50 Years On

There is a thread nearby about the B-29. (Fantastic plane compared to the ones “prewar”.) But that thread about the atomic planes/missions are a little “over the top” for my taste. Thank You for a very balanced discussion here.
I nearly got into a “fight” with a colleague the other day. He being of the “atomic bomb = war crime” persuasion. (But nevertheless very knowledgeable about Japanese war crimes.) In truth I’m in doubt, but find like Sherman? – “War is Hell”. (From the first casualty – military or civilian).
Best Regards

Caen would have been a better example John, Paris was hardly touched by allied bombing.

I met Paul Tibbets in March, he is not in anyway sorry for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, why should he be, anymore than the guys who bombed other civilian targets. He was given a job to do and did it to the best of his abilities.

It’s always easy for people to criticise with the luxury of hindsight.

I agree completely Ian with the sentiment regards Paul Tibbets and his crew.

I’m not sure it’s always easy for people to criticise with the luxury of hindsight. Many historians in criticism of the use of the bomb often make a very good and well thought out case. Then again so do those for the use of the bomb. In my opinion that is, because im really not sure. Then are the ‘historians’ who know what will stir interest in a book. Takes all sorts.

Caen would have been a better example John, Paris was hardly touched by allied bombing.

I met Paul Tibbets in March, he is not in anyway sorry for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, why should he be, anymore than the guys who bombed other civilian targets. He was given a job to do and did it to the best of his abilities.

It’s always easy for people to criticise with the luxury of hindsight.

Not one to normally agree but Ian is spot on with his comments. Anna

On the island of Okinawa there were mass suicides of military and civilians alike, but there were also suicide bombers (the first?) who wandered into or waited for groups of American soldiers and then set off grenades. I believe there were similar incidents on other Japanese islands as they were captured. The interesting thing here is that they were mainly women and children. Had the invasion of Japan gone ahead there would possibly have been thousands of similar incidents taking place until the allied military could not trust any form of civilian – adult or kiddy – unless they were naked and obviously unarmed.
I also believe that orders had gone out from certain members of the high command to eliminate proof of potential Japanese warcrimes – although this could have been going on from early 1945 though, when it became obvious to all which way the war was going. A former prisoner of war (now sadly deceased, I believe) under the Japanese told me (or my reporter) that he found out that his camps British officiers ate better than their opposite numbers because the Japanese camp commander was afraid that when the tables were turned he would be held to account for the letters in his office ordering him to kill his prisoners – something totally against his warrior code. He did not know whether that camp commander was charged with war crimes after the surrender. Had the atomic bomb not been used maybe the fanatics would have enforced their orders and the prisoners would have been killed? Who knows. – Nermal

Have we arrived at a point of agreement? I think so. No civilian “deserves” to die. Perhaps a few fanatics arguably “deserve” to die – typically the victors conduct trials on this point.

There are a number of similar threads in Historic – the touchpoint there being Dresden. In this one we also discuss the Atomic bombs.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=33973

A number of persons

The Japanese civilians killed in the raids didn’t “deserve’ to die any more than the English families killed during the blitz on London, the French in Paris, or the Americans in Honolulu.

Yes obviously. Thats perfectly true. A life is a life. English, French, German whatever.

Goodnight,

This really is the final word! 🙂

Terrible. But no more terrible than the result of the bombings in Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry, Hamburg, Dsesden or Tokyo. why is it deemed to be worse or more powerful imagery because it is Hiroshima? What about the bombing in China? is that somehow more acceptable?

No of course not, we should remember all those who have lost their lives needlessly.

Excellent film. Tell me how a film in which the Allies bomb targets in which innocent civilians were killed will help you to unwind? 😉

Ive been told it features excellent acting and tons of B17s 😉 That should do the trick. I’ll also revell in the fact that it was purchased for only £2 on DVD 🙂

Now I really am off 🙂

regards, Steve

Even the civilians Mark? The children and innocents who, along with the guilty were swept away? A nation is nothing without it’s people and I can’t believe it’s people deserved it. Not saying I disagree with the usuage or agree by the way. Just a thought.

Best Regards, Steve

The Japanese civilians killed in the raids didn’t “deserve’ to die any more than the English families killed during the blitz on London, the French in Paris, or the Americans in Honolulu.

Steve.

“But we can still regret that their superiors gave the order. I really do not know where the right and wrong lies on this issue. I just hope very much that the bomb was dropped because no other solution was available and that their was no alterior motive. That is all I really hope. Then it is justified.”

