?
*I guess good old patriotic Americans will never see outside of the box constructed for them* - Da comrade, patriotic American is to be puppet of state 

And there ya' have it...anyone (with a FB account) that wants to check the rest out, here's the link to the Smithsonian article at FB: 
https://www.facebook.com/smithsonianmagazine/posts/10152321127878253?comment_id=10152324613318253

And here's the Smithsonian article at Smithsonian Mag:
History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Aug 3, 2014)

If I may dare to comment about the topic, it's interesting for me to see not only a winner blames a loser but a winner, even if he is a revisionist, blames another winner among the same group for decades when a loser doesn't blame a winner as the loser has to think about the future.

Yes, it's interesting.


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 4, 2014)

Pretty weird Dave. Unfortunately, with the internet, anyone with a hair-brained, half-back idea, can convince a few more morons, and then it snowballs(I think America had something to do with the dinosaurs.)

Geo


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2014)

fubar57 said:


> (I think America had something to do with the dinosaurs.)


Good going, you know the NSA saw that, right?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2014)

Zach is a moron. Good thing he does not hang out in these parts.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 4, 2014)

oh boy, where to start. Ther was no crime at the time to attacking legitimate miliatary targets, and no crime to what me might refer to as "collateral damage. There is now I might add. war crimes back then related to deliberate targetting of civilians, in which there was no legitimate military potential. BCs area bombing and Dresden were closer to this definition than Hiroshima ever was. but even then, the British were attacking for a military purpose aty least, and not simply revenge or torture.

The morals of war. Its an oxymoron in many ways....unlike this guys who is just a plain moron


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 4, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Zach is a moron. Good thing he does not hang out in these parts.



If he did, it wouldn't be for long!


----------



## Mobius (Aug 4, 2014)

Do some of those people have relatives that fought (on the allied side) in WWII? I found letters my dad, who passed a few months ago, wrote to his parents while he was in the service during WWII. His ship, was in port at the time of the end of the war having their 20mm AA guns replace by more powerful 40mm AA guns because they expected to be dealing with desperate air attacks during a future invasion of Japan. 

One little nugget he wrote I never heard before is that he wasn't expecting liberty that weekend because of the end-of-the-war riot that went on when victory was announced.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2014)

I quote David Jablownski's "Wings of Fire" many times in an assessment of Japanese military strength in July of 1945; they still had plenty of fight left. Japanese leadership had feelings from "No surrender" to "One last glorious battle." A mainland battle would have been horrible and IMO the atomic bombings were the lesser of two evils.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2014)

fubar57 said:


> ]I think America had something to do with the dinosaurs.
> Geo



They , or rather their fossil remains, were planted by the evolutionists to support their theory. Everyone knows that the earth was created in 4004 BC the Archbishop of Armagh proved it using the bible back in the 17th century.

There's plenty of people who think he was right !

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 4, 2014)

stona said:


> Everyone knows that the earth was created in 4004 BC



On a Friday!


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2014)

And here's the latest round! 



> *Zachary Bradford *Try picking up a history book... yes. Funny thing, I am a historian... Once again, I repeat. History was revised the minute Truman said, "holy crap, this might not sit well with civilization. I better get a narrative going and quick."



And not wanting to let this golden opportunity get past me, I responded:



> *David* Yes, Zachary Bradford, you saying that you're a historian is a funny thing. Big difference between being a historian and a comedian, however...
> Now, let's look at revised history on a large scale:
> During the communist years, the Soviet Union taught students that the Soviet Union won WWII (great patriotic war) without any real participation of the U.S.
> In communist China, they teach that China beat Japan in WWII (the war of resistance) with minimal participation of the U.S.
> ...



Ohh...a revisionist shot down by the professionals of revisionism!! Damn, that's gotta suck!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2014)

parsifal said:


> deliberate targetting of civilians, in which there was no legitimate military potential. BCs area bombing and Dresden were closer to this definition than Hiroshima ever was. but even then, the British were attacking for a military purpose aty least, and not simply revenge or torture.



I'm glad you qualified that.

According to the OKH weapons office Dresden contained 127 factories important enough to be accorded their own three letter manufacturing codes, for example Zeiss-Ikon was given the code dpv. There were many more smaller factories and workshops which were not assigned codes, according to the Dresden City Museum.

The 1942 Dresdner Jahrbuck boasted

_"Anyone who knows Dresden only as a cultural city, with its important architectural monuments and unique landscape environment, would rightly be very surprised to be made aware of the extensive and versatile industrial activity, with all its varied ramifications, that make Dresden one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich."_

That's a German assessment.

I could list many of these companies and what they made. Take Richard Gabel Son. A small company operating from two premises it had originally made machines for making waffles and marzipan. It's report to the regional armaments command (Rustungskommando) of March 1944 showed that by then 96% of its output was destined for the Wermacht, including torpedo parts for the navy. There were hundreds of such firms in Dresden 

Bomber Command was not 'very surprised' and knew all about Dresden. This is quite separate to its role as a crucial transport link, immediately behind the advancing Russian front. Dresden was not only one of the largest regional directorates but also a key junction through which ran both the north-south and east-west axes of the German railway network.

It was a far more valuable and arguably valid target than some others destroyed in the latter stages of the war.

The principle reasons for the relatively large death toll (around 25,000) were twofold. Firstly there were many refugees in the city but secondly and more importantly air raid precautions, particularly the provision of public shelters, was woeful. The blame for this lies firmly with the local government and Gauleiter Mutschmann.

The second wave of aircraft also bombed the margins of the original target area on the instructions of the master bomber who could see no point in adding more explosives and incendiaries to the initial firestorm. This undoubtedly killed many who had fled the city centre to avoid the earlier bombing. The assigned aiming point for the second wave had been the Altmarkt but this had lain within 5 Group's bombing sector and was already a sea of flame. 

Steve


----------



## Mobius (Aug 4, 2014)

> extensive and versatile industrial activity, with all its varied ramifications, that make Dresden one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich."


Well, there you go. It was done to slow global warming from coal using carbon spewing industries. Is there anything more important to civilization then to stop global warming?


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2014)

Mobius said:


> Well, there you go. It was done to slow global warming from coal using carbon spewing industries. Is there anything more important to civilization then to stop global warming?



Depends whether you believe how much of it is down to us (man made) and how much is entirely normal 

The point was that revisionism is rife and the Dresden raid has been as much an object of it as many others. In the case of Dresden this was at least partly self inflicted by the British themselves.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2014)

The thing that really gets me angry, though, is how these new age revisionists scream "war crimes" and "genocide" at Allied actions while dismissing the Axis accounts. I am at a loss as to what thought process they are using to come to these conclusions. 

