I don't think I would have dropped the A-bomb on Japan, but people who make this argument refuse to look at the Japanese side. Army leaders--the navy didn't count for much once all its ships were sunk--wanted to fight to the death, not just to save face but to remain in control of Japan. That's why they demanded the Allies agree to leave the emperor (i.e. their puppet and enabler) on the throne. They also wanted to keep Korea and avoid foreign occupation and war crimes trials. Even after Hiroshima AND Nagasaki some of these guys wanted to keep fighting until Hirohito ordered them to shut up.

But we might attack America's government another way. If one can justify the A-bombs as shock weapons necessary to end the war, where does that leave our merciless fire-bombing of Tokyo and other cities with incendiaries? We killed more civilians that way than with the new-fangled nukes. The only cities that remained untouched were Kyoto, which we viewed as a special holy city, and the few that we were saving for the A-bomb.

Perhaps we killed more Japanese civilians than were necessary to force a surrender, one way or the other. We used three weapons to beat them down: naval blockade and starvation, conventional aerial bombardment and the A-bombs. Could we have removed anyone and still forced a surrender? I don't know. There's not really a nice way to subdue a nation as fanatical as the Japanese were. Japanese militarists didn't want to surrender at all; they wanted to save Japan's status as a military and imperial great power.

Don't take all the anecdotes you read above as gospel truth. Curtis LeMay was the architect of the firestorm raids and aerial mining of Japan's ports (literally called "Operation Starvation"). Although the Enola Gay was one of his bombers, the Manhattan Project was not his baby. Of course he would want to take as much credit as possible for his own project. It's possible Leslie Groves said, in 1944, that the A-bomb was meant to impress the Russians. At that point he couldn't have known the Germans would fall before the A-bomb was ready, and I'm sure the Russians would have been suitably impressed on visiting German cities turned to glass and rubble.

It's not surprising that Paul Tibbets never repented for his part in executing a quarter-million or so mostly innocent people. Actually, none of the atom bomb crewmembers ever repented, despite myths that the Nagasaki bombardier became a drunk or a peacenik (actually, he may have been a drunk, but he continued his career as a mercenary pilot). All of these guys were chosen for loyalty and stability. And they all have a clear investment in the belief that what they did was necessary.

I think this article paints a too-simplistic picture of the history and morality of the bombings. It's true that Gar Alperovitz and others have made a strong case that the bombs were not needed and that some people thought so and said so at the time. But other evidence casts doubt on claims that Japan would have surrendered anyway and no invasion would have been necessary, and I think it is demonstrably false to claim that the key decisionmakers knew or believed this at the time, and were only interested in impressing Stalin (although that and the desire to test the weapon were undoubtedly also factors).

There was never any doubt in the minds of the thousands of people who knowingly participated in creating the bomb and readying its use that the weapon would be used when it was ready. This was the most terrible war in history. We were already burning cities overnight and killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. The overwhelming sense among Americans at the time was that the bombs ended the war, and if it was sad for the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was still a great thing.

Hindsight gives us a different view, but most of those directly involved have preferred not to rethink it too much.

Tibbets had to feel justified in order to live with himself.

Why should Tibbets repent for piloting the Enola Gay and dropping the first atomic bomb used in war? Why did President Truman authorize it in the first place? The president had good reaaon to do so, based upon the intelligence available to him at that critical time in history. Even after the second bomb was used, Japanese army officers attempted to prevent their emperor from publically announcing a surrender over the airwaves to the citizens of Japan. He was God to the general public and they had to obey him, not so to many high rankng army officers. They would have fought to the bitter end and the utter destruction of the entire country.

Truman did not BTW, authorize using the second atomic bomb, his Secretary of war, Simpson did it behnd his back. Truman was not going to allow it after seeing the horror of what the first one did. Truman never publically told anyone what Simpson did either, he took the full responsibility and any later criticizm.

MILITANTLIBERAL and MARK ABRAMS posted some excellent comments on the subject.

Interesting point of view: we firebombed Tokyo, so why not drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima Nagasaki.

Some people think it was wrong to fire bomb Tokyo.

Whether they repented or not, for a single act of mass slaughter, this pilot and his crew ust be ranked at or close to the top of the list. I doubt that there is any other single act by a human that comes close.

