WW2 Revisionist History (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jrsteel
- Start date
redhugh
Master Sergeant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,348
The atomic bomb was a cruel weapon, much more horrific than gas the use of which was prohibited in WWII.
A number of survivors from the Hiroshima bombing had made their way to Nagasaki, where they were bombed again!
Wiping out complete cities containing civilians in order to force surrender has precedents in history and history has judged such acts as repugnant.
The fire-bombing campaign that preceded the atomic bombings , similarly was also indiscriminate and disproportionate.
I don't think any survivors of the Levelling of Coventry, the London Blitz or Dresden
, would wish it on their worst enemy!
Harrytheheid
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,672
Colin,
I tend to agree with the vast majority of your posts, and I do understand where you're coming from on this, but I simply can't agree with you here. No offence meant, but as far as I'm concerned, the dropping of the A-Bonbs was entirely justifiable. While the results were horrific, and we've all seen the images, I don't think there can be much doubt that many, many, American - and Japanese lives were saved by the decision to drop the bombs. Too bad if you were one of the victims of course, but the Americans had the weapon available to bring the Japanese to the peace table at last, and used it. I'm glad that they did, for the sake of the POW's and the men who would have died during an invasion of the Home Islands.
Regards
H
theBaron
Major
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 10,338
I don't think those acts are morally equivalent to the German death camps, the Katyn massacre, or the Japanese medical experiments and general treatment of their prisoners, however.
We have to recognize that despite specific acts that the Allies committed, there is no moral equivalence between Western liberal democracy and National Socialism, Japanese nationalist fascism, or Communism.
Ask yourself-would you rather live in Nazi Germany, Japan in the Thirties, Soviet Russia, or New York, London, or Sydney, at any time in history?
Prosit!
Bradley
redhugh
Master Sergeant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,348
Well , I had a similar view , but decided to step up on my soapbox
after watching McNamara's Documentary " Fog of War", I got the impression (and I may be wrong!) that the allies went a little overboard in their bombing of Japan, he described it in his documentary as disproportionate. Its a good documentary , won an oscar in 2003. There hasn't been a nuclear bomb since , and the one value I see in its detonation , was as a deterrent to detonating any more.Here endth the sermon
tdubel
Major
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,637
Well , I had a similar view , but decided to step up on my soapbox
Here endth the sermon
Colin,
I disagree with your opinion on the bombing of Japan. IMO, it was justified, it had to happen, it prevented a horrific amount of additional casualties on both sides. If we had to ground invade Japan, the casulaties would have been monumental, it would have taken a much longer time to win and obtain ultimate surrender. It was an act of war, strategy, plain and simple. Simply, the loss of life caused by the bombs was a necessary means to obtain unconditional surrender and prevent further Allied loss of life. Absolutely no way to compare this to the death camps, Nanking, etc. Those were horrific acts of bigotry, cruelty and pure evil. Our Allied commanders were acting with the best interest of Allied lives that were threatened by Imperial Japan each day the war dragged on.
Monday morning quarterbacking 60 years later by a documentary is just irrelevant in my opinion. I equate this to rich folks donating to a political cause, its easy to be for the poor when you are not one of them!
Respectfully,
Tom
Harrytheheid
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,672
tdubel
Major
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 6,637
H,
thanks for that vote, you might be the first that has labeled me eloquent, and I will gladly take it. Eloquence is the reason I became a CPA (Certified pain in the ***), it took me out of law school contention cuz I tend to shoot from the hip, cost me a career in politics also (thank god).
TD
thanks for that vote, you might be the first that has labeled me eloquent, and I will gladly take it. Eloquence is the reason I became a CPA (Certified pain in the ***), it took me out of law school contention cuz I tend to shoot from the hip, cost me a career in politics also (thank god).
TD
redhugh
Master Sergeant
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,348
I accept all the points raised, but thought I'd just post this piece by McNamara when he wrote in the LA Times in 2003, it's more about the need for rules of war than anything else.
We Need Rules for War
by Robert S. McNamara*, August 3, 2003
Originally Published in the Los Angeles Times
On the night of March 9, 1945, when the lead crews of the 21st Bomber Command returned from the first firebombing mission over Tokyo, Gen. Curtis LeMay was waiting for them in his headquarters on Guam. I was in Guam on temporary duty from Air Force headquarters in Washington, and LeMay had asked me to join him for the after-mission reports that evening.
LeMay was just as tough as his reputation. In many ways, he appeared to be brutal, but he was also the ablest commander of any I met during my three years of service with the U.S. Army Air Corps in World War II.