I recently saw a post (yep, on facebook) of a photo of a Japanese crewman (officer) being shot at in the water by the crew of a U.S. submarine. It was during an attempt to rescue Japanese sailors from a ship that had been sunk and the American sailors were able to rescue a few Japanese sailors, but several refused to be helped and at one point, a Japanese officer started firing at the Americans with his sidearm. The Americans returned fire with the MG and this was all recorded with a movie camera. The photo in the above mentioned post showed the Japanese officer being shot and the discussion was the "American atrocities and genocide against the Japanese" and the photo's caption was: "proof of horrific war crimes committed by the Americans".

When I hear things like that, It brings to mind cold-war propeganda and intentional distortion of facts to sway public sentiment.


----------



## Mobius (Aug 4, 2014)

stona said:


> The point was that revisionism is rife and the Dresden raid has been as much an object of it as many others. In the case of Dresden this was at least partly self inflicted by the British themselves.


That is partly a result of logic. When Germans were bombing and rocketing cities it was a horrible crime against civilians. Yet, the excuse for bombing German cities was they produced goods and services for their military. German civilian hands that could cook food for or cloth German soldiers were fair game. As were houses and buildings that could serve to shelter Germans in military uniform. Thus undermining the idea that civilians should not be the target of attacks.


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2014)

German civilians, or workers as they are euphemistically called, were an implicit target authorised in various directives following the infamous Area Bombing Directive (General Directive No.5) of February 1942.

There was a lot of discussion and brow beating leading up to this and a lot of euphemistic language used consequently, but the bombing of the German civilian population was authorised.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Freebird (Aug 4, 2014)

parsifal said:


> oh boy, where to start. Ther was no crime at the time to attacking legitimate miliatary targets, and no crime to what me might refer to as "collateral damage. There is now I might add. war crimes back then related to deliberate targetting of civilians, in which there was no legitimate military potential. BCs area bombing and Dresden were closer to this definition than Hiroshima ever was. but even then, the British were attacking for a military purpose aty least, and not simply revenge or torture.



Indeed, though times opinions have changed and in today's world, dropping an A-bomb on Gaza or Belgrade or Tehran or Baghdad would be seen as a horrific war crime, regardless of the "military value" of the target.



FLYBOYJ said:


> I quote David Jablownski's "Wings of Fire" many times in an assessment of Japanese military strength in July of 1945; they still had plenty of fight left. Japanese leadership had feelings from "No surrender" to "One last glorious battle." A mainland battle would have been horrible and IMO the atomic bombings were the lesser of two evils.



There's the simple answer right there, it was the alternative that would incur the least number of civilian casualties.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2014)

freebird said:


> > Originally Posted by *FLYBOYJ*
> > I quote David Jablownski's "Wings of Fire" many times in an assessment of Japanese military strength in July of 1945; they still had plenty of fight left. Japanese leadership had feelings from "No surrender" to "One last glorious battle." A mainland battle would have been horrible and IMO the atomic bombings were the lesser of two evils.
> 
> 
> There's the simple answer right there, it was the alternative that would incur the least number of civilian casualties.



But as we can see, the revisionist/conspiracy movement doesn't see it as simple as that, they see it like this:


> *Zachary Bradford* You are echoing the exact propaganda narrative Truman's administration pushed for twenty years after trying absolve itself of taint and genocide. The revisionist stuff is the account you are stating. We had no reason to invade Japan and we were negotiating with japan at the time. Russia was starting its invasion and Japan was under siege and done. It was a simple waiting game. Truman can say whatever but there is no way to remove the stain of genocide. The world knows it but I guess good old patriotic Americans will never see outside of the box constructed for them.



Now if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conventionally bombed instead of atomic bombed, you can be sure that the focus would be on the incendiary bombing of Tokyo and use the same "war crimes", "genocide" and "atrocities" that they are using for the atomic bombings.


----------



## rochie (Aug 4, 2014)

There are one or two Zach' s in this forum !
Though they are generally called out when the start spouting !


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2014)

Point out to him that following the defeat of Germany Japan still had 5,000,000 men under arms, 2,000,000 of them in the home islands. These figures are from the minutes of meetings of the Interim Committee, discussing the atomic bomb in June 1945. It's how the Americans perceived the problem of an invasion. 

The US Navy was openly opposed to an invasion, preferring to strangle Japan to death by sea and by air. How many JAPANESE would have died had this option been taken?

MacArthur pressed for an invasion, initially of Honshu in November 1946, and this became policy on June 18th. He did not believe that Japan could be defeated without boots on the ground. In conventional terms he may have been correct.
At this meeting there was considerable discussion of political means of ending the war and potential American casualties should a military option be adopted. This was NOT a post war justification but a real concern in the period leading up to the decision to use the bomb. This was also discussed at the meeting, but there were fears that it might prove 'a dud'

The facts always get in the way of a good revisionist story 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2014)

I fully agree.

Imagine the destrustion the Japanese cities had been suffering by way of conventional bombing by the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit.

Now, consider just how many more cities would have received the same devestation had the war continued on through 1946 (as estimated). With continual bombing and a desired naval blockade that would deprive Japan of food and essentials...what would the scale of human suffering have been, then, over the course of the next ten or so months that was estimated to take the homeland?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 4, 2014)

The Japanese were at the brink of surrender, because the Allied war machine was going flat out to destroy it. Take the foot of the gas pedal and you give them the chance to stage some sort of recovery. The Japanese were not trying to surrender because they wanted to. 

Applying peacetime ethics to wartime situations really gets me mad. There are rules of war, but this aint a breach of those rules as they existed at that time.

Oh I forgot, Truman wrote everybody elses histories as well....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mobius (Aug 4, 2014)

freebird said:


> Indeed, though times opinions have changed and in today's world, dropping an A-bomb on Gaza or Belgrade or Tehran or Baghdad would be seen as a horrific war crime, regardless of the "military value" of the target.
> There's the simple answer right there, it was the alternative that would incur the least number of civilian casualties.


See you need to think 'Tall boys' and 'Grand Slams'.


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2014)

I reckon that fewer Japanese people were killed by the two atomic bombs than would have been killed by a naval blockade and continued air assault followed by an allied invasion in late 1945.
I know that fewer allied personnel died.
In a perverted way the atomic bombs saved lives on both sides.
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Aug 4, 2014)

David nice try but a closed mind is CLOSED and logic and facts are immaterial to them. You might as well put toothpaste back in the tube.
I admire your patience


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2014)

Thanks Mike, but it's so difficult to sit by and watching the growing numbers of misinformed, misguided and just plain stupid people on the internet.

The internet was originally conceived as a medium for information exchange, not as a fountain of disinformation.

Hopefully, when challenging these people, it plants a seed of doubt in their own convictions and they will do a fact-check (quietly of course, when no one's looking) and at the very least, the undecided onlookers may be steered towards true history instead of following these conspiracy nuts...


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 4, 2014)

Oh boy, this kind of threads never turn well. Too many emotions and private opinions.



parsifal said:


> Applying peacetime ethics to wartime situations really gets me mad. There are rules of war, but this aint a breach of those rules as they existed at that time.



