Pilot of plane that bombed Hiroshima dies

[ppopsie]

Major...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thankyou for you service sir and a job well done.

I dont care what people say. The dropping of the bombs saved American lives and it also saved the lives of countless Japanese civilians in the long run. It was war and war is ugly.

 

[plan_D]

I must add that the tokyo fire bombings were more destructive (in lives lost) than the atom bombs at the time of the bombing. Of course, the atom bombs caused fallout and problems in the near future.

 

[drgondog]

I must add that the tokyo fire bombings were more destructive (in lives lost) than the atom bombs at the time of the bombing. Of course, the atom bombs caused fallout and problems in the near future.

Plan_D is entirely correct. The first March 1945 attacks on Tokyo killed more people than both nuclear weapons. The Japanese simply don't know whether the real number was 100,000 or 300,000 - just somewhere in that range. LeMay ran out of targets in July... except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki which he was ordered not to strike.

Even as a young child living in Tokyo in 1948-1951 I remember the devastation of the Japanese cities from the low level night raids. As a Gaijin kid I was well aware of latent hostility under a veneer of extreme politeness for 'the occupation'.

 

[drgondog]

I noted that General Tibbets wished to be cremated and have his ashes placed into the English Channel, but his family is still undecided. His most memorable time was flying B-17s in the ETO and seeing the Channel twice a day... as contrasted with once.

He was very clear about no headstone - knowing the nut cases would defile it.

Salute for a career and job well done. Carry on, Sir!

 

[drgondog]

Its still a VERY SENSITIVE subject in our modern history which had not been taught in detail in the schools. This is from my own experience.

But I understand it was his duty and Col. Tibbets did his wartime job. The dropping of the bombs were too much blow to the Japanese citiznes and in regard of that I would protest against the decisions made by the Allies.
To my best knowledge accrding to the most of Japanese (war) history book, the effect of the bombs were even not enough to convince the government, which finally succeeded in gaining the control over the military just a few month ago, to promptly decide to surrender.
In my opinion it was possible for the government to control the information if not the rumors about the bombs for to carry on if it wished so. That was what happened after Tokyo was heavily hit in March 1945 in which my mother neary lost her life.

Another factor appearently affected the government's decision making was the coming of the Soviets which the Japanese army had been most scare of. What happened if Japan was invaded both by the Americans and the Russians? I am scared to think of that.

Very understandable perspective regarding the first and only use of nuclear weapons.

You probably acknowledge that for the US, the war with the Germans was more intellectual and the war with Japan was emotional - the contrast in our way of life, Pearl Harbor, the Phillipines, Nanking, etc all represented emotional wounds that the Germans didn't quite reach until the Concentration Camps were discovered -

We knew based on Iwo Jima and Okinawa that most of Japan would fight and die to the last man and most women and children following an invasion and we simply chose to kill few to save millions. No President of the US could ever say to his people - "I chose to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American lives when I could have avoided it".

Nobody in US will ever be proud of the women and children that died during and afterwards.

Your question is - in President Truman's role what would your alternative course of action be? And why?

Regards,

Bill

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The most important thing was it saved a lot of our boys.

 

[Negative Creep]

It verfy easy to look back now and claim the bombings were wrong. But in 1945 people were tired of war and wanted it finished. It was a total war, one which the Japanese had perpetrated, which meant it had to be won by any means necessary.

 

[drgondog]

It verfy easy to look back now and claim the bombings were wrong. But in 1945 people were tired of war and wanted it finished. It was a total war, one which the Japanese had perpetrated, which meant it had to be won by any means necessary.

I wonder upon what superior moral ground we (Axis/Allies) would have to say that either the fire bombings (London, Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, etc) were wrong or Hiroshima was wrong - and in the context of what?

This is not a shot at you NC.. just pondering the great mystery of Ethics myself.

Ethically, killing a human being who is not an immediate threat to you or your loved ones is as clear as one can get in being morally correct (and debatable by many).. after that it is a slippery slope.

I think I fall in the category of "kill or incapitate as many soldiers as possible while leaving as many civilians alone as practible, without sacrificing more of yours - destroy his capability to wage war and resist your will with least cost in lives and treasure as you can" - and leave judgement to a higher being.

 

[Negative Creep]

Good sentiments but I don't think they are applicable in a modern total war. Bombing or shelling will inevitably result in collateral damage and civilian casualties even with the most modern technology. If it was the Allies who started the war and first launched indiscriminate bombing raids then you could view it in a different context, but the Axis reaped what they had sown. Of course no country ever has a clean record in war, but compared to the crimes Germany and Japan committed US and British bombing pales in my opinion. a Bombing civilians to try and end the war may not have been noble or even correct. But sometimes you don't need to do what is right, you need to do what is necessary

 

[ppopsie]

Very understandable perspective regarding the first and only use of nuclear weapons.

You probably acknowledge that for the US, the war with the Germans was more intellectual and the war with Japan was emotional - the contrast in our way of life, Pearl Harbor, the Phillipines, Nanking, etc all represented emotional wounds that the Germans didn't quite reach until the Concentration Camps were discovered -

Your question is - in President Truman's role what would your alternative course of action be? And why?

Thanks drgondog,
Constructive comments. I never read or hear before that for the US the war toward Japan was emotional, in that clear manner, but it is fully understandable. We started off the war by attacking Pearl Harbor to incur the emotion of the Americans. So what were the Japanese people at that time? I don't know. I understand by reading books that the people in Japan were not fully convinced to fight on at the point of time. Instead the people started to suffer shrtage of goods or foods, to starve.

