Enola Gay, heroism or insanity?

Shinpachi said:

Remember IJA held thousands of the chemical shells.
I wonder if you, or we, as postwar generation could claim humanism for enemy citizens even if they were used against the Allies.

You dropped A-bombs to save your own soldiers' lives and that was a fair decision.
Hirohito also saved Japanese lives because of his sane decision.
But I will not say that he also saved the Allied soldiers' lives as it was not our business.

Click to expand...

Shinpachi, we didn't give a crap about saving your lives. There, do you want one of us to admit it? Nothing personal between you and me. But guess what? You didn't give a crap about saving any of our lives, all we both wanted was to win.

Politically. Not necessarily militarily. And why the hell not? Our politicians weren't dying out there. Neither were their kids if they had anything to say about it. And they controlled the media, they controlled our mindset.

On the bomb. It was known what the radiation would do. The after-effects were known. They weren't guessed at. My aunt was a radio-biologist at Oak Ridge and a top G-rating in the AEC. This was worse than mustard-gas. We knew it, going in.

The Japanese wouldn't give up. We saw that in the island-fighting clear as a bell. It was in our strategy and tactics manuals. "Japanese prisoners" was an oxymoron. German prisoners, sure. The Japanese? Surrender? Keep dreaming.

And we'd be kicking ourselves, if we didn't use it...

This topic was over, VBF

Shinpachi said:

This topic was over, VBF

Click to expand...

I'm a late arrival. Lol.

I'm late too but I have 2 cents to spare so here goes:
Someone here posted that it was not fair to apply 2015 morality to feeling/sentiments during WWII. The Japanese attack on Pearl had fixed American feelings at hatred and revenge. The US went to the point of interment of Japanese-Americans in special camps (in spite of the Constitution and Bill of Rights) whereas German-Americans were not bothered.
Warnings to the Japanese: Lots of internet stuff on this I was only able to substantiate a small portion of it.
#1. The Potsdam Declaration which stated: The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
#2. The so-called LeMay leaflets. These were leaflets that were dropped on dozens of Japanese cities in July 1945. There were many versions of the leaflets dropped. Some listed specific cities, some did not. The text warned of "fire-bombing" and told the civilian populations to evacuate. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were listed along with 33 other cities
#3. A Day too Late: On August 7th, 1945 — the day after Hiroshima — General Henry "Hap" Arnold ordered that propaganda leaflets be prepared regarding the atomic bomb. General Thomas Farrell, Groves' representative in the Pacific, was charged with carrying it out. The plan was to make 6 million leaftlets and drop them on 47 Japanese cities. There was one stumbling block after another such as no leaflet carrying bombs, Russia enering the war so all leaflets were re-written, and naturally there was no co-ordination between the bombers and the leaflets. So, yes, leaflets warning Nagasaki specifically of an atomic bomb were dropped on the city, the day AFTER it was bombed
Civilian War Deaths
R.J.Rummel a Phd at the University of Hawaii has spent his entire career in the study of War and the Violence associated with it. He has written 24 books on the subject and coined the term DEMOCIDE the murder of people by government. Not surprisingly there is a direct link between a governments power over its people and the peoples ability to control its government. From 1816 - 2005 there have been 205 wars between non-democratic countries; 166 wars between non-democratic and democratic countries; and ZERO between democratic and democratic. The above wars have killed 262 million civilians or 6 times the number of soldiers KIA.
After correlating over 8,000 document on WWII casualities the following is probably accurate
The Japanese suffered 2,120,000 troops KIA Japanese civilians killed by Military action 500,000 Japanese civilians killed by disease/famine 500,000 or between 4 - 5% of their population. Estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) are probably conservative.
The other side of the coin
Japanese war crimes.
R. J. Rummel estimates the civilian victims of Japanese democide at 5,424,000. Detailed by country: China 3,695,000; Indochina 457,000; Korea 378,000; Indonesia 375,000; Malaya-Singapore 283,000; Philippines 119,000, Burma 60,000 and Pacific Islands 57,000.
Rummel estimates POW deaths in Japanese custody at 539,000 Detailed by country: China 400,000; French Indochina 30,000; Philippines 27,300; Netherlands 25,000; France 14,000; Britain 13,000; British Colonies 11,000; US 10,700; Australia 8,000.
Out of 60,000 Indian Army POWs taken at the Fall of Singapore, 11,000 died in captivity.
There were 14,657 deaths among the total 130,895 western civilians interned by the Japanese due to famine and disease.

mikewint said:

The US went to the point of interment of Japanese-Americans in special camps (in spite of the Constitution and Bill of Rights) whereas German-Americans were not bothered.

Click to expand...

I might point out that this isn't actually true.

Twice, first between 1917 and 1919 and then again, between 1939 and 1946, German-Americans were in fact, interred in camps.

The WWI internment saw 2,048 German-American civilians interred for the remainder of the war at two locations: Fort Douglas, Utah and Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia.

