Hiroshima Bomber Unrepentant till Death

[undercutter2006]

Paul Tibbets, the pilot who dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima, died Nov. 1, unrepentant till the very end.

“I wanted to do everything that I could to subdue Japan. I wanted to kill the bastards. That was the attitude of the United States in those years,” he told an interviewer in 1995. “I have been convinced that we saved more lives than we took. It would have been morally wrong if we’d have had that weapon and not used it and let a million more people die.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/obituaries/02tibbets.html?_r=1&ref=obituaries&oref=slogin

[bluestateguy]

1. He's not a flip-flopper. You know where he stands on the issues.

nt

[Didereaux]

2. He had nothing to repent...PERIOD!

[Hangingon]

170. Well said!

[calteacherguy]

3. The responsibility for that rests on the shoulders of all Americans at the time

for better or for worse.

[Bitwit1234]

11. It rest on first....the Japanese themselves if they hadn't sneak attacked

Pearl Harbor we would never had had to bomb them. And if the Emporer had surrendered when asked to, twice, the two bombs wouldn't have been dropped. So they are responsible not us.

[Basileus Basileon]

16. That's a very dangerous way to think. Responsibility for a deed

rests only on the shoulders of those who did it. It was more than likely the right course of action, but fundamentally we bear full responsibility for having dropped the bomb. We should never forget that.

[cstanleytech]

185. Actually it is not

as black and white an issue as is taught in elementary school.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. The death of Hiroshima saved the lives of the thousands of

US troops and sailors that would have died in the Pacific if Truman hadn't taken those desparate steps to end the war then.

Maybe my father or your father or grandfather that survived the fighting in Europe may have been shipped to the Pacific - and died there.

And you and I and our children would have never been born.......a lot to think about!

[BushOut06]

26. American lives are good, Japanese lives are bad?

Nice to know that hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians were slaughtered so that thousands of American SOLDIERS could live. It's okay, because the Japanese were the "bad guys".

A lot of what we did during WWII was criminal - including the A-bombs, and the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden.

[TheDebbieDee]

44. Wallowing in guilt over decisions made.........

more than 60 years ago, a decision that can not be undone, doesn't do any one any good.

All we can do is to do our best to make sure that these mistakes are never repeated!

And, yes, one of those thousands of American soldiers whose life was saved was my father's. And, yes, I'm glad I'm alive!

[slackmaster]

82. The winner of a war has the prerogative of defining who was right and who was wrong

:nuke:

[Romulox]

88. Ummm, Japan was the aggressor. We are not obliged to sacrifice our lives

to maintain some grotesque sense of parity.

[BushOut06]

118. Seems like we sacrificed quite a few lives

There is some evidence that we knew ahead of time of the impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and LIHOP as an excuse to get involved in WWII.

[rockymountaindem]

124. The "evidence" in that regard is totally full of holes and not credible

It's just a smear to try and tarnish Roosevelt's legacy. What exists is ample evidence, including a "war warning" of November 27th, 1941, that the War Department knew the outbreak of hostilities could be imminent and ordered all our Pacific garrisons, including those all the way down in the Panama Canal Zone, to mount all possible defensive measures. Pearl Harbor was *not* a D.C. based LIHOP operation and to suggest it was puts you in a circle of crackpots and anti-Roosevelt ax grinders.

[INDIA]

128. hahahahahah...oh wait, you're serious. n/t

[Hangingon]

171. All you have to do is prove that alllegation.

And no one has yet.

[ddeclue]

123. It also saved the lives of hundreds of thousands if not milions of Japanese.

At the time of the Hiroshima bombing, Japan still had 5 million troops in the field and was going to defend Japan to the last man woman and child. Had the atomic bomb not been dropped, the fighting would have gone on until the US had fire bombed and shelled Japan into total oblivion with conventional weapons and massed B29 raids.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Dave From Canada]

125. Nope, not at all. A-bombs and firebombing aren't criminal, they're war. And generally, you value

the lives of your own citizens over an enemy you're at war with, in this case, the aggressor Japan. I'm sure they also valued their citizens lives more then the lives of Americans.

[Raine]

126. When it's YOUR life that was saved

or your predessor than yes it is good. It probably saved my father's life and therefore I was able to live so I'm not going to dispair about it.

[Hawkowl]

176. Millions of Japanese lives were saved as well

Do yourself a favor and see how many Japanese survived the battle of Okinawa. Not just Japanese soldiers but civilians as well. The townspeople threw themselves over the cliffs, mothers clutching their babies, committing mass suicide. Everyone considered themselves combatants, and surrender was not an option.

The invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath, almost beyond imagination. Japan simply may have disappeared, much like Carthage did in ancient times.

[Blashyrkh]

28. I get it. 100,000+ innocent Japanese civilians are vaporised so your grandfather can live, maybe?

The only thing I think about is the disgusting American attitude that American lives are worth more than non-American lives.

Furthermore, if you support the use of nuclear weapons to pre-emptively end conflicts (thus saving more lives than if the conflict continued) suggest the same tactic for Iraq? I mean, aren't millions of dead Iraqi's worth saving a few American lives?

[TheDebbieDee]

40. Read my post, please!

I never say anything about supporting the use of nuclear weapons pre-emptively. And I said nothing about American lives being worth more that non-American lives.

You can be disgusted if you want to, but you are reading things into my post that simply aren't there.

I merely stated that I and many others are probably alive because Truman decided to use desperate measures to end the Pacific war sooner.

BTW, there is no way you will ever be able to make a convincing argument that Japan would not have used these weapons on us if they'd had the chance.

[Blashyrkh]

66. I was never going to try, until you mentioned it,

because it does leave a hole the size of a small planet.

Quote: BTW, there is no way you will ever be able to make a convincing argument that Japan would not have used these weapons on us if they'd had the chance.

I can make a very convincing argument. I'll use yours. Japan would have used nuclear weapons to end WW2 in order to save lives possibly lost in the continuation of the war.

What's that you say? The Japanese would have never done that? They would have used them in cold blood to murder as many people as possible, by dropping them on a large American city, perhaps?

