WW2 Revisionist History (1 Viewer)

[trooper]

Rob you are so right. I was a youngster during the Blitz, at that time we lived near Tilbury, some 20 odd miles from London yet we could see the horizon glowing as London burned. The Battle of Britain was fought over our heads, it was almost like being in the front line. The hatred we had for the whole of the German nation was something that will never be completely eradicated. Now I can talk with individual Germans and regard them in the same way as anyone else, but as a nation I will never really trust them. Too many of their political ambitions waken suspicions in my mind as they seem to carry echoes from the past.

 

[VIRIATO]

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

On your last paragraph, hence the importance of History and remembrance: let people not forget.

 

[Combat]

The moral issue of targeting civilians is something that can be debated forever. However, it seems clear that it did not work for the allies - particularly in Germany. By the end of the war German production and resolve was at an all-time high. The bombing of cities appears to have had a unifying affect on the German population entirely contrary to its intent. The resources wasted and allied aircrews that were lost would have been better spent targeting oil production and other resources to cripple the German war industry.

 

[Rob]

Rob you are so right. I was a youngster during the Blitz, at that time we lived near Tilbury, some 20 odd miles from London yet we could see the horizon glowing as London burned. The Battle of Britain was fought over our heads, it was almost like being in the front line. The hatred we had for the whole of the German nation was something that will never be completely eradicated. Now I can talk with individual Germans and regard them in the same way as anyone else, but as a nation I will never really trust them. Too many of their political ambitions waken suspicions in my mind as they seem to carry echoes from the past.

Thank you Trooper,your experience is a classic example of what i hear week after week,and it always moves me and reminds me of what that previous generation (and your generation)went through for our freedom.

Rob

 

[1879fanatic]

The moral issue of targeting civilians is something that can be debated forever. However, it seems clear that it did not work for the allies - particularly in Germany. By the end of the war German production and resolve was at an all-time high. The bombing of cities appears to have had a unifying affect on the German population entirely contrary to its intent. The resources wasted and allied aircrews that were lost would have been better spent targeting oil production and other resources to cripple the German war industry.

The more POW's and concentration campers you have , the higher the production you'll get . I'm not inclined to think that the resolve would have been there if not for the REMF SS, SA and others keeping an eye on the populace. That is a good question to find out. Mike

 

[UKReb]

Mike raises a good point there was indeed a vast amount of slave labour used on German war production unlike the Brits. However, the resolve of the blitzed Londoner's has gone down in history as all taking cover in the London Underground singing The Lambeth Walk and other such Cockney ditties. But following on from Black Saturday Sept 7th 1940- when Hitler through either stupidity or anger switched from bombing RAF airfields to bombing London- the opposite of the happy Londoners was in fact the case.

For eight continuous days and nights the Luftwaffe bombed the East-end docklands and as well as the docks took out most of the tightly packed terraced homes in that area all inhabited by the poor. For every single Londoner killed 35 were "bombed out" of their homes with nowhere to put them, because of the continual bombing, essential services and bombed dwellings were unable to be repaired or made safe. Homelessness for hundreds of London families became a very serious problem for Churchill's government and a lot of rhetoric started to be heard from the East-Enders such as
"How come we- who dont have much anyway- are taking all the punishment and not getting any help and the rich West End hasn't had a single bomb dropped on them".

So who came to the rescue of an almost beleagured British government and sovereign.......old Adolph himself by extending the range of his bombers ten days later the West End including Buckingham Palace started to take a pounding allowing the east-end a brief respite.