My biggest problem with this myth, that it had to be used, is that it can be used, to justify another use of the atomic bomb.

There is absolutely no question that this weapon, which threatens every living thing, should be banned from this planet.

I wonder if the demons cornholing him in hell today will take into account that "he vas only folloving ordas"

MF, the genie was set loose and there are just too many nuclear warheads readied for use, to ever, ever prevent the use of some or many at some time in the future. They should be banned, but how does any propose to accomplish it.

The manhatten project also cost so much money that not using the bomb would have been quite the scandal. As horrific as the bombing was, as evil as the result of poisoning an entire city and killing tens of thousands in the blink of an eye. It did do one positive thing, by using it we could not and cannot deny what would happen to the entire human race if even a 'limited' nuclear war was launched; extinction.

Once a weapon is developed, it must be used. And knowing that, what do you all think of the weapons they're working on for "us." CD has had a few articles on microwave weapons being developed for crowd control. Add to that the popular taser, throw in a rippep up constitution and bill of rights, sprinkle in a few shock grendades and you have a war against we the people. All while the congress postures and too many people snooze and continue to vote against their own self interest.

"...a big part of the reason was to send the Soviets a message."

True, but it was also simple racism. After all, we only incinerated a bunch of "Japs".

KEM, you're right, the genie was let out of the bottle, never to be returned.

I feel the first two atomic blasts will not be the last to be used against humans. The world's population has increased so much, it's competing for limited resources, and there are too many trigger-happy "leaders" at the helm.

Oh, life was so simple during the Cold War.

You sell Tibbets short. If you read Green's biography of Tibbets, he was a dedicated soldier; he did what he was told, without question. He would argue that all war is immoral, but he believed in duty above all else. He was not proud that he brought death to so many people. He was chosen (and subsequently selected his crew using the same criteria) because he could live with the knowledge, post explosion.

The 'A-bomb to avoid invasion' argument ignores another possible action. Japan had no navy left. We sank ships that they hadn't finished building. They had no oil supplies.
What would be impossible about maintaining a blockade of Japan? Hang back and sink anything threatening that set to sea. What threat did Japan have in August 1945?
Are there arguments against this idea that add up to hundreds of thousands dead, mutilated and irradiated, not to mention the angst induced in millions if not billions at the unleashing of this barbaric violence against fellow humans?
The argument that the bombs had to be dropped or else the US would be forced into invading Japan is disingenuous.

The moral character of the act is revealed in the subsequent pursuit of multiple delivery systems for nuclear weapons, and the frantic pursuit of the vastly more potent hydrogen bomb & the advancement of its psychopathic progenitor, Edward Teller.

Since that first generation of scientists, few have ever gone on from weapons work have gone on to have second thoughts or to oppose their governments for pursuing the weaponry. Andrei Sakharov did; but most are of the same poor quality as the late incinerator of Hiroshima, who not only did not regret it, but very clearly enjoyed the act, and thought himself heroic for performing it.

General Anami, the Japanese Army Minister at the close of the war, was perfectly willing to let all 10 million Japanese in the home islands die rather than surrender. So was the majority of the war cabinet made up of the military and civilians. A minority of the cabinet was trying to get out of the war, knowing full well Japan's situation was utterly hopeless. Stalin was shining on those members of the cabinet secretly trying to get him to broker a peace. One reason the Japanese military, particularly the army, despised white westerners so much was because they were willing to surrender en masse rather than fight to the death or commit suicide. These people were willing to let Japan perish rather than surrender. A fanatic is a fanatic, whether it's George Wanker Bush or General Anami. Read Paul Fussell on how American survivors of the war in Europe who were on their way to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan felt when they learned the Japanese had surrendered after the bombs were dropped. He said they, like him, were exhausted and had lost their nerve by the the spring of 1945 and would never have survived. War itself is the crime, even when you are defending yourself and trying to survive, you are still involved in a crime. But as long as human beings refuse to throw away their weapons and walk away, telling the Anamis and Bushes of this world to go fuck themselves and their wars, it will all just go on and on.

"he was a dedicated soldier; he did what he was told, without question" Precisely why soldiers are so dangerous and the cult around them even more so. We have a duty to question and if necessary disobey, especially if we are being told that killing people is necessary to achieve some greater good. Killing people can never be good.