I don't believe you'd consider any justification for Japan using nuclear weapons, much the same way you don't consider the American use of nuclear weapons as anything but just and right. That is why I think you consider American lives more valuable than any others.

[TheDebbieDee]

78. Blah, blah, blippity, blah...................

[Blashyrkh]

119. Case and point.

"Nukes are bad, except when America uses them, then they're cool, cause we use them to save lives, donchano?"

I'm sure the families of the dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are just chuffed you made it out alive.

[TheDebbieDee]

121. I hope you are enjoying the guilt trip you're giving YOURSELF!

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LanternWaste]

79. Any country at war will do anything and everything it can do...

Any country at war will do anything and everything it can do defend its own peoples at the expense of the enemy's population. Suggesting that the concept is limited to the American culture is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Yes-- morality always has and always will play second fiddler (if that) to national survival in any war, especially one on the scope of WWII.

[Blashyrkh]

120. I understand that, it's the American exceptionalism I object to.

If the US justification for using nukes is not a valid excuse for other countries, then it is not a valid excuse for the US.

[Romulox]

89. So the Japanese were "innocent", but US GIs were not? What is the basis of this assertion? nt

[SyntaxError]

95. When you're an invading army entering another countries land, then you're not innocent.

[Romulox]

96. So Japan became "innocent" by losing the war? What a bizarre POV. nt

[SyntaxError]

97. That isn't what I said.

First of all, you need to take into consideration that Japan "attacked" the US only because the US put embargoes on them. Either way, I know some people do not accept that face, and it's useless to try to argue that point. So let's assume that the Japanese were in fact the aggressors in the war. Why did the US have to chase them around the pacific? Why couldn't we just put our ship and military out defending our territories and waters? Once we started capturing Japan's territory and instigating battles with them we became the true aggressors.

[Romulox]

100. That is revisionist at best. Japan was an imperialist power that committed genocide

on the Asian mainland that was every bit as horrific as that practiced by the Nazis.

"Why couldn't we just put our ship and military out defending our territories and waters?"

For the same reasons we couldn't just "get along" with the Nazis. I put it in bold to make it clearer: Japan was an expansionist, imperialist power that committed genocide on the Asian mainland.

"Once we started capturing Japan's territory and instigating battles with them we became the true aggressors. "

This is simply ridiculous. You might as easily argue that the liberators of the Nazi death camps were also "the true aggressors" by that same logic.

[SyntaxError]

101. Alright fine then. Killing Japanse is ok because they're all evil.

I guess we're done.

[Romulox]

102. LOL. When your argument fails, just mischaracterize your opponents!

We're done because you want to assign a difference degree of moral culpability to Americans than to the Japanese.

I can only assume a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance is the reason that you are incapable of addressing Japan's hideous war of genocidal aggression during WWII.

[Blashyrkh]

136. That seems to be the position for some people here.

Remarkably similar to how wingnuts justify killing Muslims.

[LanternWaste]

109. It's simplistic to the point of absurdity....

Stating that, "Japan "attacked" the US only because the US put embargoes on them" is most simplistic. It seems pretty relevant to me that one has to also ask, "Why did America place Japan under an oil embargo?". And must then ask why to that question.

It's simplistic to the point of absurdity. That's probably why people don't like to argue that point with you.

It's akin to stating that WWI was fought merely because Germany attacked France.


"Once we started capturing Japan's territory and instigating battles with them we became the true aggressors." More simplistic, bumper-sticker revisionism...

von Clausewitz wrote that the ONLY purpose to wage war was to deny the opposition the ability or the opportunity to do the same.

We became the aggressors? Oh my... maybe the public schools are failing the youths of America. :(

[springhill]

103. No, the civilians are innocent..............

Unbelievable, is that too hard to understand?

[Romulox]

106. By the same token, consrcipted US soldiers are also "innocent"

It's not a matter of understanding; I simply don't buy the hierarchy of the value of human life implicit in your proposition.

[LanternWaste]

110. They were a de-facto militia.

Over 55% of mainland Japanese civilians were armed and trained to assist in repelling the forthcoming U.S. invasion. They were a de-facto militia.

(Edward Drea- "In the Service of the Emperor: Essays on the Imperial Japanese Army")

[Thothmes]

153. Civilians

I disagree. The civilians that worked at the Kure Navy Yard, the Mitibushi Aircraft factory, or the Sumitomo steel mills were building the ships, aircraft and guns that were used to prosecute a war. Even if they were working in a small factory making fuses in Hiroshima, they are contributing to that war effort.

[Blashyrkh]

133. Read my post. You obviosuly didn't the first time.

"100,000+ innocent Japanese civilians" I clearly said civilians. Are you suggesting that the Japanese civilians that were nuked were guilty of something? Are you suggesting they should be vulnerable to the same treatment as enlisted soldiers?

Do civilians deserve to die for the actions of their governments?

[Thothmes]

154. No one deserves to die

However who do you think provided those japanese soldiers, sailors and airmen with rifles, ships, and aircraft. It was the civilians working at the Kure Navy Yard, the Mitsubishi factory and Sumitomo Steel mills and several thousand other factories, mills and plants throughout Japan.

[Blashyrkh]

161. The same way good American patriots build cluster bombs?

The same way you pay taxes that go to buying cruise missiles?

[Thothmes]

172. Yes

Just like the good Americans that worked at Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock, or Boeing, or Willow Run, or Bethleham Steel. Both Germany and Japan would consider these very legitimate Military targets because the supplied their enemies with the tools of War. The only reason that these facilites were not bombed during the war was the inability of the Axis forces to reach them. I am willing to bet that if German or Japan had developed an Atomic Bomb, and a way of getting in the skys over the United States that Los Angles, New York City or Washington DC would have disappeared under a mushroom shaped cloud. Neither General Tojo, or Adolf Hitler would have had the least bit of reservation about using it.

No one deserves to die. Not the 20 million Chinese or Soviet Citizens, Not the Million Americans, not the millions of Germans, Japanese, and countless other nationalities that died during WWII. It happened, we cannot change that. What we should be doing is everthing humanly possible to see that it never happens again.