There are two famous quotes that refer to this little known fact; Queen Elizabeth the wife of George VI stated "I am glad the palace has been bombed now I can look the East-End in the face without embarrassment"

And Clement Attlee Deputy Prime Minister to Churchill said " If the German bombers had stayed south of London Bridge I do believe we may have faced a revolution in the east-end"

But as the blitz continued-as per Combat's post albeit he is referring to the Germans- the resolve of all Londoners did harden and it has been estimated that by May 1941 only 4% of the populace were actally taking cover in shelters during air-raids which obviously did have an effect on higher civilian casualties. Hence the old London saying "If your name's on the bomb dont matter where you are, shelter, under the table or down the pub- You've bloody well 'ad it"
That's Londoner's resolve for you

Reb

 

[Rob]

Excellant post Reb.Theres no doubt the quote from Queen Elizabeth helped cement her popularity with the general public that never waned.Of course the Royal family also refused to be evacuated to Canada and this also demonstrated that although they weren't as heavily bombed as the east end they stood shoulder to shoulder with their subjects in taking whatever Hitler and Fatso Goering could hurl at them.

Although some revisionists now make light of the Underground/singalongs etc there is no doubt that it was here that the national Character and determination of Londoners shone through.As Reb says it was not all chaps together and cups of tea of course.And some of the insects at the lower end of the human chain emerged and took their chance to steal peoples belongings from bombsites while people still lay trapped in them, and the blackout was another gift to these parasites.There is a well known Cockney Criminal who takes every chance to appear on tv smirking at his own smugness as he relates how he stole/robbed from people during the Blitz,i really can't print what i think of this bloke,but you can imagine can't you.

There is no doubt that in the east end feelings were running high and even Churchill was jeered at one point,however as a whole the people stood firm in their resolve strengthened i believe by their Hatred of Hitler and their desire for revenge.I think the German High command made a big misjudgement of the British people in thinking they could be bombed into submission,that coupled with the errors Reb has pointed out led to the German plan falling flat on its face.

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

Rob you are so right. I was a youngster during the Blitz, at that time we lived near Tilbury, some 20 odd miles from London yet we could see the horizon glowing as London burned. The Battle of Britain was fought over our heads, it was almost like being in the front line. The hatred we had for the whole of the German nation was something that will never be completely eradicated. Now I can talk with individual Germans and regard them in the same way as anyone else, but as a nation I will never really trust them. Too many of their political ambitions waken suspicions in my mind as they seem to carry echoes from the past.

Trooper,

As I have stated many times, there is no single generation I respect more than the greatest generation, the people who fought and won WWII for themselves and the rest of the civilized world. Among the members of the greatest generation, along with the Tuskeegee Airmen and Nisai troops (because of their heroism despite being treated as second class citizens), I reserve my highest respect for the people who survived the Blitz (yourself included). You carried the water for the free world alone for two years, until the Soviets and we Yanks joined the party. From the brave "Fighter Boys" who fought the Nazis in the air, through the firemen and bomb squads who performed incredibly dangerous damage control on the ground, to the extra-ordinary ordinary civilians, who cleared away the rubble, rescued the survivors, burried the dead and then went to work, I love, respect and thank you all.

I know there can be no comparison, but having survived 9-11 here in New York (I had just gotten out of the subway at Fulton Street and was standing 5 blocks from the Twin Towers [on my way to the Court of Claims, which was then located in the World Trade Center in one of the buildings that was totally destroyed] on the phone with my secretary, telling her that one of the towers was on fire, when the second plane hit - I saw the fireball) I feel I can appreciate what you went through a little better. For that brief time I know what real fear for myself and my loved ones was, and I discovered the horror of losing loved ones, as a close family friend's younger brother died (his body was never recovered).

 

[Currahee Chris]

Shannon

Sorry for coming back but Marco55 contacted me and so did Kevin so I wanted to say howdy.

And then I come upon this nightmare of a thread (no offense Steel- you didn't steer this thing astray)

Alright, I am going to respond here and all my comments are directed at the Atomic weapons issue and particularly, the ugly comments against Japanese. I cannot speak for the events surrounding the Blitz as I just don't know enough about it.

