AlexTKev35, you are spot on.
I had a grandfather tortured by that lot.
After Hiroshima, the Japs had not surrendered. The 2nd bomb was a different technology, things need proving. It also took out a very important Port.
Given what was going on at the time, it’s a pity that 50 bombs weren’t used to finish it proper.
The handing over of the Sword (Meaning that the Emporer wasn’t actually a God afterall) was a great moment in history.As for it never happening again, you know it will. It will be the idiots in Korea or the even thicker idiots in the Middle East.
thank you for your contribution, you are the perfect example of what happens when you don’t apply revisionism in history.
AlexTAlexT
I left plenty of clues in my posting. and your reply have confirmed that you are not as well clued up on WW2 as you think you are.
well dear Richard, this is your opinion. I have stated facts, stuff that I learned while preparing my exams in contemporary history at uni and enriched by many books and texts on the topic; what you did on the other hand is talking old rhetoric, without actually answering my questions, nor supporting your theories with facts.. The fear of revisionism is a common thing though, so I seriously have nothing against who doesn’t want to see facts for what they are, what I can do is offering my version of things as another point of view, not as a mere provocation. Some people accept it, some people respect it, some people diss it, but at least I know that I tried..
I have my opinions and you have yours. So be it.
fair enough, I won’t be wasting anymore of your time on this, at least we both agree that what happened 64 years ago was terrible and should never be repeated.
AlexTA bomb is a bomb. For the third time, I’ll make my point for the third time…if you’re dead…your dead.
An a-bomb is terrible. So is a firestorm. (PS. don’t be insulting).
a bomb is not a bomb, that’s a statement that is acceptable only by a warfare illiterate.
Conventional bombs were (and are) produced with the intent of offering a proportional offence to the size of the menace. Because of its nature, a nuclear weapon can’t be contained offence-wise. You can’t go surgical with a nuclear weapon, unless your patient is the size of a continent…
If a bomb is a bomb, why you think all the countries make a difference between conventional and nuclear warfare? Didn’t mean to insult you btw, sorry about that; arguing on the Internet is stupid, I am trying to explain my point of view, just like you are.
So what? The intent of conventional bombing was designed to cause destruction on a massive scale.
wrong again, the massive scale destruction is caused by the massive scale use of bombs. A single bomb can have devastating effects on a well contained area.
The type of weapon makes no difference in the morality of a situation. And that seem to be your point here..how immoral the A-bomb was.
I’ll attempt to make it simple for you…Today, if you murder someone, the law doesn’t differentiate between a gun and a knife.
yes, my point is that the use of two atomic bombs was immoral for a series of points that I explained before, but I can go through them again if you want.
Troll alert!!!:eek:
Where do you get the Idiotic idea that I want retribution?
Read all my posts, I’ never said such a thing. All my posts say how terrible the bomb was.
I just happen to think it was the lesser of several evils…i.e. invasion.
when people say “you should see what they did to prisoners” etc.. no matter how true the thing is (and we all know how fierce the Japanese were), it will sound like they’re trying to justify the atrocity of the A-Bomb with what we had to suffer because of them.
The difference between is is I don’t feel the need to parade a supposed moral superiority over men who had to make a terrible decision.
It’s easly to second guess them today from the security of the future…especially when it wouldn’t have been your family (or countrymen) doing most of the dying in an invasion.
it’s exactly the other way round!! If the nazis won the war, the concentration camps would have been seen as a normal thing. We would know it was an atrocity, but wouldn’t admit because it served the cause of the reich, do you get what I mean? History needs to be analysed and judged by the future generation to learn from the mistakes that were made before. If we didn’t do it, we would have all the potential for a third world war (and probably never in the human history as in these years there is such a danger for a global conflict).
Im not sure I understood what you meant with the last bit referring to my family or countrymen.
You’ve made up your mind and are well beyond listening to reason.
No, I am open and listening, I just think that we are approaching the issue from two different points of view.
AlexTBit baffled by this statement.
History of the second world war was recorded by witnesses, military and civilian.
Nearly everything that happened during the war was documented in some way, by a ‘witness’.
Only by correlating all these witness statements can historians make sense of what actually happened.
please, let’s not confuse historical witnesses with history. The Second World War was probably the first historical event to have such a media coverage and huge number of witnesses, but the task of the historian is to track the events that happened and analyse the causes and effects. Witnesses can have a key role in some cases, but they are a part of history, not history itself. There have been many cases, cited by important historians (one that many of you might know very well is Stephen Ambrose), where the human factor and distance in time with the events narrated caused partially correct statements or memories. One of the main things to avoid as an historian (and God knows if it’s hard) is to get emotionally involved with the witnesses, as this may corrupt the objectivity of an interview.