That night, he'd sent out 334 B-29 bombers, seeking to inflict, as he put it, the maximum target destruction for the minimum loss of American lives. World War II was entering its final months, and the United States was beginning the last, devastating push for an unconditional Japanese surrender.
On that one night alone, LeMay's bombers burned to death 83,793 Japanese civilians and injured 40,918 more. The planes dropped firebombs and flew lower than they had in the past and therefore were both more accurate and more destructive.
They leveled a large part of Tokyo, which I had seen during a visit in 1937. It was a wooden city and burned like a match when it was firebombed.
That night's raid was only the first of 67. Night after night ó 66 more times ó crews were sent out over the skies of Japan.
Of course we didn't burn to death 83,000 people every night, but over a period of months American bombs inflicted extraordinary damage on a host of Japanese cities ó 900,000 killed, 1.3 million injured, more than half the population displaced.
The country was devastated. The degree of killing was extraordinary. Radio Tokyo compared the raids to the burning of Rome in the year 64.
LeMay was convinced that it was the right thing to do, and he told his superiors (from whom he had not asked for authority to conduct the March 9 raid), "If you want me to burn the rest of Japan, I can do that."
LeMay's position on war was clear: If you're going to fight, you should fight to win.
In the years afterward, he was quoted as saying, "If you're going to use military force, then you ought to use overwhelming military force." He also said: "All war is immoral, and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier."
Today, looking back almost 60 years later - and after serving as secretary of Defense for seven years during one of the hottest periods of the Cold War, including the Cuban missile crisis - I have to say that I disagree.
War may or may not be immoral, but it should be fought within a clearly defined set of rules.
One other thing LeMay said, and I heard him say it myself: "If we lose the war, we'll be tried as war criminals."
On that last point, I think he was right. We would have been. But what makes one's conduct immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?
The "just war" theory, first expounded by the great Catholic thinkers (I am a Protestant), argues that the application of military power should be proportional to the cause to which you're applying it. A prosecutor would have argued that burning to death 83,000 civilians in a single night and following up with 66 additional raids was not proportional to our war aims.
War will not be eliminated in the foreseeable future, if ever. But we can - and we must - eliminate some of the violence and cruelty and excess that go along with it.
That's why the U.S. so badly needs to participate in the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity, which was recently established in The Hague.
President Clinton signed that treaty on New Year's Eve 2000, just before leaving office, but in May 2002 President Bush announced that the U.S. did not intend to become a party to the treaty.
The Bush administration believes, and many agree with it, that the court could become a vehicle for frivolous or unfair prosecutions of American military personnel. Although that is a cause for concern, I believe we should join the court immediately while we continue to negotiate further protection against such cases.
If LeMay were alive, he would tell me I was out of my mind. He'd say the proportionality rule is ridiculous. He'd say that if you don't kill enough of the enemy, it just means more of your own troops will die.
But I believe that the human race desperately needs an agreed-upon system of jurisprudence that tells us what conduct by political and military leaders is right and what is wrong, both in conflict within nations and in conflict across national borders.
We need a clear code, internationally accepted, so that not only our Congress and president know, but so that all our military and civilian personnel know as well what is legal in conflict and what is illegal. And we need a court that can bring wrongdoers to trial for their crimes.
Is it legal to incinerate 83,000 people in a single night to achieve your war aims? Was Hiroshima legal? Was the use of Agent Orange - which occurred while I was secretary of Defense - a violation of international law?
These questions are critical.
Our country needs to be involved, along with the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity, in the search for answers.
--Robert S. McNamara was secretary of Defense under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
We Need Rules for War
by Robert S. McNamara*, August 3, 2003
Originally Published in the Los Angeles Times
On the night of March 9, 1945, when the lead crews of the 21st Bomber Command returned from the first firebombing mission over Tokyo, Gen. Curtis LeMay was waiting for them in his headquarters on Guam. I was in Guam on temporary duty from Air Force headquarters in Washington, and LeMay had asked me to join him for the after-mission reports that evening.
LeMay was just as tough as his reputation. In many ways, he appeared to be brutal, but he was also the ablest commander of any I met during my three years of service with the U.S. Army Air Corps in World War II.
That night, he'd sent out 334 B-29 bombers, seeking to inflict, as he put it, the maximum target destruction for the minimum loss of American lives. World War II was entering its final months, and the United States was beginning the last, devastating push for an unconditional Japanese surrender.
On that one night alone, LeMay's bombers burned to death 83,793 Japanese civilians and injured 40,918 more. The planes dropped firebombs and flew lower than they had in the past and therefore were both more accurate and more destructive.