I fully believe that the use of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the 2 biggest days of the 20th Century- and easily in the top 10 in the history of humanity. Why 60 years later are we having the discussion surrounding the use of the weapons- the answer is really simple- we as Americans (and when I say Americans, I mean those of Western culture- England, Aussies, Canadians, etc) place a GREAT value on life- we spend TONS of money defending serial killers in our courts, defending the right to life and all of that stuff. The idea of our nation ultimately making the decision to eradicate scores of people in the blink of an eye is the antithesis of what we stand for culturally.

I believe we should have at least attempted a conventional invasion of mainland Japan- remember this- we made the decision to drop the bomb based on the ASSUMPTION that scores of Americans would have died in the invasion and that it was "impossible". We are a nation who have collectively achieved the impossible throughout our history- think Washington would have believed 2 months following Kips Gap he'd be accepting the Hessian surrender at Trenton?? What about the impossibility or the "Amount of lives we would loose" if we gave up at Bastogne or failed to launch Overlord because of the misgiving of the cost of casualties?? I wonder what people would have thought if on December 6, 1941 I stood at the Lincoln Monument and declared "In 4 years, we will be the predominant military and economic power in the world"- I would've been laughed at and jeered "That's impossible"- guess what- WE DID IT!!

So then why is it suddenly ok to accept "impossible" as an explanation to use the bomb and loose sight of our values?? And I have heard you guys throw out "you cannot hold me responsible for crimes committed by my ancestors"- your right- so why do we say it was ok to bomb innocent Japanese children and women when their government made the decision to nail us at PH??

I wonder what the world would have thought had we drawn the war out to 46 or so and when the truth surfaced that we decided to follow conventional means to the end of Japan and we chose not to use the bomb even though we could have?? In the end, what did we get for our efforts to liberate the oppressed peoples of Asia?? Well, we got a revolution in China and went to war with them 5 years later, we watched several of those countries fall to the sway of Communism- in the end, we got Japan as an ally!!

We value human life and no where is that more present than in our armed forces- I recall quite vividly when my unit was put on alert statues in late summer 92 in preparation for Somalia- we were CONSTANTLY doing drills to properly train our troopers to engage hostiles- NOT CIVILIANS- we FULLY understand the repurcussions of our decision to raise our right hands and take our oath of service- that one day, we may very well meet a painful and bloody end. In 1945 we had millions of servicemen enlisted ready to invade Japan if our nation asked us to- these are men who exercised their rights as free citizens of the US to defend their countries- why not let them?? They made a choice and if they met their end by that choice, they accepted it- scores of those school children didn't get to make that choice.

I'm really really glad and very impressed that you guys feel it's cool and acceptable to use the term "Japs" in reference to the Japanese. I have felt the sting of ethnocentrism myself- I was born in Okinawa when my dad was supporting the effort in Nam (Camp Kue) and I lived for three years as his dependent in Germany- let me tell you how much fun that was in my own country being called "Little Nazi boy" and having people make slanty eyes at me- glad I am not really a Japanese person.

Anyway, to the rest of you that seem to think it's cool to belittle "Japs" - follow this link http://www.442rct.org/- feel free to go to one of their meetings and tell those guys they are "Japs"- they proved themselves time and again as true warriors and patriots but guess what we kept calling em- JAPS!! I hope your backbones are as stiff then.

I hope I am overreacting- someone needs to speak up here before this spirals further into the abyss. There is no way, this thread should have five stars associated with it. It should have been torn down a long time ago. Next time some of you guys walk by the flag, take a real long hard look at it- ponder what it really means to be an American.

I support Truman for making a decision at a critical juncture in history- I am not a fan of anything that Imperial Japan EVER stood for- I just believe that we should have given the invasion a shot before we dropped the Fat Boy.

Don't sweat it Shannon, I'll go away again. And for the record, no, my unit was demob'd before Somalia so I missed that one- thankfully.

 

[tdubel]

Shannon

Sorry for coming back but Marco55 contacted me and so did Kevin so I wanted to say howdy.

And then I come upon this nightmare of a thread (no offense Steel- you didn't steer this thing astray)

Alright, I am going to respond here and all my comments are directed at the Atomic weapons issue and particularly, the ugly comments against Japanese. I cannot speak for the events surrounding the Blitz as I just don't know enough about it.