[Romulox]

179. It is grotesque of you to proclaim some HUMAN BEINGS expendable, and others not...

Old vampires, sitting in rocking chairs, dictating to young men the "moral" way for them to throw their lives away make me sick. :puke:

"Are you suggesting they should be vulnerable to the same treatment as enlisted soldiers?"

Yep.

[leftofthedial]

114. people should be VERY cautious when starting fights

sometimes they get their asses kicked

[Blashyrkh]

139. Be sure to let me know when that happens, ok?

I just see a lot of hor air justifying the use of nuclear weapons. A lot of hot air that could be used to justify the use of nuclear weapons on, I don't know, the Middle East?

I mean, based on the responses in this thread, how people on DU would justify the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East *after* the fact? Sure, a lot of posturing beforehand, you know, to keep up appearances, but at the end of the day, if killing Japs to save American lives is cool, then what's some sandJaps, eh?

:sarcasm: for the hard of detecting.

[leftofthedial]

142. in the Middle East presently, WE started the fight

not remotely the same situation as Japan in 1945

[Blashyrkh]

146. Fair point. I apologise.

I mean, the way America helped fund Nazi Germany which in turn supported Japan, it can get confusing, you know?

[leftofthedial]

149. And Australia remained assiduously neutral in WWII . . .

And required no help from the US to keep from being another domino in the Japanese conquests of the early part of the war.

Some Americans helped fund Nazis . . . Bushes to be specific. "America" per se did not.

America outlawed trade with Germany prior to entering the war. The US also embargoed oil sales to Japan in response to atrocities Japan committed in China. This, as much as anything, led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Can you imagine the current fascist cabal in DC refusing to sell oil to anyone?

Yes, I can tell it's confusing.

[Blashyrkh]

182. I love this.

Quote: "And required no help from the US to keep from being another domino in the Japanese conquests of the early part of the war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Milne_Bay

"After the battle the British Field Marshal Sir William Slim, who had no part in the battle, said:

Australian troops had, at Milne Bay, inflicted on the Japanese their first undoubted defeat on land. Some of us may forget that, of all the allies, it was the Australians who first broke the invincibility of the Japanese army."


Always with the belief that America is the knight of a white stallion, riding in to save the day. Australians, including my godfather fought in the first land defeat inflicted on the Japanese. It wasn't Americans. You can't take credit for it.

Your ignorance is delightful. This conversation is over.

[leftofthedial]

183. I never said the Australians didn't win a battle

and took no credit for that. Australians were remarkable allies in WWII and in other conflicts.

Australia's history, and that of the most of the world, would be profoundly different if the US had stayed out of WWII.

BTW, mate. This conversation never started.

[Blashyrkh]

184. No, you simply assumed it was the American presence that saved Australia

Which completely ignores and denigrates the actions of Australian soldiers.

Don't insult my countrymen then call me mate.

[Thothmes]

188. Not to mention

the brutal fighing on the Kokoda Trek to keep the Japanese out of Port Morsby

[CRF450]

143. Without the use of the A-bombs, the war would have dragged on and on...

More lives would have been lost over time as the war dragged on. War is not pretty no matter what goes on. The use of the A-bombs is justifiable.

The attitude of DU'rs here attacking this brave pilot disgusts me.

[Thothmes]

152. From my point of view

If grandpa died invading Kuyushu (sic) then this is a discussion I would not be around for. For starters we were at war with Japan. The use of the A Bomb was to help end that war. After the war we occupied Japan, we did not use the A Bomb on Japan during the occupation. We defeated the Iraqi Army, we now occupy Iraq. The necessity of using the A Bomb to win the war has passed. Even though we suffered casualties in Germany due to some minor resistance after the war, we did not use the A Bomb the Germans. I believe that it is rather inane to remotly suggest that we would consider using the A Bomb in all but the most dire circumstance.

[qdemn7]

177. Yes, that's exactly right.

My firm opinion has always been that if the bomb had been available 6 months earlier, OR the war in the ETO would have lasted 6 months longer, then Berlin would have been the first target. And no one, nobody, except some Germans, would be saying a damn thing today, since the attitude would be the dirty Nazis got what they deserved.

Those scientists who worked on the bomb (many of the Jewish refugees from Hitler) did not develop scruples until it was clear that Germany would no longer be the target. They knew for a fact that Berlin, and its civilians would certainly be the main target. And for those who cry moral outrage I see no difference, none, between the fire-bombing of Dresden, Tokyo and other Japanese cities and the atomic bombings. Dead is dead.

The Chinese suffered between 20-35 MILLION casualties during the Japanese invasion of China (1937-1945).

They forced Korean women into sexual slavery.

Everywhere the Japanese won they acted like barbarians toward our, and our allies captured soldiers, sailors and airman and civilians. Including the Australian ones. They beat, starved, tortured and executed men and women.

They used living human beings as test subjects under their infamous biological warfare Unit 731. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

It's truly amazing how many people still view the Japanese as victims after they killed 20,000,000 Chinese. The German killed 20,000,000 Russians and no one sees the Germans as victims today. Amazing what radiation can do, isn't it?

Truman was President of the United States, and his job was to defend America and save AMERICAN lives, not Japanese lives. You don't like that, tough fucking shit. If Truman hadn't dropped the bomb and millions of AMERICANS had died during Operation Downfall, the truth would have come out later we had a weapon that could have ended the war sooner. At the very least Truman would have been impeached, if not lynched. And he would have deserved exactly that, or maybe a firing squad. I often wonder if people with your attitude who are SO morally outraged about the bomb, and who happen to be Progressives, would really have wanted the destruction of the Democratic Party that would have followed Truman's impeachment or execution.

[Lord Wortherington]

90. Because your soul is the most precious in the space time continuum

All events in history have unfolded just so that YOU could be in our midst today. What a narcissistic attitude.

[SyntaxError]

93. Wrong. If the US didn't put economic sanctions on Japan, then millions would have been saved.

[LanternWaste]

111. but at the cost of many millions more mainland Asians...

Millions of American lives may have been saved had the embargo not been put into effect-- but at the cost of many millions more mainland Asians...

[The Doctor.]

