Smithsonian Article plagued by revisionism comments

[parsifal]

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]

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

Honolulu Hawaii, December 7, 1941

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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]

Honolulu Hawaii, December 7, 1941

Hard to compare with atomic bomb or even conventional bombing.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.


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

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]

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.


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

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]

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.

 

[stona]

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

 

[Hiromachi]

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]

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]

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]

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".