I cannot regret that their superiors gave the order which saved millions of lives. In my mind it was right and justifiable to use the atomic weapons to end the war and thereby save lives. Different theatre of war but the saying “you have sown the wind – you shall reap the whirlwind” is just as applicable.

“Kev, did you watch the BBC drama/docu based on eye witness accounts? If not there was a re-enactment of a young Japanese woman trying to free her daughter from burning rubble. The flames were advancing and the woman tried in vain to release her daughter. She watched while her conscious child burnt alive in that rubble. When I see a story like that then I could think of few ways to justify that either child or mother could deserve such a fate.”

Terrible. But no more terrible than the result of the bombings in Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry, Hamburg, Dsesden or Tokyo. why is it deemed to be worse or more powerful imagery because it is Hiroshima? What about the bombing in China? is that somehow more acceptable? The Japanese, both Government and people, chose to start a war. Someone had to end it and I believe, if you want it put callously, that this was the most humane way to do it.

“Anyway, im going to go and watch 12 O’Clock High which I just bought on DVD, help me unwind after the verbal jousting”

Excellent film. Tell me how a film in which the Allies bomb targets in which innocent civilians were killed will help you to unwind? 😉

“I realise from past experience how emotive you can, quite rightly, get about these things.”

I can’t help that. Maybe it’s a curse but there’s little I could do to change it and possibly even less inclination to do so. I am who I am.

Nice to see we’re keeping Grey area entertained.

Regards,

kev35

Maybe, just maybe 200,000 civilians were killed in the dropping of the atomic bombs. How many times would that figure be multiplied if the Allies had to resort to the invasion of Japan? The use of the atomic bombs negated the need for invasion thereby saving millions of lives, both civilian and military. Therefore the use of the atomic bomb was justified.

I cannot regret the loss of innocent lives, or if I do, I regret far more the loss of innocent lives taken at the hands of the Japanese.

“I can see both sides of the debate and simply find myself torn between either side.”

Fair comment. I too can see both sides of the debate, I, however, do not have a crisis of conscience over which side of the debate I support. I’m not being sarcastic here, that’s just how I feel. I believe the use of atomic weapons against the Japanese civilian population was justified. To express regret would be doing a great disservice to the men who flew those missions.

Regards,

kev35

I really don’t believe to regret the use of the bomb would be a disservice to the men who flew the Enola Gay or Bockscar. These men were doing a mission, it was there duty and I, and hopefully most people, respect their courage for flying that mission. I am certainly not someone who can sympathise for example with the fool who threw red paint over the front of the B29 when she was put on public display. But we can still regret that their superiors gave the order. I really do not know where the right and wrong lies on this issue. I just hope very much that the bomb was dropped because no other solution was available and that their was no alterior motive. That is all I really hope. Then it is justified.

As for you regretting the lives of those lost at the hands of the Japanese more, well all I can say is that I really can’t distinguish. An innocent life is an innocent life to me.

Kev, did you watch the BBC drama/docu based on eye witness accounts? If not there was a re-enactment of a young Japanese woman trying to free her daughter from burning rubble. The flames were advancing and the woman tried in vain to release her daughter. She watched while her conscious child burnt alive in that rubble. When I see a story like that then I could think of few ways to justify that either child or mother could deserve such a fate.

Anyway, im going to go and watch 12 O’Clock High which I just bought on DVD, help me unwind after the verbal jousting 😉

Best Regards, Steve

ps- Kev, no need to apologise. I realise from past experience how emotive you can, quite rightly, get about these things.

No apologies necessary, Kev.

I’ve been following this thread all weekend and I just want it to continue. 🙂

My apologies to Grey Area and to Hatton.

This is an emotive topic on which I have strong views. It is regrettable that I have not been able to express myself better.

Regards,

kev35

Maybe, just maybe 200,000 civilians were killed in the dropping of the atomic bombs. How many times would that figure be multiplied if the Allies had to resort to the invasion of Japan? The use of the atomic bombs negated the need for invasion thereby saving millions of lives, both civilian and military. Therefore the use of the atomic bomb was justified.

I cannot regret the loss of innocent lives, or if I do, I regret far more the loss of innocent lives taken at the hands of the Japanese.

“I can see both sides of the debate and simply find myself torn between either side.”

Fair comment. I too can see both sides of the debate, I, however, do not have a crisis of conscience over which side of the debate I support. I’m not being sarcastic here, that’s just how I feel. I believe the use of atomic weapons against the Japanese civilian population was justified. To express regret would be doing a great disservice to the men who flew those missions.

Regards,

kev35

Come on, chaps.