I fully believe that the use of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the 2 biggest days of the 20th Century- and easily in the top 10 in the history of humanity. Why 60 years later are we having the discussion surrounding the use of the weapons- the answer is really simple- we as Americans (and when I say Americans, I mean those of Western culture- England, Aussies, Canadians, etc) place a GREAT value on life- we spend TONS of money defending serial killers in our courts, defending the right to life and all of that stuff. The idea of our nation ultimately making the decision to eradicate scores of people in the blink of an eye is the antithesis of what we stand for culturally.

I believe we should have at least attempted a conventional invasion of mainland Japan- remember this- we made the decision to drop the bomb based on the ASSUMPTION that scores of Americans would have died in the invasion and that it was "impossible". We are a nation who have collectively achieved the impossible throughout our history- think Washington would have believed 2 months following Kips Gap he'd be accepting the Hessian surrender at Trenton?? What about the impossibility or the "Amount of lives we would loose" if we gave up at Bastogne or failed to launch Overlord because of the misgiving of the cost of casualties?? I wonder what people would have thought if on December 6, 1941 I stood at the Lincoln Monument and declared "In 4 years, we will be the predominant military and economic power in the world"- I would've been laughed at and jeered "That's impossible"- guess what- WE DID IT!!

So then why is it suddenly ok to accept "impossible" as an explanation to use the bomb and loose sight of our values?? And I have heard you guys throw out "you cannot hold me responsible for crimes committed by my ancestors"- your right- so why do we say it was ok to bomb innocent Japanese children and women when their government made the decision to nail us at PH??

I wonder what the world would have thought had we drawn the war out to 46 or so and when the truth surfaced that we decided to follow conventional means to the end of Japan and we chose not to use the bomb even though we could have?? In the end, what did we get for our efforts to liberate the oppressed peoples of Asia?? Well, we got a revolution in China and went to war with them 5 years later, we watched several of those countries fall to the sway of Communism- in the end, we got Japan as an ally!!

We value human life and no where is that more present than in our armed forces- I recall quite vividly when my unit was put on alert statues in late summer 92 in preparation for Somalia- we were CONSTANTLY doing drills to properly train our troopers to engage hostiles- NOT CIVILIANS- we FULLY understand the repurcussions of our decision to raise our right hands and take our oath of service- that one day, we may very well meet a painful and bloody end. In 1945 we had millions of servicemen enlisted ready to invade Japan if our nation asked us to- these are men who exercised their rights as free citizens of the US to defend their countries- why not let them?? They made a choice and if they met their end by that choice, they accepted it- scores of those school children didn't get to make that choice.

I'm really really glad and very impressed that you guys feel it's cool and acceptable to use the term "Japs" in reference to the Japanese. I have felt the sting of ethnocentrism myself- I was born in Okinawa when my dad was supporting the effort in Nam (Camp Kue) and I lived for three years as his dependent in Germany- let me tell you how much fun that was in my own country being called "Little Nazi boy" and having people make slanty eyes at me- glad I am not really a Japanese person.

Anyway, to the rest of you that seem to think it's cool to belittle "Japs" - follow this link http://www.442rct.org/- feel free to go to one of their meetings and tell those guys they are "Japs"- they proved themselves time and again as true warriors and patriots but guess what we kept calling em- JAPS!! I hope your backbones are as stiff then.

I hope I am overreacting- someone needs to speak up here before this spirals further into the abyss. There is no way, this thread should have five stars associated with it. It should have been torn down a long time ago. Next time some of you guys walk by the flag, take a real long hard look at it- ponder what it really means to be an American.

I support Truman for making a decision at a critical juncture in history- I am not a fan of anything that Imperial Japan EVER stood for- I just believe that we should have given the invasion a shot before we dropped the Fat Boy.