They leveled a large part of Tokyo, which I had seen during a visit in 1937. It was a wooden city and burned like a match when it was firebombed.
That night's raid was only the first of 67. Night after night ó 66 more times ó crews were sent out over the skies of Japan.
Of course we didn't burn to death 83,000 people every night, but over a period of months American bombs inflicted extraordinary damage on a host of Japanese cities ó 900,000 killed, 1.3 million injured, more than half the population displaced.
The country was devastated. The degree of killing was extraordinary. Radio Tokyo compared the raids to the burning of Rome in the year 64.
LeMay was convinced that it was the right thing to do, and he told his superiors (from whom he had not asked for authority to conduct the March 9 raid), "If you want me to burn the rest of Japan, I can do that."
LeMay's position on war was clear: If you're going to fight, you should fight to win.
In the years afterward, he was quoted as saying, "If you're going to use military force, then you ought to use overwhelming military force." He also said: "All war is immoral, and if you let that bother you, you're not a good soldier."
Today, looking back almost 60 years later - and after serving as secretary of Defense for seven years during one of the hottest periods of the Cold War, including the Cuban missile crisis - I have to say that I disagree.
War may or may not be immoral, but it should be fought within a clearly defined set of rules.
One other thing LeMay said, and I heard him say it myself: "If we lose the war, we'll be tried as war criminals."
On that last point, I think he was right. We would have been. But what makes one's conduct immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?
The "just war" theory, first expounded by the great Catholic thinkers (I am a Protestant), argues that the application of military power should be proportional to the cause to which you're applying it. A prosecutor would have argued that burning to death 83,000 civilians in a single night and following up with 66 additional raids was not proportional to our war aims.
War will not be eliminated in the foreseeable future, if ever. But we can - and we must - eliminate some of the violence and cruelty and excess that go along with it.
That's why the U.S. so badly needs to participate in the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity, which was recently established in The Hague.
President Clinton signed that treaty on New Year's Eve 2000, just before leaving office, but in May 2002 President Bush announced that the U.S. did not intend to become a party to the treaty.
The Bush administration believes, and many agree with it, that the court could become a vehicle for frivolous or unfair prosecutions of American military personnel. Although that is a cause for concern, I believe we should join the court immediately while we continue to negotiate further protection against such cases.
If LeMay were alive, he would tell me I was out of my mind. He'd say the proportionality rule is ridiculous. He'd say that if you don't kill enough of the enemy, it just means more of your own troops will die.
But I believe that the human race desperately needs an agreed-upon system of jurisprudence that tells us what conduct by political and military leaders is right and what is wrong, both in conflict within nations and in conflict across national borders.
We need a clear code, internationally accepted, so that not only our Congress and president know, but so that all our military and civilian personnel know as well what is legal in conflict and what is illegal. And we need a court that can bring wrongdoers to trial for their crimes.
Is it legal to incinerate 83,000 people in a single night to achieve your war aims? Was Hiroshima legal? Was the use of Agent Orange - which occurred while I was secretary of Defense - a violation of international law?
These questions are critical.
Our country needs to be involved, along with the International Court for Crimes Against Humanity, in the search for answers.
--Robert S. McNamara was secretary of Defense under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.
Dickbuttons
Sergeant
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 728
I lost allot of respect for Mr. McNamara after he lead us through the Vietnam war and later stated it was a "mistake." Rather, than Monday morning quarterback, which "whiz kid" Mc Namara did, I agree with Tom's anaylsis of the issue.
UKReb
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,436
Once again guys more excellent posts have been added to this thread that is now concentrating on the thorny and provocative subject of US justification for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
To understand the real reasons the US took the decision to explode both bombs one has to dispel all the post-war revisionist myth and examine/study the recorded historical facts. Now I dont want to bore all the members here with finite details but some facts need to be posted so I'll try to keep it brief.
The Japanese government during the war was controlled by six positions civilian and predominantly the military and was as barbaric as their army it has been described as "government by assassination" i.e. if you didn't agree with the policy you were simply removed by assassination but all six had to agree before any policy was actioned. Peace initiatives had been going on since 1944 using a number of countries as intermediaries Sweden, Switzerland and Russia had all been approached but instigated by just one or two of the civilians within the big six aided by the Japanese Ambassador in each respective country. The reason why all were so prolonged and subsequently failed is because none of the six to a man would agree to the terms of unconditional surrender laid down by the US. The Japanese military insisted on retaining all territories gained in the Sino/Japanese war, continuing the war in China and the military to retain their position of dominance over Japanese society. These were the facts borne out by the code-breaking of all Japanese communiques by the US known as MAGIC (Diplomatic) and ULTRA (military). The army held the whip hand and were moving and building up enormous quality forces to the beaches of Kyushu known as Operation Ketsu-Go and Togo believed that he could inflict so many casualties on the allied forces that it would force the US to negotiate a peace more suited to the Japanese terms.