You can rationalize it however you like, but the A-bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were still shameful crimes against humanity. The ugliest of the many war crime bloodstains on America's hands.

During the planning for the surrender, it was decided the Emperor was more useful to us alive then dead. So besides knowing that was the one reason Japan fought on, we wanted the Emperor alive too.

I think the reason was more that wars have a momentum to them. You get into a mindset of not letting up. Why should you? It's war. Before Nagasaki or Dresden, both sides were killing civilians on purpose. That line was crossed long before Tibbits dropped the Bomb.

Tibbets is not at fault for what the State Department failed to do. He is not at fault for failing to correctly analyze how many lives may or may not be saved. He had to act according to what he knew at that point in time, not according to some future point in time beyond his knowledge. Was he wrong not to re-evaluate and repent later? Perhaps. But he had to live with his act, so I don't begrudge him for not repenting.

mf wrote:
"There is absolutely no question that this weapon, which threatens every living thing, should be banned from this planet."

How true, but unfortunately I am sure that will never happen until this terrible weapon is used against a major US city or two.

It is such a shame how little we learn and how much we must suffer for it. It's all so avoidable but not in an empire of blind greed, lies and delusion.

LOCUST and some others, there is a most important bit of information that was not known by many until long after WW-2 ended and many are still unaware of it. Had you been, you may have a different opoinion.

When Germany surrendered, one of their subs surfaced, surrendered and was escorted into a port on our East coast. The submarine was delivering a large load of enriched uranium to Japan, along with some scientists and technical data for development of atomic weapons.

Truman was aware of that and also made aware then, that it was not the first shipment of muclear material which had already been delivered to Japan. What Truman DIDN'T know was, how close Japan was to developing an atomic bomb or bombs. As it turned out, they were not close, but Truman had NO WAY of knowing that on, or prior to Dec 6, 1945. Truman also knew that indeed, the Japanese navy was not an issue, except for the fact that they had built at least three monstrous sized submarines that were arircraft carriers able to each carry three bombers. In fact when Japan surrendered, one was at sea on a mission to bomb the Panama Canal.

Based upon that intelligence, Truman had little choice, but to attempt to end the war as SOON as possible, he could not afford to wait and negoiate a settlement with the Japanese, a settlement which the Japanese wanted to have us leave Okinawa and end the war on their terms, almost as if it had never happened. At any time in the future, or durng the peace negotiations, they could have bombed us with atomic weapons as far a Truman was concerned. He was correct to authorize the use of the atomic bomb, based upon those very important issues.

Had we only blockaded Japan and perhaps continued to fire bomb their cities, killing hundreds of thousands more civilians, the Japanese may have developed the bomb was the worry, among many others worries as many here have noted. Was it a damn shame to use the atomic bomb? Indeed it was. Was it a damn shame that Japan started the war in the first place? Indeed it was. Would millions more have died had we not used it, yes indeed, bet on it and if Truman had not used it to end the war when he did, there would have been hell to pay.

Truman was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, and he was strong enough to make a very tough decision and damned if he cared what anyone else thought. As President Truman noted, the buck stopped at his desk. As for General Tibbets, he swore to protect an defend the constitution of the United States and obey all lawful orders. He did that, ___ with no apologies.

Did Americans hate the Jpanese at that time in hisrtory? They certainly gave us, the people of China, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand, Korea, the Phillpines and many South Sea Islanders ample reason to. Did MacArthur insure we treated the Japanese fairly when he took command in Japan after the war ended? Fair is a most conservative term.

I'm a Liberal and a longtime Common Dreams reader but the saying "hindsight is 20/20" surely applies here--especially after 62 years. Estimates in 1945 reported as many as one million American casualties could be expected to defeat Japan by conventional means. Not credible or overblown? Okay, cut that in half. Still too high? Okay, cut it to 250,000 or even 100,000 American casualties. In fact, just ONE American casualty would have been too many knowing we had a weapon that could force the Japanese to capitulate sooner. And lest we forget, it took a SECOND A-bomb (on Nagasaki) before Hirohito told his brainwashed masses he was just a mortal after all.