186. Those 'desperate' steps were not nearly as necessary as you've been told.

Japan was seeking a surrender before we killed all those people. And Truman knew it.

I've learned recently that we've been committing war crimes for a very long time. This administration is heinous, they are corrupt and disgusting. This administration is the core of sadism.

Truman, well... I think he listened to the wrong people, because all those innocent Japanese did not have to die to save the lives of others.

I say this knowing that my Grandfather who crewed Paper Doll, and who fulfilled his duty over France and Germany with honor, could have been sent elsewhere.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Unrpentant .... or haunted?

You post sickens me.

The man is DEAD.

[undercutter2006]

8. bm

[Ikonoklast]

6. He did his duty.

If Japan had the bomb in 1941, don't you think they would have used it? My money is on 'yes'.

[stimbox]

7. Another genocidal maniac bites the dust. Good riddance.

Where he went is a lot like both Hiroshima and Nagasaki but for eternity.
That is if you believe that sort of thing.

[Odin2005]

9. It is estimated that an invasion of Japan would of killed over a million Japanese.

How dare you call him a "genocidal maniac," how dare you. :grr:

[rug]

12. It is demonstrated that Japan was seeking an "honorable" surrender four months before Hiroshima.

If the Potsdam Declaration stated the Emperor would remain emperor the war would have ended.

[Basileus Basileon]

19. The only peace feelers sent out involved

the Japanese military government remaining intact, with no foreign oversight, and with some of their captured possessions remaining. It's shocking to me that some on DU would support allowing the most genocidal regime in history to stand.

[Nevernose]

22. If they didn't want The Bomb dropped on them

Maybe they could have tried much, much harder for a DISHONORABLE surrender?

Are you seriously arguing that the honor of one monarch was more important than the lives of everyone, civilian and military, who was in the Pacific Theater?

[rug]

39. Are you seriously arguing the only choice was to obliterate 400,000 civilians?

There were four months to reach terms, the only critical one was that Hirohito retain his office. That concession, if made in April, was worth the hundreds of thousands who died because it wasn;t offered.

[Nevernose]

42. No, we could have invaded with land forces

Which would have caused the deaths of many more people, civilian or otherwise. However, the Japanese valued the life of a monarch over the lives of any civilians they might have had, and thus no settlement was reached -- until it was demonstrated what could an atomic bomb could accomplish.

You blame the Americans for not making that concession. Why not blame the Japanese for NOT making it? The US didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, the US didn't invade Manchuria, the US didn't start it.

The Japanese already knew they were losing the war -- by your own evidence, they were willing to admit that at Potsdam, and were thus willing to concede almost everything. Almost. So why not also concede a monarchy that did nobody any good?

Honor.

Stupid, stupid pride.

[rug]

43. There was no need to invade Japan.

The country was on the verge of collapse.

[Basileus Basileon]

46. Which we were completely unaware of at the time,

as (apparently) were the Japanese, as they were still resisting surrender, even after the first nuclear bomb was dropped.

[rug]

50. The U.S. military, not to mention a HS economics teacher, knew how few resources Japan had left.

Aerial surveillance was almost unchallenged. Hiroshima itself was surveilled days before the drop. The Japanese military code had been broken for years.

Ignorance is neither the truth nor an excuse.

[Basileus Basileon]

51. "Few resources" does not equal "unconditional surrender."

See: Okinawa.

[rug]

54. Pearl Harbor does not equal Hiroshima.

Or Nagasaki.

[Basileus Basileon]

55. I wouldn't justify one with the other.

[rug]

58. Good, then you're an exception.

Look, the simple answer is that Japan was already beaten in conventional warfare by the U.S., Britain and the Chinese without any Soviet participation at all. In February at the Yalta Conference Stalin pledged to enter the war against Japan three months after Germany fell. And it did, to the day on August 8. There is no way Japan could continue resistance after that. There was no need to use the bomb to "win".

[Basileus Basileon]

64. I agree they were. I also believe

that the United States was unaware of this, and had reason to believe otherwise. I believe the war would have been won had no bomb ever been invented. I also believe that Truman's actions were what he believed would cost the fewest lives. I believe there were other political factors at play as well.

I don't think it's so simple as "Japan deserved it," nor so simple as "It was genocide." I believe it was the tragic conclusion to a horrifying war.

[LanternWaste]

86. I think you give the U.S. military command structure

I think you give the U.S. military command structure too much credibility. After the U.S. had underestimated German troop strength in the Netherlands the previous autumn, and was caught with its pants down in the Ardennes that winter, a paradigm shift happened that influenced military intelligence to err on the side of caution for the rest of the war.

For example, what would have actually been nothing more than a series of March-April tactical engagements in southern Germany became one the largest planned American offense of the war to date-- despite that the 'Barvarian redoubt' existed only on paper. This, despite almost all German military communication were being consistently intercepted and read by that point.

[LanternWaste]

81. Okinawa was a mere presage to the defenses of Japan at that very time

Okinawa was a mere presage to the defenses of Japan at that very time. I'd hardly consider that a "collapse".

[joshcryer]

32. Prime Minister Suzuki's statement on Potsdam:

"I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence (mokusatsu) it. We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war".

He wanted power and his position. He refused to disband the genocidal Japanese military (which, btw, at the time was occupying Japan among other places).

When you lose a war, when you "surrender" you have to disband your military, otherwise it's like a "draw."

WW2 could not be a "draw."

[rug]

41. April 7, 1945: Suzuki formed a new cabinet to try to end the war.

June 22, 1945: The Japanese Supreme War Strategy Council met and approved a move to bring about a negotiated peace, seeking Soviet mediation.

July 26, 1945: The Potsdam Declaration, issued by Truman, Atlee, and chianf Kai-Shek, calls on the Japanese to surrender unconditionally or face "prompt and utter destruction." The Declaration does not mention the atomic bomb, and it does not give any assurance to the Japanese about retaining the emperor.

Everyone, including Suzuki, knew the war was over. The only thing that stood in the way of a negotiated surrender was mutual bluster.

[joshcryer]

59. Japan wanted Soviet support so it could keep its military power.

The US could not allow that. And rightly so.

