Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:23:57 GMT, Dick Locke wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 18:04:40 +0000, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

Which is revisionist bull**** given the primary target of the 2nd weapon.


I do believe it was Kyoto, but what does that prove?

According to my sources, Kyoto was not to be bombed at all.
It was felt that the numerous shrines and cultural icons in
the area should be preserved.

Al Minyard

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:47:06 +1030, "The CO"
wrote:


"Glenn Jacobs" wrote in message
.. .

Kyoto was the ancient capaital of Japan and was, I believe, generally
off
limits for bombing along with the Royal Palace.

Smart move. Consider that it was the Emperor himself decided that Japan
must 'endure the unendurable'
in the face of the nuclear attack.
This was at a time when others in high places were insisting on a fight
to the death.
This was *despite* first Hiroshima (when they refused on the basis that
the US 'had only one bomb')
I don't remember reading this in "Japan's Longest Day" but it is true
that there was a faction that wanted to fight to the death. The
Emporer had to hide the tape of his surrender speech and himself the
night before the broadcast. I think it's realm of speculation though
as to what would have happened had the Allies killed him say in mid
1945.

and was still being pushed by some even after Nagasaki (on the basis
that the US didn't have any more)
Oddly enough this was correct, but an invasion would have doubtless cost
many times the loss of life
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Killing the Emperor would probably have inspired the general populace to
fight to the death considering his
semi divine status. Instead he overruled the government and made that
speech, effectively preventing
any attempt to change his mind or circumvent the surrender.

The atomic bombing probably saved my father's life. He landed in
Yokosuka the day after the surrender and occupied a brewery, instead
of landing in Kyushu and probably occupying a grave. OTOH, it took a
big chunk out of my second-generation American wife's family tree, as
the old-country relatives lived in the outskirts of Hiroshima.

I think both sides of the debate should avoid being too sanctimonious.
It was a difficult decision in a war. No one alternative seems
perfect, and none seems totally wrong even with the benefits of nearly
60 years of hindsight.

People should also respect each other's opinions here. I haven't heard
terms like "subversive" and "socialist" thrown about (not by you)
since the last movies I've seen about the 1950s and HUAC. Good Archie
Bunker imitations going on here.






The CO

"Dick Locke" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:47:06 +1030, "The CO"
wrote:


"Glenn Jacobs" wrote in message
.. .

Kyoto was the ancient capaital of Japan and was, I believe,
generally
off
limits for bombing along with the Royal Palace.

Smart move. Consider that it was the Emperor himself decided that
Japan
must 'endure the unendurable'
in the face of the nuclear attack.
This was at a time when others in high places were insisting on a
fight
to the death.
This was *despite* first Hiroshima (when they refused on the basis
that
the US 'had only one bomb')
I don't remember reading this in "Japan's Longest Day" but it is true
that there was a faction that wanted to fight to the death.

IIRC, there was an almost coup to 'rescue the Emperor' from those that
were influencing
him to surrender. The person of the Emperor was sacred, that they even
contemplated this
shows the depth of the fanaticism of some of them. Fortunately it never
got off the ground
and most of those involved committed seppuku when the speech was
broadcast.

The Emporer had to hide the tape of his surrender speech and himself
the
night before the broadcast.

Yes. Small point, I believe it was a disk not a tape.

I think it's realm of speculation though
as to what would have happened had the Allies killed him say in mid
1945.

Seems certain it would have inspired resistance, at least initially.
Ultimately it would have
depended somewhat on who became regent (Shogun?) as I think the Prince
was too young to rule
in his own right.

and was still being pushed by some even after Nagasaki (on the basis
that the US didn't have any more)
Oddly enough this was correct, but an invasion would have doubtless
cost
many times the loss of life
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Killing the Emperor would probably have inspired the general populace
to
fight to the death considering his
semi divine status. Instead he overruled the government and made
that
speech, effectively preventing
any attempt to change his mind or circumvent the surrender.

The atomic bombing probably saved my father's life. He landed in
Yokosuka the day after the surrender and occupied a brewery, instead
of landing in Kyushu and probably occupying a grave.

Good chance you are correct. Remember that schoolchildren were being
trained
with pikes to make suicide charges at landing troops.

OTOH, it took a
big chunk out of my second-generation American wife's family tree, as
the old-country relatives lived in the outskirts of Hiroshima.

It's always sad for the individuals involved. On any side of a
conflict.
However it's probably safe to say that many less died (on both sides)
through using the A-Bomb than through continued conventional bombing
(IIRC, more died in the firebombing of Tokyo than Hiroshima or Nagasaki)
and a conventional seaborne invasion afterwards. The casualty list from
that
continuation of the war would likely have been in the millions.

I think both sides of the debate should avoid being too sanctimonious.
It was a difficult decision in a war. No one alternative seems
perfect, and none seems totally wrong even with the benefits of nearly
60 years of hindsight.

Quite so. It's important to recall that at the time, this was, in the
minds of
those involved, just a really big bomb, the other effects, fallout,
genetic damage,
long term cancers etc were either unknown or at best speculative. We
have had
the cold war and 50 years of study on the effects of nuclear weapons on
which to
base our distaste.

People should also respect each other's opinions here. I haven't heard
terms like "subversive" and "socialist" thrown about (not by you)
since the last movies I've seen about the 1950s and HUAC.