What shames me is not that we used these weapons but how the U.S. interned Japanese-Americans during the war and the fact that not one Nisei was ever convicted of conspiring with wartime Tokyo. The Japanese we did fight however, were the most crazed fanatics the world had ever seen. The society invaded Manchuria and exterminated thousands of Chinese men, women and children and performed hideous "experiments" in the process. Those not killed were enslaved in the cruelest of conditions. Then there's Pearl Harbor, the beheading of captured American pilots Samurai style, "Japanese water torture" (ring a bell?), the Bataan Death March, banzai charges, kamakazi attacks, the ratholes of Iwo Jima, Japanese mothers jumping off cliffs in Saipan while clutching their babies... And I don't care what Eisenhower or Lemay said about the Japanese being close to surrender. Tell that to any of the survivors of the USS Indianapolis which, after delivering The Bombs to Tinian, was sunk by a Japanese submarine the next day resulting in the grisliest shark attacks in history. I'm sure that sub commander had second thoughts about firing his torpedoes because the war was nearly over. Right!

I'm glad Harry Truman had the guts and gumption to drop Fat Man and Little Boy. Here's a man who knew firsthand the suffering and gore and death of protracted warfare in the trenches of France a generation before. In 1945 he had the means to stop the bloodshed, OUR bloodshed, and he used it. I'm a Vietnam Era veteran and I can't imagine having to invade Japan back then with a rifle and bayonet. And as for the Russians: Yeah, I think they got the message.

All of you self-righteous, lily-livered equivocators can go fuck yourselves.

Suppose the Japanese had invented the atom bomb before we did and then a-bombed Los Angeles and San Francisco. That would also have shortened the war and saved lives. Would that be okay with everyone?

I wish I had not submitted that last comment.

Tibbets changed the name of the plane carrying "The Bomb" to the Enola Gay specifically for "The Mission" to bomb Hiroshima.

Tibbets said that it was a tribute to his mother---his "MOMMA".

Tibbets was chosen specifically for "The Mission" based upon his psychological profile.

Think about it....

According to the kid who cleans the Bush's family swimming pool, Bush, Jr's "MOMMA" won't get into the swimming pool unless the water temperature is exactly 86 degrees farenheit. A very demanding "MOMMA"....

Dang, the comment I wish I hadn't made isn't there now.

But this one will be, Tibbets named the plane before he knew what type of weapon he would be caaying, anyway it is not an issue, except perhaps for knitpickers.

BULLSHIT! Easy to be a monday morning quarterback. Easy to oversimplify for current political points. WW2 was all out no holds barred war. More people died in the fire bombings of Desden and Tokyo than from the A bombs.

In retrospect it probably was unnecesary and certainly terrible. But in the context of the time it was reasonable. Tibbets did a soldiers duty and did not waste time looking back. He is 100% correct that had the US invaded Japan the losses would have been MUCH higher. Do not discount that that was a great probability. Even with the a bombs it was almost a necesity as the Emperor was almost deposed for his capitualtion plans.

America's revenge with unrelenting and horrific fire-bombing of German and Japanese cities changed America forever. It destroyed the American soul. Dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan was the final blow to the American spiritual consciousness.

It was also near the end of WWII that the American financial and corporate ruling elite tasted the intoxicating power of a new American world Empire.

This led to the war against communism, the only remaining intellectual force opposed to the abuses of unfettered corporate capitalism.

It was then that the lords of American capitalism engaged the Vatica'n own ambitions of empire to wage war against "Godless" Communism.

It is most ironic that the defeat of communism has led to a world dominated by unregulated global corporate capitalism that has an inherent disdain for the dignity of work and democratic rule.

Consumer capitalism has proved to be the destroyer of spirituality. Our spirituality is often referred to as the higher angels of our nature. It is the higher spiritual nature of our humanity that true participatory democracy is meant to engage for the common good of all.

In turn, nothing could be more Godless and alien to the teachings of the historical Jesus than a consumer culture of unregulated global corporate capitalism. It is also unsustainable to our lasting presence as a species on our spaceship Earth.

The creation of the atom bomb opened a Pandora's Box that we since have not been able to shut. Atomic weapons have caused more tension between more nations in the past 60+ years than perhaps it's been worth, and it's the reason that we're currently supposedly at war with Iraq, the famed and now non-existent WMD's that Bush claimed that they had, and Condi's threat of a "mushroom cloud", which we all remember from pictures in history books, further fanned the fear that led us into this useless and futile war.