[rug]

60. Read about the Yalta conference.

[LanternWaste]

80. I've come across this claim quite often recently...

I've come across this claim quite often recently. Do know of any peer-reviewed books on this particular topic?

Was the offer given by the military command staff who were at the time, the de facto rulers of the country, or was the offer given by the non-relevant diplomatic staff or the powerless throne?

[rug]

138. The Atomic Bomb: The Great Decision, Holt, Rinehart and Winston

It may be out of print now but it's a series of essays on different perspectives on the use of the atomic bomb. There are essays by Henry L. Stimson, Samuel Eliot Morrison and about a dozen others. Paul Baker, editor. It has a solid appendix for further reading and a concise timeline of events leading to Hiroshima.

[Thothmes]

155. Surrender

Would we have excepted an early Surrender of Germany if the only provision was we leave Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party in Charge.

[stimbox]

21. Deliberately bombing civilians is GENOCIDE. Look it up.

Those were not military targets.

[joshcryer]

33. It was a genocide to prevent a holocaust.

[Lilith Velkor]

62. Paul Tibbets is the Rosa Parks of nuking civilians.

:patriot:

[Basileus Basileon]

45. That's simply untrue. It's a war crime, but not genocide.

Genocide is the crime of deliberate eradication or attempted eradication of a race or culture.

[Yukari Yakumo]

48. uh... Wrong.

Genocide: The systematic killing of all the people from a ethnic or religious group, or an attempt to do this.

Bombing civilians -> Not genocide. Morally wrong, perhaps, depending on the circumstances.

[slackmaster]

83. Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

According to Merriam-Webster.

Deliberately bombing civilians is usually called "total war". You can look that up, and while you're at it please review Japan's conduct in China, the Philippines, Southeast Asia, etc.

[Ikonoklast]

14. But the Japanes slaughtering twenty million Chinese is what?

The Japanese were more racist and genocidal than any regime on Earth.
Period.
We stopped them.


They sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind.

[rudeboy666]

25. Evading the question

Is dropping an atomic bomb an a civilian population a war crime?

[Thothmes]

156. On If

there is absoutly zero, nada, nil, military infrastructure or presence in the area. This was not the case in either Hiroshima, or Nagasaki.

[stimbox]

36. It's genocide and a war crime too.

And the Japanese responsible were tried and hung.

Were any Americans tried for war crimes for dropping the a-bombs or firebombing tokyo?
How about Dresden?

[WinkyDink]

77. We didn't drop the bombs to save China. So that argument is specious.

[Romulox]

87. No, the specious argument is an attempt to isolate the bombing from its historical context. nt

I especially object to arm-chair warriors dictating that young men must die in a certain way to satisfy the "principles" of the aforementioned La-Z-Boy brigade...

[WinkyDink]

163. We've got plenty of "arm-chair warriors" in the WH now. Do you think the "context"

of our bombing Baghdad justifies it?
And I have no idea what you mean by "dictating that young men must die in a certain way"; I was excoriating old men's "dictating" that CIVILIANS "die in a certain way."

P.S. Don't be daft. Obviously, historians and run-of-the-mill John Q. Publics are QUITE justified in reviewing history, discussing it, analyzing it, and yes, even judging it.
WITHOUT BATTLE EXPERIENCE.

Or else there would BE NO HISTORY, but only myopic (even if accurate for that limited vision) contemporaneous accounts.

[Wilber_Stool]

99. I'm glad I read this far

before posting. It was was my point exactly. The Japanese considered the rest of the world as nothing more that potential slaves. Just google Nan King to see what the Japanese thought of other human beings.

[springhill]

104. Who?

The government or the innocent civilians who were oblilterated. Oh how views would be different if it were the United State that was nuked for their governments criminal and monstrous behavior.

[Wilber_Stool]

174. The Japaniese

worshiped their emperor as a God. They were inseparable. They are obedient. At the time of the bombing,women and children were being taught to defend the homeland with farming implements and pointed sticks.
With that type of unity, everyone is complicit.
Besides, if we were the ones publishing the results of beheading contests in Nan King, yeah, maybe we would deserve it too.

[WinkyDink]

164. So it was a justified quid pro quo, our A-bombing Japanese civilians?

Because we VALUE other human beings?

If you believe that, I have a house in Fallujah to sell you.

[Wilber_Stool]

175. Yes, people have value.

But when they are your acknowledged enemy, they have very little value. Civilian losses for the Japanese were much lower than Germany, with almost two million. The Japanese lost less than 600,000.

Wiki.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

187. So what does that say about the US, which is currently waging aggressive war

in Iraq, waged one for 12 years in Southeast Asia, and has waged unnecessary proxy wars all over the world, just within my lifetime?

The Japanese military was brutal, there's no doubt about that. I bet I know about atrocities that you don't know about, since I've translated a book about the atrocities in China.

But by the time the firebombings and atomic bombings took place, the cities were populated almost entirely by women, children, and the elderly, who were subjects of a dictatorship that had propagandized them to the hilt and had imposed the war on them.

By your way of thinking, Arabs would be justified in bombing the U.S. as payback for the atrocities that our soldiers have committed in Iraq and did commit during the Gulf War.

[karlrschneider]

15. Well, a lot of DUers don't believe that sort of thing.

This one sure as fuck doesn't.

[knight_of_the_star]

23. I guess you don't really know what the alternatives were

Like how the US Army Air Force had enough nerve gas stockpiled and ready to be deployed to effectively carpet bomb the entire island of Kyushu with nerve gas in preparation for the invasion. Now tell me with a straight face that wouldn't have been worse than the bombs.

[stimbox]

30. And that wouldn't have been a warcrime or genocidal????

The alternative would have been to let them surrender and keep the Emperor, like they did after the bombings.

[joshcryer]

35. Erm, they didn't just want to "keep the Emporer." They wanted the military!

Duh, if the Emporer doesn't have his damn military he can't be a freaking Emporer. It was about maintaining the status quo, it wasn't about "honor."

[stimbox]

37. Well MacArthur let them keep the Emperor anyway which was the sticking point.

But that really didn't matter since it was about punishment and showing the Soviets who was boss.
Read your history. Duh!