I am always surprised by such rhetoric's pulled. "We cant apply peacetime policy at war" 
Particularly as a lawyer I see no excuse for such thinking. War is not a normal situation, but by any means it should be done with as small as possible harm to those who cannot protect themselves and with obedience to the rules. We are not animals, and thinking that we are allowed to turn into animals at war because its completely different situation and peacetime rules do not apply doesn't seem to be proper. It doesn't matter if you are Japanese, German, Russian or American. If you commit a crime in the eyes of your countries or international law you should be sentenced to death and executed. 

The rules created under a peacetime are for such situations. And saying that peacetime ethics cannot apply ... well, that is why we are not learning and we have crimes over and over again. A civilization which creates civilized foundations and then decides not to follow them is just asking for self-destruction. 


Now for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or all the bombings of Japan, Germany, Britain or any other place. From legal point of view it could be a breach of Article 25 of Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land signed in Hague in 1907, also by United States :

Art. 25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

The natural question raises, if Tokio or Nagasaki or Nagoya can be considered as undefended. The doctrine precised it to :
- existence of Anti-aircraft armament, which indeed was deployed around cities. An obvious thing in this case.
- existence of military units in sufficient numbers on the grounds. In this case I dont think Japanese treated cities as garrisons and so there was not that many soldiers.
- existence of sufficient and capable fighter units - we all know Japanese lacked planes capable of intercepting B-29's and in many cases bombings were simply out of Japanese pilots capability to intercept them.

From legal point of view article 25 is not precise, although the literal explanation of it is not the only and best way of understanding it. We should also follow the intentions of the authors. And by that and doctrinal view it was undefended. Or could be considered as one knowing weakness of Japanese defense against such targets as B-29.

Much better it is shown in Hague Air Warfare Rules from 1923, Article 24 Point 2 and 3 :
2) Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the following objectives: military forces; military works; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition, or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.

3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited.* In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated, that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment. *

Interestingly a lot of the rules from the Hague Air Warfare Rules were directly implemented into internal legal systems. As I'm aware the Regulations of USAF, RAF or even Luftwaffe contained the principles taken from it. The Luftwaffe Instruction from July 1939 allowed for terrorist bombing but it could only be conducted if military situation will show it necessary and with the approval of the Luftwaffe Commander. Obviously the Instruction was not a problem to bomb Warsaw or any other city in 1939, 1940 and later. But that was simply a personal decision. Not lack of regulation. Also Goering later "payed" for that.

The League of Nations recognized this problem also, in the resolution from 30 September 1938, "Protection Of Civilian Population Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War" :
" Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:
1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal; 
2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable; 
3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence"

Yes yes, I know United States were not member of League. But still were a civilized country.

The last step before the war was shown in Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War created in Amsterdam in 1938.
"Article 4 - Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population is expressly prohibited."

Aerial bombardment with incendiary bombs of Tokio cannot be considered otherwise as terrorizing. And Atomic bombs also had a purpose of terrorizing the nation.

"Art. 5. 1. Aerial bombardment is prohibited unless directed at combatant forces or belligerent establishments or lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.
2. In cases where the objectives above specified are so situated that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment. "

Well, again. High altitude bombings of big formations of B-29's caused unavoidable civilian losses. The bombers were simply inaccurate. Not to mention about Atomic bombs which turned the whole city into ruins. 


Maybe there is something in Curtis Lemay words :
"Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.... Every soldier thinks something of the moral aspects of what he is doing. But all war is immoral and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier." 

I simply, as a person who spent some time studying this subject and a person whose family was deeply affected by the war cant see any excuse for the Atomic bombs, nor for any other kinds of bombings of cities in Japan or anywhere else. As I said at the very beginning, it is meaningless if a man was Japanese, German or Russian. If he committed a crime he should be sentenced to death. 
And approval of the civilian killing, a justification of one crime with another or speculations are one of the worst things a person can see. It is immoral and also illegal. 

But not much can be said if even a Nuremberg trials were a negation of the rule of law. A victors cannot judge the defeated - its not fair or objective. Yet they did.

Now please forgive me if that was too long, or was too deep. I only wanted to make my point, even if this opinion is against others I simply think there always should be second side and a defender.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 4, 2014)

Hiromachi, I might mention that the Japanese did have fighters capable of bringing down the B-29 at higher altituded (and did), however, if you may recall, the B-29s started operating at lower altitudes to improve bombing accuracy which enabled more types to intercept the bombers.

Anyway, the fighters used successully to intercept the B-29s were:
Kawanishi N1K2-J, Ki-44-II, Ki-45-Kai, Ki-46-III-Kai, Ki-61-I, Ki61-I-Hei, Ki-84-Ko, Ki-100-I, Ki-100-1-Otsu, Ki-100-1-Ko

As far as military targets in amd around the targeted cities, yes, there were as well as industrial targets.
At Hiroshima, you had both the Second Army Group Command (southern Japan defense command), the Second Army Division Command and troop assembly centers. You also had numerous industrial targets such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries along with munitions depots, storage facilities and transport centers. Add to this, the extensive naval facilities at Kure.

At Nagasaki, you had communications centers, ordnance depots, transportation hubs, shipping facilities and industry.

So the assumption made by some people, that the U.S arbitrarily bombed "non-essential" targets is further from the truth. Several factors used for city target was size and military value. With the secrecy and expense of these new weapons, the U.S. just wasn't going to attack a random civilian target, it had to be a strategic target that would demonstrate that continuing the war was futile AND they had no idea if it would work and did not have back up atom bombs in the event that the first two failed either in function or demoralizing effect.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 4, 2014)

> A victors cannot judge the defeated - its not fair or objective. Yet they did.



Ummm, so who does? If the victors can't judge the defeated, then why have laws at all?



> A civilization which creates civilized foundations and then decides not to follow them is just asking for self-destruction.



Maybe we should remember this.....

Battle of Nanking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.















How anybody can apply 2010s morals against a 1940s government is amazing.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2014)

cicero said ''silent enim inter arma'....'laws are silent in war"


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2014)

"Moderation in war is imbecility" Lord Fisher.

Civilians have always died in war and long before the introduction of the strategic bomber. 

Can someone explain what exactly the target of a naval blockade might be? When a city was besieged in medieval times the citizens starved too, just as they would in a blockaded country.