I wish such a weapon had never been invented, but now that the demons have flown out of Pandora's Box, they can never again be put back in and the lid firmly shut. I think that this weapon will continue to be the cause of more international strife as more countries attempt to get their hands on such weaponry. It's the ultimate sign of power to say that you have nuclear weapons because no one wants to see them used ever again the way that the US used them to vanquish Japan.

I also think, with regard to Mr. Tibbetts, that our generation can't possibly understand the WWII generation and their feelings toward what they did back then. We Baby Boomers are largely products of the VietNam era and we know what happened there with stuff like Agent Orange, napalm and other nasty weapons that we used in that war. We also know now what a futile war that was and how we stayed far too long and how many more casualties resulted from it.

During WWII, I think that people back then genuinely felt that the Germans and the Japanese needed to be fully vanquished in order to bring about an end to that war. I'm not in any way condoning some of what was done, and I've often felt a great sense of sadness and regret that we resorted to using atomic weaponry against Hiroshima and Nagasaki and how many people suffered immeasurably for so long afterward. I just think that Mr. Tibbetts is of that generation that feels like they did what had to be done, or what, at the time, they felt needed to be done. And I think that the only way that he could live with himself for the rest of his days was to feel no sense of regret that he did what he felt was his duty during a time of war.

Wars, remember, are never black and white. There is a hell of a lot of grey matter in between that many of us never see or understand. And I think that this is one of those instances where it's easy for us to make a judgement call on someone else when we may not really know the full story. I think that there is a great deal that we will never know about this entire episode, quite frankly. Just like in any time of war. A lot is kept from us, because if we knew the full story.....I would hate to think of what might happen if we did.

Tibbets, of course, didn't know what exactly an "atomic bomb" was, but he was informed that it would create a blast zone 3 miles wide and would be "hotter than the sun", would raise a mushroom cloud from 10,000 - 30,000 feet high, and would be "the most powerful thing in God's creation."

Did the US have to drop it? Who knows? The Japanese fascists were MAD. The Japanese soldiers entering Hiroshima in the immediate aftermath of The Bomb didn't share their water with the thirsty agonized civilians out of some bizarre view equating compassion with weakness.

In any case, it's interesting that the US chose someone like Tibbets who didn't seem to be able to think for the dirty job of dropping it on Hiroshima.

Hannah Arendt described Eichmann as EVIL based upon Eichmann's apparent "inability to think."

Maybe EVIL lurks in the hearts of those with the "inability to think"? Bush: "You're either with us, or against us. We're in a battle against the Evildoers."

Tibbets sounds like he had his head screwed on proper. He was a pilot in a war, one guy, just what in hell are you blaming him for? What is he to repent? Say he is sorry for doing what the good folk of his country asked him to do? I don't think so.

Now the guy who flew the B52 with the nukes onboard and primed, I suspect he did not follow orders, followed his conscience and the nukes went no further. He deserves a sardine lid and a bit of ribbon, A fine sense of judgment I would allow.

Steven V. Riley

Oh Most Spiritual One: Please read my posting above, especially my last sentence. Thank you and have a nice day!

Because of Our Corporate Media many citizens have missed this

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...rfk&search=

I don't think that Tibbets necessarily has anything to repent for.

I just find it interesting that the US government specifically chose someone with a certain psychological profile like Tibbets to drop The Bomb. In other words, for such a mission, you'd want someone who is morally certain, doesn't think and "just follows orders."

Eichmann: "I was just following orders."

Bush: "I answer only to God."

I don't agree with the article above and don't think it's appropriate to criticize Tibbetts, who was a lowly pilot.

The Japanese never made any attempt to negotiate a surrender before the bombs were dropped. They never surrendered any of the islands in the Pacific they occupied, either. They always fought to the death. On Okinawa, Japanese civilians threw themselves off of cliffs rather than surrender to the Americans because they had been told by the Japanese government that the Americans would kill them all and eat them, that's right, eat them. Why would we think it would be any different invading their homeland?

The Japanese were preparing another fight to the death defending their homeland and had armed all civilians with swords and clubs and these people had orders to fight to the death, even women,children and old people.

The main reason for using the bomb was because there had been so many US casualties in the war that no one thought the American public could stomach another 1 million casualties, which was the prediction for invading the Japanese mainland.

It was a choice of 1 million Japanese dead on one hand or 1 million Allied dead on the other. American commanders chose not to sacrifice their troops taking Japan by force.