Don't sweat it Shannon, I'll go away again. And for the record, no, my unit was demob'd before Somalia so I missed that one- thankfully.

Chris,

You are welcome to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree with the point about the bomb. I would be happy to let my 89 year old Granddad who was there give you the play by play and pointedly tell you his opinion, what is was like to fight the Japanese in the Philippines and Bataan, how many casualties, etc. I think he also has a different opinion than you do. Like I said earlier, he has said it a thousand times, "Thank God Truman dropped the bombs, it certainly saved my life and the lives of many friends and colleagues".

As for you comment on the ethnic reference, I don't use it and fully believe it is offensive because of the connotation and context it was used during WW2 and the decade that followed. My Granddad does b/c that was the term used in his day, he's not changing now as I guess he is allowed to be a stubborn old man and I truly believe that he harbors ill will toward Japan. Why, because he was there and he was programmed to neutralize anything Japanese. He has softened over the years, but I know he is resentful in many ways b/c he put his life on the line for the USA, yet as he grew older he saw more and more imported products from a country he was trained to kill. Not saying its right, but its a reality for him and while he has softened over time and he certainly is polite to anyone he meets, I know those feelings are still there.

I think as I also said before, hard for any of us on here to be Monday morning QB'ing this decision.

On the flipside, I also do not agree with the way history is taught in Japan. Their ancestors (using this term in general) were war criminals and killed a lot of people all over, they should own up to it. I think the majority of Japanese people are happy to move on and acknowledge the war for what it was. I also think the Allies (specifically USA) should be patted on the back for rebuilding the country we decimated and helping it to prosper.

2 sides to this coin,

TD

 

[UKReb]

Chris

I admire your post, I do not agree with it, but I respect your view. However, it is all down to demographics-the senior US & allied citizen soldiers whose lives were on the line, in the main approved and still approve of Truman's decision to drop the bombs- while the younger generation of the post-war years have the luxury of being somewhat sanctimonius about it.

Dropping the bomb on Japan meant the difference between life and death to thousands of the best and brightest young allied men. Paradoxically-the bomb was a life saver for these men. Marshall's plan of an island by island invasion of mainland Japan had a projected cost of 500,000 American lives. He continually pressurised his planners to keep the casuaty estimate below 100,000 as the real cost would be utterly unacceptable to the US public.

Operation Olympic-the first phase would have sent 700,000 US servicemen on November 1st to try and capture the island of Kyushu, which as I stated in a previous post, the Japanese had prepared with 900,000 crack troops and over 5000 kamakazis all ready to defend their mainland-to the death.

Phase 2 -Operation Coronet- was scheduled to start the push toward Tokyo on March 1st 1946. US plans projected the use of over 2 million men for this final part of the invasion.

As we all know now the Japanese were fierce and fanatical fighters, Feb 19 1945 30,000 marines landed on that dot of an island Iwo Jima. It took just over a month to secure and the price paid for raising the famous flag on that volcanic slag-heap was 26000 US casualties including 7000 dead. The Japanese under orders not to be taken alive lost 24000 dead and less than 900 captured.
Faced with all these facts and figures only a reckless disregard of American lives could cause a US leader to send American troops to invade Japan. But that was Marshall's plan, even though he knew through the code-breakers that the Japanese planned to defend their homeland with 2.5 million troops, over 4 million Army and Navy employees and countless millions of militia, all sworn to fight to the death. Admiral Leahy estimated that American casualties during the first month of the invasion would be between 30-35% but was also aware of the threats made by the Japanese government that if the US invaded they would immediately execute 400,000 Allied POW's (and as we also know now that was not just an idle threat)

Subsequently, when Marshall was informed that an alternative to this slaughter of US troops was now available to be used- well if I had been put in his position I know where my vote would have gone. Worth bearing in mind also the mood of the US public at this time- the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor was still very much in the fore-front of most American minds in 1945. And newsreels of fire-bombing of Tokyo shown in cinemas across the States was accompanied by wild cheering from the audience.