Imagine interviewing one of the Japanese prison camp soldiers, or an SS trooper from Auschwitz, they will not tell you “we were the Evil personified”, they will probably tell you “We were just doing what we were ordered to, sometimes we might have found it questionable, sometimes we didn’t”.
conjecture(according to your rules), nothing historical here, as you were not there how do you know?…..ah that would be witness accounts that you read from a historical book.
Have you read some of the post-drop reactions by the people involved in the Manhattan project and by the scientific community in general?
If it wasn’t for people like (Bomber) Harris and the people involved in the Manhatten project (and others you slur with insinuations of war crimes), we would in all probability not exist today. Have to agree with Richard here, I’m glad they used the atom bomb to shorten the war and save allied lives. The consequence of which frightened the world not to use them in anger since.
we would not exist today?! What load of rubbish! That is an assumption based on nothing! Germany was kaputt, Japan was surrounded and on its knees, there was even no need to invade the island, with Russia and USA sourrounding it and hammering it with conventional bombing aimed at military structures and factories. Several military historians pointed out that the decision to use the atomic bomb had already been conceived, it was all a matter of opportunity.
Japan was a perfect target: a big and far island, whose inhabitants were strongly and racially hated, and which didn’t want to capitulate. Everyone seems to forget the important detail of the two different bombs: don’t you see the experimental nature of that?
Retribution would have been 30 bombs…50 bombs
The Americans dropped only 2
ah so nice of them to contain themselves with “just” two atomic bombs!
Agreed……we haven’t been starved for the last 4 years, bombed into shelters, losing loved ones, friends and neighbours on a daily basis ( you would have a different mindset if you had)
hindsight is the vital key to understand history, that is a commonly known thing. People who don’t accept hindsight are either dull or aware of the fact that seen it with different eyes and knowing more, some things that sounded right back then weren’t actually that right.
The lack of hindsight is one of the reasons why there have been so many ethnic wars after the Second World War.
we do………..every year, 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.
We remember all our boys who did not make it home, who fought and died to give you the freedom of speech, freedom of self expression, freedom of movement and in your case the freedom to whinge and wind up this forum.
We mourn the sacrifice that those young brave boys had to do, not the atrocities that they were forced to commit. One thing is remembering brave soldiers, another is cheering their actions. You folks seem to be a bit confused under this point of view..
Wasn’t the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port? The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping. (used wiki here, saved time)
Wasn’t Nagasaki one of the Japs biggest military Naval Dock yards?(etc)
So wasn’t entirely a civilian target
I think you’ll hardly find a big city that didn’t have military targets. It’s not the target themselves, it’s the way they were hit that was atrocious. Think about it: if they wanted to end the war without more bloodshed, they could have invited the Japanese to have a look from the east coast towards the sea, where they would have dropped the first bomb at a relatively safe distance from the land. If after that they wouldn’t have surrendered, then it would have been a case of “well don’t tell us we didn’t warn you!”, but to me it was pretty much paying them back for Pearl Harbor, and with a vengeance too. That is actually how the public opinion got the thing: the Japs had some of the 1941 **** back.
Oh well better get my tin hat and climb into my Anderson shelter, reckon I’ve got incoming….
Baz
there’s no need for no helmet, as long as one motivates his ideas, it’s just an exchange of opinions.
AlexTMine has the ring mod and I have just topped it up for the first time since the annual. Have flown just over nine hours since, and it took 1.5 litres to fill to the 3 gal mark. So roughly 1/3 pint per hour.
Shame there isn’t a mod to improve fuel consumption.
(Please no suggestions to fit a Lycoming)
Lycoming? Naaah! Try a Rotax 914 Turbo! :D:D:D
AlexTYes with a Dripsy Major its Top up the fuel and fill up the oil. 1 pint per hour.
There are mods that can be done to fit another oil scraper ring to the piston. A number of people have fitted them to their Gipsys here in Australia. The ones I have spoken to say they get a much reduced oil consumption. With the low hours I do each year with mt Tiger Moth, I figure the oil is cheaper than the cost of the mod.
cheers
Yeah, I’ve heard of that before, but I wonder what with the cylinder life then?
AlexTAlexT
I don’t know if what you have posted on this thread are your genuine feelings or just a way to wind people up.
If they are your genuine feelings then I am thankful that people of your ilk, did not have any great input to any decisions made by the allies in WW2.