I had an uncle who was captured by the Japanese and was in the Bataan Death March. He was bayoneted and thrown in an irrigation ditch to die. Prisoners too weak to walk were shot or bayoneted and left to die.Some prisoners were killed because Japanese soldiers considered surrender an act of cowardice.The list of Japanese atrocities is too long to list here. Maybe Japanese forces brought some of this on themselves.

I think as progressives maybe we could maybe come to some sort of consensus as to what constitutes a war crime.

The "context of that time", as I recall, produced the Nuremberg trials. Or perhaps their participants were the kind of "self-righteous" lobo is talking about.

Wow! Do you realize that only in the US is the dropping of two atom bombs on Japanese cilivians considered debatable.

In most of the world, it was and is considered an act of untold barbarity.

In fact, the Anglo-US incineration of the major and many of the smaller cities of Japan and Germany is also considered unbelievably needless and cruel.

In fact, the US elite's dependence on air bombing civilians crowded into urban centers has been its major tactical concept since the use of Jennies to bomb civilian centers in 1930s Nicaragua.

Today, the US elite are, again, relying on "strategic bombing" of Iraq's urban centers. That is why there are lower US (and coalition) casualties whilst the civilian death rates are at their highest.

(The lower death rates from sectarian violence are both a product of both completed ethnic cleansing and the present tactical limiting of Shia militia killings.)

As the article stated, more and more evidence is racking up that demonstrates that dropping A-bombs on Japanese civilians was only one of many options.

In fact, the more "conservative" elite opinion was to drop one of those babies on Japan's cultural and historical center: Kyoto.

The more "liberal" faction argued for either dropping one bomb on Tokyo harbor thus destroying its ships.

The "moderate" faction pushed for laying the bombs on unbombed civilian centers to both measure the destructive potential of their revolutionary weapon and to demonstrate that we meant business: civilian lives were expendable.

Of course, our elite also wanted to demonstrate to the USSR and future upstart governments that the A-bomb option was always ready if needed.

Stephen V. Riley,

Communism has been a spectacular success while capitalism has been a spectacular failure. For example, China feeds four times the population of the United States on the same amount of land. Furthermore, China does it with one fourth of the material inputs. China does it with much more labor, but a proper analysis demonstrates that the human body is built for and requires physical labor for sustained health, so there we have yet another benefit of communism.

As if that weren't enough, the healthcare savings in China thanks to the physical exercise compensates for the apparent lack of productivity. It's very difficult for Americans to comprehend this part of the equation because they add their medical bandaids to their production totals when they should subtract them!

Little surprise communism trumps capitalism. Communism is simply common sense. But unfortunately for the Chinese, the capitalist plague is encroaching. While the Chinese still have free access to land, they have taken to the capitalist synthetic inputs and over the next half century they will destroy their environment and their health like Americans did over the past half century.

And so paradoxically the spectacular failure of capitalism is slated to spread in China while the spectacular success of communism is slated to spread around the rest of the world, including inside the United States.

Tibbets couldn't be faulted for dropping the bomb because he was following orders and that's what those kind of people do. The fact that he never repented isn't unusual. Others have done far worse.

But if you're going to analyze the "why" the bomb was dropped then you should study history a little more. At the time, Russia and Japan were negotiating for Japan's surrender to the Russians. The Russians already had beaten Germany's best armies and had gotten into Berlin and captured Hitler's headquarters before the feeble U.S. armies could get there. If Japan surrendered to Russia then that would have meant the U.S. would only have had Italy, which is to say that the U.S. would have come out of the war being the big losers. By dropping the bombs on Japan the U.S. forced the surrender to themselves. If you think the U.S. ever acts with egalitarian motivation then you don't understand them. Japan was their next step in the Pacific and it was why they were the ones who suckered the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbour. If they had let Japan surrender to the Russians then all that they had worked for in prosecuting the second world war would have been for naught.

I wonder if there is any truth to the following story that has been circulating since the end of the war:

Supposedly, a week or so prior to the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese sent a response to the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender. It contained the Japanese word "mokusatsu" which, in one context, can be translated as "cautious cooperation", or, in another context as "intransigence".

An American translator chose the latter interpretation, thus setting the bombing procedures in motion. (In another version of the story, the translator is Russian.)