Japan had been spending money on the military before WW2 for the obvious reason of survival but what was the survival? Spending such a huge (for Japan's economy) money on such a non-productive sector had already led the nation to near bunkrupt. If it is to think about the alternative, what was it for Japan or entire world way before the war may have priority. It is easy to find one AFTER, though...

One more thing; most of the soldiers were the citizenes just few months before.

 

[drgondog]

Thanks drgondog,
Constructive comments. I never read or hear before that for the US the war toward Japan was emotional, in that clear manner, but it is fully understandable. We started off the war by attacking Pearl Harbor to incur the emotion of the Americans. So what were the Japanese people at that time? I don't know. I understand by reading books that the people in Japan were not fully convinced to fight on at the point of time. Instead the people started to suffer shrtage of goods or foods, to starve.

Japan had been spending money on the military before WW2 for the obvious reason of survival but what was the survival? Spending such a huge (for Japan's economy) money on such a non-productive sector had already led the nation to near bunkrupt. If it is to think about the alternative, what was it for Japan or entire world way before the war may have priority. It is easy to find one AFTER, though...

One more thing; most of the soldiers were the citizenes just few months before.

I had a father in law that was a B-25 pilot (Capt Albert Scott) shot down in the Aleutians and 'rescued' in 1943. When he was 'rescued' in 1945 near Tokyo he weighed 85 pounds. He never forgave or forgot until he passed away - most of the Pacific vets felt the same way. This might explain the intensity to a degree - it wasn't just the war it was also very much the treatment of POWs and Civilians. My father did not 'hate' Germans until he lost a younger brother in Holland.

I had to chuckle just a little bit at your last comment.. until December 7, 1941 we had very few soldiers relative to USSR, Japan, Italy, Germany, UK and Japan - most of our soldiers were reflecting "why, I was a civilian just a couple of months ago"

If you have a chance watch War by Ken Burns to view US contribution and loss in a different light? And I am fully aware of the great sacrifices Japan experienced during WWII - if only from an intellectual Point of View. Japan lost more dead to our fire and nuclear bombing than we lost during the entire war.

Regards,

Bill

 

[drgondog]

Good sentiments but I don't think they are applicable in a modern total war. Bombing or shelling will inevitably result in collateral damage and civilian casualties even with the most modern technology. If it was the Allies who started the war and first launched indiscriminate bombing raids then you could view it in a different context, but the Axis reaped what they had sown. Of course no country ever has a clean record in war, but compared to the crimes Germany and Japan committed US and British bombing pales in my opinion. a Bombing civilians to try and end the war may not have been noble or even correct. But sometimes you don't need to do what is right, you need to do what is necessary

NC - no argument from me - but we have the benefit of the 'winner's perspective" - I have no doubt we would have suffered far more had Japan or Germany had the upper hand... particularly after the war.

One only has to contrast what we did for Europe and Japan to rebuild vs the USSR to gain perspective.

 

[Negative Creep]

Agreed, I think it's impossible to look at past events with contemporary views. We can never truly look at it from a 1945 US perspective because we weren't alive in the US in 1945, same goes for the Japanese. What annoys me is morons who have no knowledge of the war calling the bombings a war crime against the poor innocent Japanese. I did see a CND protest in town a few months back and was very tempted to remonstrate but I don't think you can get through to such people

 

[drgondog]

Agreed, I think it's impossible to look at past events with contemporary views. We can never truly look at it from a 1945 US perspective because we weren't alive in the US in 1945, same goes for the Japanese. What annoys me is morons who have no knowledge of the war calling the bombings a war crime against the poor innocent Japanese. I did see a CND protest in town a few months back and was very tempted to remonstrate but I don't think you can get through to such people

Lol - actually NC I WAS alive in '45.. but as a very young child, Air Force Brat I saw Japan during the occupation from age 3-6, and Germany 8-9 so I saw pre-emergent Japan as a Stranger in a Strange land, and Germany well on way to recovery - but a child's perspective not one who fought against either of these peoples.

I agree the moron comment and unfortunately see no 'turning back' of the percentage - the education in history is bad enough in the US - I can only imagine how thw War is treated today in Europe.

 

[Negative Creep]

I think you'd be very hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't feel WW2 was justified. The only real controversy seems to be over the atom bombs and area bombing. Although I tihnk there was a politicial element in the decision to use the bombs, i.e stop the Soviets capturing more territory I often wonder if their use prevented a Third World War?

 

[ppopsie]

... prevented a Third World War?

I understand that but that is another fearful thing I thought of just recently. I lived through that ages without realizing it.

 

[Haztoys]

I often wonder if their use prevented a Third World War?

Thats how I feel about it .."We all" got a tasted of what a nuke would do.. And that was a small one ..Now its "my understanding" they were really not sure what it would do...Could be wrong on that statement.. ..

Sad that the Japanese people were the ones to have to find out what it would do...Sad the anyone had to find out...

Does anyone know if there were ever plans to drop a nuke on Germany...?

 

[AL Schlageter]

I thought Germany was the primary target in the beginning as Germany was developing their own bomb. The utter and complete collapse into defeat of Germany resulted in a target change.

 

[plan_D]

I don't think dropping the atom bomb on Germany was ever on the cards after June '44. The Allied command would not have seen it as a potential war shortening weapon, and the U.S did want to see the full extent of the damage caused by an atom bomb; that's why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen, being the only undamaged cities left.

No one better take that the wrong way. The U.S did not simply drop the atom bomb to test its abilities, they dropped it Hiroshima to test its abilities and the 'minor' matter of Hiroshima being a military center.