This has been a fascinating thread up to now.

Let’s keep it civil and not spoil it, eh?

Thanks

Grey Area
Moderator

My post is with the best of attitudes and intentions, im sure the same can be applied to Kev.

Come on, chaps.

This has been a fascinating thread up to now.

Let’s keep it civil and not spoil it, eh?

Thanks

Grey Area
Moderator

Steve.

My apologies for holding an opinion, I must be more careful.

Kev, I clearly stated I respected your opinion. Why the need for such sarcasm? I’ve shown politeness and courtesy so this saddens me.

First of all, Japanese civilians actively supported the war effort. Japanese civilians were fully aware of the code by which their military operated. Take a look at the Island where thousands of Japanese civilians killed themselves rather than surrender with the troops who were fighting a hopeless cause.

a generalisation, yes of course many were in support. Propaganda and fear can do a lot. Then again maybe some just genuinely agreed with the regime and some that did not but could never say. Children are influenced so easily and the very young could have no comprehension of what war really is.

Did the Japanese people make any moves toward surrender? even though it was obvious they would be defeated, even if it took an invasion?

It is not for the civilians to accept surrender, it is for the military. I am not discussing them. How would you suggest civilians influence a surrender?

Deliberately not giving an opinion or is that fence sitting? You’re right to do so should you wish.

Firstly, please give my reluctance to state an opinion any negative term you wish to apply to it. I am simply not giving my opinion for two main reasons. The first is that I wished to discuss this point and not deviate off track and the second reason is that I find it too complicated to take either side. I can see both sides of the debate and simply find myself torn between either side.

I reiterate, women and children did not deserve to be brutalised in China or any of the other territories posessed by Japan, but they were.

No they did not. And yes they were. But how does that further your case? These were acts carried out by the military. Not by civilians. I am discussing civilians, not the military. I am saying that no innocent civilians DESERVED to suffer.

Maybe emotion regarding this issue is all I have. I have seen close up the effects of what the Japanese did to their prisoners, even some fifty years on. The Japanese treatment of prisoners is not a separate issue. I firmly believe that the dropping of the atomic bombs ended the war thereby saving millions of lives. I cannot be sorry for the deaths of civilians who were wholly supportive of the most vile of regimes. Furthermore, why should I? .

It depends in which way you mean support. Do you mean actively or in spirit. Somebody who agrees with an evil regime in spirit (like many many Germans during WW2) can realise there mistake later and show regret. But even if you can’t forgive them, can you not show any regret that INNOCENT civilians (and I doubt you can argue that there weren’t some) had to suffer. This doesn’t have to change your opinion on whether the bomb should or should not have been dropped but that you regret the loss of innocent life as a by- product.

The Japanese Nation were the ones to start the Pacific war. ATC PAL has a good point. Why didn’t Japan surrender after the first bomb? Why did units continue to fight after the surrender? Why did thousands commit suicide?.

Units are again military, i’m not debating their role. Why didn’t Japan surrender? Because of an ‘honour’ code that is alien to us (and in my opinion wrong) but we can’t blame civilians for not surrending. We can blame the Emperor and the Military for that.

He is right. The fact that the Japanese had atomic weapons used against them seems to have turned Japan into the victim. Like ATC PAL says, are we to forget all the atrocities perpetrated by Japan prior to August 6th?.

I see the civilians as victims of a horrible bomb that is not there doing. I see innocent Germans, Jews, Britons, Americans (the list goes on and on) as victims too. No, we are not to forget the atrocities, I would never suggest this and deviates us further from the point. I try and debate one point and, in my opinion, you use emotive events (atrocities in POW camps / China for example ) to sidetrack and deflect.

Best Regards, Steve

Steve.

My apologies for holding an opinion, I must be more careful.

First of all, Japanese civilians actively supported the war effort. Japanese civilians were fully aware of the code by which their military operated. Take a look at the Island where thousands of Japanese civilians killed themselves rather than surrender with the troops who were fighting a hopeless cause. Did the Japanese people make any moves toward surrender? even though it was obvious they would be defeated, even if it took an invasion?

Deliberately not giving an opinion or is that fence sitting? You’re right to do so should you wish. I reiterate, women and children did not deserve to be brutalised in China or any of the other territories posessed by Japan, but they were.

“Kev35, I respect your right to voice an opinion and I enjoy many of your posts but I really wish you would read a post more carefully instead of assuming my stance on an issue and letting emotion run riot.”