[joshcryer]

38. That was only part of it.

Showing the Soviets that we had the bomb wasn't the full reason. There were a myriad strategic reasons to do things the way they did. Hell, even allowing Perl Harbor was a stragetic move (it's pretty well established that we had forewarning of that attack but did nothing about it).

Ending the war swiftly saved a lot of lives.

[knight_of_the_star]

70. Sorry but on the last point

There is much more evidence Pearl was the military fumbling the ball than a calculate move by Roosevelt. The common thought at the time was that the US, if Japan hit first, would come under attack in the Philippines (they were half-right there at least) possibly at Wake or Guam, carrier power was something that wasn't seriously considered by any Navy in the world except possibly the Japanese and even then they were still wedded to the idea of the battleship. When you look at the strategic and tactical thinking of the time it makes sense why Pearl Harbor was such a surprise when it happened.

[springhill]

107. Who Disagreed with the atomic bombing?

HIROSHIMA
WHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBING?

Positions listed refer to WWII positions.

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63




~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.




~~~HERBERT HOOVER
On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 347.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the bombs."

- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142

Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, pg. 349-350.

In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351.




~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.




~~~JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)
In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[The Magistrate]

181. The Problem With All Of This, Ma'am

Is that it ignores the one true pre-requisite for Japanese surrender, from the point of view of the Japanese military leadership, particularly the Army leadership, which was an open, public statement by the Emperor that He demanded an end to the war on the terms available. This is what the use of the atomic bombs produced, and without it, the war would not have ended when it did. The firebombing of Tokyo the previous March had indeed moved the Emperor to see to the construction of a new Cabinet that would seek terms from the Allies, but this was done serreptitiously, in full knowledge that if the Army command learned it was being done, assassination of cabinet members by nationalist officers would be certain to occur, and a coup to 'save the Emperor from the traitorous counselors' quite probable.

Nor was the 'retaining the Emperor' granted by Gen. MacArthur anything remotely resembling the 'retaining the Emperor' envisioned in the cabinet's peace-feelers post April 1945. These latter meant retaining the whole structure of the Meiji constitution, in which the Emperor was Supreme Executive, and the armed forces held a privileged place in government: the former reduced the emperor to cerimonial status only, and abolished the military in a new constitution.

[bluestateguy]

57. I have yet to ever hear the Japanese apologize for Pearl Harbor

We didn't start that war.

[Basileus Basileon]

10. My God, I would hate to have been in his shoes.

I can't imagine the mental anguish that would have caused--never knowing for sure if you had murdered tens of thousands of innocents without reason, or if you had in doing so traded their lives to save many times more.

In your cold-sweat nightmares, how could you look those people in the eye and tell them they had to die to save others? And how could you look those who otherwise may have died in the eye, and say, "No, I did the wrong thing, you should have died instead?"

And even if you assure yourself that you had saved lives, does that ease the knowledge that you had killed an entire city's worth of humanity in cold-blooded genocidal satisfaction?

I believe that Truman did not act immorally in ordering the bomb to be dropped. But I cannot imagine how I would deal with having dropped it.

[karlrschneider]

18. I walked through the Hiroshima "Peace Park", for the first time in 1970.

It was a very moving experience, and not one that is actually describable to someone (an American, at least) who never saw it.

[stimbox]

24. I've been there too. I cried hard.

My girlfriend's mother is from Hiroshima and was in the countryside when it was bombed.
She lost a lot of family members and suffers ill health to this day from the radiation and fallout.

[razors edge]

27. 1983 for me,

I sat for an hour at a bench and marveled at the pigeons thinking that we all are as clueless as they as to what it was like to be there that day.

[Romulox]

98. Did you visit the shrine built in Japan to commemorate the victims of the Rape of Nanking, too?

Oh yeah, it doesn't exist! :wtf:

[Basileus Basileon]

130. I have been to the Rape of Nanking memorial in Nanjing.

It's...somewhat bitter in tone. While the English information is pretty dry, there's a great deal of anger in the original Chinese. The Peace Park is sad and melancholy. The Rape of Nanking memorial is horrified and infuriated.

[WinkyDink]

166. It's what WE did, NOT what the Japanese believed about their emperor, or did to the Chinese,

or even did to our MILITARY in Hawaii.

IT'S WHAT WE DID, to CIVILIANS, with the most HORRIFIC weapon then known to man. We cannot look at what WE DID and "argue", "So? The Japanese were WORSE!"

'Known as "the father of the atomic bomb," Oppenheimer was shocked by the weapon's killing power after it was used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Quoting from the Bhagavad Gita, he said "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one. Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." ' (Wikipedia)

[karlrschneider]

13. What human could unequivocally accept that kind of blame without going insane?

It's easy for you to condemn him, never having been in his position. The thing is, none of us in 2007 can second guess what took place back then. Playing "what if" isn't a very smart way to judge history.

[kelligesq]

112. Some on the mission did go insane after they saw what they had done, n/t

.

[kelligesq]

113. Also no one knew what that bomb could actually do, not the immense scope.

.

[XOKCowboy]

17. He had no reason to repent...

He did what he was ordered to and arguably saved hundreds of thousands of lives. We must also remember that thanks to the Marshall Plan we rebuilt Japan into an industrial giant. Rationalization? Maybe but it brings to mind how honorably we used to handle a war.

[rudeboy666]

20. He did what he had to do

If he at least had some moral qualms (tragic but it had to be done given the circumstances), I would cut him some slack.

However, the brief quote posted makes him sound like an evil bastard.

[knight_of_the_star]

29. That's probably the point

The people who decry the use of the bomb then seem to forget that it was the best of an assortment of really bad options.

[stimbox]

31. Bullshit.

[rudeboy666]

34. Torture: justified if it saves lives?

Could be a good topic for another thread!