The WWII internment saw 11,507 German-Americans interred at 7 locations: Crystal City, Kenedy and Seagoville in Texas; Camp Blanding in Florida, Stringtown in Oklahoma; Fort Lincoln in North Dakota and Camp Forrest in Tennessee.

In 1942, the "War Relocation Authority", based on Executive Order 9066 and 9012 also included Italian-Americans...so it wasn't just the Japanese that were relocated, especially from the coastal and other sensitive areas, the Germans and Italians went through this as well. Even if it was to a lesser degree, it still happened.

There was such a paranoia against Germans, that my Uncles had to serve in the Pacific because of their last name.

Dave, I stand corrected and was not aware of that. During WWI my paternal great grandfather removed the "von" from our last name due to anti-German feelings while in Wisconsin the family was in an almost totally German town where German was the spoken language. As staunch Lutherans church services were in German and there was great pressure to remain German, though Lutherans were anti-Kaiser

GrauGeist said:

I might point out that this isn't actually true.

Twice, first between 1917 and 1919 and then again, between 1939 and 1946, German-Americans were in fact, interred in camps.

The WWI internment saw 2,048 German-American civilians interred for the remainder of the war at two locations: Fort Douglas, Utah and Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia.

The WWII internment saw 11,507 German-Americans interred at 7 locations: Crystal City, Kenedy and Seagoville in Texas; Camp Blanding in Florida, Stringtown in Oklahoma; Fort Lincoln in North Dakota and Camp Forrest in Tennessee.

In 1942, the "War Relocation Authority", based on Executive Order 9066 and 9012 also included Italian-Americans...so it wasn't just the Japanese that were relocated, especially from the coastal and other sensitive areas, the Germans and Italians went through this as well. Even if it was to a lesser degree, it still happened.

There was such a paranoia against Germans, that my Uncles had to serve in the Pacific because of their last name.

Click to expand...

But they had to leave some Italian-Americans because somebody had to bankroll the craps games on the ships. Ah, but we shan't get into that.

mikewint said:

Dave, I stand corrected and was not aware of that. During WWI my paternal great grandfather removed the "von" from our last name due to anti-German feelings while in Wisconsin the family was in an almost totally German town where German was the spoken language. As staunch Lutherans church services were in German and there was great pressure to remain German, though Lutherans were anti-Kaiser

Click to expand...

my grandparents, aunts, and uncles stopped speaking german and worked very hard at erasing the german accent from their speech because of the issues you listed. all save my aunt hedi was able to do it. to the day she died she still had a thick german accent

My Great Aunt Hanke was a hard-headed Prussian and had come over to the states before WWII broke out (having dealt with WWI, she was done with war and all the misery associated with it).

When she was harassed on occasion for her "German" ancestry, she would tear into her persecutor with her typical Teutonic precision (and heavy Prussian accent) and tell them "Don't blame the Prussians! Blame the Austrians!"

Since she stood nearly six feet tall and had an ice blue gaze that could bore a hole right theough you, few people chose to persue the discussion!

Boy did THIS thread stray from topic.

But the posts are interesting.

One point I have thought for a long time was that the USA would not have dropped atomic bombs on Germany because it was landlocked on a continent surrounded by other countries. The radiation would have gotten a LOT of other people. But, by accident of geography, Japan was on an Island with the prevailing wind blowing out to sea. That generates a completely different scenario for planners.

I have wondered how much the grography helped the decision along. Had Japan been located on, say, the west coast of South America, would the decision have been the same?

Tough to say for sure since I wasn't there and the actual discussions are lost to history as all participants have passed on, but I'm sure the likely path of radioactive fallout was looked at by meteorologists quite thoroughly before the decision was made. It likely wasn't a main point, but certainly helped drive the acceptability of using the atomic bomb.

GregP said:

Boy did THIS thread stray from topic.

But the posts are interesting.

One point I have thought for a long time was that the USA would not have dropped atomic bombs on Germany because it was landlocked on a continent surrounded by other countries. The radiation would have gotten a LOT of other people. But, by accident of geography, Japan was on an Island with the prevailing wind blowing out to sea. That generates a completely different scenario for planners.

I have wondered how much the grography helped the decision along. Had Japan been located on, say, the west coast of South America, would the decision have been the same?

Tough to say for sure since I wasn't there and the actual discussions are lost to history as all participants have passed on, but I'm sure the likely path of radioactive fallout was looked at by meteorologists quite thoroughly before the decision was made. It likely wasn't a main point, but certainly helped drive the acceptability of using the atomic bomb.

Click to expand...

The US conducted atmospheric tests within the USA so I doubt if dropping a bomb on their enemies would trouble them greatly more likely they would be curious about the effects.

They conducted the test in a remote area of New Mexico and documented what they discovered.