Marshall knew all this through the codes and the experience of Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa were evidence enough that mainland invasion would be a blood-bath for both sides. The US could not, would not accept this or the terms of the Japanese and the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima was taken based on these facts.
After Hiroshima movement of troops to Kyushu still continued and in fact increased, also worth remembering their war in China was still inflicting thousands of deaths upon the Chinese. With no apparent overtures from Japan they dropped the second bomb and even then it was only when the US told the Japanese that the next target would be Tokyo did Hirohito order the army to accept the US terms of surrender.
Louis is correct that after the war everyone rewrote history to suit various agendas including Japan. Eisenhower is often quoted that he was against dropping the bomb, but he knew nothing at all about Pacific affairs and there is absolutely no record whatever that he spoke against the decision, his comment quoted in Redhugh's post first appeared in Washington late 1948 the very same year he was first approached by both the Democrats and the Republicans to consider himself a possible future candidate for the presidency.
Likewise Louis's other comment- interservice rivalry was rife enough during the war but almost out of control in the years following. Admirals Nimitz, King and Leahy disparaged the bomb primarily because it made the Air Force much more important than the Navy. The Army; Navy and Air Force all tried to inflate their roles and deflate each others simply to give their particular part of the armed services a bigger claim to postwar budgetary largesse.
A recorded fact that is normally omitted by revisionist authors
Reb
To understand the real reasons the US took the decision to explode both bombs one has to dispel all the post-war revisionist myth and examine/study the recorded historical facts. Now I dont want to bore all the members here with finite details but some facts need to be posted so I'll try to keep it brief.
The Japanese government during the war was controlled by six positions civilian and predominantly the military and was as barbaric as their army it has been described as "government by assassination" i.e. if you didn't agree with the policy you were simply removed by assassination but all six had to agree before any policy was actioned. Peace initiatives had been going on since 1944 using a number of countries as intermediaries Sweden, Switzerland and Russia had all been approached but instigated by just one or two of the civilians within the big six aided by the Japanese Ambassador in each respective country. The reason why all were so prolonged and subsequently failed is because none of the six to a man would agree to the terms of unconditional surrender laid down by the US. The Japanese military insisted on retaining all territories gained in the Sino/Japanese war, continuing the war in China and the military to retain their position of dominance over Japanese society. These were the facts borne out by the code-breaking of all Japanese communiques by the US known as MAGIC (Diplomatic) and ULTRA (military). The army held the whip hand and were moving and building up enormous quality forces to the beaches of Kyushu known as Operation Ketsu-Go and Togo believed that he could inflict so many casualties on the allied forces that it would force the US to negotiate a peace more suited to the Japanese terms.
Marshall knew all this through the codes and the experience of Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa were evidence enough that mainland invasion would be a blood-bath for both sides. The US could not, would not accept this or the terms of the Japanese and the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima was taken based on these facts.
After Hiroshima movement of troops to Kyushu still continued and in fact increased, also worth remembering their war in China was still inflicting thousands of deaths upon the Chinese. With no apparent overtures from Japan they dropped the second bomb and even then it was only when the US told the Japanese that the next target would be Tokyo did Hirohito order the army to accept the US terms of surrender.
Louis is correct that after the war everyone rewrote history to suit various agendas including Japan. Eisenhower is often quoted that he was against dropping the bomb, but he knew nothing at all about Pacific affairs and there is absolutely no record whatever that he spoke against the decision, his comment quoted in Redhugh's post first appeared in Washington late 1948 the very same year he was first approached by both the Democrats and the Republicans to consider himself a possible future candidate for the presidency.
Likewise Louis's other comment- interservice rivalry was rife enough during the war but almost out of control in the years following. Admirals Nimitz, King and Leahy disparaged the bomb primarily because it made the Air Force much more important than the Navy. The Army; Navy and Air Force all tried to inflate their roles and deflate each others simply to give their particular part of the armed services a bigger claim to postwar budgetary largesse.