M.H. ISRAEL

CHECK OUT GIMPEL'S GALLERIES
http://hometown.aol.com/gimpelthefool/myhomepage/brag.html

jmacneil

This is off-point from the article but I must comment on your muddled history. You make it sound like the Russians conquered Germany on their own. In fact they took less than half which became East Germany. What became West Germany was controlled by the U.S., England and France (who later left). As for Berlin: Patton wanted his 3rd Army to make a bee-line there soon after winning the Battle of the Bulge. Eisenhower disapproved because he felt Patton could be stretched beyond his supply lines from the West. This, in fact, happened during the Bulge when tanks ran out of gas. U.S. armies were stressed but not "feeble" as you say and they did eventually connect with the Ruskies at the Elbe River east of Berlin. The Americans and allies would not "only have had Italy" as you say as they already liberated France, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg and neutralized Austria. I can't figure out who you say "suckered the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor" but after they did attack us, Hitler declared war on the U.S. after having begun WWII in September 1939. There were ever more reasons for America to prosecute a war to the full extent of its ability than in 1941. Had the Japanese capitulated to Stalin in 1945 their fate would have been very different and possibly worse for the whole country than the damage of The Bombs. Coincidentally, if I sound like a know-it-all, I have a master's degree in international relations which I earned in Germany and before that I was stationed in Heidelberg at Patton Barracks.

The war criminal went straight to hell with all his medals.

As the old saying goes, "Life's a bitch and then you die."

In the name of God, the All Merciful, the Mercy-giving

I am SHOCKED and OUTRAGED at most of these comments here! What on earth are we trying to rationalize?! The mass murder of not only hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the most disgusting ways: incinerating them! But the permanent destruction of the environment, the GENERATIONS of sickness, cancer and deformities!!!!!

This is SICK that people have the arrogance to try to "explain" the situation.

No one tries to rationalize the Holocaust, how DARE you guys try to rationalize this!
It's shameful.

Americans were dancing in the streets when those innocent Japanese died, when the skin of little kids melted off them, when those cities burned by a flash of white light. That's sick. People should do a little introspection, it might to yall some good.

SAILA: If he didn't repent, yup that's where he is headed.

And guys, saying "I was just following orders" just doesn't cut it. We are not deaf, dumb and blind robots. God gave us hearts and minds to rationalize with…it's the one thing that separates us from animals. But we see what happens to people that don't reason, they become complete barbaric savages.

And we are all going to die and meet our Lord, if we don't feel a sense of accountability for our actions then were going to be in big trouble.

That Col. Paul Tibbets never expressed regret for killing 70,000 - 100,000 Hiroshima citizens and wounding countless others when he dropped the first atomic bomb and claimed to have slept clearly every night, smacks of psychological denial. Especially if he asked and answered the following questions. Was dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a military necessity? Was the decision justified by the imperative of saving lives or were there other motives involved? The question of military necessity can be quickly put to rest. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary." They are the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and future president of the United States. Eisenhower knew, as did the entire senior U.S. officer corps, that by mid 1945 Japan was defenseless.

Meanwhile, the Russian army occupied and controlled 150,000 square miles of territory in what is today Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. At Yalta, in February 1945, Stalin demanded to keep this newly occupied territory as a buffer against future invasions. But Roosevelt, unquestionably needing Russia's help to end both the War in Europe and the War in the Pacific, conceded eastern Europe, handing the Russians the greatest territorial gain of the War.

Stalin agreed at Yalta that once the War in Europe was over, he would transfer his forces from Europe to Asia and within 90 days would enter the War in the Pacific against Japan. The War in Europe ended on May 8, 1945. If the U.S. wanted to prevent Russia from occupying territory in east Asia the way it had occupied territory in eastern Europe, it needed to end the war as quickly as possible and in less than 90 days. So, on August 6, 1945, two days before the Russians were to declare war against Japan, the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima; only three days later, on Nagasaki. The Japanese surrendered eight days after the first bomb was dropped.

Which story should we accept, the one that doesn't hold together but claims the bombs were dropped to save the lives of one million American soldiers? Or the one that does hold together but offends our self concept of being innocent and righteous?

SAILA, I am very surprised to see YOU write that. Are you PAUL TIBBETS judge, or perhaps you've had a converstion with God or Satan and one of them told you that? If that is so, guess your're in good company, if one considers being in company with Bush good.