Chris I said at the beginning of this post that I respect your view that "we should have given invasion a shot" instead of dropping the bomb, but when you do the maths there is no doubt that was going to be an awful lot of allied lives lost. But I also believe that your post would get a terrible bashing from most of your senior citizens who were part of that planned invasion that would have a certain amount of validity.

Personally I would have thought that as an ex-serviceman you would have rejoiced that those brave young men who were preparing to invade Japan were able to come home, grow up, marry, raise families and become pillars of US society, instead of dying and being slaughtered on the beaches of Japan.

Reb

 

[Rob]

I think there was little choice in the end.There was no way the American public would accept such a death rate so late in the war.Also Lets not forget that Japan had to shoulder the blame for starting the War with America and the subsequent murder of pow's and civilians whenever they got the chance.Terrible weapon as it was it did end the war much quicker and with less loss of life than otherwise would have been the case.Also Reb's point about the 400,000 pow's that would have been killed.The Japenese had already shown themselves to be the lowest form of scum when dealing with our pow's,and i for one would not have hesistated in acting to save these men some of whom had suffered years of abuse and neglect.

The Japenese with their actions in my opinion put themselves outside the normal rules of both Warfare and humanity.When faced with a regime/people like that the gloves are off so to speak and it takes resolve and determination to win through.Yes it was a terrible decision,yes many hundreds of thousands died a terrible death over many years.But we must remember that WW2 was the most traumatic event in world History and because of its very nature was never going to end well.

I agree with Chris about the use of the term 'Japs'.I grew up in the era of cheap pocket sized war comics written in many cases by WW2 vets.That was in the 1970's and terms such as 'Japs' 'krauts' 'Nips' 'Wops' were in use all the time.Today we are more enlightened and have moved on.Also being British the only term used to describe us was 'Brits' hardly offensive!.(although i understand the French call us 'Roast Beef's' or F*** offs'-because of the phrase constantly used by our football hooligans'))

The efforts of the Japenese people who fought for America can also not be overlooked,they deserve our respect and appreciation.

Rob

 

[trooper]

The main thing about this thread is that it deals with a different time and different attitudes. Since the end of the war our children have been educated in a manner influenced by it's outcome. It was a terrible time and terrible events took place which must never happen again and the kids are brought up in that belief and quite rightly so. But at the time when events were still unfolding there was a different attitude. Families would stand in daily dread of receiving a Government telegram concerning their loved ones, they would cringe at the sight of a priest walking down the street in case he stopped at their house, in the UK everyone froze when the popping of a V1 ceased and held their breath until the explosion took place and told them they were safe...for now. We were at war, total war and the Axis was the enemy. The object was to win as quickly as possible, the alternatives were unacceptable. Some time ago there was a TV programme on the anniversary of the Dams raid, and a young female reporter, about 20, was going on and on about the civilian loss of life. She asked one of the surviving aircrew how he felt about causing such destruction and loss of life. He just looked at her and said "We were at war. We hit the target", which just about sums up the difference of the "then and now" mentality.

 

[Currahee Chris]

Personally I would have thought that as an ex-serviceman you would have rejoiced that those brave young men who were preparing to invade Japan were able to come home, grow up, marry, raise families and become pillars of US society, instead of dying and being slaughtered on the beaches of Japan.

Hey Reb

You have no idea how much pain a statement like that causes me-especially on the heels of the 5 year rememberance of my buddy Andrew that was killed in Iraq. I got a pretty good idea of what people go through when their sons, brothers, and fathers don't come back.

Alright- look fellas-to clarify- there are two things I have learned to sort of leave alone- 1.) Judging the politics of countries outside the US and 2.) trying to second guess the decisions of the generations before me- to me, it's sort of pointless as I feel personally, that I can read as much as I want and listen to all the discussions but until I have lived in those times, circumstances, etc, I cannot really make a realistic judgement- sort of the "Walk a mile in one man's moccasins" position.