The British drew a fine line between bombing civilians and bombing their dwellings. The infamous paper by Cherwell goes to great lengths to demonstrate how the RAF could destroy German homes, concluding that it should be possible to turn about a third of the German population _"out of house and home"_. 
Basing his opinion on evidence from the victims of German bombing in Britain, and entirely erroneously, he went on. _"Investigation seems to show that having one's house demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed." _
Some, not least Tizard, disagreed but the die was cast. It is a fine moral line between bombing someone's house and bombing someone. The lawyers can argue about that one. It's why I said before that I believe that the German civilian population was the implicit rather than explicit target of Bomber Command.
Personally, I'm with Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher. Moderation is imbecility, if you have to kill every living German to win the war then that's what you try to do. You can leave it to later generations to agonise over the moral arguments. You will have won them the right and liberty to do so.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Aug 5, 2014)

The USA did not have to use the A bomb, they could have invaded the whole of Japan which would have cost millions of lives or they could simply have cut Japan off, invaded one island large enough to use air power to deny the use of the sea or any transport system. In an article I read (it was in a link posted here)surrender by Japan was not only because of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but also the Russian invasion of the Kurile Islands. As many posters have said threatening and killing civilians is and always has been a part of war, people are generally not born into the military a soldier is just a civilian trained to fight. Jericho had walls around it to protect its citizens for a reason. My fathers job (engine room) in the Navy was no different to a civilians, it was just he was on a fighting ship not a freighter that made a difference.

In short revisionism makes me sick, it is all very well to label everything the allies did as a war crime but they should acknowledge that if the allies lost then they wouldn't be allowed to pontificate with such freedom.


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 5, 2014)

Njaco said:


> Ummm, so who does? If the victors can't judge the defeated, then why have laws at all?


You know, there is a basic principle of law - impartiality. Coming all the way, back to Ancient Roman law. None of the countries involved in tribunal was impartial, and they could be. There were countries in Europe like Switzerland or Sweden not involved, neutral. Ans also countries outside of Europe. And objective and fair tribunal was a possibility, but obviously was not what Victorious countries wanted.
This made it a parody, bringing as one of the judges a Iona Timofeevich Nikitchenko who presided over some of the Stalin's show trials during the Great Purges in late 1930's, where he among other things sentenced Kamenev and Zinoviev. Overall it is said that he is responsible for death of 30 000 people.
The Soviet Prosecutor, Roman Rudenko was also a Prosecutor in political process over Polish Underground Army and politicians, the Process of Sixteen. He was also the one who tired to bring a Katyn Massacre as a German crime during Nuremberg Trial.

From legal point of view it was a Tribunal in which Soviet criminals judged German criminals, with addition of Western representatives. 



Njaco said:


> Maybe we should remember this.....
> 
> Battle of Nanking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> How anybody can apply 2010s morals against a 1940s government is amazing.



Yes yes, pull it few times more because I don't know what happened in Nanking. If you would read the text I was very specific that every war criminal should be punished. Nationality doesn't matter.

And I'm not applying modern morals but morals and what is more, legal acts from the 1920's and 1930's. There is nothing amazing in it, since large part of civilized countries has some Christian foundations giving a moral guidance. I didn't bring anything that didnt exist at that time.



parsifal said:


> cicero said ''silent enim inter arma'....'laws are silent in war"



Yes, we can stick to it and justify everything any time. Or justify our crimes, judging only the ones who lost. Very logical, very moral.



GrauGeist said:


> Hiromachi, I might mention that the Japanese did have fighters capable of bringing down the B-29 at higher altituded (and did), however, if you may recall, the B-29s started operating at lower altitudes to improve bombing accuracy which enabled more types to intercept the bombers.
> 
> Anyway, the fighters used successully to intercept the B-29s were:
> Kawanishi N1K2-J, Ki-44-II, Ki-45-Kai, Ki-46-III-Kai, Ki-61-I, Ki61-I-Hei, Ki-84-Ko, Ki-100-I, Ki-100-1-Otsu, Ki-100-1-Ko
> ...



Japanese intercepted B-29's occasionally. Loosing a lot of planes themselves in that actions. And yes, they were operating later at lower altitudes. But with escort of Mustangs if I recall.

N1K2-J was powered by Homare engines, known for bad high altitude performance. 343 Kokutai pilots claimed that they could fight at 30 000 feet, but practically the best performance was achieved at 20 000. Anything above was not good enough.

Ki-44-II - a machine with outstanding performance but at lower altitudes. And with armament consisting only four 12.7 mm machine guns at best. The great climb rate was up to 5000 meters, but getting to 8000 meters took almost 10 minutes. Ha-104 was simply a low to medium altitude engine.

Ki-45 - were trying to do the job, but it was another plane with lack of turbocharger or at least 3-stage supercharger. With a climb time of 7 minutes to 5000 meters and weak engines above that 5000 meters I simply see it problematic for them to intercept the B-29 formation. 

Ki-46 - was a recce aircraft, only sometimes equipped in armament. 

Ki-61 - yes, that was one of the very few machines Japanese had, that could actually get to high altitude and maintain high performance. Other was Navy J2M Raiden. And 244th Sentai did that, although the amount of units equipped in Hiens was never high so its hard to call them effective. 

Ki-84 - suffered in same way as N1K2-J due to same engine.

Ki-100 - emmm, with almost 11 minutes to 8000 meters and top speed of 535 km/h at 10 000 meters I also see it quite complicated for Goshikisen to fight there. Though possible.


Yes, there was plenty of military targets. But they were surrounded by civil homes, hotels, restaurants, shops ... anything you name. 



> So the assumption made by some people, that the U.S arbitrarily bombed "non-essential" targets is further from the truth. Several factors used for city target was size and military value. With the secrecy and expense of these new weapons, the U.S. just wasn't going to attack a random civilian target, it had to be a strategic target that would demonstrate that continuing the war was futile AND they had no idea if it would work and did not have back up atom bombs in the event that the first two failed either in function or demoralizing effect.



No. There was no such assumption. US carefully chose a strategic targets, crucial for Japanese war effort. But didn't care about thousands of civilians living near/around/inside those targets. And contrary to that, they have tested one bomb before. Yes, there could be a technical failure. But you can use a same argument for conventional bombings or even some torpedoes or artillery shells.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 5, 2014)

And there is a concept in American law that says when someone attacks you, you are allowed to use the same amount of force as the attacker to defend yourself. Taught in Police Academies all across the United States on the use of Deadly Force. The Allies didn't start this but they sure as 'ell finished it. So revisionists can be as angry as they want - still doesn't alter the truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2014)

There are some confused time lines above re:the atomic bomb.

The Interim Committee reported to Truman on 1st June 1945 with it's recommendation for the use of the weapon and how that should be done, notably without prior warning.

The Trinity test was not until 16th July, more than six weeks later, and this is why fears of a 'dud' are raised in several meetings.

The original target proposed by the Interim Committee was to be _"a military target surrounded by other buildings." _

The actual targeting criteria adopted can be read in these minutes, and pretty brutal they are too.

Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945

Once again, moderation in war is imbecility.