…So if someone is making a point that is different than yours is just to wind you up? :rolleyes:
IMO.
War is aggression between two or more parties; the outcome is, that there is a victor and a loser. The victor only wins if he uses every available resources to get rid of his enemies. And have the will to win.
Do it to them before they do it to you.
wow, who needs history books when we have your fine definitions! Unfortunately history of warfare is a tad more complicated..
Your quote post 96.
There is no point in this discussion then, because you’ll never change your mind. It’s really sad actually, because the blood that millions of people shed for us to understand from the mistakes of history completely failed with you.A very good shot in the foot.
Is it? can u explain why?
I can still remember seeing ex FEPOWs years after the war and the state they were in.
I’m sure that they were in no worse state than the hundreds of thousands of people who were injured or suffered for DECADES after the bombs were dropped…
You people seem only to care about the soldiers, but what about the civilians? They were there too during the war and suffered as much (if not more!) than our troops.
A point for you to ponder, after the Japanese surrender, did the victors take revenge and get rid of the population and use Japan as a nuclear testing ground?
What in the world has this to do with the topic?! You see, you folks see everything under a revenge level, you have no sense of history.
11407315 Sgt Levi Gray. 2nd Battalion, The Royal Norfolk Regiment.
When you go home, Tell Them of us and say,
For your tomorrow, We gave our today.
I had an incredibly pleasant talk with a WW2 vet, who did the D-Day and marched his way to Germany, and his comments about what happened in Germany and Japan were the same as mine.. talking to people like that might actually help you open your minds a bit and understand that everything that was done during the war was not always right..
AlexTAlexT… if you are still here, the estimate of Japanese civilian casualties if the invasion of the home islands was carried out was in the millions (due to the plans for the entire population to actively fight the invaders)… so ~200,000 civilian casualties in the A-bombing of 2 cities that were war-material production centers is a very good trade for the Japanese people!
As to their “surrendering”, their demands for starting negotiations included a promise that the entire Japanese government structure had to remain intact… including the military dominance of the government! The was also a requirement that the military was to remain intact.
There was no way any of the allied governments would accept that, and if any had the others would have cut them out of the process… even if it was the US that did (impossible with the attitudes of the American populace at that time).
So, no… it was either invasion or A-bomb… and the right choice was made.
The estimate that the invasion of Japan would have cost the Allies a million casualties is ludicrous and not based on anything. The studies done at the time and presented to Truman showed that the soldiers killed would have been about 5% of that number. The fact that the Japanese were already trying to surrender when the bomb was dropped–and that we ultimately gave them the terms we first refused–makes the allegation that we would have had to invade Japan particularly ridiculous.
Also, don’t discount the value of Truman proving to Stalin that the US WOULD use the A-bomb… the value of that in keeping Stalin, Khrushchev (1962 Cuba?), Brezhnev, etc negotiating and using proxies to oppose the US instead of direct conflict in Europe is very real, in my opinion.
How many millions of civilian lives did that save?
I totally agree with you, it was a demonstration of force, it had no military value at all.
I am still waiting for someone to explain me why the US dropped the second bomb, which used a different technology, 2 days after the first one, when Japan still didn’t even have the full figures of what they had just been attacked with.
AlexTOf course I’m just looking at the military effect of the bomb drop. What else is there to look at? You’re talking about 200,000 people dead and injured. How many lives would have been lost had an invasion of Japan taken place?
u see, that is the point, when it comes to think about “our guys” you think of the human side of things, while when you think of “the enemy”, you think of the military effects; a bit biased, don’t u think?
Oh yes, I’m safe behind my monitor, but I know why I’m safe and appreciate that fact. You are vilifying the memory of many by referring to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes. Ergo you are calling the Allied Governments and all those who participated in the Manhattan Project and the crews of Enola Gay and Bock’s Car war criminals.
I am sure that very few of the people involved in the drop of the atomic bombs had something to be proud of. What we probably don’t understand is actually the burden they had to bring on their souls for the rest of their lives. When you are not in public, far from the military glory, alone in your bed, and think about what you have done and seen in a war… I don’t think all vets have that patriotic view after all, because what their country asked them to do was far from human.
I am not saying the people involved were criminals, they were faithful and obeying soldiers and scientists who did what they were asked, even when the result of their action would have been criminal. The responsibility and burden on their conscience was on a different scale, and many scientists were really disturbed by the final use of their research.
New generation? Yes I am. But something I’m not is a revisionist.
There is no point in this discussion then, because you’ll never change your mind. It’s really sad actually, because the blood that millions of people shed for us to understand from the mistakes of history completely failed with you.