I don't undestand why a few here just don't get it. We were at WAR with Japan, THEY declared war on us with their sneak attack on our military and naval fleet based at Hawaii. It was a brutal war and the Japanese were the most brutal, cruel and criminal of enemies ever recorded in our lifetimes. Had we attempted to invade the homeland Islands of Japan, our fleets would have been torn apart, much more so than they were at Okinawa.

Japan had at least two thousand Kamakazi aircraft prepared to strike our fleets from a short flying distance. Hundreds were the rocket propelled Baca bombers, which we had been unable to track with anti-aircraft cannon and guns at Okinawa. Any landing fleet that had approached Japan would have been taken out. We lost more ships and sailors at Okinawa than we did during the entire war and the Japanese pilots had to fly hundreds of miles to attack our fleet there. The Japanese militay was on the ropes, but were still a very deadly foe who would not surrender no matter what.

General Tibbets was not selected to command the special bomb group because he was a thoughtless, souless person. He was selected because of his exceptional leadrship ability, his professional abilities as a pilot and had displayed a high degree of honesty, sobriety and good common sense. ___ He was a leader!

I seriously doubt there was an American bomber pilot in our service who would have refused to pilot the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb. In fact I doubt there were any who would not have volunteered to do it. I doubt tht any wished it, I doubt many wished there was a damn war in the first place. We lost more 8th Air Force airmen flyig B-17s in Europe, than the rest of the losses our military suffered durng the entire war combined. Any who doubt the bravery, or integrity of our WW-2 pilots, are idiots or fools. Remember also, the average age of the bomber pilots then, ___ was 21 years of age. Don't believe it? __ Check it out.

Go back and read my prior post on Nov 3, 8:15pm, as to why President Truman authorized the use of that terrible weapon. That wasn't my reasons or my opinions, it's recorded history for any to look up and verify. Some here are writing silly remarks about what transpired and why, based upon their own selfish beliefs, or just plain ignorance of the true facts. Sure many writers have written books on the subject, and some entered opnions and bull-shit, which some choose to take in as fact.

Now unlike another here, I'm not about to tell any who disagree with the facts and recorded history or me, to go fuck themselves. Everyone has a right to express their opinions, but some here are doing so and making a fool of themselves in the process. If you are one, it's fine with me, knock yourselves out.

Japan had minimal capability to wage war after VE day; it didn't have fuel, capable combat pilots (they didn't have the fuel to train them, and by then the experienced ones were almost all shot down), or ships. An invasion of Japan would have cost a tremendous # of lives, but these could easily have been saved by shooting a few generals.

lobo72, re "I can't figure out who you say "suckered the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor" ..." It is well known to be FDR and his gang of 35, who developed a plan to incite the Pearl Harbor attacks, and actively participated in the "success" of those attacks. Read Robert Stinnett's book on the subject.

LITTLEM85. What we Amricans are doing now with atomic weapons, depleted uranium or DU, is far, far worse than the damage done to humanty and land with the two atomic bombs we dropped on Japan. If you wish to protest so harshly, protest what our government has been doing in that regard for the pruppose of controlling oil. If you do not do so, PERHAPS you will have to answer to your God when your time comes. I use the word perhaps, as unlike you, I will not be your judge as you have judged Paul Tibbets.

KEM PATRICK: For you info, I AM protesting against what our gov't is doing now with atomic weapons etc...I have the capability, however, to protest against more than one thing at one time.

Also, just because the US is doing something worse now, it doesn't make the less bad thing acceptable, even if you decide to call it a war, or call them the enemy.

A shame, really, that I no longer believe in hell. There is little question as to which particular torment this man would face there, now that he is dead.

Well from what I read LITTLEM, your protests were prmarily aimed at the bloggers who offered a different opinion of the ending of WW-2 than yours. SHOCKED AND OUTRAGED and any who attempt to explain are SICK, were your words.

I don't believe citing history is explaining or excusing anything. The facts are the facts and to then demonize a fine man like Paul Tibbets and proclaim he is in hell is really rather poor taste on your part in my opinion. But then, we all have opinions don't we.

So tell me, what is it you know about the use of DU our military is using against our new "enemies" and the planet and how do I protest as you do on that issue?