Stimson wrote: _"The conclusions of the Committee were similar to my own, although I reached mine independently. I felt that to extract a genuine surrender from the Emperor and his military advisers, they must be administered a tremendous shock which would carry convincing proof of our power to destroy the empire. Such an effective shock would save many times the number of lives, both American and Japanese, than it would cost." _

There were many within the US administration, and particularly the scientific community who did not agree at the time, and there are evidently some still today. This, like it or not, is what happened.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 5, 2014)

I would like to point out that the use of "revisionist" as an innately perjorative term is neither correct nor helpful. History can and should be revised, if for no other reason than to look at "accepted" facts from a different perspective - think of Sheffield's work on the First World War or Parshall and Tully's "Shattered Sword". True revisionist history is based on new data or plausible reinterpretation of existing data. Just because some idiot wants to trumpet an assinine agenda does not make them a revisionist...it just makes them an imbecile.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 5, 2014)

Well said, Mark. 

Dave, I feel that although, like Mike said, your efforts are admirable and in your exacting way, truthful and factual, idots like this chap Zach are just tubthumping and riding on a wave of emotion, and the only point of view he sees is his own. True revisionists take facts uncovered since the incident and reveal them for the benefit of preserving history, whereas this chap and so many more on the net and indeed in book form - this is not a new thing after all - are boorish enough to push their own agenda and not take any notice of anyone else's, regardless of how accurate. Regardless of your good intentions, you might be p*ssing into the wind, I'm afraid. That doesn't mean you should stop, though!


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 5, 2014)

Njaco said:


> And there is a concept in American law that says when someone attacks you, you are allowed to use the same amount of force as the attacker to defend yourself. Taught in Police Academies all across the United States on the use of Deadly Force. The Allies didn't start this but they sure as 'ell finished it. So revisionists can be as angry as they want - still doesn't alter the truth.



Well, who said America is righteous and just country ? 
Besides, name me one bombing Japanese did against American city ? 
I'm not angry. What is more I'm not involved nor any part of my family was ever involved in that front. However I'm a close observer and I can't stand amount of hypocrisy which is pulled. It seems that some behave or want to behave like they would be superior to the others. They would be allowed to do more.



stona said:


> The actual targeting criteria adopted can be read in these minutes, and pretty brutal they are too.
> 
> Atomic Bomb: Decision -- Target Committee, May 10-11, 1945
> 
> ...


Thank you Steve for bringing it.



> 7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection
> 
> A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.
> 
> B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.



From this only it becomes pretty obvious that it was closer to terrorist attacks, with strict purpose of terrorizing the nation.
And absolutely, it happened Steve. I'm not debating on that. Nor anyone else.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2014)

There were conventions at the time concerning attacks on civilians, the treatment of POWs and the conduct of war. There was no real body of law however. Situations like nuremberg had simply never arisen before. depending of the age that a war was fought, an opponent and his lieutenants could be tortured, banished, thrown in gaol without trial, ransomed or just executed. Stalin at one of the big three conferences had suggested, seriously, to the summary execution of 100000 important Germans. Churchill had seriously considered, there was serious debate in the US to the complete dismantling of the german state as an industrial power. 

none of these options won through. though can justifiably denigrate the UN for its weakness now, back then it had some really brilliant supporters, and it was their force of will that ensured that the criminals that had conducted the war were given some measure of justice. saying that it was in the capacity of countries like switzerland, or argentina to run the trials more impartially is just sheer ignorance....the laws themselves to try these people didnt even exist, and most of the nations were blatantly pto german anyway. switzerland certainly was. 

Most thinking people agree that something had to be done about the nazis in particular, but to a lesser extent the japanese. it didnt turn into a blood bath. The people that were executed in the post war trials all deserved to die. the nations that had gone to war were right to be blamed under the UN charter for waging aggressive wars. Trying to argue that dropping the bomb, or any other of the more nasty allied war policies was an equivalent war crime is rubbish. no-one ever said the allies were perfect, or thay we were not capable of malevalent violence. We were perhaps better at it than anybody. That is not a crime, thats being scary and good at making war. The nazis were not in the same league. They killed for killings sake, and that is a world apart from dropping a bomb, however powerful, on a legitimate military target. 

it just makes me so mad to see people saying stuff about the war crimes trials that they really are not in a position to say. Spend 5 years studying law, and do a unit or two on the development of international law, and then you may be in a position to comment. otherwise you are just blowing it out of certain parts of your anatomy


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Hiromachi said:


> Besides, name me one bombing Japanese did against American city ?



Honolulu Hawaii, December 7, 1941

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2014)

It's called Total War...

It's easy for someone to sit bsck and judge 70+ years later. 

They did what they had to do to win the war. So be it...


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 5, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Honolulu Hawaii, December 7, 1941



Hard to compare with atomic bomb or even conventional bombing. 



parsifal said:


> Saying that it was in the capacity of countries like switzerland, or argentina to run the trials more impartially is just sheer ignorance....the laws themselves to try these people didnt even exist, and most of the nations were blatantly pto german anyway. switzerland certainly was.


I didnt say that they would have to run them. Nor organize. Not even play any other role than just judge. 

You are also assuming that Switzerland was pro-german, may I ask what can prove it ? Switzerland had no problems with shooting down any German plane that compromised the air zone. Particularly in 1940, when Luftwaffe was seriously organizing raids to prevent Swiss pilots from shooting down Heinkels or Dorniers flyin there. And later in war also. Besides, they also served as a safe place for damaged B-24's and B-17's that could land there in such case, of course they would be out of action but crew would survive.

Some would even say that more pro-german were Americans who allowed criminals and specialists to live undisturbed if they would share services and knowledge. War criminals like Arthur Rudolph, Kurt Blome, Walter Schreiber, Herman Becker-Freysing ... 



> Most thinking people agree that something had to be done about the nazis in particular, but to a lesser extent the japanese. it didnt turn into a blood bath. The people that were executed in the post war trials all deserved to die. the nations that had gone to war were right to be blamed under the UN charter for waging aggressive wars.


Absolutely, as a Pole I can assure you that they had to be judged and sentenced. Even more than were, since many criminals were given a chance to run. But that doesnt change the fact that Tribunal could be more objective. Without Soviet criminals perhaps. 



> Trying to argue that dropping the bomb, or any other of the more nasty allied war policies was an equivalent war crime is rubbish. no-one ever said the allies were perfect, or thay we were not capable of malevalent violence. We were perhaps better at it than anybody. That is not a crime, thats being scary and good at making war.


From legal and moral point of view it is a crime. I dont have problem with that acts themselves, but calling them justified and fair actions what is implied is not proper, its pure hypocrisy.



> The nazis were not in the same league. They killed for killings sake


 And they should be punished. Some were punished. Others not. But I do not question that.



> and that is a world apart from dropping a bomb, however powerful, on a legitimate military target.





> Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and *port* of embarkation* in the middle of an urban industrial area*. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage.



A military target with heavy industrial area and port, however surrounded by civilians.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2014)

I'll make two observations here.

The first observation, is that we have a discussion revolving around the *factual history* of those events. Whether one is playing devil's advocate or not, it is the very core of what I was talking about.

The second observation, is that if the Poles had access to an atomic bomb in 1945, you can be damn-sure they would not have hesitated to drop that SoB right smack in the middle of downtown Berlin...