Maybe emotion regarding this issue is all I have. I have seen close up the effects of what the Japanese did to their prisoners, even some fifty years on. The Japanese treatment of prisoners is not a separate issue. I firmly believe that the dropping of the atomic bombs ended the war thereby saving millions of lives. I cannot be sorry for the deaths of civilians who were wholly supportive of the most vile of regimes. Furthermore, why should I? The Japanese Nation were the ones to start the Pacific war. ATC PAL has a good point. Why didn’t Japan surrender after the first bomb? Why did units continue to fight after the surrender? Why did thousands commit suicide?

He is right. The fact that the Japanese had atomic weapons used against them seems to have turned Japan into the victim. Like ATC PAL says, are we to forget all the atrocities perpetrated by Japan prior to August 6th?

Regards,

kev35

Just watched the BBC documentary the other night. (Which was balanced by the way and very good, if you’ll pardon the expression). Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also military targets.
From another discussion (PPRUNE?) I was referred to “EyeWitness to History.com”: “The Tokyo Fire Raids, 1945”.Robert Guillain was a French reporter assigned to Japan in 1938. He stayed on after war broke in Europe and was trapped in the country after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. He returned to France in 1946 and published a book recounting his experiences. He was in Tokyo on the night of March 9, 1945 when the wet winter weather made a surprise change to mild temperatures and gusty winds. We join his story as the sound of air-raid sirens pierce the night and the first B-29s make their appearance. (Read for yourself, not for the fainthearted!).

It took a whole night but the result was the same as an atomic bomb! (Lots of civilian victims. 80.000 – 200.000 estimated killed)

Somehow the Japanese got “whitewashed” by the two bombs. All that went before is “forgotten”.
(Required reading for a start:
The Knights of Bushido
A Short History of Japanese War Crimes
by Lord Russell of Liverpool
Introduction by Norman Stone

http://www.militaryink.com/books/2005/june/1853676519.htm)

Why didn’t Japan surrender after the first bomb?

Recently heard that WWI was the first war, where the majority of casualties were civilian? (Could somebody provide a confirmation or link, please?)

Yes, even the civilians. Neither Britain, the Commonwealth or the United States asked for a war with Japan. Japan wanted war, they got one. Did the Japanese ever show concern for the civilians they encountered? Of course they did. With the women they had to decide whether to rape them before they killed them. With the men they had to decide on whether to use a bullet or bayonet, and that is precisely how far the compassion of the Japanese extended.

But Japanese civillians didn’t rape or bayonet anyone, did they? So justifying that even the civillians ‘deserved’ it on this basis is ridiculous. How can you generalise an entire nation so easily.

As I’ve said previously, my only regret is that it couldn’t have been deployed several years earlier. Do you honestly think the Japanese mindset would have had them prevaricating over the use of the atomic bomb had they built one first? Of course not. They certainly wouldn’t have felt any guilt over it either. Why must we persist in trying to stigmatise those who successfully fought and won a war that shaped the lives we live today?

Do I honestly think the Japanese mindset would have had them prevaricating over the use of the atomic bomb had they built one first? No, nor have I condemned the use of the bomb or advocated it, I was, you may have noticed, careful to stress my reluctance to give an opinion either way. All I said was that civillians, women and CHILDREN did not DESERVE to be vapourised or die agonising deaths from the radiation or starvation. It MAY have been the best course of action available to drop the bomb, the lesser of many evils, but in no way can I think that innocent women and children and civillians deserved to be killed.

I have no feeling of regret that the devices were used. If you, personally, have any doubts, spend a night reliving through nightmares what a prisoner of war of the Japanese endured. I have.

Again, your suspection that I have doubts about the validity of the use of the A-Bomb is completely unfounded. I have voiced no opinion. If I was to have doubts then it would be based on whether it was needed in terms of the overall objective of saving human life (both Japanese and Allied)

The experiences of POWs at the hands of the Japanese would have nothing to do with my opinions because these are completely seperate (though no less important) matters. The only time they would ever be important in this issue is if I believed in the use of a bomb as an act of vengeance. This I do not.

Kev35, I respect your right to voice an opinion and I enjoy many of your posts but I really wish you would read a post more carefully instead of assuming my stance on an issue and letting emotion run riot.

Best Regards, Steve

I think that “fighting to the death” could have been solved with an unconditional surrender from the Japanese if they were able to keep their emperor. Before the tests at Alamogordo AFB the US didn’t really care that much about this unconditional surrender but after that 16th July Truman stressed on it several times, pissing off the allied military leaders. I still think the weapon had to be used, to get Japan AND the emperor on its knees (Hitler didn’t stay in the office as well), but to warn the USSR as well.