[knight_of_the_star]

68. How is that bullshit?

When you have three real choices which are:

1.) Japan keeps their military force along with their remaining conquests and remains a dangerous force to be reckoned with, something that in light of the previous atrocities as well as their military ambitions and past would have been a BAD idea. Anyone who has really studied the history of that country knows the heavy militarization was aimed at making sure Japan would not be knuckled under by the West like China was in the early and mid 19th century, imagine how bad it would have been if they came within a hairsbreadth of losing the war then were let off knowing they could have lost but the West could be convinced to back off? Talk about a kind of military myth and propaganda coup you do NOT want to hand to a nation with imperial ambitions, especially if later on they develop their own bomb.

2.) The US invades Japan, resulting in military and civilian casualties that would have exceeded ten Hiroshimas within a week easily on both sides. End result, you end up with a close-to-depopulated string of islands that need to be reconstructed and occupied by the allies after it is all said and done, more We Regret to Inform Yous, and something much closer to unintentional genocide that would have resulted from the devastation of a full-scale invasion.

3.) You drop the bomb on Hiroshima, tell the Japanese you mean business, and when they don't respond drop a second one to show it isn't a fluke. The war ends without the possibility of a resurgent Japanese Empire somewhere down the line to worry about and you have a Japan to rebuild.

So again, how is that bullshit?

[Forkboy]

47. I still think it was dropped mainly to keep Russia from invading.

They didn't want to divy up Japan like they had Berlin.Saving American lives was certainly a consideration, but I truly don't believe it was the main one.

[rug]

53. More to the point it was the Soviet Union's declaration of war on August 8

and its invasion of Manchuria the same day that probably had more to do with Japan's surrender than the atomic bomb. Japan knew full well it could not resist that invasion while the bomb, despite Hiroshima, was an unknown.

[Forkboy]

56. Yup, that's been my thinking. n/t

[texpatriot2004]

49. That is the evil man who said "there is no morality in war" nm

[Basileus Basileon]

52. Do you believe there is morality in a total war?

Where?

[Disturbed]

61. We never hear about the guy that dropped the other one on

Nagasaki.

[rug]

63. He felt the same way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Sweeney

[texpatriot2004]

65. Morality exists. When and where MEN choose to abide by the

moral principles that guide the conscience and shape the soul...that is another matter but the morality does not end, or fade, just because men choose to ignore it.

[Basileus Basileon]

67. High words, but useless ones.

There are no moral principles in a total war. There cannot be by definition. There are only two virtues that exist:

1. Ending it.
2. Never starting it.

Belief in some sort of morality that exists within a total war is dangerous.

[texpatriot2004]

71. There is no morality in war, morality exists in people. If people

choose not to follow their morals then there is no morality. Morality continues to exist whether it is followed by people or not. War is dangerous. Choosing to follow your moral guidance is not dangerous IMHO. The idea that "there is no morality in war" is a man made idea...not a Truth. It is a rationalization for the behavior that men choose to engage in and then justify. Kind of like, "it isn't personal, it's business" only in war it is much more serious and harmful. The moral and spiritual laws do not stop just because it is convenient or because a man or group of men claim it to be so.

[Romulox]

116. So there is a "moral" way to impel 18 y.o.s to slaughter one another?

And then the old bats back home get to divide the dead bodies into "innocent" and "not innocent" piles to decide if karmic balance is achieved. It doesn't make a whit of sense, but that's morality for you! :sarcasm:

[Guaranteed]

73. The "morality" in war you believe in only showed up AFTER- oddly enough-

we developed the bomb.

[texpatriot2004]

74. bomb building...also immoral IMO nm

[Basileus Basileon]

131. The atom bomb ended the concept of total war.

If it is never again used, it will have been one of the greatest forces for good in history. If it is, it will have been one of the greatest forces for evil.

[slackmaster]

168. Or it raised the concept of total war to a new level

A quantum leap.

[Oeditpus Rex]

69. So...?

You'd find a great many veterans of WWII who felt the same way.

I will not pass judgement on them. I wasn't there.

[MonkeyFunk]

72. He had nothing to repent...

it wasn't his decision to drop the bomb. He did his job, and he did it well.

[springhill]

105. He did it well..........

You are one sick, well I don't know what.

[MonkeyFunk]

115. His job was to deliver the bomb

he did it.

I made no moral judgment about the bomb itself. I'm referring to a pilot who performed his job.

[Eurobabe]

75. All I will say, is Karma's a beo-yotch

He's probably wandering around somewhere meeting burned Japanese souls with their flesh hanging off. :shrug:

[INDIA]

160. Quick! Everbody rewrite history to make America look EVIL!

I'm series you guys!!11!!!

[Eurobabe]

178. Sorry but in my mind, there is NEVER any excuse to use a

nuclear weapon against people. :nuke:

[WinkyDink]

76. "let a million more people die"~~~So, the government then was so perspicacious, not to mention

trustworthy, that we should believe this obvious propaganda?

Intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime. Even by the "good guys".

[NutmegYankee]

148. Both cities were classified as military targets.

Fortress, factories, etc.

[WinkyDink]

162. Bus stops.

[Romulox]

84. Has Japan even officiallly acknowledged the Rape of Nanking?

Japan killed tens of millions of Chinese 1930-1945. But that's ok; only Americans are have moral culpability. :sarcasm:

[Lord Wortherington]

91. Morality is about holding oneself to a standard

regardless of the ill actions of others.

[Romulox]

92. "Take up the White Man's burden..."

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel,
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers.

:sarcasm:

[Yukari Yakumo]

150. I've read a couple of American-in-Japan blogs on that issue....

And the answer is... no.

http://www.gaijinsmash.net/archives/taking_responsibility.phtml

But that sentiment doesn't just go for the bombings. It goes for all of the terrible things that happened in that war. Of which, the Japanese participated in quite a few.

However, when it comes to any of Japan's faults during the war, their tune suddenly changes. The Rape of Nanking "wasn't that bad," or "you can't prove all that stuff actually happened." Other horrible atrocities committed in China and Korea are also flat-out ignored. Some politicians would have you believe that the Japanese were over there "helping" their Asian neighbors. Japan forced thousands of women into sex-slavery during the war; some of these survivors and their descendants have been trying unsuccessfully to get recognition/compensation from the Japanese government about this. The government's response? "You can't really prove that the government sanctioned this," (despite there being proof otherwise), or "You girls weren't slaves, there was no coercion." Some will even go as far as to say that America forced Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Textbooks are altered to completely gloss over these things. Recently, the government moved to strike any reference to the Japanese military forcing civilians to commit suicide in the Battle of Okinawa. Of course, anything else--the comfort women, the atrocities in China and Korea, are nowhere to be found. These things don't seem to matter that much. If you're Japanese, all that matters about WWII is how poor Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.