A recorded fact that is normally omitted by revisionist authors
Reb
Last edited:
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,266
Wow Reb, great post!! You know a heckuva lot more of the underlying facts than I did, and I appreciate the education. The one thing I would add is that my favorite author, the late George Macdonald Fraser, a veteran of the Burma campaign, wrote a discussion of this very subject (revisionist historians referring to the use of atomic bombs as immoral) as the epilogue to his autobiographical book on his experiences during the war, "Quartered Safe Out Here" (an homage to my other favorite author, Rudyard Kipling). He made two main points: (1) he was in the Jungle in June, 1945, and the Japanese who kept coming out the jungle to attack him and his platoon with sharpened bamboo stakes when they had no other weapons, didn't seem ready to surrender and (2) he would sacrifice the entire population of Japan to prevent further allied casualties, as having seen his own beloved children and grandchildren, he would not be willing to sacrifice himself (and thus his progeny) for the rest of the world. I can't disagree with either of these posts. Frankly, if I had to chose between being led by Curtis LeMay (a highly successful commander) or MacNamara (whose disasterous leadership in Vietnam led to the only lost war in American history) I'll take LeMay and his approach every freakin' time!!
Harrytheheid
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,672
Let's cool this one down a wee bit guy's - please.
While I can certainly appreciate RH's point of view, my personal feelings on this are firmly in line with Reb's and Louis's. But that doesn't mean that RH's stance doesn't have value.
As I've said previously, I believe this is an excellent thread, one of the best I've been involved with for several months, and it opens up some very serious and thought-provoking issues. So let's please keep it as a reasonable discussion between friends, who might have opposing views - but are still friends.
Sheesh......those "NICE" pills I'm on are really beginning to cut in now.....!!!
Cheers
H
While I can certainly appreciate RH's point of view, my personal feelings on this are firmly in line with Reb's and Louis's. But that doesn't mean that RH's stance doesn't have value.
As I've said previously, I believe this is an excellent thread, one of the best I've been involved with for several months, and it opens up some very serious and thought-provoking issues. So let's please keep it as a reasonable discussion between friends, who might have opposing views - but are still friends.
Sheesh......those "NICE" pills I'm on are really beginning to cut in now.....!!!
Cheers
H
Louis Badolato
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2005
- Messages
- 17,266
Harrytheheid
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,672
I don't even want to know what those "NICE" pills are . . .
Heineken.......procured by the young lady who's......
censored...!!!!
UKReb
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,436
Harry
My post had no intention of denigrating RH posts in any way whatsoever all I was posting were the facts behind the decision to drop the bombs. For every Ying there is a Yang.
A large number of famous and influential people when they realised this weapon was a "destroyer of worlds" had a change of opinion on whether it should have been used including MacNamara. But an old man, facing death, and reviewing his disastrous decisions on primarily Vietnam doesnt change why the decisions in 1945 were made. He is of course perfectly entitled to his view the same as others are entitled to theirs but it wont change history. Thankfully what it did do was to stop anyone from using it again.
And if you're now on NICE pills then I must have swallowed a whole jar of Sincerity pills
Reb
Harrytheheid
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,672
Harry
My post had no intention of denigrating RH posts in any way whatsoever all I was posting were the facts behind the decision to drop the bombs. For every Ying there is a Yang.
A large number of famous and influential people when they realised this weapon was a "destroyer of worlds" had a change of opinion on whether it should have been used including McNamara. But an old man, facing death, and reviewing his disastrous decisions on primarily Vietnam doesnt change why the decisions in 1945 were made. He is of course perfectly entitled to his view the same as others are entitled to theirs but it wont change history. Thankfully what it did do was to stop anyone from using it again.
And if you're now on NICE pills then I must have swallowed a whole jar of Sincerity pills
Reb
I'm well aware of the fact that you weren't denigrating RH Reb. I just think this has been a well balanced - and intelligent - friendly discussion for the most part, and would like it to stay that way without it decending into the usual needless arguments.
OMG, I can feel those "NICE" pills working on me as I hit the keyboard...Somebody stop me...!!!
Cheers
H
Rob
Four Star General
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 26,622
Hey Redhugh,
Sorry mate (and hope you don't mind)but i must disagree with you on one of your points.I have talked to many survivors of the London Blitz at the IWM,and believe me they REALLY did want the Germans to suffer and get a taste of their own medicine.They'd lost parents,children,friends,homes and wanted the Germans to pay big time.I say Germans because they blamed the whole German nation not just the Nazi's.And however non pc it is today, many of them still hate and will never forgive the German people,even though todays generation of Germans have no connection at all with that previous regime.Its harsh and unforgiving i know,but unfortunately its part of the horrible human experience of war.
We can all talk about the rights and wrongs of whats happened in History and thats what make this thread so interesting,reading all the different viewpoints.What i'm sure we can all agree on is that our generation and those that follow make sure it never has to happen again.
Rob