I try to view the war through the eyes, attitudes and morality of those who actually fought the war.
those are historical anecdotes, it’s not history, there’s quite a difference. And to be fair I believe you didn’t read many either, because even among the vets, there are many who questioned the use of atomic bombs and other criminal actions.
Hindsight is a dangerous thing.
that is honestly one of the scariest sentences I’ve ever heard in my life. You are historically blind. The lack of hindsight is what led to the biggest disgraces of history (Hitler anyone?).
We cannot apply our morals and attitudes to the events of sixty odd years ago. We have to look at it through the eyes of those who experienced it.
Regards,
kev35
that is the totally wrong approach to history. Witnesses of the era are valuable, but it’s not on those that you can write history.
AlexTWhy do people assume that the average Japanese person agreed with the need to go to war?- are people so blinded by mis-directed anger that they think that the entire Japanese race should’ve been wiped out just because they were lead into a war by an extreme right wing regime that even Yamoto knew they couldn’t win?
because many people don’t do an effort and use more sources to study history before opening their mouths.
There’s nothing more appalling than people who don’t understand the importance of objectiveness for the sake of history, rambling on about all their rhetorical bs…
AlexTOkay, define “weapon of mass destruction”.
He-111s over east London?
The V-1, V-2 attacks?
Lancaster over Dresden?
Spitfire strafing a train?If your house was destroyed in the Blitz, a 250 lb bomb (or the German metric equivalent) is a “weapon of mass destruction”.
Likewise, if your grandfather was the engineer of a German troop or supply train, and lost his head in an attack, that 20mm cannon fired from a fighter is a “weapon of mass destruction”.
….what? Are we playing the game of proportions now? Are you really so dumb to try and compare conventional weapons using in WW2 with the atomic bombs? :confused:
Is an atomic bomb a conventional weapon? No
Does it leave long term effects? Yes
Was it conceived from the very beginning to cause distruction on a massive scale? Yes
You’re using arbitrary standards of “which weapon is worse” to define morals.
you sound a bit confused, I don’t really understand what your point is..
In war, the type of weapon makes very little differnece to the dead.
true, while a nuclear weapon makes a lot of difference to who survives for what, the next 75 years at least? :rolleyes:
The Japanese in Hiroshima are no more dead than the civilians in Berlin or London. And one could make a case that some suffered less in a quick atomic blast than a firestorm caused by “conventional” incendiaries.
By using the term “war crime”, a term usually reserved for the holocaust and similar attrocitries, cheapens that term and chips away at the significance of the Axis horrors.
my impression is that you are deliberately being blind. You are masking your thirst for retribution (they gave us hell, so have some of this now!) with all this nonsense.
The choice to use atomic weapons was the most irresponsible one ever made by an Ally country, for the following reasons:
1) the targets were civilian, this meant lowering themselves to the same level of the Axis (even if they probably trained with Dresden..).
2) The use of 2 completely different weapons goes beyond the “let’s stop this war now” effort, it was exploiting a war situation to do the largest scale nuclear experiment in human history, using real targets.
3) There was no certainty about the long term effect of radiations, for what they knew there could have been a massive contamination after the drops.
There is no good guys and bad guys, it’s a game of stronger and weaker..
Why don’t we also celebrate the Dresden bombing then? :rolleyes:
AlexTAlex.
No one is showing off. Then again, unlike your average revisionist, I’m not vilifying those involved with the Manhattan Project or the crews that delivered the weapons.
I don’t understand in which way am I vilifying their memory. I’m just saying there’s nothing to be particularly proud of, and they actually weren’t.
Celebrate? Yes, I celebrate the fact that my Uncle and Father didn’t have to take part in an invasion of Japan. It was about ending the war. I agree with my Uncle, I don’t believe two was enough. There were numerous Japanese who fought on after the surrender. There were moves to prevent a surrender. A third, fourth or even a fifth bomb would not have been too many.
I am sorry but that is so wrong under many aspects, and as much as I could understand the hatred of some veterans for their enemy, I just can’t understand how a new generation man, with a better insight and with the availability of historical sources, can give such a statement and think it’s the right thing! If 2 bombs didn’t make a difference for some, I doubt 10 would have. Japanese commitment to their country and their sense of honour is hard to understand for us “gaijin”.
It was not a war crime. Some think it as evil, but it was intended to stop an evil regime. Would you have preferred Allied troops to have conducted an invasion of the home islands?
If the “evil regime” would have won the war, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been remembered as the biggest war crime ever, because harmless thousands of civilians were blasted away in a second.