My point regarding the bomb isn't so much that what Truman did was right or wrong- I don't cast stones on that decision based simply on my not being in existence- my point is that I think, as a somewhat informed citizen in the US today, that we consider ALL conventional means before we ever go back down that road again. Using Hiroshima as an example- again, I am well aware of the numbers that we were looking at as potential KIAs. I also know that the assumptions prior to Overlord weren't too good either yet with all the airborne misdrops, missed beach landings- we dug in and got the job done.
I guess I just wonder why we felt it was neccesary to bomb Japan when we were willing to accept insurmountable odds with Overlord. "Hey Chris- you weren't alive then"- that's cool- i can dig that explanation- just pointing out that there were, in my opinion, questions that I have from that time that I don't feel were adequately explained. I want us to learn from the history of those dreadful days of the fall of 1945 so that, should we be in the same position in the future (MacArthur's insistence to detonate tactical nukes along the Yalu comes to mind immediately), we take the neccesary precautions to achieve as humane a victory as possible.

Could we have detonated one in a somewhat remote section of Japan and presented an ultimatum to the Japanese then?? At least then we could have said- hey- next is Tokyo or Hiroshima. After Germany fell- the world was collectively asking "What is the US going to do next??"- I don't, and admittedly I am not in possesion of all the facts, believe that there was a time pressure to bring Japan to heel- Truman was presented with the alternatives and made a decision- a decision I am glad I didn't have to make.

The problem I do have is that it seems like there are some folks on here that have a pretty callous or flippant attitude towards the lives of Japanese civilians that were killed in that blast- and that is not a position I will ever accept as it goes against the core beliefs of what I believe it is to be an American. Those core beliefs are the same ones that find My Lai or Abu Gharib utterly deplorable whereas to citizens of other countries (like Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany), it would have been another day at the office- maybe even a slow day.

I also don't believe that "Everyone was on board with the decision"- I do recall one of the Enola Gay crewman killed himself later on due to personal guilt he felt over the whole incident.

Here is a wonderful website that I believe does a pretty fair and balanced job of portraying the events around the bombing of Japan:

http://www.theenolagay.com/study.html

I can look to my own experiences and draw some similarities-I was 6 days into the Army when Saddam drove across Kuwait- everybody was up in arms then- "Where are you gonna hide in the desert sand private??" - I dunno Drill Sergeant- behind a wrecked out T-72?? There were all these doomsday predictions going against the "4th largest army in the world"- we all know how that one ended. Granted, the Iraqi army of 1991 and the Imperial Japanese army of 1945 were two completely different animals- however, the US assumptions around both possible invasions were somewhat similar.

And I think we have a more pressing problem and should be more concerned as to why OUR kids are not learning about WW2 in a respectable fashion rather than what the Japanese children are being taught. I think we are pretty much uniform in that consensus.

 

[jazzeum]

I have no desire to get involved in this debate as I feel that all concerned have expressed them admirably and forthrightly. However, in reading Chris' most recent post, I feel I need to say a couple of things:

1. Why not use it on D Day? It wasn't available. I'm sure had it been the Allies would have considered it as another option.

2. Demonstration. That idea was considered but rejected because the Allies felt that the Japanese would have thought it was just a stunt. Moreover, detonating it in a deserted area would not have demonstrated the magnitude of the weapon. The Japanese would have just seen it as another weapon in the Allied arsenal.

Any decision involving the use of a weapon has always to consider external factors. No decision is ever made in a vaccum. In this case, it was probably political: what would have happened had the American public found out that there was a weapon that could have ended the war quickly but we still chose to invade Japan at the cost of incalculable loss of life, both American and Japanese? There would have been hell to pay. In this case, two cities paid so that hundreds of thousands can live. Costs and benefit analyses are made everyday and I'm sure that this was no different.