My personal feeling is that WW2 is long over, and the Japanese are our
friends,
despite their excesses in that war. I should point out that I am
Australian, not
American, and we have as good, though somewhat different, reasons for
any
anti-Japanese prejudice, though it's largely in the previous
generation - Changi, The Burma Railway
(at least as bad as the Bataan death march), the excesses in Singapore,
machine gunning of nurses
from a torpedoed hospital ship, the fact that we were bombed (Darwin and
a few minor raids)
Heck, a Jap sub actually shelled suburban Sydney, and 2 minisubs
torpedoed a depot ship in Sydney Harbour.
And don't forget this was a prelude to an invasion that only got nipped
in the bud in New Guinea.
Suffice it to say that nobody was upset when Hiroshima and Nagasaki got
nuked. Just desserts in the
opinion of the people of the day. Would it happen that way again? With
what we now know about the
effects of nukes. No, I don't think it would. The only way I can see a
nuke being used again by the US
or any major power would be in response to a WMD (nuke, bio, possibly
chem) attack against them.
The only ones loopy enough to do that are probably OBL and and
Islamonuts and possibly North Korea.
I personally doubt that NK will do more than rattle it's sabre, and I
also doubt OBL will ever get his greasy
mitts on anything that nasty, he's been trying for years and he probably
had more chance ten years ago than right
now. Any loser nation that sold him the technology or the Pu would be
deeply concerned about the consequences
if a small nuke went off in, say, Washington and the components were
traced back to them. Instant oblivion.

Good Archie Bunker imitations going on here.

Well, he was of that generation, so there are some deep seated reasons
there. Some people never got
over it. Some of our ex POW's from Changi and the Burma Railway still
won't have anything to do
with things Japanese. I can't say I blame them, that was their
experience and it changed their lives,
but that should die with them, no reason to carry it across to the
future. The war is over. Fortunately,
the Japanese did not win. That would have been very bad. But it's
over. Move on.

The CO

"The CO" wrote in message
...

snip good stuff

It's always sad for the individuals involved. On any side of a
conflict.
However it's probably safe to say that many less died (on both sides)
through using the A-Bomb than through continued conventional bombing
(IIRC, more died in the firebombing of Tokyo than Hiroshima or Nagasaki)
and a conventional seaborne invasion afterwards. The casualty list from
that
continuation of the war would likely have been in the millions.

I think both sides of the debate should avoid being too sanctimonious.
It was a difficult decision in a war. No one alternative seems
perfect, and none seems totally wrong even with the benefits of nearly
60 years of hindsight.

Quite so. It's important to recall that at the time, this was, in the
minds of
those involved, just a really big bomb, the other effects, fallout,
genetic damage,
long term cancers etc were either unknown or at best speculative. We
have had
the cold war and 50 years of study on the effects of nuclear weapons on
which to
base our distaste.

snip more good stuff


The CO

Probably one of the more cogent summaries of this situation that I have
seen. Well said, and illustrative of the difference between thoughts at that
time as opposed to modern revisiting of the situation. My father
participated in some of those incendiary attacks, and was still pulling B-29
missions even after the first atomic bomb was dropped--to this day he firmly
believes that their use was justified (and no, he is not one of those old
vets who still harbors significant animosity towards the Japanese--but
neither does he excuse them for their acts that ultimately led to
Hiroshima/Nagasaki) .

I would add that in regards to the comparison of Japanese casualties
resulting from the nuclear attacks versus those that would have resulted if
the war had been dragged out even further, even if Olympic/Coronet had not
occurred there would still have been untold numbers of Japanese civilian
casualties due to starvation, which was already reaching the level of being
a serious concern when the war ended when it did.

Brooks

"RogerM" wrote in message
...
Greg Moritz wrote:

I won't even go into the comparison over who killed more innocent
civilians and helpless POW's during the war.

No need. The Japanese treatment of civilians and POWs was horrendous and
indefensible. However, the civilians who died in the terror bombing of
Japan were not responsible for those acts.

No one is responsible except the Japanese leaders at the time.

In the context of WWII munitions, you cannot destroy an aircraft factory and
*only* the aircraft factory. Civilians in the surrounding areas *will* die.
Especially the workers within the factory.

Even in the context of 21st century munitions.

Which would you choose? Kill 100,000 now, or kill 1,000,000 later?
Sometimes, that terrible choice needs to be made.
Obviously there should be a third choice. But sometimes that third choice is
not given to you.

What would *you* do?

Pete

In article ,
"Pete" wrote:

"RogerM" wrote in message
...
Greg Moritz wrote:

I won't even go into the comparison over who killed more innocent
civilians and helpless POW's during the war.

No need. The Japanese treatment of civilians and POWs was horrendous and
indefensible. However, the civilians who died in the terror bombing of
Japan were not responsible for those acts.

No one is responsible except the Japanese leaders at the time.

In the context of WWII munitions, you cannot destroy an aircraft factory and
*only* the aircraft factory. Civilians in the surrounding areas *will* die.
Especially the workers within the factory.

It was even worse, in the case of Japan, since they widely distributed
light industry through small workshops in residential areas.

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:09:36 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:



Hiroshima was the cheif naval port of the Empire.
It played much the
same role as Portsmouth , Kiel or San Diego.
There were few
of its adult inhabitants who were not working
directly or indirectly
for the military industrial complex. Additionally
it was a major army
centre where troops were being trained for
the expected invasion.

Several divisions worth. Of course our friend
cannott explain why something
allegedly targetted at only civilians was also
timed to and did in fact
take out these forces.


As for Nagasaki it was a major industrial centre
, specifically
Mitsubishi had a major aircraft plant there
that doubtless made many
of the aircraft that bombed Chinese cities.

Keith



Thanks for saving me the trouble Keith, cue
yet more revisionist anti
americanism from our friend here.



greg


--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new
thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart
as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back
and open wide.
How many on the group have no use at all for revisionists? I had to read
some of their junk as a grad student taking a Historigraphy course, and I
had no use for them at all: They were Pearl Harbor revisionists, but the
POV's the same. I read them, quoted them in a paper, and once the course
was done, had no more sue for them whatsoever in any way,shape, or form.
Still don't.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!