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 5, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> The second observation, is that if the Poles had access to an atomic bomb in 1945, you can be damn-sure they would not have hesitated to drop that SoB right smack in the middle of downtown Berlin...



Second observation is not correct, we would hold it to threaten ... Germany or Soviet Union. Keep in mind for some it was Ally and Liberator, for others Soviet Union was another occupant 

Anyway, I dont think this threads leads us anywhere. It may be discussed or not. Point is, that there are more pleasant and simply better things to discuss. I would rather stick to some plane performance or history threads 

And besides, I hope nobody felt threatened or attacked by me. I didn't mean to offend anyone, just to show that there are other points of view


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2014)

Hiromachi said:


> Second observation is not correct, we would hold it to threaten ... Germany or Soviet Union.



How can you certainly say that? Remember that you are making that statement after 70 years of afterthought not after 6 years of war and occupation and millions of civilian casualties.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2014)

Hiromachi said:


> Second observation is not correct, we would hold it to threaten ... Germany or Soviet Union. Keep in mind for some it was Ally and Liberator, for others Soviet Union was another occupant


They would as much as any other nation would have, the atom bomb was a weapon and there was a desire to stop the war and the endless killing and suffering.


Hiromachi said:


> And besides, I hope nobody felt threatened or attacked by me. I didn't mean to offend anyone, just to show that there are other points of view


No need to apologize, this is all part of the discussion. We've all looked over the facts...and a point I might make, is that yes, the U.S. dropped atom bombs on Japan to which, their effect was achieved. The war was finished.
In all the years since, the U.S. has not done it again, even though there were several instances to where one would have been an advantage. So there, initself, is yet another accomplishment of the two weapons: hesitation to ever use one again.

Also, in regards to the Japanese aircraft types I mentioned before, these were all types that did, in fact, bring down B-29s and all were attached to Kokutais based in Iwo Jima or the Southern Defense Command. They accounted for roughly 200 B-29s downed.


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 5, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How can you certainly say that? Remember that you are making that statement after 70 years of afterthought not after 6 years of war and occupation and millions of civilian casualties.



First.
That is a false logic. Same argument could be used to discuss things which happened in XIXth century, in Middle Ages or Ancient Greece. It was 100, 500 or 3000 years ago, but still people discuss the topics and create statements.

Second. 
That was a pure speculation, since how even Poland would obtain an Atomic bomb ? Where would keep it ? With what would drop it ?

Third. 
The drop of bomb on Germany in this case, in 1945 would be a pure act of vengeance. Without any political, economical or military gains.



> Also, in regards to the Japanese aircraft types I mentioned before, these were all types that did, in fact, bring down B-29s and all were attached to Kokutais based in Iwo Jima or the Southern Defense Command. They accounted for roughly 200 B-29s downed.


A Manchurian Ki-27 is also credited with downing a B-29 if I'm aware. Not sure if that Nate rammed Superfortress or not


----------



## at6 (Aug 5, 2014)

If they had the Atom bomb, the Japanese would have used it without a second thought. The Germans were trying to build one which would have been used with no regrets. Also we should not forget that the Japanese were using people for ghastly medical experiments of the most despicably horrible types and tried to cause plague epidemics in the western U.S. using balloons carrying infected fleas. Stalin was himself a war criminal and the Allies had to chose which war criminal to support. The difference between Adolf and Joe was Adolf hadn't attacked them, although Russia should have been included as a German ally when Poland was invaded. Little mention is made of the fact that Russian forces entered Eastern Poland at the same time as German forces entered Western Poland. 30000 Polish officers were murdered in a forest by Stalin's order and then the Soviet "patriots" raped and pillaged their way into Berlin. By it's very nature, war is a cruel and ruthless business and those who seek to sanitize it with restrictions only fool themselves as they march to eventual defeat at the hands of an enemy with no moral scruples.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2014)

Hiromachi said:


> First.
> That is a false logic. Same argument could be used to discuss things which happened in XIXth century, in Middle Ages or Ancient Greece. It was 100, 500 or 3000 years ago, but still people discuss the topics and create statements.


No, it is sound logic...you are looking back with the soft sentiment of not having to see your country devestated by years of war and your nation's people slaughtered.



Hiromachi said:


> Second.
> That was a pure speculation, since how even Poland would obtain an Atomic bomb ? Where would keep it ? With what would drop it ?


The Poles in Warsaw and other places were down to using rocks to resist the Germans...do not think for a moment that if they has access to any weapon, they would not hesitate to use it.



Hiromachi said:


> Third.
> The drop of bomb on Germany in this case, in 1945 would be a pure act of vengeance. Without any political, economical or military gains.


And yet the Allies continued to pound Berlin by all means right until the very minute that Germany surrendered.

They didn't stop at the Rhine, light up a cigarette and say: "well, Germany's hosed, let's ease up on the poor bastards".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Hiromachi said:


> Hard to compare with atomic bomb or even conventional bombing.


So maybe the Japanese Military leadership should have thought about consequences prior to starting the war. Perhaps they should have thought about surrendering when their cities lay in ruin prior to the bomb being dropped.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2014)

Hiromachi said:


> First.
> That is a false logic. Same argument could be used to discuss things which happened in XIXth century, in Middle Ages or Ancient Greece. It was 100, 500 or 3000 years ago, but still people discuss the topics and create statements.
> 
> Second.
> ...



It is not false logic. It is very valid. You make statements as if they are truth, when they are speculative.


That is the pot calling the kettle black. You can't choose what to speculate about and what not. 

Poland is not more ritious than anyone else. After millions of casualties and 6 years of horror, Poland would have used it just as much as anyone else. If not for the only reason as to keeping the Soviets out.

War is hell. WW2 was a total war fought by all parties. You fight it to win, or your out. The US did what it had to do to win the fight with the least amount of US casualties (which was really the only thing that mattered from their perspective). It also was a show of force to the Russians and everyone else about what their capabilities were.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 5, 2014)

Hiromachi said:


> First.
> That is a false logic. Same argument could be used to discuss things which happened in XIXth century, in Middle Ages or Ancient Greece. It was 100, 500 or 3000 years ago, but still people discuss the topics and create statements.
> 
> Second.
> ...



It is not false logic. It is very valid. You make statements as if they are truth, when they are speculative.


That is the pot calling the kettle black. You can't choose what to speculate about and what not. 

Poland is not more ritious than anyone else. After millions of casualties and 6 years of horror, Poland would have used it just as much as anyone else. If not for the only reason as to keeping the Soviets out.

War is hell. WW2 was a total war fought by all parties. You fight it to win, or your out. The US did what it had to do to win the fight with the least amount of US casualties (which was really the only thing that mattered from their perspective). It also was a show of force to the Russians and everyone else about what their capabilities were.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> So maybe the Japanese Military leadership should have thought about consequences prior to starting the war. *Perhaps they should have thought about surrendering when their cities lay in ruin* prior to the bomb being dropped.