 

[theBaron]

Reminds me of a line from Bill Mauldin's "Up Front", something like "when a dogface is sweating out a German 88 barage in his foxhole, he doesn't say, 'Those dirty Nazis!'. He says, 'Those g*****n Krauts!' "

 

[Harrytheheid]

Thought long and hard for around 8 hours before responding to this one.
Have also removed obviously insulting comments containing words such as naive, stupidity, ridiculously self-important, grow up, cloud nine Utopia, etc.

Congratulations Chris,
I reckon you've now managed to insult far more fellow members than I ever have - and that's a fact...!!!
This thread was awarded 5 stars because I found it to be a stimulating and generally respectful & friendly discussion, and represented an excellent example of an exchange of viewpoints that had (mostly) not degenerated into the usual morass of needless arguments that go nowhere.

I am not an American and while I personally do not object to the term as such, I do assure you that many, many, of my fellow British countrymen would most certainly feel considerably insulted.

Similarly, the Korean War was fought under the auspices of the United Nations - not the USA.

FYI, my wife and I never use the word Japs, they are always Japanese. I simply use the word as a form of shorthand, as do other members, BTW. I'm sure someone shall correct me, but were Somalia citizens not referenced to as "Skinny's" during the US Military's involvement in their unhappy country during the 1990's..??

Don't bother responding to this message. You are now on my IGNORE list.

H

 

[VIRIATO]

I have no desire to get involved in this debate as I feel that all concerned have expressed them admirably and forthrightly. However, in reading Chris' most recent post, I feel I need to say a couple of things:

1. Why not use it on D Day? It wasn't available. I'm sure had it been the Allies would have considered it as another option.

2. Demonstration. That idea was considered but rejected because the Allies felt that the Japanese would have thought it was just a stunt. Moreover, detonating it in a deserted area would not have demonstrated the magnitude of the weapon. The Japanese would have just seen it as another weapon in the Allied arsenal.

Any decision involving the use of a weapon has always to consider external factors. No decision is ever made in a vaccum. In this case, it was probably political: what would have happened had the American public found out that there was a weapon that could have ended the war quickly but we still chose to invade Japan at the cost of incalculable loss of life, both American and Japanese? There would have been hell to pay. In this case, two cities paid so that hundreds of thousands can live. Costs and benefit analyses are made everyday and I'm sure that this was no different.

Another point is that demonstration would be dangerous: this was a weapon not that well known, nobody was sure it would work, so demonstration might be... a failed experience.

 

[VIRIATO]

Endless debate, endless arguments, interesting thread... Nobody's going to win it, that's for sure, because nobody owns the truth or can even pretend to know it. Ultimately all I know is that I know nothing. It's just like sand: I can not hold it in my hands.
I agree with Harry, things are not black and white, even when you look back at WWII it's like that, though today we Westerners can easily pick a side... The Axis had to be beaten, but that does not mean we can not acknowledge that the Allies were men, not angels.
Yes, with some people there might have been an element of racism against the Japs ( I use this term and never mind if it's PC or not, I am not racist, although I am sufficiently street wise to not like Gypsies camping at my door, here there is just an added possibility of trouble with those people than with others ). And this racism might be a real factor for some people even today, I believe they are not members of this forum and that racism plays no part in this thread.

 

[theBaron]

...I am sufficiently street wise to not like Gypsies camping at my door...

And what is wrong with Gypsies?

Interesting...that's what my grandmother used to call the con men who would go through a neighborhood and run the two-man distraction game. One knocks at the door to distract whomever's home, while the other one goes in the kitchen door and steals whatever he can grab in the couple of seconds.

Seriously, you're entirely correct, this debate really has no end, because we've each got our own opinions. It's fun to discuss it, but as you point out, and as others have, it's better as long as it remains formal, polite and without ad hominem or racist attacks.

I suspect that sometimes, posters may try to state something in a humorous way, and miss the mark.

And my two cents-Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary, Dresden probably wasn't, and whatever Wikipedia says, in the American vernacular, revisionist means going against traditional historiography, usually with an eye towards deconstructing the established views, rather than correcting/clarifying this or that point.

Prost!
Bradley