I'll have to disagree with you, but that's OK. This far after the fact we'll never know for sure. I doubt seriously they recorded the discussions like they do everything today.

pbehn said:

The US conducted atmospheric tests within the USA so I doubt if dropping a bomb on their enemies would trouble them greatly more likely they would be curious about the effects.

Click to expand...

The Trinity tests conducted were done so first on a 20 foot tall wooden platform and then on a 100 foot steel tower under controlled conditions. The site was chosen for the natural mountain ranges nearby that created a "bowl" in the terrain and also for the little or no winds that prevailed in that area.

As for being tests conducted within the U.S., New Mexico was sparcely populated at the time and the state's total land area is 121,697 square miles (315,194 sq. km) making it larger than most European nations.

For comparison, Britain is only 94,058 square miles (243,610 sq. km).

There was great concern that Japan would fight to the last child. The military was known to elect death over surrender. Adolescent girls were sent to Iwo Jima with no expectation of survival. On Saipan and Okinawa civilian suicide was policy and successfully so. On the mainland preadolescence children were armed with spears and drilled in suicide charges. Even after the Emperor announced the surrender many of the military and government chose to kill themselves. And, as has been mentioned, even after the Emperor decided to surrender, there was a palace revolt.

Through American eyes this was irrational and ominous. Objectively, there would seem to be a greater possibility that Japan would continue fighting into oblivion as a people as the possibility that a surrender was in the offing. There's a reasonable if unknowable probability that the bomb saved the Japanese culture and civilization.

Our elderly people are certainly much thankful for the generous US food aid in the post war when they were kids and in starvation.
But please let me remark that it does not necessarily mean that they are thankful for killing their families and friends as dead people do not return.
OK?

Shinpachi said:

Our elderly people are certainly much thankful for the generous US food aid in the post war when they were kids and in starvation.
But please let me remark that it does not necessarily mean that they are thankful for killing their families and friends as dead people do not return.
OK?

Click to expand...

I understand; I'm an "elderly people" on the other side. Down at the Id level we all have pride/resentment. But at the rational level we have to look at underlying causes to avoid repetition rather than to access blame.

The war is a very complicated matter with blame to go around, i.e. no good guys. You might consider the more or less accurate factoids below as typical if slanted;

bionic mosquito: Timeline To War

pampa14 said:

Enola Gay, undoubtedly the most famous B-29 bomber ever built. The big question, his fame comes from an act of heroism or insanity? Click on the link below, answer this poll and leave your opinion. The link also contains a full report and photos about this important chapter of WW2. Be sure to visit and participate.


Aviação em Floripa: Enola Gay





Cheers.

Click to expand...

In 1945, the U.S. War Department minted 1 million Purple Heart medals. These were intended to be awarded to American servicemen who were killed or wounded in the expected invasion of Japan. Though I don't know if it's still true, last I heard, as of 2010, these medals had not been used up. They were awarded to Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, etc. American casualties without being exhausted. That's to put in perspective what was avoided by using the atomic bomb, and that's just American casualties.

Shinpachi, my friend, I do not know if there was any other way to end that terrible war. Would a demonstration bombing on an uninhabited nearby island have worked? would just one bomb one city been enough? That helpless men women and children died is a terrible thing. There was tremendous hatred in the US for Japan. Of my 3 uncles who fought in the war 2 died, one on Iwo Jima and the second on Okinawa. The one who survived hated Japan and anything Japanese the rest of his life.
Dave, et.al., During and after Manhattan, trinity, ect., the US had a very (by today's standards) lackadaisical attitude toward radiation. The precautions taken then are "mouse milk" by today's standards. The radiation from Trinity and all other nuclear tests are by and large still with us. Plus all the other radioactive releases, Chernobyl, Fukushima, ect

mikewint said:

Dave, et.al., During and after Manhattan, trinity, ect., the US had a very (by today's standards) lackadaisical attitude toward radiation. The precautions taken then are "mouse milk" by today's standards. The radiation from Trinity and all other nuclear tests are by and large still with us. Plus all the other radioactive releases, Chernobyl, Fukushima, ect

Click to expand...

I worked with a man who, in the '50s, was in the army. He was assigned to nuclear test where, according to him, he was in a trench one mile from ground zero. I think he was also in a tank up close. Afer the detonation, he was to enter the damage zone for evaluation of combat capability.

mikewint not only were scientists lackadaisical even though the dangers of radiation were known from the days of Marie Curie I just dont believe even scientists could believe it could be so bad.

The map you show is for background radiation, that is how much radiation a person would experience in that environment. The danger with Nuclear fallout is that if a person ingests even the smallest particle of radioactive material then that persons body absorbs 100% of the radiation from the particle in one location. Having been to Hiroshima myself much of what we know now started being learned there. In the early days of nuclear testing many people were killed and disfigured not only by inadequate protection but also fashion trends like "glow in the dark" nail varnich and lipstick which was actually radioactive and being in contact with peoples bodies gave massive even fatal doses.