The herald of things to come, would have been Iwo Jima and Okinawa...

Even a blind man could come to the conclusion that from that point onward, a most serious ass-kicking was about to commence.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2014)

There were many reasons why the allies (and it was the allies not just the US, the British government gave its consent on July 4th) eventually dropped the bomb. First and foremost was that a majority in the US administration believed it was the best way to bring about a rapid Japanese surrender. They were right.

Churchill would write, on hearing of the success of the Trinity test at Potsdam on 17th July, that there was now a vision, _ "fair and bright indeed it seemed, of the end of the whole war in one or two violent shocks." _

President Truman's first action was to call together his chief advisers, Byrnes, Stimson, Leahy, Marshall, King, and Arnold. _"I asked for their opinion whether the bomb should be used." _The consensus was that it should. Here at last was the miracle to end the war and solve all the perplexing problems posed by the necessity for invasion. But because no one could tell what effect the bomb might have _"physically or psychologically"_, it was decided to proceed with the military plans for the invasion. 

This is what happened at the time. It is not some cover story to deny the true reasons for the use of the bomb. The minutes I linked to above are in the public domain. They make for uncomfortable reading, just as Cherwell's 'area bombing' paper does, but no attempt has been made to cover anything up.

The moralising that goes on now, with seventy years of hindsight, is pathetic. As Harris wrote in February 1945, paraphrasing Bismarck's opinion of the Balkans, _"I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier"._

I would have agreed with him then and I agree with him today.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hiromachi (Aug 5, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> No, it is sound logic...you are looking back with the soft sentiment of not having to see your country devestated by years of war and your nation's people slaughtered.


Not my. And well, I'm simply trying to undermine the arguments used to justify the act. My sympathy or antipathy has nothing to do with this.



> The Poles in Warsaw and other places were down to using rocks to resist the Germans...do not think for a moment that if they has access to any weapon, they would not hesitate to use it.



Let me remind you that Polish soldiers, in mentioned Warsaw didn't commit any crimes on captured Germans. Eventually captured soldiers were kept as prisoners or executed after trials. 
A testimony of Jan Nowak-Jeziorański :
"After return to "Victoria" I'm seeing German soldiers set in two rows, who were captured on Main Post Office, in Arbeitsamt or in few other places. They are holding their hands on heads. In their eyes you can see same, not indescribable animal fear of men waiting for death. They are in hands of "Banditen", who will most likely harass them, and in vengeance will kill them. 
But than in front of them a high man in middle age stands, in large boots and breeches. In fluent German language he explains that they are not in "Banditen" hands but Polish soldiers and they will be treated according to Geneva Convention. In a moment, in all eyes of that soldiers I can see boundless astonishment and disbelief, later expression of indescribable happiness."







> The moralising that goes on now, with seventy years of hindsight, is pathetic.



The same moralizing was going in 1907, 1923, 1938 and 1939. It was a basic fear for the fate of civilian society. What was said here is not unique, same thing could be said at that time also. And before that time was said.


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2014)

Hiromachi said:


> The same moralizing was going in 1907, 1923, 1938 and 1939. It was a basic fear for the fate of civilian society. What was said here is not unique, same thing could be said at that time also. And before that time was said.



It probably went on about the 'Burgher's of Calais' of whom Rodin would make a sculpture 550 years after the fact. Who cares? It's never stopped us murdering each other and it never will. Ask a Palestinian living in Gaza.

Steve


----------



## Njaco (Aug 5, 2014)

stona said:


> It probably went on about the 'Burgher's of Calais' of whom Rodin would make a sculpture 550 years after the fact. Who cares? It's never stopped us murdering each other and it never will. *Ask a Palestinian living in Gaza*.
> 
> Steve



Lets not go there.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2014)

stona said:


> It probably went on about the 'Burgher's of Calais' of whom Rodin would make a sculpture 550 years after the fact. Who cares? *It's never stopped us murdering each other and it never will*. Ask a Palestinian living in Gaza.
> 
> Steve


It might be better said by "look at the current global conflicts as proof".


----------



## fnqvmuch (Aug 5, 2014)

Then, as it is about all this; 

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and American Militarism | The Los Angeles Review of Books 
suppose he knows his stuff or at least more than most - obviously some niggles, but - its _such_ a good point he gets to ... 
( Paul Ham, at least his Kokoda - is excellent, btw)


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2014)

fnqvmuch said:


> Then, as it is about all this;
> 
> Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and American Militarism | The Los Angeles Review of Books ... militarism
> 
> ...


I am having problems with the author and their facts, one that really stands out, is the development and use of napalm. It was first made and tested in 1942 and then during testing, examples of *German* and Japanese buildings were used. It's first deployment was in the ETO, Germany to be exact and the USAAF and the RAF used it on targets BEFORE it was used in the PTO, on targets in Japan.

Another comment they made, was that Japan's AA and fighter defenses were gone before the atomic bombings, which is not the case. Even right after the bombing of Hiroshima, B-29s and their escort were attacked by Japanese fighters over Yawata, resulting in the loss of a B-29 and several P-47s. Even after the 2nd atom bomb was dropped, combat continued and on 17/18 August, USAAF B-32s were intercepted by Japanese fighters near Tokyo. 

However, one of the main reasons that interception of Allied aircraft by Japanese fighters was diminishing, was NOT because they didn't any more fighters. Instead, Japanese high command ordered fighters to be held in reserve to challenge the invasion that they knew was coming...

So I am having a little trouble with that author, to be honest.


----------



## fnqvmuch (Aug 5, 2014)

yes, but apart from those obvious bits i warned about ...


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2014)

True, you had pointed that out but here's my problem with that:
"Slight" ommissions or providing just enough information as they have done, is bending the tone of their article.

If an author truly wants to present thier case, they need to do it by providing honest facts, otherwise they drift into a fictional realm.

This can be compared to the restoration of a WWII aircraft. The meticulous research underlies the project and once it's completed, it's rolled out for the public to see. Writing an article (or book) is no different. It is all in the effort to present history as it is for later generations. 

Intentionally telling a reader that Napalm was developed for warfare against Japan is an all-out lie and is broadcasting misinformation. Once the auther said that, I instantly questioned all of his other facts and motives because he is not preserving history, he's distorting it. You and I may know he's told a lie, but what about the other readers who don't know better?

And that right there, has just become history revised...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 5, 2014)

I agree with Dave on his comment about Japanese Fighters. A wonderful book to read about this is called _Hell to Pay - Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947_ by D. M. Giangreco. The Japanese had hoarded thousands of planes and the had plenty of fuel to be used only during the Allied invasion.

I also agree with Hiromachi on a couple of his points. A number of us have the luxury of looking back 70 years and knowing *both* sides of the story without the emotions of having to directly live through them. I am not sure one can fully understand or appreciate a problem without looking at both sides of it to begin with.