[Romulox]

180. Which is why we must not allow the Japanese to characterize themselves as the victims of WWII.

The Japanese society was the aggressor in a war of expansionist genocide, and their complete lack of repentance means that they have the capacity to commit the same atrocities again.

The useful idiots here in the US, wrapped up in po-mo self-flagellation, help Japan bury the evidence of its disgusting wartime behavior...

[slackmaster]

85. He was right about the attitude of the United States in those years

I've spoken with enough of them to know that people were prepared to do whatever they could to end the war and crush Japan. They were sick to death of it.

[Supersedeas]

94. Dropping the bomb off the coast as a display of power would not satisfy the blood thirst

A shot across the bow -- not on Tibbets watch.

[Basileus Basileon]

108. Given that they did not surrender even after the first bomb was dropped

on a Japanese city, what makes you think a "show of force" would have accomplished anything?

[rug]

140. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 8th, a nonnuclear show of force, ended the war.

[LanternWaste]

117. surrender was a possibility discussed, it was also a possibility rejected...

"Some members of the civilian leadership used diplomatic channels to attempt peace negotiation , but they could not negotiate surrender or even a cease-fire. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only legally enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and in the summer of 1945, the Japanese Supreme War Council, consisting of representatives of the Army, the Navy and the civilian government, could not reach a consensus on how to proceed."

From Wikipedia (although I'm hesitant to source anything using the internet, I'm at work and do not have access to my modest library on the conflict) which implicitly tell us that though surrender was a possibility discussed, it was also a possibility emphatically rejected...

[aquart]

122. When you start a war, you do not get a say in how it ends.

Something we should have remembered. He had nothing to apologize for and it was damned rude to ask.

[Paladin]

127. I'd Wager That A Number Of You Are Alive Today.....

....because of the bombs we dropped on Japan. Yes it was gruesome, but it saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers; perhaps some of them were your fathers or grandfathers. Untold numbers of Japanese people were saved as well.

And lay off the personal attacks against Paul Tibbets---at most, he and his crew were nothing more than the tip of a spear, and that spear was thrust by powerful men in Washington, D.C.......

[rug]

137. I don't need to bet. It's certain there would be millions of Japanese alive now but for the bomb.

[Bonobo]

129. Reap what you so. It goes both ways. Instant karma. Live by the sword. Roosters come home to roost.

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMA.

[rug]

135. Yes, Buddhism is responsible.

Idiot.

[Bonobo]

141. Ore no itteiru koto wo sappari wakaranai.

Tsumi. Bakudan wo otoshita no ha yureserarenai tsumi da.

[rug]

144. Beati pacifici.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

132. Even IF bombing was necessary, I still don't understand why we had to use

nuclear weapons. It seems like a carpet bombing or some daisy cutters would have gotten the point across without having to subject millions to the effects of radiation.

[Noonecares]

145. They tried that before

Look up the firebombing of Tokyo. More japanese killed during that raid then in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined! Still the japanese didnt surrender.

[Beausoir]

147. I am glad I am not him. Jesus, To drop a bomb on all those innocent children, How could anyone

live with themself after that horrific slaughter of little children.

[SoCalDem]

151. 2007 people cannot moralize on 1945 people. It was a different time and place

and nothing we approve or of disapprove of, can change history.. he was one man on a mission he did not design or approve.. he was a military pilot following the orders of his superior officers, and no one was really sure of the final effects of the bomb..

I highly disapprove of the Spanish Inquisition and the massacre of the native Americans here, and of so many other bad things, but other than learning from the mistakes, and trying to be better people, we cannot go back in time and should not demonize people who only knew what they knew back then and did not have the advantage of foresight.. we have 20-20 hindsight, but no one has 20-20 foresight :)

[Thothmes]

158. Bravo

One aside from the tragidies of WWII and the A Bombs use. It was pretty obvious to the United States/Soviet Union what destructive potential lie in nuclear weapons. Do we suppose in that fact, more than any other has prevented their use since then. We came close once in 1962, but did not. Why,
Maybe in Nikita Khurschev's and John Kennedy's mind ,Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed them that world destruction was a real probability, if they could not work out a compromise. Just my opinion.

[BushOut06]

159. Would you say the same thing about slavery?

After all, slavery was considered quite normal by a great number of people. In fact, slavery has existed throughout human history, with even the New Testament condoning it.

[slackmaster]

165. Most peoples' support of slavery was based on ignorance

They should not be held accountable for lack of general enlightenment that came later. Someone who supports slavery now is certainly accountable.

Likewise, I cannot hold the US population, Paul Tibbets, or even our national leaders responsible for not having thought through all the future consequences and implications of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.

Hindsight is 20/20.

[WinkyDink]

167. It is, in fact, precisely what historians do. "Time travel" is a straw man, but JUDGMENT is NOT.

The Dominicans, e.g., knew EXACTLY what torture was (even if Bush claims not to).

[lynne]

157. Tibbets had no reason to repent -

- he went to work and did the job that had been assigned to him that day. The Japanese had been forewarned that something big was coming if they did not surrender but they didn't heed the advice. They STILL didn't surrender after Hiroshima which is why we bombed Nagasaki three days later. The bombings forced the surrender of Japan and stopped the proposed invasion of Japan by US forces which would have cost untold - projected at hundreds of thousands - American lives.

[WinkyDink]

169. Two essays on this topic, one an interview with a pre-eminent historian of Japanese history:

John Dower:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:S_3_7pnbIIcJ:https://www.aasianst.org/EAA/DowerInterview.pdf+john+dower+hiroshima&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

"Common Dreams":
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0805-20.htm

It's time for the propaganda to give way to HISTORY.

[stimbox]

173. Excellent articles WinkyDink! Thanks! n/t