You are just looking at the military effect of the bomb drop, and don’t take into account the high toll in lives that these DOUBLE bombing costed to a country that would have capitolated anyway.
All from the safety of your monitor of course.
Regards,
kev35
where are you instead, on the frontline? :rolleyes:
AlexTOkay, but you don’t seem to mind casting aspersions on dead men (who can’t defend themselves) who had to make a terrible decision.
Do you think, Truman liked the decision?
Do you think anyone in the B-29 liked dropping the bomb kknowing what it was going to do?
The only think they liked was the possibility that the war might soon be over.
Ok, if u want to talk smart history you will agree with me that Truman was not in the position to make any decision, everything had already been decided by Mr Roosevelt, the same gentleman who pressed for the oil embargo on Japan in 1941, which is a subtle declaration of war..
I ‘m sorry for who was involved in that, they were mere executors (and I don’t really envy them for that). Deciding to hit a big civilian target with a weapon of mass destruction is a war crime, it’s the same kinda threat that we’ve been freaking out about since 9/11, probably because we did it already and saw what it means.
I wasn’t aware I really set out an opinion, just gave some points for reasonable people to consider.
Yes, I listened to your views, and reject them out of hand as the natterings of someone who want’s the freedoms provided by the sacrifices of others, while complaing how those freedoms were secured.War’s ugly. The good guys won.
It wasn’t pretty…and far from some ideal world you seem to think is out there.
I am no kid, war is hell, we all know this, but because it is made by men, it’s possible there might be some big mistakes.
Mind you though, I don’t think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mistakes, they actually were part of a cold blooded plan to draw a line and say “ok gentlemen, this is the end of conventional warfare, from now on we change the rules and lead the game”. Don’t just read what history books tell you, try and elaborate an opinion, and don’t get too sentimental with veteran’s stories, the emotional distress that they were victims of, poor souls, would be of no help for the sake of an impartial and objective historical observation.
AlexTAlex T.
I trust you didn’t fight against the Japanese and suffer fifty years of nightmares because of their brutality.
I trust you didn’t suffer the beatings and malnutrition of capture.
I trust you didn’t see your friends die due to the appalling treatment of their captors.
I trust you didn’t witness the hospital patients in Singapore being bayoneted where they lay.
I trust that you sleep safely in your bed at night in a freedom earned by those who fought the Japanese.
My Uncle fought against them, lived a good life, interrupted by bouts of Malaria and nightmares. Never said too much about his experiences. One day, I was about 17 and had the temerity of youth, and asked him whether he thought the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified. We were in the garden at the time picking vegetables. This mild mannered, gentle, man just looked at me with what I can only describe as hate in his eyes and whispered “two were not enough.”
How can I disagree with a man who saw the Japanese first hand, their fanaticism, their brutality. I consider myself fortunate that men are prepared to stand against evil. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a war crime? Never! A military expedient that saved countless lives, amongst them another Uncle and my Father? Yes!
War crimes? Let the Nation of Japan fully accept responsibility for their war crimes, and start teaching Japanese children exactly what their beloved ancestors did in the name of the Emperor.
Regards,
kev35
Kev, this has nothing to do with what the suffered here, it’s not retribution! I have the deepest respect for ANY soldier, no matter what side he fought for, because of the extreme sacrifice that each was ready to do (or unfortunately did). This is no game of revenge u see, this is a pure demonstration of power from a country that was already looking at the postwar predominance.
You guys seem to be blinded by rhetoric and don’t want to consider for a minute the huge investment behind the Manhattan project. If it was a message they had to deliver, why dropping TWO bombs (with different technology too)? One made enuff of a mess to “deliver a message”, don’t u think that the Nagasaki drop was a bit pointless?
Wake up, history is written by the winners, the same who never condemned the Bremen bombing..
A war is fought between military prepared troops, it shouldn’t involve innocent civilians, at least not in those numbers!
Hiroshima & Nagasaki? War crime – London 1940 and V1/V2 bombing? War crime – Bremen? War Crime – Concentration Camps? War Crime – Moroccan troops raping women in the Italian campaign? War Crime…
My point is that no matter what you think of it (right or not) there’s really not much to celebrate and show off about, it’s just an abhorrent.
AlexTwell first of all it wasn’t me who dug up this old thread, but Stormbird262.
Second thing, I have no aspiration to be no moral compass of the world, it’s just my opinion, and if I have to listen to your point of view (no matter what load of ******** I might think it is), I’m sure you can listen to mine as well..
Sign In