Victors have a habit of writing history. If the Axis had won I would not have been surprised if the bombing of Dresden or the dropping of the atomic bombs were considered War Crimes while the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking were not given a second thought. How many Allies were tried for the Katyn Massacre or the Tongzhou Incident? I suspect none.

If I was alive and in command I would have used the bombs to primarily save Allied lives. The Japanese Civilians had in essence become a militia from the reports I have read and thus a valid military target. Today in hindsight and knowing both sides of the issue, I still would have dropped the bombs not only save Allied lives but also those of the Japanese as well. I have no doubt that invading the islands would have caused a tremendous loss of lives on both sides.

I have no issue with analyzing data in hindsight and I think at times one can be far more objective. The issue I have with Zach is he is not even making an effort to learn both sides of the story or all the facts and data on hand which leads me to a saying I say quite often, "You cannot reason with an unreasonable person."

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## fnqvmuch (Aug 5, 2014)

ok the airspace was not 100% until all those propellers were detached - _we_ all know this - but writing in the LArb? I think its an interpretation, just to quickly illustrate the increasing impunity/supremacy; would that readership appreciate what Iwo Jima looked like by then?
As to Napalm - the word used is developed, not invented - was the concept not in any way taken further given the target application then?
No-one knows it all, i don't mind taking on a bit extra ...


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 5, 2014)

Yes, the article _implies_ that napalm was "developed" solely for the use against Japanese targets.

It was not. It's concept actually came about before the U.S. was at war with Japan and then a short while later, as the synthetic compounds were successfully processed for it's testing, they didn't even know if U.S. forces were going to be able to defeat Japan, let alone get near enough to the Home islands to even try and use it.

It might also be noted that Napalm was also a key ingredient in U.S. flame-throwers, but that's for a different discussion.

So the bottom line here, is that the auther is steering the reader towards a conclusion.


----------



## fnqvmuch (Aug 5, 2014)

an awful lot of writing is to do just that.
lets agree that in the examples above the facts are spun, by use of weasel wording to precondition for something.
there are more fact-y bits there that should not be dismissed though ... citing primary sources, iirc.


----------



## fnqvmuch (Aug 6, 2014)

Really though, as it's just a book review by a peer, it has done the job - i want to get the Ham and will try to find the reviewers book/s. Preaching to the converted works ...


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 6, 2014)

There was a book published several years ago, by a well known author who "speculated" that the Germans had flown a Ju390 (V2) to the east coast of the United States on a recon mission. There was never any proven sources of this claim and a high degree of evidence proves this flight never happened. 

However, since this was a published account, many people who were not able to access Luftwaffe data or took the account as gospel propegated the myth and it still persists to this day. As you are well aware of, what is written can be done in such a way as to mislead or sway a reader.

Since the article is trying to push a point across to the reader, that the United States wanted desperately to use the atom bombs on Japan (because the U.S. is a militaristic society), embellishing the point of Napalm development the way he did, lends weight to his point. So to, does the way he makes the Japanese sound like they were wobbling on their last legs, by saying they had no way of bringing their army home from Manchuria/Korea while the author ALSO fails to mention that there were well over 2 million Japanese soldiers on home soil, the remainder offshore being roughly 5 million. At no point, does the author even cover the effective preparations the Japanese have made for defense, but instead, insists the Japanese were ready to surrender prior to the bombing. The Japanese, like it has been mentioned before, were still full of fight, they were still defiant and they were prepared to fight to the death defending their soil.

As Allied forces closed in on Japan, they encountered stronger resistance. By the time the Allies assaulted the lower islands of Japan proper (Iwo Jima Okinawa), the fighting was savage and all-or-nothing. This was alarming to Allied strategists, because they knew that if the Japanese were willing to put up a savage defense of those two Japanese islands, then the defense of the homeland would be unimaginable. And they were right.

The author also drifts between information of strategic bombing of Europe and strategic bombing over Japan, using the "unpredictable wind currents" that plagued the Japanese bombing strategy when discussing European bombing strategy. The more I read this guy's article, the angrier I get.

If, for some reason, I were to take all that he's saying as fact, it would instantly render my entire library worthless...

I'm starting to wonder if this author knows our friend Zachary...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Aug 6, 2014)

Any one writing a history book seeks to bring new information or a new viewpoint to revise opinion however I always consider "revisionist" to be presenting history with a twisted agenda, holocaust denial and "Dresden was a war crime" are examples of this in my book.

I always thought that the Japanese were able to intercept the Enola Gay plus two other B29s but thought it was a recon flight.

Whatever the morality of the A Bomb every nation with the resources to build on has done so or tried to. No nation has ever developed a weapon then not used it in favour of letting their men get killed. An exception may be the information from Ultra but that was to protect future operations and lives. The use of the bombs was probably th best option for both sides in terms of loss of life, fortunately Japan still had enough of a coherent system in place to bring about a surrender by the military.


----------



## fnqvmuch (Aug 6, 2014)

should be careful lest we conflate work/words of two quite divergent authors here; one is a bona fide historian - the other one it seems has some relevant experience -which has informed at least one book ie knew le may - dunno about your zach though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2014)

fnqvmuch said:


> should be careful lest we conflate work/words of two quite divergent authors here; *one is a bona fide historian *- the other one it seems has some relevant experience -which has informed at least one book ie knew le may - dunno about your zach though.



And there have been MANY "bona fide historians" who have put out inaccurate and WRONG information over the years.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 6, 2014)

The Japanese were resorting not only to Kamikaze aircraft, but suicide motor boats (thousands built), suicide or 'manned' torpedoes and even lunge mines for anti-tank work.







Perhaps the Japanese were on the verge of defeat but it seemed at the time that they were quite willing to trade Japanese lives for allied lives at a rather unfavorable ratio (overall, not for one successful attack) for quite some time. They also seemed willing to use unorthodox equipment of low cost in material to wage war until the final defeat. They were some of the first to use IEDs to combat, in some cases a soldier in a hole with an aircraft bomb/artillery shell and a hammer. He used the hammer on the fuse to "command detonate" bomb when allied vehicle/troops were in effective range. 

It is little wonder that the Allies/Americans looked to avoid invading the Japanese home Islands by using any means possible. The eventual end was not in doubt. The cost in lives, both Allied and Japanese was.


----------



## stona (Aug 6, 2014)

The problem with these sorts of theories is that like the denial of the moon landings, they depend on hundreds or thousands of people being complicit in some kind of cover up or promotion of an alternate history. In the case of the atomic bomb many men on both sides of the Atlantic would have been involved. That would include Churchill and his cabinet and on the American side Stimson, McCloy, Leahy, King, Groves, MacArthur and any number of scientists including Oppenheimer to name but a few.

A wise man once said that three men can keep a secret only if two of them are dead. That was Benjamin Franklin, and it is an astute observation.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wavelength (Aug 7, 2014)

These attempts at revising history have less with correcting errors in the historical record than with pushing current agendas and current politics.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------

